Abhisit And Most People Voice Opposition To Coup: Thailand

[JAG]

Yes, 15 words to sum up the last ten years.

[tlansford]

In Syria they have elections and the boss buys his seat every time.

Same as Thailand, but in this case the boss hasn't taken enough

control of the army to use them violently against enemies, he has to use

old school Communist 'brainwashed grassroots army of the poor' tactics.

It is most telling about who The Boss takes as friends and where he lives.

They and it, are NOT, and never have been, existing or coming from 'glowing democracies'.

Thai elections, flawed as they may be, and what passes for an election in Syria are poles apart.

In Syria they machine gun those who speak out against the government. Unless I havn't been paying attention that hasn't happened here for a while. I think you exaggerate somewhat.

Syria elections vs Thai elections - it is a hard comparison to make credible.

The communist brainwashing army of poor people, ... well, sheesh ...

As for the last time Thailand shot people speaking out against the gov't, I'll just let that one be...

It is amazing that the PAD is calling for a coup again. Interesting that the 13-15% swings from not wanting a coup under the last government to wanting a coup under this government. Indicates to me not only a possible core group who believe that the "military is part of the democratic process" (AKA, ultimate check & balance), but also where their sympathies are. Can't win the election, so it is time to bring in the big guns. Literally.

People here complain about "red democracy", but until this core group accept a democratic process for government change en lieu of a military process for government change, Thai democracy is going to have a rough road.

[Thai at Heart]

Funny thing is, since when does the army need anyone's approval to hold a coup anyway? It isn't as though an ABAC poll is in some way meaningful in terms of analysis.

Better to ask the army if they are in favour of a coup

[webfact]

Deputy PM Confident Charter Rewrite Not to Spark Coup

A deputy PM has expressed confidence that the charter rewrite will not lead to a military coup.

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobumrung insisted that members of a new Constitution drafting assembly must be elected to prevent pressures from various groups.

Chalerm expressed confidence that the charter rewrite will be carried out and the changes will not lead to a military coup as the attempt aims at improving the Constitution.

Asked about the proposal from a group of academics dubbed, 'Nitirat', which suggested an establishment of a 25-member drafting committee to rewrite the Constitution instead of setting up a drafting assembly, the deputy PM said the group has the rights to express its view on the matter.

Chalerm also affirmed that the group's proposal has no relations to either the government or the Pheu Thai Party.

-- Tan Network 2012-01-23

[KRS1]

Thailand, unfortunately like most democratic countries, as a vocal minority of 10 to 20% right wing nutters.

But unlike other countries, the democrats had no problem to associate with them when they thought it was their interest.

Now that the wind has changed Abhisit try to act like he will never support such an undemocratic action like a military coup.

Abhisit, the flip flopper

I don't think Abhisit supported the last coup either. If you look at the sequence of events that bought him to power, to say he was put there by the military is not strictly correct. It is a lie that people use to support their own prejudices and a lie that people like Robert Amsterdam make full use of.

EXACTLY.....every person that says Abhisit came to power because of the coup. Does not know the whole series of events.

He was elected by OTHER parties because everyone else was trying to make him a scapegoat. No one else had the balls to take the position. He didn't take the position, it was almost forced upon him.

Barnhan Silipa Acha was quoted as saying he did not want the position because he didn't want to get killed.

[whybother]

i think some members of thaivisa.com stay to long in Thailand already,I find it amazing u guys talk about a military coup like it is the normal thing to kick out a free elected government,great u don't like Obama let's send some military to washington,france lost AAA lets send some military to paris,oh bad, merkel did'nt keep her promisses,lets send some military to berlin.

I think it's scary with which normallity thais talk about a coup,It's time the military loses it's power and stop intervening into politics,here is BKK 2012,not sukhothai 1812,thailand will never get peace as long untouchables and military rule the country

When was the last military coup that kicked out a freely elected government in Thailand? It must be more than 20 years since that happened?

