Abhisit And Most People Voice Opposition To Coup: Thailand

[phiphidon]

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?

My biggest gripe is with people who seem to think that Abhisit and the democrats are the bastion of all that is good in the world and conveniently ignore their murky underpinnings.

[bendejo]

The interesting statistic here is not that 80% oppose a coup but that 20% approve of one.

Military and their families? Wonder what percentage of the population they would be.

[bendejo]

My partner and her family (poor farmers from north of Chantaburi ) absolutely love the army and regard them as the good guys. They dislike the brown shirts with a passion!

I feel the same way. When i was living in Bangkok a few years ago they had matial law for about a week, I felt better with the soldiers on the corner because it kept the BiB away. The cops here are just roving theives with the law backing them up, IMO.

[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?

My biggest gripe is with people who seem to think that Abhisit and the democrats are the bastion of all that is good in the world and conveniently ignore their murky underpinnings.

So to counter this you post lies or distortions to 'balance' up the view?

[Siam Simon]

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.

He regularly prevaricates on this particular subject. The last time it came up, He was promoting the idea that the coalition party leader who told the media about being coerced into joining the coalition (and who's clan was given a lucrative portfolio in that coalition), TAWP tried to pass it off as nothing more than a disgruntled politician having a whinge .

[phiphidon]

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?

My biggest gripe is with people who seem to think that Abhisit and the democrats are the bastion of all that is good in the world and conveniently ignore their murky underpinnings.

So to counter this you post lies or distortions to 'balance' up the view?

No, I post my opinion, one held by a few observers of thai politics out in the real world, away from the TV forum. The Economist link is but one example and no, I am not going to enter a peeing contest with you to provide more examples. If you do not wish to accept that viewpoint, fine, but until you convince me and others out there that your viewpoint is more valid than mine, I will agee to disagree with you.

Now if you look at the above closely you will find that I have not accused you of being ignorant, of lying or providing disortions of "the truth", something you seemingly cannot avoid when debating.

It cheapens your argument.

I have said to you all I am going to say on this matter regardless of any further "baiting".

Edited January 28, 2012 by phiphidon

[TAWP]

If a person posts unproven allegations or make comparisons between apples and oranges to' prove their case', then I will be posting an opposition.

But i hope one day we will get to hear why TRT can buy parties, PTP can offer parties monetary and political favours - but it is 'against democracy' if others do it.

[Siam Simon]

If a person posts unproven allegations or make comparisons between apples and oranges to' prove their case', then I will be posting an opposition.

But i hope one day we will get to hear why TRT can buy parties, PTP can offer parties monetary and political favours - but it is 'against democracy' if others do it.

All political parties do it. But you and other posters prevaricate and make excuses when parties not allied to Thaksin's bunch do it.

And when the military is involved in the process, it becoms doubly, triply, nay, quadrupally unaccepteable.

[philw]

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?

Nice post and timely reminder of what actually happened.

Thank you.

As a digression many years ago I was talking with 2 cousins, one a chartered accountant and the other a chartered surveyor, arguing in the pub ( like what you do ) the Economist came up.

One immediately put it down as a right wing, establishment rag and the other referred to it as written by bunch of left wing loonies.

Seems pretty,safe, conventional, reserved establishment to me.........

[z12]

“We have received confirmation from all sources that the rumor of a coup is not true. The rumor was spread by some faction, but it is not true.” - Thaksin Shinawatra - His first statement while in New York, following the news of the 2006 coup.

Edited January 28, 2012 by z12

[Siam Simon]

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?

Nice post and timely reminder of what actually happened.

Thank you.

As a digression many years ago I was talking with 2 cousins, one a chartered accountant and the other a chartered surveyor, arguing in the pub ( like what you do ) the Economist came up.

One immediately put it down as a right wing, establishment rag and the other referred to it as written by bunch of left wing loonies.

Seems pretty,safe, conventional, reserved establishment to me.........

Former Beeb Bangkok correspondent Jonathan Head did some sterling work exposing at the time Prime Minister Thaksin's misdemeanors, but when he turned his attention to Thaksin's equally ugly opponents and the ugly realities of the PAD demonstrations, he was made unwelcome in Thailand, eventually being transferred by his bosses after being subjected to an absurd lawsuit. The usual suspects on ThaiVisaForum disgraced themselves at the time with all sorts of libellous remarks: One of them nicknamed him "Dick Head". Another labelled him "the balcony reporter". I last saw him reporting live on TV reporting from the frontline in the Libyan battle for freedom from tyranny whilst he was coming under hostile fire.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Siam Simon