Thai talk: Despite talk to the contrary, a new election is the only option

[webfact]

THAI TALK
Despite talk to the contrary, a new election is the only option
Suthichai Yoon
The Nation



BANGKOK: -- Suthep Thaugsuban's call for widespread civil disobedience might have been aimed at firing up the protesters at Democracy Monument. It was, at most, a symbolic gesture.

The threat of a violent confrontation between the two sides remains a possibility, with the "whistle-blowing protesters" camped out on Rajdamnoen Avenue and the red shirts holding their own rally at the other end of the capital. That threat has to be removed if we don't want the country to fall off the cliff once again, as it descends on the slippery road of a new round of turmoil.

Premier Yingluck Shinawatra has made it clear that she will not step down to take responsibility for the controversial passage in the House of Representatives of the amnesty bill that would have offered blanket clemency to all parties concerned, including those convicted of corrupt practices.

The red shirts have called their own rally to counter the growing number of anti-government protesters, setting the stage for a prolonged stalemate if a political solution isn't found to bring down the rising temperature.

The only practical option appears to be for the premier to dissolve the House and call a snap election, giving the power back to the people to decide who should be given the mandate to govern this country following the current crisis.

The opposition Democrats could pre-empt that move by filing a censure motion which would automatically block the premier from calling a new election. But the opposition leadership seems resigned to the fact that the only pragmatic way out of the current face-off is to ask the people to go to the polling booths once again, rather than face violent clashes on the streets if things follow the predictable course.

With a snap election, the amnesty bill, which has been rejected by the Senate as part of the Yingluck government's hasty retreat, would be effectively "killed". That would put to rest the widespread suspicion among anti-government elements that the ruling Pheu Thai Party could revive the bill after the mandatory six-month period expires.

The premier has also let it be known that dissolving the House isn't on her mind just yet. Her strategists, probably headed by former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, may be trying to hang on to power because a snap election would rob the government of a chance of spending the Bt2 trillion planned for a string of mega-projects to build new infrastructure and the Bt350,000 million for flood-prevention schemes.

Some polls have also suggested that the blanket-amnesty bill has dramatically changed the political landscape and that if national elections were held today, the opposition Democrats could be more popular than the Pheu Thai Party.

But in the wake of the unprecedented outpouring of dissatisfaction against the government, Premier Yingluck isn't in a position to pick and choose her own political timing anymore. Sooner or later, she will have to make the difficult choice of getting the people back to the polling booths.

For the protesters, a new election will offer the opportunity for a "People's Agenda" to pressure political parties into coming up with real commitments to fight graft and to put an end to any further attempts to make corruption a "pardonable act" in national politics.

Once politicians are forced to go back to the campaign trails, they will have to tell the voters what they intend to do with the current government's highly controversial rice price pledging policy. Both Pheu Thai and the Democrats will have to come up with campaign platforms to tackle the infrastructure and anti-flood projects that have been targets of severe criticism in the past months.

The Democrats aren't guaranteed a better election result either, despite the fact that the number of people joining the Rajdamnoen protest has been unprecedented. The opposition party also runs the risk of being accused of "manipulating the people's genuine anger" for their own selfish political gain.

The silent majority has spoken out against the "tyranny of the majority" in the House. Now it's time for Thais to decide the next move, not on the streets, but through the peaceful and respectable process at the ballot box.


-- The Nation 2013-11-14

[jdinasia]

A new election is the only way I see of preventing an enforced "Unity Government".

[worgeordie]

I am sure the Government would welcome a new election,

as they have painted themselves into a corner,regards,

all these populist policies,which cannot be sustained,but

which at the same time they cannot stop for fear of loosing

support,new election,they will still win,and just blame the

previous Government for all the mess and loses,the majority

of Thais will believe it. problem solved,

regards Worgeordie

[aussieinthailand]

So will history repeat it self yet again??? the opposition just can't fight their way out of a political paper bag, so call for a snap election's, then loose the snap election AGIAN, no'p still don't accept the vote of the people so hey we''l wait until the PM is out of the country then, Play it again Sam, have a little coup,,,

Any one for a glass of Deja vu???

