Comparative Rating On Abhisit-Yingluck Govt

[whybother]

<Snip>

And then R'song happened. Again the unelected and coup originated Govt. tried to ignore these people out of existence, resulting in the thing dragging on and on.

<snip>

Didn't you miss 2 or 3 years?

[CalgaryII]

<Snip>

And then R'song happened. Again the unelected and coup originated Govt. tried to ignore these people out of existence, resulting in the thing dragging on and on.

<snip>

Didn't you miss 2 or 3 years?

It was just meant to be a macro overview.

R'song was an extension and culmination of the large and ever growing size of rallies, with those outside Bkk. being ignored by the media for self-serving reasons.

Reasons we can all speculate about.

I agree there is a whole lot more that could be itemized, from both sides of the political divide.

Edited February 5, 2012 by CalgaryII

[whybother]

<Snip>

And then R'song happened. Again the unelected and coup originated Govt. tried to ignore these people out of existence, resulting in the thing dragging on and on.

<snip>

Didn't you miss 2 or 3 years?

It was just meant to be a macro overview.

I agree there is a whole lot more that could be itemized, from both sides of the political divide.

[scorecard]

The redshirts are now a part of the government and have to behave.

Agree with most of what you posted geriatrickid, but would like to add a comment to above.

One must keep in mind what spawned the Red Shirt Movement.....namely the Coup.

It took 'em a while to organize, but organize they did.

To then characterise their anti-coup activity as misbehavior is not accurate.

If their anti-coup stuff was misbehavior, what was the coup.

On a scale of misbehavior, the coup perpetrators so massively exceed the Red Shirt feeble effort to protest a theft of their elected Govt, it wouldn't even be close.

Every one knew, and especially the Red Shirts, that the last election represented electoral reality in Thailand, and to therefore have an electoral minority governing was appalling.

Protesting coups is not misbehavior. It is an exemplary form of standing up to wrongs. Then to have the military rampage through their efforts to protest these wrongs, added insult to injury.

There are those who seek to characterize the feeble efforts to withstand the military assault as being some sort of gross anti-social behavior, when in fact it was opposing military rule.

Considering the Oppositions efforts to again use judicial cover to steal another elected Govt. as some of yesterday's headlines featured, will have entirely different outcomes.

Having Red Shirt affiliates in Government is a very natural thing, totally in line with what those of different affiliation were included in the unelected coup-military Government. I am not a Dem. Party lover, but after they were artificially hoisted into place, I didn't particularly object to the Kasit thing. When there is a major two-way political divide, whichever side is elected has earned the right to appoint whomever they want from their side.

But bottom line, the days of freeby coups are over, regardless what cover and excuses are used - judicial, military or whatever.

If the Opposition thinks they can pull the judicial trick on an elected Government again, they'd better think again.

Well your off the reality of the situation from your second line.

[scorecard]

<Snip>

And then R'song happened. Again the unelected and coup originated Govt. tried to ignore these people out of existence, resulting in the thing dragging on and on.

<snip>

Didn't you miss 2 or 3 years?

Plus your commenst contain untruths, and you know it.

Edited February 5, 2012 by scorecard

[CalgaryII]

<Snip>

And then R'song happened. Again the unelected and coup originated Govt. tried to ignore these people out of existence, resulting in the thing dragging on and on.

<snip>

Didn't you miss 2 or 3 years?

Plus your commenst contain untruths, and you know it.

Well your off the reality of the situation from your second line.

I guess you and I have a difference of opinion scorecard.

This place would be boring without it.

Edited February 5, 2012 by CalgaryII

[ozzieman05]

A comparative study between Democratically elected Govts. would be more informative.

Considering that a military, coup installed Govt. owes its' allegiance to those who positioned them, their priorities would reflect it.

Whereas the current Ms. Y. Govt owes its' allegiance to the electorate. Her policies would reflect that electorate, as would other previous Govts. who came to power the same, democratic way.

Alternatively, it would be interesting to compare Thai Govts which were elected, vs. those who were 'coup'ed" into place.

