Thai PM Abhisit Slams Rivals' Thaksin 'Whitewash'

[samurai]

"I don't believe their (Puea Thai's) plan is one for reconciliation," Abhisit told foreign correspondents in the capital.

A good starter for "reconciliation" is to accept and respect what the majority of people voted for in an election.

Does 'majority' mean something else in your universe?

Was PM Abhisit legit in your book?

What means "reconciliation" in your universe?

[whybother]

Was PM Abhisit legit in your book?

What means "reconciliation" in your universe?

After the PPP were disbanded for electoral fraud, a majority of MPs decided that their new incarnation was not worth supporting.

So a majority of the MPs decided to back Abhisit. Seeing that all MPs were elected by the people, that represents the majority of the people.

Is that what you're talking about when you bring up majority?

Do you think "Reconciliation" is promising to whitewash the crimes of the person that is the main reason for the current political divide?

[bungalownights]

Note that when Abhisit was puppeteered into power he said that reconcilliation was his top priority.

x years on and NOTHING.

[samurai]

"I don't believe their (Puea Thai's) plan is one for reconciliation," Abhisit told foreign correspondents in the capital.

A good starter for "reconciliation" is to accept and respect what the majority of people voted for in an election.

Does 'majority' mean something else in your universe?

For samurai, "majority" means "substantial".

My universe, being somewhat old-fashioned and a bit hoity-toity, thinks it is chic to follow the British English Language 'definition' /meaning of the term 'majority'.

[whybother]

Note that when Abhisit was puppeteered into power he said that reconcilliation was his top priority.

x years on and NOTHING.

It's a bit hard to reconcile with a group that only wants one thing, when that thing is not acceptable to the other side of the divide.

[bungalownights]

Note that when Abhisit was puppeteered into power he said that reconcilliation was his top priority.

x years on and NOTHING.

It's a bit hard to reconcile with a group that only wants one thing, when that thing is not acceptable to the other side of the divide.

I guess its also hard to reconcile when you alledgedly kill, jail, silence and harrass those you are trying to reconcile with.

[whybother]

My universe, being somewhat old-fashioned and a bit hoity-toity, thinks it is chic to follow the British English Language 'definition' /meaning of the term 'majority'.

Apologies, it might have been one of your Thaksin supporter friends that had that definition.

[animatic]

quote 'samurai' timestamp='1307770081' post='4482031'

"I don't believe their (Puea Thai's) plan is one for reconciliation," Abhisit told foreign correspondents in the capital.

A good starter for "reconciliation" is to accept and respect what the majority of people voted for in an election.

Try telling that to the reds who have never accepted or respected the majority of people who voted for the current coalition government.

The majority of people voted as the

66% of Thai voters who did NOT vote for PPP,

(under 35% voted FOR PPP)

and NO voters at all voted for PTP,

except in small by-elections,

only the MP's that were once PPP

were ever voted in to MP status.

A majority of Thai voters DID vote for the MPs

that DID vote in this current government.

Silly (non)-logic.

Just two points:

- A "not-vote" for PPP wasn't a pro-vote for an Abhisit government.

- The current coalition government includes parties nobody voted for in 2007.

A 65% did NOT VOTE FOR, means

that the mandate is in the 65% and not in the 35%.

How is that not clear,

that the MAJORITY did not actual back PPP?

Only a larger minority, and they did not get a mandate without help from other parties as PPP. But they lost it as an unelected PTP.

Excuse me, but how can the smaller parties have MPs in parliament

if 'nobody voted for (them) in 2007'

Of course they got voted for, as part of the 65%

that didn't vote for PPP.

And when those blocks swung to the Dems in a later vote, essentially a no confidence vote in PTP to form a government,

the 50%+mandate shifted to the Dems with smaller parties.

Your logic is rather flawed by bias it seems.

Edited June 12, 2011 by animatic

[whybother]

Note that when Abhisit was puppeteered into power he said that reconcilliation was his top priority.

x years on and NOTHING.

It's a bit hard to reconcile with a group that only wants one thing, when that thing is not acceptable to the other side of the divide.

I guess its also hard to reconcile when you alledgedly kill, jail, silence and harrass those you are trying to reconcile with.

