After snubbing poll, Abhisit not qualified to be mediator

[Eric Loh]

Just how did Ahbisit able to remain at the helm of the Dem Party after all the failures tells just how feudal the party system is. Nice sounding name but no doubt in mind that there is never democracy in the party itself internally and externally. Ahbisit is annointed and chosen by the incumbents elders in the party and he can continue to fail and be an ambarassment to the party; he still will be the leader. Party is doomed.

[rreddin]

Another one of those Thaksin paid red article not worth reading. Mark should just be appointed the president for the second time. Election is a big waste of money, and cannot be held successfully anyway, because Bangkok people don't need it.

It has obviously escaped your attention that The Nation has yellow shirt/PRDC sympathies. Notwithstanding their political bias, occasionally they make some sound points. This is one of those times.

You say Bangkok people do not need an election, have you asked them all? What about the rest of the country whose election Suthep stole from them? Even those voters who are not PTP supporters will not forgive Suthep and his Bangkok cronies for that. You would do well to remember that although Bangkok is important to Thailand, Bangkok is not Thailand.

Just as The Nation, correctly, said Abhisit is part of the problem, so too is is your attitude.

[Bluespunk]

even 'The Nation' is starting to 'get it'

Unbelievable but true, the oldest political party in Thailand, named the Democrats, campaigned for something undemocratic

how TRUE!!!

Nope

[Bluespunk]

"The on-going political crisis in this country would never have occurred if the Democrat Party and its ally, the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC), had agreed to join the February 2 snap election."

Wasn't much point reading after this [though I did] as the reporter already is talking BS.

Hmm, isn't this supposed to be the anti PT paper, according to some, seems not to be so to me.

The author of this piece, Supalak Ganjankhundee, is one of the two writers at The Nation who have generally been out of step with the rest of the paper, politics wise (the other being Pravit Rojanaphruk). Take any article in The Nation during the past five years which has expressed red sympathetic views and it was very likely written by one or the other, though I doubt either would describe themselves as red shirt supporters. Supalak's main focus over the last decade has generally been on the deep south and border issues, but when he has written on the red/yellow conflict he's tended more towards criticism of the 'yellow' side. I doubt he has much affection for TS though.

These two are exceptions that prove the rule I suppose. Newspapers of particular political leanings often have one or two columnists that express contrary views, and it's no different here. The chairman of The Nation plus its editor are pretty well known to be anti-Thaksin and make no secret of it. Its writers are largely various shades of anti-govt and those are the views expressed in the vast majority of op-eds & editorials - though I'm told its Thai language sister papers tend to be more overtly biased.

Could be. My real problem with the article is that it is utter nonsense to be honest.

[JRSoul]

Another red shirt expanding on their basic principle ("we dun nuffink wrong") with the inevitable corollary "all the problems were caused by someone else".

As I understand it both China and North Korea are very nice this time of the year should you want to live in a certain type of state you'll find them both very welcoming. Enjoy! There is a village missing it's idi...

I went to your farewell party; you weren't invited. Truth is, they're not missing you at all.

[noitom]

The first paragraph is sufficient to make the position. There is no need to amplify how unqualified Abhisiit is to lead the Thai nation to the next level. He would easily be a two time loser actually three. Count that he led his party in a no show election vote. Abhisit is a classic Thai empty suit.

[gabruce]

Another opinion piece that seems to focus on one thing only - having an election and slagging the Democrats and Abhisit. I don't see that the Democratic Party is anti-democrat. The article ignores the PTP faults. Don't people see that Thailand has problems? Don't people see the flaws and faults in what the PTP and UDD present as Democracy? There are certainly faults in the PDRC and Democrats too. Get some BALANCE!

[Thai at Heart]

Another one of those Thaksin paid red article not worth reading.Mark should just be appointed the president for the second time. Election is a big waste of money, and cannot be held successfully anyway, because Bangkok people don't need it.

Please , do try to appoint him President.

That might be the crowning glory of this farce.