I think you have made an error. The Abhisit Government was not installed by the coup makers. This is a myth propagated by the reds to suit their own purposes but not at all true.

True The Abhisit Government was elected by the majority of Members of Parliment when some where found guilty of miss conduct

[CalgaryII]

A comparative study between Democratically elected Govts. would be more informative.

Considering that a military, coup installed Govt. owes its' allegiance to those who positioned them, their priorities would reflect it.

Whereas the current Ms. Y. Govt owes its' allegiance to the electorate. Her policies would reflect that electorate, as would other previous Govts. who came to power the same, democratic way.

Alternatively, it would be interesting to compare Thai Govts which were elected, vs. those who were 'coup'ed" into place.

I think you have made an error. The Abhisit Government was not installed by the coup makers. This is a myth propagated by the reds to suit their own purposes but not at all true.

True The Abhisit Government was elected by the majority of Members of Parliment when some where found guilty of miss conduct

Abhi would have done himself a huge favour if he had done what the Australian PM did, who also became PM through Parliamentary manueverings.

[wxyz]

The redshirts are now a part of the government and have to behave.

Agree with most of what you posted geriatrickid, but would like to add a comment to above.

One must keep in mind what spawned the Red Shirt Movement.....namely the Coup.

It took 'em a while to organize, but organize they did.

To then characterise their anti-coup activity as misbehavior is not accurate.

If their anti-coup stuff was misbehavior, what was the coup.

On a scale of misbehavior, the coup perpetrators so massively exceed the Red Shirt feeble effort to protest a theft of their elected Govt, it wouldn't even be close.

Every one knew, and especially the Red Shirts, that the last election represented electoral reality in Thailand, and to therefore have an electoral minority governing was appalling.

Protesting coups is not misbehavior. It is an exemplary form of standing up to wrongs. Then to have the military rampage through their efforts to protest these wrongs, added insult to injury.

There are those who seek to characterize the feeble efforts to withstand the military assault as being some sort of gross anti-social behavior, when in fact it was opposing military rule.

Considering the Oppositions efforts to again use judicial cover to steal another elected Govt. as some of yesterday's headlines featured, will have entirely different outcomes.

Having Red Shirt affiliates in Government is a very natural thing, totally in line with what those of different affiliation were included in the unelected coup-military Government. I am not a Dem. Party lover, but after they were artificially hoisted into place, I didn't particularly object to the Kasit thing. When there is a major two-way political divide, whichever side is elected has earned the right to appoint whomever they want from their side.

But bottom line, the days of freeby coups are over, regardless what cover and excuses are used - judicial, military or whatever.

If the Opposition thinks they can pull the judicial trick on an elected Government again, they'd better think again.

"Every one knew, and especially the Red Shirts, that the last election represented electoral reality in Thailand, and to therefore have an electoral minority governing was appalling."

Yes the current 'red shirt' "electoral minority" is governing and it is appalling.

The 'red shirts' got a minority of the voting Thais and if you include those eligible to vote, they are even more of a minority.

So yes, the Thais should be appalled at this "electoral minority" government.

Edited February 5, 2012 by wxyz

[CalgaryII]

Yes the current 'red shirt' "electoral minority" is governing and it is appalling.

The 'red shirts' got a minority of the voting Thais and if you include those eligible to vote, they are even more of a minority.

So yes, the Thais should be appalled at this "electoral minority" government.

Don't have at my fingertips, the number of Parliamentary seats the PTP and affiliates earned via a national election, as compared to the Opposition.

That should shed some light on your comments WXYZ

Edited February 5, 2012 by CalgaryII

[weka]

calgary, you're pathetic

[wxyz]

Yes the current 'red shirt' "electoral minority" is governing and it is appalling.

The 'red shirts' got a minority of the voting Thais and if you include those eligible to vote, they are even more of a minority.

So yes, the Thais should be appalled at this "electoral minority" government.

Don't have at my fingertips, the number of Parliamentary seats the PTP and affiliates earned via a national election, as compared to the Opposition.

