Thai opposition urges PM to resign, refuses to back poll

[rubl]

Well it looks like thailand will be going back in years to the year 2010 when there was an APPOINTED PM instead of elected.

Actually most seem to agree that k. Abhisit got to be elected as PM by his fellow MPs in a manner similar to his predecessors, the late Samak and the illustrious Somchai. Even Ms. Yingluck was 'appointed' in a similar fashion.

Technically yes, he got the required number of votes to be nominated PM. If you ignore how that came about you are as naive as the democrat party were when they thought there would be no fallout from it.

Of course there's no naivity involved in the democratic election of k. Somchai as PM after our dear criminal fugitive told his party MPs who the elect, since Samak had proven to be a bit too independent.

Democracy Thai style as defended by seemingly Western educated people who should know better, or is it merely 'could know better'?

[northernjohn]

Here is a better plan for Ahbishit. Resign from his party, apologize to the people for his undemocratic views and enter monkhood. When he come out, many will forgive him.

Most Thais wouldn't recognise 'democratic' views if it hit them in the face. Furthermore Thailand doesn't really have a democracy, and never had one.

To reason from the starting point of "Thailand democracy" with ideas of how some Western Democracies function is like assuming your car doesn't really need tires or even wheels and simply try to drive off. IMHO

Who's saying the Thais are viewing democracy in a western way (apart from you by saying they wouldn't recognise "democratic" views if it hit them in the face, quite insulting really).

They know what to think of a man who set the army on his fellow thais. That's part of democracy too.

Now you're talking and I agree. Most Thai are not viewing democracy in the western way. That's why it's so hilarious to have posters here reasoning from a western vision of democracy and trying to protect it on Thailand.

democracy = elections, things like that.

PS there are more and more Thai who know what to think about a woman who 'protects' anti-government protesters with the police.

I see he is still trying to rewrite history. Abhist sent the army out to protect his fellow Thais From fellow Thais who were armed and under orders from their fellow Thai Thaksin to stage a coup. He has a problem with truth unless it is to the advantage of Thaksinite's.

[djjamie]

Which referendum was without campaigning against it?

If you mean the 2007 constitution: there was campaigning against it.

And if people would have voted against it, they would have got a slight modified 1997 constitution and the reform government would have made elections as well....they told that several times.

And on the 1997 constitution which Thaksin loves because there are less checks and balances there was no referendum at all.....

You are incorrect. It was ILLEGAL to campaign against the referendum.

The military dictatorship passed a law and enforced it arresting people who sought to campaign against the forced constitution.

You are posting false information.

The military dictatorship said that there would be no elections until the new constitution was selected. The military dictatorship also stated that unless its constitution was selected it would take one of the prior constitutions and amend it and implement it as it saw fit. Those were the choices. The 57% vote in favour was made up in large part by people who wanted elections due to the forced conditions appointed by the military dictatorship.

All of the above is established fact.

Thanks again for highlighting why reform is needed.

A majority voted for a referendum. 59% voted for it and you make excuses why THAT majority should not be respected yet you ardently defend a 43% vote for the PTP in 2011.

With that logic I cant wait to see the excuses for why the majority did not vote for the PTP at the next election if in fact it happens.

[WoopyDoo]

So far it has been 10 hours since this became public....

All the rabid terrorist supporting reds on here have already rejected it out of hand.. (nice to know they think they run the country and know what's best for ALL Thai people)....

Yet not a single word by Yingluck, Thaksin, UDD, CAPO or any other party..... That tells me that they are going through it step by step and seeing if there is anything they can negotiate on or even if it seems acceptable and they can too capitalize on it.

However.... the red farang have made up their mind already.... In fact with 3 minutes of this thread being started.

Bunch of fools.

We can read. Hence, it takes even less than 3 minutes to conclude that the Democrats have merely once again decided to go for power without having to earn it at the ballot box.

So you think this puts the Dems straight into power???

Please expand to give some basis to your argument.

Nope... you can't can you.

Because not once does it suggest putting the Dems into power..

You are wasting your time in an argument with educated people.... stick with the uneducated red masses

[visionchaser45]

Thailand is at a crossroad. Either the people will be forced to revert to an archaic feudal system, or be allowed to move forward into the 21st century and assume their rightful place amongst the modern democracies of the world.