[Scamper]

" ... elite ... "

" ... Oxford graduate ... "

" Abhisit tagged along with his former political twin Suthep Thaugsuban ... "

" ... just arrived from Mars ... "

All the buzz words of the UDD and Khaosod have been applied here, as well as some new ones destined for the Thida/Nattawut vocabulary. There is not much to say about an article that points to the Democrats December 21 boycott as the start of all the problems in the country. No mention as to what happened in the previous two and a half years. Even the amnesty bill was only mentioned in passing as a possible " difficulty " for the administration. And then there's this sentence ...

" With the campaign to disrupt the February 2 election and their call for a non-elected interim government, Abhisit, the Democrats and Suthep have become an anti-democracy movement. "

Like all true UDD and Pheu Thai supporters, Abhisit, the Democratic party and Suthep are all tied in together. Forget about the cavernous divide that separates the narrative of Abhisit and Suthep, as far as the UDD is concerned they're joined at the hip. Suthep can stand in this sentence, but Abhisit can not. The position of the Democratic party was that although they boycotted their participation in the election, they did not agree with the blocking of the vote. Abhisit had been emphatic with that throughout the past four months. Certainly, the core principles of the need for reform are in sync with the PDRC. But the methods are not, and that is even more clear after Suthep's recent words. Forgetting the buzz-words of the UDD contained in this article, this sentence stands out as being worthy of Khaosod. It's worthy of another sphere.

[BlueNoseCodger]

" ... elite ... "

" ... Oxford graduate ... "

" Abhisit tagged along with his former political twin Suthep Thaugsuban ... "

" ... just arrived from Mars ... "

All the buzz words of the UDD and Khaosod have been applied here, as well as some new ones destined for the Thida/Nattawut vocabulary. There is not much to say about an article that points to the Democrats December 21 boycott as the start of all the problems in the country. No mention as to what happened in the previous two and a half years. Even the amnesty bill was only mentioned in passing as a possible " difficulty " for the administration. And then there's this sentence ...

" With the campaign to disrupt the February 2 election and their call for a non-elected interim government, Abhisit, the Democrats and Suthep have become an anti-democracy movement. "

Like all true UDD and Pheu Thai supporters, Abhisit, the Democratic party and Suthep are all tied in together. Forget about the cavernous divide that separates the narrative of Abhisit and Suthep, as far as the UDD is concerned they're joined at the hip. Suthep can stand in this sentence, but Abhisit can not. The position of the Democratic party was that although they boycotted their participation in the election, they did not agree with the blocking of the vote. Abhisit had been emphatic with that throughout the past four months. Certainly, the core principles of the need for reform are in sync with the PDRC. But the methods are not, and that is even more clear after Suthep's recent words. Forgetting the buzz-words of the UDD contained in this article, this sentence stands out as being worthy of Khaosod. It's worthy of another sphere.

The articles not Khaosod, it's The Nation, and it makes a valid point which you did not address.

[BlueNoseCodger]

Another opinion piece that seems to focus on one thing only - having an election and slagging the Democrats and Abhisit. I don't see that the Democratic Party is anti-democrat. The article ignores the PTP faults. Don't people see that Thailand has problems? Don't people see the flaws and faults in what the PTP and UDD present as Democracy? There are certainly faults in the PDRC and Democrats too. Get some BALANCE!

Abhisit joined Suthep attempt to block elections and appoint a government instead of electing one, yet you don't see the Democratic Party as anti-democratic?

Perhaps you should tell people of PTPs faults while trying to campaign for votes? As per the 'democratic' thing?

[smileydude]

By the same logic no representative of Thaksin or the PTP party are qualified to be mediators either. They don't understand reform or actually intend to reform their ways of populist policies to buy votes and corruptive practices.

[PREM-R]

Another opinion piece that seems to focus on one thing only - having an election and slagging the Democrats and Abhisit. I don't see that the Democratic Party is anti-democrat. The article ignores the PTP faults. Don't people see that Thailand has problems? Don't people see the flaws and faults in what the PTP and UDD present as Democracy? There are certainly faults in the PDRC and Democrats too. Get some BALANCE!

The Nation has a record of 99.9% anti PTP articles and you complain about the 0.1% of their content that offers a realistic appraisal of Abhisit and the Dems performance. Your last sentence "Get some BALANCE". Indeed.

