Deputy PM Suthep Denied He Would Shine Thaksin's Shoes

[stepenwolf1958]

As 6 MPs, Democrats is disqualified from their position because of criminal activities )conflict of interest and abusing their positions), which is just-i have to ask

1. how many of PPP MPs were caught in electoral frauds so the whole PPP was banned from public and politic life?

2. by Thai law, which is worse violation-electoral fraud or conflict of interest?

[stepenwolf1958]

The previous MP was sentenced to 2 months in prison and banned from politics for 5 years for falsely declaring assets. (note--- he didn't hide money, he hid the fact that he was in debt)

Suthep won by a 7:1 margin (approx 150k votes for him and 21k+ votes for the PTP candidate)

Thanks JD for answer.

May you tell me what was the party of jailed MP?

Can you provide some link that i could read more about it, please? (I mean it)

[animatic]

Always a pleasure!

At least you had the right decade and country.

cummon let's not be so pedantic - the Chang in da political room is Suthept's utter lack of credibility or sincerity

He's no less credible than others and more so, in my humble opinion, than a few

If he had no credibility he couldn't possibly have the Dep PM job and keep it, no matter how else he acted. If you want to argue 'likability', you will have an easier roe to hoe. But that is also part of his usefulness in the job, he could care less what others think of him, pretty rare in Thailand, and just does what he thinks he must. I suspect most of his rebuttal comments are more because others expect him to rebut stupidities like this shoe shine horsehit. I am sure he expects the proper wai for his station, but could care less about what lies, or the lies, behind the 'show of respect'.

[animatic]

As 6 MPs, Democrats is disqualified from their position because of criminal activities )conflict of interest and abusing their positions), which is just-i have to ask

1. how many of PPP MPs were caught in electoral frauds so the whole PPP was banned from public and politic life?

2. by Thai law, which is worse violation-electoral fraud or conflict of interest?

The difference is that PPP leadership was directly implicated. And it only took one by law. Same for the 111 TRT, but I believe in that case it was more than one leader.

And it was election fraud not individual conflict of interest.

2 totally different things and different laws.

Electoral fraud seems to be the worse offense.

ie

potentially steeling a small % from a government concession

vs

steeling control of the countries government,

and controlling who gets concessions.

Edited April 5, 2011 by animatic

[phiphidon]

The previous MP was sentenced to 2 months in prison and banned from politics for 5 years for falsely declaring assets. (note--- he didn't hide money, he hid the fact that he was in debt)

Suthep won by a 7:1 margin (approx 150k votes for him and 21k+ votes for the PTP candidate)

Thanks JD for answer.

May you tell me what was the party of jailed MP?

Can you provide some link that i could read more about it, please? (I mean it)

I'll think you'll find that this is the guilty person, Chumphon Kanchana, a Democrat MP. He was sentenced to 2 months jail, a fine of 4000 Baht and banned from politics for 5 years. The jail term was suspended though as the court said he had never committed an illegal action before (remember that fact). Now this is the good bit, all this came about because he had submitted false assets declarations 13 times since 1997 with debts around 200 Million Baht. A Quality Act - only fitting that Suthep should step in his shoes.

http://thailandtimes...crat-mp-jailed/

Edited April 5, 2011 by phiphidon

[jdinasia]

As 6 MPs, Democrats is disqualified from their position because of criminal activities )conflict of interest and abusing their positions), which is just-i have to ask

1. how many of PPP MPs were caught in electoral frauds so the whole PPP was banned from public and politic life?

2. by Thai law, which is worse violation-electoral fraud or conflict of interest?

You don't seem to have a single FACT correct here. The whole of PPP was not banned from "public"? and politic life. The PPP party executives were given a 5 year ban as the executives are communally responsible for the party itself. One of them was caught on VDO making a payoff and the party was disbanded. Those PPP MP's that were not party execs (party list) remained as MP's

The cases that went before the constitution court resulted in them being removed as MP's but NOT banned. There were no criminal charges against them and they were not subject to any possible jail term (so your comment about criminal activities is hyperbole) Not a one was accused of abusing their position. They were all eligible to tun in the by-elections.

