Thailand's political crisis: the key street players

[96tehtarp]

Yes, and the pardoning of one very high profile political criminal and exile, is not the best direction for an elected democratic government.

I believe the proposed amnesty you are referring to was a general amnesty for all, and not solely for one very high profile political criminal in exile. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted the facts or been misinformed by the media.

[96tehtarp]

So Abhisith was elected by the majority of the Parliament, just as all other Primeministers of Thailand since at least 35 years have been, Taksin included.

Thanks for clearing that up.

My original question to my esteemed board-members was; By what margin did he win in the election that made him PM?

Rephrased question: In which election did the Parliament that elected Abhisit as the PM win their majority?

I do recall the Newin side changing their allegiance over to the Democrat party, however I'm still a little fuzzy as to how and by what means a Parliamentary majority was achieved to elect Abhisit PM.

[HUAHIN62]

Democrat Abhisit an elected PM or not?

Folks, how can we have a sensible discussion of topics here, if old stereotypes are warmed up again and again?

Please take note (i.e. write it down!), that the Primeminister of Thailand is NOT elected through a general election. This is Thailand, not the U.S. of A. In Thailand the parliament is elected by a general election. Primeminister is, whoever is elected by a majority of Members of Parliament (Lower House).

That system is used in many other countries around the world and has a distinctive advantage: The PM or President (or Federal Chancelloress, hello Germany!) has not to govern against the Parliament, as can happen in the USA.

So Abhisith was elected by the majority of the Parliament, just as all other Primeministers of Thailand since at least 35 years have been, Taksin included. Whether the Newin group was convinced to change sides or not, that has no influence on the outcome of the election at that time. You might not like it, but it was fiormally correct.

My god, if I would get upset each time things don't go my way, I wouldn't have time to live...

SamM.

Yes but that was after the previous ruling party was banned which made it possible to get the majority in parliament. Even if you count last time its 3 years out of 20 years, not a good record. But thats history the present is more important. In Thailand you will never see the key players and even if you see them or know who they are can't speak about it. This time its the same same as 2006. The fight in Thailand when you cut all the BS away is between an elite that whats to hang on to power and even regain lost power against the poor uneducated masses.

[Maggusoil]

Yes, and the pardoning of one very high profile political criminal and exile, is not the best direction for an elected democratic government.

I believe the proposed amnesty you are referring to was a general amnesty for all, and not solely for one very high profile political criminal in exile. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted the facts or been misinformed by the media.

No doubt about it, but if you want to hide what you are really doing, you make it appear like something else. All magician's illusions are created like this. The Thais are not fooled by it.

Its a very difficult coin to flip. Heads on both sides. This reveals the actual system is flawed, because there really is no answer.

It usually boils down to a two headed dragon, asking you to believe in "one" of the heads. People know this but the way the system is designed,

they have to make a choice.

Their protests let the dragon know, his deceptions are under scrutiny. How to overthrow him? Who knows. Perhaps the Thais have their own methods. Is that better than the rest of the so-called civilised world that let the dragon rule without really questioning?

Without even going near the subject of Chinese influence, the corrupt banking system and debt money of the West is controlled, from London.

This may be completely wrong, but at the very least, for all his crimes, I am led to understand Thaksin wanted to rid Thailand of that beast. That would make him a desirable Nationalist. He figured out a way to get people to vote for him.

Same as Obama and every other mother. Promises and other bribes. Same same

[prvtdetdave]

It seems to me, the Ultra Royalists. Yellow Shirts are much more violent and have been responsible for killing many more people.

Edited December 3, 2013 by prvtdetdave

[96tehtarp]

Yes but that was after the previous ruling party was banned which made it possible to get the majority in parliament. Even if you count last time its 3 years out of 20 years, not a good record. But thats history the present is more important. In Thailand you will never see the key players and even if you see them or know who they are can't speak about it. This time its the same same as 2006. The fight in Thailand when you cut all the BS away is between an elite that whats to hang on to power and even regain lost power against the poor uneducated masses.

