Thai Democrat Party threatens to boycott second election

[tomacht8]

This is stupid.

This party takes itself out of business

Why the Democrats are not even describe a pair of reforms, (at) specifically that should apply before an election.

[casualbiker]

Why do you silly little red people never read a story before you comment. Is it the slash and burn mentality.

"The Democratic Party, in that case, would not participate in the new general election even if the party had to be dissolved as stipulated in the constitution. It will instead find another way to reform the country."

They were in power long enough ! Why did'nt they introduce these "urgent reforms" them............Because they thought they would be there for ever as they are born to be, thats why !

Who were in power long enough? Abhisits Democrats were only in power for 31 months! Most of that with the Reds protesting... or Thaksonites vetoing bills.

Thaksin's numerous family/clan governments were in power for more than 84 months!

To be fair, the point is that abhisit and co, whether they were busy fighting the UDD (for two months)

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Front_for_Democracy_Against_Dictatorship

2009 unrest 2010 protests

Hardly 2 months.. rewriting Thaksin/ UDD history again!

[Bakseeda]

Since they won't be taking part in any more elections, a more accurate description would be 'former political party'. In any case, since they didn't vote in the last election, they're all barred from standing for election for the next five years.

Go look in a mirror... Get a life for Gods sake...

[Bakseeda]

Why do you silly little red people never read a story before you comment. Is it the slash and burn mentality.

"The Democratic Party, in that case, would not participate in the new general election even if the party had to be dissolved as stipulated in the constitution. It will instead find another way to reform the country."

They were in power long enough ! Why did'nt they introduce these "urgent reforms" them............Because they thought they would be there for ever as they are born to be, thats why !

Who were in power long enough? Abhisits Democrats were only in power for 31 months! Most of that with the Reds protesting... or Thaksonites vetoing bills.

Thaksin's numerous family/clan governments were in power for more than 84 months!

To be fair, the point is that abhisit and co, whether they were busy fighting the UDD (for two months) or resisting "Thaksonites vetoing bills" (? I thought that was the idea of an opposition),( just how many bills were vetoed that were anything to do with these proposed reforms?) had plenty of time to mention even a fledgling idea of "reform" - there was no big "Idea" for reform proposed by the dem government, not even a hint of one.

Now, two years out of power an ill conceived attempt to pass an altered amnesty bill led to protests by the dems. Fair enough, but the checks and balances in place (and which the opposition had not complained about before in the previous 2 years of PTP government) worked and the amnesty bill was rejected by the senate.

Previously, changes to the constitution (which was part of the PTP election platform and everybody knew about) were stopped in 2012 by the CC under one of their first "interesting" rulings. They agreed that the constitution could be changed but a referendum had to take place first. Another landmark ruling, referring to the junta constitution rewrite referendum, completely ignoring the fact that the junta didn't hold a referendum before the CDA rewrote the 1997 constitution, only after - and that was of dubious value as a free and fair vote.

Alternatively, the CC said, you can alter the constitution article by article, in parliament. Seeing that the PTP only wished to make certain changes to the constitution instead of rewriting it, they chose this method. Which they did until the CC stepped in once more (well a couple of times actually) and ruled that although the gov. had amended certain articles of the constitution in the manner accepted by the the CC, they ruled these amendments unconstitutional!

The ultimate in ridiculous rulings came with the amendment to the "election of Senators" section of the constitution. In 1997 the Senators were fully elected, the 2007 Junta constitution amended this arrangement to part elected part appointed. The PTP wished to have fully elected Senators a la 1997. But now apparently, the very act of attempting to do so was ruled unconstitutional! And while they were at it the CC ruled that the government were in breach of article 68,i.e they were overthrowing the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State, aka treason. Having ruled thus, the CC took no further action - now tell me those are the actions of a stable functional independant Constitutional Court.

Notwithstanding the rights and wrongs of the CC rulings, up until the Senate verdict, the checks and balances worked. The government dissolved parliament and announced an election in the normal timescale and that is when suthep stepped in, resolving to stop the elections happening and the dems boycotted it saying it wouldn't be free or fair despite ANFREL having nothing devastating to say about the 2011 elections.

