Pm Urges Unity In The Coming Year

[OzMick]

Dream on.It's strange that so many of the usual suspects are still in denial.They seize on details - though even getting these wrong (eg censorship underAbhisit) - but fail to recognise the shifting societal trends in Thailand.They cannot or refuse to understand that with Thaksin or without him Thailand has changed forever and the days of the unelected elites are numbered.

With your anathema to "unelected elites" and H6's frantic endorsement of anyone elected, I hope that you would both agree that their is no place in democracy for appointed party list candidates. This system is used, especially by PTP, to appoint elites, the unpalatable and those facing criminal charges without facing the enlightening of campaigning, facing questions on ethics and morality, and without the endorsement of an electorate.

[Ricardo]

Oh but my statement is fact Rubl, pulling the smaller parties into a coalition when having such a good majority already was a brilliant political strategy

"brilliant political strategy" ?

I agree that it was wise of Thaksin (who Thinks, then PTP/Yingluck Act) to bring in the usual politician-for-hire smaller parties, even when he didn't need to in order to take power, as it strengthens his hand against any PTP-factions who might have felt like flexing their muscles.

He learned with PPP & Newin's faction that it's better to be safe and sure. Nobody ever said he was stupid. He sometimes learns from experience.

When Abhisit used the same tactic, to form a coalition government in December 2008, the Reds later decried it (wrongly IMO) as a judicial coup. Perhaps that too should now be lauded as "a brilliant political strategy", although I'd rather suggest that it's normal politics, in action. No Double Standards !

Back in the here-and-now, and freely admitting that I was one who failed to foresee PTP's better-than-expected election-performance, with a clean new female figurehead and a slew of populist vote-winning policies, I feel that PM-Yingluck may well go the full-term, and might even win another election in a few years' time without her brothers' wealth and influence.

Provided that she continues to gain self-confidence and authority herself, and also provided that her brother remains guiding from-the-sidelines, instead of trying to return home without doing his time and facing all those other court-cases. That's clearly the point at which trouble would erupt.

Sadly most of his local cheerleaders continue to promise or demand his amnesty and return, while she refuses to address the problem, at least in public. Perhaps her appeal for national unity is a coded public plea to him, to stop stirring the pot, but I doubt it.

She hasn't yet had her 'Samak moment', when she decides she really wants the job for herself, and openly shows any independence from him. Will he stab her in-the-back, and have his party appoint someone like DPM-Chalerm instead, if that day ever arrives ? Who can say ?

[jayboy]

Oh but my statement is fact Rubl, pulling the smaller parties into a coalition when having such a good majority already was a brilliant political strategy

"brilliant political strategy" ?

I agree that it was wise of Thaksin (who Thinks, then PTP/Yingluck Act) to bring in the usual politician-for-hire smaller parties, even when he didn't need to in order to take power, as it strengthens his hand against any PTP-factions who might have felt like flexing their muscles.

He learned with PPP & Newin's faction that it's better to be safe and sure. Nobody ever said he was stupid. He sometimes learns from experience.

When Abhisit used the same tactic, to form a coalition government in December 2008, the Reds later decried it (wrongly IMO) as a judicial coup. Perhaps that too should now be lauded as "a brilliant political strategy", although I'd rather suggest that it's normal politics, in action. No Double Standards !

Back in the here-and-now, and freely admitting that I was one who failed to foresee PTP's better-than-expected election-performance, with a clean new female figurehead and a slew of populist vote-winning policies, I feel that PM-Yingluck may well go the full-term, and might even win another election in a few years' time without her brothers' wealth and influence.

Provided that she continues to gain self-confidence and authority herself, and also provided that her brother remains guiding from-the-sidelines, instead of trying to return home without doing his time and facing all those other court-cases. That's clearly the point at which trouble would erupt.

Sadly most of his local cheerleaders continue to promise or demand his amnesty and return, while she refuses to address the problem, at least in public. Perhaps her appeal for national unity is a coded public plea to him, to stop stirring the pot, but I doubt it.

She hasn't yet had her 'Samak moment', when she decides she really wants the job for herself, and openly shows any independence from him. Will he stab her in-the-back, and have his party appoint someone like DPM-Chalerm instead, if that day ever arrives ? Who can say ?

