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

[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.

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

I am saying that in British English the word "majority" means something more than only ">50%".

The term "majority" can used to describe the largest part of a group of people or things. That hasn't to be necessary over 50%.

It is North-American English to differentiate strictly between "majority" and "plurality".

[webfact]

GENERAL ELECTION

Abhisit rejects claims Army made him PM

By THE NATION

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva moved to eliminate controversy or doubt yesterday about how he came to power in late 2008.

The PM said in comments posted on his Facebook page that he took office purely with the support of parliamentarians - not the military, as widely claimed - and that his ideology of working for the people had never changed.

In an entry entitled "From Abhisit's heart to Thai people across the country", he said the Democrat Party never conspired with the yellow-shirt People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) to create political trouble for the Samak Sundaravej government.

"I tried to distinguish between the role of a political party and a people's movement. I did not take to their stage, but protected their right [to demonstrate]," he said.

"I totally disagreed with their seizing of Government House and the airports."

During the political turmoil to topple the Samak Sundaravej and Somchai Wongsawat governments, as well as dissolution of the People Power Party, Abhisit said he never prepared to seize power - even though a court official, Pasit Sakdanarong, had told him it was possible.

"I believed then the PPP dissolution was not a chance for the Democrats since the old faction would back them in a new government," he said.

"But I was not surprised either to see [these factions] move to join the Democrats to form the government as the political system then could not really move on [without this happening]," he said.

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

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

Abhisit said he was aware only of the fierce struggle in Parliament as the Pheu Thai Party supported Pracha Promnok to compete with him as a candidate to be the next prime minister.

"If the military can force political parties to do what they want, why was there such tough competition in the Parliament?" he asked.

Abhisit rejected criticism that he gave all key ministries to the Bhum Jai Tai Party and other small parties to please them and support him as prime minister. He said the same parties used to run the ministries before, so it was easy for the administration to allow them to continue.

"I have never given any promises to amend Article 237 of the Constitution as Banharn Silapa-archa said, and I discussed the constitutional amendment with Newin Chidchob only on technical issues," he said.

"Newin told me he did not want an amnesty - but he did want to change the charter to have small electoral constituencies, which was against my policy. And I told him to discuss the issue later.

"I know many people could not accept the image of me embracing Newin. To be fair to him, I think it was not easy for him to leave Thaksin - the man he called 'boss'," Abhisit said.

"Whatever people think about Newin, I believed without prejudice that he made the political decision to help the country move on," he said.

As a responsible politician Abhisit said he had to make the decision to take power although it was risky, even to his life, to do so.

"I might have been wrong to think that if I worked honestly and did not create conflict with any faction, everything would be fine and the country could move on. Since the day I won support in Parliament, many MPs who supported me have been threatened by the red-shirt group," he said.

"I told myself my life would not be the same and I might die young - but I chose to move our country [forward]. I promised the people when I was a single Democrat MP in Bangkok long ago that if one day I had a chance to fundamentally change Thai society for the benefit of the people, I would do so.

"I have insisted consistently that my ideology has never changed over the past 20 years I have been on the political road.

"I have reviewed my way to power and found that it was not undemocratic. And I have had strong support from Parliament over the past two years. Even the red shirts did not come out to rally against me until a year later," he said.

"If there is anything wrong, it must be that I am the sole prime minister in Parliament who Thaksin Shinawatra cannot give instructions to."

-- The Nation 2011-06-07

[Scott]

One inflammatory post and an off-topic post have been deleted.

Stay on topic.

[patjem]

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

Would you care to point out who is specifically yellow from their posts on this forum??? I can't actually identify ANY specifically yellow posts.

[random]

I skipped through the usual bullying from the usual suspects so not sure if anyone pointed this contradiction out

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.

[moe666]

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.

He had to have won an election to become a mp and will probably win another election as an mp, no guarantee for pm

i often wonder about this support of the ptp and red shirts by falangs if they win you will not be a blip on their radar screen just a greasy spot as there taxis drive over you.

[MILT]

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

Don't worry Yingluck. It won't be long before you can go back to whatever it was that you did before you were thrown into this quagmire.

[MILT]

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.