Not content with that it was deemed necessary that the Shinawatras have nothing to do with elections (meanwhile the traditional backers of the dems were probably ruing their decision to reinstate abhisit and found themselves having to back suthep and his unconstitutional peoples council) and it was absolutely necessary to have a reform of ? (whatever, the details haven't been worked out yet) before any election take place.

Why?, the system works. Contest an election and then have the reform outside of parliament as proposed by the PTP. Seems a far more reasonable solution than dragging out the impasse whilst dragging down the projected growth of the economy and harming future investment.

Hans Christian Andersson comes to mind...

[VegasVic]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Why would they want to take part in an election?

Show again they are unable to win a majority? Embarrassing. They need ot get back to their bread and butter - Unelected Peoples Councils for all

Go Team Yelllow

Fight Team Yellow

Win Team Yellow

width=20 alt=biggri

Quite right! It comes as no surprise to anyone that they do not want to have elections under any circumstances, as they would never win an election and of course elections go against sutheps fascist tendencies It is time for this nonsense to end and get on with suthep and abhisits murder trail!

[JAG]

Why do you silly little red people never read a story before you comment. Is it the slash and burn mentality.

"The Democratic Party, in that case, would not participate in the new general election even if the party had to be dissolved as stipulated in the constitution. It will instead find another way to reform the country."

They were in power long enough ! Why did'nt they introduce these "urgent reforms" them............Because they thought they would be there for ever as they are born to be, thats why !

Who were in power long enough? Abhisits Democrats were only in power for 31 months! Most of that with the Reds protesting... or Thaksonites vetoing bills.

Thaksin's numerous family/clan governments were in power for more than 84 months!

To be fair, the point is that abhisit and co, whether they were busy fighting the UDD (for two months) or resisting "Thaksonites vetoing bills" (? I thought that was the idea of an opposition),( just how many bills were vetoed that were anything to do with these proposed reforms?) had plenty of time to mention even a fledgling idea of "reform" - there was no big "Idea" for reform proposed by the dem government, not even a hint of one.

Now, two years out of power an ill conceived attempt to pass an altered amnesty bill led to protests by the dems. Fair enough, but the checks and balances in place (and which the opposition had not complained about before in the previous 2 years of PTP government) worked and the amnesty bill was rejected by the senate.

Previously, changes to the constitution (which was part of the PTP election platform and everybody knew about) were stopped in 2012 by the CC under one of their first "interesting" rulings. They agreed that the constitution could be changed but a referendum had to take place first. Another landmark ruling, referring to the junta constitution rewrite referendum, completely ignoring the fact that the junta didn't hold a referendum before the CDA rewrote the 1997 constitution, only after - and that was of dubious value as a free and fair vote.

Alternatively, the CC said, you can alter the constitution article by article, in parliament. Seeing that the PTP only wished to make certain changes to the constitution instead of rewriting it, they chose this method. Which they did until the CC stepped in once more (well a couple of times actually) and ruled that although the gov. had amended certain articles of the constitution in the manner accepted by the the CC, they ruled these amendments unconstitutional!

The ultimate in ridiculous rulings came with the amendment to the "election of Senators" section of the constitution. In 1997 the Senators were fully elected, the 2007 Junta constitution amended this arrangement to part elected part appointed. The PTP wished to have fully elected Senators a la 1997. But now apparently, the very act of attempting to do so was ruled unconstitutional! And while they were at it the CC ruled that the government were in breach of article 68,i.e they were overthrowing the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State, aka treason. Having ruled thus, the CC took no further action - now tell me those are the actions of a stable functional independant Constitutional Court.

Notwithstanding the rights and wrongs of the CC rulings, up until the Senate verdict, the checks and balances worked. The government dissolved parliament and announced an election in the normal timescale and that is when suthep stepped in, resolving to stop the elections happening and the dems boycotted it saying it wouldn't be free or fair despite ANFREL having nothing devastating to say about the 2011 elections.

Not content with that it was deemed necessary that the Shinawatras have nothing to do with elections (meanwhile the traditional backers of the dems were probably ruing their decision to reinstate abhisit and found themselves having to back suthep and his unconstitutional peoples council) and it was absolutely necessary to have a reform of ? (whatever, the details haven't been worked out yet) before any election take place.

