Abhisit: I Came To Power Purely With Support From The Parliament

[webfact]

POLITICS

I came to power purely with support from the Parliament

By The Nation

Democrat Party's leader Abhisit Vejjajiva clarified today on his Facebook page that he came to power purely with the support of parliamentarians, not the military. His ideology to work for the people has never changed.

On the Facebook posting under the title, "From Abhisit's heart to Thai people throughout the country", he said the Democrat Party never conspired with the yellow shirts to create political trouble during the Samak Sundaravej government.

"I tried to distinguish between the role of political party and the people movement. I did not take their stage but protected their rights," he said. "I totally disagreed with their seizure of the Government House and the airports."

Abhisit said that a court official, Pasit Sakdanarong, told him about the possibility that People's Power Party would be dissolved in late 2008.

"But I never prepared to take the opportunity to come to power. I believed then the PPP dissolution was not a chance for the Democrats since the old factions would pack together to set up a new government," he said.

"However I was not surprised, either to see them move to join the Democrats to form the government as politics then could not really move on," he said.

Abhisit said he believed the process to form the government was a pure parliamentary process, not a military intervention as widely understood.

"I don't know who might have made the deal with the military but I have never talked to any military officers about the matter myself," he said.

-- The Nation 2011-06-06

[themockrat]

Democrat Party's leader Abhisit Vejjajiva clarified today on his Facebook page that he came to power purely with the support of parliamentarians, not the military...

...and neither with the support of the majority of the Thai people.

[whybother]

Democrat Party's leader Abhisit Vejjajiva clarified today on his Facebook page that he came to power purely with the support of parliamentarians, not the military...

...and neither with the support of the majority of the Thai people.

That just followed the PPP getting into government with out the support of the majority of the Thai people.

[bungalownights]

Don't worry Abhisit. It wont be long before this nightmare is soon over and you can start looking for a new job.

[TAWP]

Democrat Party's leader Abhisit Vejjajiva clarified today on his Facebook page that he came to power purely with the support of parliamentarians, not the military...

...and neither with the support of the majority of the Thai people.

I think perhaps you lack the proper understanding how a parliamentary democracy works.

What country are you from?

[themockrat]

Democrat Party's leader Abhisit Vejjajiva clarified today on his Facebook page that he came to power purely with the support of parliamentarians, not the military...

...and neither with the support of the majority of the Thai people.

I think perhaps you lack the proper understanding how a parliamentary democracy works.

What country are you from?

I very well understand how a parliamentary election works. I was simply stating a fact. Samak had nearly 5 million more votes than Abhisit.

Edited June 6, 2011 by metisdead

[whybother]

I very well understand how a parliamentary election works. I was simply stating a fact.

An irrelevant fact.

Samak had nearly 5 million more votes than Abhisit.

5 million more votes in the Constituency vote, but less votes in the Proportional vote.

The PPP had more support in the seats that they won, but across the board, more people wanted the Democrats than the PPP.

Edited June 6, 2011 by whybother

[themockrat]

I very well understand how a parliamentary election works. I was simply stating a fact.

An irrelevant fact.

Having a hard time accepting that other people might have different opinions, are we?

[TAWP]

Democrat Party's leader Abhisit Vejjajiva clarified today on his Facebook page that he came to power purely with the support of parliamentarians, not the military...

...and neither with the support of the majority of the Thai people.

I think perhaps you lack the proper understanding how a parliamentary democracy works.

What country are you from?

I very well understand how a parliamentary election works. I was simply stating a fact.

No, your were not.

You were posting nonsensical gibberish, since no PM is ever directly elected by the people. And a coalition-government, as successfully done in many nations in Europe for the last 80 years, does not indicate in any shape or form that the elected officials doesn't have the support of the people nor does it mean that they should have. The MPs are given full rights by their constituencies to elect the PM [and government] that they see fit. That is in their mandate. Having a coalition government that a majority of the MPs agree on therefor is a representation of the majority of the peoples will per extension.

Edited June 6, 2011 by metisdead

[TAWP]

I was simply stating a fact. Samak had nearly 5 million more votes than Abhisit.

Wait, what?

What do you base this false 'fact' on?

[lannarebirth]

I was simply stating a fact. Samak had nearly 5 million more votes than Abhisit.

Wait, what?

What do you base this false 'fact' on?

I think some non native English speakers may not differentiate between what is a "plurality" or "relative majority" and what is a "majority". One sees it all the time here, even amongst English speaking persons.

Edited June 6, 2011 by lannarebirth

[whybother]

I very well understand how a parliamentary election works. I was simply stating a fact.

An irrelevant fact.

Having a hard time accepting that other people might have different opinions, are we?

Sorry ... I thought you were stating it as fact.

Both the PPP and the Democrats came to power "without the support of the majority of the Thai people".

So, it's irrelevant.

[animatic]

Democrat Party's leader Abhisit Vejjajiva clarified today on his Facebook page that he came to power purely with the support of parliamentarians, not the military...

...and neither with the support of the majority of the Thai people.

Any coalition has to have the majority of support of the people's representatives to form a government.

