Anti-Coup Moves Designed To Help Thaksin, Democrats Say

[tig28]

The electorate does not get to chose which parties join together to form a coalition, in the case of a majority not being won - as was the case in 01 and 07 - and that was the point being made. No different from the Dem government of 08.

No of course it does not. The electorate gets to choose which party gets a mandate to govern --- and if they wish to choose their minor coalition partners.

Carrot dangling is carrot dangling. Or should that be bribing is bribing. I don't see how the size of the bribe comes into. Yes TRT in 01 probably could afford to offer a smaller one due to the number of seats it won, but this is a matter of principle, and if you are against the Dems alleged bribing in 2008 to win power, then you must be against the alleged bribing by TRT in 01 and 07. You don't say, "well i'm not so against it when the bribe is smaller", do you? Surely not. That would be daft.

If you cannot differentiate between bribing elected MPs of a particular party to cross the floor to cause the downfall of an elected Government ........

And ...

A party with an electoral mandate negotiating with minor parties to join a coalition .... which may include some inducements for them to do so ....

then I think its best we agree to disagree.

[rixalex]

If you cannot differentiate between bribing elected MPs of a particular party to cross the floor to cause the downfall of an elected Government ........

And ...

A party with an electoral mandate negotiating with minor parties to join a coalition .... which may include some inducements for them to do so ....

then I think its best we agree to disagree.

The way you have chosen to word the above exposes your agenda clearly.

On the one side, you are happy to describe alleged bribing as bribing, but on the other, suddenly alleged bribing has become negotiating and inducements.

[whybother]

No of course it does not. The electorate gets to choose which party gets a mandate to govern --- and if they wish to choose their minor coalition partners.

You don't get a "mandate to govern" unless you get a majority of MPs. That didn't happen in 2001 and 2007, so it came down to horse trading.

[tig28]

No of course it does not. The electorate gets to choose which party gets a mandate to govern --- and if they wish to choose their minor coalition partners.

You don't get a "mandate to govern" unless you get a majority of MPs. That didn't happen in 2001 and 2007, so it came down to horse trading.

Sorry whybother I can't phrase it any differently ---- you are wrong!!

Any party who wins a (significant) majority of seats has automatically won a mandate.

(with small majorities there is always some debate about the validity of the mandate --- but with substantial majorities there is --as in 2001/7 --- no debate)

[whybother]

No of course it does not. The electorate gets to choose which party gets a mandate to govern --- and if they wish to choose their minor coalition partners.

You don't get a "mandate to govern" unless you get a majority of MPs. That didn't happen in 2001 and 2007, so it came down to horse trading.

Sorry whybother I can't phrase it any differently ---- you are wrong!!

Any party who wins a (significant) majority of seats has automatically won a mandate.

(with small majorities there is always some debate about the validity of the mandate --- but with substantial majorities there is --as in 2001/7 --- no debate)

BS. The only thing that gives a party a "mandate to govern" is a (plain and simple) majority ... ie more than 50% of the seats. Anything less than that means that the they HAVE to form a coalition to form a viable government. If they don't get more than 50% of the seats, it's possible for all the smaller parties to form a government - and they have every right to do that.

[rixalex]

BS. The only thing that gives a party a "mandate to govern" is a (plain and simple) majority ... ie more than 50% of the seats. Anything less than that means that the they HAVE to form a coalition to form a viable government.

Stress on the viable government bit, because as tig has mentioned, it has actually been known in some countries for parties to try and rule with the largest minority of seats, but very debatable as to whether going this route is ever really viable.

[tig28]

BS. The only thing that gives a party a "mandate to govern" is a (plain and simple) majority ... ie more than 50% of the seats. Anything less than that means that the they HAVE to form a coalition to form a viable government. If they don't get more than 50% of the seats, it's possible for all the smaller parties to form a government - and they have every right to do that.

Its amazing. BS.------- Profound and wrong.

If ---- and only if -- the election is a straight 2 horse race can what you have said ever be true . In the 2007 election there were 7 parties contesting the vote. It is obvious that when you have a non-proportional voting scheme (ie:first past the post) as in Thailand -- outright majorities are the exception --- not the rule.

