Democrat Party to seek Thai court annulment of snap polls

[Cricketnut]

Can the Democrat Party at least have the decency to change their name to something more appropriate like the National Socialist Party or the Falange. I mean, this is what you do when you can't win elections...boycott them or seek to have them annulled.

Ya, after AV took over, the DEM boycott GE and lose elections. The previous two:1. Under the protection of the junta 2007, they lose. 2. Under the military and after amended the election law , they still lose. 3. Now, they boycott after demanding that the house should be dissolved. Some said they wanted to reform the election law they changed yet again.

The DEM seeking Thai Court to annul snap polls. They are not paying the game, they disqualified themselves. They chicken out.

An alleged murderer as their leader doesn't help much either.. And before anyone throws the sink at me, I'm trying to live in the present not the past. Yes Thaksin SHOULD pay for his guilt that he has been charged with. That is the foremost part of reform that must come to Thailand. The rule of law.

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

[icommunity]

Can the Democrat Party at least have the decency to change their name to something more appropriate like the National Socialist Party or the Falange. I mean, this is what you do when you can't win elections...boycott them or seek to have them annulled.

Ya, after AV took over, the DEM boycott GE and lose elections. The previous two:1. Under the protection of the junta 2007, they lose. 2. Under the military and after amended the election law , they still lose. 3. Now, they boycott after demanding that the house should be dissolved. Some said they wanted to reform the election law they changed yet again.

The DEM seeking Thai Court to annul snap polls. They are not paying the game, they disqualified themselves. They chicken out.

"2. Under the military and after amended the election law , they still lose."

Which election was that?

2011

[whybother]

"2. Under the military and after amended the election law , they still lose."

Which election was that?

2011

Under the military??

[icommunity]

Those individuals, groups, parties who boycotted the 2 Feb 2014 election has no legal right to petition for the invalidation of election results.

Really? That's an actual law in Thailand? Or are you just making things up again?

The election was called, planned nationwide according to the 2007 constitution election law that was amended by DEM led government.

Had anyone petitioned to the court that the election was unconstitutional before the election?

Yingluck was told by so many people that holding elections now was a bad idea.

Not only did the election show exactly what people thought of her and the PTP by the poor turnout, it was a considerable waste of money when the farmers have gone without since before October!

House dissolve was demanded by AV and the DEM but when it happened, they boycotted it.

Your reply

House dissolve was demanded by AV and the DEM but when it happened, they boycotted it.

My response

Why should we submit to the dictate of constant intimidation, threat, violation of rights people? Thought the misled protesters did not want the house dissolved, the DEM as a political party demanded it.

[steveromagnino]

90% of the country turned up to vote.

- EC chairman Supachai Somcharoen said about 13 million voters who could not exercise their right to vote made up about 25% of the entire electorate of almost 49 million eligible voters. (note this excludes the number who also chose NOT to vote which was at least a similar number IMHO)

- Bangkok Metropolitan Administration reported unofficial voter turnouts yesterday in Bangkok at 1.14 million people, or 26.18% of a total of 4.36 million eligible voters, compared to voter turnouts of 71.62% in the July 3, 2011 election.

- Voter turnouts nationwide even in the strongholds of Peua Thai were consistently lower than 2011, with a significant number of people electing not to vote - I heard percentages by changwat this morning being between 45 - 60% in the north and north east

- turnout in 2011 was 75% - to achieve 90% would require a major and massive publicity exercise virtually forcing people to vote....which has not happened

So rather than your claim of 90% turnout I would imagine something like 50% possibly lower is the more likely result.

If you add NO VOTE cast + selecting NO VOTE as a choice in the election, it would seem highly likely that PT have lost their popular mandate even running effectively unopposed (almost all the parties except Chuwit and BJT are already PT allies or so small as to be irrelevant (I do not agree with this approach to counting votes, but some will likely propose this)).

Any view on whether the Dems should have run in the election is now irrelevant. but it would seem impossible for this result to stand - the parties didn't even have manifestos or campaign prior to the election - many MPs even felt the result would be annulled before the election went ahead - is it any wonder that despite the rhetoric, that in a time when participation should be at an all time high (even in provinces with no effect from the protesters) that this is not the case and participation is actually pretty poor?