[tlansford]

Thailand, unfortunately like most democratic countries, as a vocal minority of 10 to 20% right wing nutters.

But unlike other countries, the democrats had no problem to associate with them when they thought it was their interest.

Now that the wind has changed Abhisit try to act like he will never support such an undemocratic action like a military coup.

Abhisit, the flip flopper

I don't think Abhisit supported the last coup either. If you look at the sequence of events that bought him to power, to say he was put there by the military is not strictly correct. It is a lie that people use to support their own prejudices and a lie that people like Robert Amsterdam make full use of.

EXACTLY.....every person that says Abhisit came to power because of the coup. Does not know the whole series of events.

He was elected by OTHER parties because everyone else was trying to make him a scapegoat. No one else had the balls to take the position. He didn't take the position, it was almost forced upon him.

Barnhan Silipa Acha was quoted as saying he did not want the position because he didn't want to get killed.

"He didn't take the position, it was almost forced upon him."

well that gave me a good chuckle... thanks - laughter is good for the health.

[TAWP]

I don't think Abhisit supported the last coup either. If you look at the sequence of events that bought him to power, to say he was put there by the military is not strictly correct. It is a lie that people use to support their own prejudices and a lie that people like Robert Amsterdam make full use of.

Whilst I would admit that Abhisit may have taken the post of PM in a way which was, strictly speaking, in line with the provision of the Thai Constitution, to say that the view that he was effectively put into power by the army "is a lie that people use to support their own prejudices" at the very least exposes the depth of your own prejudice!

yaa great the first thing abisit did in office,he doubled the military budget

No, he didn't, but I am sure you will keep writing this lie in many more posts, as you have already done it several times today.

[TAWP]

No, it's a lie to suggest that the last government wasn't put in place by the military.

'A lie to suggest' - is that Red Shirt Free Speech Definitions 101 we are seeing in action here?

[Siam Simon]

No, it's a lie to suggest that the last government wasn't put in place by the military.

'A lie to suggest' - is that Red Shirt Free Speech Definitions 101 we are seeing in action here?

Well.....at least you didn't preface this nonsense with "So what you're saying is.....", so it's a start, of sorts.

[tlansford]

No, it's a lie to suggest that the last government wasn't put in place by the military.

'A lie to suggest' - is that Red Shirt Free Speech Definitions 101 we are seeing in action here?

Well.....at least you didn't preface this nonsense with "So what you're saying is.....", so it's a start, of sorts.

"this nonsense" = "rhetorical side-step".

[KRS1]

Thailand, unfortunately like most democratic countries, as a vocal minority of 10 to 20% right wing nutters.

But unlike other countries, the democrats had no problem to associate with them when they thought it was their interest.

Now that the wind has changed Abhisit try to act like he will never support such an undemocratic action like a military coup.

Abhisit, the flip flopper

I don't think Abhisit supported the last coup either. If you look at the sequence of events that bought him to power, to say he was put there by the military is not strictly correct. It is a lie that people use to support their own prejudices and a lie that people like Robert Amsterdam make full use of.

EXACTLY.....every person that says Abhisit came to power because of the coup. Does not know the whole series of events.

He was elected by OTHER parties because everyone else was trying to make him a scapegoat. No one else had the balls to take the position. He didn't take the position, it was almost forced upon him.

Barnhan Silipa Acha was quoted as saying he did not want the position because he didn't want to get killed.

"He didn't take the position, it was almost forced upon him."

well that gave me a good chuckle... thanks - laughter is good for the health.

Another person that did not follow the series of events since it started. He was elected for the position from a coalition of other parties. There's no way he could have just stepped up and demanded the position to be given to him, of course people would like to alter the perception and have people believe that this was the case.

and next time quote my entire message, and dont cut out the parts which will make yourself look good.

[Ricardo]

Same old same old.

Democrats loose yet another election so lets have yet another coup.

According to the OP and the title of the thread, former-PM (and presumably also the party he leads), do not want a coup. Do you have evidence to-the-contrary ?

