Abhisit To Deliver Speech On Good Governance In Penang Wednesday

[Skywalker69]

Abhisit Vejjajvia has been invited to deliver a speech on good governance and anticorruption

Will be a very short one then.

Not shorter than Yinglucks.

Yeah, but Yingluck.......

Yingluck......? Is fluent in english?

[MunterHunter]

I say let Jutaporn have a go... only question is, before or after the Hunger Strike?

[Skywalker69]

Malaysia, this great democracy ! It's true they have a perfect record with Anwar.

Abhi will feel perfectly at home there.

Like Thaksin in Cambodia?

KO in the first round.

[Payboy]

Will be a very short one then.

Not shorter than Yinglucks.

Yeah, but Yingluck.......

Yingluck......? Is fluent in english?

[Thai at Heart]

I suppose he can talk from experience having been in a coalition with Newin's bunch.

[birdpooguava]

Well Abhisit wasn't corrupt and even with the corrupt coalition partner the government was the last corrupt democratic government for a decade.

Right buddy. Someone that lowers themselves to being part of a deal where his coalition partners only side with him because the army tells them that they won't support the party with a 233:165 electoral advantage. What a man.

[whybother]

Well Abhisit wasn't corrupt and even with the corrupt coalition partner the government was the last corrupt democratic government for a decade.

Right buddy. Someone that lowers themselves to being part of a deal where his coalition partners only side with him because the army tells them that they won't support the party with a 233:165 electoral advantage. What a man.

But they didn't have a 233:165 electoral advantage. 40 or so of that 233 decided they didn't want to be part of that group any more and then decided to back someone else.

[birdpooguava]

Well Abhisit wasn't corrupt and even with the corrupt coalition partner the government was the last corrupt democratic government for a decade.

Right buddy. Someone that lowers themselves to being part of a deal where his coalition partners only side with him because the army tells them that they won't support the party with a 233:165 electoral advantage. What a man.

But they didn't have a 233:165 electoral advantage. 40 or so of that 233 decided they didn't want to be part of that group any more and then decided to back someone else.

Chart Thai Pattana party leader Chumpol Silpa-acha claimed his party was coerced to join the Democrat-led coalition government in 2008 through some "irresistible force". By the way, that crucial coalition-formation talk took place at the residence of then Army Chief General Anuphong Paochinda. Democracy Abhisit style!

Edited June 25, 2012 by birdpooguava

[whybother]

Right buddy. Someone that lowers themselves to being part of a deal where his coalition partners only side with him because the army tells them that they won't support the party with a 233:165 electoral advantage. What a man.

But they didn't have a 233:165 electoral advantage. 40 or so of that 233 decided they didn't want to be part of that group any more and then decided to back someone else.

Chart Thai Pattana party leader Chumpol Silpa-acha claimed his party was coerced to join the Democrat-led coalition government in 2008 through some "irresistible force". By the way, that crucial coalition-formation talk took place at the residence of then Army Chief General Anuphong Paochinda. Democracy Abhisit style!

Yes ... coerced by the "irresistible force" of money.

As I said, they lost that 233:165 electoral advantage when 40 or so MPs jumped ship BEFORE a new coalition was formed.

[birdpooguava]

Yes ... coerced by the "irresistible force" of money.

As I said, they lost that 233:165 electoral advantage when 40 or so MPs jumped ship BEFORE a new coalition was formed.

What money are you referring to? You mean the money they would get by having portfolios in the Abhisit coalition. Well I ask you, who made this coalition possible? What was the force behind the change of allegiance? We know it wasn't the will of the people. We know it wasn't Abhisit's or the Democrat's popularity. So why exactly did they decide to side with the Dems?

[whybother]

Yes ... coerced by the "irresistible force" of money.

As I said, they lost that 233:165 electoral advantage when 40 or so MPs jumped ship BEFORE a new coalition was formed.

