Abhisit warns new govt of tough challenges ahead

[pisico]

_{In a similar vein, Abhisit warns of another coming rainy season, followed by potential drought. Further, TAT predictions, he said, may not come true. Best of all, he stated that the creator of the Yellow Shirts was wrongfully convicted and will be exonerated of all charges once the statute of limitations has run out, the old man has expired, or both.}

_{He also predicted Suthep would only remain a monk until the junta is over and that the earth might indeed continue to orbit the sun.}

_{The last prediction is considered debatable, of course}

_.

Nevertheless, Abhisit is the darling of the Bangkok elite. That is understandable. But of Farangs too?

Could it be due to OCD?

If so it stands to reason that is the cause of their favor for Abhisit (who has to his credit 2 scandals: rubber and Palm oil, aided by the old wily politico Suthep (who resigned as minister of Agriculture in disgrace in 1995 -to avoid being indicted- and brought down the Democrat government of the time) and who during their post-coup tenure was his attack dog dealing with the demonstrations of the Reds.

Those defending and praising the merits of such clever albeit unpopular PM seem to be under the effects of OCD.

Only rabid sectarian, unreasonable and blind minds could be so pro Abhisista and anti-Thaksinista (a proven popular, effective and smarter than others at the trough) albeit questionable in many areas, would be in favor of anyone, including Idi Amin, to be PM of Thailand but never, never, anyone remotely connected to the Shin clan.

Despising Thaksin for what he represents reflects on the bulk of the vast majority of Thais who voted for him and YS. That translates in despising the majority of the "uneducated" rural folks: the majority of Thais. It is their country. We are guests without voice or vote. Think about it.

Flame OK, but spare us the blah, blah of vote buying, etc. Such has been the practice from all colors of the spectrum in Thailand for years since this country became a constitutional Democracy.

Edited September 3, 2014 by pisico

[Thanet]

Abhisit is a divisive figure. Why don't they tell him to shut up, just like they told the red lot to shut up?

Seems he has been given a forum in the censored press to pontificate, but nobody else has been given that privilege.

They don't tell him to shut up because he's being constructive rather than just whining.

Regardless of what he says, isn't this supposed to be a time of reconciliation, where all political sides are told to shut up until the situation returns to "normal"? Reconciliation will be harder to achieve if one of the core supporters of leaders of the yellow shirts is allowed to have his say, repeatedly, while others are not.

As others have said here, he is a mere puppet of the military and has never been elected, so maybe this is just a sign of the military's true colours?

Not elected? Check out how parliamentary systems work.

What is wrong with what he said? In what way is it divisive? All he has said is that the current government are going to find the going tough because of the economy. There is nothing political in that.

I know how parliamentary systems work. So does Abhisit. That's why he boycotted the last general election.

Talking was all Abhisit was good at. While he was the PM, all he did was talk, and accuse anyone who disagreed with him of LM.

He's nothing more than a shameless hypocrite and a deceitful charlatan. He lacks the courage to go to the country and win the hearts and minds of the citizenry, preferring instead to hide behind the army while holding up this pretence that he supports democracy.

[tonbridgebrit]

I really do think that the junta have already made up their minds on how to run the country, they're not that interested in Abhisit's ideas and advice.

One bit of advice for Abhisit is this. Abhisit, you dis-like Thaksin but not the junta. What you do right, is this. You should pull out of the next election, don't bother to be in it. This will mean that the next election will be a race between Thaksin and the junta. Yes, the other small parties will also take part.

Now then, if you and the Democrats do take part in the election, you're basically splitting the anti-Thaksinite vote and reducing the chances of the junta winning the election. If you pull out, surely, most of the votes for you will switch to the junta ? How many of the voters for you are going to switch to Thaksin ?

Surely, Thaksin is the one you don't want to see being in charge again ?

[whybother]

I really do think that the junta have already made up their minds on how to run the country, they're not that interested in Abhisit's ideas and advice.

One bit of advice for Abhisit is this. Abhisit, you dis-like Thaksin but not the junta. What you do right, is this. You should pull out of the next election, don't bother to be in it. This will mean that the next election will be a race between Thaksin and the junta. Yes, the other small parties will also take part.

Now then, if you and the Democrats do take part in the election, you're basically splitting the anti-Thaksinite vote and reducing the chances of the junta winning the election. If you pull out, surely, most of the votes for you will switch to the junta ? How many of the voters for you are going to switch to Thaksin ?

Surely, Thaksin is the one you don't want to see being in charge again ?