[phiphidon]

Another person that did not follow the series of events since it started. He was elected for the position from a coalition of other parties. There's no way he could have just stepped up and demanded the position to be given to him, of course people would like to alter the perception and have people believe that this was the case.

and next time quote my entire message, and dont cut out the parts which will make yourself look good.

Abhisit had this to say at a meeting with the FCCT in 2007

The party hopping mentality is to blame. Nobody can take politics seriously when people move freely between parties. There are some encouraging signs that this mentality is changing.

http://reallifethail...at-fcct_19.html

Except when it suits him of course....................

[billd766]

Another person that did not follow the series of events since it started. He was elected for the position from a coalition of other parties. There's no way he could have just stepped up and demanded the position to be given to him, of course people would like to alter the perception and have people believe that this was the case.

and next time quote my entire message, and dont cut out the parts which will make yourself look good.

Abhisit had this to say at a meeting with the FCCT in 2007

The party hopping mentality is to blame. Nobody can take politics seriously when people move freely between parties. There are some encouraging signs that this mentality is changing.

http://reallifethail...at-fcct_19.html

Except when it suits him of course....................

Have I missed something?

Has Abhisit changed parties while I was out today?

AFAIR he has always been in the Democrats party.

[phiphidon]

Another person that did not follow the series of events since it started. He was elected for the position from a coalition of other parties. There's no way he could have just stepped up and demanded the position to be given to him, of course people would like to alter the perception and have people believe that this was the case.

and next time quote my entire message, and dont cut out the parts which will make yourself look good.

Abhisit had this to say at a meeting with the FCCT in 2007

The party hopping mentality is to blame. Nobody can take politics seriously when people move freely between parties. There are some encouraging signs that this mentality is changing.

http://reallifethail...at-fcct_19.html

Except when it suits him of course....................

Have I missed something?

Has Abhisit changed parties while I was out today?

AFAIR he has always been in the Democrats party.

Yes, You completely missed the point...................

[TAWP]

Then explain it, since you are very poor at making any point.

[phiphidon]

Then explain it, since you are very poor at making any point.

That's hardly the approach to take when asking me a favour, don't you think? Actually, you've already answered that.

[TAWP]

Then explain it, since you are very poor at making any point.

That's hardly the approach to take when asking me a favour, don't you think? Actually, you've already answered that.

So you cannot, Not surprising since your premise was bull.

[billd766]

Then explain it, since you are very poor at making any point.

That's hardly the approach to take when asking me a favour, don't you think? Actually, you've already answered that.

Well explain it to me then as obviously missed the point.

I am not asking you a favour, just to explain since you didn't to TAWP, and after all it is YOUR point.

edited for bad spelling only.

Edited January 27, 2012 by billd766

[TAWP]

Then explain it, since you are very poor at making any point.

That's hardly the approach to take when asking me a favour, don't you think? Actually, you've already answered that.

Well explain it to me then as obviously missed the point.

I am not asking you a favour, just to explain since you didn't to TAWP, and after all it is YOUR point.

edited for bad spelling only.

He seemingly refuses.

Edited January 27, 2012 by TAWP

[phiphidon]

Then explain it, since you are very poor at making any point.

That's hardly the approach to take when asking me a favour, don't you think? Actually, you've already answered that.

Well explain it to me then as obviously missed the point.

I am not asking you a favour, just to explain since you didn't to TAWP, and after all it is YOUR point.

edited for bad spelling only.

He seemingly refuses.

Sorry had other things more important to do than have to explain the the obvious. Let the Economist set the scene:

On December 15th (2008) parliament gave him (Abhisit) the green light to form a new coalition government, the country’s third in four months. He replaces the caretaker administration that had been in charge since December 2nd when the constitutional court dissolved three of the six parties in the previous coalition on corruption charges.

For a start, Mr Abhisit lacks a popular mandate to lead his country. His victory in parliament, by a margin of 235 to 198, was achieved by luring away former government members of parliament, including stalwart followers of Thaksin Shinawatra, the ex-prime minister who was convicted in absentia of abusing power and now lives in exile.