Yes, it's hard to reconcile with a group with an armed militia that takes over the centre of a city and then burns down buildings when they don't get what they want.

[ginjag]

Note that when Abhisit was puppeteered into power he said that reconcilliation was his top priority.

x years on and NOTHING.

It's a bit hard to reconcile with a group that only wants one thing, when that thing is not acceptable to the other side of the divide.

I guess its also hard to reconcile when you alledgedly kill, jail, silence and harrass those you are trying to reconcile with.

And the 2 or 3 thousand that were exterminated in the so called drug cleanup-they were cleaned up before names could be forwarded??? Bungalow Samurai--why don't you look and take into account what did happen during the dark years of Thaksin, the truth--please compare it with Abhisits 2 years TRUTH please, my guess you will not want to know, I try to see what happened in reality, I've tried to look at it from your side of the fence --- your posts are coming over to forum without taking into account all the downsides of the past Red Blood record. I have looked at the downside to Abhisits record, it's far from flawless but your unmoving stance on this non corrupt wonderfut red shirt movement and its antics is amazing.

Edited June 12, 2011 by ginjag

[lannarebirth]

Note that when Abhisit was puppeteered into power he said that reconcilliation was his top priority.

x years on and NOTHING.

That's not true either. Thai people want justice and not double standards. They want to see both red and yellow perpatrators of violence and insurrection jailed. The Yellows are in the court system with court appearances next month. Some Reds are in the system some are still awaiting chrges from years ago. That's reconciliation, not amnesty for criminals.

[Ricardo]

Note that when Abhisit was puppeteered into power he said that reconcilliation was his top priority.

x years on and NOTHING.

As to puppets, former-PM Samak seemed happy to be seen as a 'nominee', "A vote for me is a vote for Thaksin". But he showed signs of being 'his own man', once actually elected, so was replaced with the brother-in-law. And now replaced with a 'clone'. So now suddenly it's an insult, to call PM-Abhisit a puppet, when it was fine for the past few years with PPP/PTP ?

And how can anyone, with the best of intentions, reconcile with a group commanded by a man who refuses to compromise, or accept that he ever did anything wrong ? Who claims to 'be fighting for justice' whilst actually running away from the courts ? Who claims to be 'fighting for democracy', whilst choosing who to have lead his political-movement next, and says also that democracy is not his aim after all ? Who claims to 'fight for the poor' but dodges paying taxes to spend on helping them ?

You can try, and when they organise a 'peaceful protest' in Bangkok you can (correctly) allow it to go-ahead, in the interests of democracy & freedom-of-expression & reconciliation. But what when the grenade-throwing continues and they start assassinating soldiers ? When they sharpen the bamboo-spears & roll burning-tyres towards you ? Or talk of burning Bangkok ? How do you reconcile with Red-Shirt leaders who agree a deal on an early-election, live on TV, then change their minds after a mysterious quick phone-call ? How can you say, about the PM who offered that deal, that he did "NOTHING" to try to achieve reconciliation ?

Bottom-line is that it takes two to reconcile, and one can't blame Abhisit, for Taksin's refusal to compromise or reconcile.

[samurai]

Was PM Abhisit legit in your book?

What means "reconciliation" in your universe?

After the PPP were disbanded for electoral fraud, a majority of MPs decided that their new incarnation was not worth supporting.

So a majority of the MPs decided to back Abhisit. Seeing that all MPs were elected by the people, that represents the majority of the people.

Is that what you're talking about when you bring up majority?

Do you think "Reconciliation" is promising to whitewash the crimes of the person that is the main reason for the current political divide?

One point, PPP wasn't the only party that was dissolved for electoral fraud.

Whatever, in this situation and that moment Abhisit was able to gain additional support from MPs who previously backed up the then ceased to exist PPP lead coalition government. That is true.

Ergo PM Abhisit legit, majority of MPs represent majority of the people, the mantra goes.

Now look at the Thaksin issue and the fear and scare mongering campaign that PT will "whitewash" and "bring back" Thaksin. Assuming, that PT were able to do "that", whereby "that" will be limited by what the law allows a government to do. But okay, assuming that PT will be able to make something true that is close to the worst fear of the Anti-Thaksin- league. PT will be only able to that when they are in the next government, alone or together with coalition partners, and only when that government has the support and back up by the majority of MP's.