[mmh8]

I know whats going to happen the govnernment will issue a new policy a 200 baht meal for every person policy. Basically the govenment will had out 200 baht to all comers who will be able to spend the money on food. the govenrment will run a cook house where it will make rice based meals to use up its stock of rotting and mouldy rice covered in droppings of rats pigeions and all sorts of vermin. The budget will be spent and people will think the govenrment is great for spending tax moeny on them.

So the non tax paying masses will start to demand higher tax for higher earners while members of officialdom will avoid paying taxes by writing new laws ..

Edited November 14, 2013 by mmh8

[malathione]

So every time the opposition disagrees with the an elected government, fresh elections have to be called? If this government has the numbers to push through whatever bill they want, well, that's too bad, as long as the Constitutional Court doesn't disagree.

Hell, we got stuck with Obamacare, didn't we.

[jdinasia]

So every time the opposition disagrees with the an elected government, fresh elections have to be called? If this government has the numbers to push through whatever bill they want, well, that's too bad, as long as the Constitutional Court doesn't disagree.

Hell, we got stuck with Obamacare, didn't we.

Incorrect on all counts.

Having 50%+1 (which PTP does not have -- hence the coalition government) does not give the right to pass legislation that is unfair, or improper. The Constitution Ct only rules on things that are clearly in violation of the constitution. The minority opinion must always be considered. In the case of the amnesty it was not. In fact, they didn't even let the opposition speak against the bill prior to the vote on the 3rd reading. Breaking a rule in the legislative process would not necessarily go before the Constitution Court and thus may take way too much time to get the bill rejected at the Supreme court level.

plus "we" did not get stuck with Obamacare which is totally off topic!.

[smutcakes]

So every time the opposition disagrees with the an elected government, fresh elections have to be called? If this government has the numbers to push through whatever bill they want, well, that's too bad, as long as the Constitutional Court doesn't disagree.

Hell, we got stuck with Obamacare, didn't we.

Incorrect on all counts.

Having 50%+1 (which PTP does not have -- hence the coalition government) does not give the right to pass legislation that is unfair, or improper. The Constitution Ct only rules on things that are clearly in violation of the constitution. The minority opinion must always be considered. In the case of the amnesty it was not. In fact, they didn't even let the opposition speak against the bill prior to the vote on the 3rd reading. Breaking a rule in the legislative process would not necessarily go before the Constitution Court and thus may take way too much time to get the bill rejected at the Supreme court level.

plus "we" did not get stuck with Obamacare which is totally off topic!.

Are we for or against the CC these days? I lose track if they are the last bastion of hope or paid off lackeys. Seems to differ on every decision they mumble over.

[jdinasia]

Smut ... I made no reference to the decisions of the CC and certainly would not impugn them. I suggest you adopt the same strategy

[malathione]

So every time the opposition disagrees with the an elected government, fresh elections have to be called? If this government has the numbers to push through whatever bill they want, well, that's too bad, as long as the Constitutional Court doesn't disagree.

Hell, we got stuck with Obamacare, didn't we.

Incorrect on all counts.

Having 50%+1 (which PTP does not have -- hence the coalition government) does not give the right to pass legislation that is unfair, or improper. The Constitution Ct only rules on things that are clearly in violation of the constitution. The minority opinion must always be considered. In the case of the amnesty it was not. In fact, they didn't even let the opposition speak against the bill prior to the vote on the 3rd reading. Breaking a rule in the legislative process would not necessarily go before the Constitution Court and thus may take way too much time to get the bill rejected at the Supreme court level.

plus "we" did not get stuck with Obamacare which is totally off topic!.

Actually, it does give that right if it isn't specifically against the Constitution. That's what laws are for. Procedural decisions tend to rest with the Speaker of the Assembly and are within his purview. So, if it isn't in violation of the Constitution then, they need to suck it up.