Are the junta planning to stand in the next election?

[whybother]

I know how parliamentary systems work. So does Abhisit. That's why he boycotted the last general election.

Talking was all Abhisit was good at. While he was the PM, all he did was talk, and accuse anyone who disagreed with him of LM.

He's nothing more than a shameless hypocrite and a deceitful charlatan. He lacks the courage to go to the country and win the hearts and minds of the citizenry, preferring instead to hide behind the army while holding up this pretence that he supports democracy.

If you know how parliamentary systems work, then you will know that Abhisit WAS elected.

[tbthailand]

I know how parliamentary systems work. So does Abhisit. That's why he boycotted the last general election.

Talking was all Abhisit was good at. While he was the PM, all he did was talk, and accuse anyone who disagreed with him of LM.

He's nothing more than a shameless hypocrite and a deceitful charlatan. He lacks the courage to go to the country and win the hearts and minds of the citizenry, preferring instead to hide behind the army while holding up this pretence that he supports democracy.

If you know how parliamentary systems work, then you will know that Abhisit WAS elected.

give it up, everyone knows that Ahhisit was "installed".

sure the MPs voted him as PM - just ignore everything that preceded that vote and you might consider him a legitimate prime minister.

[Thanet]

I know how parliamentary systems work. So does Abhisit. That's why he boycotted the last general election.

Talking was all Abhisit was good at. While he was the PM, all he did was talk, and accuse anyone who disagreed with him of LM.

He's nothing more than a shameless hypocrite and a deceitful charlatan. He lacks the courage to go to the country and win the hearts and minds of the citizenry, preferring instead to hide behind the army while holding up this pretence that he supports democracy.

If you know how parliamentary systems work, then you will know that Abhisit WAS elected.

That's nonsense.

How could he be elected, when he boycotted the general election?

And why did he lose the last election?

[whybother]

I know how parliamentary systems work. So does Abhisit. That's why he boycotted the last general election.

Talking was all Abhisit was good at. While he was the PM, all he did was talk, and accuse anyone who disagreed with him of LM.

He's nothing more than a shameless hypocrite and a deceitful charlatan. He lacks the courage to go to the country and win the hearts and minds of the citizenry, preferring instead to hide behind the army while holding up this pretence that he supports democracy.

If you know how parliamentary systems work, then you will know that Abhisit WAS elected.

That's nonsense.

How could he be elected, when he boycotted the general election?

And why did he lose the last election?

He didn't boycott the 2007 election.

[whybother]

I know how parliamentary systems work. So does Abhisit. That's why he boycotted the last general election.

Talking was all Abhisit was good at. While he was the PM, all he did was talk, and accuse anyone who disagreed with him of LM.

He's nothing more than a shameless hypocrite and a deceitful charlatan. He lacks the courage to go to the country and win the hearts and minds of the citizenry, preferring instead to hide behind the army while holding up this pretence that he supports democracy.

If you know how parliamentary systems work, then you will know that Abhisit WAS elected.

give it up, everyone knows that Ahhisit was "installed".

sure the MPs voted him as PM - just ignore everything that preceded that vote and you might consider him a legitimate prime minister.

And Yingluck, Somchai and Samak weren't installed?

[tbthailand]

I know how parliamentary systems work. So does Abhisit. That's why he boycotted the last general election.

Talking was all Abhisit was good at. While he was the PM, all he did was talk, and accuse anyone who disagreed with him of LM.

He's nothing more than a shameless hypocrite and a deceitful charlatan. He lacks the courage to go to the country and win the hearts and minds of the citizenry, preferring instead to hide behind the army while holding up this pretence that he supports democracy.

If you know how parliamentary systems work, then you will know that Abhisit WAS elected.

give it up, everyone knows that Ahhisit was "installed".

sure the MPs voted him as PM - just ignore everything that preceded that vote and you might consider him a legitimate prime minister.

And Yingluck, Somchai and Samak weren't installed?

17.5k posts - I am beginning to understand how.

Let's take your first example, Yingluck. The party won the right in a general election to form a government and she became the PM which was what the voting public expected to happen in the case that her party won enough seats.

Abhisit was installed after the judicial coup and military arm-twisting/coalition building exercise. That is all well documented and understood, and it had nothing to do with winning a general election. He had a second chance in 2011 and failed spectacularly.

So please, give up with the "Abhisit was elected" nonsense.

[fab4]

If you know how parliamentary systems work, then you will know that Abhisit WAS elected.

give it up, everyone knows that Ahhisit was "installed".

sure the MPs voted him as PM - just ignore everything that preceded that vote and you might consider him a legitimate prime minister.

