Thai opposition under fire for election boycott

[tx22cb]

AFP again!

We all know the "AFP" is financially supported by Thaksin!

When did Thaksin start financially supporting France?

Are you aware that the AFP is a French government chartered public corporation? I have to question the sanity of someone who makes crazy claims.

If you think this post is crazy - you should read some of his other posts ..... let's just say that some people chortled with joy when the internet and anonymous web-boards were invented ....

[SamMunich]

Coalition government is not usual in European countries and coming from Muich I'm sure you know that.

Really? When was the last single party government running Germany? And I'm not talking about the Eastern Germany.

Must have been during the III. Reich or so.

[NCFC]

Coalition government is not usual in European countries and coming from Muich I'm sure you know that.

Really? When was the last single party government running Germany? And I'm not talking about the Eastern Germany.

Must have been during the III. Reich or so.

My bad. I meant to say "not unusual". I corrected the original

[Gweiloman]

The premise of this article is based on much that is haphazard and inconsistent. The Democratic party is not a monolithic organization, nor do all think alike. The decision to boycott was indeed a unilateral decision, but the decision to vote or not vote is an individual choice. It was not a mistake for the Democrats to boycott this election. In fact it could be argued it was the boycott which set in motion the dilemma the Yingluck administration now finds itself in. There are many that believe - as clearly the writer of this article does - that the Democratic party resists the election because it knows it will lose. Doubtless, many in the party feel that way. But many - including Abhisit, and his statements have been quite consistent with this - does not. He has never advocated for a reform that puts his party - or himself, for that matter - in the driver's seat. He's enough of a pragmatist to realize that will not happen - now or in the foreseeable future. The realities of the electoral map are clear, and no amount of redistribution will change that. The focus has always been on Thaksin. Indeed, many Democrats would likely be far more at peace with a Pheu Thai administration that was absent of Thaksin's influence. Thaksin's influence is what is killing reform, as he has a path which is clearly intended towards the consolidation of his power. So that's the argument that's been lost in the mix. But it hasn't on the men and women on the streets. They are not talking about Abhisit - or Suthep, for that matter. They are talking about Thaksin, and their belief that the system should be free of him. Peace will be achieved in this country by two key sacrifices coming from both parties. If Pheu Thai can truly let go of Thaksin, and the Democratic party can accept the realities of the electoral map, we will have a road map for peace. But to get there is through reform. A reform that does does include amnesties for Thaksin, or consolidates his grip on power.

"In fact it could be argued it was the boycott which set in motion the dilemma the Yingluck administration now finds itself in."

It could be argued that way, but you would be wrong.

That might have been the case if abhisits government hadn't passed the ammendment in 2011 on the organic act for the election of officials. Now the 20% of the vote needed is only relevant to the first two tries at a constituency election. When it comes to the third re run, the candidate with the most votes wins.

So abhisits decision to boycott the election completely makes no tactical sense. If he were so politically savvy he would vote No and try and convince all of his democrat supporters to vote No also. This way they may succeed in getting more No votes than than a real candidate (well in certain constituencies maybe).

Of course, that would , according to the political mastermind himself, legitimise an illegitimate election. Seeing as the Election has been Royally decreed I suggest that he would be on thin ground with that kind of statement in Thailand.

Accept it, abhisit has been outmaneuvered at this stage with the Election going ahead despite his and sutheps and the EC's antics. It is pure hubris driving him now (or he is expecting salvation from the usual quarters).

I suspect Abhisit is quite content with this road map, the election will be nullified on the basis of a hundred reasons, Taksin now has to pay out to his voters for a victory that will be hollow and will have achieved nothing. So, the post election manoeuvrings will be key. If the Shins can be taken down quickly then the reconfiguration of Thai politics would follow and some sort of governance put in place. As Taksin is not likely to go quietly its just as likely to drag on for months.

Unlike in past elections where I think it's beyond doubt that there was a lot of vote buying going on, I haven't heard much about this in the current elections. It is not really necessary as there is practically no opposition to PTP winning.

I disagree that any victory will be hollow and achieve nothing. What it achieves is that PTP will win the moral high ground, with both the domestic populace and the international community. They will be seen to be doing the right thing within the confines of the law, no matter how flawed that law maybe.

