Abhisit Slams Thai Government On Amnesty Move

[ZhouZhou]

Election are the ultimate tool of democracy.

it lets the people decide who should rule them. if they think the elected lawmakers did not good, they will vote them out of office in the next election. if they are happy with the work of the elected lawmakers the people will vote for them again.

Abhisit tools to raise power is not the vote of the people but the court. there is an undemocratic unbalance between the power of the court and the power of the parliament in Thailand.

the more power a parliament has the more democratic is a country.

The court is only doing its job and there is no imbalance except in your shallow mind. Elections are not the ultimate tool they are only a part of democracy. Four years is far too long and potentially damaging to wait before kicking a government gone bad (undemocratic) out of office.

The more power a government has, the less democratic it is. There are many examples of this: Nixon, Mugabe, Marcos, Papa Doc Duvalier are a few. Thaksin is up there with that lot as far as democracy goes.

Answer this conundrum:

In the mid-90s Algeria was preparing for elections. Far and away in the lead was an Islamic party whose platform was the abolition of democracy. Just before the election the army stepped in and took over.

Which was right the army or the Islamic party?

Why not name countries that have elections and were democracy is good? do they have election in France, the UK or Norway? yes. do dictators rule there? no.

Thaksin is not Papa Doc Duvalier or whatever dictator you can name.

for what the comparison with Algeria? Thaksin is not know for abolishing the right to vote in election.

Take the senate for example. PTP came up with a Charter amendment that all senators get elected as opposed the current version were 50 percent of the senate members are appointed and only 50 percent are elected.

Abhisit supports a Senate with appointed members.

[khunken]

Democracy and free speech is alive and well in Thailand as The Post has reported that on the evening of Sat 20 April Red Shirts disrupted a speech being given by Abhisit at a university in Si Sa Ket and forced him out of the building. As usual it's their way and not at all so I doubt there will be any condemnation from the government or anyone involved with PTP

Was wondering what the reaction of the PT supporters on this forum would have been if the same thing had happened to Yingluck when she visited the south?

Ah........

But that didn't happen.

AV is paying the price for his decisions when in power.

He now probably unelectable and certainly despised by many Thai people.

And so is Thaksin - probably more so.

Yingluck had a free pass in the south which says something about their fairness. It's a pity that Abhisit isn't allowed to have the same freedom in Isan. It's not excusable - period. You'll be supporting red shirt violence & intimidation next. Wait....

[khunken]

Election are the ultimate tool of democracy.

it lets the people decide who should rule them. if they think the elected lawmakers did not good, they will vote them out of office in the next election. if they are happy with the work of the elected lawmakers the people will vote for them again.

Abhisit tools to raise power is not the vote of the people but the court. there is an undemocratic unbalance between the power of the court and the power of the parliament in Thailand.

the more power a parliament has the more democratic is a country.

The court is only doing its job and there is no imbalance except in your shallow mind. Elections are not the ultimate tool they are only a part of democracy. Four years is far too long and potentially damaging to wait before kicking a government gone bad (undemocratic) out of office.

The more power a government has, the less democratic it is. There are many examples of this: Nixon, Mugabe, Marcos, Papa Doc Duvalier are a few. Thaksin is up there with that lot as far as democracy goes.

Answer this conundrum:

In the mid-90s Algeria was preparing for elections. Far and away in the lead was an Islamic party whose platform was the abolition of democracy. Just before the election the army stepped in and took over.

Which was right the army or the Islamic party?

Why not name countries that have elections and were democracy is good? do they have election in France, the UK or Norway? yes. do dictators rule there? no.

Thaksin is not Papa Doc Duvalier or whatever dictator you can name.

for what the comparison with Algeria? Thaksin is not know for abolishing the right to vote in election.

Take the senate for example. PTP came up with a Charter amendment that all senators get elected as opposed the current version were 50 percent of the senate members are appointed and only 50 percent are elected.

Abhisit supports a Senate with appointed members.

