PM Yingluck should dissolve House to minimise fallout: Parinya, Thammasat University

[punisher]

If she really meant that she was willing to resign and call new elections, she has it within her power to do so unilaterally. So, why doesn't she?

Why shoud she?Because a criminal who tries to avoid a sentence for murder is threaten to burn down Bkk?

[Spare]

They won the election, won the no confidence vote.

Arrest Suthep put him on trial for incitement etc. Move on.

Then I woke up!

They bought the election and the confidence vote, just like they have been buying everyone standing in their way!!!

If this would be true there would be no riots

Thaksin bought all those low educated farmers outside Bangkok.

Bangkok people are HiSo, so cannot be bought with 200 Baht. Sorry.

[cacruden]

Free money is free money - a lot of people will take that free money from one or more of the parties..... then go vote for who they want.

[Emptyset]

It would certainly be a nice birthday present for HM to see the house dissolved and it is probably the best thing for the country as well.

Of course for that to happen it would need KY to show she really was in charge as it would also be the worst possible scenario for her erstwhile (sic) boss.

One reason not to dissolve house without negotiated agreement is that Democrats might simply refuse to contest the election like they did in 2006. If they did that, crisis would become even worse.

[Magenta2013]

If she really meant that she was willing to resign and call new elections, she has it within her power to do so unilaterally. So, why doesn't she?

Why should she resign and dissolve the house ?

If you watched in 2010 Abhisit and Suthep refused. So why should YL now do what they want ?

The government is democratically elected and there are just a few thousand trouble makers and mad men on the streets trying for insurrection.

If she resigned and dissolved the House it would set a very bad precedent for the future. She has to stay in power and PTP govern for the full term.

That is the precedent needed - that street riots by a few thousand people cannot overtun the votes of millions of people.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Magenta2013

[lemoncake]

In my opinion, if her brother used the correct part of the brain not only she should dissolve the house, but make sure PTP does not win again this round.

PTP already made a mess of economy, plus more to come, if they were smart, loose and let Dems deal with the recessions and possible financial crises.

Come back when economy rebounds and claim the victory, rest assured will not even need to buy votes.

[zydeco]

If she really meant that she was willing to resign and call new elections, she has it within her power to do so unilaterally. So, why doesn't she?

Why shoud she?Because a criminal who tries to avoid a sentence for murder is threaten to burn down Bkk?

Huh?

[Artisi]

If she really meant that she was willing to resign and call new elections, she has it within her power to do so unilaterally. So, why doesn't she?

Needs re-wording, "if she had the power" seems are you forgetting who is running the show.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Artisi

[seajae]

if poo was serious about this "do whatever it takes" shit she would have thaksins passport cancelled and an arrest warrant issued for him. I cannot understand why she has not been charged with conspiring with a fellon and protecting him from thai justice, obviously thaksin is paying her and those in charge lots of money so making him face up to his crime would nullify this very quickly.

Edited December 2, 2013 by seajae

[seajae]

If she really meant that she was willing to resign and call new elections, she has it within her power to do so unilaterally. So, why doesn't she?

Why should she resign and dissolve the house ?

If you watched in 2010 Abhisit and Suthep refused. So why should YL now do what they want ?

The government is democratically elected and there are just a few thousand trouble makers and mad men on the streets trying for insurrection.

If she resigned and dissolved the House it would set a very bad precedent for the future. She has to stay in power and PTP govern for the full term.

That is the precedent needed - that street riots by a few thousand people cannot overtun the votes of millions of people.

you really need to tell the truth, Abhisit offered to have fresh elections to stop the crap but the reds then got even more violent and burnt everything. You should go read up on what happened, you are simply getting worse and showing total incompetence.

[whybother]

If she really meant that she was willing to resign and call new elections, she has it within her power to do so unilaterally. So, why doesn't she?

Why shoud she?Because a criminal who tries to avoid a sentence for murder is threaten to burn down Bkk?

Who is trying to avoid a sentence for murder and threatening to burn down Bangkok? It's not Suthep. Who is it?

[lemoncake]

Well, if the house was dissolved and Suthep refused that as a solution -- then it would require the declaration of martial law and bringing the army into the streets since elections typically are not possible in an unstable environment. That would pretty well destroy the tourist season this year (which I would be ok with). Tourists tend to react badly to the idea of troops in the streets - it makes a country seem unsafe.

i am almost certain, if she steps down and house dissolved, it will all go away pretty fast, as i seriously doubt anyone would want to come to the streets for no reason at all at that moment

[whybother]

If she really meant that she was willing to resign and call new elections, she has it within her power to do so unilaterally. So, why doesn't she?

