Thai PM: Election the best medicine for political conflicts

[hellodolly]

Thaksin Shinawatra is still in power and that's what the protests are all about.

BANGKOK, Jan 5 – Caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said today that a general election is the best medicine to cure Thailand’s political unrest.

This from some one who was sure the answer two months ago was to white wash her brother.

It looks like she will get back in that means more corruption. Maybe it will be watermelons they use this time.

Funny how she can stick to her guns for two and a half years no matter what she was told and all of a sudden decide that the government needs to do some reforming just like that. 180 degree turn around.

Did Buddha whisper in her ear or maybe it was some of the spirits taking time off from causing traffic accidents. I wonder if she is still going to say it is OK to lie to the people if it makes them feel good? We know that the PTP is happy the way things were. Just ignore any one who didn't agree with them. Just when did she decide that it needed doing. Is there a chance that she still thinks it is OK and is just saying that she will set up a commission to set out reform suggestions for her to ignore just so long as it gets votes.

I wonder if it will do as well as the commission to stop corruption. They managed to take the country from 65% corrupt to 67% corrupt.

Source http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/

[monkeycountry]

"After the House dissolution, the government cant do much to solve economic woes."

Actually by dissolving the house Ms Yingluck has unknowingly solved the main economic problems, as she has thereby prevented the PTP from borrowing a lot of money to throw away on useless policies and steal through corruption.

Edited January 5, 2014 by monkeycountry

[michaelbrear]

Well in all other occasions that I have ever heard of it certainly is.

Only in Thailand have I heard and seen that they don't stick with the result.

Seems like the result of the majority vote is fine, but only if its from my gang.

Its a great pity that there is so much misinformation on both sides, but in

particular with Sut's reforms. There has not a lot been publicised but it

seems that he is a way off from ''grass roots''. Telling Bankokians to go to a

resort for a couple of weeks to avoid inconvenience, reminds me a bit of

''LET THEM EAT CAKE''. Honestly most of the grass roots will be on

minimum wages 300baht/day. Can they really get off work a couple of

weeks and go to the beach? One suggested reform is to cut the minimum

wage 33%. Will that help the ''grass roots'' that he is claiming to represent?.

Will it help them also if some of them are denied voting any more?

If anyone wants to follow any particular group then that's up to them, but I

just wish they would do it in posession of all the facts. Possibly Thailand

should not vote on whether they want a democrasy at all as they don't

seem to understand it or adhere to the law and actually arrest people

that should be in prison, like from the mob that shut down the airports

and Sut himself. Maybe instead they would be better with a strong but

fair dictatorship, and in that way the rule of law could be seen to be

observed. Lets just hope it all works out for the best and too many people

dont get hurt or killed.

[chainarong]

I beg to differ with the Caretaker PM on one point, the election date the P.M. has selected is far too short, to try and campaign with such a short time frame is unrealistic, the month of August would have been more suitable, the push for reform before elections has it's merits, however I have grave doubts that the reform process will be completed before two years, so who will run the mad house during that period , some un represented crowd that will make sure the reform process drags on for their own benefit, more of the same, again.

[jackrich]

"Thai PM: Election the best medicine for political conflicts"

It ain't an election when most votes are bought, that's just another guaranteed populist policy a'la Barbie girl style to guarantee your long awaited trip to Hawaii... bye bye

I'm so sick of people claiming that Puea Thai only wins due to vote buying. Funny how the Democrats had politicians disqualified in the previous elections for vote buying but people like you always fail to mention that. The Bhumjaithai party, the Democrats biggest ally has even been fully disqualified.

And let's not forget the Democrats have been losing elections for 23 years, even way before Thaksin even entered politics.

[Yunla]

The PM, I will call her such as I view this recent street-action as contrary to my democratic principles, is correct, that election is the way to go. But also that post-election is more important, especially chiselling of the parliamentary apparatus to produce a more macro-acceptable consensus and harmony.

Dividing Thailand into North/South so the agrarian Northerners can do their own thing, is a giant logic-fail that can be seen from space. Only the most farmer-hating Hi-so types and some of the more lacklustre foreign pundits would even suggest that. One of the main reason is that Northern Thai people are extremely proud of being Thai, have family members in Bangkok, and while they don't love the Amart they do love a certain special and beloved individual who we cannot discuss. So we have a permanent situation that the North don't want to be split off, but they want representation and equality. The election of PTP was a breather, in the sense that the agrarian provinces and factoryworker groups calmed down and felt that they now had a "stake" in their birth nation. This is perfect, and how things should be. The problem was that the post-election parliamentary system here has big loopholes and these holes have been exploited by many criminals in previous and current govts.