That should shed some light on your comments WXYZ

PTP Parliamentary seats do not reflect voting percentages, but you knew that already.

Edited February 5, 2012 by wxyz

[siampolee]

The facts are that in reality the P.T.P. was not able to form a government unless they included the other coalition parties, there was no clear mandate to govern given to any party.

The posts are as rabid and ridiculous on other forums that Calgary posts in under a multitude of names. Indeed a legend in his own mind

Edited February 5, 2012 by siampolee

[waza]

The redshirts are now a part of the government and have to behave.

Agree with most of what you posted geriatrickid, but would like to add a comment to above.

One must keep in mind what spawned the Red Shirt Movement.....namely the Coup.

It took 'em a while to organize, but organize they did.

When public outrage is real, things happen spontaneously and quickly, and require very little organisation. You only have to look at similar incidents around the world, to see what happens when the people genuinely turn, when people are genuinely up in arms. Had Thais felt this way about the coup, the reaction would have started on the 19th September 2006, and you would have seen it on the streets right there and then. The fact was, the vast majority of Thais felt indifferently. They did nothing. They stayed at home. Those who did go out, handed out flowers.

So, how do you explain all the time it took for any major protests regarding the coup to occur? I'll give you my explanation, then you perhaps can offer yours? Thaksin and his friends needed a cause to claim to be fighting for, that was noble. How can you possibly garner support outside of those who you can influence with money, if all you are really fighting for is money and power.

The coup in 2006 was something that people had every right to protest against, but they didn't; they never have. To believe otherwise is to believe in a facade.

I'll give you my explanation, then you perhaps can offer yours?

You may be right. The part about anti-coup protests being spantaneous and immediate in many cases.

But not in this case.

Those whose elected Govt. was stolen were slow to anger. But when they got their shit together, the politicization that occurred was an unintended consquence that the coup perps have come to regret.

They tried to ignore it at first.....the ever growing Red Shirt rallies were plentiful and frequent outside Bangkok. They went unreported by the BKK. centric media which may lead one to conclude that the anti-coup reaction was non-existent and slower than it actually was. The media avoiding reporting on these growing rallies mislead many people to presume that the coup was a fait accompli. It most assuredly was not.

When the rallies began to hit BKK, and the media could no longer maintain the black-out on them, it surprised the hell out of many.

And then R'song happened. Again the unelected and coup originated Govt. tried to ignore these people out of existence, resulting in the thing dragging on and on.

When finally forced to acknowledge the thing, the unelected Govt finally had to talk, with the following sequence occuring:

>made a 'mafia offer' Meaning it could not be refused

>An offer is not an agreement, but an 'offer' is an invitation for four responses:

1. Acceptance

2. rejection

3. counter-offer

4. acceptance with modification - This fourth option was chosen by the UDD/RS

>Given that it was a 'mafia' offer subject to only response #1, the military onslaught commenced

All of the above was anti-coup.

To suggest that the coup was accepted is untrue.

The bit about all of this being a facade is most denigrating to all those who have lived this struggle.

They were finally rewarded with the electoral plurality they knew was being denied them by an unelected minority

That is my take in a nutshell Rixalex.

What spawned the redshirts was Thaskins need for a protest group to oppose the yellowshirts, to add ligitamacy to his claim of mass support they werent some group who spontaneous formed to protest against the coup. As such the redshirts werent slow to anger, they only protested when their paymaster paid them to. The last and most deadliest protest was about the consification of Thaskins funds gained through corruption

Edited February 5, 2012 by waza

[philw]

The facts are that in reality the P.T.P. was not able to form a government unless they included the other coalition parties, there was no clear mandate to govern given to any party.

The posts are as rabid and ridiculous on other forums that Calgary posts in under a multitude of names. Indeed a legend in his own mind

Nonsense, they had a clear majority of seats and chose,rather than needed, to take on coalition partners.

[whybother]

Abhi would have done himself a huge favour if he had done what the Australian PM did, who also became PM through Parliamentary manueverings.

You keep bringing Gillard up in regard to her calling elections, but she only called election 3 months before they were required. An Australian government rarely goes full term, so her calling elections a couple of months early was nothing out of the ordinary.