Why should she resign and dissolve the house ?

If you watched in 2010 Abhisit and Suthep refused. So why should YL now do what they want ?

The government is democratically elected and there are just a few thousand trouble makers and mad men on the streets trying for insurrection.

If she resigned and dissolved the House it would set a very bad precedent for the future. She has to stay in power and PTP govern for the full term.

That is the precedent needed - that street riots by a few thousand people cannot overtun the votes of millions of people.

Abhisit offered elections. The red shirts refused the offer.

Abhisit was democratically elected PM by a majority of the democratically elected MPs, and a few thousand trouble makers and mad men on the streets were trying an insurrection. If Abhisit resigned and dissolved the house, it would have set a very bad precedent for the future. He should have stayed in power and governed for the full term. That was the precedent that was needed. Street riots by a few thousand people cannot overturn the votes of millions of people (ie the millions of people that voted for the majority of MPs that elected Abhisit PM).

[cacruden]

Abhisit offered elections. The red shirts refused the offer.

Abhisit was democratically elected PM by a majority of the democratically elected MPs, and a few thousand trouble makers and mad men on the streets were trying an insurrection. If Abhisit resigned and dissolved the house, it would have set a very bad precedent for the future. He should have stayed in power and governed for the full term. That was the precedent that was needed. Street riots by a few thousand people cannot overturn the votes of millions of people (ie the millions of people that voted for the majority of MPs that elected Abhisit PM).

The other parties formed a coalition with the Democrats after it was made very clear by the powers that be that they would accept only a Democrat led government. The actual election had the original PPP getting a far greater number of seats than the Democrats, but after pulling apart the PPP for "violations" disqualifying a PM for a cooking show... it became clear that the only way to form a stable "democratic" government was by forming a coalition with the democrats. It was a forced marriage.... otherwise it was risking the early end of that "democratic" government.

Abhisit was open to the idea of an early election (he just was not giving them a date - it was still in the future which was not acceptable to the reds -- they wanted what they considered an engineered illegitimate government gone immediately) as far as I could tell, Suthep was dead set against it because he knew it would lead to an opposition winning the election (like they did when it was called). If I remember right, the Red shirts were calling for an early election.... they did not dismiss it out of hand.... but it was pulled off the table and the army called in. At the time the army indicating that it really did not think it was a good idea, but did what was asked of them. Calling in the army for police matters is always fraught with danger - and what resulted was an absolute mess.... which would have been able to be averted by an early election call.

Edited December 2, 2013 by cacruden

[punisher]

If she really meant that she was willing to resign and call new elections, she has it within her power to do so unilaterally. So, why doesn't she?

Why shoud she?Because a criminal who tries to avoid a sentence for murder is threaten to burn down Bkk?

Who is trying to avoid a sentence for murder and threatening to burn down Bangkok? It's not Suthep. Who is it?

He was sentenced by the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions of abusing his power to help his wife buy public land at an auction, I don't remember he killed anybody

[Emptyset]

Why should she resign and dissolve the house ?

If you watched in 2010 Abhisit and Suthep refused. So why should YL now do what they want ?

The government is democratically elected and there are just a few thousand trouble makers and mad men on the streets trying for insurrection.

If she resigned and dissolved the House it would set a very bad precedent for the future. She has to stay in power and PTP govern for the full term.

That is the precedent needed - that street riots by a few thousand people cannot overtun the votes of millions of people.

Abhisit offered elections. The red shirts refused the offer.

Abhisit was democratically elected PM by a majority of the democratically elected MPs, and a few thousand trouble makers and mad men on the streets were trying an insurrection. If Abhisit resigned and dissolved the house, it would have set a very bad precedent for the future. He should have stayed in power and governed for the full term. That was the precedent that was needed. Street riots by a few thousand people cannot overturn the votes of millions of people (ie the millions of people that voted for the majority of MPs that elected Abhisit PM).