The defections were achieved with the financial carrots that are taken for granted in Thai coalition-building, plus the tap of a military stick. General Anupong Paochinda, the army chief, met senior politicians before the vote to offer his advice, meetings that seem to have put the kibosh on last-ditch efforts by Mr Thaksin’s allies to form their own government.

http://www.economist.com/node/12818184?story_id=12818184"]http://www.economist...ory_id=12818184

So here we have Khun Abhisit in 2007 saying politics was being made a laughing stock by MP's jumping from one party to another yet in 2008 the only reason his party is able to form a coalition government and present Abhisit with the opportunity of being PM is because of those very same antics of MP's jumping ship.

Now do we understand?

[TAWP]

We understand that you cherry-pick from the Economist, a far from balanced publication, to misrepresent the fact that Abhisit came to power the same way as Samak etc, by making offers to the other coalition-partners. Unless you are going to claim the PPP-lead coalition was former on an altruistic base with no concessions to the coalition-partners, or that Newin and his leag of MPs was not bought into TRT and PPP using money and promises...

[TAWP]

And then to your misrepresentation from earlier in the thread:

What A. was talking about was the jumping between parties as a threat against democracy because the MP's are not formed on an ideological base but on selfish monetary reasons.

This is separate from the forming of a coalition based on several parties - and many vibrant democracies around the world has coalitions based on parties with slightly is more sharply diverging opinions, with attempt to find the common denominator.

Your attempt to deride A. for his statement, by attacking him for by using a non-related example...is just ignorant.

[phiphidon]

We understand that you cherry-pick from the Economist, a far from balanced publication, to misrepresent the fact that Abhisit came to power the same way as Samak etc, by making offers to the other coalition-partners. Unless you are going to claim the PPP-lead coalition was former on an altruistic base with no concessions to the coalition-partners, or that Newin and his leag of MPs was not bought into TRT and PPP using money and promises...

Its fairly pointless carrying on with this - you either accept that the democrats were able to form a coalition government because MPs jumped ship from the PPP or you don't.

[phiphidon]

And then to your misrepresentation from earlier in the thread:

What A. was talking about was the jumping between parties as a threat against democracy because the MP's are not formed on an ideological base but on selfish monetary reasons.

This is separate from the forming of a coalition based on several parties - and many vibrant democracies around the world has coalitions based on parties with slightly is more sharply diverging opinions, with attempt to find the common denominator.

Your attempt to deride A. for his statement, by attacking him for by using a non-related example...is just ignorant.

You're quite rude aren't you? What part of selfish monetary reasons and a military threat with respect to the friends of newin jumping ship do you not understand? Do you really think that Abhisit in his shining white armour and the democrats are above such things as paying money to MP's to jump ship? The democrats were charged with bribing other small parties to boycott the 2006 election along with the TRT (for bribing small parties to contest it) for F sake. It was only the constitutional court in their legal coup No.1 that let them go free and dissolved the TRT instead.

While I would like to admire your slavish admiration of Abhisit (but I can't bring myself to do so) I can only put your attitude down to naiveity.

[TAWP]

Its fairly pointless carrying on with this - you either accept that the democrats were able to form a coalition government because MPs jumped ship from the PPP or you don't.

It is pointless since you cannot even seem to recall recent events?

There was no MP's that left PPP.

PPP was dissolved, and Newin took his MP's into their own party. Their inclusion in TRT and PPP was due to being purchased, not for ideological reasons. So now that they went on their own again (for their own selfish power-hungry reasons)...you blame the Democrats?

That is fairly odd.

You're quite rude aren't you? What part of selfish monetary reasons and a military threat with respect to the friends of newin jumping ship do you not understand? Do you really think that Abhisit in his shining white armour and the democrats are above such things as paying money to MP's to jump ship? The democrats were charged with bribing other small parties to boycott the 2006 election along with the TRT (for bribing small parties to contest it) for F sake. It was only the constitutional court in their legal coup No.1 that let them go free and dissolved the TRT instead.