[skildpadden]

OK I will play along.

"The on-going political crisis in this country would never have occurred if the Democrat Party and its ally, the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC), had agreed to join the February 2 snap election." So this is the ONLY problem that caused the current political stalemate? That is a bit simplistic way to look at things and at the same time conveniently forgetting all the issues that led up to February 2?

I still have not seen any other attempts by anyone to break the shouting match and sit down and appear to talk like adults.
He said before ""No one is blameless and we are all part of the problem" - if all parties would realize this fact, there could ground for some serious reform talks.

Is it such a bad idea to create some consensus and have the biggest political parties agreeing (or even committing) on reforms, so whoever is voted in as the majority would (hopefully) keep their word and commit to that reform together with the opposition doing its checks and balances? OK, this might be a rosy and fluffy dream - and the script maybe already cynically written behind the scenes, but as mentioned no-one else has come up with other workable ideas as far as I have read - and both sides appear to accept this attempt. I mean, it probably would not be any worse than now.

[BlueNoseCodger]

OK I will play along.

"The on-going political crisis in this country would never have occurred if the Democrat Party and its ally, the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC), had agreed to join the February 2 snap election." So this is the ONLY problem that caused the current political stalemate? That is a bit simplistic way to look at things and at the same time conveniently forgetting all the issues that led up to February 2?

I still have not seen any other attempts by anyone to break the shouting match and sit down and appear to talk like adults.

He said before ""No one is blameless and we are all part of the problem" - if all parties would realize this fact, there could ground for some serious reform talks.

Is it such a bad idea to create some consensus and have the biggest political parties agreeing (or even committing) on reforms, so whoever is voted in as the majority would (hopefully) keep their word and commit to that reform together with the opposition doing its checks and balances? OK, this might be a rosy and fluffy dream - and the script maybe already cynically written behind the scenes, but as mentioned no-one else has come up with other workable ideas as far as I have read - and both sides appear to accept this attempt. I mean, it probably would not be any worse than now.

It really is that simple. If they'd stood for power, and their ideas stood up to scruitiny, they could run the country and fix the problems.

As it was they waited, and so each problem was analysed in details and picked over, and found to be lies. So their support fell away, and with it their votes. So now we have a party that cannot get elected, but has a bunch of corrupt friends still blocking elections.

Talk like adults? The only conversation that needs to happen is between the Electoral Candidates and the voters. Suthep doesn't speak for Thai people, he wasn't even the leader of the Democrats, Abhisit was not chosen by the Democrat voters, he was chosen by his friends.

[JRSoul]

OK I will play along.

"The on-going political crisis in this country would never have occurred if the Democrat Party and its ally, the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC), had agreed to join the February 2 snap election." So this is the ONLY problem that caused the current political stalemate? That is a bit simplistic way to look at things and at the same time conveniently forgetting all the issues that led up to February 2?

I still have not seen any other attempts by anyone to break the shouting match and sit down and appear to talk like adults.

He said before ""No one is blameless and we are all part of the problem" - if all parties would realize this fact, there could ground for some serious reform talks.

Is it such a bad idea to create some consensus and have the biggest political parties agreeing (or even committing) on reforms, so whoever is voted in as the majority would (hopefully) keep their word and commit to that reform together with the opposition doing its checks and balances? OK, this might be a rosy and fluffy dream - and the script maybe already cynically written behind the scenes, but as mentioned no-one else has come up with other workable ideas as far as I have read - and both sides appear to accept this attempt. I mean, it probably would not be any worse than now.

It really is that simple. If they'd stood for power, and their ideas stood up to scruitiny, they could run the country and fix the problems.

As it was they waited, and so each problem was analysed in details and picked over, and found to be lies. So their support fell away, and with it their votes. So now we have a party that cannot get elected, but has a bunch of corrupt friends still blocking elections.

Talk like adults? The only conversation that needs to happen is between the Electoral Candidates and the voters. Suthep doesn't speak for Thai people, he wasn't even the leader of the Democrats, Abhisit was not chosen by the Democrat voters, he was chosen by his friends.