And for the record there are still sometimes relevant and thoughtful posts from some such as that above from Ricardo - though I may not agree with all of it.

[whybother]

Dream on.It's strange that so many of the usual suspects are still in denial.They seize on details - though even getting these wrong (eg censorship underAbhisit) - but fail to recognise the shifting societal trends in Thailand.They cannot or refuse to understand that with Thaksin or without him Thailand has changed forever and the days of the unelected elites are numbered.

SInce we're talking about elected politicians, I don't see how "unelected elites" are relevant.

[jayboy]

Dream on.It's strange that so many of the usual suspects are still in denial.They seize on details - though even getting these wrong (eg censorship underAbhisit) - but fail to recognise the shifting societal trends in Thailand.They cannot or refuse to understand that with Thaksin or without him Thailand has changed forever and the days of the unelected elites are numbered.

SInce we're talking about elected politicians, I don't see how "unelected elites" are relevant.

Does it really have to be explained yet again that the entrenched interests - feudalists, military, monopolistic capitalists etc - work through elected politicians like Abhisit.

[whybother]

Dream on.It's strange that so many of the usual suspects are still in denial.They seize on details - though even getting these wrong (eg censorship underAbhisit) - but fail to recognise the shifting societal trends in Thailand.They cannot or refuse to understand that with Thaksin or without him Thailand has changed forever and the days of the unelected elites are numbered.

SInce we're talking about elected politicians, I don't see how "unelected elites" are relevant.

Does it really have to be explained yet again that the entrenched interests - feudalists, military, monopolistic capitalists etc - work through elected politicians like Abhisit.

"Feudalists" "Monopolistics capitalists" Thaksin??

[waza]

Dream on.It's strange that so many of the usual suspects are still in denial.They seize on details - though even getting these wrong (eg censorship underAbhisit) - but fail to recognise the shifting societal trends in Thailand.They cannot or refuse to understand that with Thaksin or without him Thailand has changed forever and the days of the unelected elites are numbered.

SInce we're talking about elected politicians, I don't see how "unelected elites" are relevant.

Does it really have to be explained yet again that the entrenched interests - feudalists, military, monopolistic capitalists etc - work through elected politicians like Abhisit.

"Feudalists" "Monopolistics capitalists" Thaksin??

No that particular "Feudalists" "Monopolistics capitalists"," unelected elite" works through the elected politicians like Yingluck and Charlem

Edited December 31, 2012 by waza

[OzMick]

Dream on.It's strange that so many of the usual suspects are still in denial.They seize on details - though even getting these wrong (eg censorship underAbhisit) - but fail to recognise the shifting societal trends in Thailand.They cannot or refuse to understand that with Thaksin or without him Thailand has changed forever and the days of the unelected elites are numbered.

SInce we're talking about elected politicians, I don't see how "unelected elites" are relevant.

Does it really have to be explained yet again that the entrenched interests - feudalists, military, monopolistic capitalists etc - work through elected politicians like Abhisit.

An Australian ex-PM P.J.Keating would quite accurately describe party list candidates as "unrepresentative swill" (PJK 1992). OTOH those using position influence on elected MPs do so with the knowledge that an electorate chose them as the best person (standing) to be their representative.

[waza]

Dream on.It's strange that so many of the usual suspects are still in denial.They seize on details - though even getting these wrong (eg censorship underAbhisit) - but fail to recognise the shifting societal trends in Thailand.They cannot or refuse to understand that with Thaksin or without him Thailand has changed forever and the days of the unelected elites are numbered.

SInce we're talking about elected politicians, I don't see how "unelected elites" are relevant.

Does it really have to be explained yet again that the entrenched interests - feudalists, military, monopolistic capitalists etc - work through elected politicians like Abhisit.

An Australian ex-PM P.J.Keating would quite accurately describe party list candidates as "unrepresentative swill" (PJK 1992). OTOH those using position influence on elected MPs do so with the knowledge that an electorate chose them as the best person (standing) to be their representative.

Ah Keating my favourite aussie politician of all time. I wonder if he would describe Thaksin as a recalcitrant?

[OzMick]

An Australian ex-PM P.J.Keating would quite accurately describe party list candidates as "unrepresentative swill" (PJK 1992). OTOH those using position influence on elected MPs do so with the knowledge that an electorate chose them as the best person (standing) to be their representative.