[tlansford]

Yes the current 'red shirt' "electoral minority" is governing and it is appalling.

The 'red shirts' got a minority of the voting Thais and if you include those eligible to vote, they are even more of a minority.

So yes, the Thais should be appalled at this "electoral minority" government.

Don't have at my fingertips, the number of Parliamentary seats the PTP and affiliates earned via a national election, as compared to the Opposition.

That should shed some light on your comments WXYZ

500 seats.

PTP : 265 seats

Dem : 159 seats

[wxyz]

Yes the current 'red shirt' "electoral minority" is governing and it is appalling.

The 'red shirts' got a minority of the voting Thais and if you include those eligible to vote, they are even more of a minority.

So yes, the Thais should be appalled at this "electoral minority" government.

Don't have at my fingertips, the number of Parliamentary seats the PTP and affiliates earned via a national election, as compared to the Opposition.

That should shed some light on your comments WXYZ

500 seats.

PTP : 265 seats

Dem : 159 seats

And a minority of the Thai votes, makes them a minority government as far as the Thai voters are concerned.

Edited February 5, 2012 by wxyz

[whybother]

The facts are that in reality the P.T.P. was not able to form a government unless they included the other coalition parties, there was no clear mandate to govern given to any party.

The posts are as rabid and ridiculous on other forums that Calgary posts in under a multitude of names. Indeed a legend in his own mind

Nonsense, they had a clear majority of seats and chose,rather than needed, to take on coalition partners.

The PTP got a majority of MPs so were able to form government without a coalition, but without a coalition the PTP wouldn't have been able to function in parliament. Ministers don't have a vote, so they would have wouldn't have had a majority vote. They needed to take on coalition partners.

[tlansford]

The redshirts are now a part of the government and have to behave.

Agree with most of what you posted geriatrickid, but would like to add a comment to above.

One must keep in mind what spawned the Red Shirt Movement.....namely the Coup.

It took 'em a while to organize, but organize they did.

When public outrage is real, things happen spontaneously and quickly, and require very little organisation. You only have to look at similar incidents around the world, to see what happens when the people genuinely turn, when people are genuinely up in arms. Had Thais felt this way about the coup, the reaction would have started on the 19th September 2006, and you would have seen it on the streets right there and then. The fact was, the vast majority of Thais felt indifferently. They did nothing. They stayed at home. Those who did go out, handed out flowers.

So, how do you explain all the time it took for any major protests regarding the coup to occur? I'll give you my explanation, then you perhaps can offer yours? Thaksin and his friends needed a cause to claim to be fighting for, that was noble. How can you possibly garner support outside of those who you can influence with money, if all you are really fighting for is money and power.

The coup in 2006 was something that people had every right to protest against, but they didn't; they never have. To believe otherwise is to believe in a facade.

I'll give you my explanation, then you perhaps can offer yours?

You may be right. The part about anti-coup protests being spantaneous and immediate in many cases.

But not in this case.

Those whose elected Govt. was stolen were slow to anger. But when they got their shit together, the politicization that occurred was an unintended consquence that the coup perps have come to regret.

They tried to ignore it at first.....the ever growing Red Shirt rallies were plentiful and frequent outside Bangkok. They went unreported by the BKK. centric media which may lead one to conclude that the anti-coup reaction was non-existent and slower than it actually was. The media avoiding reporting on these growing rallies mislead many people to presume that the coup was a fait accompli. It most assuredly was not.

When the rallies began to hit BKK, and the media could no longer maintain the black-out on them, it surprised the hell out of many.

And then R'song happened. Again the unelected and coup originated Govt. tried to ignore these people out of existence, resulting in the thing dragging on and on.

When finally forced to acknowledge the thing, the unelected Govt finally had to talk, with the following sequence occuring:

>made a 'mafia offer' Meaning it could not be refused

>An offer is not an agreement, but an 'offer' is an invitation for four responses:

1. Acceptance

2. rejection

3. counter-offer

4. acceptance with modification - This fourth option was chosen by the UDD/RS

>Given that it was a 'mafia' offer subject to only response #1, the military onslaught commenced

All of the above was anti-coup.