What money are you referring to? You mean the money they would get by having portfolios in the Abhisit coalition. Well I ask you, who made this coalition possible? What was the force behind the change of allegiance? We know it wasn't the will of the people. We know it wasn't Abhisit's or the Democrat's popularity. So why exactly did they decide to side with the Dems?

It must have been the will of the people. The MPs that the people elected made the decision.

Unless you're saying that the governments just prior to the Democrat government weren't the "will of the people" either. And a question you could ask about that prior coalition is "Why did parties back the PPP party when they had campaigned that they wouldn't?"

[birdpooguava]

It must have been the will of the people. The MPs that the people elected made the decision.

Unless you're saying that the governments just prior to the Democrat government weren't the "will of the people" either. And a question you could ask about that prior coalition is "Why did parties back the PPP party when they had campaigned that they wouldn't?"

So why was the deal done at the residence of the army chief?

[birdpooguava]

A recent picture of whybother

[whybother]

It must have been the will of the people. The MPs that the people elected made the decision.

Unless you're saying that the governments just prior to the Democrat government weren't the "will of the people" either. And a question you could ask about that prior coalition is "Why did parties back the PPP party when they had campaigned that they wouldn't?"

So why was the deal done at the residence of the army chief?

Apparently it was. Do you complain if political deals are done in Dubai?

And does that mean you will brush aside all the other issues about "the will of the people" and parties "coercing" other parties to break election promises?

[whybother]

A recent picture of whybother

How about you respond to some of the questions and issues I raised instead of "but the army ...".

[birdpooguava]

How can it be the will of the people when minor party's decisions are being influenced by elements outside of parliament & the electorate? The will of the people has been clearly stated time & time again. Thaksin's parties have won by far the highest number of seats every time they have stood in elections. The Democrats without help by 'irresistible forces' are perennial losers. Given an unbiased judiciary & armed forces the Dems would be on the electoral scrapheap.

[philw]

It must have been the will of the people. The MPs that the people elected made the decision.

Unless you're saying that the governments just prior to the Democrat government weren't the "will of the people" either. And a question you could ask about that prior coalition is "Why did parties back the PPP party when they had campaigned that they wouldn't?"

So why was the deal done at the residence of the army chief?

You are wasting your time mate.

The select coterie of die hards on here just spin and spin and repeat the same old same old.

Nobody got shot by the army.

Yinglucks administration is not a majority.

It's not really the popular will.

All red shirts are stupid terrorists.

Abhisit is wonderful.

What happened in the Temple was done by black shirts or red shirts or any other shirts except khaki.

Anyway the nurse, photographer, old man et al deserved to be shot by the army, that didn't really do it, because they shouldn't have been there anyway and it's their fault that they ran into the bullets..........

They deserved to be shot because they were there and knew the risks.

But the army didn't kill anyone anyway, it was some one else, who had stolen all their guns.

The thaivisa show continues and my Mother's the Pope.

Edited June 25, 2012 by philw

[nurofiend]

.......deserved to be shot by the army, that didn't really do it, because they shouldn't have been there anyway and it's their fault that they ran into the bullets..........

They deserved to be shot because they were there and knew the risks.

But the army didn't kill anyone anyway, it was some one else, who had stolen all their guns.

lol

[whybother]

How can it be the will of the people when minor party's decisions are being influenced by elements outside of parliament & the electorate? The will of the people has been clearly stated time & time again. Thaksin's parties have won by far the highest number of seats every time they have stood in elections. The Democrats without help by 'irresistible forces' are perennial losers. Given an unbiased judiciary & armed forces the Dems would be on the electoral scrapheap.

How can it be the will of the people when parties campaign that they won't join a coalition with a particular party and then do?

The red shirts don't want an unbiased army and judiciary. If Thaksin had his way, the army and judiciary would be biased in his favour. Given what he got away with when they weren't, where would we be now if they were?

The Democrats may not get a majority on their own, but if they can put together a coalition made up of a majority of MPs, then that will be "the will of the people". They did that in 2008 when a group of MPs decided that they didn't want to be part of Thaksin's proxy parties anymore.

