Prayuth must not forget what Thais want

[lvr181]

And the largest group of all of them had no say at all on who is running the country now. That is what is being forgotten.

With Pheu Thai having got 34% of the electorate voting for them in 2011, it would indeed seem that for a while already the largest group had no say in who would be running the country for them.

That seems to be forgotten.

My maths suggest that the "other" 66% are the majority?

[Thai at Heart]

Its funny how everyone talks about 35% in a first past the post constituency system as though this doesn't gauge the opinions of the local populations.

If there are 10 parties, no one is ever likely to get 50%.

[icare999]

Here in Isaan all they want is some politician who gives the most baht, regardless of party, most dont even know what they are voting for.

+1 totally true which is why it might be better to have a form of semi dictatorship if thats possible for 5-10 years but not Taksins version. And yes i am saying ,most poor Thais and many rich ones are far to ignorant to deserve a vote.

[tbthailand]

And the largest group of all of them had no say at all on who is running the country now. That is what is being forgotten.

With Pheu Thai having got 34% of the electorate voting for them in 2011, it would indeed seem that for a while already the largest group had no say in who would be running the country for them.

That seems to be forgotten.

you just won't stop with your 34% lie, will you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011

[tbthailand]

Its funny how everyone talks about 35% in a first past the post constituency system as though this doesn't gauge the opinions of the local populations.

If there are 10 parties, no one is ever likely to get 50%.

I agree with your point, but regarding the numbers, it's just nonsense, as well. PTP won over 48% of the popular vote and over 50% of the seats.

[rubl]

Its funny how everyone talks about 35% in a first past the post constituency system as though this doesn't gauge the opinions of the local populations.

If there are 10 parties, no one is ever likely to get 50%.

I would hope so. At least in a real democracy that seems to be true.

[rubl]

And the largest group of all of them had no say at all on who is running the country now. That is what is being forgotten.

With Pheu Thai having got 34% of the electorate voting for them in 2011, it would indeed seem that for a while already the largest group had no say in who would be running the country for them.

That seems to be forgotten.

you just won't stop with your 34% lie, will you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011

By now you should be aware that I do not lie about such things.

Taken from the EC site a long time ago.

Thailand General Elections 2011-07-03

Registered electorate: 46,904,823

Total votes cast, both valid/invalid*: 35,469,811 (75.62%)

party votes % of cast, % of regist.

Pheu Thai party: 15,744,190 votes (44.38% of cast, 33.57% of regist.) 265 seats

Democrat party: 11,433,762 votes (32.24% of cast, 24.38% of regist.) 159 seats

[fab4]

And the largest group of all of them had no say at all on who is running the country now. That is what is being forgotten.

With Pheu Thai having got 34% of the electorate voting for them in 2011, it would indeed seem that for a while already the largest group had no say in who would be running the country for them.

That seems to be forgotten.

Oh, Give it a rest rubl.

Who knows what goes through your mind when you come up with garbage like your post above. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011

Oh forget it, I'm not going to waste time on this person.

Actually I will.

Using your "method" of analysing what majority of people had no say in determining who should run the country for them, precisely 100% had no say whatsoever in who is running the country now ( I estimated that the number of NLA members who did have a say in who is running the country now, is an infinitesimal proportion of the Thai Electorate and therefore could be safely ignored)

Can you understand that, rubl?

Edited August 23, 2014 by fab4

[rubl]

And the largest group of all of them had no say at all on who is running the country now. That is what is being forgotten.

With Pheu Thai having got 34% of the electorate voting for them in 2011, it would indeed seem that for a while already the largest group had no say in who would be running the country for them.

That seems to be forgotten.

Oh, Give it a rest rubl.

Who knows what goes through your mind when you come up with garbage like your post above. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011

Oh forget it, I'm not going to waste time on this person.

Actually I will.

Using your "method" of analysing what majority of people had no say in determining who should run the country for them, precisely 100% had no say whatsoever in who is running the country now ( I estimated that the number of NLA members who did have a say in who is running the country now, is an infinitesimal proportion of the Thai Electorate and therefore could be safely ignored)

Can you understand that, rubl?

Give it a rest, my dear fabs. No garbage please.

