Abhisit: Referendum Needed Before Constitution Amendment

[waza]

Before new elections could be held, in September 2006 a group of top military officers overthrew the caretaker Thaksin administration in a non-violent coup d’etat, repealed the 1997 constitution, and dissolved both houses of parliament. The coup leaders promulgated an interim constitution and appointed Surayud Chulanont as interim Prime Minister. In a national referendum in August 2007, a majority of Thai voters approved a new constitution drafted by an assembly appointed by the coup leaders. The interim government held multi-party elections under provisions of the new constitution in December 2007, and the pro-Thaksin People's Power Party (PPP) won a plurality of 233 of the 480 seats in the lower house of parliament.........................Efforts by the two PPP leaders to amend the 2007 constitution and provide amnesty to banned politicians, including ex-Prime Minister Thaksin, led to a renewal of street protests in mid-2008, some of which resulted in violence between security forces and protesters and between pro- and anti-government demonstrators. http://www.state.gov...ei/bgn/2814.htm

As clearly stated above following the coup in 2007 elections were held which the PPP won..........the Constitutional Court when it dissolved the PPP and two other coalition parties on December 2, 2008 for election law violations in the December 2007 elections. A split among ex-PPP members of parliament paved the way for parliament’s election of Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva as Prime Minister on December 15, 2008. I see that all political parties were elected, the only appiontment was the government of Surayud Chulanont....http://www.state.gov...ei/bgn/2814.htm

Edited December 27, 2011 by waza

[Siam Simon]

Before new elections could be held, in September 2006 a group of top military officers overthrew the caretaker Thaksin administration in a non-violent coup d’etat, repealed the 1997 constitution, and dissolved both houses of parliament. The coup leaders promulgated an interim constitution and appointed Surayud Chulanont as interim Prime Minister. In a national referendum in August 2007, a majority of Thai voters approved a new constitution drafted by an assembly appointed by the coup leaders. The interim government held multi-party elections under provisions of the new constitution in December 2007, and the pro-Thaksin People's Power Party (PPP) won a plurality of 233 of the 480 seats in the lower house of parliament.........................Efforts by the two PPP leaders to amend the 2007 constitution and provide amnesty to banned politicians, including ex-Prime Minister Thaksin, led to a renewal of street protests in mid-2008, some of which resulted in violence between security forces and protesters and between pro- and anti-government demonstrators. http://www.state.gov...ei/bgn/2814.htm

As clearly stated above following the coup in 2007 elections were held which the PPP won.

But what does that have to do with how the 2008 Dem-led Govt came into being?

Edited December 27, 2011 by Siam Simon

[Siam Simon]

Before new elections could be held, in September 2006 a group of top military officers overthrew the caretaker Thaksin administration in a non-violent coup d’etat, repealed the 1997 constitution, and dissolved both houses of parliament. The coup leaders promulgated an interim constitution and appointed Surayud Chulanont as interim Prime Minister. In a national referendum in August 2007, a majority of Thai voters approved a new constitution drafted by an assembly appointed by the coup leaders. The interim government held multi-party elections under provisions of the new constitution in December 2007, and the pro-Thaksin People's Power Party (PPP) won a plurality of 233 of the 480 seats in the lower house of parliament.........................Efforts by the two PPP leaders to amend the 2007 constitution and provide amnesty to banned politicians, including ex-Prime Minister Thaksin, led to a renewal of street protests in mid-2008, some of which resulted in violence between security forces and protesters and between pro- and anti-government demonstrators. http://www.state.gov...ei/bgn/2814.htm

As clearly stated above following the coup in 2007 elections were held which the PPP won.

But what does that have to do with how the 2008 Dem-led Govt came into being?

You've edited your post since I replied to it (cheeky boy). What you've edited in is partially factually correct, but you've left out the fact that the the military forced certain politicians to change sides to enable the Dems to form a majority coalition. This was confirmed almost immediately after by one of the politicians who was forced to change sides. Take your fingers out of your ears and become informed about the full picture of what actually happened, rather than keeping on spouting the fake, sanitised one which breaks the forum rule that you quoted in one of your edits.

[ralphlsasser]

Abhisit sure tries to be a player in the big boys club, but he hasn't got it. I guess that's what happens when one is appointed to a job they aren't qualified for. It's obvious he didn't, couldn't, or wouldn't do what the people wanted so they spoke.

[Siam Simon]

Abhisit sure tries to be a player in the big boys club, but he hasn't got it. I guess that's what happens when one is appointed to a job they aren't qualified for. It's obvious he didn't, couldn't, or wouldn't do what the people wanted so they spoke.