To suggest that the coup was accepted is untrue.

The bit about all of this being a facade is most denigrating to all those who have lived this struggle.

They were finally rewarded with the electoral plurality they knew was being denied them by an unelected minority

That is my take in a nutshell Rixalex.

What spawned the redshirts was Thaskins need for a protest group to oppose the yellowshirts, to add ligitamacy to his claim of mass support they werent some group who spontaneous formed to protest against the coup. As such the redshirts werent slow to anger, they only protested when their paymaster paid them to. The last and most deadliest protest was about the consification of Thaskins funds gained through corruption

the history of the red-shirts tells a different story. There were multiple, diverse groups protesting the coup. Only later did one of the groups take to wearing the red shirts, the color that would come to be their name, and later still that the UDD was formed as an umbrella organization for all of the different groups.

The red-shirts began to develop under the military junta at a time during which the yellow shirts were in hibernation, and as many uncoordinated organizations. For that it is clear that the red-shirt movement did begin in opposition to the coup and not as a unified reaction to the PAD/yellow shirts.

[philw]

Yes the current 'red shirt' "electoral minority" is governing and it is appalling.

The 'red shirts' got a minority of the voting Thais and if you include those eligible to vote, they are even more of a minority.

So yes, the Thais should be appalled at this "electoral minority" government.

Don't have at my fingertips, the number of Parliamentary seats the PTP and affiliates earned via a national election, as compared to the Opposition.

That should shed some light on your comments WXYZ

500 seats.

PTP : 265 seats

Dem : 159 seats

And a minority of the Thai votes, makes them a minority government as far as the Thai voters are concerned.

More nonsense.

[philw]

The facts are that in reality the P.T.P. was not able to form a government unless they included the other coalition parties, there was no clear mandate to govern given to any party.

The posts are as rabid and ridiculous on other forums that Calgary posts in under a multitude of names. Indeed a legend in his own mind

Nonsense, they had a clear majority of seats and chose,rather than needed, to take on coalition partners.

The PTP got a majority of MPs so were able to form government without a coalition, but without a coalition the PTP wouldn't have been able to function in parliament. Ministers don't have a vote, so they would have wouldn't have had a majority vote. They needed to take on coalition partners.

How many ministers are there ??

[whybother]

How many ministers are there ??

20.

[JAG]

calgary, you're pathetic

No, he is advancing an argument, which has considerable merit, in which he clearly believes, and is prepared to stand up for.

Just posting abuse in response is pathetic

[weka]

Agreed Jag, my post is was pathetic

it was mod bait and now I can't delete it - not dissimilar to PTP who can't delete their vote garnering nonsense such as using children's education (tablets to 5 year olds) for bait to woo ill informed parents' votes

Edited February 5, 2012 by weka

[CalgaryII]

The facts are that in reality the P.T.P. was not able to form a government unless they included the other coalition parties, there was no clear mandate to govern given to any party.

The posts are as rabid and ridiculous on other forums that Calgary posts in under a multitude of names. Indeed a legend in his own mind

Lets keep the facts straight.

The PTP Party didn't even need coalition parties to augment ITS' Parliamentary majority.

Coalition Parties were asked to join for reasons other than what happened with the previous Govt., Which I dont need to tell you about.

[CalgaryII]

calgary, you're pathetic

dam_n, have you been talking to my wife!

[CalgaryII]

The redshirts are now a part of the government and have to behave.

Agree with most of what you posted geriatrickid, but would like to add a comment to above.

One must keep in mind what spawned the Red Shirt Movement.....namely the Coup.

It took 'em a while to organize, but organize they did.

When public outrage is real, things happen spontaneously and quickly, and require very little organisation. You only have to look at similar incidents around the world, to see what happens when the people genuinely turn, when people are genuinely up in arms. Had Thais felt this way about the coup, the reaction would have started on the 19th September 2006, and you would have seen it on the streets right there and then. The fact was, the vast majority of Thais felt indifferently. They did nothing. They stayed at home. Those who did go out, handed out flowers.

