Pheu Thai Party: Survey Shows The Public Believes Reconciliation Is Possible

[rixalex]

you must be joking... (edit: assuming you are referring to elections) When was the last time the red shirt movement did not respect the polls?

Please, do tell...

Already explained in post #12:

The reds may not have liked the parliamentary process that enabled it, and i understand the reasons for that, but the fact is that Abhisit came to power through the polls and he was as every bit legitimate as Somchai. I don't recall the reds respecting the polls on that occasion.

[tlansford]

you must be joking... (edit: assuming you are referring to elections) When was the last time the red shirt movement did not respect the polls?

Please, do tell...

Already explained in post #12:

The reds may not have liked the parliamentary process that enabled it, and i understand the reasons for that, but the fact is that Abhisit came to power through the polls and he was as every bit legitimate as Somchai. I don't recall the reds respecting the polls on that occasion.

like I said, you must be joking...

And I guess you are.

[rixalex]

you must be joking... (edit: assuming you are referring to elections) When was the last time the red shirt movement did not respect the polls?

Please, do tell...

Already explained in post #12:

The reds may not have liked the parliamentary process that enabled it, and i understand the reasons for that, but the fact is that Abhisit came to power through the polls and he was as every bit legitimate as Somchai. I don't recall the reds respecting the polls on that occasion.

like I said, you must be joking...

And I guess you are.

Haven't a clue what you are talking about. What part of what i wrote was a joke to you?

[WhizBang]

like I said, you must be joking...

And I guess you are.

Obviously you do not understand parlamentry democracy. Time for you to go back to school.

Edited April 8, 2012 by WhizBang

[phiphidon]

Already explained in post #12:

The reds may not have liked the parliamentary process that enabled it, and i understand the reasons for that, but the fact is that Abhisit came to power through the polls and he was as every bit legitimate as Somchai. I don't recall the reds respecting the polls on that occasion.

like I said, you must be joking...

And I guess you are.

Haven't a clue what you are talking about. What part of what i wrote was a joke to you?

I understand that Somchai beat Abhisit in an election by the National Assembly to become PM. And Abhisit, well he "got by with a little help from his friends". Even Pravit Rojanaphruk of The Nation didn't believe Abhisit had legitimacy:

The "election" of Abhisit was a coup so quiet that it even caught anti-coup activists like Chotisak Onsoong off-guard. From day one academics and activists, including Chotisak, questioned Abhisit's legitimacy. And it doesn't seem likely that the PM can convince them otherwise - especially since some people are already calling this government a puppet of the military.

This would not have been possible if the PAD had not seized the two airports and if the Constitution Court had not dissolved three parties, including the People Power Party.

http://nationmultime...cs_30091207.php

That's the funny part, where you said Abhisit was "as legitimate".

Edited April 8, 2012 by phiphidon

[bigbamboo]

These survey results all seem to be skewed to the political orientation of those conducting them. I take all of them 'with a grain of salt' including the PTP one above, as well as ABAC, NIDA, etc.. They all try to suggest the public concurs with their particular political slant on things but trying to give it a credible researchy sort of veneer.. A type of "agenda laundering". If there is a truly independent research source whose Poll findings could be trusted, I don't know who they are. Reconciliation is a pipe-dream imho, in spite of what the above PTP survey tries to suggest.

Wouldn't disagree with any of that.

[bigbamboo]

The only poll that matters was held on 3/7/2011

Not quite. That certainly was one of them because the people voted for PTP.

The other was the Thai Constitution in 2007 because the people voted for that too.

[MEL1]

I never knew there were so many thick farangs who arrived ignorantly into Thailand to support a body who is obviously a dictator.

Follow the red sheep, and end in the pool of blood. You wanna go that way, then don't look for farang help when you are in dire circumstances!

Go follow the silence of the lambs, until they bite you.

Mr T steps on foot on Thai soil and you are a target. Heed my words. There's more people to fight against than the reds believe for.

Enjoy your Song Khran getting your brain washed, more than it has been already.

I thought all farangs were more insightful, but obviously there's a crowd of dimwits who believe they know it all!

Shame. Cos I won't be picking up your bones when the shit hits the fan!

-mel.

[hellodolly]

The reds may not have liked the parliamentary process that enabled it, and i understand the reasons for that, but the fact is that Abhisit came to power through the polls and he was as every bit legitimate as Somchai. I don't recall the reds respecting the polls on that occasion.

Simply not true!

"It was not that Chartthaipattana wanted to join the coalition. We would definitely not do so if we were not forced to. We were pressured by a powerful force from which we could not evade." Chartthaipattana Party leader Chumpol Silapa-archa said.

Yes the powerful force being Thaksin telling them it was his way and they had no choice.