The coming elections are not exactly a measuring instrument to get clear result on the public opinion in the Thaksin issue.

Those who are pro-Thaksin and want express this opinion with their vote will probably vote for PT. PT's affiliation with Thaksin is not a secret. Whereby a Pro-Thaksin opinion isn't the only reason why people might vote for PT or one reason all PT voters share.

Those who are clearly opposed Thaksin and see him as the root of all evil and want express this opinion with their vote have two choices: The Democrats (no to amnesty statement) or the Vote-No option (all politician are evil). Whereby the Anti-Thaksin opinion isn't the only reason why people might vote for Democrats or choose the No-Vote option.

Those who don't have any issues with Thaksin, those who are are neither Pro nor Anti Thaksin will have other reasons to make their choice. Dems, PT, BJT, CTP, RPT, ... P.F.J., J.F.P.(splitters) or whatever. If one of these parties is clearly pro or anti Thaksin, it will have no significant influence on the voters choice. If the don't vote for the party that has a clear Pro-Thaksin image we cannot conclude that they must be anti-Thaksin. If they don't vote for a party with a clear Anri-Thaksin stance we cannot conclude that they must be pro-Thaksin.

In a perfect world with well informed voters the reason will be the policies and political line a certain party stands for and how that party did in the last legislative session.

In a less perfect world (reality) these reasons or that what influenced a voters choice will vary, including next to a good knowledge of party policies also lot of bias, prejudice, 'educated' guesses, fallacies, "blinklike" judgments (Malcolm Gladwell), blind trust in election promises or maybe nonpolitical more or less irrelevant aspects like the physical appearance of a candidate's spouse as seen seen in a picture on a web board of a social network in the interwebs, posted by someone with an odd obsession.

[whybother]

<snip>

Now look at the Thaksin issue and the fear and scare mongering campaign that PT will "whitewash" and "bring back" Thaksin. Assuming, that PT were able to do "that", whereby "that" will be limited by what the law allows a government to do. But okay, assuming that PT will be able to make something true that is close to the worst fear of the Anti-Thaksin- league. PT will be only able to that when they are in the next government, alone or together with coalition partners, and only when that government has the support and back up by the majority of MP's.

The coming elections are not exactly a measuring instrument to get clear result on the public opinion in the Thaksin issue.

Those who are pro-Thaksin and want express this opinion with their vote will probably vote for PT. PT's affiliation with Thaksin is not a secret. Whereby a Pro-Thaksin opinion isn't the only reason why people might vote for PT or one reason all PT voters share.

Those who are clearly opposed Thaksin and see him as the root of all evil and want express this opinion with their vote have two choices: The Democrats (no to amnesty statement) or the Vote-No option (all politician are evil). Whereby the Anti-Thaksin opinion isn't the only reason why people might vote for Democrats or choose the No-Vote option.

Those who don't have any issues with Thaksin, those who are are neither Pro nor Anti Thaksin will have other reasons to make their choice. Dems, PT, BJT, CTP, RPT, ... P.F.J., J.F.P.(splitters) or whatever. If one of these parties is clearly pro or anti Thaksin, it will have no significant influence on the voters choice. If the don't vote for the party that has a clear Pro-Thaksin image we cannot conclude that they must be anti-Thaksin. If they don't vote for a party with a clear Anri-Thaksin stance we cannot conclude that they must be pro-Thaksin.

<snip>

I would think that those that are anti-Thaksin won't necessarily vote Democrats (or No). They have other options, such as BJT, CTP etc.

What I do see happening is that PTP will take it that whoever voted for them want Thaksin back, whether that was their reason to vote for PTP or not. And, also, if PTP get into government as part of a coalition, there will be a few red shirt / thaksin supporters that will say "See. The people want Thaksin back".

[TAWP]

Was PM Abhisit legit in your book?

Ofcourse he was legit, the majority of the MPs voted for him.

[TAWP]

My universe, being somewhat old-fashioned and a bit hoity-toity, thinks it is chic to follow the British English Language 'definition' /meaning of the term 'majority'.

So you agree that current government represents what the majority of MPs voted for, that in turn is elected to represent the will of the majority of voting people per constituency?