"We" did get stuck with Obamacare. I presume you were a part of the majority in that decision. Minority opinion, ha!

[Bakseeda]

So will history repeat it self yet again??? the opposition just can't fight their way out of a political paper bag, so call for a snap election's, then loose the snap election AGIAN, no'p still don't accept the vote of the people so hey we''l wait until the PM is out of the country then, Play it again Sam, have a little coup,,,

Any one for a glass of Deja vu???

Again obviously a difficult one for Aussies to spell.... and it was the "bought" vote of the people... and not the vote of the folks of Bangkok or southern Thailand where there happens to be a few more brain cells about....

[smutcakes]

So will history repeat it self yet again??? the opposition just can't fight their way out of a political paper bag, so call for a snap election's, then loose the snap election AGIAN, no'p still don't accept the vote of the people so hey we''l wait until the PM is out of the country then, Play it again Sam, have a little coup,,,

Any one for a glass of Deja vu???

Again obviously a difficult one for Aussies to spell.... and it was the "bought" vote of the people... and not the vote of the folks of Bangkok or southern Thailand where there happens to be a few more brain cells about....

Thats a lovely outlook you have. 'bought vote' 'uneducated' whose fault is that? Very easy for BKK residents to speak from their ivory towers. Who would clean the roads etc etc. without people from the North, i doubt some people from BKK could wipe their own backsides.

[jdinasia]

Mala .. I understand that you are probably not that familiar with Parliamentary democracies. It is also apparent that you think that "we" are all Americans. Boehner would be proud of your opinions, but how the USA does democracy is not part of the issue here. If you would like to discuss that there is the World News section of the forum.

[Thainy Tim]

So every time the opposition disagrees with the an elected government, fresh elections have to be called? If this government has the numbers to push through whatever bill they want, well, that's too bad, as long as the Constitutional Court doesn't disagree.

Hell, we got stuck with Obamacare, didn't we.

So every time the opposition disagrees we have to have a new election?

What planet have you been living on?

There are plenty of disagreements where new elections are not demanded, this is a very special case.

For your information, there are a myriad of reasons why this government need to go. Failed projects, collapsing economy (soon) 2-2 trillion that will likely be mostly siphoned off, mass governmental corruption. Failure to do anything about the flooding issue. Breaking promises of much higher minimum wage for degree holders. Rice scheme embezzlement.... to name but a few.

But the straw that broke the camel's back, this good old amnesty bill.

That is why we need new elections. this bunch have failed on virtually everything they have touched.

Your views are far to simplistic.... your spaceship is waiting, please return to your people.

[malathione]

Mala .. I understand that you are probably not that familiar with Parliamentary democracies. It is also apparent that you think that "we" are all Americans. Boehner would be proud of your opinions, but how the USA does democracy is not part of the issue here. If you would like to discuss that there is the World News section of the forum.

Understood, JD. And, no, "we", in this case, is the unfortunate minority. And, by the way, never confuse what is morally right with politics or with what is right according to any constitution.

[LomSak27]

So The Democratic Partey's Media Division; The Nation, wants new elections ....

The only practical option appears to be for the premier to dissolve the House and call a snap election, giving the power back to the people to decide who should be given the mandate to govern this country following the current crisis.

And when the Reds stomp them in the Election yet again, what then ??

Find or manufacture another crisis. Have protests and demand an election - they have nothing else to offer.

Get ready for the weekend ... The Squawks are going to Rock, and Percy may even play! Woohoo!

Edited November 14, 2013 by LomSak27

[smutcakes]

So every time the opposition disagrees with the an elected government, fresh elections have to be called? If this government has the numbers to push through whatever bill they want, well, that's too bad, as long as the Constitutional Court doesn't disagree.

Hell, we got stuck with Obamacare, didn't we.

So every time the opposition disagrees we have to have a new election?

What planet have you been living on?

There are plenty of disagreements where new elections are not demanded, this is a very special case.