Why?, the system works. Contest an election and then have the reform outside of parliament as proposed by the PTP. Seems a far more reasonable solution than dragging out the impasse whilst dragging down the projected growth of the economy and harming future investment.

Because the risk remains that the wrong people might win, it's as simple as that. And if that were to happen the right people would not be in position to manage an imminent sad event.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[VegasVic]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date()

Why do you silly little red people never read a story before you comment. Is it the slash and burn mentality.
"The Democratic Party, in that case, would not participate in the new general election even if the party had to be dissolved as stipulated in the constitution. It will instead find another way to reform the country."

They were in power long enough ! Why did'nt they introduce these "urgent reforms" them............Because they thought they would be there for ever as they are born to be, thats why !

They did make some changes. But being part of a coalition, they couldn't make all the changes that they wanted to.

Meanwhile Khun Suthep feathered his nest...............Palm Oil Scam, Gave government land on Phuket, set aside for poor farmers, to rich Hi-So friends, Enroached on government land on Samui, seconding land on to his own. You know , just altering the boundary's. And people actually think that he is just an honest farmer from the south. How did he become a millionaire ? I feel sure that Abisit did not do these things, but the rest of the DEM's mob.........say no more ! They saw what the master corruptor was getting and wanted a piece of the action. Back in those good ole days, reform never came into their heads.

Please do not confuse the issue here with REAL FACTS, after all then the suthepites here may have to take off those rose colored glasses with the blinders on the sides

[Thaddeus]

Yes! and consider the amazing progress Thailand made under Thaksin.

Name one thing that he did that wouldn't have happened anyway under the financial climate at the time.

Anything?

OTOP was probably his one and only good idea.

So, name another one that benefited anyone other than himself.

[englishoak]

IF the courts nullifies the Feb 2nd vote AND the Yingluck government calls another election the Democrat party would be COMPLETE IDIOTS NOT to run!

Absolutely agree, ive been saying for ages fine call a new election, set a date allowing time to campaign and everyone must take part, if the Democrat Party decides to boycott yet again then they are as you say complete idiots and not fit to wear either the name or take part in politics here, and should be banned from politics. The rules on boycotting twice in a period are very clear.

Unbelievable, it is simply not acceptable for a political party to continually act like this. Enough is enough it just seems like the democrat party will only take part in something they are sure they can win or want....that isnt politics.

You want to affect change then thats why you run in an election, if you dont you are not a political party your a mob and represent nothing.

[Baerboxer]

"However, the Prime Minister and her government should not be the ones hosting the general election because they are part of the conflict, said Chavanond."

Democrat Party? What are they on - is he telling them they can't participate in the election because they happen to be the caretaker government?

Incredibly stupid statements and action.

Why compete in an election when the ruling party refuses to accept the verdicts of courts and independent agencies? The Dems have always respected their position of being the opposition. But with the present group of (self exiled) criminals running the country, what would it be worth to be an opposition party?

There is no reasonable answer to that IF you believe the courts and independant agencies are just that, independant. To my mind the courts and independant agencies deserve the respect they are being accorded.

Interesting. If, to your mind, you don't believe the courts and independent agencies are independent, and therefore biased against PTP then you advocate disrespecting them and ignoring them.

Are you suggesting that PTP are never wrong, totally honest and completely innocent of all the accusations that are flying around?

[Baerboxer]

"However, the Prime Minister and her government should not be the ones hosting the general election because they are part of the conflict, said Chavanond."

Democrat Party? What are they on - is he telling them they can't participate in the election because they happen to be the caretaker government?

Incredibly stupid statements and action.

Why compete in an election when the ruling party refuses to accept the verdicts of courts and independent agencies? The Dems have always respected their position of being the opposition. But with the present group of (self exiled) criminals running the country, what would it be worth to be an opposition party?

There is no reasonable answer to that IF you believe the courts and independant agencies are just that, independant. To my mind the courts and independant agencies deserve the respect they are being accorded.

[rametindallas]

I wonder if someone explained to "Democrat Spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut" that if a party does not contend two elections in a row the party gets dissolved under the election laws.