Whether or not the Democrat party can be elected is yet to be decided. Reforms to the electoral system to prevent unviable populist vote-buying on political parties will only increase their chances - obviously to be avoided at all costs.

BTW who chose Thaksin to lead TRT, or to give orders to its successors?

Edited April 30, 2014 by JRSoul

[issanaus]

This article lost me with the title

Abhisit is a politician out flogging his wares to other stakeholders. If he gets some others (principally the EC) to voice agreement with some of "his proposals" then he can bring the Democrats to the election without too much lost of face, PTP get the election they want. EC gets rid of the election, Political tensions may decline after the election ...... The chances are that he is aware of some of the EC proposed changes for this election so they may have been slipped into the package to ensure partial success.

A mediator is someone independent who tries to bring the parties to an agreement. Abhisit is one of the parties so how can he mediate regardless of what ever occurred at the disallowed election. The only remotely possible way that he could vaguely be considered a mediator would be if he was also trying to bring Suthep to the election and he has clearly said he will not play.

Sorry if I sound cynical

[Balance]

You could change the name from Democrat Party to Republican Party and the article could run in any American newspaper. The Governor of New Jersey is now under investigation by five separate government offices and agencies for abuse of his office and some other criminal matters. They will investigate and present their findings to a "grand jury" (a panel of regular citizens), and if he is indicted he will go to trial. Can this process be corrupted? Certainly, but it is very difficult to do this once an investigation has begun.

However, here in Thailand, it seems that the rules of the game (slander laws, lack of clear lines of authority of elected officials, the seemingly unending number of government offices that can jump into anything that anyone says or does) seems to argue that the real name of the game is to confuse and to obfuscate what is really going on. If the press can not do investigative reports without getting arrested and hauled into court, then there is no free press, and if there is no free press to act as the peoples watch dog, then who will do that?

Everyone keeps yelling about the corruption in the rice buying program. If there was corruption, who took what? Who are the crooks? How much did each of them take? How did they take it? And why have they not been arrested and brought to trial? Talking about corruption is just that, Talk. A lot of hot air to make people feel better? There does not seem to exist any investigative legal body with the authority to do anything? Please correct me if I am wrong and tell me who this authority is, please.

[Thait Spot]

Abhisit and Prayuth are the only ones trying to do positive things.

Yingluck is following along like a little lamb

CAPO is stuck in a time warp along with Suthep

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[billd766]

Another one of those Thaksin paid red article not worth reading. Mark should just be appointed the president for the second time. Election is a big waste of money, and cannot be held successfully anyway, because Bangkok people don't need it.

This is not the paper widely known for supporting "Thaksin paid red article not worth reading"

Mark was appointed as PM last time and didn't implement the so called much needed reforms back then so now out of the top job calls now for reforms, something's just not quite right there huh, I do in fact believe that reforms are needed, The thing is that reforms take time to implement properly, so a country needs a government NOT some appointed person by a few people with bias, agendas, and conflicted interests.

Reforms and policy's should be put to the people and then an election, that's the only fair, open, and democratic way for a country to operate, anything less is simply a power grabbing act that should never be allowed again, you familiar with the Khmer rouge and history, think about it.

Let me see. You say that the Democrats did nothing to impliment reforms in their 2 and a bit years in power.

In the 10 plus years that the TRT?PPP/PTP have been in power since 2001 can you please tell uis in how many reforms they initiated?

That should be a very easy task even for you.

[BlueNoseCodger]

OK I will play along.

"The on-going political crisis in this country would never have occurred if the Democrat Party and its ally, the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC), had agreed to join the February 2 snap election." So this is the ONLY problem that caused the current political stalemate? That is a bit simplistic way to look at things and at the same time conveniently forgetting all the issues that led up to February 2?

I still have not seen any other attempts by anyone to break the shouting match and sit down and appear to talk like adults.

He said before ""No one is blameless and we are all part of the problem" - if all parties would realize this fact, there could ground for some serious reform talks.

Is it such a bad idea to create some consensus and have the biggest political parties agreeing (or even committing) on reforms, so whoever is voted in as the majority would (hopefully) keep their word and commit to that reform together with the opposition doing its checks and balances? OK, this might be a rosy and fluffy dream - and the script maybe already cynically written behind the scenes, but as mentioned no-one else has come up with other workable ideas as far as I have read - and both sides appear to accept this attempt. I mean, it probably would not be any worse than now.