It is a bit rich to cite low turnout as a reason to discount the election when the yellow side has done everything it can to make voting dangerous, ranging from mild intimidation to opening up on pro-voters with pistols and assault weapons in Lak Si. Indeed the BBC made much the same point this morning. It is true that the claim of 90 per cent turnout is too high a figure, but the intentional neglect of context undermines Mr Magnino's credibility.

90% only is misquoted and misused by posters in this thread; the real turnout is lower across the country in all the provinces where numbers have been provided compared to 2011 election, and more like average 45-50% turnout, which I have specifically stated includes the effect of the actions of the protesters (13 million or 25% who were unable to vote). We now know the turnout nationwide to be around 46% (http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/ec-says-45-84-turn-vote/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ec-says-45-84-turn-vote). we already know voter turnouts were lower across the board from other data coming in including in areas totally unaffected by anything other than the tactical option to boycott the vote (we do not know the number of NO votes cast yet and will not do so until all by-elections are completed if they ever are.

How I could be more clear than this, I do not know.

Having had my own personal run ins with the red shirts, I can state from personal experience, that there are spineless scumbag thugs on both sides of the political divide.

What I can say, is that whereas in 2011 PT could arguably claim that of those who voted, which was the majority of the country, more than half voted for them (so thus they could claim a popular mandate widely considered to be more than 50% of voters support them usually of those who voted), it would seem that adding those who CHOSE not to vote (not those who were denied the right to vote) plus those who NO VOTED plus those who chose someone else, might be more than 50%, in which case support for PT would be less than 50%. If as a total of all voters (irrespective of whether they voted or not), it is most certainly less than 50%. We do not know this result yet because we do not know the numbers of "NO" votes.

The reason to discount this election are several, and most were known before the election, which is why I offer this as an explanation why the parties themselves did not bother really trying to promote, and also why there was a low election day turnout - within both these groups many are expecting the result not to stand:

1. It has not returned an acceptable result by the definition provided in the constitution - it does not matter why, it matters that the result is not delivering a minimum of 475 MPs so there will be another election (either by-elections or entire election, but seems likely the by-election approach will fail

2. It was known before the election this would likely be the case

3. Large numbers have been denied their democratic right to vote (just because someone lives in an area with no MPs, does not mean they necessarily would vote for one party or another, they have been denied the right to do so) on the same days as everyone else

4. The constitution does not make provision for situations like this, except to state that the EC can now call a new election but even then the wording is not so clear

5. With the election being called on multiple days, it would seem obvious that there is an impact on fairness of elections in seats not already decided if there are leaks of % votes for those yet to vote; e.g. Chalerm's statements on numbers of seats etc

6. Without a clear mandate from the ballot box, it is difficult to see how PT can stay in this tenuous position - in fact it is not so easy to see how any of this gets resolved - if the EC calls a new election, will PT accept it?

7. Ignoring all of the above, there has been virtually no policy statements of presentation so it is totally unclear what any party actually stands for

8. Certain candidates have been denied the opportunity to campaign or present what they stand for

I think the protesters should be prosecuted where they stopped people from voting, and as anyone who reads what I have written in the past, I am totally against amnesty for anyone - people who do the crime should be willing to face the consequences. That is why I was against the amnesty push by Yingluck's government, and why I still wait, optimistically, for a full investigation of 2006,2007, 2009, 2010, drugs war etc etc and all appropriate parties to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Edited February 3, 2014 by steveromagnino

[icommunity]

"2. Under the military and after amended the election law , they still lose."

Which election was that?

2011

Under the military??

Yes, AV led government was bargained, form and decided at military barrack.

[whybother]

Yes, AV led government was bargained, form and decided at military barrack.

That was cheaper than flying everyone to Hong Kong.

[Ulic]

If you know you can't win by legal, democratic means, you can always try the illegal, undemocratic ways. That seems to work for the Dems pretty well at times.

What is illegal about what they are trying to do?

Seems kind of like a jury trial were the defendant tries to tamper with the jury and then asks for a mistrial because someone

has been trying to tamper with the jury.

ie. Kind of like holding the protests and demonstrations and 43 countries issue travel advisories/warnings but when

the government issues a limited emergency decree after three months of protest and 10 deaths the democrats blame

the government for the drop in tourism.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Ulic

[icommunity]

Yes, AV led government was bargained, form and decided at military barrack.

That was cheaper than flying everyone to Hong Kong.