So, how do you explain all the time it took for any major protests regarding the coup to occur? I'll give you my explanation, then you perhaps can offer yours? Thaksin and his friends needed a cause to claim to be fighting for, that was noble. How can you possibly garner support outside of those who you can influence with money, if all you are really fighting for is money and power.

The coup in 2006 was something that people had every right to protest against, but they didn't; they never have. To believe otherwise is to believe in a facade.

I'll give you my explanation, then you perhaps can offer yours?

You may be right. The part about anti-coup protests being spantaneous and immediate in many cases.

But not in this case.

Those whose elected Govt. was stolen were slow to anger. But when they got their shit together, the politicization that occurred was an unintended consquence that the coup perps have come to regret.

They tried to ignore it at first.....the ever growing Red Shirt rallies were plentiful and frequent outside Bangkok. They went unreported by the BKK. centric media which may lead one to conclude that the anti-coup reaction was non-existent and slower than it actually was. The media avoiding reporting on these growing rallies mislead many people to presume that the coup was a fait accompli. It most assuredly was not.

When the rallies began to hit BKK, and the media could no longer maintain the black-out on them, it surprised the hell out of many.

And then R'song happened. Again the unelected and coup originated Govt. tried to ignore these people out of existence, resulting in the thing dragging on and on.

When finally forced to acknowledge the thing, the unelected Govt finally had to talk, with the following sequence occuring:

>made a 'mafia offer' Meaning it could not be refused

>An offer is not an agreement, but an 'offer' is an invitation for four responses:

1. Acceptance

2. rejection

3. counter-offer

4. acceptance with modification - This fourth option was chosen by the UDD/RS

>Given that it was a 'mafia' offer subject to only response #1, the military onslaught commenced

All of the above was anti-coup.

To suggest that the coup was accepted is untrue.

The bit about all of this being a facade is most denigrating to all those who have lived this struggle.

They were finally rewarded with the electoral plurality they knew was being denied them by an unelected minority

That is my take in a nutshell Rixalex.

What spawned the redshirts was Thaskins need for a protest group to oppose the yellowshirts, to add ligitamacy to his claim of mass support they werent some group who spontaneous formed to protest against the coup. As such the redshirts werent slow to anger, they only protested when their paymaster paid them to. The last and most deadliest protest was about the consification of Thaskins funds gained through corruption

Should there be anyone out there who is clue-less about Thai Politics, and just arrived on the boat, above you have two interpretations about what led to the formation of the UDD/Red Shirts.

Take you pick.

I am very comfortable with my analysis, and undoubtedly so is WAZA.

Enjoy!

[CalgaryII]

Abhi would have done himself a huge favour if he had done what the Australian PM did, who also became PM through Parliamentary manueverings.

You keep bringing Gillard up in regard to her calling elections, but she only called election 3 months before they were required. An Australian government rarely goes full term, so her calling elections a couple of months early was nothing out of the ordinary.

I'm not an Aussie, but that was not her explanation.

She made it quite clear that she felt the post of Prime Minister needed to be a Political office requiring national electorate legitimacy.

She made it quite clear that the Prime Minister did not have legitimacy via Parliamentary manueverings.

She therefore called an election to acquire legitimacy.

I agree with the lady, and Abhi. should have done the same.

[CalgaryII]

Yes the current 'red shirt' "electoral minority" is governing and it is appalling.

The 'red shirts' got a minority of the voting Thais and if you include those eligible to vote, they are even more of a minority.

So yes, the Thais should be appalled at this "electoral minority" government.

Don't have at my fingertips, the number of Parliamentary seats the PTP and affiliates earned via a national election, as compared to the Opposition.

That should shed some light on your comments WXYZ

500 seats.

PTP : 265 seats

Dem : 159 seats

And a minority of the Thai votes, makes them a minority government as far as the Thai voters are concerned.

265 seats compared to 159 seats via a national, popular election....A minority Govt?

I don't think so.