With the total numbers of votes for PT/D given by me identical as in the Wiki page the percentage difference is simple

- wiki: percentage of votes VALID

- me: percentage of votes CAST

With one group advocating the 'no vote' which in practise meant 'counted as invalid vote' indicating in percentage of 'votes cast' seems more meaningful when some talk about what the electorate might have wanted.

BTW I wrote since 2011 and stay with that.

PS I thought only Gen Prayuth was running the country and to the satisfaction of most Thai it would seem. The handful of foreigners here who don't like that don't count anyway.

[fab4]

Give it a rest, my dear fabs. No garbage please.

With the total numbers of votes for PT/D given by me identical as in the Wiki page the percentage difference is simple

- wiki: percentage of votes VALID

- me: percentage of votes CAST

With one group advocating the 'no vote' which in practise meant 'counted as invalid vote' indicating in percentage of 'votes cast' seems more meaningful when some talk about what the electorate might have wanted.

BTW I wrote since 2011 and stay with that.

PS I thought only Gen Prayuth was running the country and to the satisfaction of most Thai it would seem. The handful of foreigners here who don't like that don't count anyway.

GIGO

Edited August 23, 2014 by fab4

[habvick]

With Pheu Thai having got 34% of the electorate voting for them in 2011, it would indeed seem that for a while already the largest group had no say in who would be running the country for them.

That seems to be forgotten.

you just won't stop with your 34% lie, will you.

By now you should be aware that I do not lie about such things.

Taken from the EC site a long time ago.

Thailand General Elections 2011-07-03

Pheu Thai party: 33.57% of regist.

Thank you for posting the truth and highlighting the lying detractors

[tbthailand]

And the largest group of all of them had no say at all on who is running the country now. That is what is being forgotten.

With Pheu Thai having got 34% of the electorate voting for them in 2011, it would indeed seem that for a while already the largest group had no say in who would be running the country for them.

That seems to be forgotten.

you just won't stop with your 34% lie, will you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011

By now you should be aware that I do not lie about such things.

Taken from the EC site a long time ago.

Thailand General Elections 2011-07-03

Registered electorate: 46,904,823

Total votes cast, both valid/invalid*: 35,469,811 (75.62%)

party votes % of cast, % of regist.

Pheu Thai party: 15,744,190 votes (44.38% of cast, 33.57% of regist.) 265 seats

Democrat party: 11,433,762 votes (32.24% of cast, 24.38% of regist.) 159 seats

of course you lie about these things and I understand exactly where your numbers come from. and you know that anyone talking about percentages in an election talk about the percent of vote going to a party or candidate from the valid votes cast.

No one - unless they want to be deceptive (lie) about the results would use the number of votes won from a party or candidate and then turn that into an unrelated percentage from a number of theoretically possible voters.

You're just weaseling around your little lie and trying to make it sound like your deceit is perfectly innocent.

It's not innocent, but it is repetitive. Keep repeating it and some one might believe you some day.

[Briggsy]

A swanky new car or pick-up that their neighbours, colleagues, friends, family and passers-by are impressed by and are envious of, preferably a car that is worth more than the sh**hole that they live in. Give 'em all cars, new ones on a 15-month rotating basis.

[KevinB]

I always worry that many posters don't seem to live in the real world - where global politics and the international economic situation is what really counts - not what some editorial wants to waffle on about - as in "The generals must not forget what Thais want?" What does the World want? - because if the Coup Leaders don't give what is required then what the Thais would all like - progress and development will not be forth-coming. For a long time the International Community have been pressurising Thailand's next door neighbour Myanmar - what has the pressure been for? - to get the military out of Running the Country for their own purpose and to hand over to civilian rule - elected in free and fair elections. Only this last week Standard Chartered Bank had to cough up an pile of their profits to cover a fine for breaking the rules on dealing with currency transfers for the Military regime there. Do you all think that pressure has gone away? No the situation is being closely monitored and if more progress is not forthcoming then pressure will be applied again. And to help the army realise that - lifting the sanctions has seen a remarkable jump in the Burmese economy - but more change is now expected - reduce direct Military appointments to Parliament - allow Aung Suche and her party to run for the top posts - head the Government if they win. Do any of you believe the International Community and the brains behind large-scale investment are going to sit by and watch a bunch of Generals run Thailand for too long - it sends the wrong message to the region and simply can't be tolerated.