PTP have failed (so far) to deliver the dream that the poor people hoped for. But the hope is that new leaders will eventually emerge in PTP, who actually deliver on the election promises. A new version of PTP, with non-shin or remote-shin management, might be a solution. The problem now is that any Chm.Suthep Assemply coup etc. after-effect is going to be agrarian rage, and more of the same warlordism. Electing a warlord to PM, and then regulating her powers within parliament, is FAR SAFER than toppling her elected party, and allowing the warlords to fume and rage and take action outside of Parliament.

edit : adding Mister Coffee

Edited January 5, 2014 by Yunla

[EyesWideOpen]

"Thai PM: Election the best medicine for political conflicts"

It ain't an election when most votes are bought, that's just another guaranteed populist policy a'la Barbie girl style to guarantee your long awaited trip to Hawaii... bye bye

I'm so sick of people claiming that Puea Thai only wins due to vote buying. Funny how the Democrats had politicians disqualified in the previous elections for vote buying but people like you always fail to mention that. The Bhumjaithai party, the Democrats biggest ally has even been fully disqualified.

And let's not forget the Democrats have been losing elections for 23 years, even way before Thaksin even entered politics.

Only the truth hurts.....Vote buying is in fact rampant, do your research.

[Halion]

Quit whining and vote. All the moaning and complaining and no talk of specific policies or plans. This protest is a joke. The Democrats have nothing to offer the "people" they claim to represent. Until they come up with a plan other than pointing a finger at Thaksin, they are nothing but obstructionists that are causing suffering to the "people"

The opposition is simply offering change through referendum and the chance for the establishment of a lesser form of misgovernment which is by far the best option in this country than the continuation of the current inept,ineffectual and self serving regieme. Rome waas not uilt in a day and Thailand will need several years to free itself from the damage down by the Shiniwatara oligarchy.. The first step is to cut out this cancer.

[Costas2008]

Scamper, on 05 Jan 2014 - 16:53, said:Scamper, on 05 Jan 2014 - 16:53, said:

She really fools no one. And although we are happy that she is not - at least yet - using twitter for official announcements, what she does come up with is insultingly lacking in conveying that she has the remotest grasp of what has been going on.

I'm sorry to say but I think you are wrong there.

Up to now she has fooled a big majority of Thai voters and she keeps fooling them.

As about using twitter and facebook.....is because somebody else is writing the texts for her.

She hasn't got the brain to do that either.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Costas2008

[ridkun]

If that were true, there would be no political conflict in the world at all. We might consider holding an election as often as the lotto result comes out, so people who upset with the result could vote and enjoy de-conflicting Thai politics every two weeks.

[jackrich]

"Thai PM: Election the best medicine for political conflicts"

It ain't an election when most votes are bought, that's just another guaranteed populist policy a'la Barbie girl style to guarantee your long awaited trip to Hawaii... bye bye

I'm so sick of people claiming that Puea Thai only wins due to vote buying. Funny how the Democrats had politicians disqualified in the previous elections for vote buying but people like you always fail to mention that. The Bhumjaithai party, the Democrats biggest ally has even been fully disqualified.

And let's not forget the Democrats have been losing elections for 23 years, even way before Thaksin even entered politics.

Only the truth hurts.....Vote buying is in fact rampant, do your research.

I did, that's actually how I discovered that Democrats were disqualified in 2009 for vote buying and Bhumjaithai (pro Democrat) in 2011.

[Docno]

Watched the following on the 5 oclock news :

Injuries reported during clash in Chiang Mai between anti-govt protesters, Red Shirts, both throwing stones, bottles of water at each other /MCOT

As a small convoy of protesters drove slowly past a number of reds, some in red shirts or hats were pelting them with stones and other missiles.

Did not see any retaliation from the protesters in the news clip, but I did see a cop throwing a stone at the protesters.

Perhaps her ladyship should go back to her home town and give her supporters a nice speech on tolerance and respect for the freedom of speech of others.

Yep, unacceptable, but certainly doesn't look anything near as bad as the attack on the bus of pro-government supporters in Bangkok a few weeks' back:

http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-story/turmoil-thailand/story/thai-opposition-protesters-attack-government-supporters-2013113

Can't recall whether Suthep gave a speech on tolerance after that occurred.