I guess that they will argue that because the first election was decreed to be void it does not count as an election in the sight of the election law.

Are you suggesting K. Chavanont doesn't know all the implications involved? Don't tell him and Thailand can truly have one-party rule by a Thaksin puppet government. /sarc

IF the February 2 election is nullified, it is as if it never happened so it doesn't count against the Democrats as a skipped election. Even if it does, they can do like Dr. Thaksin does and re-form their party under a new name.

[rametindallas]

This will be viewed as controversial by many. And it will be discussed by historians for years. But I for one am certain that the Democrats have made the right decision here. Reform will never take place if Thaksin knows he will be able to secure a forum. He thinks he has the Democratic party cornered - that all he has to do is call another election, get another family member in there, and everything remains the same. He's counting on the fact that the Democratic party will have to contest the election or face dissolution. By deliberately falling on the sword, the Democratic party is willing to face dissolution if it can bring about a period of reform. This may or may not work. But it's the best shot there is. And it is the right thing to do. The Democratic party of Thailand is Thailand's oldest party. This is a principled stand. It means that if it succeeds, the Democratic party's last act will have pointed a way to a new era in Thai politics where people like Thaksin can no longer control it.

Please don't call them the 'Democratic' Party. The US has a Democratic Party. It's the Democrat Party in Thailand. It galls me in the US that the Democratic Party names themselves with an adjective instead of a noun. I still refer to the Democratic Party in the US as the Democrat Party. 'Are you a Republican or a Democratic?' sounds so stupid.

[Fat Haggis]

Does anyone believe that Thaksin will just simply give up and just let bygones be bygones?

Does anyone believe that Suthep will take a bow, and also give it all up, and go and do Sudoku puzzles all day whilst sipping G and T's ?

[whybother]

I wonder if someone explained to "Democrat Spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut" that if a party does not contend two elections in a row the party gets dissolved under the election laws.

I guess that they will argue that because the first election was decreed to be void it does not count as an election in the sight of the election law.

Why do you silly little red people never read a story before you comment. Is it the slash and burn mentality.

"The Democratic Party, in that case, would not participate in the new general election even if the party had to be dissolved as stipulated in the constitution. It will instead find another way to reform the country."

They were in power long enough ! Why did'nt they introduce these "urgent reforms" them............Because they thought they would be there for ever as they are born to be, thats why !

They did make some changes. But being part of a coalition, they couldn't make all the changes that they wanted to.

Meanwhile Khun Suthep feathered his nest...............Palm Oil Scam, Gave government land on Phuket, set aside for poor farmers, to rich Hi-So friends, Enroached on government land on Samui, seconding land on to his own. You know , just altering the boundary's. And people actually think that he is just an honest farmer from the south. How did he become a millionaire ? I feel sure that Abisit did not do these things, but the rest of the DEM's mob.........say no more ! They saw what the master corruptor was getting and wanted a piece of the action. Back in those good ole days, reform never came into their heads.

... And in your next post you state how great Thaksin is?

All Thaksin and his proxy governments have done is work out ways to swipe money off the Thai people.

Sent from my phone ...

[SoilSpoil]

I wonder if someone explained to "Democrat Spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut" that if a party does not contend two elections in a row the party gets dissolved under the election laws.

I guess that they will argue that because the first election was decreed to be void it does not count as an election in the sight of the election law.

They can do the same as the crooks that changed their names from TRT to PPP and now to PT! Also, their wives, brothers, neighbours and housemaids can run for them.

[geriatrickid]

Ok, let's deal with the facts and only the facts.

. If the Constitutional Court rules that the Feb.2 election is invalid, then a new election must be held. That's what the law is, and that's what would be required of any government. Thailand would require a legitimate government and the only way to obtain that under the current laws and constitution is to have an election.

- The Democrat party spokesman says that it would consider not participating. Ok. It's the party's right and it can do as it wishes in that regard. However, the reason given is that it does not want another election at this time. Well, that's a nice sentiment, but for a party that claims that the laws of the land must be upheld, then it has to accept that there has to be an election. The party's position is that it does not want the laws that require an election to be respected.

The Democrats can't have it both ways. They wanted the PTP to resign. Fine, that's what the PTP did.