Edited May 3, 2014 by visionchaser45

[Thai at Heart]

Quote name="rubl" post="7771160" timestamp="1399124752"]

Here is a better plan for Ahbishit. Resign from his party, apologize to the people for his undemocratic views and enter monkhood. When he come out, many will forgive him.

Most Thais wouldn't recognise 'democratic' views if it hit them in the face. Furthermore Thailand doesn't really have a democracy, and never had one.

To reason from the starting point of "Thailand democracy" with ideas of how some Western Democracies function is like assuming your car doesn't really need tires or even wheels and simply try to drive off. IMHO

I think you have a great point. What Thailand had was a form of government that was a simple form of democracy that was acceptable to the west because it wasn't communism and acceptable to the Thais because it kept the status quo where it was.

Whilst that might have been relevant in a cold war era preventing communism, times have changed. Rolling back to an old era isn't the way forward literally or metaphorically.

[Mrgk]

Is pretty much admit the same as didn't? Red shirt education on display!

No, "pretty much" means "you did" in this case. Let us examine the 'evidence' you provided for the Democrats (nota bene) not being irrelevant:

"If they are not relevant, then why isn't PTP in power? They did "win" the Feb poll."

Now, as we all know, the reason that the PTP is still in caretaker status is... *drumroll*... the voiding of the said poll by the constitutional court. So, if the caretaker status of the government is to be attributed to the Democrats, we must then identifty the Democrats with the Constitutional Court.

* Tip: There is another narrative that you can try as well to get out of this bind, but that requires identifying the Democrats with the PDRC, and as we all know they are, like, totally separate and stuff, dude.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Mrgk

[Walter White]

Where is the verifiable evidence that you base your observation of there being increased corruption?

[Walter White]

Well said Tim

[noitom]

Abhisit and Suthep are both forms of seditionists. Suthep the more sensational, Abhisit the more secretive.

[Walter White]

It's pathetic because he had everyone guessing and holding their breath waiting for him to reveal his great new exciting plan, when all he has served up is the same illogical tosh that the wizard of Suthep ranting on about for the last four months.

[Publicus]

It's pathetic because he had everyone guessing and holding their breath waiting for him to reveal his great new exciting plan, when all he has served up is the same illogical tosh that the wizard of Suthep ranting on about for the last four months.

To which I would add Abhisit has always carried his fellow ammart's water for them.

AV has never had an original idea which is why the Democrat Party under his leadership the past 8 or 10 years fell off the face of the earth. Rather than find a middle way between the ammart and Thaksin, Abhisit spent all his time gazing into the mirror wearing the white uniform and the shoulder boards of PM-for-life.

Abhisit doesn't want or need a role in the fascist dictatorship he himself advocates. Abhisit prefers to wait until after the fascists have redesigned and re-engineered everything to suit the feudal ammart, then step in to run in an election he can win, as designed by the unelected and appointed "People's Council" and the unelected, appointed and also still anonymous National Assembly.

Which is why Abhisit and the DP are now scorned domestically and globally.

[rabas]

Can anybody tell me if there is a sport where this sort of demand would be allowed...

If we are not allowed to win...

we will take the ball away!

I think I was 5 when it was pointed out to be .. er, wrong!

When she was 6, my sister told me if I don't stop cheating at monopoly, she won't play anymore.

Perhaps the Thai have become 6.

[Thai at Heart]

Seriously, the people are willing to give the same group of the current "govt" a 2nd chance?

By voting for them and got elected again,the people are taking a big risk.

Currently YL govt has indeed screwed up in their administration, what if they fail again?

By then, voters regretted for their choice is too late then.

Thing is done and nation collapses. Nothing is cured.

Are the people really want to take such a gamble?

Since YL govt is not up to the job. Why not let others to have a chance to build up the nation effectively?

Let the capable ones have a chance to save their homeland. Does the people really to see their homeland fall into hands of the evil syndicate?

But again, we know the red supporters very well.

"We the red supporters, we are the democracy!, We vote and we win the election. We are the majority!

You indict our dear leaders, we send you M79 presents.