[tezzainoz]

how long have you had to Fix things Yingluck

so why should we believe if we give you a second chance

why not put in a temp comittee your self

4) percent Yout team 40% the opposition on 20% historians and scholars

and in 12 months time have a full true election

why not

Because when her brother freedom to come back to Thailand is back on the table she must hold power

Come on Thai people pull you heads out of the sand

ahe is just 1 big Con

[tingtongteesood]

The election is just the way to get Thaksin back. Wait till after April and the amnesty bill dies if they are not in power to ram it through unhindered, if PT are in power after the 180 days, amnesty bill at 12:01 am on day 181 guaranteed, mark my words ! Why is this so difficult to understand ? Elections now are no solution, they are just a way to prolong the sickness.

[jaidam]

The election is just the way to get Thaksin back. Wait till after April and the amnesty bill dies if they are not in power to ram it through unhindered, if PT are in power after the 180 days, amnesty bill at 12:01 am on day 181 guaranteed, mark my words ! Why is this so difficult to understand ? Elections now are no solution, they are just a way to prolong the sickness.

Good to see someone else is awake here. On day 181, like you say, at 1 minute past midnight, Thaksin's convictions as well as the other 25,000 murderers, thieves and rapists that were convicted since the 2006 coup will be rescinded. As if the crimes never happened, and there will be no way for them to be re-investigated. What will happen directly after that will light the fuse to civil war. Thaksin will ask for the seized 46 billion back plus compund interest. If there was never a crime, there can't be an assett seizure, right? So every income tax payer in Thailand will have to give the Shinawatras approximately 74,000B. Not without a bit of a fight is my guess.

[Mrgk]

Good to see someone else is awake here. On day 181, like you say, at 1 minute past midnight, Thaksin's convictions as well as the other 25,000 murderers, thieves and rapists that were convicted since the 2006 coup will be rescinded. As if the crimes never happened, and there will be no way for them to be re-investigated. What will happen directly after that will light the fuse to civil war.

People around here seem very confused as regards to what "ignites the fuse to civil war". Civil wars are put into motion when legitimacy fails, I.e. when a large chunk of the population will no longer abide by whatever political score-settlement system that is in place.

This is actually the primary value of democracy. Not efficiency, not a lack of corruption, etc. Rather, it´s the ability of elections and (some measure of) political freedom to create legitimacy for the government other than pure force that is the primary boon of democracy. It is perhaps the only such mechanism in existance in the modern world.

This is also why refusing to stand in an election is a grave step to take. It means that one abandons the only mechanism with the ability to create a widely legitimate govermnent. It is for that reason that sabotaging elections and staging coups is far more of a step towards civil war than, say, passing an Amnesty bill.

[rubl]

The interesting part is the implied suggestion that 'winning' an election gives a mandate to do what you want. Like the Pheu Thai led government was trying with the "blanket amnesty bill" which got emotions really to a boiling point and protests unto the streets.

In a democratic system any party which get votes wins. When you get a single party somehow managing to get a clear majority of seats in parliament democracy starts to deteriorate. Even Thaksin has said that a single party government didn't work in Thailand (as he had seen / experienced).

Anyway, if an election would result in a same setup of MPs we'd get the same government and the same problems. time for some reforms.

Edited January 6, 2014 by rubl

[meand]

She could not be more correct of course. If you refuse this fact, you are only in denial for your own personal reasons.

It has been shown that if you allow the people to rule, it does not work. This is why we have representatives. If you don't like your current representative, vote differently next time. It really isn't all that complicated. She has already given in too, that is the part I find terribly confusing. She did not have to schedule an election in February, people do know this, correct? She is actually giving into the demands. How can she resign? She was elected by the people. She would be letting down all the people who voted for her if she did, not to mention that it may not even be legal. But, those are all just minor details if you are a biased, nonsensical Suthep supporter.

Edited January 6, 2014 by meand

[Mrgk]

The interesting part is the implied suggestion that 'winning' an election gives a mandate to do what you want. Like the Pheu Thai led government was trying with the "blanket amnesty bill" which got emotions really to a boiling point and protests unto the streets.

In a democratic system any party which get votes wins. When you get a single party somehow managing to get a clear majority of seats in parliament democracy starts to deteriorate. Even Thaksin has said that a single party government didn't work in Thailand (as he had seen / experienced).

Anyway, if an election would result in a same setup of MPs we'd get the same government and the same problems. time for some reforms.

Well, up to a point, winning an election does give you the power to do what you want, that is what lawmaking means. Usually there is a constitutional arrangement in place to limit the government from, say, declaring itself God-Emperor for life or killing all its opponents. In Thailand the constitution´s legitimacy is hobbled, though, as it was implemented through a coup (which illustrates the problem of using non-democratic means to achieve one´s ends).

In most countries, it should be said, an elected government passing an Amnesty bill for various crimes would be a completely legitimate function of government, and not grounds for insurrection.