With that moral victory, your other comment about the Shins being taken down is far from the truth. No country likes to see a "democratically" elected govt remove by way of a military coup. A judicial coup won't work either as every move made by the govt is once again with the confines of the law. The elections are legal and constitutional, with the blessing of HM and the tacit blessing of the CC.

What the Dems should have done (before the YL/PTP/EC meeting last Tuesday) was to have told the EC that they will contest elections if postponed to May. At the same time, the EC should have consulted and agreed with the courts in advance that YL will not face legal action in the event of a postponement. After all, these "conditions" clearly laid out for all to see. Sometimes, small steps in compromises have to be taken for the better good of all.

Everyone, regardless of their political or colour persuasion, can surely see that that would lead to a better situation than what we are currently facing today.

[hansnl]

The yellows - or whatever they are calling themselves now - look bad to the international community. Rich people telling people not to vote - because they know that their side will lose - are not very sympathetic, no matter how bad the opposition is.

Oops

You think the reds are really poor, on average I mean?

The International community only hears and listes to the newsflashes from the gevernment.

The reporters in situ are way to lazy to try to find out what really is going on in Thailand.

The western governments have the idea that democracy is voting, and that is it.

Democracy goes a whole lot further as voting once every four years, and then sitting back and let things come over you.

If you really want democracy, you vote and you are politically motivated, you take democracy at heart and do something if you think the politico's make a mess of it.

That is democracy!

The only way a country really can be democratic is by way of plebiscite.

My father, may he rest in peace, always said:" no way you can trust completely any politician, they are in politics for money, for power, or for a combination of both, where the amount of money is mostly the decisive factor for trustworthiness".

[Bkkbound]

Thats just bizarre, but typical of westerners trying to apply western standards in country that functions very differently. There is no moral victory in this, the international community are well aware of the inherent flaws in Thailand, Taksins sister, who can barely read thai and speaks with a foreign accent is a international joke.

The rice saga is a tragedy of their own making. The desperate attempt to pardon Taksin himself backfired. It won,t be difficult to find evidence of vote buying and thats the whole election farce ended.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Taksins era is ending. The reds need real altruistic leadership to make any real difference to Thai society.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Cricketnut]

And there we go again, Danny the Rook(y) comes up with that old and nevertheless useless lore about the Dem's not winning any elections since God created the world...

Can somebody please, please tell him, that - except for two out of the last 20 elections - no party ever won the absolute majority? There have always been coalition governments in Thailand, that is the rule.

He should pay back his salary for writing such crap!

And there lays the problem. The Dems don't like coalitions. Hence they keep losing. Do they have a political think tank? Take Australia for example, the Liberal party have not been voted in to parliament since the Menzies era, so they found common ground with The National party to form government and satisfy the people. Also the Labour government need preferences from the Greens. It is ever so simple.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Mot Leei]

please remember the constitution was formed by the Military and amended by.......... (drum roll)................the Dems

and he claims it's "unconstitutional" so he's not voting?

hmmm should someone remind him?

Again this is why I'm so confused. My short attempt at research tells me that the constitution and whole electoral process that the undemocratic democrats and the absolute democratarians of K.Suthep are all sooooo upset about were actually created by THEM ... why cant they just be honest and say they screwed it up themselves and just want another free undemocratic hand to try and stop other politicians from beating them at their own game .. it's almost beyond laughable if this is true. The Yellows with the support of the Army (or is it really the other way around if we're going to be really honest) built this constitution that they keep going to court with to stop YL from doing anything ... and they use the EC to try to stop democracy from working so they can stage another coup to do yet another rewrite ... have I got this right?

Something else that confuses me is the Upper House ... I think I've read that YL wanted to change the constitution to make it 100% elected by the people and the democrats are opposed to this. Err excuse my absolute ignorance again but doesn't a democracy REQUIRE a fully elected upper and lower house ... I mean come on ... that's kinda the WHOLE POINT!!!!

So when I see people opposing a government body being fully elected, staging one coup after another, minorities preventing normal citizens from voting, passing the blame of their own flawed constitution onto their more successful opposition, trying to change the constitution (yet again) to prevent a govt from offering popularist policies (the whole purpose of a political party) I have to wonder why they just cant be honest and say they don't want a democracy ... why the charade???