Say's you! Show the proof of you statements. I know you cannot

[MILT]

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.

He still is

[whybother]

I skipped through the usual bullying from the usual suspects so not sure if anyone pointed this contradiction out

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.

How is that a contradiction?

He believed it was a pure parliamentary process. He didn't talk to the military and he didn't know who might (not did) have talked to the military.

[MILT]

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.

I second that. I for one Appreciate the facts.

[davidkia]

why do you all get involved in politic , we are all farang and have no say , so we will put up with what happens and who is in charge , iether way better than going back to the uk !

[AleG]

why do you all get involved in politic , we are all farang and have no say , so we will put up with what happens and who is in charge , iether way better than going back to the uk !

Evil feeds on apathy.

[hbullinger]

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 just don't get it, do you? Even if one party wins 40% of the seats in parliament and, say there are 6 other parties with a total of 60%, those 6 would be able to form a government and vote for one of their members to become PM. This may not be desirable but if the strongest party wants to ensure that they can choose the PM, the constitution has to be changed first. With 40% of the seats they will be unable to do that, unless they can win sufficient support of members of the other parties.

It may be of some comfort to the writer of the comment I am referring to, that he/she is in good company as even the BBC got it wrong when one of their senior reporters confronted Abhisit in a 'HardTalk' interview with the statement that he was "not elected by the people" and therefore "has no mandate to be Prime Minister". You see, it is not just Abhisit supporters who do all the "bleating".

[anterian]

it has been said that the people do not elect the Prime Minister but the Members of Parliament. This may be theoretically true but in reality the people know a vote for PT is a vote for Yingluck, a vote for the Dems is a vote for Abhisit.

Yesterday in my village a canvassing team were doing the rounds for the Dems, no mention was made of the local candidate, it was all about Abhisit, what he had achieved and what he was proposing.

Furthermore, the people know, and the canvassers agreed, that Abhisit came to power with the help of the military. To most people, even Democrat supporters, the equation Dems=Army is inescapable, they also know that the tail does not wag the dog.

Unless Abhisit can totally distance himself from army control he will never be a good leader, not that I think Yingluck would be better, Thailand has to choose between the frying pan and the fire.

[random]

I skipped through the usual bullying from the usual suspects so not sure if anyone pointed this contradiction out

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.

How is that a contradiction?

He believed it was a pure parliamentary process. He didn't talk to the military and he didn't know who might (not did) have talked to the military.

As abhisits biggest cheerleader I expected you to miss the blatantly obvious and try and sway opinion away from fact, I suggest you read this comments again, he believed the process was a pure parliamentary process and not a military intervention, he then says he does not know who might have made the deal with the military, the not a. so clearly a deal was made with the military,

might is clearly wrong when he states the deal, he is saying himself that there was a deal, it is clear and in black and white in front of you, so the contradiction is clear, he believed the formation was not at the hands of the military, then in his next sentence he states the deal admitting there was a deal with the army.

I look froward to your attempts to distort this now, you will probably put it down to a fault with the language

[Ricardo]

<snip for brevity>

abhisit has never won and will never win an election.

I'd be fascinated to learn from you, how Abhisit became an MP then, and also how he became PM without being elected by his fellow-MPs ?

[Ricardo]

Well stated.

Appreciated.

Cheers,

Tom

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

It is appreciated.

I second that. I for one Appreciate the facts.

Aw shucks, 'taint nothing, :jap:

I just have this mental image, of someone new to the forum or Thailand, and to whom this isn't all familiar much-hashed-over stuff, and who (I strongly feel) ought to have the full-picture, before forming their differing opinions, to which we're all entitled !

[jdinasia]

it has been said that the people do not elect the Prime Minister but the Members of Parliament. This may be theoretically true but in reality the people know a vote for PT is a vote for Yingluck, a vote for the Dems is a vote for Abhisit.

Yesterday in my village a canvassing team were doing the rounds for the Dems, no mention was made of the local candidate, it was all about Abhisit, what he had achieved and what he was proposing.

Furthermore, the people know, and the canvassers agreed, that Abhisit came to power with the help of the military. To most people, even Democrat supporters, the equation Dems=Army is inescapable, they also know that the tail does not wag the dog.