Ah Keating my favourite aussie politician of all time. I wonder if he would describe Thaksin as a recalcitrant?

Gough Whitlam would describe him as a "Country Member"

[rubl]

I was in Thailand the last few years. I didn't notice the "Abhisit's reign of unbridled censorship", must have been my True and TOT internet lnik. Mind you, lots of blocked sites seemed to spread hatred against the 'others' and as such those sites would be at least under investigation, but probably blocked in the Western World as well. The 'unbridled censorship' seems to have increased only over the last years, but then the government had other things to do I guess.

As for 'Abhisit's change of heart' that's speculation or opinion. I have a different opinion on that, I think he honestly meant his offer to have early elections and that we would have had elections in November, 2010, instead of July, 2011 if his offer had been accepted. IMHO that is.

Anyway the topic is urging unity while prosecuting members of the previous government and decrying that that previous government was so bad they did the same. Double standards at it's best

I agree Rubl, I dont know what Thailand 'gatorsoft' was in but it wasnt the same one as me. like you I didnt notice "Abhisit's reign of unbridled censorship", a massive exaggeration I feel. I did notice many hate site were blocked but the mainstream media, social and commercial sites were never censored.

On the second matter of Abihist time in office, the fact is I have the upmost respect for him as PM. During his tenure the democrats formed a minority party with parties from diverse backgrounds, all with their own agendas and varied moral attitudes towards graft and corruption. He was required to deal with the most violent demonstrations in Thailands history, a border skirmish with Cambodia, constant media and legal attacks and two attempts on his life. Through it all his government not only survived but was fully functional and he was shown to be one of the best leaders Thailand has had.

A massive exaggeration shared by Human Rights Watch and at least one major Thai newspaper, but then we all see what we want and ignore what we don't want to admit, don't we. http://asiancorrespo...t-thai-history/

Unity through Internet Censorship. An update from 12 March 2012

"The status of Thailand’s online freedom of expression began to deteriorate from the moment the new Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra assumed power in July 2011. Abusive recourse to the politically exploited lèse-majesté law has led to an increase in litigations and strict censorship."

http://en.rsf.org/thailand-12-03-2012,42054.html

(EDIT: new link which really reflects current data. Previous link was based on 2009/2010 only)

Edited December 31, 2012 by rubl

[jayboy]

I was in Thailand the last few years. I didn't notice the "Abhisit's reign of unbridled censorship", must have been my True and TOT internet lnik. Mind you, lots of blocked sites seemed to spread hatred against the 'others' and as such those sites would be at least under investigation, but probably blocked in the Western World as well. The 'unbridled censorship' seems to have increased only over the last years, but then the government had other things to do I guess.

As for 'Abhisit's change of heart' that's speculation or opinion. I have a different opinion on that, I think he honestly meant his offer to have early elections and that we would have had elections in November, 2010, instead of July, 2011 if his offer had been accepted. IMHO that is.

Anyway the topic is urging unity while prosecuting members of the previous government and decrying that that previous government was so bad they did the same. Double standards at it's best

I agree Rubl, I dont know what Thailand 'gatorsoft' was in but it wasnt the same one as me. like you I didnt notice "Abhisit's reign of unbridled censorship", a massive exaggeration I feel. I did notice many hate site were blocked but the mainstream media, social and commercial sites were never censored.

On the second matter of Abihist time in office, the fact is I have the upmost respect for him as PM. During his tenure the democrats formed a minority party with parties from diverse backgrounds, all with their own agendas and varied moral attitudes towards graft and corruption. He was required to deal with the most violent demonstrations in Thailands history, a border skirmish with Cambodia, constant media and legal attacks and two attempts on his life. Through it all his government not only survived but was fully functional and he was shown to be one of the best leaders Thailand has had.