Then they realized they couldn't win an election, so they used their proxy Suthep to sabotage the last election. Unfortunately for the Democrats, public sentiment hasn't really changed. Yes, there is dislike of the PTP, but it is not enough to have shifted sufficient votes to the Democrats. The Democrat strategists can see that. The end result would be another PTP government, either a majority or a minority, but one where the PTP would remain the government. Rather than coming out with an alternative platform, of leading by example in respect to corruption, of providing clear policy statements, the Democrat party has stamped its foot like a petulant child and will pout. Unfortunately for the Democrats, it has backed itself to the edge of a cliff and it has 2 choices: Either fight an election or just walk off the cliff and commit political suicide.

[fab4]

Who were in power long enough? Abhisits Democrats were only in power for 31 months! Most of that with the Reds protesting... or Thaksonites vetoing bills.

Thaksin's numerous family/clan governments were in power for more than 84 months!

To be fair, the point is that abhisit and co, whether they were busy fighting the UDD (for two months)

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Front_for_Democracy_Against_Dictatorship

2009 unrest2010 protests

Hardly 2 months.. rewriting Thaksin/ UDD history again!

A wiki argument. You mean they spent their entire time in government fighting off the evil Thaksinistas, there wasn't a moment of breathing space to announce, "this isn't working, we need reform" - did it mention that in wiki?

Follow that up with a further two plus years in opposition and no mention of the urgent need for reform. And so on to the end of 2013, when coincidentally, an election is called, the dems are likely to lose despite the political ground lost by the PTP, so they boycott and hope that suthep and his backers will do the spadework to return them to power.

Then, and only then, are the calls for reform heard echoing around the dem committee rooms. If you can't see that it is a cynical political ploy then you have to be naive at the very least.

(Oh and at least have the courtesy to show the forum you have severely edited my post, despite being against forum rules.)

Edited March 21, 2014 by fab4

[fab4]

Who were in power long enough? Abhisits Democrats were only in power for 31 months! Most of that with the Reds protesting... or Thaksonites vetoing bills.

Thaksin's numerous family/clan governments were in power for more than 84 months!

To be fair, the point is that abhisit and co, whether they were busy fighting the UDD (for two months) or resisting "Thaksonites vetoing bills" (? I thought that was the idea of an opposition),( just how many bills were vetoed that were anything to do with these proposed reforms?) had plenty of time to mention even a fledgling idea of "reform" - there was no big "Idea" for reform proposed by the dem government, not even a hint of one.

Now, two years out of power an ill conceived attempt to pass an altered amnesty bill led to protests by the dems. Fair enough, but the checks and balances in place (and which the opposition had not complained about before in the previous 2 years of PTP government) worked and the amnesty bill was rejected by the senate.

Previously, changes to the constitution (which was part of the PTP election platform and everybody knew about) were stopped in 2012 by the CC under one of their first "interesting" rulings. They agreed that the constitution could be changed but a referendum had to take place first. Another landmark ruling, referring to the junta constitution rewrite referendum, completely ignoring the fact that the junta didn't hold a referendum before the CDA rewrote the 1997 constitution, only after - and that was of dubious value as a free and fair vote.

Alternatively, the CC said, you can alter the constitution article by article, in parliament. Seeing that the PTP only wished to make certain changes to the constitution instead of rewriting it, they chose this method. Which they did until the CC stepped in once more (well a couple of times actually) and ruled that although the gov. had amended certain articles of the constitution in the manner accepted by the the CC, they ruled these amendments unconstitutional!

The ultimate in ridiculous rulings came with the amendment to the "election of Senators" section of the constitution. In 1997 the Senators were fully elected, the 2007 Junta constitution amended this arrangement to part elected part appointed. The PTP wished to have fully elected Senators a la 1997. But now apparently, the very act of attempting to do so was ruled unconstitutional! And while they were at it the CC ruled that the government were in breach of article 68,i.e they were overthrowing the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State, aka treason. Having ruled thus, the CC took no further action - now tell me those are the actions of a stable functional independant Constitutional Court.