"couldn't" seems to be the correct analysis. He could've been a very good PM in a different set of circumstances imo.

[VoterPower]

Before new elections could be held, in September 2006 a group of top military officers overthrew the caretaker Thaksin administration in a non-violent coup d’etat, repealed the 1997 constitution, and dissolved both houses of parliament. The coup leaders promulgated an interim constitution and appointed Surayud Chulanont as interim Prime Minister. In a national referendum in August 2007, a majority of Thai voters approved a new constitution drafted by an assembly appointed by the coup leaders. The interim government held multi-party elections under provisions of the new constitution in December 2007, and the pro-Thaksin People's Power Party (PPP) won a plurality of 233 of the 480 seats in the lower house of parliament.........................Efforts by the two PPP leaders to amend the 2007 constitution and provide amnesty to banned politicians, including ex-Prime Minister Thaksin, led to a renewal of street protests in mid-2008, some of which resulted in violence between security forces and protesters and between pro- and anti-government demonstrators. http://www.state.gov...ei/bgn/2814.htm

As clearly stated above following the coup in 2007 elections were held which the PPP won..........the Constitutional Court when it dissolved the PPP and two other coalition parties on December 2, 2008 for election law violations in the December 2007 elections. A split among ex-PPP members of parliament paved the way for parliament’s election of Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva as Prime Minister on December 15, 2008. I see that all political parties were elected, the only appiontment was the government of Surayud Chulanont....http://www.state.gov...ei/bgn/2814.htm

Ok Waza, you swallowed it, thats obvious, did you read it in the Nation?

The important thing is that the voters didn't swallow it, they knew exactly the situation, as you can see from their landslide return of the legitimate thai PTP governing party.

Obviously not read that in the Nation then,

[chainarong]

Thats democrocy language, pity the country isn't run like one, then again while you have the upper crust running the country and the have nots out in the cold anything can and will happen.

[Skywalker69]

Do they care..........Yes, about one man and how much moneys they can make for themselves..!

+1

[TAWP]

If a disgruntled coalition-partner says there was outside forces that wanted the coalition to be re-shaped, then it is 'against spirit of democracy'. If a party buys up other parties, pays parties to run so they are not unopposed or bribes voters and local power-brokers, than it is 'a-ok'.

Ok, noted.

Now, what if the external force pushing for a coalition exists, but it isn't military-sourced...is this ok or not ok?

[scorecard]

Before new elections could be held, in September 2006 a group of top military officers overthrew the caretaker Thaksin administration in a non-violent coup d’etat, repealed the 1997 constitution, and dissolved both houses of parliament. The coup leaders promulgated an interim constitution and appointed Surayud Chulanont as interim Prime Minister. In a national referendum in August 2007, a majority of Thai voters approved a new constitution drafted by an assembly appointed by the coup leaders. The interim government held multi-party elections under provisions of the new constitution in December 2007, and the pro-Thaksin People's Power Party (PPP) won a plurality of 233 of the 480 seats in the lower house of parliament.........................Efforts by the two PPP leaders to amend the 2007 constitution and provide amnesty to banned politicians, including ex-Prime Minister Thaksin, led to a renewal of street protests in mid-2008, some of which resulted in violence between security forces and protesters and between pro- and anti-government demonstrators. http://www.state.gov...ei/bgn/2814.htm

As clearly stated above following the coup in 2007 elections were held which the PPP won.

But what does that have to do with how the 2008 Dem-led Govt came into being?

You've edited your post since I replied to it (cheeky boy). What you've edited in is partially factually correct, but you've left out the fact that the the military forced certain politicians to change sides to enable the Dems to form a majority coalition. This was confirmed almost immediately after by one of the politicians who was forced to change sides. Take your fingers out of your ears and become informed about the full picture of what actually happened, rather than keeping on spouting the fake, sanitised one which breaks the forum rule that you quoted in one of your edits.

.... fact that he military forced......

Please share some details on that.

[waza]

Before new elections could be held, in September 2006 a group of top military officers overthrew the caretaker Thaksin administration in a non-violent coup d’etat, repealed the 1997 constitution, and dissolved both houses of parliament. The coup leaders promulgated an interim constitution and appointed Surayud Chulanont as interim Prime Minister. In a national referendum in August 2007, a majority of Thai voters approved a new constitution drafted by an assembly appointed by the coup leaders. The interim government held multi-party elections under provisions of the new constitution in December 2007, and the pro-Thaksin People's Power Party (PPP) won a plurality of 233 of the 480 seats in the lower house of parliament.........................Efforts by the two PPP leaders to amend the 2007 constitution and provide amnesty to banned politicians, including ex-Prime Minister Thaksin, led to a renewal of street protests in mid-2008, some of which resulted in violence between security forces and protesters and between pro- and anti-government demonstrators. http://www.state.gov...ei/bgn/2814.htm