A massive exaggeration shared by Human Rights Watch and at least one major Thai newspaper, but then we all see what we want and ignore what we don't want to admit, don't we. http://asiancorrespo...t-thai-history/

Unity through Internet Censorship. An update from 12 March 2012

"The status of Thailand’s online freedom of expression began to deteriorate from the moment the new Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra assumed power in July 2011. Abusive recourse to the politically exploited lèse-majesté law has led to an increase in litigations and strict censorship."

http://en.rsf.org/th...2012,42054.html

(EDIT: new link which really reflects current data. Previous link was based on 2009/2010 only)

As you suggest the Reporters Without Borders report, with which there can be no disagreement, is specifically about the LM law.One might have an interesting discussion about the government's motives but it would be off topic and I'm surmising against forum rules.However in a line it has clearly taken the view that it will not be vulnerable on this LM issue, not that this prevented the fruitcakes in Pitak Siam lying and fantasising.As to suppression of the media much more generally under Abhisit (to restrict and suppress political opponents) there is a wealth of evidence as I suspect you know very well.

[muttley]

Dream on.It's strange that so many of the usual suspects are still in denial.They seize on details - though even getting these wrong (eg censorship underAbhisit) - but fail to recognise the shifting societal trends in Thailand.They cannot or refuse to understand that with Thaksin or without him Thailand has changed forever and the days of the unelected elites are numbered.

With your anathema to "unelected elites" and H6's frantic endorsement of anyone elected, I hope that you would both agree that their is no place in democracy for appointed party list candidates. This system is used, especially by PTP, to appoint elites, the unpalatable and those facing criminal charges without facing the enlightening of campaigning, facing questions on ethics and morality, and without the endorsement of an electorate.

The Military Junta brought into being the party list representation through their version of the constitution in 2007. Then it was 80 on the list.

Guess who amended this constitution to benefit his and his parties election chances for the good of the country, to increase the party list from 80 to 125 seats?

Thats right,.............................. Abhisit Vejavija...........................Ooops!

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/asia/2011-02-12/thailand-gets-new-laws-ahead-of-early-elections/225828

Thought it might help to put the blame where it belongs.

[muttley]

Dream on.It's strange that so many of the usual suspects are still in denial.They seize on details - though even getting these wrong (eg censorship underAbhisit) - but fail to recognise the shifting societal trends in Thailand.They cannot or refuse to understand that with Thaksin or without him Thailand has changed forever and the days of the unelected elites are numbered.

SInce we're talking about elected politicians, I don't see how "unelected elites" are relevant.

How long you say you've been living in Thailand?

[rubl]

A massive exaggeration shared by Human Rights Watch and at least one major Thai newspaper, but then we all see what we want and ignore what we don't want to admit, don't we. http://asiancorrespo...t-thai-history/

Unity through Internet Censorship. An update from 12 March 2012

"The status of Thailand’s online freedom of expression began to deteriorate from the moment the new Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra assumed power in July 2011. Abusive recourse to the politically exploited lèse-majesté law has led to an increase in litigations and strict censorship."

http://en.rsf.org/th...2012,42054.html

(EDIT: new link which really reflects current data. Previous link was based on 2009/2010 only)

As you suggest the Reporters Without Borders report, with which there can be no disagreement, is specifically about the LM law.One might have an interesting discussion about the government's motives but it would be off topic and I'm surmising against forum rules.However in a line it has clearly taken the view that it will not be vulnerable on this LM issue, not that this prevented the fruitcakes in Pitak Siam lying and fantasising.As to suppression of the media much more generally under Abhisit (to restrict and suppress political opponents) there is a wealth of evidence as I suspect you know very well.

You are right, the RSF doesn't care which government misuses certain laws to crackdown on political dissidents. All data seems to suggest that the current government is only improving it's censorship. And if necessary Pheu Thai's protest arm the UDD fruitcakes will pass by your house to make the message clear.

Unity through persuation, 'big brother' tells you so

[jayboy]

A massive exaggeration shared by Human Rights Watch and at least one major Thai newspaper, but then we all see what we want and ignore what we don't want to admit, don't we. http://asiancorrespo...t-thai-history/

Unity through Internet Censorship. An update from 12 March 2012

"The status of Thailand’s online freedom of expression began to deteriorate from the moment the new Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra assumed power in July 2011. Abusive recourse to the politically exploited lèse-majesté law has led to an increase in litigations and strict censorship."

http://en.rsf.org/th...2012,42054.html

(EDIT: new link which really reflects current data. Previous link was based on 2009/2010 only)

As you suggest the Reporters Without Borders report, with which there can be no disagreement, is specifically about the LM law.One might have an interesting discussion about the government's motives but it would be off topic and I'm surmising against forum rules.However in a line it has clearly taken the view that it will not be vulnerable on this LM issue, not that this prevented the fruitcakes in Pitak Siam lying and fantasising.As to suppression of the media much more generally under Abhisit (to restrict and suppress political opponents) there is a wealth of evidence as I suspect you know very well.