Notwithstanding the rights and wrongs of the CC rulings, up until the Senate verdict, the checks and balances worked. The government dissolved parliament and announced an election in the normal timescale and that is when suthep stepped in, resolving to stop the elections happening and the dems boycotted it saying it wouldn't be free or fair despite ANFREL having nothing devastating to say about the 2011 elections.

Not content with that it was deemed necessary that the Shinawatras have nothing to do with elections (meanwhile the traditional backers of the dems were probably ruing their decision to reinstate abhisit and found themselves having to back suthep and his unconstitutional peoples council) and it was absolutely necessary to have a reform of ? (whatever, the details haven't been worked out yet) before any election take place.

Why?, the system works. Contest an election and then have the reform outside of parliament as proposed by the PTP. Seems a far more reasonable solution than dragging out the impasse whilst dragging down the projected growth of the economy and harming future investment.

Hans Christian Andersson comes to mind...

OK, we've had the soundbite, where's the meat of your argument against my post? You haven't got anything other to say? Oh, well, .................next.

[binjalin]

Ok, let's deal with the facts and only the facts.

. If the Constitutional Court rules that the Feb.2 election is invalid, then a new election must be held. That's what the law is, and that's what would be required of any government. Thailand would require a legitimate government and the only way to obtain that under the current laws and constitution is to have an election.

- The Democrat party spokesman says that it would consider not participating. Ok. It's the party's right and it can do as it wishes in that regard. However, the reason given is that it does not want another election at this time. Well, that's a nice sentiment, but for a party that claims that the laws of the land must be upheld, then it has to accept that there has to be an election. The party's position is that it does not want the laws that require an election to be respected.

The Democrats can't have it both ways. They wanted the PTP to resign. Fine, that's what the PTP did.

Then they realized they couldn't win an election, so they used their proxy Suthep to sabotage the last election. Unfortunately for the Democrats, public sentiment hasn't really changed. Yes, there is dislike of the PTP, but it is not enough to have shifted sufficient votes to the Democrats. The Democrat strategists can see that. The end result would be another PTP government, either a majority or a minority, but one where the PTP would remain the government. Rather than coming out with an alternative platform, of leading by example in respect to corruption, of providing clear policy statements, the Democrat party has stamped its foot like a petulant child and will pout. Unfortunately for the Democrats, it has backed itself to the edge of a cliff and it has 2 choices: Either fight an election or just walk off the cliff and commit political suicide.

excellent post which nails it in any free-thinkers mind

PTP resigned - PTP won (again) even after PDRC thugs blocked some voting

so here we are - new election anyone? oh Dems? you don't want to stand AGAIN??? you want to wait until you KNOW you can WIN? how about 100 years ago? the feudal state back then was PRIME for you winning right? oh that's right no elections back then - you got power without democracy

tough luck - man-up, put your policies and see what the people WANT

[whybother]

Ok, let's deal with the facts and only the facts.

. If the Constitutional Court rules that the Feb.2 election is invalid, then a new election must be held. That's what the law is, and that's what would be required of any government. Thailand would require a legitimate government and the only way to obtain that under the current laws and constitution is to have an election.

- The Democrat party spokesman says that it would consider not participating. Ok. It's the party's right and it can do as it wishes in that regard. However, the reason given is that it does not want another election at this time. Well, that's a nice sentiment, but for a party that claims that the laws of the land must be upheld, then it has to accept that there has to be an election. The party's position is that it does not want the laws that require an election to be respected.

The Democrats can't have it both ways. They wanted the PTP to resign. Fine, that's what the PTP did.

Then they realized they couldn't win an election, so they used their proxy Suthep to sabotage the last election. Unfortunately for the Democrats, public sentiment hasn't really changed. Yes, there is dislike of the PTP, but it is not enough to have shifted sufficient votes to the Democrats. The Democrat strategists can see that. The end result would be another PTP government, either a majority or a minority, but one where the PTP would remain the government. Rather than coming out with an alternative platform, of leading by example in respect to corruption, of providing clear policy statements, the Democrat party has stamped its foot like a petulant child and will pout. Unfortunately for the Democrats, it has backed itself to the edge of a cliff and it has 2 choices: Either fight an election or just walk off the cliff and commit political suicide.

excellent post which nails it in any free-thinkers mind

PTP resigned - PTP won (again) even after PDRC thugs blocked some voting

so here we are - new election anyone? oh Dems? you don't want to stand AGAIN??? you want to wait until you KNOW you can WIN? how about 100 years ago? the feudal state back then was PRIME for you winning right? oh that's right no elections back then - you got power without democracy

tough luck - man-up, put your policies and see what the people WANT

The protesters wanted Yingluck to resign. She didn't resign. She dissolved parliament. If she had resigned, she wouldn't be caretaker PM.