While I would like to admire your slavish admiration of Abhisit (but I can't bring myself to do so) I can only put your attitude down to naiveity.

I realize that it might seem rude to point out flaws in your thinking or illogical circular reasoning in your arguments and so forth. So I will proudly keep it up.

One day, maybe, you might realize that my argument against your incorrect statement about the forming about the coalition isn't from a pro-Abhisit position, but pro-fact and perhaps a bit of anti-Thaksin.

If I could vote already I would vote for some completely different politicians.

[phiphidon]

Its fairly pointless carrying on with this - you either accept that the democrats were able to form a coalition government because MPs jumped ship from the PPP or you don't.

It is pointless since you cannot even seem to recall recent events?

There was no MP's that left PPP.

PPP was dissolved, and Newin took his MP's into their own party. Their inclusion in TRT and PPP was due to being purchased, not for ideological reasons. So now that they went on their own again (for their own selfish power-hungry reasons)...you blame the Democrats?

That is fairly odd.

You're quite rude aren't you? What part of selfish monetary reasons and a military threat with respect to the friends of newin jumping ship do you not understand? Do you really think that Abhisit in his shining white armour and the democrats are above such things as paying money to MP's to jump ship? The democrats were charged with bribing other small parties to boycott the 2006 election along with the TRT (for bribing small parties to contest it) for F sake. It was only the constitutional court in their legal coup No.1 that let them go free and dissolved the TRT instead.

While I would like to admire your slavish admiration of Abhisit (but I can't bring myself to do so) I can only put your attitude down to naiveity.

I realize that it might seem rude to point out flaws in your thinking or illogical circular reasoning in your arguments and so forth. So I will proudly keep it up.

One day, maybe, you might realize that my argument against your incorrect statement about the forming about the coalition isn't from a pro-Abhisit position, but pro-fact and perhaps a bit of anti-Thaksin.

If I could vote already I would vote for some completely different politicians.

OK The Friends of Newin were a faction in the PPP. After the PPP had been dissolved on the 2nd December they had 60 days to either form a new party or join an existing one - the PTP was existing as of the 3rd December. They defected to the Bhumjaithai party (having been formed on the 5th November) after the dissolution of the PPP. Being the mercenary B's that even you agree they were they declared they would defect to Abhisits coalition. If they had stayed with the newly formed PTP Abhisit wouldn't have been able to form a coalition government.

Now what do you think made the Friends of Newins BJP party not side with Thaksins sponsored PTP and instead go with Abhisit and his mob - could it be the lure of money and the threat of the army? It was no coincidence they were handed the lucrative Transport Commerce and Interior Ministrys!

[wxyz]

To coup or not to coup, decisions decisions.

Is it still called a coup when the governing party is committing crimes against humanity?

Who is it that would remove these elites from govt should they refuse to leave?

Seems like the military would have to step in, as was the case with mr T.

Edited January 27, 2012 by wxyz

[TAWP]

OK The Friends of Newin were a faction in the PPP. After the PPP had been dissolved on the 2nd December they had 60 days to either form a new party or join an existing one - the PTP was existing as of the 3rd December. They defected to the Bhumjaithai party (having been formed on the 5th November) after the dissolution of the PPP. Being the mercenary B's that even you agree they were they declared they would defect to Abhisits coalition. If they had stayed with the newly formed PTP Abhisit wouldn't have been able to form a coalition government.

Now what do you think made the Friends of Newins BJP party not side with Thaksins sponsored PTP and instead go with Abhisit and his mob - could it be the lure of money and the threat of the army? It was no coincidence they were handed the lucrative Transport Commerce and Interior Ministrys!

What is your biggest gripe, that BJP did not automatically join up to support PTP or that coalitions-talks, with the negotiations about positions of power, was being done by other parties than PTP?