For your information, there are a myriad of reasons why this government need to go. Failed projects, collapsing economy (soon) 2-2 trillion that will likely be mostly siphoned off, mass governmental corruption. Failure to do anything about the flooding issue. Breaking promises of much higher minimum wage for degree holders. Rice scheme embezzlement.... to name but a few.

But the straw that broke the camel's back, this good old amnesty bill.

That is why we need new elections. this bunch have failed on virtually everything they have touched.

Your views are far to simplistic.... your spaceship is waiting, please return to your people.

Agreed on most of your points, not sure on the flooding point as i doubt anyone can do anything about it, somewhere and some people will always be flooded. Corruption issue is obviously an unknown but as we know all Govts here seem to be the same. If we have an election the PTP or whatever incarnation they come up with will win again, so whats your solution? Lots of finger pointing but little in the way of solutions.

[malathione]

So every time the opposition disagrees with the an elected government, fresh elections have to be called? If this government has the numbers to push through whatever bill they want, well, that's too bad, as long as the Constitutional Court doesn't disagree.

Hell, we got stuck with Obamacare, didn't we.

So every time the opposition disagrees we have to have a new election?

What planet have you been living on?

There are plenty of disagreements where new elections are not demanded, this is a very special case.

For your information, there are a myriad of reasons why this government need to go. Failed projects, collapsing economy (soon) 2-2 trillion that will likely be mostly siphoned off, mass governmental corruption. Failure to do anything about the flooding issue. Breaking promises of much higher minimum wage for degree holders. Rice scheme embezzlement.... to name but a few.

But the straw that broke the camel's back, this good old amnesty bill.

That is why we need new elections. this bunch have failed on virtually everything they have touched.

Your views are far to simplistic.... your spaceship is waiting, please return to your people.

Hey, that's democracy. Corruption and inefficiencies? A collapsing economy? Umm, we'll have to have elections in 170 countries around the world. Gonna board my spaceship now to meditate on Tammany Hall.

[JRSoul]

Actually, it does give that right if it isn't specifically against the Constitution. That's what laws are for. Procedural decisions tend to rest with the Speaker of the Assembly and are within his purview. So, if it isn't in violation of the Constitution then, they need to suck it up.

The amnesty bill was introduced by subterfuge so as to give it the minimum possible time before becoming law, but many people still recognised it for what it was - an abuse of power and a corrupt attempt to benefit the owner of PTP. The supposedly independent speaker is far from it, another paid stooge, and the DSI is a joke with its head actually changing the definition of offences and dropping hundreds of investigations to benefit those in power.

The significant number of people who recognised this bill for what it is and voiced their outrage would be enough for a more ethical PM to resign his/her position. Ethics are not well known here though. The PM has already referred to the bill as suspended which is not good enough; enough people want it DEAD and an election is the only way to ensure that.

[aussieinthailand]

So will history repeat it self yet again??? the opposition just can't fight their way out of a political paper bag, so call for a snap election's, then loose the snap election AGIAN, no'p still don't accept the vote of the people so hey we''l wait until the PM is out of the country then, Play it again Sam, have a little coup,,,

Any one for a glass of Deja vu???

Again obviously a difficult one for Aussies to spell.... and it was the "bought" vote of the people... and not the vote of the folks of Bangkok or southern Thailand where there happens to be a few more brain cells about....

I'm sorry I was under the impression that ALL Thai people have a right to vote and a say in which government can be put in power and removed, NOT just those in BKK and the south.

By the way, do you have the right to vote here in Thailand???

PS, I didn't know that spelling was the topic here, Bakseeda, you do know that the English language has many words that can be spelt differently and yet still be correct, I'm sure those with "a few more brain cells" would know this

[jdinasia]

Smutcakes, did you read the article? A PTP (or other Thaksin based party) is not a foregone conclusion. Hell they didn't pull 50% in the last elections and they and their coalition will certainly pay the price for the last 2 years. Will they be able to form a coalition again like they did this time? Maybe, but then again they may not. The electorate as a whole IS becoming more educated.

I still think that unless new elections are called very soon that we will end up with a "Unity Government" here in Thailand.