That was powerful enough to side with some one who had a little respect for them.

[hellodolly]

I never knew there were so many thick farangs who arrived ignorantly into Thailand to support a body who is obviously a dictator.

Follow the red sheep, and end in the pool of blood. You wanna go that way, then don't look for farang help when you are in dire circumstances!

Go follow the silence of the lambs, until they bite you.

Mr T steps on foot on Thai soil and you are a target. Heed my words. There's more people to fight against than the reds believe for.

Enjoy your Song Khran getting your brain washed, more than it has been already.

I thought all farangs were more insightful, but obviously there's a crowd of dimwits who believe they know it all!

Shame. Cos I won't be picking up your bones when the shit hits the fan!

-mel.

You are forgetting that they are probably not wanted where they came from because of that kind of thinking.

[tlansford]

- deleted for quote limits -

Already explained in post #12:

The reds may not have liked the parliamentary process that enabled it, and i understand the reasons for that, but the fact is that Abhisit came to power through the polls and he was as every bit legitimate as Somchai. I don't recall the reds respecting the polls on that occasion.

like I said, you must be joking...

And I guess you are.

Haven't a clue what you are talking about. What part of what i wrote was a joke to you?

Phiphidon beat me to it.

It is the same argument that supporters of Abhisit claim, that he came to power legitimately ignoring that he did not ever win enough votes in a general election to form a gov't... Which is exaclty the point birdpooguava was making.

You said they respect the polls when it suits them (the red shirts). And yet Abhisit never came to power through the results of the polls. He came to power through his own wrangling and back-room deals as well described by PPD.

Again, when was the last time the red shirt movement did not respect the polls / election results? Never. That's when.

[rubl]

As most believe reconciliation is possible we your representatives in the PM Yingluck government have decided that there is no need for further dialogue. It would be a waste of time. Please understand first what the House of Representatives is, so we understand that we cannot let people give opinions directly.

In the mean time don't worry, be happy and let us do our work. We try not to bother you with minor details, similar as we try to protect the PM.

BTW responding to a question by a reporter on whether Pheu Thai Party plans to push for an amnesty bill by September, Yingluck said she was unaware of such a goal.

[tlansford]

The only poll that matters was held on 3/7/2011

Not quite. That certainly was one of them because the people voted for PTP.

The other was the Thai Constitution in 2007 because the people voted for that too.

OK, you are correct. Sort of...

With the country under martial law and campaigning in any way shape or form related to the constitution illegal, it was of course considered a fair and open referendum...

But the reference was to general elections anyway...

Edited April 8, 2012 by tlansford

[rubl]

...

It is the same argument that supporters of Abhisit claim, that he came to power legitimately ignoring that he did not ever win enough votes in a general election to form a gov't...

...

You suggest that any MP who's party didn't get enough seats to form a government, can therefore never ever form a government based on that result.

Minority governments and governments led by a minority party is not uncommon in Europe. Please do some reading on this type of subject first.

Edited April 8, 2012 by rubl

[Buchholz]

And I daresay Somchai, if able to speak freely on the matter, would also say a powerful force from which he could not evade was behind his sudden elevation to Premier. Do you really think Somchai ever wanted that job?

His wife Wowapha wanted it, but Thaksin's sister was banned when Thaksin was banned.

Not unlike currently, Yingluck never wanted the job and had declined it several times.

It was only when the 4th Shinawatra sibling, Payup, turned out to be such a complete incompetent as a stand-in that Yingluck finally relented and accepted it.

.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Buchholz

[tlansford]

...

It is the same argument that supporters of Abhisit claim, that he came to power legitimately ignoring that he did not ever win enough votes in a general election to form a gov't...

...

You suggest that any MP who's party didn't get enough seats to form a government, can therefore never ever form a government based on that result.

Minority governments and governments led by a minority party is not uncommon in Europe. Please do some reading on this type of subject first.

Rubl, this is drifting. The point contested was that the UDD respects only election results they like. Well since the coup, there have not been any general election results which did not result in a government supported by the UDD. The democratic led government did not result from a general election, as you well know.

The point regarding minority governments is irrelevant to this case in Thailand.

(I don't need to do additional reading on minority gov't in Europe, etc. But thank you for the suggestion)

[phiphidon]

...

It is the same argument that supporters of Abhisit claim, that he came to power legitimately ignoring that he did not ever win enough votes in a general election to form a gov't...

...

You suggest that any MP who's party didn't get enough seats to form a government, can therefore never ever form a government based on that result.

Minority governments and governments led by a minority party is not uncommon in Europe. Please do some reading on this type of subject first.

We are well aware of that. However it is generally considered bad form in Europe and elsewhere to have the military of that country forming governments of their choosing.