And Yingluck, Somchai and Samak weren't installed?

Like tbthailand said, ignore everything that preceded the vote that installed abhisit and yes, you would say that the method of election to PM that Yingluck, Somchai, Samak and abhisit went through was exactly the same.

Unfortunately attempts to ignore the events that led up to to abhisit becoming PM has resulted in abhist becoming, and remaining, a devisive figure in Thai politics. Ignore the arrangement that was made by certain "players" to ensure that the "right" person became PM and you are doomed to repeat the events of recent years. Sadly I can see a similar situation arising in the future. Some people never learn.

[whybother]

17.5k posts - I am beginning to understand how.

Let's take your first example, Yingluck. The party won the right in a general election to form a government and she became the PM which was what the voting public expected to happen in the case that her party won enough seats.

Abhisit was installed after the judicial coup and military arm-twisting/coalition building exercise. That is all well documented and understood, and it had nothing to do with winning a general election. He had a second chance in 2011 and failed spectacularly.

So please, give up with the "Abhisit was elected" nonsense.

Yingluck was elected, besides the fact that she was installed by Thaksin.

Now, please explain the difference between Samak, Somchai and Abhisit.

[whybother]

Like tbthailand said, ignore everything that preceded the vote that installed abhisit and yes, you would say that the method of election to PM that Yingluck, Somchai, Samak and abhisit went through was exactly the same.

Unfortunately attempts to ignore the events that led up to to abhisit becoming PM has resulted in abhist becoming, and remaining, a devisive figure in Thai politics. Ignore the arrangement that was made by certain "players" to ensure that the "right" person became PM and you are doomed to repeat the events of recent years. Sadly I can see a similar situation arising in the future. Some people never learn.

And we'll conveniently ignore the trips to Hong Kong of various MPs prior to other coalitions being formed.

[jayboy]

I know how parliamentary systems work. So does Abhisit. That's why he boycotted the last general election.

Talking was all Abhisit was good at. While he was the PM, all he did was talk, and accuse anyone who disagreed with him of LM.

He's nothing more than a shameless hypocrite and a deceitful charlatan. He lacks the courage to go to the country and win the hearts and minds of the citizenry, preferring instead to hide behind the army while holding up this pretence that he supports democracy.

If you know how parliamentary systems work, then you will know that Abhisit WAS elected.

As the Thais say you must have a very thick face since you have repeated this red herring several times on this forum as if it explains away Abhisit's grubby rise to power, the corrupt back door deals and ignoring the fact that the Thai people have consistently rejected him.I am actually intrigued who you think your audience is.Do you think anyone is convinced or persuaded by your irrelevant lectures on parliamentary democracy? Everybody knows Abhisit held the premiership legitimately but that is not the point being made.

[whybother]

As the Thais say you must have a very thick face since you have repeated this red herring several times on this forum as if it explains away Abhisit's grubby rise to power, the corrupt back door deals and ignoring the fact that the Thai people have consistently rejected him.I am actually intrigued who you think your audience is.Do you think anyone is convinced or persuaded by your irrelevant lectures on parliamentary democracy? Everybody knows Abhisit held the premiership legitimately but that is not the point being made.

If "everybody knows Abhisit held the premiership legitimately" then there wouldn't be people still saying that "Abhisit wasn't elected".

It might not be the point that you want to bring into this discussion, but the point I am making is that Abhisit was legitimately elected.

[tbthailand]

I know how parliamentary systems work. So does Abhisit. That's why he boycotted the last general election.

Talking was all Abhisit was good at. While he was the PM, all he did was talk, and accuse anyone who disagreed with him of LM.

He's nothing more than a shameless hypocrite and a deceitful charlatan. He lacks the courage to go to the country and win the hearts and minds of the citizenry, preferring instead to hide behind the army while holding up this pretence that he supports democracy.

If you know how parliamentary systems work, then you will know that Abhisit WAS elected.

As the Thais say you must have a very thick face since you have repeated this red herring several times on this forum as if it explains away Abhisit's grubby rise to power, the corrupt back door deals and ignoring the fact that the Thai people have consistently rejected him.I am actually intrigued who you think your audience is.Do you think anyone is convinced or persuaded by your irrelevant lectures on parliamentary democracy? Everybody knows Abhisit held the premiership legitimately but that is not the point being made.

to say that he held the post legitimately is going a bit too far in my opinion since it was exactly the way that the elected government was removed and a non-elected government installed which caused the protests against the Abhisit government in the first place.

he was officially voted in by the MPs. so was the current PM. Neither government could be called 'elected'.

