No-Confidence Debate To Target Yingluck And Thaksin

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE

No-confidence debate to target PM and Thaksin

Avudh Panananda

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva and Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra are heading for their first showdown next month.

The Abhisit-Yingluck match will not cause a drastic change but could yield small ripples that will have an impact on the political landscape in years to come.

After four months of indecision, Abhisit has finally given his green light to target Yingluck in a motion of no confidence.

In addition to grilling the prime minister, the upcoming censure will cover other Cabinet members, such as Finance Minister Kittiratt Na-Ranong, Commerce Minister Boonsong Teriyaphirom and Foreign Minister Surapong Towichuk-chaikul.

In other words, the Democrats will zero in on ministers seen as close to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Abhisit took so long to make up his mind on the censure simply because the Democrats had no knock-out punch against Yingluck.

Despite being a political novice, Yingluck has relied on a defensive strategy of hiding in plain sight in an attempt to evade the wrath of the Democrats. She is completely in charge of the government, hence can be held accountable for its achievements and shortfalls. She chooses, however, to deflect the opposition's attacks to her henchmen rather than deal with them herself.

During the censure debate, Abhisit will likely hear rebuttals from Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung, although his target is Yingluck.

The Democrats are fully aware that at this juncture, they have no chance of making a dent in either Yingluck's leadership or confidence in the government.

Abhisit has opted to launch the censure not because he hopes to oust the government or boost his chance at the next polls. His real goal is to send out two clear messages - he wants the government to restrain the excess of populist policies and will block Thaksin's homecoming unless he agrees to serve his prison term.

The bottom line is that the censure debate will just use Yingluck as a conduit to get to Thaksin. And how the Democrats perceive and deal with Thaksin will, in turn, affect the future course of politics.

Thaksin is the reigning champion of Thai populist policies. In his interview last month, he fiercely defended government intervention to boost the paddy price.

The Democrats will definitely grill the government on what they see as flaws and graft violations in connection with the rice-pledging scheme.

Even though coalition leaders are not blind to adverse impacts on the economy caused by inflated paddy price, the Pheu Thai Party will not abandon price intervention, which has such a magical effect on swaying votes.

What the Democrats can hope for is to force the ruling party to curb excessive and wasteful spending on paddy price intervention in order to minimise the rising burden of public debt.

The government often invokes poor farmers as beneficiaries of the rice-pledging scheme. But it seems to overlook the fact that large-scale farmers and rice millers, seen as a most powerful block of vote canvassers, got to the pie before benefits could trickle down to tenant farmers.

The other highlights of the censure debate will cover reconciliation and charter rewrite. The Democrats are expected to make clear their opposition to any attempts to help Thaksin elude his conviction and punishment.

Unless the government tries to strike a deal with the Democrats instead of trying to defeat them by swaying sentiment, progress on reconciliation and charter rewrite will not happen within this year as has been anticipated.

-- The Nation 2012-10-05

[asiawatcher]

About time someone got the ball rolling...

And this should read "She is completely in charge the mouthpiece of the government, hence can be held accountable for its achievements and shortfalls. She chooses, however, to deflect the opposition's attacks to her henchmen rather than deal with them herself."

Nice enough person, just incompetent to handle the role other than being the puppet masters standin.

[chainarong]

Not worth debating, theyv'e all got hides as thick as a crocodile skin, will be like pouring water off a ducks back.

[BigBanana]

Didn't AV promise to resign as Dem leader if Dems got less seats in the election? He is the best thing that ever happened to PT

[nurofiend]

Didn't AV promise to resign as Dem leader if Dems got less seats in the election? He is the best thing that ever happened to PT

he did but he went back on his word within about a month.

[whybother]

Didn't AV promise to resign as Dem leader if Dems got less seats in the election? He is the best thing that ever happened to PT

He did resign ... and got re-elected.

[whybother]

Didn't AV promise to resign as Dem leader if Dems got less seats in the election? He is the best thing that ever happened to PT

he did but he went back on his word within about a month.

If he DID resign, how is it that he went back on his word?

[nurofiend]

Didn't AV promise to resign as Dem leader if Dems got less seats in the election? He is the best thing that ever happened to PT

he did but he went back on his word within about a month.

If he DID resign, how is it that he went back on his word?

"Abhisit insisted that when he announced his resignation he had no plans to return to the party leadership"

how bout them apples?

[rubl]

Well at least we'll be able to see our dear PM in all her charming, smiling action as most likely she's obliged by law to be present :-)

[nurofiend]

The Democrats are fully aware that at this juncture, they have no chance of making a dent in either Yingluck's leadership or confidence in the government.

but let's waste some time anyway....

[whybother]

"Abhisit insisted that when he announced his resignation he had no plans to return to the party leadership"

how bout them apples?