[bigbamboo]

The only poll that matters was held on 3/7/2011

Not quite. That certainly was one of them because the people voted for PTP.

The other was the Thai Constitution in 2007 because the people voted for that too.

OK, you are correct. Sort of...

With the country under martial law and campaigning in any way shape or form related to the constitution illegal, it was of course considered a fair and open referendum...

But the reference was to general elections anyway...

Nice try but with the country (technically) under martial law and consequently the absence of the usual vote buying the people gave their opinion as in any poll.

[Mosha]

I bet this poll wasn't run south of Bangkok.

[rubl]

...

It is the same argument that supporters of Abhisit claim, that he came to power legitimately ignoring that he did not ever win enough votes in a general election to form a gov't...

...

You suggest that any MP who's party didn't get enough seats to form a government, can therefore never ever form a government based on that result.

Minority governments and governments led by a minority party is not uncommon in Europe. Please do some reading on this type of subject first.

We are well aware of that. However it is generally considered bad form in Europe and elsewhere to have the military of that country forming governments of their choosing.

That would apply to the PM Surayut led government. And please don't bother to get into details how the Abhisit led government was formed or appointed. We've had that discussion before.

Anyway the Pheu Thai party poll seems differing from other recent polls. Time to stay cool, watch the (heavy) rain and hear the rather loud thunder. Ominous signs ?

[Buchholz]

Anyway the Pheu Thai party poll seems differing from other recent polls. Time to stay cool, watch the (heavy) rain and hear the rather loud thunder. Ominous signs ?

I'm reminded of an earlier discussion...

UDD Red-Shirts To Hold Anti-Coup Rally In Bangkok 18 September

It started to rain heavily here in Khet Dusit. I'm afraid it may spoil some of the rally fun

Mother Nature once again shows her opinion of the Red Shirts.

[tlansford]

The only poll that matters was held on 3/7/2011

Not quite. That certainly was one of them because the people voted for PTP.

The other was the Thai Constitution in 2007 because the people voted for that too.

OK, you are correct. Sort of...

With the country under martial law and campaigning in any way shape or form related to the constitution illegal, it was of course considered a fair and open referendum...

But the reference was to general elections anyway...

Nice try but with the country (technically) under martial law and consequently the absence of the usual vote buying the people gave their opinion as in any poll.

So you seem to say that the referendum was a "fair" vote?

Good for you, but let's not hear more snide remarks about "red democracy" from the conservative posters any more, OK?

[bigbamboo]

Of course in a country where the politicians are as corrupt as they are in Thailand it's impossible to say any vote is completely fair but at the 2007 Constitution referendum there was a marked lack of the usual money changing hands, voters being openly spied on etc...

Edited April 8, 2012 by bigbamboo

[WackySomchai]

So you seem to say that the referendum was a "fair" vote?

Good for you, but let's not hear more snide remarks about "red democracy" from the conservative posters any more, OK?

You elect clowns - you get red noses ...

[rixalex]

I understand that Somchai beat Abhisit in an election by the National Assembly to become PM. And Abhisit, well he "got by with a little help from his friends". Even Pravit Rojanaphruk of The Nation didn't believe Abhisit had legitimacy:

What do you mean "even Pravit Rojanaphruk.."? Pravit's sympathies are well known and what he writes here will be no surprise to anyone who knows his position.

You guys are so funny. Spend so much time telling us what a load of right wing rubbish The Nation is, then the moment they print an article that you happen to agree with, suddenly they are a credible source worthy of quoting.

What is also hilarious is your suggestion that where as Abhisit's rise to PM came about because of help from certain friends, Somchai's rise was different. Yeah right. Somchai was voted in entirely on merit and the MPs who voted for him were acting simply in the best interests of the country and were in no way coerced by a square faced on the run convict.

[rixalex]

Phiphidon beat me to it.

It is the same argument that supporters of Abhisit claim, that he came to power legitimately ignoring that he did not ever win enough votes in a general election to form a gov't... Which is exaclty the point birdpooguava was making.

You said they respect the polls when it suits them (the red shirts). And yet Abhisit never came to power through the results of the polls. He came to power through his own wrangling and back-room deals as well described by PPD.

Again, when was the last time the red shirt movement did not respect the polls / election results? Never. That's when.

I didn't have you down as one of the extreme red shirt sympathisers Tom, but guess i was wrong. More rational thinking sympathisers fully accepted Abhisit's legitimacy as PM, but had a problem with his mandate. I happened to share this view, and felt that whilst it was not his obligation, calling elections after he became PM would have been the right thing not only for him, but more importantly for the country. He didn't do so and this was a mistake, but this didn't give anyone the right to try and force him by use of violence and intimidation. This is precisely what Thaksin attempted via the red shirts, and this was not respecting democracy.