Who banned the previous party and what actions were asserted for them to make the ban appear legal. Let's look at their names and the names of their connections!

With reference to the frequent use of "uneducated masses", I'll agree there are certainly a great mass of uneducated people in Thailand, farang visitors and soft rich elitists with a strong sense of entitlement included. Actually I do believe that in every G20 country the group capable of swaying an election could also be termed "uneducated masses". This leads to another question; If Thailand's uneducated masses should be stripped of their democracy, why shouldn't those in any of the other G20 countries also be stripped of theirs? (Perhaps they already have, but just haven't realized it yet).

I live deep inside Red territory, rural yes, uneducated yes & no. I've been to Red rallies in Thaksin's earliest days and the core people I met were quite obviously very well educated. 60 years ago they would have been CPT leaders. Like him or dislike him, it is thanks to Thaksin that the rural masses have awoken to the fact that their votes are much more powerful than the 2-300 baht and a bottle of whiskey the old-order has been accustomed to giving them. From this I don't see any going back, not with out a long bloody fight.

Edited December 3, 2013 by 96tehtarp

[nong38]

I heard the police arrested a Suthep "double", it does make you wonder where it will all end up with 2 groups that know how to compromise without losing face. If you were a tourist and you were watching the TV in a land far away would you come here?

[Lakegeneve]

'Mark' was appointed by the court. The democrats can't win an election. They can't even win a protest. (yes, yes, I know ... it's all Thaksin's fault)

No. The court does not appoint the PM in Thailand. Research how PM's come to office - stops you looking silly.

The democrats have won two key elections recently - the Don Meuang by-election and the Bangkok governor election. PTP thought both would be easy victories.

It will be interesting to see the results of the next election, whenever it is. Clearly, PTP don't feel confident or they would simply call an election and use their new mandate to push through the three bills that sparked the conflict.

The BMA election was really no surprise given that the Dems have won the previous 3 elections (which includes the special election when Aparik resigned).

The Don Mueang by election this year though was a huge shock to everyone. This area along with Bang Khen is a huge stronghold for the PT - their other BKK seats are basically in the east between Bangkapi and the real strong hold of Minburi.

Don Mueang had been easily won by the TRT, PPP & PT candidates for the last 5 elections. No doubt some unique factors were at play given that the PT was disqualified & the Dems had a continuity with a high profile candidate but this really was a surprise result.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/647088-democrat-tankhun-wins-don-mueang-by-election-unofficial-results/

Some political academic and electoral observers suggest that the Dems vote has lifted in some NE areas by 15-20% based on pre Amnesty Bill voting surveys. However, I somehow doubt that figures would translate into meaningful gains if the parliament were to dissolve now and elections held in the next month. A key question would be if Newins BJP would bounce back and win a significant number of seats?

Undoubtedly, PT would easily be returned but most likely with a decreased majority which should actually be a good outcome for everyone as it would send a clear signal. Large parliamentary majorities often lead to those in power over reaching which is patently what happened with the Amnesty Bill.

[Lakegeneve]

In 2010 some 100,000 Reds occupied the centre of Bangkok for two months to demand the resignation of Abhisit, before being dispersed by an army assault which killed 90 people and injured 1,900.

This article is really simplistic and poor which provides no real insight into the diverse players and complexities involved. It is written for a Fox News audience?

This last sentence is especially misleading as any reader would think that 90 civilians were killed during the 19 May military crackdown.

The fact is that this figure covers a period from mid March to late May, some 10 weeks. Also, the figure includes non civilians killed. On 10 April alone during the infamous Khok Wa incident, 25 people were killed and 800 injured. A few people were killed at places such as at Soi Ngam Duphli and Rang Nam rd in the days after 19 May when the live fire zones were still in effect.

If journos can't even present basic facts correctly such as the period covering deaths it doesn't bode well for reporting other more complex and substantive issues.

[RubbaJohnny]

Scenario 1 Win Win

Open free elections,compromise ,compromise ,Europe's leading economy Germany where a right left coalition will continue the nations success.

No loss of face national harmony and tolerance of the other persons,regions rights traditions and values.