You are right, the RSF doesn't care which government misuses certain laws to crackdown on political dissidents. All data seems to suggest that the current government is only improving it's censorship. And if necessary Pheu Thai's protest arm the UDD fruitcakes will pass by your house to make the message clear.

Unity through persuation, 'big brother' tells you so

The RSF report refers only to LM, not to general stifling of opposition forces as practised by the Abhisit government (attacks on community radio stations etc).You apparently seriously misunderstand the dynamics of Thai politics.The forces of reaction and the old elites viewed Pitak Siam fanatics - with whom many of the old guard are sympathetic - as a way of testing the waters following the unlikelihood of a futher coup and limited potential for directed judicial intervention.Given that current government has a proper mandate and remains popular even the dumbest general realises that precipitate action could be counter productive.For the time being the spectacular failure of the Pitak Siam will have persuaded them that street protests are not going to change the government.The relationship between UDD, most of whom are admirable and decent people, and the PTP is totally different.There are real tensions there and the way they play out will be a major point of interest as we go forward.

[Pimay1]

It's pretty difficult for anyone to not have preconceived notions regardless of how long and where they have lived. That is why I used the word try. I'm also curious how you would know how long I have been in Thailand and what I have seen. I find it hard to believe that anyone who was in Thailand during Abhisit's reign of unbridled censorship could have any respect for him as a leader or as a human being. In my opinion (note those words, most posters here like to state their opinion as undisputed facts), Abhisit's tenure was all about doing whatever was necessary to cling to power. I will admit that his decision not to ride out his entire term, seems to deny that conclusion. Perhaps he had a change of heart for reasons we will never know.

I was in Thailand the last few years. I didn't notice the "Abhisit's reign of unbridled censorship", must have been my True and TOT internet lnik. Mind you, lots of blocked sites seemed to spread hatred against the 'others' and as such those sites would be at least under investigation, but probably blocked in the Western World as well. The 'unbridled censorship' seems to have increased only over the last years, but then the government had other things to do I guess.

As for 'Abhisit's change of heart' that's speculation or opinion. I have a different opinion on that, I think he honestly meant his offer to have early elections and that we would have had elections in November, 2010, instead of July, 2011 if his offer had been accepted. IMHO that is.

Anyway the topic is urging unity while prosecuting members of the previous government and decrying that that previous government was so bad they did the same. Double standards at it's best

I agree Rubl, I dont know what Thailand 'gatorsoft' was in but it wasnt the same one as me. like you I didnt notice "Abhisit's reign of unbridled censorship", a massive exaggeration I feel. I did notice many hate site were blocked but the mainstream media, social and commercial sites were never censored.

On the second matter of Abihist time in office, the fact is I have the upmost respect for him as PM. During his tenure the democrats formed a minority party with parties from diverse backgrounds, all with their own agendas and varied moral attitudes towards graft and corruption. He was required to deal with the most violent demonstrations in Thailands history, a border skirmish with Cambodia, constant media and legal attacks and two attempts on his life. Through it all his government not only survived but was fully functional and he was shown to be one of the best leaders Thailand has had.

A massive exaggeration shared by Human Rights Watch and at least one major Thai newspaper, but then we all see what we want and ignore what we don't want to admit, don't we. http://asiancorrespo...t-thai-history/

Human Rights Watch, now there is a credible bunch of lunitics if there ever was one. I put them on the same level of credibility as PETA.

[rubl]

Human Rights Watch, now there is a credible bunch of lunitics if there ever was one. I put them on the same level of credibility as PETA.

To be fair with both sides of the political divide arguing both for AND against the HRW they must be doing something right, if only raising an awareness level

[Pimay1]

Human Rights Watch, now there is a credible bunch of lunitics if there ever was one. I put them on the same level of credibility as PETA.

To be fair with both sides of the political divide arguing both for AND against the HRW they must be doing something right, if only raising an awareness level

Sure they are raising the awareness level but their methods shoot holes in their credibility unfortunately. I am all for human rights but the awareness must be created in the proper way.