Unless Abhisit can totally distance himself from army control he will never be a good leader, not that I think Yingluck would be better, Thailand has to choose between the frying pan and the fire.

Wow!

I swear I have read even Thaksin say that Yingluck might not be PM if they win.

I 100% doubt that you had a conversation with the canvassers(or overheard one) where they said "Dems=Army".

I do not doubt that if you actually heard/spoke with Dem canvassers that they dpoke about Abhisit -- The Dems aren't playing coy about who will be PM. I also doubt the local candidate was not mentioned.

Your "to most people" statement isn't factual either as far as I can see. In highly red areas people may leap to that illogical conclusion but I doubt that most people do. I would suggest that most people think that some of the top brass lean heavily towards the Dems. If you look at PTP's candidates etc it would suggest that the Army backing of the Dems is not an absolute nor even a given.

I do not doubt that anybody doubts the equation regarding PTP that PTP=UDD=Thaksin though ...

All in all I'd rate your post as not only highly unlikely to be true but also truly shortsighted.

[random]

it has been said that the people do not elect the Prime Minister but the Members of Parliament. This may be theoretically true but in reality the people know a vote for PT is a vote for Yingluck, a vote for the Dems is a vote for Abhisit.

Yesterday in my village a canvassing team were doing the rounds for the Dems, no mention was made of the local candidate, it was all about Abhisit, what he had achieved and what he was proposing.

Furthermore, the people know, and the canvassers agreed, that Abhisit came to power with the help of the military. To most people, even Democrat supporters, the equation Dems=Army is inescapable, they also know that the tail does not wag the dog.

Unless Abhisit can totally distance himself from army control he will never be a good leader, not that I think Yingluck would be better, Thailand has to choose between the frying pan and the fire.

Wow!

I swear I have read even Thaksin say that Yingluck might not be PM if they win.

I 100% doubt that you had a conversation with the canvassers(or overheard one) where they said "Dems=Army".

I do not doubt that if you actually heard/spoke with Dem canvassers that they dpoke about Abhisit -- The Dems aren't playing coy about who will be PM. I also doubt the local candidate was not mentioned.

Your "to most people" statement isn't factual either as far as I can see. In highly red areas people may leap to that illogical conclusion but I doubt that most people do. I would suggest that most people think that some of the top brass lean heavily towards the Dems. If you look at PTP's candidates etc it would suggest that the Army backing of the Dems is not an absolute nor even a given.

I do not doubt that anybody doubts the equation regarding PTP that PTP=UDD=Thaksin though ...

All in all I'd rate your post as not only highly unlikely to be true but also truly shortsighted.

I think you need to read again, it has already been confirmed that the comment about Yingluk not becoming PM was a rehash of an old interview given before she was even made party leader.

[random]

<snip for brevity>

abhisit has never won and will never win an election.

I'd be fascinated to learn from you, how Abhisit became an MP then, and also how he became PM without being elected by his fellow-MPs ?

When did the dems last win a General Election?

If you want to nitpick and call winning a seat a parliament as winning an election the go ahead, but the fact is Abhsit has never led his party to win a general Election, I know this, and you know this, and despite the posturing of the usual cheerleaders on here, they also know this. You also know how he came to power, it was after the current government was dissolved for vote buying while his own party was also found guilty and not dissolved, and as seen from his own statement, a deal was made with the army as he refers to is as the deal.

Not long now until he is out on his ear and hopefully facing charges along with suthep for his actions last year, no doubt at that point he will think an amnesty is a top notch idea

[whybother]

I skipped through the usual bullying from the usual suspects so not sure if anyone pointed this contradiction out

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.

How is that a contradiction?

He believed it was a pure parliamentary process. He didn't talk to the military and he didn't know who might (not did) have talked to the military.

As abhisits biggest cheerleader I expected you to miss the blatantly obvious and try and sway opinion away from fact, I suggest you read this comments again, he believed the process was a pure parliamentary process and not a military intervention, he then says he does not know who might have made the deal with the military, the not a. so clearly a deal was made with the military,

might is clearly wrong when he states the deal, he is saying himself that there was a deal, it is clear and in black and white in front of you, so the contradiction is clear, he believed the formation was not at the hands of the military, then in his next sentence he states the deal admitting there was a deal with the army.