Could it be perhaps that they actually realise they will never win an election democratically? I really think that they aren't so angry with Thaksin as they say, moreover they're using him to distract the public from the fact they actually have nothing better to offer themselves ... I mean I challenge any pro-Supthepian to offer me the wonderous policies he has to help grow the country for all Thai people (economics, education policy, health policy, etc) ... and whilst you're at it can you also explain to me what the yellow policies are because all I can find them doing is opposing everything.

[Jack Mountain]

@Mot Leei

"Something else that confuses me is the Upper House ... I think I've read that YL wanted to change the constitution to make it 100% elected by the people and the democrats are opposed to this. Err excuse my absolute ignorance again but doesn't a democracy REQUIRE a fully elected upper and lower house ... I mean come on ... that's kinda the WHOLE POINT!!!!"

As how i understand it, she wants that those ppl will be chosen by a committee and not by the ppl.

So the powers to be can put their own ppl (family, friends) at that spot.

[bobmac10]

That confuses me as that means he can not run for political office again for 5 years. Also applies to the other democrats which makes this virtually a one party system.

No, it doesn't mean. The election will almost certainly be declared null and void. Deservedly so. I can see why Democrats don't want to participate. They simply do not want to give any legitimacy to the current government in charge. They want Yingluck's government to take the full responsibility for rice-scheme scam, tablets scam etc...etc....

Well, I suppose if they had the support of the majority of the people they wouldn't have a thing to worry about would they?

They would be in power next week having been elected by the majority.

No, I'm afraid there's no substitute for being elected by a majority,........................ it's called democracy,

[bobmac10]

Thats just bizarre, but typical of westerners trying to apply western standards in country that functions very differently. There is no moral victory in this, the international community are well aware of the inherent flaws in Thailand, Taksins sister, who can barely read thai and speaks with a foreign accent is a international joke.

The rice saga is a tragedy of their own making. The desperate attempt to pardon Taksin himself backfired. It won,t be difficult to find evidence of vote buying and thats the whole election farce ended.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Taksins era is ending. The reds need real altruistic leadership to make any real difference to Thai society.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

you're just making things up now aren't you?

She went to school in Chiang Mai............... get real Mr

[casualbiker]

Thats just bizarre, but typical of westerners trying to apply western standards in country that functions very differently. There is no moral victory in this, the international community are well aware of the inherent flaws in Thailand, Taksins sister, who can barely read thai and speaks with a foreign accent is a international joke.

The rice saga is a tragedy of their own making. The desperate attempt to pardon Taksin himself backfired. It won,t be difficult to find evidence of vote buying and thats the whole election farce ended.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Taksins era is ending. The reds need real altruistic leadership to make any real difference to Thai society.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

you're just making things up now aren't you?

She went to school in Chiang Mai............... get real Mr

And Kentucky State .. maybe she picked up the Kentucky drawl..

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[nakhonandy]

please remember the constitution was formed by the Military and amended by.......... (drum roll)................the Dems

and he claims it's "unconstitutional" so he's not voting?

hmmm should someone remind him?

Again this is why I'm so confused. My short attempt at research tells me that the constitution and whole electoral process that the undemocratic democrats and the absolute democratarians of K.Suthep are all sooooo upset about were actually created by THEM ... why cant they just be honest and say they screwed it up themselves and just want another free undemocratic hand to try and stop other politicians from beating them at their own game .. it's almost beyond laughable if this is true. The Yellows with the support of the Army (or is it really the other way around if we're going to be really honest) built this constitution that they keep going to court with to stop YL from doing anything ... and they use the EC to try to stop democracy from working so they can stage another coup to do yet another rewrite ... have I got this right?

Something else that confuses me is the Upper House ... I think I've read that YL wanted to change the constitution to make it 100% elected by the people and the democrats are opposed to this. Err excuse my absolute ignorance again but doesn't a democracy REQUIRE a fully elected upper and lower house ... I mean come on ... that's kinda the WHOLE POINT!!!!