[casualbiker]

Who were in power long enough? Abhisits Democrats were only in power for 31 months! Most of that with the Reds protesting... or Thaksonites vetoing bills.

Thaksin's numerous family/clan governments were in power for more than 84 months!

To be fair, the point is that abhisit and co, whether they were busy fighting the UDD (for two months)

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Front_for_Democracy_Against_Dictatorship2009 unrest

2010 protests

Hardly 2 months.. rewriting Thaksin/ UDD history again!

A wiki argument. You mean they spent their entire time in government fighting off the evil Thaksinistas, there wasn't a moment of breathing space to announce, "this isn't working, we need reform" - did it mention that in wiki?

Follow that up with a further two plus years in opposition and no mention of the urgent need for reform. And so on to the end of 2013, when coincidentally, an election is called, the dems are likely to lose despite the political ground lost by the PTP, so they boycott and hope that suthep and his backers will do the spadework to return them to power.

Then, and only then, are the calls for reform heard echoing around the dem committee rooms. If you can't see that it is a cynical political ploy then you have to be naive at the very least.

(Oh and at least have the courtesy to show the forum you have severely edited my post, despite being against forum rules.)

You got it wrong so you get all snippy. I'm pretty sure that forum readers can still read your post.

I didn't change ANY wording.

All I did was edit to the part I answered.

You misinformed the forum.

I corrected you. Simple!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[HiSoLowSoNoSo]

Yes! and consider the amazing progress Thailand made under Thaksin.

Name one thing that he did that wouldn't have happened anyway under the financial climate at the time.

Anything?

OTOP was probably his one and only good idea.

So, name another one that benefited anyone other than himself.

It was not Thaksin's own idea from the beginning he just copied Japan's successful One Village One Product (OVOP) program

[Eric Loh]

Losers always have their excuses. If they can't win, just don't take part. Never trying to improve their negatives. Always needed outside help to get them in government. Pathetic.

Edited March 21, 2014 by PoorSucker
Changed to standard font.

[GarryP]

Who wants to play against a team that wins by cheating every time.

At last a clear statement justifying the Democrat boycott (though I think a misguided one).

To make sense of it at least two questions need to be answered:

1.How was the last election not valid and fairly conducted especially since all independent observers were satisfied?

2.What precise reforms need to be put in place to make the next one fair?

I'm not unsympathetic to a national effort across parties to reform the system and tackle corruption, but for clarity's sake there needs to be an understanding on an improved electoral process.

If the response is just the usual claptrap (Thaksin buying farmers votes etc) we can only conclude the Democrat boycott is for the reason they are unelectable.

And in that case the advice should be ditch the incompetent leadership, cut ties with the gangster Suthep, tell the Bangkok middle class that they cannot have the casting vote, develop some policies attractive to the Thai people as a whole.. and then win an election.

How about no vote buying by any one? Buy one vote automatic two years in jail. Sell your vote 5 times the amount for a fine. How about freedom to choose who you vote for? This means no one standing over you to make sure you vote the way the village head man tells you to. How about a secure way to hold the ballots until they are counted?

Now give us your PTP claptrap why we can't do that.

Nothing wrong with your argument. In fact I agree with what you say. But can you honestly say that the freedom to vote as you wish would have any major impact on the outcome of an election.

Can you also say that the Democrats (and their behind the scenes backers) do not have a vested interest in electoral reform and those interests are not entirely altruistic. Electoral reform is definitely needed, as is the implementation of a good system of checks and balances, but any such reforms should not be for the benefit of any particular party or to the detriment of any particular demographic.