[Crushdepth]

Unity? It was Puea Thai that divided the country in order to get elected. Now they want everyone to be happy happy? Forget it.

[OzMick]

Dream on.It's strange that so many of the usual suspects are still in denial.They seize on details - though even getting these wrong (eg censorship underAbhisit) - but fail to recognise the shifting societal trends in Thailand.They cannot or refuse to understand that with Thaksin or without him Thailand has changed forever and the days of the unelected elites are numbered.

With your anathema to "unelected elites" and H6's frantic endorsement of anyone elected, I hope that you would both agree that their is no place in democracy for appointed party list candidates. This system is used, especially by PTP, to appoint elites, the unpalatable and those facing criminal charges without facing the enlightening of campaigning, facing questions on ethics and morality, and without the endorsement of an electorate.

The Military Junta brought into being the party list representation through their version of the constitution in 2007. Then it was 80 on the list.

Guess who amended this constitution to benefit his and his parties election chances for the good of the country, to increase the party list from 80 to 125 seats?

Thats right,.............................. Abhisit Vejavija...........................Ooops!

http://www.radioaust...lections/225828

Thought it might help to put the blame where it belongs.

You seem to misunderstand me - I have never "blamed" anybody for the party list system, only stated that to me it is undemocratic and open to corruption. PTP has taken this abuse to previously unheard of levels with the nomination of their mercenary thugs, both as a reward and to assist in perverting the course of justice.

[whybother]

The Military Junta brought into being the party list representation through their version of the constitution in 2007. Then it was 80 on the list.

Guess who amended this constitution to benefit his and his parties election chances for the good of the country, to increase the party list from 80 to 125 seats?

Thats right,.............................. Abhisit Vejavija...........................Ooops!

http://www.radioaust...lections/225828

Thought it might help to put the blame where it belongs.

I think some reading is in order, Muttley. The party list system came into being in the 1997 constitution, with 100 seats. The 2007 constitution reduced this to 80.

[rubl]

The Military Junta brought into being the party list representation through their version of the constitution in 2007. Then it was 80 on the list.

Guess who amended this constitution to benefit his and his parties election chances for the good of the country, to increase the party list from 80 to 125 seats?

Thats right,.............................. Abhisit Vejavija...........................Ooops!

http://www.radioaust...lections/225828

Thought it might help to put the blame where it belongs.

I think some reading is in order, Muttley. The party list system came into being in the 1997 constitution, with 100 seats. The 2007 constitution reduced this to 80.

As the party list seats are now 125 out of a total of 500 seats, that sounds about right with 100 out of 400 in 1997, wouldn't you say?

[whybother]

The Military Junta brought into being the party list representation through their version of the constitution in 2007. Then it was 80 on the list.

Guess who amended this constitution to benefit his and his parties election chances for the good of the country, to increase the party list from 80 to 125 seats?

Thats right,.............................. Abhisit Vejavija...........................Ooops!

http://www.radioaust...lections/225828

Thought it might help to put the blame where it belongs.

I think some reading is in order, Muttley. The party list system came into being in the 1997 constitution, with 100 seats. The 2007 constitution reduced this to 80.

As the party list seats are now 125 out of a total of 500 seats, that sounds about right with 100 out of 400 in 1997, wouldn't you say?

It seems the Democrats fixed what the junta f$^#ed with.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts have been deleted.

[Buchholz]

The Military Junta brought into being the party list representation through their version of the constitution in 2007. Then it was 80 on the list.

Guess who amended this constitution to benefit his and his parties election chances for the good of the country, to increase the party list from 80 to 125 seats?

Thats right,.............................. Abhisit Vejavija...........................Ooops!

http://www.radioaust...lections/225828

Thought it might help to put the blame where it belongs.

I think some reading is in order, Muttley. The party list system came into being in the 1997 constitution, with 100 seats. The 2007 constitution reduced this to 80.

Thanks for fact-checking these sort of revisionists that flat out misstate the truth.

.

[OzMick]

The Military Junta brought into being the party list representation through their version of the constitution in 2007. Then it was 80 on the list.

Guess who amended this constitution to benefit his and his parties election chances for the good of the country, to increase the party list from 80 to 125 seats?