Worthless comment.

[kevvy]

Well, that's a suprise, I must say.

Indeed it is. Those unpredictable Democrats, what will they think of next?

How to get rid of the Thaksin thugs

[philw]

If you know you can't win by legal, democratic means, you can always try the illegal, undemocratic ways. That seems to work for the Dems pretty well at times.

Of course vote buying and populist policies are a much more democratic way? That seems to work for the PTP pretty well at times.

The needles stuck, the needles stuck, the needles stuck................

[Timwin]

Australians just voted for a populist, right wing nutter Tony Abbott. Already more than a few Australians are apologizing for that mistake, he is a menace.

Americans voted for populists Ronald Reagan and George Bush Jr. So anybody saying some Thais do not deserve to vote because they vote "wrong" is just another hypocrite.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Timwin

[aimbc]

Until the EC publicly release the voting results, one can only go on the information the newspaper uses,

The shut down failed miserably, with the election happening all over Thailand. We personally took our family members to vote in Wang Muang, Uthai Thani and Nakhon Sawan where a mass of voters were voting, it is not how they voted it is that they chose the Thai Democracy's option to vote.

Anyway you look at it the shut-down and boycott did not work!

Cheers

I am not so sure. It got the government so scared that they had to enact the SOE. So yes, it worked.

[Mrgk]

Australians just voted for a populist, right wing nutter Tony Abbott. Already more than a few Australians are apologizing for that mistake, he is a menace.

Americans voted for populists Ronald Reagan and George Bush Jr. So anybody saying some Thais do not deserve to vote because they vote "wrong" is just another hypocrite.

I guess this nicely illustrates that "populist" is mainly a translation of "a politician that I dislike".

[tezzainoz]

Well, that's a suprise, I must say.

Indeed it is. Those unpredictable Democrats, what will they think of next?

Unpredictable

where have you been for the last 8 weeks

This is what has been one every political speech for that time

when will some of you get it through your thick skulls

this has all been a chess games with 2 higher people

And for those who play chess you will know you sacrifice certain pawns so the Yingluck will keep making mistakes

the Democrats knew all this was to happen

but Check Mate will come in the Thai Courts

Edited February 3, 2014 by tezzainoz

[rwhoov]

True to form, the "Democrats" put their hopes into ANOTHER judicial coup. It would be nice to have a fair judicial system... but they certainly don't with the bunch they have now.

[rwhoov]

Well, that's a suprise, I must say.

Indeed it is. Those unpredictable Democrats, what will they think of next?

How to get rid of the Thaksin thugs

Thaksin thugs? Was it the "Thaksin thugs" who tried to steal the ballots, blocked peoople from voting, and physically attacked other voters? No, it was the "Suthep thugs", and the whole world saw in in their newspapers and television. Suthep has absolutely no credibility in any democratic society in the world, and you better believe any general contemplating a coup knows it, too. It would be a world wide blunder for anyone to back Suthep now.

[bigbamboo]

Well, that's a suprise, I must say.

Indeed it is. Those unpredictable Democrats, what will they think of next?

Unpredictable

where have you been for the last 8 weeks

This is what has been one every political speech for that time

when will some of you get it through your thick skulls

this has all been a chess games with 2 higher people

And for those who play chess you will know you sacrifice certain pawns so the Yingluck will keep making mistakes

the Democrats knew all this was to happen

but Check Mate will come in the Thai Courts

That might explain a few things. Most Thais have trouble understanding draughts.

[Gweiloman]

Well, that's a suprise, I must say.

Indeed it is. Those unpredictable Democrats, what will they think of next?

Unpredictable

where have you been for the last 8 weeks

This is what has been one every political speech for that time

when will some of you get it through your thick skulls

this has all been a chess games with 2 higher people

And for those who play chess you will know you sacrifice certain pawns so the Yingluck will keep making mistakes

the Democrats knew all this was to happen

but Check Mate will come in the Thai Courts

Looks like Tezza has woken from his daily nap. I expect a barrage of rather unintelligible copy and paste posts appearing soon.

[fab4]

Well, that's a suprise, I must say.

Indeed it is. Those unpredictable Democrats, what will they think of next?