[smutcakes]

Smutcakes, did you read the article? A PTP (or other Thaksin based party) is not a foregone conclusion. Hell they didn't pull 50% in the last elections and they and their coalition will certainly pay the price for the last 2 years. Will they be able to form a coalition again like they did this time? Maybe, but then again they may not. The electorate as a whole IS becoming more educated.

I still think that unless new elections are called very soon that we will end up with a "Unity Government" here in Thailand.

when was the last time a Govt won an absolute majority In Thailand? I think we all know that whichever main party has power the smaller parties will be all to happy to jump into bed with. whoever wins i hope they are better represented than the current Govt and if the opposition do manage to get elected, i hope they actually do something to back up their comments rather than the normal.

[Thainy Tim]

So every time the opposition disagrees with the an elected government, fresh elections have to be called? If this government has the numbers to push through whatever bill they want, well, that's too bad, as long as the Constitutional Court doesn't disagree.

Hell, we got stuck with Obamacare, didn't we.

So every time the opposition disagrees we have to have a new election?

What planet have you been living on?

There are plenty of disagreements where new elections are not demanded, this is a very special case.

For your information, there are a myriad of reasons why this government need to go. Failed projects, collapsing economy (soon) 2-2 trillion that will likely be mostly siphoned off, mass governmental corruption. Failure to do anything about the flooding issue. Breaking promises of much higher minimum wage for degree holders. Rice scheme embezzlement.... to name but a few.

But the straw that broke the camel's back, this good old amnesty bill.

That is why we need new elections. this bunch have failed on virtually everything they have touched.

Your views are far to simplistic.... your spaceship is waiting, please return to your people.

Agreed on most of your points, not sure on the flooding point as i doubt anyone can do anything about it, somewhere and some people will always be flooded. Corruption issue is obviously an unknown but as we know all Govts here seem to be the same. If we have an election the PTP or whatever incarnation they come up with will win again, so whats your solution? Lots of finger pointing but little in the way of solutions.

The only solution that I can say would have the most chance of working is for a dissolution of parliament, and a new round of elections, both local and general elections at the same time..

But there would need to be a major overhaul of the election commission and the bylaws that support it. Namely, ANYONE found to be offering money or favors or anything for that matter in exchange for a vote is to have their party immediately withdrawn and the perpetrators given 10 years in prison (without royal pardon) and banned from politics for life. With the voter being suspended from all future voting.

Obviously this would require proper video evidence, but in this day and age, that is not impossible with all these spy cams available. Anyone exposing this will be given a very good financial reward.

Any populist policies promised to the electorate must be for the benefit of Thailand as a nation and ALL its people, not just aimed at a specific voting class. Also must be realistic and achievable with minimum domestic economic impact, or seen to be financially burdensome to the nation.

Anyone running in future elections be it local or general signs an agreement saying that they understand that if they are ever found guilty of corruption or acting in any way that is of self-interest, they accept that they will be removed immediately from office and given a mandatory prison sentence with no financial buyout option.

If the election commission can't do this, I would like to ask why?

Edited November 14, 2013 by Thainy Tim

[whybother]

So The Democratic Partey's Media Division; The Nation, wants new elections ....

The only practical option appears to be for the premier to dissolve the House and call a snap election, giving the power back to the people to decide who should be given the mandate to govern this country following the current crisis.

And when the Reds stomp them in the Election yet again, what then ??

Find or manufacture another crisis. Have protests and demand an election - they have nothing else to offer.

Get ready for the weekend ... The Squawks are going to Rock, and Percy may even play! Woohoo!

No, "Suthichai Yoon" thinks that a new election is the only option.

[billd766]

So every time the opposition disagrees with the an elected government, fresh elections have to be called? If this government has the numbers to push through whatever bill they want, well, that's too bad, as long as the Constitutional Court doesn't disagree.

Hell, we got stuck with Obamacare, didn't we.

Incorrect on all counts.