So when I see people opposing a government body being fully elected, staging one coup after another, minorities preventing normal citizens from voting, passing the blame of their own flawed constitution onto their more successful opposition, trying to change the constitution (yet again) to prevent a govt from offering popularist policies (the whole purpose of a political party) I have to wonder why they just cant be honest and say they don't want a democracy ... why the charade???

Could it be perhaps that they actually realise they will never win an election democratically? I really think that they aren't so angry with Thaksin as they say, moreover they're using him to distract the public from the fact they actually have nothing better to offer themselves ... I mean I challenge any pro-Supthepian to offer me the wonderous policies he has to help grow the country for all Thai people (economics, education policy, health policy, etc) ... and whilst you're at it can you also explain to me what the yellow policies are because all I can find them doing is opposing everything.

Am I on the correct website.

A considered and intelligent observation for a change. Not just the usual rhetoric.

[Spalpeen]

So Abhisit's name means 'Privilege', does it? That's appropriate.

[tx22cb]

@Mot Leei

"Something else that confuses me is the Upper House ... I think I've read that YL wanted to change the constitution to make it 100% elected by the people and the democrats are opposed to this. Err excuse my absolute ignorance again but doesn't a democracy REQUIRE a fully elected upper and lower house ... I mean come on ... that's kinda the WHOLE POINT!!!!"

As how i understand it, she wants that those ppl will be chosen by a committee and not by the ppl.

So the powers to be can put their own ppl (family, friends) at that spot.

No, you are incorrect.

"As how i understand it, she wants that those ppl will be chosen by a committee and not by the ppl." Replace "she" with "Suthep"

[casualbiker]

please remember the constitution was formed by the Military and amended by.......... (drum roll)................the Dems

and he claims it's "unconstitutional" so he's not voting?

hmmm should someone remind him?

Again this is why I'm so confused. My short attempt at research tells me that the constitution and whole electoral process that the undemocratic democrats and the absolute democratarians of K.Suthep are all sooooo upset about were actually created by THEM ... why cant they just be honest and say they screwed it up themselves and just want another free undemocratic hand to try and stop other politicians from beating them at their own game .. it's almost beyond laughable if this is true. The Yellows with the support of the Army (or is it really the other way around if we're going to be really honest) built this constitution that they keep going to court with to stop YL from doing anything ... and they use the EC to try to stop democracy from working so they can stage another coup to do yet another rewrite ... have I got this right?

Something else that confuses me is the Upper House ... I think I've read that YL wanted to change the constitution to make it 100% elected by the people and the democrats are opposed to this. Err excuse my absolute ignorance again but doesn't a democracy REQUIRE a fully elected upper and lower house ... I mean come on ... that's kinda the WHOLE POINT!!!!

So when I see people opposing a government body being fully elected, staging one coup after another, minorities preventing normal citizens from voting, passing the blame of their own flawed constitution onto their more successful opposition, trying to change the constitution (yet again) to prevent a govt from offering popularist policies (the whole purpose of a political party) I have to wonder why they just cant be honest and say they don't want a democracy ... why the charade???

Could it be perhaps that they actually realise they will never win an election democratically? I really think that they aren't so angry with Thaksin as they say, moreover they're using him to distract the public from the fact they actually have nothing better to offer themselves ... I mean I challenge any pro-Supthepian to offer me the wonderous policies he has to help grow the country for all Thai people (economics, education policy, health policy, etc) ... and whilst you're at it can you also explain to me what the yellow policies are because all I can find them doing is opposing everything.

i see and agree with your last paragraph.. there do not seem to be any. BUT i would ask what is the Phua Thai election manifesto?

[Kan Win]

Ozymandias, on 01 Feb 2014 - 11:31, said:

* take advantage of the growing disaffection of the rural poor with PTP and devise policies that promise them a better life (why haven't they already done this?)

* broaden their appeal in the above way and stop relying on the elites and southerners for support - Thailand is not only Bangkok & Hua Hin.

* stop relying on coups (military or judicial) to provide power and consistently use democratic channels to power (not just when convenient)

In this way, they can become emblematic of REAL meaningful democratic values - of course, reforms are necessary to achieve a fair system, reforms which prevent both PTP, Dems and others from abusing politics for thier own benefit (Not only Thaksin but Dems like Suthep have been doing this for years, feathering their own nests).