Unpredictable

where have you been for the last 8 weeks

This is what has been one every political speech for that time

when will some of you get it through your thick skulls

this has all been a chess games with 2 higher people

And for those who play chess you will know you sacrifice certain pawns so the Yingluck will keep making mistakes

the Democrats knew all this was to happen

but Check Mate will come in the Thai Courts

Chess is all very well but you need to be able to recognise irony when you come across it......................

[Macrohistory]

What part of that, do you not understand, "(89%) of Thai registered voters chose to vote"yesterday!

The Yellows and their backers were trying to stop the election and told all of it supporters not to vote, in contrast the Yingluck government stated that people should support the Thai Democracy and vote.

"89% of eligible voters voted in the February 2 national election, 10.9% of voters chose not to vote or were blocked from voting"

RESULTS: The Suthep, Democrat party, lost the election as (1 out of 10) voters backed the demonstrators call to boycott the election!

In sharp contrast (9 out of 10) Thai voters backed PTP position to vote.

All I have read today is the pathetic post from posters trying to "save face" as the real Thai majority, burst their bubble and voted in over whelming numbers!

I would laugh to, but I chose not to add insult to injury!

It is poor form to belittle and insult others.

I think what you mean (based on what happened, not your own opinion).....

RESULTS: The anti government protesters affected the election as (5 out of every 10) voters either were not affected by or ignored the demonstrators call to boycott the election, this represents a drop from around 7.5 out of every 10 voters in the past who turned out to vote.

Of the (5 out of 10) Thai voters who backed PTP position to vote, we do not yet know what proportion out of those 5 out of 10 voted NO or did not vote for PTP, which was the other option offered by the protesters as a form of protest vote.

As I have previously posted (not that most things are referenced):

This is what we know for now:

- "Thai voters cast ballots across almost 90 percent of the country yesterday" ref Business Week

http://www.businessw...-to-hamper-vote

- this is by area representing potential to cast a vote NOT total number of voters

- " 49 million eligible voters for 375 constituencies" ref. Rueters

http://www.reuters.c...EA1100X20140202

(therefore your claim of 90% would mean approximately 44m people voted - which they didn't - closer estimate is )

- "Voting was disrupted in 18 percent or 69 of 375 constituencies nationwide, the Election Commission said, affecting 18 of 77 provinces, Reuters reported"

http://www.aljazeera...3752606651.html

(disrupted means just that)

- "In southern provinces, voter turnout was estimated at 20 to 30 per cent, much lower than previous elections.Voter turnout was a little over 40 per cent in Chai Nat, less than 50 per cent in Phichit, about 50 per cent in Ayutthaya, according to local election officials."

-- The Nation 2014-02-03

- turnout in Chiang Rai (stronghold of PT) voter turnout around 60% less than the last election turnout of 76% (ignoring the voters who chose to vote NO VOTE)

http://www.thairath.co.th/content/region/400797

- turnout in Buriram (stronghold of BJT) voter turnout around 50%

http://www.thairath.co.th/content/pol/400775

Furthermore....

- EC chairman Supachai Somcharoen said about 13 million voters who could not exercise their right to vote made up about 25% of the entire electorate of almost 49 million eligible voters. (note this excludes the number who also chose NOT to vote which was at least a similar number IMHO)

- Bangkok Metropolitan Administration reported unofficial voter turnouts yesterday in Bangkok at 1.14 million people, or 26.18% of a total of 4.36 million eligible voters, compared to voter turnouts of 71.62% in the July 3, 2011 election.

- Voter turnouts nationwide even in the strongholds of Peua Thai were consistently lower than 2011, with a significant number of people electing not to vote - I heard percentages by changwat this morning being between 45 - 60% in the north and north east

- updated: EC Commissioner estimates turnout at around 45% I think somewhere in this thread (I have not seen this reference, but would seem to be about right)

You say 90%. Reality is around half that at 45-50%, and again, that's not counting the people who used their vote to NO VOTE.

Thank you for gathering all of this information, Steve. It is truly amazing stuff. Only 26% of eligible voters in Bangkok (the nation's political, economic, and cultural center) casting ballots, and only 50% or so even in the north and northeastern Red strongholds, where no Suthep forces were present to discourage people from turning out. What this suggests to me is that after the election is ruled invalid and the Thaksin puppets are tossed from office, the Reds will be unable to marshall anywhere near the same number of protesters to descend on Bangkok and terrorize the citizenry as in 2010. To be sure, they will gather some -- screaming "judicial coup!" -- and black-shirted assassins will be hired to kill people: some targeted, some at random. But this will have the effect of alienating even more voters; the downward spiral has begun. I think we're finally beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel: the beginning of the end of the entire Thaksin phenomenon, his 15-year-long megalomaniacal drive to establish a populist dictatorship.