I look froward to your attempts to distort this now, you will probably put it down to a fault with the language

You're picking up on ONE word out of one sentence in a Nation article, which is a translation from Thai. Do you know the context of that statement? Have you seen the full translation of the facebook page?

I think that says enough. It certainly doesn't make it fact.

I don't put it down to a fault with the language. I put it down as a fault with the reader.

[whybother]

I think you need to read again, it has already been confirmed that the comment about Yingluk not becoming PM was a rehash of an old interview given before she was even made party leader.

Why was he asked the question "Yingluck is Pheu Thai’s No-1 party-list candidate. So, you have decided to make her the next prime minister?"

http://asiancorrespondent.com/55584/the-matichon-interview-with-thaksin/

[random]

You're picking up on ONE word out of one sentence in a Nation article, which is a translation from Thai. Do you know the context of that statement? Have you seen the full translation of the facebook page?

I think that says enough. It certainly doesn't make it fact.

I don't put it down to a fault with the language. I put it down as a fault with the reader.

how expected

All together now, give me an A, give me a B

[anterian]

it has been said that the people do not elect the Prime Minister but the Members of Parliament. This may be theoretically true but in reality the people know a vote for PT is a vote for Yingluck, a vote for the Dems is a vote for Abhisit.

Yesterday in my village a canvassing team were doing the rounds for the Dems, no mention was made of the local candidate, it was all about Abhisit, what he had achieved and what he was proposing.

Furthermore, the people know, and the canvassers agreed, that Abhisit came to power with the help of the military. To most people, even Democrat supporters, the equation Dems=Army is inescapable, they also know that the tail does not wag the dog.

Unless Abhisit can totally distance himself from army control he will never be a good leader, not that I think Yingluck would be better, Thailand has to choose between the frying pan and the fire.

Wow!

I swear I have read even Thaksin say that Yingluck might not be PM if they win.

I 100% doubt that you had a conversation with the canvassers(or overheard one) where they said "Dems=Army".

I do not doubt that if you actually heard/spoke with Dem canvassers that they dpoke about Abhisit -- The Dems aren't playing coy about who will be PM. I also doubt the local candidate was not mentioned.

Your "to most people" statement isn't factual either as far as I can see. In highly red areas people may leap to that illogical conclusion but I doubt that most people do. I would suggest that most people think that some of the top brass lean heavily towards the Dems. If you look at PTP's candidates etc it would suggest that the Army backing of the Dems is not an absolute nor even a given.

I do not doubt that anybody doubts the equation regarding PTP that PTP=UDD=Thaksin though ...

All in all I'd rate your post as not only highly unlikely to be true but also truly shortsighted.

You are politely calling me a liar in my report of my conversation with the canvasser, well that is your perogative, but it does not alter the facts. i'm sure that even if I had recorded the conversation you would claim that I had edited it :jap:

As to "illogical conclusions", this is often the comment of people who cannot think logically and have preconceptions of reality.

As to your rating of my post, do you honestly have such an ego as to think I care?

[random]

I think you need to read again, it has already been confirmed that the comment about Yingluk not becoming PM was a rehash of an old interview given before she was even made party leader.

Why was he asked the question "Yingluck is Pheu Thai's No-1 party-list candidate. So, you have decided to make her the next prime minister?"

http://asiancorrespo...w-with-thaksin/

this one line stands out

I believe when she becomes the prime minister,

I would guess this is more of a fault with the reader.

Give me an A

[whybother]

I think you need to read again, it has already been confirmed that the comment about Yingluk not becoming PM was a rehash of an old interview given before she was even made party leader.

Why was he asked the question "Yingluck is Pheu Thai's No-1 party-list candidate. So, you have decided to make her the next prime minister?"

http://asiancorrespo...w-with-thaksin/

this one line stands out

I believe when she becomes the prime minister,

I would guess this is more of a fault with the reader.

Give me an A

No. That's just a fault of Thaksin. He "believes" a lot of things ... like he's not corrupt.