Precedent for street riots overthrowing government was set in 2008 by the PAD. Do you honestly think Abhisit would've become PM without their occupation of govt house and the airports? The CC now admits their decision was politicized and Newin wouldn't have been talked into changing sides by Suthep and the military if govt had been stable. Abhisit should've done the right thing in 2009 and called an election to restore properly elected government. It's not about law, it's about the principles that undergird that law. How can a PM that was installed after process of illegal occupations, military meddling & politicized court decision have the same democratic legitimacy as one that came to power directly following an election? Still, that doesn't justify everything the reds did, and they should've accepted his second offer, if not the first, but they had a point.

But like Suthep and the anti-govt people are now saying, you can't stop once people have died... if I'd managed to mobilize that many people I'd be reluctant to throw it away for a promise of a house dissolution in six months contigent on various conditions (with Abhisit refusing to set an exact date). Guess Suthep's feeling the same, he can't back down now. The difference is, he's made it clear he's not interested in an election, even if house was dissolved next week.

[Soutpeel]

Well, if the house was dissolved and Suthep refused that as a solution -- then it would require the declaration of martial law and bringing the army into the streets since elections typically are not possible in an unstable environment.  That would pretty well destroy the tourist season this year (which I would be ok with).  Tourists tend to react badly to the idea of troops in the streets - it makes a country seem unsafe.

 

i am almost certain, if she steps down and house dissolved, it will all go away pretty fast, as i seriously doubt  anyone would want to come to the streets for no reason at all at that moment

As much as I dislike the whole shin clan , after watching YK in the Al Jeezera interview and bring slaughtered by the jouro can't help but feel sorry for her, she really doesn't have clue, stupidity or naivety not sure which it is...but think the ultimate conclusion to all this will be the dissolution of the house and YK could be packing her bags and moving in next door to her brother

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[binjalin]

who cares what a Vice Rector thinks or says? "those who can DO those who cannot TEACH" Thailand elevates "Ajans" like deity and it's absurd

[manarak]

The US goes further they take the vote away from convicts in several states - which I also disagree with vehemently.... Once you serve your sentence it is in the public record and if people want to still vote for you... it is the people's will.

the people's will is not always right.

the best example is how democracies were born: the constitutions were not approved by the people, they were approved by the elite of the time: rather small committees of wise men.

then you got examples such as Hitler.

or examples of islamic countries were intolerance gets approved via democratic vote.

you get the muslim brotherhood elected in egypt... etc.

one man one vote = mob rule.

if you asked by referendum in Russia how gays should be treated...

luckily, constitutions have been edicted by wise men in undemocratic process to contain "democracy" (mob rule).

[Puccini]

Parinya also said the political reform by the People’s Council, as offered by Suthep, is based on the Constitution. "There would be no problem if the People’s Council and the People’s Government came from nomination or selection. What's important are their duties and authority," he said

What is this People's Council being talked about by Suthep and Parinya? Who are its members? Who is its head or chairperson, to whom Yingluck is asked to "hand over power"? What section of the constitution allows this form of transfer of official duties and responsibilities from the PM to the People's Council?

[whybother]

If she really meant that she was willing to resign and call new elections, she has it within her power to do so unilaterally. So, why doesn't she?

Why shoud she?Because a criminal who tries to avoid a sentence for murder is threaten to burn down Bkk?

Who is trying to avoid a sentence for murder and threatening to burn down Bangkok? It's not Suthep. Who is it?

He was sentenced by the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions of abusing his power to help his wife buy public land at an auction, I don't remember he killed anybody

OK. So it's not Suthep and it's not Thaksin (not that I said it was Thaksin). Who is it?

[whybother]

Why should she resign and dissolve the house ?

If you watched in 2010 Abhisit and Suthep refused. So why should YL now do what they want ?

The government is democratically elected and there are just a few thousand trouble makers and mad men on the streets trying for insurrection.

If she resigned and dissolved the House it would set a very bad precedent for the future. She has to stay in power and PTP govern for the full term.

That is the precedent needed - that street riots by a few thousand people cannot overtun the votes of millions of people.

Abhisit offered elections. The red shirts refused the offer.

Abhisit was democratically elected PM by a majority of the democratically elected MPs, and a few thousand trouble makers and mad men on the streets were trying an insurrection. If Abhisit resigned and dissolved the house, it would have set a very bad precedent for the future. He should have stayed in power and governed for the full term. That was the precedent that was needed. Street riots by a few thousand people cannot overturn the votes of millions of people (ie the millions of people that voted for the majority of MPs that elected Abhisit PM).