As for your last point, it implies that what "reform" actually means is "rigging the electoral system against the majority/plurality of the electorate". After all, that is the implication of declaring that the current government coalition is simply unacceptable, regardless of how the votes come in.

[rubl]

The interesting part is the implied suggestion that 'winning' an election gives a mandate to do what you want. Like the Pheu Thai led government was trying with the "blanket amnesty bill" which got emotions really to a boiling point and protests unto the streets.

In a democratic system any party which get votes wins. When you get a single party somehow managing to get a clear majority of seats in parliament democracy starts to deteriorate. Even Thaksin has said that a single party government didn't work in Thailand (as he had seen / experienced).

Anyway, if an election would result in a same setup of MPs we'd get the same government and the same problems. time for some reforms.

Well, up to a point, winning an election does give you the power to do what you want, that is what lawmaking means. Usually there is a constitutional arrangement in place to limit the government from, say, declaring itself God-Emperor for life or killing all its opponents. In Thailand the constitution´s legitimacy is hobbled, though, as it was implemented through a coup (which illustrates the problem of using non-democratic means to achieve one´s ends).

In most countries, it should be said, an elected government passing an Amnesty bill for various crimes would be a completely legitimate function of government, and not grounds for insurrection.

As for your last point, it implies that what "reform" actually means is "rigging the electoral system against the majority/plurality of the electorate". After all, that is the implication of declaring that the current government coalition is simply unacceptable, regardless of how the votes come in.

In most democratic countries an elected government will not pushing through a sneakily modified amnesty bill which covers 2004 till 2013-08-09 and includes 'political offences' like corruption. In most countries controversial issues require more than (50% + 1) MPs.

As for 'reform' implying 'rigging', that's your interpretation. Personally I would be in favour of barring lots of politicians and their families from standing. People from any colour, conviction, etc., etc. that includes the Shinawatra clan, Suthep, not-so-democratic UDD leaders, a few PADs (who probably wouldn't stand anyway).

The current Pheu Thai led caretaker government is led by a criminal fugitive who dictates his cabinet on what to do. Now if we want democracy that's unacceptable. Simple really.

[khunken]

The interesting part is the implied suggestion that 'winning' an election gives a mandate to do what you want. Like the Pheu Thai led government was trying with the "blanket amnesty bill" which got emotions really to a boiling point and protests unto the streets.

In a democratic system any party which get votes wins. When you get a single party somehow managing to get a clear majority of seats in parliament democracy starts to deteriorate. Even Thaksin has said that a single party government didn't work in Thailand (as he had seen / experienced).

Anyway, if an election would result in a same setup of MPs we'd get the same government and the same problems. time for some reforms.

Well, up to a point, winning an election does give you the power to do what you want, that is what lawmaking means. Usually there is a constitutional arrangement in place to limit the government from, say, declaring itself God-Emperor for life or killing all its opponents. In Thailand the constitution´s legitimacy is hobbled, though, as it was implemented through a coup (which illustrates the problem of using non-democratic means to achieve one´s ends).

In most countries, it should be said, an elected government passing an Amnesty bill for various crimes would be a completely legitimate function of government, and not grounds for insurrection.

As for your last point, it implies that what "reform" actually means is "rigging the electoral system against the majority/plurality of the electorate". After all, that is the implication of declaring that the current government coalition is simply unacceptable, regardless of how the votes come in.

“Laws must be amended through the government and parliamentary system in solving these issues. I’m pleased to offer full cooperation.” - Yingluck telling more lies.

Winning an election allows the winning party(s) to form a government and pass laws. If the government attempts to pass a self-serving law or one that goes against the constitution there has to be a mechanism to ckeck and, if necessary, reject the bad law. YL's government attempted to pass a self-serving amnesty law (the original version was quite acceptable to the opposition and others), furtively amended to include the PM's brother and many other potential lawbreakers which only the protests stopped, however temporarily.

They also attempted to amend the constitution which was voted down by one of the few bodies (the CC) left to check their illegality. PTP rejected that verdict which is an illegal act according to the constitution.

In most countries a convicted criminal living abroad would never be allow to install a sister to carry out his instructions. The closest I can recall is Marcos & Imelda - a fine example.

As for rigging an election - that happens in every general election here. It's called vote buying and has been accompanied by intimidation which has been increasing.

Yes, using non-democratic means has been a feature of YL's and her brother's governments. The only difference is that large protests have prevented one non-democratic law this time but didn't manage to stop her brother (the 49% law) when he was directly in power.