As far a winning a mandate it seems that ex-PM Abhisit certainly does not agree with your view. I suggest you refer to his concession speech before the official results were declared. ( available from that other paper.)

[Groongthep]

If you believe that Thaksin was an innocent victim in the coup affair, and that it being staged had nothing to do with his own acts of increasing arrogance, greed and unlawfulness, then it is you my friend that is doing the ostrich.

You may have missed my point. Nowhere did I infer let alone say, that Thaksin was an innocent victim or that the staging of the coup had nothing to do with his behavior. What I was hoping to get across was that it was his systematic movement of power and public popularity away from the traditional elite (Read between the lines who I am talking about here.) and toward himself which caused so much fear and envy that the elites became so resentful they enlisted the assistance of their accomplices in the army to perpetrate the coup. In other words, the traditional old elite who had earlier hoped to embrace Thaksin as one of their own grew instead to fear and hate him for encroaching too much on their turf. Sort of like how one drug cartel might start a turf war against another who is moving in on their territory.

You used the words arrogance and greed when describing Thaksin and I believe you are almost certainly correct that those traits were exacerbating factors in the decision to stage the coup, but it was first and foremost his attempts to supplant his own power and popularity above the traditional power brokers which was the main impetus for his ouster and subsequent pillorying in the press and on forums like this. The well-orchestrated reaction by public bureaucrats with widely published photos of them and elite university students giving the coup soldiers flowers and food was clearly a public relations stunt intended to soften the appearance of the crime which had just been committed.

[Insight]

The well-orchestrated reaction by public bureaucrats with widely published photos of them and elite university students giving the coup soldiers flowers and food was clearly a public relations stunt intended to soften the appearance of the crime which had just been committed.

If you have any evidence of this then please bring it to the forum. I know a good number of regular, Bangkok working people who also let their gratitude known to the army; bugger all "orchestrated" about it. They were utterly fed up with Thaksin's money making schemes (at their tax-paying expense), and even more fed up with his inability to hold a straight election.

The coup, for them, was a genuine relief - hence the show of gratitude.

And yes, Thaksin had his nice little Asian get-together which served to be a great photo-op. But what about the lengths he went to to prevent another Asian get-together taking place in Pattaya in his absence...?

[rixalex]

If you believe that Thaksin was an innocent victim in the coup affair, and that it being staged had nothing to do with his own acts of increasing arrogance, greed and unlawfulness, then it is you my friend that is doing the ostrich.

You may have missed my point. Nowhere did I infer let alone say, that Thaksin was an innocent victim or that the staging of the coup had nothing to do with his behavior. What I was hoping to get across was that it was his systematic movement of power and public popularity away from the traditional elite (Read between the lines who I am talking about here.) and toward himself which caused so much fear and envy that the elites became so resentful they enlisted the assistance of their accomplices in the army to perpetrate the coup. In other words, the traditional old elite who had earlier hoped to embrace Thaksin as one of their own grew instead to fear and hate him for encroaching too much on their turf. Sort of like how one drug cartel might start a turf war against another who is moving in on their territory.

You used the words arrogance and greed when describing Thaksin and I believe you are almost certainly correct that those traits were exacerbating factors in the decision to stage the coup, but it was first and foremost his attempts to supplant his own power and popularity above the traditional power brokers which was the main impetus for his ouster and subsequent pillorying in the press and on forums like this. The well-orchestrated reaction by public bureaucrats with widely published photos of them and elite university students giving the coup soldiers flowers and food was clearly a public relations stunt intended to soften the appearance of the crime which had just been committed.

I think i did get your point, and it is the same point you reiterate here. That being that essentially, Thaksin was too popular for his own good, and it was this that brought about the coup. It's an interesting theory, but not one that comes very close to explaining the full story. For me anyway.

[Groongthep]

I think i did get your point, and it is the same point you reiterate here. That being that essentially, Thaksin was too popular for his own good, and it was this that brought about the coup. It's an interesting theory, but not one that comes very close to explaining the full story. For me anyway.

