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

[CMX]

Anyone who does not recognize that the composition and decisions of Parliament in electing Abhisit were influenced by the military takeover and court rulings about "legal parties" and so forth is wearing yellow colored (or name them coloured) glasses.

The mechanism of Abhisit''s election as Prime Minister was sound, so in that sense his statement is correct - however, the composition of the Parliament and its votes had been realigned, so to speak, after the people voted. These maneuvers may well have changed the intent of the majority's vote, given promises by minor parties and their eventual machinations.

It must be noted that medical care has been maintained so far, such as the program is. I admire that.

I suppose for some reason that Abhisit is sort of keeping one foot on the canoe and another on shore while the tide makes and the wind blows harder than we do here.

But yes, there might be a splash, and then what? Four weeks to go, or more.

[Crushdepth]

It's amazing how many people don't understand how Parliament works, let alone a coalition government. Or don't *want* to understand it.

Waste of time trying.

[animatic]

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.

PPP won 1/3 third, not close to a landlside, just slightly larger than the Dems.

.Samak caused his downfall from office by shear arrogance ignoring his lawyers advice and lying in court. But that said, he could have become Prime Minister AGAIN THE NEXT DAY... no law prevented this. He was legally entitle to get the job back.

Thaksin fired him, no other shady dealers had a hand in it. Thaksin replaced the obstreperous Samak with milktoast brother in law Somchai.

The PPP got caught cheating at management levels and caused Somchai and his cronies to fall after a long period of 'due process', and the TRT 3rd string came into play. But you ignore or forget the blatant Thaksain slight against Newin in the Hong Kong dinner of the infamous divorce announcement. Chalerm was given the nod, and Newin dissed. That is the root of the bad blood between Newin / BJT and PTP. When the timing was right Newin jumped ship for greener pastures.. THEN "hence the Dems."

If you want to talk history include the basis of the actions, and back story for the history... it makes understanding it all much easier,

and accurate too.

Interesting will be the results, but more interesting will be the king making and deal making to create a coalition government. Since it is well known neither large party will shake off the little parties drain on their voting bases, and a coalition will need to be cobbled together.

The big question is who will side with who and will anyone do it on the 1st balloting in the lower house. As might be expected all parties vote for themselves round one, unless pre-purchased by a larger broker, round two becomes a 'positions, face, favors, threats and cash' free for all till someone comes out on top.

Thats when it becomes REALLY interesting.

Edited June 6, 2011 by animatic

[KKvampire]

Abhisit is correct what he says about the PAD. I well remembering him on TV warning the Yellows of the consequences of their actions outside parliament and at the airports, and they were not above the law.

Didn't hear any of the Peau Thai Leaders saying the same when their thug buddies were causing chaos and violence last year.

[animatic]

Abhisit is correct what he says about the PAD. I well remembering him on TV warning the Yellows of the consequences of their actions outside parliament and at the airports, and they were not above the law.

Didn't hear any of the Peau Thai Leaders saying the same when their thug buddies were causing chaos and violence last year.

Spot on.

[tragickingdom]

Sure Abhisit came to power with support from the parliament. only after the army has threatened numerous parliamentarians to switch sides and therefore cheating on the voters. In any decent country those parliamentarians would have resigned and not defied their votes wishes. We love to hear though if Abhisit gave also the order to shoot and put up life firing zones. I am afraid that he will pass that honor over to the military though or to his puppet master Suthep. abhisit has never won and will never win an election.

[whybother]

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.

Not to mention any pressure from the red shirts.

You keep bringing up "substantial". Where do you draw the line? Is it 5 seats? Is that substantial? Is it 20 seats? Maybe it's 50 seats?

But actually "substantial" has nothing to do with it.

The key point is Majority. That's what red shirts don't understand.

[sirchai]

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

Abhisit will be and has to be back. Not wanting to be involved in Thai politics, but it's better to have an apple in your hand than a bird on a tree.

[animatic]

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

Abhisit will be and has to be back. Not wanting to be involved in Thai politics, but it's better to have an apple in your hand than a bird on a tree.

Regardless of having a pretty songbird up front now to spin the story,

PTP when still PPP has a proven track record of incompetence in office of staggering proportions. There is no hard evidence to back up ANY successful initiatives by them, not since the days of TRT, and now a days, PTP is a sad, ineffective shadow, of those graft ridden, but somewhat competent days or yore. But alas win or lose, yore is here no more.