Edited January 6, 2014 by khunken

[Mrgk]

“Laws must be amended through the government and parliamentary system in solving these issues. I’m pleased to offer full cooperation.” - Yingluck telling more lies.

Winning an election allows the winning party(s) to form a government and pass laws. If the government attempts to pass a self-serving law or one that goes against the constitution there has to be a mechanism to ckeck and, if necessary, reject the bad law. YL's government attempted to pass a self-serving amnesty law (the original version was quite acceptable to the opposition and others), furtively amended to include the PM's brother and many other potential lawbreakers which only the protests stopped, however temporarily.

They also attempted to amend the constitution which was voted down by one of the few bodies (the CC) left to check their illegality. PTP rejected that verdict which is an illegal act according to the constitution.

In most countries a convicted criminal living abroad would never be allow to install a sister to carry out his instructions. The closest I can recall is Marcos & Imelda - a fine example.

As for rigging an election - that happens in every general election here. It's called vote buying and has been accompanied by intimidation which has been increasing.

Yes, using non-democratic means has been a feature of YL's and her brother's governments. The only difference is that large protests have prevented one non-democratic law this time but didn't manage to stop her brother (the 49% law) when he was directly in power.

A self-serving law need not be illegitimate. In this case, giving amnesty to Thaksin is both self-serving and what a large constituency among the redshirts (a core part of the government coalition) want.

It is certainly true that the setup with Yingluck as an instrument of her brother is highly irregular, but that arrangement is on the other hand hard to separate from the also highly irregular use of military and judicial power on the part of the opponents of Thaksin et al. For most outside observers, the latter approach appears to be a far more illegitimate approach to governing than the former, especially as the source of democratic legitimacy for the current institutional setup is highly doubtful.

There is a special irony in a constitutional court declaring an amendment to the constitution unconstitutional. If this state of affairs would become regularly accepted then the CC has essentialy declared themselves absolute rulers of Thailand, as they become an unchallangeable authority. They have both the power to interpret the implementation of the constitution as the highest law of the land, as well as the power to control the contents of the constitution itself.

Adding to the irony of pointing to the reluctance of the PTP to accept the authority of the CC on matters of constitutional amendment as a violation of "Democracy" is the fact that the defeated amendment was intended to form a fully elected senate, as opposed to today´s system of partially using administrative appointments based on unclear democratic legitimacy. A system, that to top it off, was implemented by a junta following a military coup.

Perhaps it is not terribly strange that the rest of the world has a hard time swallowing the party line about Suthep et al "standing up for Democracy"...

PS.

My favorite aspect of the "Vote buying" line of attack is the way in which the oppostion (and their allies in the system) have managed to both leverage their supposed aversion to vote buying as an argument against... well, holding elections (in favor of "reform") while at the same time fighting efforts to make elections cleaner. Suthep et al. have needless to say dismissed PTP suggestions for international election monitors, but that irony still pales compared to the effort of the Constitutional Court following the 2006 elections. When the Electoral Commission decided to attempt to thwart vote-buying by turning voting booths around (to make fotographing your ballot in return for payment impossible), the CC invalidated the elections... for reasons of voter´s privacy being violated. It´s all deliciously, but perversly ironic. I almost admire the sheer Chutzpah of the whole thing.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Mrgk

[fab4]

“Laws must be amended through the government and parliamentary system in solving these issues. I’m pleased to offer full cooperation.” - Yingluck telling more lies.

Winning an election allows the winning party(s) to form a government and pass laws. If the government attempts to pass a self-serving law or one that goes against the constitution there has to be a mechanism to ckeck and, if necessary, reject the bad law. YL's government attempted to pass a self-serving amnesty law (the original version was quite acceptable to the opposition and others), furtively amended to include the PM's brother and many other potential lawbreakers which only the protests stopped, however temporarily.

They also attempted to amend the constitution which was voted down by one of the few bodies (the CC) left to check their illegality. PTP rejected that verdict which is an illegal act according to the constitution.

In most countries a convicted criminal living abroad would never be allow to install a sister to carry out his instructions. The closest I can recall is Marcos & Imelda - a fine example.

As for rigging an election - that happens in every general election here. It's called vote buying and has been accompanied by intimidation which has been increasing.

Yes, using non-democratic means has been a feature of YL's and her brother's governments. The only difference is that large protests have prevented one non-democratic law this time but didn't manage to stop her brother (the 49% law) when he was directly in power.

A self-serving law need not be illegitimate. In this case, giving amnesty to Thaksin is both self-serving and what a large constituency among the redshirts (a core part of the government coalition) want.