[hanuman1]

it has been said that the people do not elect the Prime Minister but the Members of Parliament. This may be theoretically true but in reality the people know a vote for PT is a vote for Yingluck, a vote for the Dems is a vote for Abhisit.

Yesterday in my village a canvassing team were doing the rounds for the Dems, no mention was made of the local candidate, it was all about Abhisit, what he had achieved and what he was proposing.

Furthermore, the people know, and the canvassers agreed, that Abhisit came to power with the help of the military. To most people, even Democrat supporters, the equation Dems=Army is inescapable, they also know that the tail does not wag the dog.

Unless Abhisit can totally distance himself from army control he will never be a good leader, not that I think Yingluck would be better, Thailand has to choose between the frying pan and the fire.

I think this issue of how Abhisit is being perceived as having gained his 'power' is far more central to the outcome of the election than any knee-jerk 'manifesto' the parties have cooked up in the run up to elections. Your anecdote suggests it, and a lot of red-shirted people cite this as a problem.

It would have been beneficial to the Dems if they had been able to clear up the issue way ahead of the elections.

And whilst we're on the subject of negative PR, what happened to all the government's planned initiatives for helping rural folk improve their lives? You know, the ones that were being discussed here about a year ago after all the violence. Have they had any visible effect for those they were aimed at? This could also have been a chance for the Dems to take voters away from PTP. I guess we'll see at the elections.

[random]

No. That's just a fault of Thaksin. He "believes" a lot of things ... like he's not corrupt.

Wow, that is a bit of a poor comeback, it is not even relevant

give me an A, Give me a B, give me an H come on join in, where is the rest of your cheer leading crew?

[jdinasia]

it has been said that the people do not elect the Prime Minister but the Members of Parliament. This may be theoretically true but in reality the people know a vote for PT is a vote for Yingluck, a vote for the Dems is a vote for Abhisit.

Yesterday in my village a canvassing team were doing the rounds for the Dems, no mention was made of the local candidate, it was all about Abhisit, what he had achieved and what he was proposing.

Furthermore, the people know, and the canvassers agreed, that Abhisit came to power with the help of the military. To most people, even Democrat supporters, the equation Dems=Army is inescapable, they also know that the tail does not wag the dog.

Unless Abhisit can totally distance himself from army control he will never be a good leader, not that I think Yingluck would be better, Thailand has to choose between the frying pan and the fire.

Wow!

I swear I have read even Thaksin say that Yingluck might not be PM if they win.

I 100% doubt that you had a conversation with the canvassers(or overheard one) where they said "Dems=Army".

I do not doubt that if you actually heard/spoke with Dem canvassers that they dpoke about Abhisit -- The Dems aren't playing coy about who will be PM. I also doubt the local candidate was not mentioned.

Your "to most people" statement isn't factual either as far as I can see. In highly red areas people may leap to that illogical conclusion but I doubt that most people do. I would suggest that most people think that some of the top brass lean heavily towards the Dems. If you look at PTP's candidates etc it would suggest that the Army backing of the Dems is not an absolute nor even a given.

I do not doubt that anybody doubts the equation regarding PTP that PTP=UDD=Thaksin though ...

All in all I'd rate your post as not only highly unlikely to be true but also truly shortsighted.

You are politely calling me a liar in my report of my conversation with the canvasser, well that is your perogative, but it does not alter the facts. i'm sure that even if I had recorded the conversation you would claim that I had edited it :jap:

As to "illogical conclusions", this is often the comment of people who cannot think logically and have preconceptions of reality.

As to your rating of my post, do you honestly have such an ego as to think I care?

I guess you are correct --- in that I do not believe you are telling the truth about the conversation with a Dem canvasser.

That you fail to see that the Army isn't a singular cohesive unit and that PTP has not only some Army former top brass with it, but that it also has ties with current military top officers suggests to me that you may have missed the point of last year's red-shirt political violence being aimed at having control on Oct 1st to allow them to appoint the next army chief. Nothing about not being able to think logically in noting that the PTP and Thaksin has some strong allies in the military though the opposite can surely be said about people who fail to see that PTP and Thaksin have strong allies in the military Do I think you care? Yes. You responded.