The Dems with Suthep were in power in 2008 to 2010, so why did the Reforms that are being asked/demanded by them not taking place during their term in the office.

Makes me wonder!

Win

[HerbalEd]

That confuses me as that means he can not run for political office again for 5 years. Also applies to the other democrats which makes this virtually a one party system.

No, it doesn't mean. The election will almost certainly be declared null and void. Deservedly so. I can see why Democrats don't want to participate. They simply do not want to give any legitimacy to the current government in charge. They want Yingluck's government to take the full responsibility for rice-scheme scam, tablets scam etc...etc....

If in other democracies of the world the minority political parties did as you say, there would be no democracies. In my opinion, the Thai's don't really understand democracy and/or are unwilling to live with the political realities of working within a democracy.

[Larry001]

Of course they don't want an election. Why woud they when they emphaticcally know they cannot win. Talk about clutching at staws

[Larry001]

Kan Win, on 01 Feb 2014 - 17:00, said:

Ozymandias, on 01 Feb 2014 - 11:31, said:Ozymandias, on 01 Feb 2014 - 11:31, said:

* take advantage of the growing disaffection of the rural poor with PTP and devise policies that promise them a better life (why haven't they already done this?)

* broaden their appeal in the above way and stop relying on the elites and southerners for support - Thailand is not only Bangkok & Hua Hin.

* stop relying on coups (military or judicial) to provide power and consistently use democratic channels to power (not just when convenient)

In this way, they can become emblematic of REAL meaningful democratic values - of course, reforms are necessary to achieve a fair system, reforms which prevent both PTP, Dems and others from abusing politics for thier own benefit (Not only Thaksin but Dems like Suthep have been doing this for years, feathering their own nests).

Because they were making too much money that was going into their own pockets. Simple - its Thailand

The Dems with Suthep were in power in 2008 to 2010, so why did the Reforms that are being asked/demanded by them not taking place during their term in the office.

Makes me wonder!

Win

Because they were making too much money that was going into their own pockets. Simple - its Thailand

[Mot Leei]

@Mot Leei

"Something else that confuses me is the Upper House ... I think I've read that YL wanted to change the constitution to make it 100% elected by the people and the democrats are opposed to this. Err excuse my absolute ignorance again but doesn't a democracy REQUIRE a fully elected upper and lower house ... I mean come on ... that's kinda the WHOLE POINT!!!!"

As how i understand it, she wants that those ppl will be chosen by a committee and not by the ppl.

So the powers to be can put their own ppl (family, friends) at that spot.

No, you are incorrect.

"As how i understand it, she wants that those ppl will be chosen by a committee and not by the ppl." Replace "she" with "Suthep"

No seriously ... I understand Suthep doesn't want a democratically elected govt (be it upper or lower house), but did PTP try to change the constitution to have the upper house fully elected OR appointed ... can I get an actual answer on this?

[casualbiker]

Ozymandias, on 01 Feb 2014 - 11:31, said:

* take advantage of the growing disaffection of the rural poor with PTP and devise policies that promise them a better life (why haven't they already done this?)

* broaden their appeal in the above way and stop relying on the elites and southerners for support - Thailand is not only Bangkok & Hua Hin.

* stop relying on coups (military or judicial) to provide power and consistently use democratic channels to power (not just when convenient)

In this way, they can become emblematic of REAL meaningful democratic values - of course, reforms are necessary to achieve a fair system, reforms which prevent both PTP, Dems and others from abusing politics for thier own benefit (Not only Thaksin but Dems like Suthep have been doing this for years, feathering their own nests).

The Dems with Suthep were in power in 2008 to 2010, so why did the Reforms that are being asked/demanded by them not taking place during their term in the office.

Makes me wonder!

Win

Maybe because they were battling the Red shirt protests and the then opposition!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[tx22cb]

@Mot Leei

"Something else that confuses me is the Upper House ... I think I've read that YL wanted to change the constitution to make it 100% elected by the people and the democrats are opposed to this. Err excuse my absolute ignorance again but doesn't a democracy REQUIRE a fully elected upper and lower house ... I mean come on ... that's kinda the WHOLE POINT!!!!"