It is certainly true that the setup with Yingluck as an instrument of her brother is highly irregular, but that arrangement is on the other hand hard to separate from the also highly irregular use of military and judicial power on the part of the opponents of Thaksin et al. For most outside observers, the latter approach appears to be a far more illegitimate approach to governing than the former, especially as the source of democratic legitimacy for the current institutional setup is highly doubtful.

There is a special irony in a constitutional court declaring an amendment to the constitution unconstitutional. If this state of affairs would become regularly accepted then the CC has essentialy declared themselves absolute rulers of Thailand, as they become an unchallangeable authority. They have both the power to interpret the implementation of the constitution as the highest law of the land, as well as the power to control the contents of the constitution itself.

Adding to the irony of pointing to the reluctance of the PTP to accept the authority of the CC on matters of constitutional amendment as a violation of "Democracy" is the fact that the defeated amendment was intended to form a fully elected senate, as opposed to today´s system of partially using administrative appointments based on unclear democratic legitimacy. A system, that to top it off, was implemented by a junta following a military coup.

Perhaps it is not terribly strange that the rest of the world has a hard time swallowing the party line about Suthep et al "standing up for Democracy"...

PS.

My favorite aspect of the "Vote buying" line of attack is the way in which the oppostion (and their allies in the system) have managed to both leverage their supposed aversion to vote buying as an argument against... well, holding elections (in favor of "reform") while at the same time fighting efforts to make elections cleaner. Suthep et al. have needless to say dismissed PTP suggestions for international election monitors, but that irony still pales compared to the effort of the Constitutional Court following the 2006 elections. When the Electoral Commission decided to attempt to thwart vote-buying by turning voting booths around (to make fotographing your ballot in return for payment impossible), the CC invalidated the elections... for reasons of voter´s privacy being violated. It´s all deliciously, but perversly ironic. I almost admire the sheer Chutzpah of the whole thing.

A fine post and welcome to the Forum.

Although it would be difficult to argue with your comments, be prepared for those will definitely try. I look forward to

the intelligent debate this post should raise.

Unfortunately I suspect that it will be quietly ignored as "too hard" to answer and disappear down the list as easier

"Lets bash Thaksin/Yingluck/PTP/UDD" opportunities arise.

[northernjohn]

“Laws must be amended through the government and parliamentary system in solving these issues. I’m pleased to offer full cooperation.” - Yingluck telling more lies.

Winning an election allows the winning party(s) to form a government and pass laws. If the government attempts to pass a self-serving law or one that goes against the constitution there has to be a mechanism to ckeck and, if necessary, reject the bad law. YL's government attempted to pass a self-serving amnesty law (the original version was quite acceptable to the opposition and others), furtively amended to include the PM's brother and many other potential lawbreakers which only the protests stopped, however temporarily.

They also attempted to amend the constitution which was voted down by one of the few bodies (the CC) left to check their illegality. PTP rejected that verdict which is an illegal act according to the constitution.

In most countries a convicted criminal living abroad would never be allow to install a sister to carry out his instructions. The closest I can recall is Marcos & Imelda - a fine example.

As for rigging an election - that happens in every general election here. It's called vote buying and has been accompanied by intimidation which has been increasing.

Yes, using non-democratic means has been a feature of YL's and her brother's governments. The only difference is that large protests have prevented one non-democratic law this time but didn't manage to stop her brother (the 49% law) when he was directly in power.

A self-serving law need not be illegitimate. In this case, giving amnesty to Thaksin is both self-serving and what a large constituency among the redshirts (a core part of the government coalition) want.

It is certainly true that the setup with Yingluck as an instrument of her brother is highly irregular, but that arrangement is on the other hand hard to separate from the also highly irregular use of military and judicial power on the part of the opponents of Thaksin et al. For most outside observers, the latter approach appears to be a far more illegitimate approach to governing than the former, especially as the source of democratic legitimacy for the current institutional setup is highly doubtful.

There is a special irony in a constitutional court declaring an amendment to the constitution unconstitutional. If this state of affairs would become regularly accepted then the CC has essentialy declared themselves absolute rulers of Thailand, as they become an unchallangeable authority. They have both the power to interpret the implementation of the constitution as the highest law of the land, as well as the power to control the contents of the constitution itself.

Adding to the irony of pointing to the reluctance of the PTP to accept the authority of the CC on matters of constitutional amendment as a violation of "Democracy" is the fact that the defeated amendment was intended to form a fully elected senate, as opposed to today´s system of partially using administrative appointments based on unclear democratic legitimacy. A system, that to top it off, was implemented by a junta following a military coup.

Perhaps it is not terribly strange that the rest of the world has a hard time swallowing the party line about Suthep et al "standing up for Democracy"...