It wasn't his plan to return, but he got re-elected.

He didn't say that he wouldn't return.

How about them oranges?

[nurofiend]

"Abhisit insisted that when he announced his resignation he had no plans to return to the party leadership"

how bout them apples?

It wasn't his plan to return, but he got re-elected.

He didn't say that he wouldn't return.

How about them oranges?

It wasn't his plan to return, but he got re-elected.

hahaha!!!! by force was it?

if you insist.

anyway, resignation must mean something different to you than it does to me, and that's my final word on the matter.

[Roadman]

The Democrats are fully aware that at this juncture, they have no chance of making a dent in either Yingluck's leadership or confidence in the government.

but let's waste some time anyway....

Is that somehow different to the amount of time Pheu Thai have wasted attempting to bring back their criminal leader, or different to the amount of money these Pheu Thai thievies and criminals are prepared to waste?

[whybother]

hahaha!!!! by force was it?

if you insist.

anyway, resignation must mean something different to you than it does to me, and that's my final word on the matter.

He said he would resign. He resigned. What else can it mean? You've never known of someone to resign only to be re-elected?

Why would it need to be by force? The membership decided that they still wanted him.

[nurofiend]

The Democrats are fully aware that at this juncture, they have no chance of making a dent in either Yingluck's leadership or confidence in the government.

but let's waste some time anyway....

Is that somehow different to the amount of time Pheu Thai have wasted attempting to bring back their criminal leader, or different to the amount of money these Pheu Thai thievies and criminals are prepared to waste?

i don't know, is it?

so you're admitting the dems are guilty of wasting time then?

also, i'm not sure how much money these thievies are prepared to waste, do you know?

Edited October 5, 2012 by nurofiend

[whybother]

i don't know, is it?

also, i'm not sure how much money these thievies are prepared to waste, do you know?

Maybe their aim is to save money:

What the Democrats can hope for is to force the ruling party to curb excessive and wasteful spending on paddy price intervention in order to minimise the rising burden of public debt.

[rubl]

The Democrats are fully aware that at this juncture, they have no chance of making a dent in either Yingluck's leadership or confidence in the government.

but let's waste some time anyway....

A parliamentary system with checks and balances is indeed a bit of a bother. There should be a law against it

[nurofiend]

The Democrats are fully aware that at this juncture, they have no chance of making a dent in either Yingluck's leadership or confidence in the government.

but let's waste some time anyway....

A parliamentary system with checks and balances is indeed a bit of a bother. There should be a law against it

let me repeat what it said

The Democrats are fully aware that at this juncture, they have no chance of making a dent in either Yingluck's leadership or confidence in the government.

democrats idea: let's have a no-confidence debate...

[ballpoint]

i don't know, is it?

also, i'm not sure how much money these thievies are prepared to waste, do you know?

Maybe their aim is to save money:

What the Democrats can hope for is to force the ruling party to curb excessive and wasteful spending on paddy price intervention in order to minimise the rising burden of public debt.

What you have to remember is that the parliamentary process is unknown to the reds and their supporters. They can't understand that it is parliament that elects the PM, and they can't understand that highlighting wrong doing in a house debate is the correct way to go about dealing with/ bringing attention to these matters in a parliamentary system. To them, a parliamentary system is one where you buy a bunch of popular MPs, buy a bunch of people to vote for the less popular ones, and when that fails, buy a bunch of people to run riot. And then start whining when someone actually tries to do things properly.

[rubl]

A parliamentary system with checks and balances is indeed a bit of a bother. There should be a law against it

let me repeat what it said

The Democrats are fully aware that at this juncture, they have no chance of making a dent in either Yingluck's leadership or confidence in the government.

democrats idea: let's have a no-confidence debate...

Let me repeat:

A parliamentary system with checks and balances is indeed a bit of a bother. There should be a law against it

[nurofiend]

A parliamentary system with checks and balances is indeed a bit of a bother. There should be a law against it

let me repeat what it said

The Democrats are fully aware that at this juncture, they have no chance of making a dent in either Yingluck's leadership or confidence in the government.

democrats idea: let's have a no-confidence debate...

Let me repeat:

A parliamentary system with checks and balances is indeed a bit of a bother. There should be a law against it

it's pointless and time wasting, the dems know it themselves.

ye can all spin the bs that by me saying that, it must mean that i think governments shouldn't have to answer for themselves.

but spinning is all it is, and that's standard procedure with ye guys.

pointless and time wasting.

Edited October 5, 2012 by nurofiend

[rubl]

Let me repeat:

A parliamentary system with checks and balances is indeed a bit of a bother. There should be a law against it

it's pointless and time wasting, the dems know it themselves.

ye can all spin the bs that by me saying that, it must mean that i think governments shouldn't have to answer for themselves.

but spinning is all it is, and that's standard procedure with ye guys.

pointless and time wasting.