As clearly stated above following the coup in 2007 elections were held which the PPP won..........the Constitutional Court when it dissolved the PPP and two other coalition parties on December 2, 2008 for election law violations in the December 2007 elections. A split among ex-PPP members of parliament paved the way for parliament’s election of Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva as Prime Minister on December 15, 2008. I see that all political parties were elected, the only appiontment was the government of Surayud Chulanont....http://www.state.gov...ei/bgn/2814.htm

Ok Waza, you swallowed it, thats obvious, did you read it in the Nation?

The important thing is that the voters didn't swallow it, they knew exactly the situation, as you can see from their landslide return of the legitimate thai PTP governing party.

Obviously not read that in the Nation then,

If you look carefully all my opinions are based on facts and backed up with quality links, you just rely on your faulty memory, provide no links and expect us to believe your verbatim. Its the usual tripe from a Thaskin apologist. The only thing the voters swallowed was the outlandish promises of the Thaskin party, who sold them a situation which will never happen.

PS: Since the change of the TVF format I have had difficulty posting a long opinion as when someone else posts the page refreshes and I loose my post. Now I post in increments.

PSS: If I am posting faulsehoods then prove it, like I will do with you and Siam.

Edited December 28, 2011 by waza

[Siam Simon]

Before new elections could be held, in September 2006 a group of top military officers overthrew the caretaker Thaksin administration in a non-violent coup d’etat, repealed the 1997 constitution, and dissolved both houses of parliament. The coup leaders promulgated an interim constitution and appointed Surayud Chulanont as interim Prime Minister. In a national referendum in August 2007, a majority of Thai voters approved a new constitution drafted by an assembly appointed by the coup leaders. The interim government held multi-party elections under provisions of the new constitution in December 2007, and the pro-Thaksin People's Power Party (PPP) won a plurality of 233 of the 480 seats in the lower house of parliament.........................Efforts by the two PPP leaders to amend the 2007 constitution and provide amnesty to banned politicians, including ex-Prime Minister Thaksin, led to a renewal of street protests in mid-2008, some of which resulted in violence between security forces and protesters and between pro- and anti-government demonstrators. http://www.state.gov...ei/bgn/2814.htm

As clearly stated above following the coup in 2007 elections were held which the PPP won..........the Constitutional Court when it dissolved the PPP and two other coalition parties on December 2, 2008 for election law violations in the December 2007 elections. A split among ex-PPP members of parliament paved the way for parliament’s election of Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva as Prime Minister on December 15, 2008. I see that all political parties were elected, the only appiontment was the government of Surayud Chulanont....http://www.state.gov...ei/bgn/2814.htm

Ok Waza, you swallowed it, thats obvious, did you read it in the Nation?

The important thing is that the voters didn't swallow it, they knew exactly the situation, as you can see from their landslide return of the legitimate thai PTP governing party.

Obviously not read that in the Nation then,

If you look carefully all my opinions are based on facts and backed up with quality links, you just rely on your faulty memory, provide no links and expect us to believe your verbatim. Its the usual tripe from a Thaskin apologist. The only thing the voters swallowed was the outlandish promises of the Thaskin party, who sold them a situation which will never happen.

PS: Since the change of the TVF format I have had difficulty posting a long opinion as when someone else posts the page refreshes and I loose my post. Now I post in increments.

PSS: If I am posting faulsehoods then prove it, like I will do with you and Siam.

All you keep proving is that you are being very selective about which particular facts of an occurrence you post. Which is just another form of dishonesty.

[phiphidon]

Before new elections could be held, in September 2006 a group of top military officers overthrew the caretaker Thaksin administration in a non-violent coup d’etat, repealed the 1997 constitution, and dissolved both houses of parliament. The coup leaders promulgated an interim constitution and appointed Surayud Chulanont as interim Prime Minister. In a national referendum in August 2007, a majority of Thai voters approved a new constitution drafted by an assembly appointed by the coup leaders. The interim government held multi-party elections under provisions of the new constitution in December 2007, and the pro-Thaksin People's Power Party (PPP) won a plurality of 233 of the 480 seats in the lower house of parliament.........................Efforts by the two PPP leaders to amend the 2007 constitution and provide amnesty to banned politicians, including ex-Prime Minister Thaksin, led to a renewal of street protests in mid-2008, some of which resulted in violence between security forces and protesters and between pro- and anti-government demonstrators. http://www.state.gov...ei/bgn/2814.htm