Scenario 2 Lose Lose

Elections where on policy is vote for us the others are evil and we'll bribe better,

Zero testable Policy rigged and bribed, pseudo elections,lies,street brawls,intimidation,bribes,corruption,Alliances based on fill your boots rather sincerely policies for the commonwealth LOSE LOSE,of course succesful economies do not understand Thai wai.

P.S am not German but the reunified Bundesrepublik started in ruins in 1949 .

Singapore looked like Isan in my lifetimeand S Korea has shown what responsible economic management based on working democracy can achieve.The other way China shows what a one party state can achieve.

If loss of face and corruption cannot be overcome perhaps the Chinese model will work better than the western one.

Edited December 3, 2013 by RubbaJohnny

[SamMunich]

HuaHin62 thinks:

Yes but that was after the previous ruling party was banned which made it possible to get the majority in parliament. Even if you count last time its 3 years out of 20 years, not a good record. But thats history the present is more important. In Thailand you will never see the key players and even if you see them or know who they are can't speak about it. This time its the same same as 2006. The fight in Thailand when you cut all the BS away is between an elite that whats to hang on to power and even regain lost power against the poor uneducated masses.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sorry, I strongly disagree with that last statement. This is not a fight between an elite and the poor, uneducated masses. That is the view Taksin and his spinmasters always want to impose on all others.

In fact it is the fight between two elite cliques, where the one is more and the other is less corrupt. The more corrupt ones are the Taksin folks. The others don't want Thailand to bleed to death for the sake of some superrich ones. Taksin and his cronies are not really poor guys. ThaiBev (Chang, Mekhong wisky etc.) and Imperial Department Stores are said to back Taksin, among many other real rich people. There are countless examples of the scope of corruption under Taksin and his cronies. The Democrats and others are not necessarily against corruption, but their point is, that even with corruption the country must be able to proceed.

And Taksins people corrupt the small people as well, e.g. by paying more during vote-buying and offering more sweets, if they are elected. Remember all the promises from last election? Now the farmers are waiting up to 4 months for the money for the rice they pledged... It is not the rich against the poor, it is the more urban people, who tend to see further than today, against the people upcountry, who (not all, though!!!) tend to look, what's in their hand and don't care about tomorrow...

Actually the question of how to proceed from here is a philosophical and ethical question: How democratically can a state be, if the electorate largely misunderstands the concept of a democracy? Does the freedom to vote come with a responsibility towards how to vote? I learned that vote-buying is wrong, but the majority here is convinced, that it is perfectly o.k. So how democratical can such a state be???

[Bpuumike]

Yes but that was after the previous ruling party was banned which made it possible to get the majority in parliament. Even if you count last time its 3 years out of 20 years, not a good record. But thats history the present is more important. In Thailand you will never see the key players and even if you see them or know who they are can't speak about it. This time its the same same as 2006. The fight in Thailand when you cut all the BS away is between an elite that whats to hang on to power and even regain lost power against the poor uneducated masses.

Who banned the previous party and what actions were asserted for them to make the ban appear legal. Let's look at their names and the names of their connections!

With reference to the frequent use of "uneducated masses", I'll agree there are certainly a great mass of uneducated people in Thailand, farang visitors and soft rich elitists with a strong sense of entitlement included. Actually I do believe that in every G20 country the group capable of swaying an election could also be termed "uneducated masses". This leads to another question; If Thailand's uneducated masses should be stripped of their democracy, why shouldn't those in any of the other G20 countries also be stripped of theirs? (Perhaps they already have, but just haven't realized it yet).

I live deep inside Red territory, rural yes, uneducated yes & no. I've been to Red rallies in Thaksin's earliest days and the core people I met were quite obviously very well educated. 60 years ago they would have been CPT leaders. Like him or dislike him, it is thanks to Thaksin that the rural masses have awoken to the fact that their votes are much more powerful than the 2-300 baht and a bottle of whiskey the old-order has been accustomed to giving them. From this I don't see any going back, not with out a long bloody fight.

You're out of touch.

In my village it's 1,000. Plus lao khao.