[jayboy]

Which is the expected line they would pull when touring the Red Areas, in a bid to get more votes...

Good point.I suppose that's also why Democrats canvassing in Isaan are pressing for Thaksin to receive an amnesty.

[Ricardo]

Which is the expected line they would pull when touring the Red Areas, in a bid to get more votes...

Good point.I suppose that's also why Democrats canvassing in Isaan are pressing for Thaksin to receive an amnesty.

I find that a little unexpected, do you have a source for it, please ? :jap:

[jayboy]

I find that a little unexpected, do you have a source for it, please ? :jap:

One seems to have entered an irony free zone.

[animatic]

This is just Silpha Archa sticking a fork in Abhisit for the Thieves comment about; 'Some people even say he is working with thieves in his colaitioon', on his Facebook site.

It was taken quite out of context, but seems to have hit a Silpa Archa nerver or two.

So they are just getting back at a perceived slight.

When the chips are down the insults will mean nothing and only the power glory and money will suffice.... Many a Thailand political weasel has swallowed his pride and face and gotten abord the gravy train with a HUGE smile.

[MrChangers]

It is a blanket amnesty, so the army that killed unarmed civillians, the government that ordered the killings or are complicit in the cover up etc will also be included in the amnesty, Abhsitis comment "He should come back and serve his sentence as any Thai would have to." will hopefully come back to haunt him and his cronies in the coming months as charges are rightly laid against them.

Thaksin is convicted by a legal court and his absence proves his guilt. Abhisit is a victim of your attempts to apologise for the red shirts - theres a difference. Please provide proof of the killings ordered by the Government, (you can ignore the 30 killed by the black shirts on thaksins orders). Please provide proof that the army killed unarmed citizens. Those of us on planet earth would LOVE to read it!!

(you can ignore the 30 killed by the black shirts on thaksins orders)

Please provide proof as I would love to read it.

[rubl]

Thaksin is convicted by a legal court and his absence proves his guilt. Abhisit is a victim of your attempts to apologise for the red shirts - theres a difference. Please provide proof of the killings ordered by the Government, (you can ignore the 30 killed by the black shirts on thaksins orders). Please provide proof that the army killed unarmed citizens. Those of us on planet earth would LOVE to read it!!

(you can ignore the 30 killed by the black shirts on thaksins orders)

Please provide proof as I would love to read it.

You're right, 30 is a real exaggeration. It's much more like less than a dozen (army, police, non-red-shirts), assuming this is about March - May 2010 only

Edited June 12, 2011 by rubl

[MrChangers]

"I don't believe their (Puea Thai's) plan is one for reconciliation," Abhisit told foreign correspondents in the capital.

A good starter for "reconciliation" is to accept and respect what the majority of people voted for in an election.

That's fine IF, and ONLY if you can believe that is the real aims of those the public is voting for.

If it is a sham, a con job, lipservice just gain power, then it is hard to accept that what their game changes to, is what the people actually voted for.

Since there are an amazing number of out right lies being told, which ones should you choose to hold them too?

Too bad we can't link to the Bangkok Post. Lots of good stuff published there lately regarding the election. They seem to have a higher Thai readership than the Nation and Thai person's letters in the Opinion section are iluiminating. Views we don't often get here.

I have to agree as there was a very good article about "Will Thailand burn?" The writer stated that Thaskin had been the best PM Thailand had ever had and the present PM could have been as good. I do find the Nation a little one sided.

[lannarebirth]

That's fine IF, and ONLY if you can believe that is the real aims of those the public is voting for.

If it is a sham, a con job, lipservice just gain power, then it is hard to accept that what their game changes to, is what the people actually voted for.

Since there are an amazing number of out right lies being told, which ones should you choose to hold them too?

Too bad we can't link to the Bangkok Post. Lots of good stuff published there lately regarding the election. They seem to have a higher Thai readership than the Nation and Thai person's letters in the Opinion section are iluiminating. Views we don't often get here.

I have to agree as there was a very good article about "Will Thailand burn?" The writer stated that Thaskin had been the best PM Thailand had ever had and the present PM could have been as good. I do find the Nation a little one sided.

You're talking about OpEd pieces while I was talking about Thai citizen's Letters To The Editor. Plus you didn't get your paraphrasing right, on purpose no doubt.