You might want to both check your numbers and party affiliations

[Pi Sek]

PiSek --- I was way more pro-PAD than you. While Thaksin was their target I supported their agenda even with some of the stupid things that happened like Swampy. When the PPP was disbanded as was certain from the VDO of the payoff, they (the PAD) lost almost all of their credibility. The PAD and the UDD and PTP are all in the same boat. They all need Thaksin to be meaningful in any way, but without the clear and present threat of Thaksin the PAD is just a platoon without a mission. They might have an excuse to exist again if it looks as if Thaksin will be whitewashed, but until that day mammaries and nuns comes to mind.

I will admit to showing up at Suvarnibhumi also. But, at the time, I was a Yellow Shirt rather than a PAD supporter. I feel there is a big difference, and I apply the same difference to the UDD & Red Shirts. It's harder to do with the PAD/Yellow Shirts because there are so many factions within the Red Shirts, but essentially I decided to show my face as one who thought an appointed nominee - whose only agenda was to change the constitution as fast as possible to get his (necessarily ousted!) boss off the hook - was the most unsuitable choice for prime minister possible. But I was not interested in the further agenda they were trying to push - I was interested in Somchai leaving office, and that made me a Yellow Shirt rather than a PAD supporter.

Looking back, I really don't know what would have happened if the Court had not dissolved PPP; or what would have happened had PPP's coalition partners not switched over. But it wouldn't have been pretty, and a coup would be the only logical conclusion. That adds credence to the rumour that Prem and the top bods in the RTA drafted the current governing coalition... but, if they did, didn't they do a good job?

Edited April 5, 2011 by Pi Sek

[Pi Sek]

As 6 MPs, Democrats is disqualified from their position because of criminal activities )conflict of interest and abusing their positions), which is just-i have to ask

1. how many of PPP MPs were caught in electoral frauds so the whole PPP was banned from public and politic life?

2. by Thai law, which is worse violation-electoral fraud or conflict of interest?

You don't seem to have a single FACT correct here. The whole of PPP was not banned from "public"? and politic life. The PPP party executives were given a 5 year ban as the executives are communally responsible for the party itself. One of them was caught on VDO making a payoff and the party was disbanded. Those PPP MP's that were not party execs (party list) remained as MP's

The cases that went before the constitution court resulted in them being removed as MP's but NOT banned. There were no criminal charges against them and they were not subject to any possible jail term (so your comment about criminal activities is hyperbole) Not a one was accused of abusing their position. They were all eligible to tun in the by-elections.

You might want to both check your numbers and party affiliations

Jai yen yen - he was asking 2 questions based on a completely incorrect assumption (his opening statement). Given that the opening clause is completely incorrect, the answers are:

1. None were banned from public and political life, but from political activity for 5 years. 37 from PPP, 43 from Chart Thai, and 29 from Matchimathipataya.

2. They're incomparable laws judged by different Courts of Law; so one cannot provide an answer by Thai Law. (However, my personal opinion is that electoral fraud is far more serious than conflicts of interest.)

[TimeBandit2]

So...I guess the shoe-shine job is still open then? Can I transfer my work permit?

[ChiangMaiFun]

As 6 MPs, Democrats is disqualified from their position because of criminal activities )conflict of interest and abusing their positions), which is just-i have to ask

1. how many of PPP MPs were caught in electoral frauds so the whole PPP was banned from public and politic life?

2. by Thai law, which is worse violation-electoral fraud or conflict of interest?

The difference is that PPP leadership was directly implicated. And it only took one by law. Same for the 111 TRT, but I believe in that case it was more than one leader.

And it was election fraud not individual conflict of interest.

2 totally different things and different laws.