The public at large now recognize that their vote does count, and you can't put that genie back in the bottle (as much as some would like to). Their rights should not be trodden on, regardless of which party or individual they support and it is for this reason that any tabled reforms need to be studied carefully and not simply accepted for reform's sake. Otherwise we are going to see reforms that are for the self interest of certain groups and the public be damned.

[Spalpeen]

Who cares if the 'Democrat' party boycott another election. They're just not a relevant political force any more. The PTP along with the other 30 or so genuine political parties should just get on with governing the country. Any former Democrat MP's who want to continue in politics can either form a new party or join one of the existing ones.

The old 'Democrat' party is finished.

[dickyknee]

Ok, let's deal with the facts and only the facts.

. If the Constitutional Court rules that the Feb.2 election is invalid, then a new election must be held. That's what the law is, and that's what would be required of any government. Thailand would require a legitimate government and the only way to obtain that under the current laws and constitution is to have an election.

- The Democrat party spokesman says that it would consider not participating. Ok. It's the party's right and it can do as it wishes in that regard. However, the reason given is that it does not want another election at this time. Well, that's a nice sentiment, but for a party that claims that the laws of the land must be upheld, then it has to accept that there has to be an election. The party's position is that it does not want the laws that require an election to be respected.

The Democrats can't have it both ways. They wanted the PTP to resign. Fine, that's what the PTP did.

Then they realized they couldn't win an election, so they used their proxy Suthep to sabotage the last election. Unfortunately for the Democrats, public sentiment hasn't really changed. Yes, there is dislike of the PTP, but it is not enough to have shifted sufficient votes to the Democrats. The Democrat strategists can see that. The end result would be another PTP government, either a majority or a minority, but one where the PTP would remain the government. Rather than coming out with an alternative platform, of leading by example in respect to corruption, of providing clear policy statements, the Democrat party has stamped its foot like a petulant child and will pout. Unfortunately for the Democrats, it has backed itself to the edge of a cliff and it has 2 choices: Either fight an election or just walk off the cliff and commit political suicide.

excellent post which nails it in any free-thinkers mind

PTP resigned - PTP won (again) even after PDRC thugs blocked some voting

so here we are - new election anyone? oh Dems? you don't want to stand AGAIN??? you want to wait until you KNOW you can WIN? how about 100 years ago? the feudal state back then was PRIME for you winning right? oh that's right no elections back then - you got power without democracy

tough luck - man-up, put your policies and see what the people WANT

just a correction. yes the PDRC want the PTP to resign, more to the point they want the shins and friends out of politics.

but the PTP did not resign, they dissolved parliament and called another election.

[Bkungbank]

It's not the way to fight by not going election because the 90% world population believed in election by blocking the road and not contest in election cannot get rid of Thaksin empire it shows more childish way of immature way of Thai politician.

To fight we need to expose the wrong doing of other side like watergate scandal will makes President Nixon to resigned , we need to shown the people what damage have he done, example like rice pledging costing corruption the proof the money being transfer to overseas,

need to strong evident to fight to people will not being stupid again as farmer and tax payers money suffer but the people gain huge profits are those involved, so the next election the care taker will never win majority from the real people not few thousand walking on the street.

[SICHONSTEVE]

"Chavanond further stated that if the premier did so, it would widen political rift and not benefit the country as a whole. The Democratic Party, in that case, would not participate in the new general election even if the party had to be dissolved as stipulated in the constitution. It will instead find another way to reform the country."

Don't we just know it, it's ongoing at the moment.

Tell me, are you against reforms?? After all, your leader and the PTP are for them - you seem to be a bit isolated here!!!

[jayboy]

"However, the Prime Minister and her government should not be the ones hosting the general election because they are part of the conflict, said Chavanond."

Democrat Party? What are they on - is he telling them they can't participate in the election because they happen to be the caretaker government?

Incredibly stupid statements and action.

Why compete in an election when the ruling party refuses to accept the verdicts of courts and independent agencies? The Dems have always respected their position of being the opposition. But with the present group of (self exiled) criminals running the country, what would it be worth to be an opposition party?

There are different views about the independence of the courts and independent agencies.But I fail to understand the relevance one way or another with the Democrats refusing to face the Thai public at a general election.