So yes, the reds stand behind democratic values selectively, and when it suits them to do so.

[tlansford]

Phiphidon beat me to it.

It is the same argument that supporters of Abhisit claim, that he came to power legitimately ignoring that he did not ever win enough votes in a general election to form a gov't... Which is exaclty the point birdpooguava was making.

You said they respect the polls when it suits them (the red shirts). And yet Abhisit never came to power through the results of the polls. He came to power through his own wrangling and back-room deals as well described by PPD.

Again, when was the last time the red shirt movement did not respect the polls / election results? Never. That's when.

I didn't have you down as one of the extreme red shirt sympathisers Tom, but guess i was wrong. More rational thinking sympathisers fully accepted Abhisit's legitimacy as PM, but had a problem with his mandate. I happened to share this view, and felt that whilst it was not his obligation, calling elections after he became PM would have been the right thing not only for him, but more importantly for the country. He didn't do so and this was a mistake, but this didn't give anyone the right to try and force him by use of violence and intimidation. This is precisely what Thaksin attempted via the red shirts, and this was not respecting democracy.

So yes, the reds stand behind democratic values selectively, and when it suits them to do so.

'not respecting democracy'

That is exactly what Abhisit failed to do, respect democracy, in his striving to gain power. As someone (born and) educated in the west, this was the key point which revealed his real character and lack of integrity. He knows first hand how western democracies function. He was born and raised in one, yet he subverted the democratic system to gain power. What he proved is that he is willing to do anything to gain power and sell himself to anyone whom he feels will help him get there.

Regardless of any other good intentions he may have, that is the core of the person he has shown himself to be.

Please make a note : the above has nothing to do with the UDD. OK? This is just how I view Abhisit the politician and why I have no respect for him. His failings stand alone.

I also do not respect Thaksin. His lack of integrity was made perfectly clear when he sold Shin corp without paying taxes. He owed and owes his country for his entire fortune, yet felt no obligation to even pay back a modest amount of tax.

As for the UDD - while various leaders may have their own agendas, I find a movement that gives a political voice to a large number of normal citizens a good development. The UDD does do that. To be honest, while I have less sympathy for their ultra-national agenda (OK, no sympathy, really), it must be said that the PAD does, to a lesser degree, serve a similar function. And for both groups, it is clear that the majority of their members genuinely support their own group's agenda / platform. For me, that is a reflection of (at least some) intellectual honesty on the part of social-political movements. The comparison of the red/yellow groups cannot be carried too far, however, since the success of the yellow shirts manifested itself in a military and then judicial coup, and the success of the red shirt movement manifested itself in the form of a general election victory.

If making the above observations means that I am an 'extreme red shirt sympathizer' in your eyes, then I'll acknowledge that as your opinion.

Cheers

[rixalex]

If making the above observations means that I am an 'extreme red shirt sympathizer' in your eyes, then I'll acknowledge that as your opinion.

Cheers

You are an extreme red sympathiser in my eyes if you can not accept that Abhisit was the legitimate leader of Thailand, albeit via some admitted murky and dubious practices - but murky and dubious practices that also to a degree played a hand in Somchai's rise to the top, as well as a good number, if not all, of the other leaders of coalition governments in Thailand.

Yes in the case of Abhisit the military is alleged to have been involved, and i know and appreciate how unpalletable that is for many, but in my view, one unelected outside influence being involved in a supposed democratic government is pretty much as bad as another - there's really not a lot of difference with any of them.

[ozzieman05]

What a surprise,PTP holds an inhouse survey and the results are satisfying.

The only time this can happen in Thailand is when the legal system can not be bought, Governments can not influence legal decisions, and the law applies to everyone equally

Do the crime and do the times

not do the crime and pay someone and things will be fine

[ozzieman05]

Yeah right, like Chumpol Silapa-archa had a gun to his head. He could have said no but he wanted a slice of the action like all the other politicians.

If you want to examine the horse trading involved in any of the Thai coalition governments, you will find coercion, power deals, secret meetings, money exchanges, enticements etc, in them all. I don't condone it, but nor do i pretend it occurs selectively. Wake up if you do.

And I daresay Somchai, if able to speak freely on the matter, would also say a powerful force from which he could not evade was behind his sudden elevation to Premier. Do you really think Somchai ever wanted that job?

As usual coup sympathisers acting dumb. You know quite well what happened, but choose to brush over it. Abhisit's administration was as democratic & valid as a bee hive. They & their fellow perpetrators are single-handedly responsible for the violence & hatred that prevails in the country.

Let me guess

you mean the Red Shirts