Sent from my shoe phone

[nurofiend]

How can it be the will of the people when minor party's decisions are being influenced by elements outside of parliament & the electorate? The will of the people has been clearly stated time & time again. Thaksin's parties have won by far the highest number of seats every time they have stood in elections. The Democrats without help by 'irresistible forces' are perennial losers. Given an unbiased judiciary & armed forces the Dems would be on the electoral scrapheap.

How can it be the will of the people when parties campaign that they won't join a coalition with a particular party and then do?

The red shirts don't want an unbiased army and judiciary. If Thaksin had his way, the army and judiciary would be biased in his favour. Given what he got away with when they weren't, where would we be now if they were?

The Democrats may not get a majority on their own, but if they can put together a coalition made up of a majority of MPs, then that will be "the will of the people". They did that in 2008 when a group of MPs decided that they didn't want to be part of Thaksin's proxy parties anymore.

Sent from my shoe phone

They did that in 2008 when a group of MPs decided that they didn't want to be part of Thaksin's proxy parties anymore.

sure, and that was the only mitigating factor wasn't it, they just decided that they didn't want to be part of Thaksin's proxy parties anymore... a swift change of heart and political outlook.

[birdpooguava]

How can it be the will of the people when parties campaign that they won't join a coalition with a particular party and then do?

The red shirts don't want an unbiased army and judiciary. If Thaksin had his way, the army and judiciary would be biased in his favour. Given what he got away with when they weren't, where would we be now if they were?

The Democrats may not get a majority on their own, but if they can put together a coalition made up of a majority of MPs, then that will be "the will of the people". They did that in 2008 when a group of MPs decided that they didn't want to be part of Thaksin's proxy parties anymore.

Sent from my shoe phone

Thaksin's way;

• Thaksin's economic policies, helped Thailand recover from the 1997 Asian financial crisis and substantially reduce poverty.
  
• GDP grew from 4.9 trillion baht in 2001 to 7.1 trillion baht in 2006.
  
• Income in the Northeast, the poorest part of the country, rose by 46% from 2001 to 2006.
  
• Nationwide poverty fell from 21.3% to 11.3%.
  
• Thailand's Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, fell from .525 in 2000 to .499 in 2004 (it had risen from 1996 to 2000) )
  
• The Stock Exchange of Thailand outperformed other markets in the region
  
• After facing fiscal deficits in 2001 and 2002, Thaksin balanced the national budget, producing comfortable fiscal surpluses for 2003 to 2005. Despite a massive program of infrastructure investments, a balanced budget was projected for 2007.
  
• Public sector debt fell from 57 per cent of GDP in January 2001 to 41 per cent in September 2006.
  
• Foreign exchange reserves doubled from US$30 billion in 2001 to US$64 billion in 2006.
  
• Thaksin's 30-baht/visit universal healthcare program won the applause of the general public. Prior to the program's introduction, a large portion of the population had no health insurance and only limited access to healthcare. The program helped increase access to healthcare from 76% of the population to 96%.
  
• During the Thaksin government, the number of people living with HIV/AIDS as well as the overall prevalence rate noticeably declined.
  
• The Thaksin era also saw the opening of a number of government one-stop service centers to reduce red tape for anything from investment to utilities and ID-card processing.
  
• After more than 30 years of planning and debate, the Thaksin government finally completed the construction of the new Suvarnabhumi International Airport.
  

Thank god the yellows/ army/ Dems saved us from the evil dictator. Things have been so much better since he was removed.

Edited June 25, 2012 by birdpooguava

[55Jay]

"Abhisit is, of course, a strong proponent of good governance and opposes authoritarianism. He adheres to those principles," Lim said.

And when that doesn't work, just roll out the tanks and the Army and throw a full moon coup party.

Edited June 25, 2012 by 55Jay

[philw]

How can it be the will of the people when minor party's decisions are being influenced by elements outside of parliament & the electorate? The will of the people has been clearly stated time & time again. Thaksin's parties have won by far the highest number of seats every time they have stood in elections. The Democrats without help by 'irresistible forces' are perennial losers. Given an unbiased judiciary & armed forces the Dems would be on the electoral scrapheap.