There have just been elections in Indonesia - disputed but already all those that count are supporting the outcome (the popular Governor of Jakarta) because no one wants to see, what has become one of the golden examples of growing democracy, slip back into the Suharto regime phase of history. The ex-general who thinks he should of won can whistle all he likes he won't get any support and growth and development and international investment will be heaped on to the country now firmly on the path to democracy.

Cambodia had a disputed election and now the pressure in on them to be a bit more inclusive and accommodating towards the voice of opposition.

Do you think the World will sit by as the voice of the Thais start to ask for their return to Democracy - doesn't look like it is going to come quick under the current long-term we-need-to-fix-everything-we-find-wrong attitude of the current ruling class. As if they are the only one's who know what the Thais really want.

[rubl]

I always worry that many posters don't seem to live in the real world - where global politics and the international economic situation is what really counts - not what some editorial wants to waffle on about - as in "The generals must not forget what Thais want?" What does the World want? - because if the Coup Leaders don't give what is required then what the Thais would all like - progress and development will not be forth-coming. For a long time the International Community have been pressurising Thailand's next door neighbour Myanmar - what has the pressure been for? - to get the military out of Running the Country for their own purpose and to hand over to civilian rule - elected in free and fair elections. Only this last week Standard Chartered Bank had to cough up an pile of their profits to cover a fine for breaking the rules on dealing with currency transfers for the Military regime there. Do you all think that pressure has gone away? No the situation is being closely monitored and if more progress is not forthcoming then pressure will be applied again. And to help the army realise that - lifting the sanctions has seen a remarkable jump in the Burmese economy - but more change is now expected - reduce direct Military appointments to Parliament - allow Aung Suche and her party to run for the top posts - head the Government if they win. Do any of you believe the International Community and the brains behind large-scale investment are going to sit by and watch a bunch of Generals run Thailand for too long - it sends the wrong message to the region and simply can't be tolerated.

There have just been elections in Indonesia - disputed but already all those that count are supporting the outcome (the popular Governor of Jakarta) because no one wants to see, what has become one of the golden examples of growing democracy, slip back into the Suharto regime phase of history. The ex-general who thinks he should of won can whistle all he likes he won't get any support and growth and development and international investment will be heaped on to the country now firmly on the path to democracy.

Cambodia had a disputed election and now the pressure in on them to be a bit more inclusive and accommodating towards the voice of opposition.

Do you think the World will sit by as the voice of the Thais start to ask for their return to Democracy - doesn't look like it is going to come quick under the current long-term we-need-to-fix-everything-we-find-wrong attitude of the current ruling class. As if they are the only one's who know what the Thais really want.

ruling class ? As in those who turned elections into a Thaksin farce?

"Cambodia had a disputed election and now the pressure in on them to be a bit more inclusive and accommodating towards the voice of opposition."

The anti-government protesters would really agree with that sentence.

Mind you, it would seem that you are not really interested in what the Thai want, only in what the world wants for the Thai. "where global politics and the international economic situation is what really counts"

[Rooo]

Post removed.

1) You will not express disrespect of the King of Thailand or any one member of the Thai royal family, whether living or deceased, nor to criticize the monarchy as an institution.

By law, the Thai Royal Family are above politics. Speculation, comments and discussion of either a political or personal nature are not allowed when discussing HM The King or the Royal family.*
Discussion of the Lese Majeste law or Lese Majeste cases is permitted on the forum, providing no comment or speculation is made referencing the royal family.

To breach these rules may result in immediate ban.

Linking to external sites which break these rules will be treated as if you yourself posted them.

[hansgruber]

What do Thai's want, that is a good question , because I have not seen anyone from this present junta ask any genuine Thai, what do you want, all I have noticed so far, the military have bulldozed the freedom factor and lets face it most wouldn't know about Democracy and what they do know you could print on the back of a postage stamp, the out look for Thailand , Business as usual

All I want is for them to respect my vote.

I think that a lot of Thais want only that.

Hard to respect something that's so easily bought.

Thais can't look past the baht.

Edited August 23, 2014 by hansgruber

[Strangebrew]

Thai's don't know what Thai's want there like sheep throw a few baht there way they will follow like a dog.

[mikemac]

Here in Isaan all they want is some politician who gives the most baht, regardless of party, most dont even know what they are voting for.

+1 totally true which is why it might be better to have a form of semi dictatorship if thats possible for 5-10 years but not Taksins version. And yes i am saying ,most poor Thais and many rich ones are far to ignorant to deserve a vote.