Electoral fraud seems to be the worse offense.

ie

potentially steeling a small % from a government concession

vs

steeling control of the countries government,

and controlling who gets concessions.

can you imagine, just for a moment? banning the Republicans in US or the Labour Party in UK because of some executives mismanagement or law breaking? banning the WHOLE party - including all the innocent members? don't you think that's an absurdity? how many parties have been banned now because the elite don't like them?

Edited April 6, 2011 by ChiangMaiFun

[metisdead]

A post quoting an uncited source has been removed.

[whybother]

can you imagine, just for a moment? banning the Republicans in US or the Labour Party in UK because of some executives mismanagement or law breaking? banning the WHOLE party - including all the innocent members? don't you think that's an absurdity? how many parties have been banned now because the elite don't like them?

The WHOLE party was not banned. Just the management - the executives, that were doing the mismanagement.

The party was disbanded, and the innocent members could continue on in another party.

[ChiangMaiFun]

can you imagine, just for a moment? banning the Republicans in US or the Labour Party in UK because of some executives mismanagement or law breaking? banning the WHOLE party - including all the innocent members? don't you think that's an absurdity? how many parties have been banned now because the elite don't like them?

The WHOLE party was not banned. Just the management - the executives, that were doing the mismanagement.

The party was disbanded, and the innocent members could continue on in another party.

by default they were banned from being members of their CHOSEN party because of the mismanagement - bit like the Republicans were banned because of Nixon's mismanagement and fraud right???

[animatic]

can you imagine, just for a moment? banning the Republicans in US or the Labour Party in UK because of some executives mismanagement or law breaking? banning the WHOLE party - including all the innocent members? don't you think that's an absurdity? how many parties have been banned now because the elite don't like them?

The WHOLE party was not banned. Just the management - the executives, that were doing the mismanagement.

The party was disbanded, and the innocent members could continue on in another party.

by default they were banned from being members of their CHOSEN party because of the mismanagement - bit like the Republicans were banned because of Nixon's mismanagement and fraud right???

Different country different laws.

Many of Nixon's cohorts did plenty of jail time,

but the actual Republican Party leadership did not get convicted.

There also is no global responsibility law in USA for this.

There is in Thailand because of the prevalence of globally organized election fraud. It took the TRT party 3 tries to wise up to what the law actually meant. Maybe they have now, maybe not, we'll know before the year is out I suppose.

All the TRT and PPP MP's not in management continued in their MP seats, and just created a new party. They were not all banned, no matter how you try to read that in, choosing a party for life is not an inalienable right... Certainly not in Thailand, most of these MP's had been in a 2-3 parties in the previous years, they change parties like they change soxs in Thailand. Regularly.

Some got fed up with the bad management, and feared a 3rd repeat, so created other parties and moved on. But you know that.

Edited April 6, 2011 by animatic

[whybother]

by default they were banned from being members of their CHOSEN party because of the mismanagement - bit like the Republicans were banned because of Nixon's mismanagement and fraud right???

Bad example, I think. I don't know exactly how the parties are set up in the US, but the way I understand it, is that the president is not the leader of the party.

Besides that, Nixon wasn't charged with electoral fraud. It was similar to Samak, who was individually forced to step down.

[ChiangMaiFun]

can you imagine, just for a moment? banning the Republicans in US or the Labour Party in UK because of some executives mismanagement or law breaking? banning the WHOLE party - including all the innocent members? don't you think that's an absurdity? how many parties have been banned now because the elite don't like them?

The WHOLE party was not banned. Just the management - the executives, that were doing the mismanagement.

The party was disbanded, and the innocent members could continue on in another party.

by default they were banned from being members of their CHOSEN party because of the mismanagement - bit like the Republicans were banned because of Nixon's mismanagement and fraud right???

Different country different laws.

Many of Nixon's cohorts did plenty of jail time,

but the actual Republican Party leadership did not get convicted.

There also is no global responsibility law in USA for this.

There is in Thailand because of the prevalence of globally organized election fraud. It took the TRT party 3 tries to wise up to what the law actually meant. Maybe they have now, maybe not, we'll know before the year is out I suppose.