Precedent for street riots overthrowing government was set in 2008 by the PAD. Do you honestly think Abhisit would've become PM without their occupation of govt house and the airports? The CC now admits their decision was politicized and Newin wouldn't have been talked into changing sides by Suthep and the military if govt had been stable. Abhisit should've done the right thing in 2009 and called an election to restore properly elected government. It's not about law, it's about the principles that undergird that law. How can a PM that was installed after process of illegal occupations, military meddling & politicized court decision have the same democratic legitimacy as one that came to power directly following an election? Still, that doesn't justify everything the reds did, and they should've accepted his second offer, if not the first, but they had a point.

But like Suthep and the anti-govt people are now saying, you can't stop once people have died... if I'd managed to mobilize that many people I'd be reluctant to throw it away for a promise of a house dissolution in six months contigent on various conditions (with Abhisit refusing to set an exact date). Guess Suthep's feeling the same, he can't back down now. The difference is, he's made it clear he's not interested in an election, even if house was dissolved next week.

I wonder why PTP (who was acting government after PPP was disbanded and Somchai was banned) didn't call an election when they had the chance. Abhisit probably didn't call an election because PTP had already shown that they didn't want one.

[Baerboxer]

In my opinion, if her brother used the correct part of the brain not only she should dissolve the house, but make sure PTP does not win again this round.

PTP already made a mess of economy, plus more to come, if they were smart, loose and let Dems deal with the recessions and possible financial crises.

Come back when economy rebounds and claim the victory, rest assured will not even need to buy votes.

The problem with that is that he would loose his whitewash, so no return, and loose the possibility of controlling the 2.2 trillion and 350 million baht loan and budget.

Also, a change in government may lead to the discovery of accounting anomalies, irregularities and true figures being exposed. This could cause embarrassment or even lead to prosecutions.

PTP need more time in charge, their hands on the money and the boss back to keep things going. A house dissolution and election risks all this.

[whybother]

Abhisit offered elections. The red shirts refused the offer.

Abhisit was democratically elected PM by a majority of the democratically elected MPs, and a few thousand trouble makers and mad men on the streets were trying an insurrection. If Abhisit resigned and dissolved the house, it would have set a very bad precedent for the future. He should have stayed in power and governed for the full term. That was the precedent that was needed. Street riots by a few thousand people cannot overturn the votes of millions of people (ie the millions of people that voted for the majority of MPs that elected Abhisit PM).

The other parties formed a coalition with the Democrats after it was made very clear by the powers that be that they would accept only a Democrat led government. The actual election had the original PPP getting a far greater number of seats than the Democrats, but after pulling apart the PPP for "violations" disqualifying a PM for a cooking show... it became clear that the only way to form a stable "democratic" government was by forming a coalition with the democrats. It was a forced marriage.... otherwise it was risking the early end of that "democratic" government.

Abhisit was open to the idea of an early election (he just was not giving them a date - it was still in the future which was not acceptable to the reds -- they wanted what they considered an engineered illegitimate government gone immediately) as far as I could tell, Suthep was dead set against it because he knew it would lead to an opposition winning the election (like they did when it was called). If I remember right, the Red shirts were calling for an early election.... they did not dismiss it out of hand.... but it was pulled off the table and the army called in. At the time the army indicating that it really did not think it was a good idea, but did what was asked of them. Calling in the army for police matters is always fraught with danger - and what resulted was an absolute mess.... which would have been able to be averted by an early election call.

1) It's irrelevant how many seats a party gets in an election. What is relevant is getting a majority. PPP didn't get a majority of seats in the 2007 election, so needed to form a coalition, which included parties that campaigned that they wouldn't join a PPP coalition.

2) The PPP weren't pulled apart because Samak got paid for his cooking show (surely having one job as PM should have been enough). He was forced to step down but could have been re-elected the next day. "Someone" decided that Thaksin's brother in law would be a better prime minister puppet.

3) It was clear to some people in the Abhisit coalition that the only way to the trough was to join the coalition. That's why they "had no choice".

4) Abhisit gave a date for an election. He just would give a date that he would step down. Given that he gave a date for the election, that would mean he would have had to have stepped down by a specified date. Maybe the red shirts couldn't calculate when it was.

5) Abhisit offered an election. Because he didn't give a date when he would step down (see point 4) the red shirts rejected the offer. Then Abhisit withdrew the offer.

6) The army were there from the start. As was shown at Ramkhamheng the other night, it's clear to see why. The police wouldn't go in until it was safe. It seems they had some inkling that the red shirt protests in 2010 weren't going to be safe.