Edited June 6, 2011 by animatic

[esbkk]

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.

How would you know about all the pressure from outside parliament ...

[redsquare]

I came here purely with support from the Parliament

Anyone with a memory lasting over 3 years can remember when Abhisit was an intelligent, well respected politician. How times change.

[Crushdepth]

Sure Abhisit came to power with support from the parliament. only after the army has threatened numerous parliamentarians to switch sides and therefore cheating on the voters. In any decent country those parliamentarians would have resigned and not defied their votes wishes. We love to hear though if Abhisit gave also the order to shoot and put up life firing zones. I am afraid that he will pass that honor over to the military though or to his puppet master Suthep. abhisit has never won and will never win an election.

First time I've heard that the military forced members to switch sides Speaking of puppets...how do you see Thaksin's sister fitting in on that front?

[jonnog]

As usual, the old yellow shirt right-wing farangs love this! What a nice bunch.

[Ricardo]

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.

Thanks for the brief history, however I fear that it may be a little too brief, for any casual reader of this thread, so hope you'll forgive my posting a slightly fuller version. :jap:

After the September-2006 coup, the military-junta appointed a government under PM-Sorayud, which ran an election in December-2007.

The PPP were the bigger of two large minority-parties (in terms of MPs although not on the 'one-man one-vote' proportional-vote) and, after a few weeks protracted negotiations, PM-Samak was able to form a PPP-led coalition. When Samak ran into a minor legal problem in the summer of 2008, the PPP-Executive decided to put in PM-Somchai, rather than re-appoint PM-Samak.

Samak was not pressured to resign, he was replaced as PM by his own party, and the reasons or person(s) behind this may be suspected, but are unlikely ever to be proven. However I would add that Somchai happened to be former-PM Thaksin's brother-in-law.

In late-2008 the Electoral Commission disbanded the PPP, citing electoral-fraud, and the majority of its former-MPs immediately joined the new PTP. However the PTP were unable to maintain the governing-coalition, which the PPP had led for approximately a year, and this was partly due to the loss of a faction of 40 former-PPP MPs, known as the 'Friends of Newin'.

The Democrats were now able to put together a new governing-coalition, and party-leader Abhisit was elected PM, by the MPs in Parliament.

This is the only way any Thai Prime Minister, including now-disgraced former-PM Thaksin, ever becomes PM ... because he is elected by his fellow MPs.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Ricardo

[jdinasia]

Sure Abhisit came to power with support from the parliament. only after the army has threatened numerous parliamentarians to switch sides and therefore cheating on the voters. In any decent country those parliamentarians would have resigned and not defied their votes wishes. We love to hear though if Abhisit gave also the order to shoot and put up life firing zones. I am afraid that he will pass that honor over to the military though or to his puppet master Suthep. abhisit has never won and will never win an election.

First time I've heard that the military forced members to switch sides Speaking of puppets...how do you see Thaksin's sister fitting in on that front?

We can only assume that tragic is referring to BJT ------ (You know the ones that in the by-elections beat the PTP candidates in every constituency!)

I am thinking that some people don't remember the fights back in the day, when Newin and Samak both objected to Jatuporn being allowed to run under the PPP banner) ....

It is easier to make crud up, and blame everyone but PPP/PTP for everything that has befallen them ..... Why was it they didn't call for elections when they could have? Somchai could have done it and I think Chalerm was caretaker for a couple of weeks and could have done it ... but no ... blame anyone but them!

I do remember talk of BJT being "bribed" to switch and even the number 40 million baht mentioned .... (that number would have been WAY too low) ... I simply think that Newin knew which way the wind was blowing and when his boys had no legal obligation to PPP any more, they walked. They never had a moral obligation since the (now BJT) PPP Friends of Newin Faction voters ... voted for the Newin faction (as those recent by-elections reaffirmed so well)

[OzMick]

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.

Australia is a democracy, thank you very much, where the Labor Party often has more seats than either party in the Liberal/National coalition. That is why coalitions are formed, so that 2 or more smaller parties between them can achieve a majority. Yingluk also seems misinformed, stating that PTP will win more than half the seats, and then form a coalition government. WHY?