Just as I thought - no answer. The question was simple (no comparison with anywhere else) - did you even understand it?

[AleG]

Zhou Zhou: I don't know what planet you are on. Certainly not the same as the majority of Thai Visa users. Now answer this question honestly: Where do you stand on the political spectrum? Would you have supported Hitler or Churchill? What is interesting to me is that you are so predictable and you have not answered previus points I have made. There is nothing in what Abhisit has said that could lead to the point you make. The job of an opposition leader is to point out the pitfalls and errors in any administration's actions. This is surely what Parliamentary democracy is about. Unike Thaksin who would brook no opposition which is not what Parliamentary democracy is about. What you say in yur other post is absolutely off the wall and incorrect. Come on ZhouZhou, get real and start to understand, not only the nature of democracy but also the nature of fascism.!

Get Real????? Abhisit is Churchill and Taksin is Hitler I suppose in your "real" world?

Abhisit and the Democrats have not won one national election in over 20 years? Taksin did. Massively. And would still do it if allowed to come back to Thailand. That's the reality.

And i don t that like that reality more than you do. But until the Democrats or another party offer something better...

I must assume you are talking about the 2005 election when Thai Rak Thai had a 60% popular vote? Not "Massive" , however a respectable majority. The current government didn't get a majority of the vote, however they did do well with a bit more than 48%. Again, a very respectable showing, however not massive either. More details would probably help your argument.

I don't see Thaksin with a moustache, so I don't see the resemblance.

You should not forget that there is a strong anti Thaksin propaganda. The Junta had a million budget for it. to oust Thaksin is the only known goal of ex-PM Abhisit.

That political parties connected to Thaksin were banned twice - what was not very democratic.

there was big gerrymandering by the junta with the hope to support for the Democrats. Under PM Abhisit we saw additional gerrymandering charter amendments.

And now the Yingluck leads government has 300 MP behind her in a 500 seat parliament.

That is massive.

"That political parties connected to Thaksin were banned twice - what was not very democratic."

Banned for proven, unambiguous, electoral fraud, which is the democratic thing to do, if a party is systematically committing electoral fraud the right thing to do is not just ban it, through the whole corrupt lot in jail and slap a lifetime ban on politics.

You harp a lot on the value of elections and the will of the people, but happily ignore how Thaksin and his parties have a track record of fraudulent electoral beheaviour, yet not a pip of condemnation for that. Do you support electoral fraud as a means of achieving political power perhaps?

[philw]

There's extremely little chance of Thaksin getting back. There will be so much street violence and so many injuries when the Red Shirts lay into opponents of the Amnesty Bill. There will be explosions and burning too no doubt. He won't be able to return without some kind of Emergency Rule declaration, and nobody will accept that. His permanent home is now Dubai. Thais will realize eventually that peace in Thailand is impossible with him.

Agree with you but think you got that the wrong way round.

The violence, bombings and murder attempts will not be coming from red shirts...........

Think another colour.

[khunken]

There's extremely little chance of Thaksin getting back. There will be so much street violence and so many injuries when the Red Shirts lay into opponents of the Amnesty Bill. There will be explosions and burning too no doubt. He won't be able to return without some kind of Emergency Rule declaration, and nobody will accept that. His permanent home is now Dubai. Thais will realize eventually that peace in Thailand is impossible with him.

Agree with you but think you got that the wrong way round.

The violence, bombings and murder attempts will not be coming from red shirts...........

Think another colour.

That would be after the violence, intimidation & more if the CC don't 'play ball'. Odd, but serious violence, bombings & murder are the hallmarks of the red shirts - no other 'coloured' group comes close.

[philw]

There's extremely little chance of Thaksin getting back. There will be so much street violence and so many injuries when the Red Shirts lay into opponents of the Amnesty Bill. There will be explosions and burning too no doubt. He won't be able to return without some kind of Emergency Rule declaration, and nobody will accept that. His permanent home is now Dubai. Thais will realize eventually that peace in Thailand is impossible with him.