Well, OK. ..but this is an internet forum after all and as such calls for some brevity. I don't pretend to know everything about the subject of course, but I do know any attempt to explain the "full story" would take a lot more time in research than anyone but the most dedicated academic would care to exert and would also take up far more space than is available here on ThaiVisa. I have read most of the books written by Pasuk and Baker, Duncan McCargo and the banned one by Paul Handley among others all of whom are respected in the fields of Thai politics and history. I also read as much as practicable on the Thai related subjects in The Economist, the Asian Wall Street Journal and other such periodicals as well as the local press but even with all the combined opinions and information in those and other publications I don't think anyone is ever going to get everything straight. I tell you what rixalex...if you write a book I'll read it. You could probably finish it in less time than you spend reading and responding on ThaiVisa in two months.

[rixalex]

I think i did get your point, and it is the same point you reiterate here. That being that essentially, Thaksin was too popular for his own good, and it was this that brought about the coup. It's an interesting theory, but not one that comes very close to explaining the full story. For me anyway.

Well, OK. ..but this is an internet forum after all and as such calls for some brevity. I don't pretend to know everything about the subject of course, but I do know any attempt to explain the "full story" would take a lot more time in research than anyone but the most dedicated academic would care to exert and would also take up far more space than is available here on ThaiVisa. I have read most of the books written by Pasuk and Baker, Duncan McCargo and the banned one by Paul Handley among others all of whom are respected in the fields of Thai politics and history. I also read as much as practicable on the Thai related subjects in The Economist, the Asian Wall Street Journal and other such periodicals as well as the local press but even with all the combined opinions and information in those and other publications I don't think anyone is ever going to get everything straight. I tell you what rixalex...if you write a book I'll read it. You could probably finish it in less time than you spend reading and responding on ThaiVisa in two months.

I don't think the problem i had with your conclusions had much to do with length.

Whether or not it was your intention to infer that Thaksin was some sort of a victim with regards the coup, that is the impression i think most would take from your main thrust - that being: Thaksin's popularity was his main downfall. What next? His dashing good looks have been an absolute curse to him, perhaps? Or, his high intellect has made fitting in with others lesser minds a struggle? I jest of course.

With regards your last sentence, i assume it be a snide remark of some sort, but don't want to rush to conclusions. Perhaps it's another case of what you intend to say and what you infer, seemingly quite some way apart. Perhaps you could be as good to clarify?

[whybother]

BS. The only thing that gives a party a "mandate to govern" is a (plain and simple) majority ... ie more than 50% of the seats. Anything less than that means that the they HAVE to form a coalition to form a viable government. If they don't get more than 50% of the seats, it's possible for all the smaller parties to form a government - and they have every right to do that.

Its amazing. BS.------- Profound and wrong.

If ---- and only if -- the election is a straight 2 horse race can what you have said ever be true . In the 2007 election there were 7 parties contesting the vote. It is obvious that when you have a non-proportional voting scheme (ie:first past the post) as in Thailand -- outright majorities are the exception --- not the rule.

As far a winning a mandate it seems that ex-PM Abhisit certainly does not agree with your view. I suggest you refer to his concession speech before the official results were declared. ( available from that other paper.)

Well, that's where you are clearly wrong.

Thailand has a first past the post system for electing MPs. NOT for forming government.

To form government there needs to be a majority (ie greater than 50% - that's what majority means) of MPs. A number of smaller parties CAN form government IF they can get a majority.

[lannarebirth]

BS. The only thing that gives a party a "mandate to govern" is a (plain and simple) majority ... ie more than 50% of the seats. Anything less than that means that the they HAVE to form a coalition to form a viable government. If they don't get more than 50% of the seats, it's possible for all the smaller parties to form a government - and they have every right to do that.

Its amazing. BS.------- Profound and wrong.

If ---- and only if -- the election is a straight 2 horse race can what you have said ever be true . In the 2007 election there were 7 parties contesting the vote. It is obvious that when you have a non-proportional voting scheme (ie:first past the post) as in Thailand -- outright majorities are the exception --- not the rule.

As far a winning a mandate it seems that ex-PM Abhisit certainly does not agree with your view. I suggest you refer to his concession speech before the official results were declared. ( available from that other paper.)