It is a basic fact of the system.

Abhisit did not have support of approximately 1/3 of the voters that did vote for PPP,and were willing to transfer to PTP, but that is not what it takes to say he didn't have 50%+ of suport.

It was impossible NOT to have that and become PM.

PPP was not voted with more than 1/3 of the mandate,

even if it was a slightly bigger one.

The 2/3rds of voters that did NOT join with them, represent a majority of the people. 1/2 of that 2/3rds is the Democratic party.

When PTP could not form a coalition, it was the second biggest parties DUTY to the nation, to try and form a 50% plus supported government.

They succeeded, PTP failed, the rest is historical fact screamed at regularly by sour grapes.

Edited June 6, 2011 by metisdead

[timekeeper]

Don't worry Abhisit. It wont be long before this nightmare is soon over and you can start looking for a new job.

you back already? how was the holiday?

Abhisist will have a job, its your puppet Yingluck who will need a new job

she resigned from the old one and she will be disqualified from taking the new one

[TAWP]

I was simply stating a fact. Samak had nearly 5 million more votes than Abhisit.

Wait, what?

What do you base this false 'fact' on?

I think some non native English speakers may not differentiate between what is a "plurality" or "relative majority" and what is a "majority". One sees it all the time here, even amongst English speaking persons.

Indeed - but even if we would forgive him for stating a completely false 'fact' like this by trying to extrapolating the number of seats over the number of people in the nation -- he is still missing the point that the difference between parties of looking at the popularity vote was much smaller than the difference in MPs showed.

[animatic]

I very well understand how a parliamentary election works. I was simply stating a fact.

An irrelevant fact.

Having a hard time accepting that other people might have different opinions, are we?

No he is stating actual facts, in rebuttal to erroneous opinion.

[jayboy]

Democrat Party's leader Abhisit Vejjajiva clarified today on his Facebook page that he came to power purely with the support of parliamentarians, not the military...

...and neither with the support of the majority of the Thai people.

It's interesting how the Democrats are attempting to distance themselves from the PAD, but the reality is that many of its leaders are badly compromised.Abhisit himself to some extent, Korn definitely and as for Kasit...say no more.

[whybother]

It's interesting how the Democrats are attempting to distance themselves from the PAD, but the reality is that many of its leaders are badly compromised.Abhisit himself to some extent, Korn definitely and as for Kasit...say no more.

How are they badly compromised? Kasit ... "say no more", although, he berated them for their recent stance on the border disputes. Korn sympathised with them at one stage. Abhisit?

And how are they attempting to distance themselves? How have Abhisit and Korn even needed to distance themselves? Were they ever that close?

[animatic]

Democrat Party's leader Abhisit Vejjajiva clarified today on his Facebook page that he came to power purely with the support of parliamentarians, not the military...

...and neither with the support of the majority of the Thai people.

It's interesting how the Democrats are attempting to distance themselves from the PAD, but the reality is that many of its leaders are badly compromised.Abhisit himself to some extent, Korn definitely and as for Kasit...say no more.

But not hardly as compromised as the PTP Party List is.

A whole other level, nay, universe, of the morally bankrupt in that grouping.

[jdinasia]

Democrat Party's leader Abhisit Vejjajiva clarified today on his Facebook page that he came to power purely with the support of parliamentarians, not the military...

...and neither with the support of the majority of the Thai people.

I think perhaps you lack the proper understanding how a parliamentary democracy works.

What country are you from?

I very well understand how a parliamentary election works. I was simply stating a fact. Samak had nearly 5 million more votes than Abhisit.

I think if you want to look at facts ----- PPP had more votes than the Dems in CONSTITUENCY votes not party list --- The numbers for party-list votes in the 2007 elections were almost identical (Wiki shows the dems with a tiny edge) Much of those numbers in the constituency votes are represented by the Friends of Newin Faction of PPP that chose not to join PTP.

So ... ummmm Your fact is "wrong"

[jayboy]

But not hardly as compromised as the PTP Party List is.

A whole other level, nay, universe, of the morally bankrupt in that grouping.

Not all virtuous characters in the PTP list by any means.But the point here surely is that generally perceived virtuous men (Abhisit, Korn, Kasit etc) are are being profoundly evasive, even dishonest, in trying to distance themselves from the PAD.

[maewrocks]

What everyone knows, but chooses to forget or ignore, is the pressure from outside parliament, by the military, elite, PAD, & ...., was the reason for other parties siding with the Dems, not at all that they wanted too. Bleat all you want, but the people know this. Never elected never respected.

Not to mention that there is not another democracy in the modern world where a coalition is led by the party that has substantially less seats in parliament.

[ianbaggie]

...and neither with the support of the majority of the Thai people.

I think perhaps you lack the proper understanding how a parliamentary democracy works.

What country are you from?

I very well understand how a parliamentary election works. I was simply stating a fact. Samak had nearly 5 million more votes than Abhisit.

[/quote

can you list a source for that?? As he said the PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS allows Parliament to operate a first past the post majority system which Abhisit won - Neill Kinnock had 7 million more votes than Thatcher in 1984 but lost the election - another red shirt refusing to see the truth today!!!!!!!!