Thats right,.............................. Abhisit Vejavija...........................Ooops!

http://www.radioaust...lections/225828

Thought it might help to put the blame where it belongs.

I think some reading is in order, Muttley. The party list system came into being in the 1997 constitution, with 100 seats. The 2007 constitution reduced this to 80.

As the party list seats are now 125 out of a total of 500 seats, that sounds about right with 100 out of 400 in 1997, wouldn't you say?

It seems the Democrats fixed what the junta f$^#ed with.

I'm not sure "fixed" is the right term. The party list allows power brokers to institutionalise themselves with a sinecure. Corrupt leaders can assure they maintain a minimum 25% of MPs in their pocket by "selling" seats to those pledging allegiance, and we end up with an overabundance of MPs with low moral and ethical values, who represent and are accountable to nobody.

Best example would be Chalerm. How many votes would you have to buy before an electorate would say "This is our best man!"

[Ricardo]

Oh but my statement is fact Rubl, pulling the smaller parties into a coalition when having such a good majority already was a brilliant political strategy

"brilliant political strategy" ?

I agree that it was wise of Thaksin (who Thinks, then PTP/Yingluck Act) to bring in the usual politician-for-hire smaller parties, even when he didn't need to in order to take power, as it strengthens his hand against any PTP-factions who might have felt like flexing their muscles.

He learned with PPP & Newin's faction that it's better to be safe and sure. Nobody ever said he was stupid. He sometimes learns from experience.

When Abhisit used the same tactic, to form a coalition government in December 2008, the Reds later decried it (wrongly IMO) as a judicial coup. Perhaps that too should now be lauded as "a brilliant political strategy", although I'd rather suggest that it's normal politics, in action. No Double Standards !

Back in the here-and-now, and freely admitting that I was one who failed to foresee PTP's better-than-expected election-performance, with a clean new female figurehead and a slew of populist vote-winning policies, I feel that PM-Yingluck may well go the full-term, and might even win another election in a few years' time without her brothers' wealth and influence.

Provided that she continues to gain self-confidence and authority herself, and also provided that her brother remains guiding from-the-sidelines, instead of trying to return home without doing his time and facing all those other court-cases. That's clearly the point at which trouble would erupt.

Sadly most of his local cheerleaders continue to promise or demand his amnesty and return, while she refuses to address the problem, at least in public. Perhaps her appeal for national unity is a coded public plea to him, to stop stirring the pot, but I doubt it.

She hasn't yet had her 'Samak moment', when she decides she really wants the job for herself, and openly shows any independence from him. Will he stab her in-the-back, and have his party appoint someone like DPM-Chalerm instead, if that day ever arrives ? Who can say ?

And for the record there are still sometimes relevant and thoughtful posts from some such as that above from Ricardo - though I may not agree with all of it.

Thank you, Jayboy .

It would indeed be dull, and there would be less reason to log-on to TV News-forum, if we all agreed with one another all the time !

Happy New Year !

[smutcakes]

The Military Junta brought into being the party list representation through their version of the constitution in 2007. Then it was 80 on the list.

Guess who amended this constitution to benefit his and his parties election chances for the good of the country, to increase the party list from 80 to 125 seats?

Thats right,.............................. Abhisit Vejavija...........................Ooops!

http://www.radioaust...lections/225828

Thought it might help to put the blame where it belongs.

I think some reading is in order, Muttley. The party list system came into being in the 1997 constitution, with 100 seats. The 2007 constitution reduced this to 80.

Thanks for fact-checking these sort of revisionists that flat out misstate the truth.

.

haha, you have a cheek lol.

[Buchholz]

The Military Junta brought into being the party list representation through their version of the constitution in 2007. Then it was 80 on the list.

Guess who amended this constitution to benefit his and his parties election chances for the good of the country, to increase the party list from 80 to 125 seats?

Thats right,.............................. Abhisit Vejavija...........................Ooops!

http://www.radioaust...lections/225828

Thought it might help to put the blame where it belongs.

I think some reading is in order, Muttley. The party list system came into being in the 1997 constitution, with 100 seats. The 2007 constitution reduced this to 80.

Thanks for fact-checking these sort of revisionists that flat out misstate the truth.

.

haha, you have a cheek lol.

Feel free to cite any similar flat out misstatements of truth I've posted.

In the meantime...while we wait...

.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Buchholz