As clearly stated above following the coup in 2007 elections were held which the PPP won..........the Constitutional Court when it dissolved the PPP and two other coalition parties on December 2, 2008 for election law violations in the December 2007 elections. A split among ex-PPP members of parliament paved the way for parliament’s election of Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva as Prime Minister on December 15, 2008. I see that all political parties were elected, the only appiontment was the government of Surayud Chulanont....http://www.state.gov...ei/bgn/2814.htm

From the Horses mouth, so to speak, or rather "From the bottom of my Heart to All Thais" an outpouring of feelings from Khun Abhisit on his "Facebook" page

I had no idea who was in talks with the military, but I never personally contacted any military officer.

[rixalex]

If a disgruntled coalition-partner says there was outside forces that wanted the coalition to be re-shaped, then it is 'against spirit of democracy'. If a party buys up other parties, pays parties to run so they are not unopposed or bribes voters and local power-brokers, than it is 'a-ok'.

Ok, noted.

Now, what if the external force pushing for a coalition exists, but it isn't military-sourced...is this ok or not ok?

The horse-trading that goes on here in Thailand, and for that matter, in most countries, when coalition governments are formed, is almost always ugly, almost always full of secret back room deals, almost always full of i'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine, almost always full of power and money exchanges, and almost always full of some sort of interference from unelected parties ...it hardly seems democratic at all, but this is the way things happen. We either accept them all as having been a necessary evil, or we denounce them all and set about changing the system.

[animatic]

If a disgruntled coalition-partner says there was outside forces that wanted the coalition to be re-shaped, then it is 'against spirit of democracy'. If a party buys up other parties, pays parties to run so they are not unopposed or bribes voters and local power-brokers, than it is 'a-ok'.

Ok, noted.

Now, what if the external force pushing for a coalition exists, but it isn't military-sourced...is this ok or not ok?

A disgraced leader on the run from justice,

buying partners, unleashing a rogue force in the land,

and controlling a party from abroad.

or

The nations security forces letting it's opinion be known on forming

a 'legally correct coalition, voted in by MPs, legally voted in by the people'.

Oh yes, the hypocrisy of the supporters of this current sham government is massive and shameless in comparison. The spirit of'Parliamentary Democracy' is negotiation between MP's to chose leaders who form cabinets. And then run the country based on laws and principles. Not for the benefit of the paying leader abroad.

Edited December 30, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

If a disgruntled coalition-partner says there was outside forces that wanted the coalition to be re-shaped, then it is 'against spirit of democracy'. If a party buys up other parties, pays parties to run so they are not unopposed or bribes voters and local power-brokers, than it is 'a-ok'.

Ok, noted.

Now, what if the external force pushing for a coalition exists, but it isn't military-sourced...is this ok or not ok?

The horse-trading that goes on here in Thailand, and for that matter, in most countries, when coalition governments are formed, is almost always ugly, almost always full of secret back room deals, almost always full of i'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine, almost always full of power and money exchanges, and almost always full of some sort of interference from unelected parties ...it hardly seems democratic at all, but this is the way things happen. We either accept them all as having been a necessary evil, or we denounce them all and set about changing the system.

Well there is the reality of the situation.

Some countries make an concerted effort to

limit the less democratic forces

and

some countries don't even give anything

past lip serive to doing that...

Guess which category Thailand falls into?

If they thought they could divid the horse in fourths

and still make it pull the wagon they would.

But a big boss would always want to own the wagon.

Edited December 30, 2011 by animatic

[Orac]

If a disgruntled coalition-partner says there was outside forces that wanted the coalition to be re-shaped, then it is 'against spirit of democracy'. If a party buys up other parties, pays parties to run so they are not unopposed or bribes voters and local power-brokers, than it is 'a-ok'.

Ok, noted.

Now, what if the external force pushing for a coalition exists, but it isn't military-sourced...is this ok or not ok?

The horse-trading that goes on here in Thailand, and for that matter, in most countries, when coalition governments are formed, is almost always ugly, almost always full of secret back room deals, almost always full of i'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine, almost always full of power and money exchanges, and almost always full of some sort of interference from unelected parties ...it hardly seems democratic at all, but this is the way things happen. We either accept them all as having been a necessary evil, or we denounce them all and set about changing the system.

Well there is the reality of the situation.

Some countries make an concerted effort to

limit the less democratic forces

and

some countries don't even give anything

past lip serive to doing that...

Guess which category Thailand falls into?

If they thought they could divid the horse in fourths

and still make it pull the wagon they would.

But a big boss would always want to own the wagon.