PS.

My favorite aspect of the "Vote buying" line of attack is the way in which the oppostion (and their allies in the system) have managed to both leverage their supposed aversion to vote buying as an argument against... well, holding elections (in favor of "reform") while at the same time fighting efforts to make elections cleaner. Suthep et al. have needless to say dismissed PTP suggestions for international election monitors, but that irony still pales compared to the effort of the Constitutional Court following the 2006 elections. When the Electoral Commission decided to attempt to thwart vote-buying by turning voting booths around (to make fotographing your ballot in return for payment impossible), the CC invalidated the elections... for reasons of voter´s privacy being violated. It´s all deliciously, but perversly ironic. I almost admire the sheer Chutzpah of the whole thing.

"There is a special irony in a constitutional court declaring an amendment to the constitution unconstitutional. If this state of affairs would become regularly accepted then the CC has essentialy declared themselves absolute rulers of Thailand, as they become an unchallangeable authority. They have both the power to interpret the implementation of the constitution as the highest law of the land, as well as the power to control the contents of the constitution itself."

Reminds me of the Supreme courts in the States and Canada.

You are definatly wrong in your assertion that the protestors are against elections. You have been reading to many Yingluck fans.

All they want to do is postpone them so that they can make them more fair for all parties. As they are now it is the party with the most money who wins. The issues don't count.

[northernjohn]

“Laws must be amended through the government and parliamentary system in solving these issues. I’m pleased to offer full cooperation.” - Yingluck telling more lies.

Winning an election allows the winning party(s) to form a government and pass laws. If the government attempts to pass a self-serving law or one that goes against the constitution there has to be a mechanism to ckeck and, if necessary, reject the bad law. YL's government attempted to pass a self-serving amnesty law (the original version was quite acceptable to the opposition and others), furtively amended to include the PM's brother and many other potential lawbreakers which only the protests stopped, however temporarily.

They also attempted to amend the constitution which was voted down by one of the few bodies (the CC) left to check their illegality. PTP rejected that verdict which is an illegal act according to the constitution.

In most countries a convicted criminal living abroad would never be allow to install a sister to carry out his instructions. The closest I can recall is Marcos & Imelda - a fine example.

As for rigging an election - that happens in every general election here. It's called vote buying and has been accompanied by intimidation which has been increasing.

Yes, using non-democratic means has been a feature of YL's and her brother's governments. The only difference is that large protests have prevented one non-democratic law this time but didn't manage to stop her brother (the 49% law) when he was directly in power.

A self-serving law need not be illegitimate. In this case, giving amnesty to Thaksin is both self-serving and what a large constituency among the redshirts (a core part of the government coalition) want.

It is certainly true that the setup with Yingluck as an instrument of her brother is highly irregular, but that arrangement is on the other hand hard to separate from the also highly irregular use of military and judicial power on the part of the opponents of Thaksin et al. For most outside observers, the latter approach appears to be a far more illegitimate approach to governing than the former, especially as the source of democratic legitimacy for the current institutional setup is highly doubtful.

There is a special irony in a constitutional court declaring an amendment to the constitution unconstitutional. If this state of affairs would become regularly accepted then the CC has essentialy declared themselves absolute rulers of Thailand, as they become an unchallangeable authority. They have both the power to interpret the implementation of the constitution as the highest law of the land, as well as the power to control the contents of the constitution itself.

Adding to the irony of pointing to the reluctance of the PTP to accept the authority of the CC on matters of constitutional amendment as a violation of "Democracy" is the fact that the defeated amendment was intended to form a fully elected senate, as opposed to today´s system of partially using administrative appointments based on unclear democratic legitimacy. A system, that to top it off, was implemented by a junta following a military coup.

Perhaps it is not terribly strange that the rest of the world has a hard time swallowing the party line about Suthep et al "standing up for Democracy"...

PS.

My favorite aspect of the "Vote buying" line of attack is the way in which the oppostion (and their allies in the system) have managed to both leverage their supposed aversion to vote buying as an argument against... well, holding elections (in favor of "reform") while at the same time fighting efforts to make elections cleaner. Suthep et al. have needless to say dismissed PTP suggestions for international election monitors, but that irony still pales compared to the effort of the Constitutional Court following the 2006 elections. When the Electoral Commission decided to attempt to thwart vote-buying by turning voting booths around (to make fotographing your ballot in return for payment impossible), the CC invalidated the elections... for reasons of voter´s privacy being violated. It´s all deliciously, but perversly ironic. I almost admire the sheer Chutzpah of the whole thing.