[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.

PPP won 1/3 third, not close to a landlside, just slightly larger than the Dems.

233 seats out of 480 seats - 7 seats short of an outright majority. Sorry, that's not 1/3 ;-)

[whybother]

Sure Abhisit came to power with support from the parliament. only after the army has threatened numerous parliamentarians to switch sides and therefore cheating on the voters. In any decent country those parliamentarians would have resigned and not defied their votes wishes. We love to hear though if Abhisit gave also the order to shoot and put up life firing zones. I am afraid that he will pass that honor over to the military though or to his puppet master Suthep. abhisit has never won and will never win an election.

First time I've heard that the military forced members to switch sides Speaking of puppets...how do you see Thaksin's sister fitting in on that front?

We can only assume that tragic is referring to BJT ------ (You know the ones that in the by-elections beat the PTP candidates in every constituency!)

I am thinking that some people don't remember the fights back in the day, when Newin and Samak both objected to Jatuporn being allowed to run under the PPP banner) ....

It is easier to make crud up, and blame everyone but PPP/PTP for everything that has befallen them ..... Why was it they didn't call for elections when they could have? Somchai could have done it and I think Chalerm was caretaker for a couple of weeks and could have done it ... but no ... blame anyone but them!

I do remember talk of BJT being "bribed" to switch and even the number 40 million baht mentioned .... (that number would have been WAY too low) ... I simply think that Newin knew which way the wind was blowing and when his boys had no legal obligation to PPP any more, they walked. They never had a moral obligation since the (now BJT) PPP Friends of Newin Faction voters ... voted for the Newin faction (as those recent by-elections reaffirmed so well)

The fact that they formed the BJT instead of moving to the PTP with the rest of the PPP speaks volumes.

[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.

Thanks for the brief history, however I fear that it may be a little too brief, for any casual reader of this thread, so hope you'll forgive my posting a slightly fuller version. :jap:

After the September-2006 coup, the military-junta appointed a government under PM-Sorayud, which ran an election in December-2007.

The PPP were the bigger of two large minority-parties (in terms of MPs although not on the 'one-man one-vote' proportional-vote) and, after a few weeks protracted negotiations, PM-Samak was able to form a PPP-led coalition. When Samak ran into a minor legal problem in the summer of 2008, the PPP-Executive decided to put in PM-Somchai, rather than re-appoint PM-Samak.

Samak was not pressured to resign, he was replaced as PM by his own party, and the reasons or person(s) behind this may be suspected, but are unlikely ever to be proven. However I would add that Somchai happened to be former-PM Thaksin's brother-in-law.

In late-2008 the Electoral Commission disbanded the PPP, citing electoral-fraud, and the majority of its former-MPs immediately joined the new PTP. However the PTP were unable to maintain the governing-coalition, which the PPP had led for approximately a year, and this was partly due to the loss of a faction of 40 former-PPP MPs, known as the 'Friends of Newin'.

The Democrats were now able to put together a new governing-coalition, and party-leader Abhisit was elected PM, by the MPs in Parliament.

This is the only way any Thai Prime Minister, including now-disgraced former-PM Thaksin, ever becomes PM ... because he is elected by his fellow MPs.

Well stated.

Appreciated.

Cheers,

Tom

[animatic]

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.

Thanks for the brief history, however I fear that it may be a little too brief, for any casual reader of this thread, so hope you'll forgive my posting a slightly fuller version. :jap:

After the September-2006 coup, the military-junta appointed a government under PM-Sorayud, which ran an election in December-2007.

The PPP were the bigger of two large minority-parties (in terms of MPs although not on the 'one-man one-vote' proportional-vote) and, after a few weeks protracted negotiations, PM-Samak was able to form a PPP-led coalition. When Samak ran into a minor legal problem in the summer of 2008, the PPP-Executive decided to put in PM-Somchai, rather than re-appoint PM-Samak.

Samak was not pressured to resign, he was replaced as PM by his own party, and the reasons or person(s) behind this may be suspected, but are unlikely ever to be proven. However I would add that Somchai happened to be former-PM Thaksin's brother-in-law.