[tilac2]

Those individuals, groups, parties who boycotted the 2 Feb 2014 election has no legal right to petition for the invalidation of election results.

The election was called, planned nationwide according to the 2007 constitution election law that was amended by DEM led government.

Had anyone petitioned to the court that the election was unconstitutional before the election?

They have all the right in the world to seek nullification.

1. They are a political party despite boycotting elections, they are still a political party.

2. They are voters and have their right to question a failed and badly organized election.

3. The election turnout was shambolic with many constituencies seeing as low as 20% turnout.

4. Of the tiny amount who turned out, the count of the 'no vote' is said to be incredibly high.

5. Of those who actually voted for a party, the amount would be a huge vote of 'NO CONFIDENCE' toi any emerging government from these polls.

The combination of the above would suggest in ANY democratic country that these elections have failed, and will continue to fail even after the other constituencies have their ballots completed.

In the 2011 elections where the EC declared a 'landslide' result for PTP when you actually looked at the figures, their vote count was actually only 35% of the entire nationwide electorate. They may have won on paper, but 35% hardly represents a 'mandate from the people'.

So with all the new statistics, I should expect this mandate to be under 20% of the electorate, and that can NOT represent a mandate of the majority, more like a mandate from the 'minority' and as such should NOT qualify them as a democratically elected government with 'legitimacy' especially adding the fact that almost the entire government are under at least one and in some cases many many investigations for graft, corruption, negligence, dereliction of duty, and I would not be surprised if 'election fraud' would be added in the near future.

So regardless of who is petitioning courts for a nullification. I would say that all the ingredients were there for it to be nullified.

The biggest victims of this election are the rice farmers, that is why it should never have been run in the first place. If they are annulled the farmers have a chance of being paid faster, if they don't annul them, then this caretaker government may end up sitting without the ability to pay for up to 6 months. That will take the delay in payments up to 1 year.

This government just wasted 2 months. They should have agreed to allow 'election reforms' to be conducted, and would have been completed in a month. Then the Dems would have probably joined the next election and been happy to do so, then once the new government chosen, the rest of the reform work could have been started, and even the protests would have been put on hold. But no..... this government wants no reform before elections.

It would have been a worthy compromise to start with election reform, then move on to the rest of the reforms separately, the Dems could never refuse that compromise. But Thaksin does not compromise.

Your arguments about percentages and mandates are irrelevant. PT won according to the rules and so they won. Simple as that. Elections all over the world are run on this or a similar basis: You have an election, you count up which party got most MPs elected and then, if they have an absolute majority of MPs, that party wins - as PT did in 2011 (with a substantial swing to PT).

For a more detailed examination of the 2011 election you should look at the analysis in Asian Survey Jul/Aug 2013.

In my experience, in other countries elections are won and lost in similar ways, and absolute absolute majorities of votes would be, I believe, quite a rarety (except in North Korea I suppose).

[whybother]

Your arguments about percentages and mandates are irrelevant. PT won according to the rules and so they won. Simple as that. Elections all over the world are run on this or a similar basis: You have an election, you count up which party got most MPs elected and then, if they have an absolute majority of MPs, that party wins - as PT did in 2011 (with a substantial swing to PT).

For a more detailed examination of the 2011 election you should look at the analysis in Asian Survey Jul/Aug 2013.

In my experience, in other countries elections are won and lost in similar ways, and absolute absolute majorities of votes would be, I believe, quite a rarety (except in North Korea I suppose).

Yes, they won (or rather will win when the result is finalised in 2-3 months). But it's not "the will of the people", "a massive landslide" or "a majority".

[fab4]

Your arguments about percentages and mandates are irrelevant. PT won according to the rules and so they won. Simple as that. Elections all over the world are run on this or a similar basis: You have an election, you count up which party got most MPs elected and then, if they have an absolute majority of MPs, that party wins - as PT did in 2011 (with a substantial swing to PT).

For a more detailed examination of the 2011 election you should look at the analysis in Asian Survey Jul/Aug 2013.