All the TRT and PPP MP's not in management continued in their MP seats, and just created a new party. They were not all banned, no matter how you try to read that in, choosing a party for life is not an inalienable right... Certainly not in Thailand, most of these MP's had been in a 2-3 parties in the previous years, they change parties like they change soxs in Thailand. Regularly.

Some got fed up with the bad management, and feared a 3rd repeat, so created other parties and moved on. But you know that.

but you take my point I'm sure - that banning complete parties because of individuals mismanagement is not exactly a great way to proceed - banning individuals? now that makes complete sense! IF carried out consistently - being an intelligent fellow I'm sure you will accept the point that 'changing parties' is not exactly helpful to Thailand and leads to fractiousness

[animatic]

'ChiangMaiFun' '1302054761' post='4338175'

can you imagine, just for a moment? banning the Republicans in US or the Labour Party in UK because of some executives mismanagement or law breaking? banning the WHOLE party - including all the innocent members? don't you think that's an absurdity? how many parties have been banned now because the elite don't like them?

The WHOLE party was not banned. Just the management - the executives, that were doing the mismanagement.

The party was disbanded, and the innocent members could continue on in another party.

by default they were banned from being members of their CHOSEN party because of the mismanagement - bit like the Republicans were banned because of Nixon's mismanagement and fraud right???

Different country different laws.

Many of Nixon's cohorts did plenty of jail time,

but the actual Republican Party leadership did not get convicted.

There also is no global responsibility law in USA for this.

There is in Thailand because of the prevalence of globally organized election fraud. It took the TRT party 3 tries to wise up to what the law actually meant. Maybe they have now, maybe not, we'll know before the year is out I suppose.

All the TRT and PPP MP's not in management continued in their MP seats, and just created a new party. They were not all banned, no matter how you try to read that in, choosing a party for life is not an inalienable right... Certainly not in Thailand, most of these MP's had been in a 2-3 parties in the previous years, they change parties like they change soxs in Thailand. Regularly.

Some got fed up with the bad management, and feared a 3rd repeat, so created other parties and moved on. But you know that.

but you take my point I'm sure - that banning complete parties because of individuals mismanagement is not exactly a great way to proceed - banning individuals? now that makes complete sense! IF carried out consistently - being an intelligent fellow I'm sure you will accept the point that 'changing parties' is not exactly helpful to Thailand and leads to fractiousness

The whole point of the law was that banning individuals had NOT stopped anything. But, banning whole party management has given them pause to think first and not assume they can do it as big time and blatantly.

We may know more on if this has worked in the next election if PTP doesn't forget how PPP and TRT died...

PPP sure proved that they didn't 'get it' even after the 111 were banned.

And since you don't like leadership bans for cheating,

what do YOU propose as a way to back off party cheating in elections?

If I remember correctly you were cheerleading loudly for the Dems to be banned....

Edited April 6, 2011 by animatic

[stepenwolf1958]

As 6 MPs, Democrats is disqualified from their position because of criminal activities )conflict of interest and abusing their positions), which is just-i have to ask

1. how many of PPP MPs were caught in electoral frauds so the whole PPP was banned from public and politic life?

2. by Thai law, which is worse violation-electoral fraud or conflict of interest?

The difference is that PPP leadership was directly implicated. And it only took one by law. Same for the 111 TRT, but I believe in that case it was more than one leader.

And it was election fraud not individual conflict of interest.

2 totally different things and different laws.

Electoral fraud seems to be the worse offense.

ie

potentially steeling a small % from a government concession

vs

steeling control of the countries government,

and controlling who gets concessions.

can you imagine, just for a moment? banning the Republicans in US or the Labour Party in UK because of some executives mismanagement or law breaking? banning the WHOLE party - including all the innocent members? don't you think that's an absurdity? how many parties have been banned now because the elite don't like them?