How can it be the will of the people when parties campaign that they won't join a coalition with a particular party and then do?

The red shirts don't want an unbiased army and judiciary. If Thaksin had his way, the army and judiciary would be biased in his favour. Given what he got away with when they weren't, where would we be now if they were?

The Democrats may not get a majority on their own, but if they can put together a coalition made up of a majority of MPs, then that will be "the will of the people". They did that in 2008 when a group of MPs decided that they didn't want to be part of Thaksin's proxy parties anymore.

Sent from my shoe phone

They did that in 2008 when a group of MPs decided that they didn't want to be part of Thaksin's proxy parties anymore.

sure, and that was the only mitigating factor wasn't it, they just decided that they didn't want to be part of Thaksin's proxy parties anymore... a swift change of heart and political outlook.

The unprincipled reality of Thai politics.

Next election they will swing another way.

So what ?

Only thing that counts is who won the majority, and what they do with it.

Hope Mark A is having a good time at the Penang Institute furthering the cause of the Dems winning the next election...

[Roadman]

How can it be the will of the people when minor party's decisions are being influenced by elements outside of parliament & the electorate? The will of the people has been clearly stated time & time again. Thaksin's parties have won by far the highest number of seats every time they have stood in elections. The Democrats without help by 'irresistible forces' are perennial losers. Given an unbiased judiciary & armed forces the Dems would be on the electoral scrapheap.

How can it be the will of the people when parties campaign that they won't join a coalition with a particular party and then do?

The red shirts don't want an unbiased army and judiciary. If Thaksin had his way, the army and judiciary would be biased in his favour. Given what he got away with when they weren't, where would we be now if they were?

The Democrats may not get a majority on their own, but if they can put together a coalition made up of a majority of MPs, then that will be "the will of the people". They did that in 2008 when a group of MPs decided that they didn't want to be part of Thaksin's proxy parties anymore.

Sent from my shoe phone

They did that in 2008 when a group of MPs decided that they didn't want to be part of Thaksin's proxy parties anymore.

sure, and that was the only mitigating factor wasn't it, they just decided that they didn't want to be part of Thaksin's proxy parties anymore... a swift change of heart and political outlook.

No different than many two bit parties in established western democracies who sell their party to the best bidder of two close or tied contenders from the vote, and do deals for whatever and where ever for the week after the vote to get a team together to govern, As with the Maori Party in New Zealand which has allowed the National Party to take power and then govern for the last two terms. And these two parties were and are from two completely different platforms.

As said above and moving back on topic. in the whole of Thailand they had to go to Ahbisit to find some one who understands good governance. Penang is just yet another knowledgeable group who understands the scum that are running this country currently could not be called on.

[philw]

How can it be the will of the people when parties campaign that they won't join a coalition with a particular party and then do?

The red shirts don't want an unbiased army and judiciary. If Thaksin had his way, the army and judiciary would be biased in his favour. Given what he got away with when they weren't, where would we be now if they were?

The Democrats may not get a majority on their own, but if they can put together a coalition made up of a majority of MPs, then that will be "the will of the people". They did that in 2008 when a group of MPs decided that they didn't want to be part of Thaksin's proxy parties anymore.

Sent from my shoe phone

Thaksin's way;

• Thaksin's economic policies, helped Thailand recover from the 1997 Asian financial crisis and substantially reduce poverty.
  
• GDP grew from 4.9 trillion baht in 2001 to 7.1 trillion baht in 2006.
  
• Income in the Northeast, the poorest part of the country, rose by 46% from 2001 to 2006.
  
• Nationwide poverty fell from 21.3% to 11.3%.
  
• Thailand's Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, fell from .525 in 2000 to .499 in 2004 (it had risen from 1996 to 2000) )
  
• The Stock Exchange of Thailand outperformed other markets in the region
  
• After facing fiscal deficits in 2001 and 2002, Thaksin balanced the national budget, producing comfortable fiscal surpluses for 2003 to 2005. Despite a massive program of infrastructure investments, a balanced budget was projected for 2007.
  