It really is that simple. If they'd stood for power, and their ideas stood up to scruitiny, they could run the country and fix the problems.

As it was they waited, and so each problem was analysed in details and picked over, and found to be lies. So their support fell away, and with it their votes. So now we have a party that cannot get elected, but has a bunch of corrupt friends still blocking elections.

Talk like adults? The only conversation that needs to happen is between the Electoral Candidates and the voters. Suthep doesn't speak for Thai people, he wasn't even the leader of the Democrats, Abhisit was not chosen by the Democrat voters, he was chosen by his friends.

Whether or not the Democrat party can be elected is yet to be decided. Reforms to the electoral system to prevent unviable populist vote-buying on political parties will only increase their chances - obviously to be avoided at all costs.

BTW who chose Thaksin to lead TRT, or to give orders to its successors?

By "unviable populist vote-buying" schemes, you refer to the rice pledge scheme? What are you suggesting, that poliiticians only be allowed to have unpopular programs? That please only small elite of people? No wonder Democrats can't get elected!

Who chose Thaksin to lead TRT? Who cares, there are 54 parties at the elections, and only the ones the voters choose will ever have power. Thaksin's power didn't come from being TRT, it came from being elected. If you want a refresher course on Thaksin popularity, you might remember what happened when the rice farmers marched on the government in protest at the rice cartel low prices. The government set the dogs on them.

Who would have thought it? Setting dogs on farmers, who were at the time nearly 50% of the population was a dumb electoral move!

[billd766]

OK I will play along.

"The on-going political crisis in this country would never have occurred if the Democrat Party and its ally, the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC), had agreed to join the February 2 snap election." So this is the ONLY problem that caused the current political stalemate? That is a bit simplistic way to look at things and at the same time conveniently forgetting all the issues that led up to February 2?

I still have not seen any other attempts by anyone to break the shouting match and sit down and appear to talk like adults.

He said before ""No one is blameless and we are all part of the problem" - if all parties would realize this fact, there could ground for some serious reform talks.

Is it such a bad idea to create some consensus and have the biggest political parties agreeing (or even committing) on reforms, so whoever is voted in as the majority would (hopefully) keep their word and commit to that reform together with the opposition doing its checks and balances? OK, this might be a rosy and fluffy dream - and the script maybe already cynically written behind the scenes, but as mentioned no-one else has come up with other workable ideas as far as I have read - and both sides appear to accept this attempt. I mean, it probably would not be any worse than now.

It really is that simple. If they'd stood for power, and their ideas stood up to scruitiny, they could run the country and fix the problems.

As it was they waited, and so each problem was analysed in details and picked over, and found to be lies. So their support fell away, and with it their votes. So now we have a party that cannot get elected, but has a bunch of corrupt friends still blocking elections.

Talk like adults? The only conversation that needs to happen is between the Electoral Candidates and the voters. Suthep doesn't speak for Thai people, he wasn't even the leader of the Democrats, Abhisit was not chosen by the Democrat voters, he was chosen by his friends.

Whether or not the Democrat party can be elected is yet to be decided. Reforms to the electoral system to prevent unviable populist vote-buying on political parties will only increase their chances - obviously to be avoided at all costs.

BTW who chose Thaksin to lead TRT, or to give orders to its successors?

Nobody chose Thaksin. It was a free election. After all he OWNS the party and has the only vote that matters.

[Ulic]

Neither side has the moral or ethical hi ground, just hogs at the feeding trough pushing each other aside for a better

chance of filling there bellies/pockets.

[WoopyDoo]

Hahaha.... I see they have rolled out old Supalak again to redress the political balance for the Nation.

Yarping on about the Feb 2nd election as though it was a democratic election.... There hasn't been a democratic election in this country while intimidation, campaign blocking via murder, vote buying and ballot box rigging is all part of the scene.....

So once again Supalak is totally missing the basics and has completely ignored the Dem's and Suthep's VERY VALID argument.... They don't agree with an election that is NOT DEMOCRATIC!!!.... simple really... an idiot can see the point but the reds can't in million years see it.

