Thai PM Says Polls Could End 'Cycle Of Violence'

[webfact]

Thai PM says polls could end 'cycle of violence'

by Newley Purnell

BANGKOK, March 22, 2011 (AFP) - Thailand's prime minister said there was no guarantee that he would be in office in a year but insisted upcoming elections offered a choice between his policies and a "cycle of conflict and violence".

Abhisit Vejjajiva said polls in June or July would be a chance for the "silent majority to be heard" over the clamour of demonstrators in Bangkok, which is again the site of regular protests after deadly rallies last year.

Fresh from surviving a no-confidence motion in parliament last week, the Thai premier told reporters late Monday that he hoped his tenure would be remembered for providing "greater security and welfare for the Thai people".

"Maybe you'll be wondering if I'll be here next year. I'm wondering, too," Abhisit told the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand in an annual address.

He said the question for voters would be: "Do you want to move forward with the policies that we have initiated and will build on, or do they want to stay in this cycle of conflict and violence?"

"Do they want a government that will continue to put their interests first, or do they want people who are still tied to one person's interests and wouldn't allow the country and the Thai people to move beyond (it)."

He appeared to be referring to fugitive former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, who continues to haunt Thai politics despite being ousted in a military coup in 2006 and living overseas to avoid a jail sentence for corruption.

The ex-leader is still considered the de facto leader behind the opposition Puea Thai party and he commands the support of many of the mainly rural, working class Reds. He called on them to vote Puea Thai in the election.

Thailand remains split following rallies by anti-government "Red Shirts" in April and May 2010 in which more than 90 people died and 1,900 were injured in clashes between troops and protesters.

Abhisit's government denied opposition accusations of corruption and human rights violations in the recent censure debate.

The Reds view Abhisit's rule as undemocratic because he came to power in a 2008 parliamentary vote with the backing of the army after a court ruling threw out the previous administration.

Thaksin, a former telecoms tycoon, is hailed by the Reds for his policies for the poor while in power, but is regarded by the Thai ruling elite as authoritarian, corrupt and a threat to the revered monarchy.

The military also looms in the background in Thailand, which has seen 18 actual or attempted coups since 1932, when the country became a constitutional monarchy.

British-born, Oxford-educated Abhisit has faced questions over his nationality by opponents trying to bring him before the International Criminal Court over his government's handling of the Red Shirt crisis last year.

He said it was "no secret" he was a British citizen and denied he had ever had "divided loyalties".

Although Thailand has not ratified the Rome Statute that created the ICC, the Reds have argued that Abhisit could be held to account by it if he is a citizen of Britain, which is a signatory of the pact.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2011-03-22

[asiawatcher]

"... He said the question for voters would be: "Do you want to move forward with the policies that we have initiated and will build on, or do they want to stay in this cycle of conflict and violence?"

"Do they want a government that will continue to put their interests first, or do they want people who are still tied to one person's interests and wouldn't allow the country and the Thai people to move beyond (it)."

Very clear and well said - but I don't vote!

[SomTumTiger]

The violence won't stop until Thaksin gets what he wants. Because, Thaksin is the one creating all the violence through his funding and support of wacko elements.

[gk10002000]

I was there two weeks after Thaksin was ousted and that constitution was thrown away. I was there during the 2008 airport siege. I was there during the 2010 May riots and martial law. As you can see from History, Thailand probably has the most coups and "government" overthrows in modern times than just about any other country.

The Thai elections have not been free. There is much fear among industrialists and higher social classes about who would be in control if all farmers and peasants could vote and vice versa.

Thailand is very diverse in where the economic power and natural resources are. This is not unlike the United States was. The rural and less populated states were concerned about how populated states with big cities like New York or Washington would make laws that would not be good for the rurual areas, and vice versa.

One of the good things about the US government system is the idea of Represenatatives. Each state has representatives based upon the number of people in the state. More populated states do have more representation. However, the power is balanced out a bit because each state only gets two senators. So the Senate and the House of Representatives often clash. But the idea was not to make it easy for any group or interest, to gain hard majority power.

I think it would be wonderful if Thailand would actually follow their constitution and quite throwing it out everytime somebody wants to change it. In this modern age of communication, people are very well aware of shill documents or propped up things. I think it would be wonderful if Thailand would have a Representative type of government. Let each Province have various numbers of representatives. Let that be balanced by a "Senate" concept similar to the USA. Let people's votes have a meaning. Sure the "ignorant" people may make bad choices and poor decions now and then. Welcome to the world of self-governing. It is either that or go the "beneficial dictator" route, and that usually is not as good.

I love Thailand. Can't wait to visit again

[whybother]

I was there two weeks after Thaksin was ousted and that constitution was thrown away. I was there during the 2008 airport siege. I was there during the 2010 May riots and martial law. As you can see from History, Thailand probably has the most coups and "government" overthrows in modern times than just about any other country.

The Thai elections have not been free. There is much fear among industrialists and higher social classes about who would be in control if all farmers and peasants could vote and vice versa.

Thailand is very diverse in where the economic power and natural resources are. This is not unlike the United States was. The rural and less populated states were concerned about how populated states with big cities like New York or Washington would make laws that would not be good for the rurual areas, and vice versa.

One of the good things about the US government system is the idea of Represenatatives. Each state has representatives based upon the number of people in the state. More populated states do have more representation. However, the power is balanced out a bit because each state only gets two senators. So the Senate and the House of Representatives often clash. But the idea was not to make it easy for any group or interest, to gain hard majority power.

