Garden Parties Won't Mend Political Fences, Says Abhisit

[webfact]

Garden parties won't mend political fences, says Abhisit

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Success in bringing about reconciliation hinges on the government' s firm commitment not to inflame political conflict, Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said yesterday.

"Prem is not a party to the conflict," he said, arguing it is a misconception that warming ties between Prem and the government could yield reconciliation.

He said he deemed it futile to organise social gatherings as part of a government's publicity campaign because genuine reconciliation could happen only by addressing issues that triggered social divisions.

He said he believed the government had not done enough to resolve divisive issues such as the push to amend the lese-majeste law and the murky roadmap for charter change.

He reminded the government that street protests might resume if there were no clear guidelines on what the charter amendments should entail.

Reacting to Abhisit's remarks, Pheu Thai spokesman Prompong Nopparit said the opposition Democrat Party was trying to mislead the public by claiming an illusory plot to rescue former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra via the charter rewrite.

Prompong said the Democrats fabricated the story in order to sway sentiment against the government.

He said the charter rewrite was an ongoing process as evidenced by the two key amendments passed under the Democrat-led government.

The Pheu Thai Party wanted to amend the charter in order to meet the people's aspirations, he said, blaming the Democrats for rushing to fault the amendments even before studying the details.

He went on the portray the Democrats as being petty for opposing the social party held to boost confidence in flood control.

Under the Abhisit administration, Bt60 million were spent to raise awareness on the national anthem, he said, noting the comparison to Bt10 million spent for Friday's party.

-- The Nation 2012-02-13

[hellodolly]

But the money spent to raise awareness on the national anthem didn't come out of public money that should have gone to victims of the flood. It went to a party for the vary people who could have paid for it out of their pocket.

The money spent to raise awareness on the national anthem was in fact money to bring unity to Thailand.

The National Anthem is for all Thais, not just a select few.

[CalgaryII]

Under the Abhisit administration, Bt60 million were spent to raise awareness on the national anthem, he said, noting the comparison to Bt10 million spent for Friday's party.

Well, that takes care of the self-righteous indignation against the effort to build bridges to Oppositional elements by Ms. Y.

She is to be commended for this reconciliatory effort, considering the volatility some of this stuff has within her political base - think about it.

Somebody accused her of "Not being a Politician"..............this kinda stuff shows her political shrewdness.

Success in bringing about reconciliation hinges on the government' s firm commitment not to inflame political conflict, Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said yesterday.

Pressing ahead with the mandate her electoral victory compels her to do, is not inflaming political conflict.

It may piss-off the losing Opposition, but that is not inflaming political conflict.

Abhi should take his objections to Parliament, lay off the Judges, and get on with things.

He reminded the government that street protests might resume if there were no clear guidelines on what the charter amendments should entail.

Is there a commitment to Parliamentary process here somewhere, or am I missing it.

If the guidelines to charter amendments are not clear, take it to Parliament and seek clarification.

What he probablty means, we may not like the Charter Amendments upsetting the coup-bomblets built into the current version by our coup people,

-----------------------------------------------

An adulatory Photo of Abhi, isn't it.

Good to be photographed amongst rabid supporters, and not the electoral majority.

It continues to puzzle me, why they stay with this guy.

You think he will have more success at the next election? For all his plusses within his own following, Elections are not his forte, and that will not change.

In mature Democracies, they would already have replaced a thrice electoral loser with R'song baggage, and photographed the new person in this circumstance.

Edited February 13, 2012 by CalgaryII

[jonclark]

.

In mature Democracies, they would already have replaced a thrice electoral loser with R'song baggage, and photographed the new person in this circumstance.

Indeed in a mature democracy he would have been replaced, but Thailand isn't a mature democracy is it? In a mature democracy the Shinawatra family link to any form of government would have also would have been completely,permanently and publically severed. In a mature democracy there would be equality for all. In a mature democracy ideology and not personal greed or ambition would inspire governments. In a mature democracy ....ah whats the point, dreams ore for fools and lets not kid ourselves, Thailand is not a mature democracy and that suits Abhisit, Yingluck and Taksin perfectly.

[CalgaryII]

jonclark, #4

Indeed in a mature democracy he would have been replaced, but Thailand isn't a mature democracy is it?

Correct on all counts.

But one works with what one has, and for all its huge flaws, there are efforts to improve it.

The politicization of those not considered part of the Amart, is one of the improvements.

Considering the family referenced, the voters were fully appraised and they decided.

For starters, that needs to be respected, and I do.

Sure as hell, beats coups' by elements of the Opposition..

Edited February 13, 2012 by CalgaryII

[longway]

^ only the voters and not the laws makes mob rule rule not a democracy

Edited February 13, 2012 by longway

[whybother]

Success in bringing about reconciliation hinges on the government' s firm commitment not to inflame political conflict, Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said yesterday.

Pressing ahead with the mandate her electoral victory compels her to do, is not inflaming political conflict.

It may piss-off the losing Opposition, but that is not inflaming political conflict.

Reconciliation isn't about doing what "a majority" wants. It's about reconciling with all parties.

[jayboy]

Seems a bit odd that Abhisit should become so agitated at the thought Prem might have been a party to the conflict.I don't think that at this stage of events the thought is on anybody's mind except Mark's.Does he know something we don't?

[jonclark]

jonclark, #4

Indeed in a mature democracy he would have been replaced, but Thailand isn't a mature democracy is it?

Correct on all counts.