Having 50%+1 (which PTP does not have -- hence the coalition government) does not give the right to pass legislation that is unfair, or improper. The Constitution Ct only rules on things that are clearly in violation of the constitution. The minority opinion must always be considered. In the case of the amnesty it was not. In fact, they didn't even let the opposition speak against the bill prior to the vote on the 3rd reading. Breaking a rule in the legislative process would not necessarily go before the Constitution Court and thus may take way too much time to get the bill rejected at the Supreme court level.

plus "we" did not get stuck with Obamacare which is totally off topic!.

Actually, it does give that right if it isn't specifically against the Constitution. That's what laws are for. Procedural decisions tend to rest with the Speaker of the Assembly and are within his purview. So, if it isn't in violation of the Constitution then, they need to suck it up.

"We" did get stuck with Obamacare. I presume you were a part of the majority in that decision. Minority opinion, ha!

"We" meaning the readers of TVF are contrary to your theme not ALL members of the USA and Obamacare means very little to us at all. In addition Obamacare has nothing to do with this thread and only impacts on a small number of forum members and therefore totally irrelevant to Thailand.

[h90]

So every time the opposition disagrees with the an elected government, fresh elections have to be called? If this government has the numbers to push through whatever bill they want, well, that's too bad, as long as the Constitutional Court doesn't disagree.

Hell, we got stuck with Obamacare, didn't we.

Incorrect on all counts.

Having 50%+1 (which PTP does not have -- hence the coalition government) does not give the right to pass legislation that is unfair, or improper. The Constitution Ct only rules on things that are clearly in violation of the constitution. The minority opinion must always be considered. In the case of the amnesty it was not. In fact, they didn't even let the opposition speak against the bill prior to the vote on the 3rd reading. Breaking a rule in the legislative process would not necessarily go before the Constitution Court and thus may take way too much time to get the bill rejected at the Supreme court level.

plus "we" did not get stuck with Obamacare which is totally off topic!.

I really don't like the PTP, but you are wrong on that. PTP has more than 50% of the MPs and would not need a coalition. They made it only for extra stability.

[malathione]

So every time the opposition disagrees with the an elected government, fresh elections have to be called? If this government has the numbers to push through whatever bill they want, well, that's too bad, as long as the Constitutional Court doesn't disagree.

Hell, we got stuck with Obamacare, didn't we.

Incorrect on all counts.

Having 50%+1 (which PTP does not have -- hence the coalition government) does not give the right to pass legislation that is unfair, or improper. The Constitution Ct only rules on things that are clearly in violation of the constitution. The minority opinion must always be considered. In the case of the amnesty it was not. In fact, they didn't even let the opposition speak against the bill prior to the vote on the 3rd reading. Breaking a rule in the legislative process would not necessarily go before the Constitution Court and thus may take way too much time to get the bill rejected at the Supreme court level.

plus "we" did not get stuck with Obamacare which is totally off topic!.

Actually, it does give that right if it isn't specifically against the Constitution. That's what laws are for. Procedural decisions tend to rest with the Speaker of the Assembly and are within his purview. So, if it isn't in violation of the Constitution then, they need to suck it up.

"We" did get stuck with Obamacare. I presume you were a part of the majority in that decision. Minority opinion, ha!

"We" meaning the readers of TVF are contrary to your theme not ALL members of the USA and Obamacare means very little to us at all. In addition Obamacare has nothing to do with this thread and only impacts on a small number of forum members and therefore totally irrelevant to Thailand.

I see that you're not familiar with the concept of "analogous" and "analogy". I suggest you read up on it.

[jdinasia]

I really don't like the PTP, but you are wrong on that. PTP has more than 50% of the MPs and would not need a coalition. They made it only for extra stability.

Pardon me .. you are correct. They did get 53% of the seats ... but not 50% of the votes.

I was incorrect. When refreshing my memory I was looking at the wrong column.

[phitsanulokjohn]

Can any elected Thai government,run it's full term or is that asking a bit too much?

[phitsanulokjohn]

Can any elected Thai government,run it's full term or is that asking a bit too much?