I think it would be wonderful if Thailand would actually follow their constitution and quite throwing it out everytime somebody wants to change it. In this modern age of communication, people are very well aware of shill documents or propped up things. I think it would be wonderful if Thailand would have a Representative type of government. Let each Province have various numbers of representatives. Let that be balanced by a "Senate" concept similar to the USA. Let people's votes have a meaning. Sure the "ignorant" people may make bad choices and poor decions now and then. Welcome to the world of self-governing. It is either that or go the "beneficial dictator" route, and that usually is not as good.

I love Thailand. Can't wait to visit again

"There is much fear among industrialists and higher social classes about who would be in control if all farmers and peasants could vote and vice versa. " They CAN all vote.

" Let each Province have various numbers of representatives. Let that be balanced by a "Senate" concept similar to the USA." Maybe you should read up on the Thai parliamentary system.

[gk10002000]

I was there two weeks after Thaksin was ousted and that constitution was thrown away. I was there during the 2008 airport siege. I was there during the 2010 May riots and martial law. As you can see from History, Thailand probably has the most coups and "government" overthrows in modern times than just about any other country.

The Thai elections have not been free. There is much fear among industrialists and higher social classes about who would be in control if all farmers and peasants could vote and vice versa.

Thailand is very diverse in where the economic power and natural resources are. This is not unlike the United States was. The rural and less populated states were concerned about how populated states with big cities like New York or Washington would make laws that would not be good for the rurual areas, and vice versa.

One of the good things about the US government system is the idea of Represenatatives. Each state has representatives based upon the number of people in the state. More populated states do have more representation. However, the power is balanced out a bit because each state only gets two senators. So the Senate and the House of Representatives often clash. But the idea was not to make it easy for any group or interest, to gain hard majority power.

I think it would be wonderful if Thailand would actually follow their constitution and quite throwing it out everytime somebody wants to change it. In this modern age of communication, people are very well aware of shill documents or propped up things. I think it would be wonderful if Thailand would have a Representative type of government. Let each Province have various numbers of representatives. Let that be balanced by a "Senate" concept similar to the USA. Let people's votes have a meaning. Sure the "ignorant" people may make bad choices and poor decions now and then. Welcome to the world of self-governing. It is either that or go the "beneficial dictator" route, and that usually is not as good.

I love Thailand. Can't wait to visit again

"There is much fear among industrialists and higher social classes about who would be in control if all farmers and peasants could vote and vice versa. " They CAN all vote.

" Let each Province have various numbers of representatives. Let that be balanced by a "Senate" concept similar to the USA." Maybe you should read up on the Thai parliamentary system.

In principle yes. In reality no. Abhisit was going to dissolve Parliament. What does that mean? What good is being "elected" if the house just gets tossed out?

[whybother]

In principle yes. In reality no. Abhisit was going to dissolve Parliament. What does that mean? What good is being "elected" if the house just gets tossed out?

The US has fixed terms. In most West Minister systems (UK, Aus, NZ, Thailand, others), the government has the choice on when to call an election (within a fixed time frame).

When an election is called (regardless of whether it's fixed term or not), the current elected representatives all have to step down from their posts to stand for reelection.

[animatic]

In principle yes. In reality no. Abhisit was going to dissolve Parliament. What does that mean? What good is being "elected" if the house just gets tossed out?

The US has fixed terms. In most West Minister systems (UK, Aus, NZ, Thailand, others), the government has the choice on when to call an election (within a fixed time frame).

When an election is called (regardless of whether it's fixed term or not), the current elected representatives all have to step down from their posts to stand for reelection.

Whybother is correct about how the system works.

gk, try to remember that this whole mess started with :

Thaksin and his pre-purchased political machine finally winning an out right election

But that fact went to his proto-dictatorial head and he then sold his telecom company which included critical satellite infrastructure for Thailand to Singapore's government investment branch.

ie ceeding control to a foreign power.

AND changed the tax laws to avoid payment the DAY BEFORE he made the sale. All the sales paperwork in place, just weaiting for the Thaksin controlled TRT legislature to change the law for him.

This quite rightly sent the opposition and most all in Thailand who understood the end run he pulled on the nation in to fits of anger, not least of all PAD, but far from only PAD.

When he realized how much he had pissed EVERYONE off, he could have made an offer of paying a large chunk of taxes, he refused and fought it as much as he could. HAd he paid he likely would have defused the situation and business would have gone on as unusual.

As the political fall out worsened from his ShinCorp sale he finally ' Disolved the Parliament' right after he had one the biggest victory of his time.

He apparently wanted to win another election to validate his sale of Shincorp by winning another mandate, of course using his political machine to do it.

That the Democrats saw this as a sham election to white wash his crimes, and refused to run, this meant each MP had to run unopposed or win 20% of the vote, not the largest block, so some decided they needed fake or shill candidates to oppose them.

So TRT MP's in several places cheated, or bought themselves opposition, and got caught doing it., since they had won before, but never close to 20%

And the Election Commission screwed up under pressure,

and the EC guys ended up in jail.

Things spiraled out of control from there, but that's another story.

Back to today:

Abhisit in spite of horrendous attempts to make him dissolve the legislature has not done so, until it is relatively close to the end of the term for the legislature. A proper time to do so. Legally, any time the PM thinks there is a crisis of sufficient import to dissolve and recreate the government he has that right.

But this is subject to scrutiny by the public, if they feel he has done so frivolously, they also have the right to not vote him and his government back in.

Edited March 23, 2011 by animatic

[hammered]

Until those at the top can reach agreement on how to carve up the pie nothing will change. That is not likely to change for some time as other events and opportunities overshadow everything. In the meantime the best that can be hoped for is a truce

[animatic]

Until those at the top can reach agreement on how to carve up the pie nothing will change. That is not likely to change for some time as other events and opportunities overshadow everything. In the meantime the best that can be hoped for is a truce

But truces leave face lost and honor unredeemed...

And truces are temporary, Korea, being a sort of exception.

Edited March 23, 2011 by animatic