Agree with you but think you got that the wrong way round.

The violence, bombings and murder attempts will not be coming from red shirts...........

Think another colour.

That would be after the violence, intimidation & more if the CC don't 'play ball'. Odd, but serious violence, bombings & murder are the hallmarks of the red shirts - no other 'coloured' group comes close.

Not yet................

[lungmi]

Zhou Zhou: I don't know what planet you are on. Certainly not the same as the majority of Thai Visa users. Now answer this question honestly: Where do you stand on the political spectrum? Would you have supported Hitler or Churchill? What is interesting to me is that you are so predictable and you have not answered previus points I have made. There is nothing in what Abhisit has said that could lead to the point you make. The job of an opposition leader is to point out the pitfalls and errors in any administration's actions. This is surely what Parliamentary democracy is about. Unike Thaksin who would brook no opposition which is not what Parliamentary democracy is about. What you say in yur other post is absolutely off the wall and incorrect. Come on ZhouZhou, get real and start to understand, not only the nature of democracy but also the nature of fascism.!

Get Real????? Abhisit is Churchill and Taksin is Hitler I suppose in your "real" world?

Abhisit and the Democrats have not won one national election in over 20 years? Taksin did. Massively. And would still do it if allowed to come back to Thailand. That's the reality.

And i don t that like that reality more than you do. But until the Democrats or another party offer something better...

I must assume you are talking about the 2005 election when Thai Rak Thai had a 60% popular vote? Not "Massive" , however a respectable majority. The current government didn't get a majority of the vote, however they did do well with a bit more than 48%. Again, a very respectable showing, however not massive either. More details would probably help your argument.

I don't see Thaksin with a moustache, so I don't see the resemblance.

You should not forget that there is a strong anti Thaksin propaganda. The Junta had a million budget for it. to oust Thaksin is the only known goal of ex-PM Abhisit.

That political parties connected to Thaksin were banned twice - what was not very democratic.

there was big gerrymandering by the junta with the hope to support for the Democrats. Under PM Abhisit we saw additional gerrymandering charter amendments.

And now the Yingluck leads government has 300 MP behind her in a 500 seat parliament.

That is massive.

Your mantra never changes. Impossible to see the facts proposed by other posters.

You are on the payroll of ThaiVisa that we have some fun?

[ZhouZhou]

Get Real????? Abhisit is Churchill and Taksin is Hitler I suppose in your "real" world?

Abhisit and the Democrats have not won one national election in over 20 years? Taksin did. Massively. And would still do it if allowed to come back to Thailand. That's the reality.

And i don t that like that reality more than you do. But until the Democrats or another party offer something better...

I must assume you are talking about the 2005 election when Thai Rak Thai had a 60% popular vote? Not "Massive" , however a respectable majority. The current government didn't get a majority of the vote, however they did do well with a bit more than 48%. Again, a very respectable showing, however not massive either. More details would probably help your argument.

I don't see Thaksin with a moustache, so I don't see the resemblance.

You should not forget that there is a strong anti Thaksin propaganda. The Junta had a million budget for it. to oust Thaksin is the only known goal of ex-PM Abhisit.

That political parties connected to Thaksin were banned twice - what was not very democratic.

there was big gerrymandering by the junta with the hope to support for the Democrats. Under PM Abhisit we saw additional gerrymandering charter amendments.

And now the Yingluck leads government has 300 MP behind her in a 500 seat parliament.

That is massive.

Your mantra never changes. Impossible to see the facts proposed by other posters.

You are on the payroll of ThaiVisa that we have some fun?

I have all the facts. for example about who won the election and who lost.

most others react very emotional and with strange opinion and wild stories about idi amin, mugabe, churchill and stuff.

[rubl]

As for facts, the topic is on Abhisit slamming the government, something an opposition leader does do every once in a while. Although in the specific case of Thailand opposition leaders and parties of any colour seem to feel the need to do this more often, the slamming that is.