"

It is certainly true that the setup with Yingluck as an instrument of her brother is highly irregular, but that arrangement is on the other hand hard to separate from the also highly irregular use of military and judicial power on the part of the opponents of Thaksin et al. For most outside observers, the latter approach appears to be a far more illegitimate approach to governing than the former, especially as the source of democratic legitimacy for the current institutional setup is highly doubtful."

"highly irregular use of military and judicial power on the part of the opponents of Thaksin et al."

Care to give us some examples of how the protestors have used those two points to their benefit. The last I heard the Military did not want to talk to them they just tried to get the two sides together.

Please don't tell me you are a red shirt trying to justify your illegal seizure of public property and defense of the territory with armed men. That has nothing to do with that. The situation we are facing here today. We have on one hand a group of protestors trying to reform the government and put an end to the corruption and irregularities in the voting system and On the other hand we have a government who has come to power using the current t system and while there immensely enriched their own fortunes.

As far as I know they have not used the judicial system yet but they have pointed out where there are places that allow for the delay of the voting. I am getting the feeling that you do not realize the opposition was formed by private citizens and grew to become a real thing at which point a Democrat resigned his position in the house so that he could lead them. After they were one unit composed of several others with one leader a political party joined them. This is not the PTP against another party. This is the PTP against a group of citizens tired of the corruption.

Or were you talking about the use of the Judaical system to charge opponents for crimes which they did not commit and sue people who say things that no matter how true they are if you don't like them you can sue them. Yes there has been quite a bit of that. but it is not happening here in the current situation.

Personally I would love to see the constitutional court rule on if it is legal or not to delay the elections .

Edited January 6, 2014 by northernjohn

[Mrgk]

Reminds me of the Supreme courts in the States and Canada.

You are definatly wrong in your assertion that the protestors are against elections. You have been reading to many Yingluck fans.

All they want to do is postpone them so that they can make them more fair for all parties. As they are now it is the party with the most money who wins. The issues don't count.

Even though the US Supreme Court is quite expert at, ahem, "creative jurisprudence", I don´t think they have ever declared a constitutional amendment unconstitutional.

The problem with demanding a postponement and the institution of a "People´s council" to implement "reform" to make future elections more "fair" is that it´s unclear with what mandate the council would conduct their reforms and whom it is that gets to decide what constitutes "fairness" in Thai elections.

This is especially true when the people pushing for said "reforms" have already clearly showed that they are against opposed to what most outside observers would consider steps towards fairer elections, such as the presence of international election observers.

[Mrgk]

Care to give us some examples of how the protestors have used those two points to their benefit. The last I heard the Military did not want to talk to them they just tried to get the two sides together.

The current protestors use the current system (with a coup-happy military and partisan courts and institutions) to pursue a dual strategy of on the one hand sabotaging the february elections and causing civil unrest (hoping for military intervention) and pushing court cases against the government (for "illegally" attempting to amend the constitution).

Finally, if you really believe that the PDRC, the coup plotters of 2006, the PAD, et al are separated by more than a cosmetic veil of separation, well, I will just register my firm disagreement.

[waza]

The reality is nothing has changed, the PT party that is standing for re-election is the same PT party that was dissolved. If it is too corrupt and fond of illegal practices then, why is it more acceptable now? All they are trying to do is justify their machinations by claiming a mandate to do them, more of the, "its ok we have the majority" argument.

[Seizhin]

I'm sick of Ph.D.s and teachers from various Universities in Thailand going on air in TV and say that "it's ok to corrupt", "it's not that bad to give money to buy vote," and latest I heard today via TV3, "buying vote is not THAT bad, it's normal."
Funny how these Ph.Ds, graduated from overseas but sprouting these gibberish..

[JRSoul]

Even though the US Supreme Court is quite expert at, ahem, "creative jurisprudence", I don´t think they have ever declared a constitutional amendment unconstitutional.

The problem with demanding a postponement and the institution of a "People´s council" to implement "reform" to make future elections more "fair" is that it´s unclear with what mandate the council would conduct their reforms and whom it is that gets to decide what constitutes "fairness" in Thai elections.

This is especially true when the people pushing for said "reforms" have already clearly showed that they are against opposed to what most outside observers would consider steps towards fairer elections, such as the presence of international election observers.

You might like to look at how amendments are carried out in the US - super majority (2/3) in a joint sitting followed by ratification by 3/4 of states. A little different to how the process was attempted here.

If Thaksin's amnesty was both self-serving though popular (your opinion) why not put it to a referendum? Again the process was seriously flawed, and the total rejection by the senate coupled with public outrage should have been enough to trigger a PM resignation and election.