But one works with what one has, and for all its huge flaws, there are efforts to improve it.

The politicization of those not considered part of the Amart, is one of the improvements.

Considering the family referenced, the voters were fully appraised and they decided.

For starters, that needs to be respected, and I do.

Sure as hell, beats coups' by elements of the Opposition..

So you resepct the results of the referedum which was held to decide on the current consitution?

[CalgaryII]

^

So you resepct the results of the referedum which was held to decide on the current consitution?

Thank you for asking the question.

That was the cheatingest election one could imagine.

An election under the auspices of those who rejected elections, helping themselves to unelected Governance, would bring any electoral process they managed into question. It is self-evident.

The way the coup perps leaned on their underlings, who in turn leaned on local officials to get out a correct vote, was evident to all.

The coup perps needed that self-serving constitution to pass at all costs.

The degree of respect for that coup electoral sham, is indicated by the speed with which the first non-coup elected Government seeks to correct the matter.

Essentially, an elected, representative Govt, correcting the excesses of one unelected.

It is what the Nitirat proposals are all about.

[rubl]

^

So you resepct the results of the referedum which was held to decide on the current consitution?

Thank you for asking the question.

That was the cheatingest election one could imagine.

An election under the auspices of those who rejected elections, helping themselves to unelected Governance, would bring any electoral process they managed into question. It is self-evident.

The way the coup perps leaned on their underlings, who in turn leaned on local officials to get out a correct vote, was evident to all.

The coup perps needed that self-serving constitution to pass at all costs.

The degree of respect for that coup electoral sham, is indicated by the speed with which the first non-coup elected Government seeks to correct the matter.

Essentially, an elected, representative Govt, correcting the excesses of one unelected.

It is what the Nitirat proposals are all about.

Does this somewhat rambling response mean that you do not respect the results of the referendum which was held to decide on the current consitution? Apart the absolving the coupmakers, what is wrong with the 2007 constitution compared with the 1997 version?

Anyway the topic was 'garden parties won't mend political fences', especially parties for a lot of hotshots, politico's, a (very?) few ambassadors and Pa Prem.

Edited February 13, 2012 by rubl

[CalgaryII]

whybother, #7

Reconciliation isn't about doing what "a majority" wants. It's about reconciling with all parties.

One must distinguish between enactment of an electoral mandate, as being against reconciliation.

Caving to Opposition obstructionism, including their Judges routine, is not reconciliation, as much as they would like to characterize it as such.

Besides, I think the term is a hollow one anyway. Until responsibilties for the R'song murders are surfaced and dealt with, reconciliation is not going anywhere.

[CalgaryII]

rubl, #11

".....what is wrong with the 2007 constitution compared with the 1997 version?

Awright, I will answer your question, and then get back to garden parties. They are definitely more fun.

The electorate thinks plenty is wrong with the 2007 constitution..

It was arguably the biggest issue leading to Ms. Y's electoral victory.

The Parliamentary Panel answered your question completely, as follows:

".......the present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.

Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organisations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy, the panel said.

Independent organisations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.

Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.

The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution, the drafting panel said.

Edited February 13, 2012 by CalgaryII

[whybother]

whybother, #7

Reconciliation isn't about doing what "a majority" wants. It's about reconciling with all parties.

One must distinguish between enactment of an electoral mandate, as being against reconciliation.

Caving to Opposition obstructionism, including their Judges routine, is not reconciliation, as much as they would like to characterize it as such.

Besides, I think the term is a hollow one anyway. Until responsibilties for the R'song murders are surfaced and dealt with, reconciliation is not going anywhere.

The electoral promise was "reconciliation".

[rubl]

rubl, #11

".....what is wrong with the 2007 constitution compared with the 1997 version?

Awright, I will answer your question, and then get back to garden parties. They are definitely more fun.

The electorate thinks plenty is wrong with the 2007 constitution..

It was arguably the biggest issue leading to Ms. Y's electoral victory.

The Parliamentary Panel answered your question completely, as follows:

".......the present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.

Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organisations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy, the panel said.

Independent organisations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.

Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.

The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution, the drafting panel said.

http://www.asianewsnet.net/home/news.php?id=27552&sec=1

The "Parliamentary Committee" was actually a Pheu Thai committee methinks. A Pheu Thai source said a panel of drafters working on the bill has already come up with proposed amendments and provided a set of arguments to explain the need for the amendment. With Pheu Thay party a (legal) offspring of PPP and TRT the objections are no surprise.

I guess we may agree on one thing at least, a push for changes by one side ignoring all others doesn't work reconciliatory and is not in the interest of the country. Neither are garden parties for a select few of mostly government / Pheu Thai related people.

[rubl]

whybother, #7

Reconciliation isn't about doing what "a majority" wants. It's about reconciling with all parties.

One must distinguish between enactment of an electoral mandate, as being against reconciliation.

Caving to Opposition obstructionism, including their Judges routine, is not reconciliation, as much as they would like to characterize it as such.

Besides, I think the term is a hollow one anyway. Until responsibilties for the R'song murders are surfaced and dealt with, reconciliation is not going anywhere.

If reconciliation depends on knowing who's responsible for R'song murders it would not work at all. If at all it should include all 91 deaths from the March - May 2010 riots. Not sure it would help reconciliation though, IMHO

[sparebox2]

Under the Abhisit administration, Bt60 million were spent to raise awareness on the national anthem, he said, noting the comparison to Bt10 million spent for Friday's party.

I like it.