Now if only we had a proper English translation of the anmesty bill which got suddenly pushed to 'priority one to be discussed' item for the next parliamentary session and some justification (of it's contents), we could happily forget about all other amnesty bill proposals (sorry Chalerm) and have a more meaningful discussion here. IMHO

[ZhouZhou]

As for facts, the topic is on Abhisit slamming the government, something an opposition leader does do every once in a while. Although in the specific case of Thailand opposition leaders and parties of any colour seem to feel the need to do this more often, the slamming that is.

Now if only we had a proper English translation of the anmesty bill which got suddenly pushed to 'priority one to be discussed' item for the next parliamentary session and some justification (of it's contents), we could happily forget about all other amnesty bill proposals (sorry Chalerm) and have a more meaningful discussion here. IMHO

Yes. Abhisit could do that more often. i like to watch his antics.

His great goal is to oust Thaksin from politics, you know.

As for a proper English translation of the amnesty bill. most of the critics must have read in original otherwise they would not voice their informed opinions that fervently.

maybe one of them can give you translation in the English language.

[rubl]

Personally I like to watch k. Chalerm. He displays a keen sense of humour sometimes, something which pro and con tend to agree on.

As for "most of the critics must have read in original otherwise they would not voice their informed opinions that fervently" I can only assume that doesn't refer to posters here, but to informed Thai people, politicians and judges :-)

[ZhouZhou]

Personally I like to watch k. Chalerm. He displays a keen sense of humour sometimes, something which pro and con tend to agree on.

As for "most of the critics must have read in original otherwise they would not voice their informed opinions that fervently" I can only assume that doesn't refer to posters here, but to informed Thai people, politicians and judges :-)

it refers to the posters here. surely they must know what they talk about.

As for Chalerm - you are right. that is why so many Thai like him.

[OzMick]

Personally I like to watch k. Chalerm. He displays a keen sense of humour sometimes, something which pro and con tend to agree on.

As for "most of the critics must have read in original otherwise they would not voice their informed opinions that fervently" I can only assume that doesn't refer to posters here, but to informed Thai people, politicians and judges :-)

it refers to the posters here. surely they must know what they talk about.

As for Chalerm - you are right. that is why so many Thai like him.

People like to watch Chalerm because he is the joke, a drunken thuggish buffoon pretending to be a politician. Only one Thai has to like the man to assure his election and position in a Thaksinist government.

[ZhouZhou]

Personally I like to watch k. Chalerm. He displays a keen sense of humour sometimes, something which pro and con tend to agree on.

As for "most of the critics must have read in original otherwise they would not voice their informed opinions that fervently" I can only assume that doesn't refer to posters here, but to informed Thai people, politicians and judges :-)

it refers to the posters here. surely they must know what they talk about.

As for Chalerm - you are right. that is why so many Thai like him.

People like to watch Chalerm because he is the joke, a drunken thuggish buffoon pretending to be a politician. Only one Thai has to like the man to assure his election and position in a Thaksinist government.

he isn't a joke. he makes jokes. don't know the difference?

but okay not everyone has a sense of humour, specially not people who have hate in their heart.

[OzMick]

Personally I like to watch k. Chalerm. He displays a keen sense of humour sometimes, something which pro and con tend to agree on.

As for "most of the critics must have read in original otherwise they would not voice their informed opinions that fervently" I can only assume that doesn't refer to posters here, but to informed Thai people, politicians and judges :-)

it refers to the posters here. surely they must know what they talk about.

As for Chalerm - you are right. that is why so many Thai like him.

People like to watch Chalerm because he is the joke, a drunken thuggish buffoon pretending to be a politician. Only one Thai has to like the man to assure his election and position in a Thaksinist government.

he isn't a joke. he makes jokes. don't know the difference?

but okay not everyone has a sense of humour, specially not people who have hate in their heart.

Chalerm is an embarrassment - people laugh AT him, not with him. The Thaksin supporters that I know don't want to even talk about him, let alone defend his antics.

But I'm glad you appreciate his sense of humour. After all, what else is there to appreciate?