As how i understand it, she wants that those ppl will be chosen by a committee and not by the ppl.

So the powers to be can put their own ppl (family, friends) at that spot.

No, you are incorrect.

"As how i understand it, she wants that those ppl will be chosen by a committee and not by the ppl." Replace "she" with "Suthep"

No seriously ... I understand Suthep doesn't want a democratically elected govt (be it upper or lower house), but did PTP try to change the constitution to have the upper house fully elected OR appointed ... can I get an actual answer on this?

PTP proposal was for the Upper House (Senate) to be fully elected by voting - rather than the current 50% elected, 50% unelected. So the PTP concept is like what the US have.

This proposal was declared "unconstitutional" by the Courts.

[Kan Win]

Mackie, on 01 Feb 2014 - 14:41, said:

kikoman, on 01 Feb 2014 - 14:31, said:

The dye is cast, The powers that be must understand the politics of old is gone,The people will not stand by and let the courts, not respect the will of the VAST majority of Thai voters!

Dream on!

I'm sure you meant the die is cast. In response to that, hold your horses.

Cheers!

It reads the same, so no need for your smelling correctness

Win

[Mot Leei]

The Dems with Suthep were in power in 2008 to 2010, so why did the Reforms that are being asked/demanded by them not taking place during their term in the office.

Exactly ... this is why I don't understand the protesters ... I mean how can they not know this. Here is a man shouting from the highest roof top that the system is broken and something must be done about it right now, and that he should be appointed all powerful dictator and decide which minions will help him do whatever it is his undisclosed personal manifesto happens to be ... but he could have done it before if it was so important and close to his heart ....

or maybe he couldn't because he was only a deputy ... always a bridesmaid and never a bride ... is there a rift between Suthep and Abbie? Was Suthep a loose cannon before he had to 'volunteer' to leave political office (talk about the pot calling the kettle black). Could it be that Suthep is really trying to take control of the yellows and the army for HIMSELF.

I'm trying to understand why this system is not behaving in a predictable manner and everytime it seems to come down to very personal and very hidden agendas ... I would almost come back to the assumption that a feudalistic mentality is part of Thai culture and they simply don't grasp that democracy is not a new name for same same but different. Are Thais really capable of being, or ready to be, democratic

[Mot Leei]

PTP proposal was for the Upper House (Senate) to be fully elected by voting - rather than the current 50% elected, 50% unelected. So the PTP concept is like what the US have.

This proposal was declared "unconstitutional" by the Courts.

And can someone tell me why this is actually a bad thing?? And how it is less democratic .... I mean at least that's how Suthep represents it. There are soooooo many assumptions out there about how PTP is so bad but I can clearly see a number of pro-democratic moves (elected upper house, popularist policies, infrastructure development and agricultural/industrial subsidies) .... sure they have some dodgy implementation, bad timing, questionable ethics and personal gain all tucked up in there, but that's quite acceptable for a young democracy ...there is clearly room for vast improvement, but its a solid base from which improvement can and must be made .... to force everyone to go back to the drawing board every time you find you cant get elected is childishly akin to taking your toys home because the other kids won't let you win the game every time. Sometime you just gotta grow up, suck it in and realise it's YOU that has to change before things can get better

[englishoak]

So 'Mark' has personally turned his back on Democracy. Under orders from above.

Dunno. But taking orders from above is how it is done in Yingluck's wonderland. Skype, wouldn't you know, plays a big part in it

And of course Mark isnt advised or taking orders from anyone right ?

[Spalpeen]

PTP proposal was for the Upper House (Senate) to be fully elected by voting - rather than the current 50% elected, 50% unelected. So the PTP concept is like what the US have.

This proposal was declared "unconstitutional" by the Courts.

And can someone tell me why this is actually a bad thing?? And how it is less democratic .... I mean at least that's how Suthep represents it. There are soooooo many assumptions out there about how PTP is so bad but I can clearly see a number of pro-democratic moves (elected upper house, popularist policies, infrastructure development and agricultural/industrial subsidies) .... sure they have some dodgy implementation, bad timing, questionable ethics and personal gain all tucked up in there, but that's quite acceptable for a young democracy ...there is clearly room for vast improvement, but its a solid base from which improvement can and must be made .... to force everyone to go back to the drawing board every time you find you cant get elected is childishly akin to taking your toys home because the other kids won't let you win the game every time. Sometime you just gotta grow up, suck it in and realise it's YOU that has to change before things can get better

.