I had a sneaky feeling that the reds would try to stop this set of proposals.... They do NOT want free and fair elections and neither do the red supporters on this forum.

Ho w sad is that?????

Sensible observers and analysts never believed that Suthep and Abhisit really understood what they called 'reform'. A half-year since they began street protests calling for reforms, none of them, even the intellectuals who took the stage at the rally against Yingluck's government, have yet determined what they want to reform. If reform was so necessary for Thailand, as they are currently saying, why didn't Abhisit and Suthep do anything while they were in power? Why do they call for reform when they have no power to achieve it? It's always true in Thai politics that politicians call for a change to the rules of the game whenever they are on the losing side. Reform for Abhisit and Suthep is a shortcut to power.

If you come out of you silly little red box now and then you would have realised that the PDRC held multiple reform forums every 2 days for about a month and all their reform plans were made public and were in fact reported by The Nation one by one as they were released...... How the hell did you miss it? Don't you read the same paper you work for, or do you only read Khaosod?????

Edited April 30, 2014 by WoopyDoo

[BlueNoseCodger]

Another one of those Thaksin paid red article not worth reading. Mark should just be appointed the president for the second time. Election is a big waste of money, and cannot be held successfully anyway, because Bangkok people don't need it.

This is not the paper widely known for supporting "Thaksin paid red article not worth reading"

Mark was appointed as PM last time and didn't implement the so called much needed reforms back then so now out of the top job calls now for reforms, something's just not quite right there huh, I do in fact believe that reforms are needed, The thing is that reforms take time to implement properly, so a country needs a government NOT some appointed person by a few people with bias, agendas, and conflicted interests.

Reforms and policy's should be put to the people and then an election, that's the only fair, open, and democratic way for a country to operate, anything less is simply a power grabbing act that should never be allowed again, you familiar with the Khmer rouge and history, think about it.

Let me see. You say that the Democrats did nothing to impliment reforms in their 2 and a bit years in power.

In the 10 plus years that the TRT?PPP/PTP have been in power since 2001 can you please tell uis in how many reforms they initiated?

That should be a very easy task even for you.

So we elect government to reform government?.... Silly, we elect governments to run the country.

The only issue at the moment that needs some serious reform in the democracy is the unelected Senate part, from the 2006 coup. That is chosen by a committee of independent agencies and also overseas the same independent agencies. An obvious conflict of interests.

This is a circular reference, a bubble or tumour within the democratic system that exists outside of check and balances.

Each iteration of elections, the Senators chosen by the independent agencies become more partisan and extreme, and permit ever more outlandish choices in the independent agencies, that they're supposed to be overseeing. It will only get worse, and does need fixing.

Particular the NACC, which is supposed to deal with corruption, but has become a political tool that doesn't do its job of tackling corruption.

Hence the Fully Elected Senate proposal, the court said the government could propose constitutional amendments one by one, the Senate approved the first draft, and then the Democrats got the courts to block the amendment. (How many reforms have the democrats blocked?)

While the elected half of the Senate were out for election, the unelected half started impeachment proceedings against the elected part that supported the elected senate proposal. It illustrates how that cancer is getting out of control.

See Thai Senators indicted, face possible impeachment

[BlueNoseCodger]

Hahaha.... I see they have rolled out old Supalak again to redress the political balance for the Nation.

Yarping on about the Feb 2nd election as though it was a democratic election.... There hasn't been a democratic election in this country while intimidation, campaign blocking via murder, vote buying and ballot box rigging is all part of the scene.....

So once again Supalak is totally missing the basics and has completely ignored the Dem's and Suthep's VERY VALID argument.... They don't agree with an election that is NOT DEMOCRATIC!!!.... simple really... an idiot can see the point but the reds can't in million years see it.

I had a sneaky feeling that the reds would try to stop this set of proposals.... They do NOT want free and fair elections and neither do the red supporters on this forum.

Ho w sad is that?????

So let me get this straight, they agree with Senate elections, but not Parliament elections, even though both elections are run the same way?

Yet one is free and fair and the other unfree and unfair???