Thaksin Shinawatra was the most capable prime minister we have ever had. Abhisit Vejjajiva was/is potentially the most capable prime minister

Best and most capable are very different things. Bill Clinton was one of the most capable US presidents in half a century but he squandered those immense talents. You see the distinction?

[ianbaggie]

More than simply a sore loser, Abhisit is worried that he will be put behind bars for his alledged involvement in the deaths of 93 demonstrators. Not long now until Abhisit will be fugitive 2.0

Abhisit should serve his time for the murders last year only if the reds, the black shirt guards and the others firing grenades willy nilly serve theirs - the red shirt apologists on TV should just for once see the world and especially Thailand as it really is and forget the euphoria they felt on their day out to Rachaprasong when they had a day at the carnival!!! There is none so blind as the red shirt who will not see!!

[geriatrickid]

This is just Silpha Archa sticking a fork in Abhisit for the Thieves comment about; 'Some people even say he is working with thieves in his colaitioon', on his Facebook site.

It was taken quite out of context, but seems to have hit a Silpa Archa nerver or two.

So they are just getting back at a perceived slight.

When the chips are down the insults will mean nothing and only the power glory and money will suffice.... Many a Thailand political weasel has swallowed his pride and face and gotten abord the gravy train with a HUGE smile.

An apt description of PM Abhisit's "coalition" government.

[ianbaggie]

It is a blanket amnesty, so the army that killed unarmed civillians, the government that ordered the killings or are complicit in the cover up etc will also be included in the amnesty, Abhsitis comment "He should come back and serve his sentence as any Thai would have to." will hopefully come back to haunt him and his cronies in the coming months as charges are rightly laid against them.

Thaksin is convicted by a legal court and his absence proves his guilt. Abhisit is a victim of your attempts to apologise for the red shirts - theres a difference. Please provide proof of the killings ordered by the Government, (you can ignore the 30 killed by the black shirts on thaksins orders). Please provide proof that the army killed unarmed citizens. Those of us on planet earth would LOVE to read it!!

(you can ignore the 30 killed by the black shirts on thaksins orders)

Please provide proof as I would love to read it.

So in your book bullets can do U turns?? Was the army firing grenades from the red shirt camp in Sillom -? Try and refute that if you can - EVERYONE including red shirts knows the red shirts were responsible for some of the deaths in the protest. Girly cries of "prove it, prove it!!" are the tired sad last throws of an indefensible position, take some advice - STOP trying to defend indefensible positions!!! Or you might find someone asking for proof that the army killed ALL 93 including their own people!!! ridiculous come back!! Before you state that MY post contained a request for proof - please note that this was PAR of an argument not the SOLE argument

Edited June 12, 2011 by ianbaggie

[samurai]

The majority of people voted as the

66% of Thai voters who did NOT vote for PPP,

(under 35% voted FOR PPP)

and NO voters at all voted for PTP,

except in small by-elections,

only the MP's that were once PPP

were ever voted in to MP status.

A majority of Thai voters DID vote for the MPs

that DID vote in this current government.

Silly (non)-logic.

Just two points:

- A "not-vote" for PPP wasn't a pro-vote for an Abhisit government.

- The current coalition government includes parties nobody voted for in 2007.

A 65% did NOT VOTE FOR, means

that the mandate is in the 65% and not in the 35%.

How is that not clear,

that the MAJORITY did not actual back PPP?

Only a larger minority, and they did not get a mandate without help from other parties as PPP. But they lost it as an unelected PTP.

Excuse me, but how can the smaller parties have MPs in parliament

if 'nobody voted for (them) in 2007'

Of course they got voted for, as part of the 65%

that didn't vote for PPP.

And when those blocks swung to the Dems in a later vote, essentially a no confidence vote in PTP to form a government,

the 50%+mandate shifted to the Dems with smaller parties.

Your logic is rather flawed by bias it seems.

based on your statements and choice of words:

NO voters at all voted for PTP, and an unelected PTP.

... it would be valid to state the same for other parties in the parliament. Parties that are part of the coalition government. Chart Thai Phattana, Bhum Jai Thai, Matubhum Party and Social Action Party.