If it's done right, an unelected upper house can be a good thing. Career politicians are often cut from the same cloth. They know very little about the real world of business outside politics. They usually come from a privileged background and often have dirty hands. An unelected upper house allows people from different backgrounds to get involved in politics - successful businessmen, artists, clerics, sportsmen can all bring a knowledge of the real world that career politicians lack.

At least that's the ideal. In practice, appointed upper houses can often become just a retirement home for former politicians and a jobs-for-the-boys racket for the politicians friends. But the point I'm making is that an unelected upper house can be healthy for democracy if it's done right.

[gabruce]

That confuses me as that means he can not run for political office again for 5 years. Also applies to the other democrats which makes this virtually a one party system.

I don't understand why the Dems don't use the election to show the level of support for political reform and put an end to this once and for all. At the last election they were only outvoted by a ratio of 4:3 and since then their stock has risen whilst PTs has fallen.

Unless Sooty knows something we don't.

He knows that the judges of the constitutional court were appointed by an only 50% elected senate.

When you already have 50% it's not hard to find one or two more to do your bidding.

I fully expect even though voting proceeds normally in 66 out of 78 provinces - the court will deny the will of the majority in favour of their masters.

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

There is nothing wrong with an appointed Senate. I think it's arguably superior to an wholly elected Senate. Just compare Canada (appointed Senate) to the USA (elected Senate). Case closed! A 50% elected, 50% appointed Senate would seem to be a reasonable compromise.

[sawadee1947]

Forgive my ignorance of things Thailand ... I've only lived here 3 years so far .... so please help me understand ...

In Thailand there are clearly more rural poor than all the rich, middle class and fragmented students put together … soooo much more. Even with Yinglucks god awful rice scheme losing her considerable votes, there are still more rural poor creating Thailands clear majority. In any election where everyone gets an equal vote, then the way the scales will tip is clearly obvious … with or without reform, with or without vote buying, with or without corruption, with or without protests, with or without violence … there’s only one possible outcome … people will support whoever supports the poor.

This is why I really don’t understand why the mis-named democracy party doesn’t try to appeal to the poor with programs that will actually do something to improve their quality of life … and please don’t give me the American trickle down rhetoric … this is an election. Popular policies are what democracy is all about … the majority … if you have a problem with that then what you want is not democracy. Thaksin might be many things, but at least he was smart enough to know you had to appease the poor first … which at least makes him the first true democrat in Thailand (as begrudged as I am to say that).

The thing that scares me though … and I mean really scares me … are the very poorly defined changes that Khun Suthep wants. Here is a man who changes his demands and direction on a daily basis, calling himself democratic, but failing to actually put out for public scrutiny the changes he wants to see in Thailand. He has had a phenomenal opportunity given to him in this protest … he could have publicised a clear plan forward that would appeal to ALL Thai people (that he assumes he represents) and gone to the election with that … and if he really had the peoples support as he claims, then they would have given him the mandate to do as he wishes. But he’s done nothing but called civil disobedience (and I’m being kind when I say that), in any other country he’d be in jail or dead already (which unfortunately speaks more admirably of the caretaker govt). NEVER trust a man who wants you to follow him based only on his hatred of another person.

Thailand if you want a democracy, and I mean a real democracy where all people are considered equal, then voting is the ONLY way forward even if the current system is flawed. Democracy doesn’t happen over night; it’s something the takes time to grow and evolve. You have to play the game to change the rules. You have to learn how to appeal to the people and how to serve their interests rather than your own. The only way forward is to listen to the people and win their hearts. Democracy has NEVER been found in the hands of someone who stopped people from voting using fear, intimidation and violence … never. And I hope tomorrow that the people of Thailand are allowed the opportunity to peacefully choose for themselves what they want, instead of being scared off by people forcing them to do what a VERY small minority wants.

Peace.

thank you for your description of present Thailand. It's exactly like that. The can't democacy but have to learn. And who will be elected will be PM whatever the so called democrats will say or do.