Can I suggest to you, that the Dems disagree with the elections because they lose elections, and because they can get power a different way via their coup friends. This is why they don't oppose Senate elections, because the Senate is half unelected, and has a strong Democrat bias, whereas they do oppose the Parliament elections because the Parliament is fully elected, and is not rigged in their favor.

Abhsit will probably demand the Parliament be part appointed so it can be rigged in his favor or some such nonsense, and then he'll pretend that is democratic. Which of course it isn't. It's the opposite.

Edited April 30, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[WoopyDoo]

Hahaha.... I see they have rolled out old Supalak again to redress the political balance for the Nation.

Yarping on about the Feb 2nd election as though it was a democratic election.... There hasn't been a democratic election in this country while intimidation, campaign blocking via murder, vote buying and ballot box rigging is all part of the scene.....

So once again Supalak is totally missing the basics and has completely ignored the Dem's and Suthep's VERY VALID argument.... They don't agree with an election that is NOT DEMOCRATIC!!!.... simple really... an idiot can see the point but the reds can't in million years see it.

I had a sneaky feeling that the reds would try to stop this set of proposals.... They do NOT want free and fair elections and neither do the red supporters on this forum.

Ho w sad is that?????

So let me get this straight, they agree with Senate elections, but not Parliament elections, even though both elections are run the same way?

Yet one is free and fair and the other unfree and unfair???

Can I suggest to you, that the Dems disagree with the elections because they lose elections, and because they can get power a different way via their coup friends. This is why they don't oppose Senate elections, because the Senate is half unelected, and has a strong Democrat bias, whereas they do oppose the Parliament elections because the Parliament is fully elected, and is not rigged in their favor.

Abhsit will probably demand the Parliament be part appointed so it can be rigged in his favor or some such nonsense, and then he'll pretend that is democratic. Which of course it isn't. It's the opposite.

No way.... you just exposed yourself again as just another ultra-ignorant red shirt ranter.,

I will now tear your argument apart in a second...

Senatorial elections are NOT run the same way.... For a start, senatorial candidates MUST pass stringent criteria and be totally devoid of political influence (a joke).

They are also NOT allowed to campaign.

Also, they can NOT buy votes or use intimidation.... the mere mention of it will see then instantly suspended... yet general elections this is widespread and seemingly allowed.

THAT is why they supported the senate election, and NOT the absolute shambles of the typical current Thai general election system.

How do you like THEM apples??

Anyway... don't bother replying, you have been elevated to 'one sided and illogical red rambler' and have made my ignore list.... My time is far too important to waste on jaded and jaundiced dialog with no real and credible or even logical substance.

[See the bears]

Hahaha.... I see they have rolled out old Supalak again to redress the political balance for the Nation.

Yarping on about the Feb 2nd election as though it was a democratic election.... There hasn't been a democratic election in this country while intimidation, campaign blocking via murder, vote buying and ballot box rigging is all part of the scene.....

So once again Supalak is totally missing the basics and has completely ignored the Dem's and Suthep's VERY VALID argument.... They don't agree with an election that is NOT DEMOCRATIC!!!.... simple really... an idiot can see the point but the reds can't in million years see it.

I had a sneaky feeling that the reds would try to stop this set of proposals.... They do NOT want free and fair elections and neither do the red supporters on this forum.

Ho w sad is that?????

So let me get this straight, they agree with Senate elections, but not Parliament elections, even though both elections are run the same way?

Yet one is free and fair and the other unfree and unfair???

Can I suggest to you, that the Dems disagree with the elections because they lose elections, and because they can get power a different way via their coup friends. This is why they don't oppose Senate elections, because the Senate is half unelected, and has a strong Democrat bias, whereas they do oppose the Parliament elections because the Parliament is fully elected, and is not rigged in their favor.

Abhsit will probably demand the Parliament be part appointed so it can be rigged in his favor or some such nonsense, and then he'll pretend that is democratic. Which of course it isn't. It's the opposite.

No way.... you just exposed yourself again as just another ultra-ignorant red shirt ranter.,

I will now tear your argument apart in a second...