In late-2008 the Electoral Commission disbanded the PPP, citing electoral-fraud, and the majority of its former-MPs immediately joined the new PTP. However the PTP were unable to maintain the governing-coalition, which the PPP had led for approximately a year, and this was partly due to the loss of a faction of 40 former-PPP MPs, known as the 'Friends of Newin'.

The Democrats were now able to put together a new governing-coalition, and party-leader Abhisit was elected PM, by the MPs in Parliament.

This is the only way any Thai Prime Minister, including now-disgraced former-PM Thaksin, ever becomes PM ... because he is elected by his fellow MPs.

Well stated.

Appreciated.

Cheers,

Tom

Yes, nice and concise.

Thaksin should not have disrespected Newin in Hong Kong,

because it gave Newin motivation to find a better deal for his MP block.

He succeeded and has built power ever since.

While Thaksin still festers in the wasteland hoping to get back his lost power, no matter who he must use to do it.

And here we are a month to go in Thaksin's Personal Ambition Passion Play.

[hellodolly]

Sure Abhisit came to power with support from the parliament. only after the army has threatened numerous parliamentarians to switch sides and therefore cheating on the voters. In any decent country those parliamentarians would have resigned and not defied their votes wishes. We love to hear though if Abhisit gave also the order to shoot and put up life firing zones. I am afraid that he will pass that honor over to the military though or to his puppet master Suthep. abhisit has never won and will never win an election.

Very interesting diologe. Have you any proof to back it up. If you do it would make life a lot easier for Thaksin. Your cousins friend dosen't count as proof. Or are you just talking because you are bored.

You are I trust aware of the fact that the next Prime Minister will only come to power with the support of the Parliament. Same way Abhist and those before him got there.

May the best MAN win

[samurai]

Australia is a democracy, thank you very much, where the Labor Party often has more seats than either party in the Liberal/National coalition. That is why coalitions are formed, so that 2 or more smaller parties between them can achieve a majority. Yingluk also seems misinformed, stating that PTP will win more than half the seats, and then form a coalition government. WHY?

Why?

For the sake of reconciliation?

Why should an 51% winner not offer other parties to participate in a coalition as long as they share the same or similar goals and policies and could work together? Coalitions are more than to be only good for to get more that 50% in the parliament.

Parliamentary democracy doesn't mean that you show the finger to anyone else once you get that 50% +1 vote. Of course, you could do that but you don't have to do that.

The "Coalition" in Australian politics (the one with he capital C) is also somewhat different from that what the term coalition means when we talk about coalition governments in parliamentary systems.

[OzMick]

Australia is a democracy, thank you very much, where the Labor Party often has more seats than either party in the Liberal/National coalition. That is why coalitions are formed, so that 2 or more smaller parties between them can achieve a majority. Yingluk also seems misinformed, stating that PTP will win more than half the seats, and then form a coalition government. WHY?

Why?

For the sake of reconciliation?

Why should an 51% winner not offer other parties to participate in a coalition as long as they share the same or similar goals and policies and could work together? Coalitions are more than to be only good for to get more that 50% in the parliament.

Parliamentary democracy doesn't mean that you show the finger to anyone else once you get that 50% +1 vote. Of course, you could do that but you don't have to do that.

The "Coalition" in Australian politics (the one with he capital C) is also somewhat different from that what the term coalition means when we talk about coalition governments in parliamentary systems.

As Alice said "to what porpoise?" To reconcile in a coalition with BJT, Dems or Chart Thai when you've already got the numbers?

"The "Coalition" in Australian politics (the one with he capital C) is also somewhat different from that what the term coalition means when we talk about coalition governments in parliamentary systems."

Please re-read what you have written, because it makes no sense to me. The Liberals and the Nats are only a coalition when they need to be. One will dump the other at the drop of a hat when the need no longer exists, as it has in several state governments over the years.

[samurai]

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.

It's because there isn't only one English language with one clear definition what 'majority' means.

Compared to British English in North-American English the meaning of 'majority' is more narrow.

Some say these North-American 'English' speakers don't speak any English at all but a different language.

[lannarebirth]

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.

It's because there isn't only one English language with one clear definition what 'majority' means.

Compared to British English in North-American English the meaning of 'majority' is more narrow.

Some say these North-American 'English' speakers don't speak any English at all but a different language.