Well, above your post some one says it was not WHOLE party. Now you said it is(as it is my understanding). Why they said it is not whole party banned?

[jdinasia]

can you imagine, just for a moment? banning the Republicans in US or the Labour Party in UK because of some executives mismanagement or law breaking? banning the WHOLE party - including all the innocent members? don't you think that's an absurdity? how many parties have been banned now because the elite don't like them?

Well, above your post some one says it was not WHOLE party. Now you said it is(as it is my understanding). Why they said it is not whole party banned?

"Can you imagine" sets the stage for a hypothetical situation --- CMF then goes on to suggest this unequal hypothetical situation is equal to what happened in Thailand. It isn't.

The parties were disbanded in Thailand and reformed with a new name, but only the executives were banned.

[metisdead]

Let me make a very strong recommendation that the baiting and antagonistic posts cease immediately, If you have no retort except to get personal then I highly recommend that you do not post at all. This extends across the forum.

[jdinasia]

but you take my point I'm sure - that banning complete parties because of individuals mismanagement is not exactly a great way to proceed - banning individuals? now that makes complete sense! IF carried out consistently - being an intelligent fellow I'm sure you will accept the point that 'changing parties' is not exactly helpful to Thailand and leads to fractiousness

I don't love the way the law is right now, BUT it does make party leadership accountable. It prevents a party from encouraging, condoning, looking the other way, or offering up a scapegoat (a sacrifice to take away all the sins.) These are elected officials at the top levels of national politics and yes they do have a responsibility to keep their parties honest. I would prefer it if the ban were lifetime.

Changing parties is obviously a democratic right for constituency MP's, wouldn't you say? The party leadership starts down a path that does not coincide with the needs of the people that voted you into office so you make a change to a party that does meet the needs of your constituency. If you are thinking of the "Friends of Newin" faction that never belonged to Thaksin and TRT/PPP but always were loyal to Newin, then it might have hurt PTP when they exercised their right not to join PTP, but it didn't hurt the people that elected them. The by-elections prove this to be true. I can almost hear you saying, but what about all those others that voted PPP? Sorry! The MP's should reflect not some hazy concept of a party, but instead the will of the voters that placed THEM in office.

All of the above is written with the ideals of democracy in mind. In the trenches of democracy in Thailand it appears not to be very debatable that the regional political bosses control what happens locally. In theory we could hope that it is because they offer more to the constituents on a local level; but in practicality it is simply the Patron/Client system (feudalism in the 21st century) that keeps these elite power families in place. That really does for all practical purposes show that the ptp/reds link fighting the rest of Thailand is just one set of elites fighting another.

[animatic]

"The MP's should reflect not some hazy concept of a party,

but instead the will of the voters that placed THEM in office."

Worth repeating.

[phiphidon]

"The MP's should reflect not some hazy concept of a party,

but instead the will of the voters that placed THEM in office."

Worth repeating.

So it's Ok to form a coalition with these MP's that reflect some hazy concept of a party? I mean you (not you personally) couldn't really trust them could you? Even though they shore up your coalition you couldn't tell what would happen when the next party turns up and flashes a few baht or a promise of a lucrative position that they wouldn't be off like a robbers dog. Thai politics - To Bowdlerise the late great Derek and Clive, you've got to ask yourself, "Is this a way to run an <deleted> Ballroom?"

[jdinasia]

"The MP's should reflect not some hazy concept of a party,

but instead the will of the voters that placed THEM in office."

Worth repeating.

So it's Ok to form a coalition with these MP's that reflect some hazy concept of a party? I mean you (not you personally) couldn't really trust them could you? Even though they shore up your coalition you couldn't tell what would happen when the next party turns up and flashes a few baht or a promise of a lucrative position that they wouldn't be off like a robbers dog. Thai politics - To Bowdlerise the late great Derek and Clive, you've got to ask yourself, "Is this a way to run an <deleted> Ballroom?"

Read the quote again ..... Focus on the second line

Wow! I was quoted!