What with the government avoiding debates or just using their majority to push through whatever they want, it makes sense in a democratic system to allow the opposition to force the government to pay attention to grievances and give some more justification regarding their policies and how they are implemented. All following rules, laws, etc.

If you think this is pointless and time wasting, obviously [sic] your country of origin doesn't have this type of parliamentary system, or you're not happy with it either

[WhizBang]

it's pointless and time wasting, the dems know it themselves.

ye can all spin the bs that by me saying that, it must mean that i think governments shouldn't have to answer for themselves.

but spinning is all it is, and that's standard procedure with ye guys.

pointless and time wasting.

So let me understand you. You think it is a waste of time for the opposition party to actually do their job? You would rather they just disappear and allow the Phua Thaksin Party to run amok (even more than they already are)?

[nurofiend]

Let me repeat:

A parliamentary system with checks and balances is indeed a bit of a bother. There should be a law against it

it's pointless and time wasting, the dems know it themselves.

ye can all spin the bs that by me saying that, it must mean that i think governments shouldn't have to answer for themselves.

but spinning is all it is, and that's standard procedure with ye guys.

pointless and time wasting.

What with the government avoiding debates or just using their majority to push through whatever they want, it makes sense in a democratic system to allow the opposition to force the government to pay attention to grievances and give some more justification regarding their policies and how they are implemented. All following rules, laws, etc.

If you think this is pointless and time wasting, obviously [sic] your country of origin doesn't have this type of parliamentary system, or you're not happy with it either

it makes sense in a democratic system to allow the opposition to force the government to pay attention to grievances and give some more justification regarding their policies and how they are implemented.

and what's parliament for then?

[whybother]

it makes sense in a democratic system to allow the opposition to force the government to pay attention to grievances and give some more justification regarding their policies and how they are implemented.

and what's parliament for then?

The opposition can't just say "Let's talk about this" except in a no-confidence motion. There is an agenda and it's set by the government.

[nurofiend]

it's pointless and time wasting, the dems know it themselves.

ye can all spin the bs that by me saying that, it must mean that i think governments shouldn't have to answer for themselves.

but spinning is all it is, and that's standard procedure with ye guys.

pointless and time wasting.

So let me understand you. You think it is a waste of time for the opposition party to actually do their job? You would rather they just disappear and allow the Phua Thaksin Party to run amok (even more than they already are)?

so let me understand you, after me making perfectly clear that i'm not saying that i think governments shouldn't have to answer for themselves.

and that all ye do is spin what people say.

you go and do exactly that.

classic.

[nurofiend]

it makes sense in a democratic system to allow the opposition to force the government to pay attention to grievances and give some more justification regarding their policies and how they are implemented.

and what's parliament for then?

The opposition can't just say "Let's talk about this" except in a no-confidence motion. There is an agenda and it's set by the government.

they can air their grievances and they can ask for more justification regarding their policies and how they are implemented.

[whybother]

they can air their grievances and they can ask for more justification regarding their policies and how they are implemented.

They can't talk about something that's not on the agenda.

[rubl]

it's pointless and time wasting, the dems know it themselves.

ye can all spin the bs that by me saying that, it must mean that i think governments shouldn't have to answer for themselves.

but spinning is all it is, and that's standard procedure with ye guys.

pointless and time wasting.

What with the government avoiding debates or just using their majority to push through whatever they want, it makes sense in a democratic system to allow the opposition to force the government to pay attention to grievances and give some more justification regarding their policies and how they are implemented. All following rules, laws, etc.

If you think this is pointless and time wasting, obviously [sic] your country of origin doesn't have this type of parliamentary system, or you're not happy with it either

it makes sense in a democratic system to allow the opposition to force the government to pay attention to grievances and give some more justification regarding their policies and how they are implemented.

and what's parliament for then?

The opposition uses a lawful method called 'no confidence debate' to gain some more attention to aspects the current government with it's majority tends/tries/succeeds to ignore. Just like the opposition to the previous government did, and the one before, and the one before, etc., etc.

Apart from the legal aspects these debates also tend to be fun, some speakers can be really sarcastic, funny, to the point. Some like to come with dozens of colourful spreadsheets, some as so dull as to put everyone to sleep.

Now if you really need to know more on what parliament is for ask the House Speaker who's a bit deaf so he might not hear you. Wiki also has items on democracies and normally more pointers to other websites than any casual reader would really like. So hop along, do some homework

[nurofiend]

they can air their grievances and they can ask for more justification regarding their policies and how they are implemented.

They can't talk about something that's not on the agenda.

so tell me what you've read in that article that hasn't been talked about before in parliament.

obviously besides the no confidence motion of yingluck which they've pretty much admitted is a pointless effort.