It is you that it is wrong. A mandate comes from a straight up majority. By your definition a party receiving a mandate could end up being the minority party if it fails to form a coalition. Now that doesn't make any sense does it?

[tig28]

Thailand has a first past the post system for electing MPs. NOT for forming government.

To form government there needs to be a majority (ie greater than 50% - that's what majority means) of MPs. A number of smaller parties CAN form government IF they can get a majority.

It is becoming tiresome ---- discussing political process with an individual who has not got the vaguest idea. Imagine someone who thinks that the only political party to ever gain an electoral mandate in Thailand ---- was Thaksin and the TRT.

"To form government there needs to be a majority (ie greater than 50% - that's what majority means) of MPs.

Wrong again.There is absolutely no requirement for a political party to gain 50%+ MPs to form Government. You are obviously totally unaware of Minority Governments..... (Canada alone had nine Minority Governments from 1920 -- 2000)

"A number of smaller parties CAN form government IF they can get a majority.."

By Jove .. I think he's getting it! (finally)

"Thailand has a first past the post system for electing MPs. NOT for forming government."

OMG. Of course -- of course --- elections are not intended to elect a Government --- just MPs.

[tig28]

It is you that it is wrong. A mandate comes from a straight up majority. By your definition a party receiving a mandate could end up being the minority party if it fails to form a coalition. Now that doesn't make any sense does it?

lannarebirth

Reading is your friend --- even Google:

"In politics, a mandate is the authority granted by a constituency to act as its representative."

It states "In politics" --- as the term "mandate" has many other non political applications.

All democratically elected Governments (majority or not) are said to have received a mandate from the electorate for policies they promulgated during the election.The strength of that mandate is according to their winning margin.

[whybother]

"Thailand has a first past the post system for electing MPs. NOT for forming government."

OMG. Of course -- of course --- elections are not intended to elect a Government --- just MPs.

In a parliamentary system, that is exactly what happens. The people elect MPs. Then the MPs elect a PM. Then the PM forms a government.

You said above

Any party who wins a (significant) majority of seats has automatically won a mandate.

If a number of smaller parties can form government, then, obviously, the largest party (ie the party that wins a "significant majority") doesn't automatically "win a mandate".

The largest party doesn't get the right to form government unless they get more than 50% of the MPs. The largest party has the best chance of forming government, but not a "right".

[Siam Simon]

"Thailand has a first past the post system for electing MPs. NOT for forming government."

OMG. Of course -- of course --- elections are not intended to elect a Government --- just MPs.

In a parliamentary system, that is exactly what happens. The people elect MPs. Then the MPs elect a PM. Then the PM forms a government.

You said above

Any party who wins a (significant) majority of seats has automatically won a mandate.

If a number of smaller parties can form government, then, obviously, the largest party (ie the party that wins a "significant majority") doesn't automatically "win a mandate".

The largest party doesn't get the right to form government unless they get more than 50% of the MPs. The largest party has the best chance of forming government, but not a "right".

You can argue the technicalities until the cows come home (and, no doubt, you will). But the last government was formed by arm-twisting by the military, not by parliamentary process.

[whybother]

You can argue the technicalities until the cows come home (and, no doubt, you will). But the last government was formed by arm-twisting by the military, not by parliamentary process.

You can bring that up as often as you like (and, no doubt, you will). But that wasn't what was being discussed.

[rixalex]

You can argue the technicalities until the cows come home (and, no doubt, you will). But the last government was formed by arm-twisting by the military, not by parliamentary process.

Once you get into the business of the horse trading involved in putting together a coalition government, it's all behind doors, smoke filled rooms, non-elected persons, arm twisting, bribing, inducement offering, sweeteners served. All highly dubious and ethically questionable, but all pretty much stays behind closed doors and parliamentary process has little to do with it. Parliamentary process simply cares about what everyone has agreed to once they come out from behind those doors.

You seem to find the whole process much more disagreeable because the military were involved. For me, i don't see too much difference whether it is the military or some other unelected body interfering. I don't like it but it seems accepted practice.