[stepenwolf1958]

but you take my point I'm sure - that banning complete parties because of individuals mismanagement is not exactly a great way to proceed - banning individuals? now that makes complete sense! IF carried out consistently - being an intelligent fellow I'm sure you will accept the point that 'changing parties' is not exactly helpful to Thailand and leads to fractiousness

I don't love the way the law is right now, BUT it does make party leadership accountable. It prevents a party from encouraging, condoning, looking the other way, or offering up a scapegoat (a sacrifice to take away all the sins.) These are elected officials at the top levels of national politics and yes they do have a responsibility to keep their parties honest. I would prefer it if the ban were lifetime.

Changing parties is obviously a democratic right for constituency MP's, wouldn't you say? The party leadership starts down a path that does not coincide with the needs of the people that voted you into office so you make a change to a party that does meet the needs of your constituency. If you are thinking of the "Friends of Newin" faction that never belonged to Thaksin and TRT/PPP but always were loyal to Newin, then it might have hurt PTP when they exercised their right not to join PTP, but it didn't hurt the people that elected them. The by-elections prove this to be true. I can almost hear you saying, but what about all those others that voted PPP? Sorry! The MP's should reflect not some hazy concept of a party, but instead the will of the voters that placed THEM in office.

All of the above is written with the ideals of democracy in mind. In the trenches of democracy in Thailand it appears not to be very debatable that the regional political bosses control what happens locally. In theory we could hope that it is because they offer more to the constituents on a local level; but in practicality it is simply the Patron/Client system (feudalism in the 21st century) that keeps these elite power families in place. That really does for all practical purposes show that the ptp/reds link fighting the rest of Thailand is just one set of elites fighting another.

Yes, you are right here. The nature of any political party or organization is to looks to be ruling party. But the problem is when they do not choose ways to achieve this. As you said, elected in the elections should not follow the party's goals only, but to do the best what citizens voted them.

Such behavior and reasoning can not be expected of politicians in developing countries, which have absolutely no common points with democracy. In this case it is just the name of the ruling party. Nothing else.

A dirty game is expected from the opposition parties, anywhere in the world. Dirty game is not expected from the ruling party. That is always mistake when happened and that is what is going on now.

Instead of representing the interests of citizens, the ruling party is playing very dirty. Just for the sake of power.

I am surprised by your sharpness and qualification about the source of the problem here. I am pretty surprised about your courage to put that all just as a primitive, unscrupulous clash of elites and nothing more. Of course I will agree with that your opinion.

It is what democrats are doing now, and that is what irritating people.

The problem lies in the fact that the ruling Democratic Party did not have, any single moment, except in the campaign, anything in common with the postulates of democracy. It is every day more evident.

Moreover, the Democratic Party is doing absolutely everything in order to maintain itself in power. Even a very dirty things that are on the brink, and sometimes directly violate basic human rights and principles set out as international standards of humanity.

Just to seize the power as long as possible.

In a rough game matches even rougher. At pressures corresponding to inappropriate ways of repression. Abusing power to control the institutions of the system and directs them how it fits to their interest.

When that is made by party which should to correct mistakes of the previous government, when it is made by party which needs to reform the society and improve the system and way of life for the good of all, when it is made by party that is so called democratic-then it becomes even larger tumor of society than it was the previous government.

Unrealized hopes and expectations, doing more worse things than the previous government is what drives people to strongly oppose the ruling party.

In my opinion, it is not any sympathy for red shirts, UDD party or anyone else.

It is simply the resistance to inability and lack of honest wish to improve the situation, for the sake of all citizens.

It is reaction because of facing true what you observed here by words "...simply the Patron/Client system (feudalism in the 21st century))

A lot of good Thais expected change and deserved it. Nothing happened and they are not stupid. They know what is all behind. Just fight of elites without any concern for citizens.