Last time I visited my wife's family in Surin I asked them why they voted for PTP. Their answer was simple - they offered the most for their vote, in other words it was the biggest bribe.

They said they would have quite happily voted for the Democrats but it was not worth as much. They did not seem to know what happened after the elections and did not really seem to care.

[MaxLee]

money

Easy money

[lvr181]

money

Easy money

Unfortunately so true.

BUT there are many Thai who would like that to stop. and I know of some, from Isaan, who want vote buying payments and "direction" by village "headmen" stopped and for the people to be educated enough to understand more about politics and policies.

[billd766]

And the largest group of all of them had no say at all on who is running the country now. That is what is being forgotten.

With Pheu Thai having got 34% of the electorate voting for them in 2011, it would indeed seem that for a while already the largest group had no say in who would be running the country for them.

That seems to be forgotten.

you just won't stop with your 34% lie, will you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011

Double wrong post.

Not to self. Read BEFORE posting.

Edited August 24, 2014 by billd766

[timewilltell]

What do Thai's want, that is a good question , because I have not seen anyone from this present junta ask any genuine Thai, what do you want, all I have noticed so far, the military have bulldozed the freedom factor and lets face it most wouldn't know about Democracy and what they do know you could print on the back of a postage stamp, the out look for Thailand , Business as usual

All I want is for them to respect my vote.

I think that a lot of Thais want only that.

"respect my vote even after it has been counted and even if I voted for another party"

Anyway, let PM Prayuth with the NLA take care of the day-to-day administration to keep the country running. At the same time help the NRC / CDC to define a broader base for a real democracy in Thailand.

Mere semantics, based on a false interpretation of the word democracy.

How would you define the word democracy?

By definition, democracy depends on the vote of the majority of the citizenry.

Anything else needs another word to describe it.

Democracy depends on more than the vote to elect. For a start the election must be pure - and those elected must then perform the will of the majority. That is the strict sense of the word. What most countries that are called democracy have is a watered down version called representative democracy where representatives are elected on trust to do the will of the people the represent - this is further diluted to mean that the representatives will work to bring about the objectives and policies set out in their manifesto.

This already diluted version of democracy is further diluted by the representatives pay for a persons vote (the will of the people on policy is largely subverted thereby) and when elected are so thoroughly corrupt that the policies made benefit only those who are elected on a sliding scale of who grabs the most of the corrupt pie dependent on power within the elected party. The party system itself is another diluting factor because pressure is brought to bear to force / persuade members to vote for the party line.

If you keep diluting something eventually it ceases to bear almost any resemblance to what it began as. If you took a bottle of beer and diluted it 1:1 with water then how many times would you need to do that before you can no longer call it beer? Eventually it is not,

What Thais have had in the past really is barely democracy at all. Having said that if there was pure democracy in Thailand and people could vote for each policy brought before parliament then how successful would the result be given the level of education. I propose therefore that democracy cannot work in Thailand at the moment in even the diluted form we have in the a Western democratic nations and that some adaptations to that system are essential to get a working system that serves the need of the nation rather than its individual selfish eligible voters since non-eligible citizens (I.e the children) are affected directly. That, that may be an interim measure is a given but there is no chance of pure democracy even in the long term. Thailand should however work towards the goal of concentrating democracy gradually as its citizens develop a sense of community and improve their social consciousness.

Military dictatorship over the long term is not the answer but what Thailand has at present is better than any alternative on the table in the immediate sense IMHO.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[MaxYakov]

#35, "conflicting desires" ?

Well surely, if more than half of all people are supporting whatever desire, well, that desire should go ahead ?

And if less than half the people desire whatever, then, that particular desire must not go ahead ?

That need not be so, the overall good must also be factored in.

If what the majority want will stuff up the economy or international exports then should that want go ahead regardless ? (think of a recent example)

The majority may want the minority kept poor or uneducated so they can be exploited, should that be done ?

Wait a minute.

"The majority may want the minority kept poor or uneducated so they can be exploited".

How about the minority may want the majority kept poor or poorly educated so they can be exploited ?

Who are the majority, and who are the minority ? Who are the bigger group, and who are the smaller group ?

Are there more 'peasants' than rich people ? Are there more working-class people than middle-class people ? Are there more people who are un-skilled and semi-skilled workers than those who are highly skilled and highly paid ?