In my experience, in other countries elections are won and lost in similar ways, and absolute absolute majorities of votes would be, I believe, quite a rarety (except in North Korea I suppose).

Yes, they won (or rather will win when the result is finalised in 2-3 months). But it's not "the will of the people", "a massive landslide" or "a majority".

Well it's obviously the will of some people and when we get the results we can say how many of those people, there are. Meanwhile all those who didn't vote cannot complain about the results whatever they may be. If that disenfranchises some people, well, they had a choice of voting No.

[tingtongteesood]

If you know you can't win by legal, democratic means, you can always try the illegal, undemocratic ways. That seems to work for the Dems pretty well at times.

PT has never won 'by legal, democratic means' either as Thailand doesn't have democracy. The demonstrators are demonstrating because with the Shin's gone there is a slim chance that real democracy could take root here if the necessary reforms are carried out....

[tingtongteesood]

90% of the country turned up to vote. There cannot be a clearer indication that the PEOPLE disagrees with Mr. Suthep's call to boycott the election. Only think is the Mr. Suthep and the Democrats are blind to this obvious FACT.

90% ?Where did you get that number from ? That would be a personal best for Thailand, I don't believe it for a second, links to creditable sources or stop lieing please....?

[tingtongteesood]

Can the Democrat Party at least have the decency to change their name to something more appropriate like the National Socialist Party or the Falange. I mean, this is what you do when you can't win elections...boycott them or seek to have them annulled.

Peua Thai should certainly change their name too, if you know what it means then you would know that it certainly is far from true, Puea Taksin would be far more accurate...

[tingtongteesood]

I heard they were changing their name to the UBOL party (Ultimate Bunch Of Losers), certainly more appropriate than the one they have now!

Those Peua Thai criminals are certainly losers figuratively, literally they are gainers due to the riches they managed to steal during their reign of graft sadly....

[tingtongteesood]

Yes, AV led government was bargained, form and decided at military barrack.

That was cheaper than flying everyone to Hong Kong.

Worthless comment.

Worthless comment. - As are around 99% of yours,...

[tilac2]

Thank you for gathering all of this information, Steve. It is truly amazing stuff. Only 26% of eligible voters in Bangkok (the nation's political, economic, and cultural center) casting ballots, and only 50% or so even in the north and northeastern Red strongholds, where no Suthep forces were present to discourage people from turning out. What this suggests to me is that after the election is ruled invalid and the Thaksin puppets are tossed from office, the Reds will be unable to marshall anywhere near the same number of protesters to descend on Bangkok and terrorize the citizenry as in 2010. To be sure, they will gather some -- screaming "judicial coup!" -- and black-shirted assassins will be hired to kill people: some targeted, some at random. But this will have the effect of alienating even more voters; the downward spiral has begun. I think we're finally beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel: the beginning of the end of the entire Thaksin phenomenon, his 15-year-long megalomaniacal drive to establish a populist dictatorship.

Yours is wishful thinking.

Thaksin changed the attitudes of the northern and northeastern people and made them much stronger and more determined. I don't believe that they will accept much more of the procedural trickery and insurrectionary tactics from Suthep and Abhisit, especially if the election is annulled. They could respond in all kinds of ways: perhaps civil disobedience is one option. Of course the Army can shoot a few people as it did in 2010, but they would need to shoot a lot because the northerners know their own strength now - and actually the shooting option is unlikely because the Army is divided about which 'side' they're on (from what one hears).

I tend to think that the reds would not come to Bangkok again: they've probably given up caring what happens there. The 'home rule' option is more likely.

Much of this conflict has stemmed from the disastrous coup in 2006. If democracy had been allowed to run its course then, the voters would have determined if Thaksin stayed in power or not. Instead we have chaos.

I don't know why you and others say he planned dictatorship. There's no documentation of that being his aim. And why would he need to when he and his parties have kept winning elections? (And now he's had enough of running for office, he says). Certainly he placed 'his people' in positions of authority, but any competent leader does that even in western countries.

Evidently his downfall was due to his break with the 'old boy network' and his single-minded vision for Thailand: that modern approach alienated the old boys - and that's why he was kicked out.

I admit it is possible that the rice fiasco has antagonised so many voters that they could become fatalistic and just accept the next boring Abhisit government, if that is foisted on them - but I doubt it.

Edited February 3, 2014 by tilac2