That's interesting. So you're saying that the word "majority" in Britain means something other than >50% ?

[samurai]

Australia is a democracy, thank you very much, where the Labor Party often has more seats than either party in the Liberal/National coalition. That is why coalitions are formed, so that 2 or more smaller parties between them can achieve a majority. Yingluk also seems misinformed, stating that PTP will win more than half the seats, and then form a coalition government. WHY?

Why?

For the sake of reconciliation?

Why should an 51% winner not offer other parties to participate in a coalition as long as they share the same or similar goals and policies and could work together? Coalitions are more than to be only good for to get more that 50% in the parliament.

Parliamentary democracy doesn't mean that you show the finger to anyone else once you get that 50% +1 vote. Of course, you could do that but you don't have to do that.

The "Coalition" in Australian politics (the one with he capital C) is also somewhat different from that what the term coalition means when we talk about coalition governments in parliamentary systems.

As Alice said "to what porpoise?" To reconcile in a coalition with BJT, Dems or Chart Thai when you've already got the numbers?

"The "Coalition" in Australian politics (the one with he capital C) is also somewhat different from that what the term coalition means when we talk about coalition governments in parliamentary systems."

Please re-read what you have written, because it makes no sense to me. The Liberals and the Nats are only a coalition when they need to be. One will dump the other at the drop of a hat when the need no longer exists, as it has in several state governments over the years.

To secure, strengthen and expand their majority, to cooperate and share power and responsibility. If Chart Thai has the perfect man for the Ministry of Tourism and Sport for example why not work together with them.

Why should Yingluck say: "If we win - we do everything alone." ?

Why they should not offer other parties to join - to condition PTP suggests, of course. It they have more than 50% they don't have to make big concessions to the smaller partner. It is still a win-win situation.

It hasn't to be like in Australia where according to you smaller partners got dumped when not needed. That is not the standard case of 'coalition'

[craigt3365]

One flame and an associated reply were deleted. Please respect fellow members....even it they don't agree with you!

[Buchholz]

Abhisit is correct what he says about the PAD. I well remembering him on TV warning the Yellows of the consequences of their actions outside parliament and at the airports, and they were not above the law.

Didn't hear any of the Peau Thai Leaders saying the same when their thug buddies were causing chaos and violence last year.

The Pheu Thai Party Leader was too busy trying to resign five times in 2 years to say much to the Red Shirts.

.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

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

How would you know about all the pressure from outside parliament ...

Same as the poster below. They covertly attended the secret clandestine meetings held deep inside caves on the outskirts of Kabinburi.

Sure Abhisit came to power with support from the parliament. only after the army has threatened numerous parliamentarians to switch sides and therefore cheating on the voters.

[Buchholz]

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.

Thanks for the brief history, however I fear that it may be a little too brief, for any casual reader of this thread, so hope you'll forgive my posting a slightly fuller version. :jap:

After the September-2006 coup, the military-junta appointed a government under PM-Sorayud, which ran an election in December-2007.

The PPP were the bigger of two large minority-parties (in terms of MPs although not on the 'one-man one-vote' proportional-vote) and, after a few weeks of protracted negotiations, PM-Samak was able to form a PPP-led coalition. When Samak ran into a minor legal problem in the summer of 2008, the PPP-Executive decided to put in PM-Somchai, rather than re-appoint PM-Samak.

Samak was not pressured to resign, he was replaced as PM by his own party, and the reasons or person(s) behind this may be suspected, but are unlikely ever to be proven. However I would add that Somchai happened to be former-PM Thaksin's brother-in-law.

In late-2008 the Electoral Commission disbanded the PPP, citing electoral-fraud, and the majority of its former-MPs immediately joined the new PTP. However the PTP were unable to maintain the governing-coalition, which the PPP had led for approximately a year, and this was partly due to the loss of a faction of 40 former-PPP MPs, known as the 'Friends of Newin'.

The Democrats were now able to put together a new governing-coalition, and party-leader Abhisit was elected PM, by the MPs in Parliament.

This is the only way any Thai Prime Minister, including now-disgraced former-PM Thaksin, ever becomes PM ... because he is elected by his fellow MPs.

Thank you, Ricardo, for your tireless efforts to maintain factual information.

It is appreciated.