7) The cause of the absolute mess in 2010 was the red shirts calling in their armed militia.

[tragickingdom]

Yes why not. Let's have another election which the thugs in yellow and black will lose again with a 1 to 5 margin and by not changing the constitution not getting rid of unelected provocateurs in the senate it is guaranteed that if the Democrat Party does not get it its way, they will plunder the city again or just burn down a few buildings like in 2010 while pointing their finger to their opponents and than we can start all over again.

Just reserve the Island of Phuket or Krabi for thugs like Suthep and his friends, fence it off with electrified wire and let them rule with their funny (appointed) people council.

You only have to look at the Power Base of this movement the 3 Southern most provinces to see how well they can govern.

[bigbamboo]

Yes why not. Let's have another election which the thugs in yellow and black will lose again with a 1 to 5 margin and by not changing the constitution not getting rid of unelected provocateurs in the senate it is guaranteed that if the Democrat Party does not get it its way, they will plunder the city again or just burn down a few buildings like in 2010 while pointing their finger to their opponents and than we can start all over again.

Just reserve the Island of Phuket or Krabi for thugs like Suthep and his friends, fence it off with electrified wire and let them rule with their funny (appointed) people council.

You only have to look at the Power Base of this movement the 3 Southern most provinces to see how well they can govern.

I was just reading that Bangkok keeps being voted the best city in the world.

And apparently it's well governed too.

Thank goodness the Dems can do something right, eh?

[rwdrwdrwd]

if the Democrat Party does not get it its way, they will plunder the city again or just burn down a few buildings like in 2010

Did they do that in 2010 then? I must be colour blind.

Let's have another election which the thugs in yellow and black will lose again with a 1 to 5 margin

And dyscalculic.

Just reserve the Island of Phuket or Krabi for thugs like Suthep and his friends, fence it off with electrified wire and let them rule with their funny (appointed) people council.

I think they would struggle with fencing the island of Krabi off

To indulge you a little, can you explain why it would it be necessary to fence off an island anyway?

You only have to look at the Power Base of this movement the 3 Southern most provinces to see how well they can govern.

Yeah right. The three provinces in the deep south are definitely the power base. Observe the rigid adherence to the call to prayer and Imam driven activity that has defined this round of protests. Behold the endless statements in support of Suthep proffered by Bersatu regarding the political destiny of a country they wish to be independent of

Comical.

Edited December 2, 2013 by rwdrwdrwd

[Pauhi]

Maybe individual rights are not so important to Thai mentality ,a well functioned society run by a privileged/educated elite may be preferred by many.

I believed an element of the current protest is just people wanting a better run society.We can not blame them for that.However the world community will react coldly to anti democratic aspirations and the notion of "a peoples council" (which to us westerners sounds similar to the fascists idea of the cooperative state or the medieval idea of the enlightened autocracy).

Thai civilization has developed has along a different line than the west.

Its their internal matter to evolve their society in the direction they want.

The US goes further they take the vote away from convicts in several states - which I also disagree with vehemently.... Once you serve your sentence it is in the public record and if people want to still vote for you... it is the people's will.

the people's will is not always right.

the best example is how democracies were born: the constitutions were not approved by the people, they were approved by the elite of the time: rather small committees of wise men.

then you got examples such as Hitler.

or examples of islamic countries were intolerance gets approved via democratic vote.

you get the muslim brotherhood elected in egypt... etc.

one man one vote = mob rule.

if you asked by referendum in Russia how gays should be treated...

luckily, constitutions have been edicted by wise men in undemocratic process to contain "democracy" (mob rule).

[JRSoul]

Banning politicians from running is a weird concept in a democracy.... You're telling people that the person you want to vote for you can't which is not exactly democratic. If the politicians commit crimes -- bring them to trial and then send them to prison if found guilty.... that removes them from consideration anyways.

Your theoretical "If ......." fails miserably in the light of the current political reality, with politicians enjoying parliamentary amnesty to avoid prosecution and a fugitive convicted criminal running the country while arranging his own amnesty

[stoli]

If she really meant that she was willing to resign and call new elections, she has it within her power to do so unilaterally. So, why doesn't she?

When did she say she was willing to resign? I don't believe she has, or will, say this. Suthep does not want new elections. That will block everything. In a new election, the PTP would be re-elected.