Senatorial elections are NOT run the same way.... For a start, senatorial candidates MUST pass stringent criteria and be totally devoid of political influence (a joke).

They are also NOT allowed to campaign.

Also, they can NOT buy votes or use intimidation.... the mere mention of it will see then instantly suspended... yet general elections this is widespread and seemingly allowed.

THAT is why they supported the senate election, and NOT the absolute shambles of the typical current Thai general election system.

How do you like THEM apples??

Anyway... don't bother replying, you have been elevated to 'one sided and illogical red rambler' and have made my ignore list.... My time is far too important to waste on jaded and jaundiced dialog with no real and credible or even logical substance.

What an obnoxious post.

Senators are devoid of political influence????

They can't buy votes???

Please!

The reason the Dems supported the elections is because they need the Senate to impeach Yingluck and change the constitution. They did'nt need to oppose it because the unelected senators are yellow-leaning so even if they lose, which of course they did, they still have the required 3/5ths majority.

[BlueNoseCodger]

Hahaha.... I see they have rolled out old Supalak again to redress the political balance for the Nation.

Yarping on about the Feb 2nd election as though it was a democratic election.... There hasn't been a democratic election in this country while intimidation, campaign blocking via murder, vote buying and ballot box rigging is all part of the scene.....

So once again Supalak is totally missing the basics and has completely ignored the Dem's and Suthep's VERY VALID argument.... They don't agree with an election that is NOT DEMOCRATIC!!!.... simple really... an idiot can see the point but the reds can't in million years see it.

I had a sneaky feeling that the reds would try to stop this set of proposals.... They do NOT want free and fair elections and neither do the red supporters on this forum.

Ho w sad is that?????

So let me get this straight, they agree with Senate elections, but not Parliament elections, even though both elections are run the same way?

Yet one is free and fair and the other unfree and unfair???

Can I suggest to you, that the Dems disagree with the elections because they lose elections, and because they can get power a different way via their coup friends. This is why they don't oppose Senate elections, because the Senate is half unelected, and has a strong Democrat bias, whereas they do oppose the Parliament elections because the Parliament is fully elected, and is not rigged in their favor.

Abhsit will probably demand the Parliament be part appointed so it can be rigged in his favor or some such nonsense, and then he'll pretend that is democratic. Which of course it isn't. It's the opposite.

No way.... you just exposed yourself again as just another ultra-ignorant red shirt ranter.,

I will now tear your argument apart in a second...

Senatorial elections are NOT run the same way.... For a start, senatorial candidates MUST pass stringent criteria and be totally devoid of political influence (a joke).

They are also NOT allowed to campaign.

Also, they can NOT buy votes or use intimidation.... the mere mention of it will see then instantly suspended... yet general elections this is widespread and seemingly allowed.

THAT is why they supported the senate election, and NOT the absolute shambles of the typical current Thai general election system.

How do you like THEM apples??

Anyway... don't bother replying, you have been elevated to 'one sided and illogical red rambler' and have made my ignore list.... My time is far too important to waste on jaded and jaundiced dialog with no real and credible or even logical substance.

Oh, but I insist on replying to them apples.

So Parliament elections are allowed to buy votes?, use intimidation, and campaign? No!, the same rules apply to both, and the same situation and the same voters and the same places. Senators are not supposed to campaign and yet their online pages are there and their posters are all around, and I chose one who wasn't a Suthep stooge based on that.

The issue with the Senate is a certain retired man that actually controls the appointment process, putting himself in effective dictator.

BP: Basically, the Senators and the independent agencies choose each other. Now, to the story at hand. The Nation:

Chart Thai Pattana leader Chumpol Silapaarcha Friday said an unnamed figure had control over the seven members of the senator selection committee. However, he would not reveal who the person was.

He controls that committee who chooses the appointed part of the senate, who appoint the independent agencies. Hence the need to reform this disguised dictatorship.

He's also the man behind Suthep and Abhisit, and you might understand this better with some background reading.

Edited April 30, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[Bernard Flint]

Slowly some of the yellow shirt supporters seen to be waking up, including some of the journalists at the nation. Kudos to them

Yellow shirts waking up, u must be joking, they are unconsious with the Bangkok pollution