The first three didn't exist in 2007, but were founded in 2008. The Social Action Party is an older party but didn't won any seats in the 2007 nor in a by-election. Matubhum Party didn't won any seats in a by-election. Bhum Jai Thai won 3 seats in by-election and Chart Thai Phattana, i think, 11 seats. (correct me if i wrong and forget to count 1 or 2 additional by-elections)

The Cabinet of Thailand, the "government", the Council of Ministers, has 35 members. Unlike the PM, members of the cabinet don't have to be members of the parliament. But they are of course accountable to the National Assembly and need the backing of the ruling party or a coalition of parties, need the confidence of the majority of the members of the parliament. In the Abhisit cabinet 13 of these cabinet position are hold by members who belong to one of these 4 political parties in the Abhisit lead coalition government. Parties no voter at all voted for, except these max. 15 MPs in some by-elections.

Of course same as the MPs, that are now members of the unelected PTP, the MPs belonging to the other unelected parties were previously members of parties that did participate in the 2007 election. These parties were dissolved by the constitutional court for violations of the electoral law. PPP, Chart Thai and Mtachima Party. Coalition partners at the time of the dissolution.

All together 277 MPs were affected by the party dissolutions, that is more than 50% of the parliament. The party leader, the executives were banned from politics, if these banned from politics executives were also MPs, by-election were hold. That was the case for 29 MPs. Other MPs belonging to these dissolved parties could keep their seat and just had to join a different party. Most of them joined new founded parties.

Most of these MPs won in a constituency in the 2007 election, what means they were more or less directly elected as person, someone who is a member of that small community a constituency is. Locals and neighbors elected one of them to be send to the big city and represent them in the house of representatives.

Some of new parties MPs are in the parliament because they had a top position on the party list of one the dissolved parties. All the new parties PTP, Chart Thai Phattana, Bhum Jai Thai, Matubhum Party and Social Action Party have members who were elected on a party list of a different party.

Some former PPP party list MPs are now MPs of parties that are coalition partners of the democrats. Bhum Jai Thai, Matubhum Party and Social Action Party.

MPs are are at liberty to leave the party the run in an election for and to join a different party, even if its in the middle of a legislative session or if they become the king maker, tipping the scale against their former party. The can join anew oarty at any time and not only in case their old party cease to exist. It is all a matter of their own conscience and a question how they explain their move to the electorate.

If you call only PTP the unelected party, but not Chart Thai Phattana, Bhum Jai Thai, Matubhum Party and Social Action Party it seems that it is rather your "logic" that is flawed by bias here.

[ginjag]

More than simply a sore loser, Abhisit is worried that he will be put behind bars for his alledged involvement in the deaths of 93 demonstrators. Not long now until Abhisit will be fugitive 2.0

Abhisit should serve his time for the murders last year only if the reds, the black shirt guards and the others firing grenades willy nilly serve theirs - the red shirt apologists on TV should just for once see the world and especially Thailand as it really is and forget the euphoria they felt on their day out to Rachaprasong when they had a day at the carnival!!! There is none so blind as the red shirt who will not see!!

Bungalownights, more or less all of your posts are unwavering, relentless assault on Abhisit, and complete denial of wrongdoing by the red shirt leaders and followers. If by admitting many of the wrongs, but still lean to the Thaksin train I could understand, but with very few horses in Thailand I would like to know where you bought your blinkers??

[rubl]

More than simply a sore loser, Abhisit is worried that he will be put behind bars for his alledged involvement in the deaths of 93 demonstrators. Not long now until Abhisit will be fugitive 2.0

Abhisit should serve his time for the murders last year only if the reds, the black shirt guards and the others firing grenades willy nilly serve theirs - the red shirt apologists on TV should just for once see the world and especially Thailand as it really is and forget the euphoria they felt on their day out to Rachaprasong when they had a day at the carnival!!! There is none so blind as the red shirt who will not see!!

Bungalownights, more or less all of your posts are unwavering, relentless assault on Abhisit, and complete denial of wrongdoing by the red shirt leaders and followers. If by admitting many of the wrongs, but still lean to the Thaksin train I could understand, but with very few horses in Thailand I would like to know where you bought your blinkers??

Personally I'd say about half only, the other half is about a undeterred admiration of that bright, intelligent, good looking, Thaksin clone, the 43 year old Ms. Yingluck