We couldn't care less about the mistakes, graft charges, rejected the CC rulings, corrupted policies schemes. We are the democracy! We are the majority, we voted. You can't use a "judicial coup" on our elected leader. To us, remember we won the elections.

So what ever mistakes,charges you want to fault our leaders, set a election. let's the people have their votes.

Election, election, election,election,election, election............."

So the red democracy voters purely interested to have elections. Vote and the majority win. That it! This is the democracy.

So we need to understood in Thailand, democracy is to have election, votes and get the most votes. Nothing else, after elected, what ever laws they break is not under their red democracy process.

If people try to fault them, again ELECTION.

Election, votes and the majority win. Full stop. Democracy ends here.

From the general publics perspective what else is there?

What else would you like the public to do more than vote? Seems to me, the voter turn out is quite good in thailand anyway.

[rabas]

QUOTE ADJUST

Now you're talking and I agree. Most Thai are not viewing democracy in the western way. That's why it's so hilarious to have posters here reasoning from a western vision of democracy and trying to protect it on Thailand.

democracy = elections, things like that.

PS there are more and more Thai who know what to think about a woman who 'protects' anti-government protesters with the police.

I see he is still trying to rewrite history. Abhist sent the army out to protect his fellow Thais From fellow Thais who were armed and under orders from their fellow Thai Thaksin to stage a coup. He has a problem with truth unless it is to the advantage of Thaksinite's.

That would have been a "counter coup" doesn't it?

Depends on how many Thaksin parties had been banned by that time.

It would probably be a re-coup...... or coup-de-jour.

Edited May 3, 2014 by rabas

[wandasloan]

I think Tanasak needs to repeat his no coup remarks to make it clear that Abhisit hasn't convinced him to have a coup.

Gen Thanasak has no ability to mount a coup, or to prevent one. His opinion and/or his promise is worthless, and without meaning.

Who mentioned the yellows--THEY ARE LONG GONE I didn't did I ???

No you didn't. And it wasn't the only error in your error-strewn post, but it was the first - the canary in the Lumpini mine, maybe?

Friday night. LAST Friday night. You should have been there:

DO NOT DOCTOR POSTS, leave the whole post in so that it will show your not cheating.--you did this to gain brownie points Do not mislead others in order to enhance your post.

Two posts. All about you. Not a word, not an attempt to explain why, if you are so convinced the government is out of favour, why you will not allow a national head-count to confirm this?

I think people should notice that in TWO posts replying to this question, you completely avoided any attempt to address this question, let alone answer it. I think that if you had a good reason for not holding an election you'd give it, just like I think if you had even one small, lonely idea about political reform, you'd give that, too.

You could make me look so-o-o-o-o dumb, just by refuting my claim and giving an answer (or more). I bet you CONFIRM what I say, by your silence or your next post trying for sympathy as the victim of a mean, conniving Thai Visa poster. As the highly paid TV pundits say, "Only time will tell".

.

Edited May 3, 2014 by wandasloan

[Scott]

Numerous posts have been deleted, including replies to previously deleted posts.

Please take care when posting quotes, since a number of posts with only quotes have been removed.

[bristolgeoff]

she will not resign,but may do runner to Dubai soon to see the puppet master

[smutcakes]

So Abhisit's grand proposal which he has been all cloak and dagger with for a few weeks, is basically that he is going to give carte blanche to the opponents of the Government to make reforms. He is obviously very well aware that this would never be accepted, and as such is not a real attempt at solving the issue.

He is merely posturing to provide cover for the Democrats to boycott the election again.

[Thai at Heart]

So Abhisit's grand proposal which he has been all cloak and dagger with for a few weeks, is basically that he is going to give carte blanche to the opponents of the Government to make reforms. He is obviously very well aware that this would never be accepted, and as such is not a real attempt at solving the issue.

He is merely posturing to provide cover for the Democrats to boycott the election again.

You would think he was a little subtler than this, huh?

[smutcakes]

So Abhisit's grand proposal which he has been all cloak and dagger with for a few weeks, is basically that he is going to give carte blanche to the opponents of the Government to make reforms. He is obviously very well aware that this would never be accepted, and as such is not a real attempt at solving the issue.

He is merely posturing to provide cover for the Democrats to boycott the election again.

You would think he was a little subtler than this, huh?