• Public sector debt fell from 57 per cent of GDP in January 2001 to 41 per cent in September 2006.
  
• Foreign exchange reserves doubled from US$30 billion in 2001 to US$64 billion in 2006.
  
• Thaksin's 30-baht/visit universal healthcare program won the applause of the general public. Prior to the program's introduction, a large portion of the population had no health insurance and only limited access to healthcare. The program helped increase access to healthcare from 76% of the population to 96%.
  
• During the Thaksin government, the number of people living with HIV/AIDS as well as the overall prevalence rate noticeably declined.
  
• The Thaksin era also saw the opening of a number of government one-stop service centers to reduce red tape for anything from investment to utilities and ID-card processing.
  
• After more than 30 years of planning and debate, the Thaksin government finally completed the construction of the new Suvarnabhumi International Airport.
  

Thank god the yellows/ army/ Dems saved us from the evil dictator. Things have been so much better since he was removed.

But who stole the guns.........

You are of course correct and whilst I detest Thaksin for several reasons, only blind Freddy could argue that the coup was a good thing, that Mark A was credible or effective and that what we have now is worse than before.

Puppet or not, and I think not, Yingluck's doing ok, especially given the other loonies at play.

Chalerm, Jataporn et al

Country has not fallen over yet and we are a year into her administration.

Naysayers, please refer to my Mother, the Pope.

[Roadman]

"Abhisit is, of course, a strong proponent of good governance and opposes authoritarianism. He adheres to those principles," Lim said.

And when that doesn't work, just roll out the tanks and the Army and throw a full moon coup party.

See there is the bullsh!t again. The Dems were not in power when the last coup occurred. But never mind you make it up as you go along in your misguided attempt to be funny.

[birdpooguava]

"Abhisit is, of course, a strong proponent of good governance and opposes authoritarianism. He adheres to those principles," Lim said.

And when that doesn't work, just roll out the tanks and the Army and throw a full moon coup party.

See there is the bullsh!t again. The Dems were not in power when the last coup occurred. But never mind you make it up as you go along in your misguided attempt to be funny.

Yeah, I bet they were really cut up about it!

[hellodolly]

How can it be the will of the people when parties campaign that they won't join a coalition with a particular party and then do?

The red shirts don't want an unbiased army and judiciary. If Thaksin had his way, the army and judiciary would be biased in his favour. Given what he got away with when they weren't, where would we be now if they were?

The Democrats may not get a majority on their own, but if they can put together a coalition made up of a majority of MPs, then that will be "the will of the people". They did that in 2008 when a group of MPs decided that they didn't want to be part of Thaksin's proxy parties anymore.

Sent from my shoe phone

Thaksin's way;

• Thaksin's economic policies, helped Thailand recover from the 1997 Asian financial crisis and substantially reduce poverty.
  
• GDP grew from 4.9 trillion baht in 2001 to 7.1 trillion baht in 2006.
  
• Income in the Northeast, the poorest part of the country, rose by 46% from 2001 to 2006.
  
• Nationwide poverty fell from 21.3% to 11.3%.
  
• Thailand's Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, fell from .525 in 2000 to .499 in 2004 (it had risen from 1996 to 2000) )
  
• The Stock Exchange of Thailand outperformed other markets in the region
  
• After facing fiscal deficits in 2001 and 2002, Thaksin balanced the national budget, producing comfortable fiscal surpluses for 2003 to 2005. Despite a massive program of infrastructure investments, a balanced budget was projected for 2007.
  
• Public sector debt fell from 57 per cent of GDP in January 2001 to 41 per cent in September 2006.
  
• Foreign exchange reserves doubled from US$30 billion in 2001 to US$64 billion in 2006.
  
• Thaksin's 30-baht/visit universal healthcare program won the applause of the general public. Prior to the program's introduction, a large portion of the population had no health insurance and only limited access to healthcare. The program helped increase access to healthcare from 76% of the population to 96%.
  