The problem with this is that Thailand are in the same category as everyone else as the utopian dream of real democracy is rapidly becoming a busted flush. In fact I would put Thailand somewhere near the top of the list if you take the simplistic view of democracy as 'the will of the people'.

To expand on this, where in the world would you look for a good model of democracy that Thailand could look up to - the only one I can think of at the moment could be Australia.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Orac

[tlansford]

Abhisit suggested that the Pheu Thai Party should first get a general consensus about the matter to avoid any rifts within the party.

So it is now the job of the opposition leader to tell the majority party how to manage itself.

good one...

[lannarebirth]

If a disgruntled coalition-partner says there was outside forces that wanted the coalition to be re-shaped, then it is 'against spirit of democracy'. If a party buys up other parties, pays parties to run so they are not unopposed or bribes voters and local power-brokers, than it is 'a-ok'.

Ok, noted.

Now, what if the external force pushing for a coalition exists, but it isn't military-sourced...is this ok or not ok?

Or what if they said it only to cover their asses with their constituency who didn't expect that they would form a coalition with the Dems when they voted for them. It's well known these small parties will form a government with ANYONE.

[tlansford]

... Anyone with even half a brain knows how the last Dem-led government was formed. ...

extremely accurate statement.

[rixalex]

Abhisit suggested that the Pheu Thai Party should first get a general consensus about the matter to avoid any rifts within the party.

So it is now the job of the opposition leader to tell the majority party how to manage itself.

good one...

I'd say that it is not the job, but more like the right of all Thai citizens, to suggest how the ruling party manages itself. It is after all, only a suggestion, and whether it listens, is entirely its prerogative.

[waza]

Abhisit suggested that the Pheu Thai Party should first get a general consensus about the matter to avoid any rifts within the party.

So it is now the job of the opposition leader to tell the majority party how to manage itself.

good one...

No apparantly thats the job of a convicted criminal whos on the run from justice

[soylentgreen]

If a disgruntled coalition-partner says there was outside forces that wanted the coalition to be re-shaped, then it is 'against spirit of democracy'. If a party buys up other parties, pays parties to run so they are not unopposed or bribes voters and local power-brokers, than it is 'a-ok'.

Ok, noted.

Now, what if the external force pushing for a coalition exists, but it isn't military-sourced...is this ok or not ok?

The horse-trading that goes on here in Thailand, and for that matter, in most countries, when coalition governments are formed, is almost always ugly, almost always full of secret back room deals, almost always full of i'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine, almost always full of power and money exchanges, and almost always full of some sort of interference from unelected parties ...it hardly seems democratic at all, but this is the way things happen. We either accept them all as having been a necessary evil, or we denounce them all and set about changing the system.

Your last point was interesting. So, how would you propose to change the system without eliminating politicians and the military?

[OzMick]

... Anyone with even half a brain knows how the last Dem-led government was formed. ...

extremely accurate statement.

So that would be one complete between the two of you?

[Siam Simon]

If a disgruntled coalition-partner says there was outside forces that wanted the coalition to be re-shaped, then it is 'against spirit of democracy'. If a party buys up other parties, pays parties to run so they are not unopposed or bribes voters and local power-brokers, than it is 'a-ok'.

Ok, noted.

Now, what if the external force pushing for a coalition exists, but it isn't military-sourced...is this ok or not ok?

The horse-trading that goes on here in Thailand, and for that matter, in most countries, when coalition governments are formed, is almost always ugly, almost always full of secret back room deals, almost always full of i'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine, almost always full of power and money exchanges, and almost always full of some sort of interference from unelected parties ...it hardly seems democratic at all, but this is the way things happen. We either accept them all as having been a necessary evil, or we denounce them all and set about changing the system.

Your last point was interesting. So, how would you propose to change the system without eliminating politicians and the military?

Apologists spring up everywhere and for all sorts of reasons, especially in an expat situation.

[sparebox2]

Abhisit suggested that the Pheu Thai Party should first get a general consensus about the matter to avoid any rifts within the party.

So it is now the job of the opposition leader to tell the majority party how to manage itself.

good one...

I'd say that it is not the job, but more like the right of all Thai citizens, to suggest how the ruling party manages itself. It is after all, only a suggestion, and whether it listens, is entirely its prerogative.

There was NO referendum is the very last Constitution Amendment. And who did it? Abhisit.

[tlansford]

... Anyone with even half a brain knows how the last Dem-led government was formed. ...

extremely accurate statement.

So that would be one complete between the two of you?

I see that you're out fro a nice 'troll this morning.

[PeaceBlondie]

48% PT -

[whybother]

48% PT -

Irrelevant.