The stupid thing is, in my view every time he comes out and says something like this, which had been built up as some kind of dramatic reform that Khun Abhisit was doing for the good of the country, he will simply push more and more voters away from the party he is aligned to.

People are fed up of the performance of the current Government, but they are also not blind to see exactly what is going on here. They can quite clearly see that the motives of the Democrats and the PDRC are far from about cleaning up corruption/reform etc, it is a power grab, plain and simple. The reason for the dramatic need for this power grab is due to something that cannot be discussed.

[slipperx]

Well what to do when you have one side wanting a dictatorship brought in under faux democratic election - the opportunity presented by a hugely ignorant electorate who value even small money above everything else. The other side little better trying to gain power yet with little going for them except that business is better, corruption slightly less but still huge and at least a passing nod to a working rule of law.

Thailand needs to sweep all these people out into the trash and find people who have the country at heart who can present a proper manifesto to the people with a choice through voting. Different to as it is now because the people standing are variously corrupt, criminal or otherwise defective yet their faults and offences cannot be properly exposed due to the defamation laws. Perhaps start with abolishing those and giving the press 6 months to write expose's

[northernjohn]

Thailand is at a crossroad. Either the people will be forced to revert to an archaic feudal system, or be allowed to move forward into the 21st century and assume their rightful place amongst the modern democracies of the world.

They will only be allowed to move into the 21 century if they can get rid of the feudal system imposed on them by the PTP red shirts.

They wallow in a nest of corruption which the PTP red shirts fight hard to keep in power. Any one who suggests reform is actively opposed by them. It is only through an honest legal system that they will be stopped.

[smutcakes]

Thailand is at a crossroad. Either the people will be forced to revert to an archaic feudal system, or be allowed to move forward into the 21st century and assume their rightful place amongst the modern democracies of the world.

They will only be allowed to move into the 21 century if they can get rid of the feudal system imposed on them by the PTP red shirts.

They wallow in a nest of corruption which the PTP red shirts fight hard to keep in power. Any one who suggests reform is actively opposed by them. It is only through an honest legal system that they will be stopped.

Hopefully the legal system will do its job properly and justly whatever that results. Funny how we want to let the legal system do its work on one side, whilst on the other side the proposals offered are against the constitution, but yet these laws can be ignored.

[BlueNoseCodger]

Thailand is at a crossroad. Either the people will be forced to revert to an archaic feudal system, or be allowed to move forward into the 21st century and assume their rightful place amongst the modern democracies of the world.

They will only be allowed to move into the 21 century if they can get rid of the feudal system imposed on them by the PTP red shirts.

They wallow in a nest of corruption which the PTP red shirts fight hard to keep in power. Any one who suggests reform is actively opposed by them. It is only through an honest legal system that they will be stopped.

I see what you did there, accused the opposition of your crimes. Cute.

Lets examine Feudalism

There is also a broader definition, as described by Marc Bloch (1939), that includes not only warrior nobility but all three estates of the realm: the nobility, the clerics and the peasantry bonds of manorialism;

The system of peasants and nobility, the rulers and the ruled, the 'good people' and the sheeple. The elite and the crud perhaps. Now which side represents this? Your side.

Edited May 4, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[rabas]

Where is the verifiable evidence that you base your observation of there being increased corruption?

Welcome to Thailand, though I assume you are overseas from your posting times.

2 TRILLION BAHT spending bill, big enough to ruin the nation's economy, with provisions to keep the spending secret. By a Thaksin led puppet government as Thaksin wants his money back. He already mysteriously received 1 billion dollars just last year, according to Forbes, go check it out.

Where is the verifiable evidence that there has been equal or decreased corruption?

[BlueNoseCodger]

Which referendum was without campaigning against it?

If you mean the 2007 constitution: there was campaigning against it.

And if people would have voted against it, they would have got a slight modified 1997 constitution and the reform government would have made elections as well....they told that several times.

And on the 1997 constitution which Thaksin loves because there are less checks and balances there was no referendum at all.....

You are incorrect. It was ILLEGAL to campaign against the referendum.

The military dictatorship passed a law and enforced it arresting people who sought to campaign against the forced constitution.

You are posting false information.