[jdinasia]

I am sorry that you did not understand what I have written Stepen --- I stated that the regional power families (most of the strongest ones are alligned with PTP, but Newin and Suthep are certainly exceptions to that) seem to be only about the Patron/Client system. Your take on the Dems and in particular (imho) Abhisit and Korn and a few others doesn't match mine at all. Nor does your belief in what the current government has done match with what I believe either. What I wrote was a rebuttal to most of what you are saying. That is why you are not supposed to alter other people's posts. You changed the context of the following line by highliting what you wanted people to see as opposed to what I wrote.

That really does for all practical purposes show that the ptp/reds link fighting the rest of Thailand is just one set of elites fighting another.

The unaltered statement would suggest that the claims of the "BKK Elite" that are thrown around are in a fight with the poor rural farmers is a lie.

The Dems are an old school political party in Thailand and have plenty of dinosaurs, but again imho, they are by far the best option for the country right now. Personally I would like to see them get 50%+1 seat (not likely at all) in parliament so that they didn't need to rely on BJT or others to create the next government. I know I never want to see another Thaksin2 style government in Thailand where the PM is beyond censure.

My biggest hope is that a people mandated strong constitution comes out in the next 10 years with real political reform as a part of it. Something strong enough that includes real jail time for corruption in public officials AND makes the military's oath of allegiance to the constitution (which states that a military take-over of the civilian government is treason.)If that type of constitution were passed today it wouldn't stop a coup, but I personally hope to see more development in the next 10 years.

[ChiangMaiFun]

"The MP's should reflect not some hazy concept of a party,

but instead the will of the voters that placed THEM in office."

Worth repeating.

People rarely vote for a person - they vote for a party - same in UK most people don't know the names of their MP's but vote Labour or Conservative (and occasionally Liberal) and that's why they have big political televised debates - not about the individual MP it's about the party and it's policies. Many 'more famous' MP's have gone independent in the past and been kicked out - people vote for parties and mostly for the PM. This is obvious.

[ChiangMaiFun]

"The MP's should reflect not some hazy concept of a party,

but instead the will of the voters that placed THEM in office."

Worth repeating.

So it's Ok to form a coalition with these MP's that reflect some hazy concept of a party? I mean you (not you personally) couldn't really trust them could you? Even though they shore up your coalition you couldn't tell what would happen when the next party turns up and flashes a few baht or a promise of a lucrative position that they wouldn't be off like a robbers dog. Thai politics - To Bowdlerise the late great Derek and Clive, you've got to ask yourself, "Is this a way to run an <deleted> Ballroom?"

Read the quote again ..... Focus on the second line

Wow! I was quoted!

but it's wrong - people don't vote for individuals (in the main) - it would be anarchy to not have a party system (and in fact it IS more anarchic because there is a lack of party discipline here).

[whybother]

but it's wrong - people don't vote for individuals (in the main) - it would be anarchy to not have a party system (and in fact it IS more anarchic because there is a lack of party discipline here).

That doesn't explain why the voters in one electorate voted a PTP MP in the 2007 election, and then voted for a BJT MP in a by-election ... when it was the same individual.

I would generally agree with you in respect to Aus or the UK, where many voters don't even know who their local MP is, but in Thailand I believe it is more localised than that. The voters vote for a regional power block, regardless of what they might call themselves.

[animatic]

"The MP's should reflect not some hazy concept of a party,

but instead the will of the voters that placed THEM in office."

Worth repeating.

So it's Ok to form a coalition with these MP's that reflect some hazy concept of a party? I mean you (not you personally) couldn't really trust them could you? Even though they shore up your coalition you couldn't tell what would happen when the next party turns up and flashes a few baht or a promise of a lucrative position that they wouldn't be off like a robbers dog. Thai politics - To Bowdlerise the late great Derek and Clive, you've got to ask yourself, "Is this a way to run an <deleted> Ballroom?"

Read the quote again ..... Focus on the second line

Wow! I was quoted!

I't happened before.

And yes concentrate on the 2nd line.

the will of the voters that placed THEM in office.

Edited April 7, 2011 by animatic