[timekeeper]

What everyone knows, but chooses to forget or ignore, is the pressure from outside parliament, by the military, elite, PAD, & ...., was the reason for other parties siding with the Dems, not at all that they wanted too. Bleat all you want, but the people know this. Never elected never respected.

Not to mention that there is not another democracy in the modern world where a coalition is led by the party that has substantially less seats in parliament.

you have been here beating the same drum before, you were wrong then and you are wrong now

you have been told before by a Swedish citizen that the minor party leading a coalition is a situation that exists in Sweden

unless having read the rebuke before you have now amended the statement you made and twisted it to suit you, so so that you can claim later that Sweden is not a democracy or is not a part of the modern world..........?

[MunterHunter]

What everyone knows, but chooses to forget or ignore, is the pressure from outside parliament, by the military, elite, PAD, & ...., was the reason for other parties siding with the Dems, not at all that they wanted too. Bleat all you want, but the people know this. Never elected never respected.

Is this your opinion or are you basing this on any documented fact? Links please? Source please?

My mate down the pub said...

[tlansford]

After the 2006 coup, the PPP nearly won an absolute majority and did, indeed, form a government. Samak was then pressured to resign. Hence the democrats. It's all just history. Interesting will be the results on July 3.

[maewrocks]

What everyone knows, but chooses to forget or ignore, is the pressure from outside parliament, by the military, elite, PAD, & ...., was the reason for other parties siding with the Dems, not at all that they wanted too. Bleat all you want, but the people know this. Never elected never respected.

Not to mention that there is not another democracy in the modern world where a coalition is led by the party that has substantially less seats in parliament.

you have been here beating the same drum before, you were wrong then and you are wrong now

you have been told before by a Swedish citizen that the minor party leading a coalition is a situation that exists in Sweden

unless having read the rebuke before you have now amended the statement you made and twisted it to suit you, so so that you can claim later that Sweden is not a democracy or is not a part of the modern world..........?

Swedish election, both leading parties got between 30-31% of vote. If you take the time (keeper) to read my post i said "hat has substantially less seats in parliament."

[ianbaggie]

What everyone knows, but chooses to forget or ignore, is the pressure from outside parliament, by the military, elite, PAD, & ...., was the reason for other parties siding with the Dems, not at all that they wanted too. Bleat all you want, but the people know this. Never elected never respected.

Not to mention that there is not another democracy in the modern world where a coalition is led by the party that has substantially less seats in parliament.

you have been here beating the same drum before, you were wrong then and you are wrong now

you have been told before by a Swedish citizen that the minor party leading a coalition is a situation that exists in Sweden

unless having read the rebuke before you have now amended the statement you made and twisted it to suit you, so so that you can claim later that Sweden is not a democracy or is not a part of the modern world..........?

Swedish election, both leading parties got between 30-31% of vote. If you take the time (keeper) to read my post i said "hat has substantially less seats in parliament."

............so in fact now you admit they had less seats??? Oh dear - if the argumnent doesnt fit first twist it then deny it!!!!!!!!! true democracy red shirt style

[timekeeper]

What everyone knows, but chooses to forget or ignore, is the pressure from outside parliament, by the military, elite, PAD, & ...., was the reason for other parties siding with the Dems, not at all that they wanted too. Bleat all you want, but the people know this. Never elected never respected.

Not to mention that there is not another democracy in the modern world where a coalition is led by the party that has substantially less seats in parliament.

you have been here beating the same drum before, you were wrong then and you are wrong now

you have been told before by a Swedish citizen that the minor party leading a coalition is a situation that exists in Sweden

unless having read the rebuke before you have now amended the statement you made and twisted it to suit you, so so that you can claim later that Sweden is not a democracy or is not a part of the modern world..........?

Swedish election, both leading parties got between 30-31% of vote. If you take the time (keeper) to read my post i said "hat has substantially less seats in parliament."

i will defer to my swedish friend to deal with you on pedantics

i see you think that the difference then was not substantial but was only around 1% between them

so lets debate exactly how much you consider is substantial?

population of sweden is around 9 million so whats 1% of that?

substantial.......?

if i could have 1% of the billions stole from Thailand by Thaksin and his family, would i say that was substantial?

moreover, would you?

Edited June 6, 2011 by timekeeper

[hellodolly]

Democrat Party's leader Abhisit Vejjajiva clarified today on his Facebook page that he came to power purely with the support of parliamentarians, not the military...

...and neither with the support of the majority of the Thai people.

If my memory serves me right no party had the majority of the Thai people. In Canada they had the same situation for many years. The parliamentary system may be have it's drawbacks but it does allow the country to have a Prime Minister. If they were to wait until a party had the majority of the votes it could be a long wait.

What gets me is that Abhist predecessors did not have the majority of the Thai people they had to go to other parties to get there vote's. Why do people choose to over look that little detail.

With the upcoming election one can only hope that the majority of people will elect one party but that looks doubtful. At any rate I would hope the best MAN wins.