The military dictatorship said that there would be no elections until the new constitution was selected. The military dictatorship also stated that unless its constitution was selected it would take one of the prior constitutions and amend it and implement it as it saw fit. Those were the choices. The 57% vote in favour was made up in large part by people who wanted elections due to the forced conditions appointed by the military dictatorship.

All of the above is established fact.

Thanks again for highlighting why reform is needed.

A majority voted for a referendum. 59% voted for it and you make excuses why THAT majority should not be respected yet you ardently defend a 43% vote for the PTP in 2011.

With that logic I cant wait to see the excuses for why the majority did not vote for the PTP at the next election if in fact it happens.

North Korean Supreme Leader

[ ] Kim Jong Un

[ ] I want to die

A hobsons choice as they're called, a take it or leave it option, that presents fake choice. A standard trick of despots.

[IamNoone88]

In my opinion, proven to be a totally ineffective leader with nothing new to offer and certainly not the ability to deliver anything of substance. All this parading is just a complete nonense.

Sent from my GT-N5120 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Tatsujin]

Pathetic. If that's your best, Mr Abhisit, it's time to pass the baton on to someone who can make a meaningful, worthwhile contribution. Woeful 'plan'. A joke.

I await with baited breath for your own sensible suggestions as to how to resolve all of this.

And please, let's assume the word "election" isn't your only or first answer to any and all problems.

Lets have an election.

Because there is nothing to fix, political division is what democracy is. If you had no political division, then there would be no choice, no opposing views to choose from and no options. The idea that we all live in a harmony where we skip and dance and play and all think alike, is utter rubbish fantasyland thinking.

Abhisit and Suthep cannot agree on the way to choose a PM. Abhisit says he wants the Senate Leader to pick a PM, Suthep says he wants Suthep to pick a PM. It's normal for people to disagree. Even these two sock puppets for the general cannot agree!

And from your words you seem to refuse to accept that an election is the cure. If you had an infection, would you be saying "and please don't tell me antibiotics is your only fix" and then refuse the medicine?

As I thought, the ONLY answer you have is "elections".

How about making some proper changes to the law and the constitution to make them more meaningful, enforceable and to remove the grey areas and loopholes for a start? How about some meaningful punishments for corruption? How about some laws in place (that are actually enforced) to limit how many and whete and how people can "protest"? How about making the Police do their jobs and be truly independent? How about trying to curb cronyism and nepotism? How about ... the list goes on.

But you only see elections as the answer. What next, after elections? Cos right now, whoever wins the next election, the ONLY thing that will happen is more street protests and the cycle continues. Pointless.

[brewsterbudgen]

Pathetic. If that's your best, Mr Abhisit, it's time to pass the baton on to someone who can make a meaningful, worthwhile contribution. Woeful 'plan'. A joke.

I await with baited breath for your own sensible suggestions as to how to resolve all of this.

And please, let's assume the word "election" isn't your only or first answer to any and all problems.

Lets have an election.

Because there is nothing to fix, political division is what democracy is. If you had no political division, then there would be no choice, no opposing views to choose from and no options. The idea that we all live in a harmony where we skip and dance and play and all think alike, is utter rubbish fantasyland thinking.

Abhisit and Suthep cannot agree on the way to choose a PM. Abhisit says he wants the Senate Leader to pick a PM, Suthep says he wants Suthep to pick a PM. It's normal for people to disagree. Even these two sock puppets for the general cannot agree!

And from your words you seem to refuse to accept that an election is the cure. If you had an infection, would you be saying "and please don't tell me antibiotics is your only fix" and then refuse the medicine?

As I thought, the ONLY answer you have is "elections".

How about making some proper changes to the law and the constitution to make them more meaningful, enforceable and to remove the grey areas and loopholes for a start? How about some meaningful punishments for corruption? How about some laws in place (that are actually enforced) to limit how many and whete and how people can "protest"? How about making the Police do their jobs and be truly independent? How about trying to curb cronyism and nepotism? How about ... the list goes on.

But you only see elections as the answer. What next, after elections? Cos right now, whoever wins the next election, the ONLY thing that will happen is more street protests and the cycle continues. Pointless.

Yes, but only those who have been elected by the people should be making/changing the law. Try as you might you can't take the elections out of democracy.