No one voted for the government to stuff up the economy.

The argument that the army should step in every time it might happen that the economy is in trouble is ludicrous. Bush, blair and plenty others wouldn't have got past their first 6 months by that measure.

I don't think it's particularly productive to compare much between the Western economies or politics and Thailand's. Here is something to consider (Reference Link):

"The Gross Domestic Product per capita in Thailand was last recorded at 3437.84 US dollars in 2013. The GDP per Capita in Thailand is equivalent to 28 percent of the world's average. GDP per capita in Thailand averaged 1514.05 USD from 1960 until 2013, reaching an all time high of 3437.84 USD in 2013 and a record low of 358.92 USD in 1960. GDP per capita in Thailand is reported by the World Bank." (emphasis mine)

[tonbridgebrit]

At #84

Hold on. Are we trying to say that if it is a country where the GDP per person is high, then, the people should be allowed to vote for whatever issues (we're talking here about Scotland becoming independent, and Britain pulling out of the European Union).

But if the country's GDP is low, then, even if it is the case that more people wanted an idea to go ahead rather than those who didn't, well, the idea shouldn't go ahead if it is regarded as being damaging to society ?

Are countries like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, are they poorer than Thailand ? Is their GDP per person lower than Thailand ? What about Laos, Burma, Cambodia, Phillipines, and Indonesia ? Are they all poorer than Thailand ? And if we look at sub-Saharan Africa, apart from South Africa, do any of those countries have a GDP person that is higher than Thailand ?

[Robespiere]

Can't help but think elections, referendums and freedom of speech could help him a little bit here

[lvr181]

Can't help but think elections, referendums and freedom of speech could help him a little bit here

That will happen in due course but in the meantime take the opportunity to learn and be come educated in order to make BETTER choices in future.

[SilverBeast]

Rights Freedoms or Democracy....

What would you choose?

[tonbridgebrit]

Can't help but think elections, referendums and freedom of speech could help him a little bit here

That will happen in due course but in the meantime take the opportunity to learn and be come educated in order to make BETTER choices in future.

Well yes, I really do think that it might be the case, if we have an election pretty soon, and if Abhisit and the Democrats were to not run, then, the junta are likely to get more votes than Thaksin.

Remember, you don't need a majority (more than 50%) of votes cast, you just need to get more votes than who ever came second. And freedom of speech, it's important, and a load of Thaksinites and a load of people supporting the junta, these people going on about how great their team is, nobody thinks this is damaging.

As for "That will happen in due course but in the meantime take the opportunity to learn and be come educated in order to make BETTER choices in future", well, surely, most people in most countries do feel "we want our freedom and right to choose NOW, we're not in favour of the system giving us the freedom of choice in about five or ten years time, because THEY want to spend five/ten years trying to educate us to make the right choice, because THEY reckon that we might be making the wrong choice if we do it pretty soon".

How would it have looked in South Africa, back in the 90s, if they had of said, "we're not going to have a vote pretty soon, we will have it in ten years time, that gives you lot time to learn more, that way, you will be voting for the good and correct ideas, and not ideas that damage our country".

[MaxYakov]

At #84

Hold on. Are we trying to say that if it is a country where the GDP per person is high, then, the people should be allowed to vote for whatever issues (we're talking here about Scotland becoming independent, and Britain pulling out of the European Union).

But if the country's GDP is low, then, even if it is the case that more people wanted an idea to go ahead rather than those who didn't, well, the idea shouldn't go ahead if it is regarded as being damaging to society ?

Are countries like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, are they poorer than Thailand ? Is their GDP per person lower than Thailand ? What about Laos, Burma, Cambodia, Phillipines, and Indonesia ? Are they all poorer than Thailand ? And if we look at sub-Saharan Africa, apart from South Africa, do any of those countries have a GDP person that is higher than Thailand ?

I wasn't trying to draw any correlation between politics and the Thai economy. I'm not saying that politics does not play a role in Thailand's poor productivity performance, however. Further, in-depth analysis would overload this forum, I'm sure.

I will say this: My ex-GF's daughter, a graduate of a Thai university with a degree in economics, could not define GDP to me any of the several times I asked her. Now that may have just been her, but somehow I doubt that and would guess her ignorance is endemic to Thailand. Ignorance would be a starting point to explain the relativity low productivity of Thailand.