• During the Thaksin government, the number of people living with HIV/AIDS as well as the overall prevalence rate noticeably declined.
  
• The Thaksin era also saw the opening of a number of government one-stop service centers to reduce red tape for anything from investment to utilities and ID-card processing.
  
• After more than 30 years of planning and debate, the Thaksin government finally completed the construction of the new Suvarnabhumi International Airport.
  

Thank god the yellows/ army/ Dems saved us from the evil dictator. Things have been so much better since he was removed.

How come Thailand did so well at the same time as the rest of the world. Are you trying to give Thaksin credit for that.

And if Thailand did so well under him financially how come the Government in 2012 had to transfer part of it debt from the late 90's over to another department so they could spend more money on projects t make them personally wealthy?

[philw]

"Abhisit is, of course, a strong proponent of good governance and opposes authoritarianism. He adheres to those principles," Lim said.

And when that doesn't work, just roll out the tanks and the Army and throw a full moon coup party.

See there is the bullsh!t again. The Dems were not in power when the last coup occurred. But never mind you make it up as you go along in your misguided attempt to be funny.

Sorry, have to correct you, it's not bullshit, he's right.

I think we all know the dems were not in power at the time of the coup, but thank you for reminding us.

When were they last in power, by the way ??

It wasn't that evil bastard Thaksin was it ??

Good grief, as the Pope might say....

[philw]

How can it be the will of the people when parties campaign that they won't join a coalition with a particular party and then do?

The red shirts don't want an unbiased army and judiciary. If Thaksin had his way, the army and judiciary would be biased in his favour. Given what he got away with when they weren't, where would we be now if they were?

The Democrats may not get a majority on their own, but if they can put together a coalition made up of a majority of MPs, then that will be "the will of the people". They did that in 2008 when a group of MPs decided that they didn't want to be part of Thaksin's proxy parties anymore.

Sent from my shoe phone

Thaksin's way;

• Thaksin's economic policies, helped Thailand recover from the 1997 Asian financial crisis and substantially reduce poverty.
  
• GDP grew from 4.9 trillion baht in 2001 to 7.1 trillion baht in 2006.
  
• Income in the Northeast, the poorest part of the country, rose by 46% from 2001 to 2006.
  
• Nationwide poverty fell from 21.3% to 11.3%.
  
• Thailand's Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, fell from .525 in 2000 to .499 in 2004 (it had risen from 1996 to 2000) )
  
• The Stock Exchange of Thailand outperformed other markets in the region
  
• After facing fiscal deficits in 2001 and 2002, Thaksin balanced the national budget, producing comfortable fiscal surpluses for 2003 to 2005. Despite a massive program of infrastructure investments, a balanced budget was projected for 2007.
  
• Public sector debt fell from 57 per cent of GDP in January 2001 to 41 per cent in September 2006.
  
• Foreign exchange reserves doubled from US$30 billion in 2001 to US$64 billion in 2006.
  
• Thaksin's 30-baht/visit universal healthcare program won the applause of the general public. Prior to the program's introduction, a large portion of the population had no health insurance and only limited access to healthcare. The program helped increase access to healthcare from 76% of the population to 96%.
  
• During the Thaksin government, the number of people living with HIV/AIDS as well as the overall prevalence rate noticeably declined.
  
• The Thaksin era also saw the opening of a number of government one-stop service centers to reduce red tape for anything from investment to utilities and ID-card processing.
  
• After more than 30 years of planning and debate, the Thaksin government finally completed the construction of the new Suvarnabhumi International Airport.
  

Thank god the yellows/ army/ Dems saved us from the evil dictator. Things have been so much better since he was removed.

How come Thailand did so well at the same time as the rest of the world. Are you trying to give Thaksin credit for that.

And if Thailand did so well under him financially how come the Government in 2012 had to transfer part of it debt from the late 90's over to another department so they could spend more money on projects t make them personally wealthy?

Evidence for that assertion ??