[whybother]

to say that he held the post legitimately is going a bit too far in my opinion since it was exactly the way that the elected government was removed and a non-elected government installed which caused the protests against the Abhisit government in the first place.

he was officially voted in by the MPs. so was the current PM. Neither government could be called 'elected'.

The difference being that Abhisit was elected by the people, and the MPs that elected him PM were all elected by the people.

Can you explain to me the difference between the election to PM of Samak, Somchai and Abhisit?

[tbthailand]

to say that he held the post legitimately is going a bit too far in my opinion since it was exactly the way that the elected government was removed and a non-elected government installed which caused the protests against the Abhisit government in the first place.

he was officially voted in by the MPs. so was the current PM. Neither government could be called 'elected'.

The difference being that Abhisit was elected by the people, and the MPs that elected him PM were all elected by the people.

Can you explain to me the difference between the election to PM of Samak, Somchai and Abhisit?

stop, stop already - you are talking nonsense and you know it.

[whybother]

to say that he held the post legitimately is going a bit too far in my opinion since it was exactly the way that the elected government was removed and a non-elected government installed which caused the protests against the Abhisit government in the first place.

he was officially voted in by the MPs. so was the current PM. Neither government could be called 'elected'.

The difference being that Abhisit was elected by the people, and the MPs that elected him PM were all elected by the people.

Can you explain to me the difference between the election to PM of Samak, Somchai and Abhisit?

stop, stop already - you are talking nonsense and you know it.

If you can't tell me the difference between the election of Samak, Somchai and Abhisit, then you are the one talking nonsense.

[Thanet]

17.5k posts - I am beginning to understand how.

Let's take your first example, Yingluck. The party won the right in a general election to form a government and she became the PM which was what the voting public expected to happen in the case that her party won enough seats.

Abhisit was installed after the judicial coup and military arm-twisting/coalition building exercise. That is all well documented and understood, and it had nothing to do with winning a general election. He had a second chance in 2011 and failed spectacularly.

So please, give up with the "Abhisit was elected" nonsense.

Yingluck was elected, besides the fact that she was installed by Thaksin.

Now, please explain the difference between Samak, Somchai and Abhisit.

Politics runs in families. The Kennedy's, the Bushes, the Clintons, the Shinawatras.

And please let's not forget the Chan-ocha's - Prayuth's kid brother is in the NLA. Do you think that this is sheer coincidence, and that it is solely on his own merits? Or do you think that his big bro may have had something to do with him being there?

And your point is?

Mine was that Abhisit is a divisive figure, which he is, as he represents one side only of the political divide. His being given a forum by the state media apparatus will cause the very kind of resentment that the NCPO is claiming to oppose right now.

[tbthailand]

to say that he held the post legitimately is going a bit too far in my opinion since it was exactly the way that the elected government was removed and a non-elected government installed which caused the protests against the Abhisit government in the first place.

he was officially voted in by the MPs. so was the current PM. Neither government could be called 'elected'.

The difference being that Abhisit was elected by the people, and the MPs that elected him PM were all elected by the people.

Can you explain to me the difference between the election to PM of Samak, Somchai and Abhisit?

stop, stop already - you are talking nonsense and you know it.

If you can't tell me the difference between the election of Samak, Somchai and Abhisit, then you are the one talking nonsense.

I can certainly tell you the difference. But I have no desire to be baited by someone who knows what they are doing. You already know perfectly well the differences between an elected government coalition and one installed by a judicial coup. Now, stop with the baiting, please.

[Thanet]

to say that he held the post legitimately is going a bit too far in my opinion since it was exactly the way that the elected government was removed and a non-elected government installed which caused the protests against the Abhisit government in the first place.

he was officially voted in by the MPs. so was the current PM. Neither government could be called 'elected'.

The difference being that Abhisit was elected by the people, and the MPs that elected him PM were all elected by the people.

Can you explain to me the difference between the election to PM of Samak, Somchai and Abhisit?

stop, stop already - you are talking nonsense and you know it.

The tragedy is that he may not know it. He sounds like he is basing his arguments on falsehoods that he has somehow come to believe as the truth, despite logical rebuttals around factual evidence.

1) Boycotting elections makes you a winner

2) Losing elections makes you a winner

3) Taking out one side but not the other via a judicial coup makes you a winner, because you are the last man standing, until the citizenry re-elects the opposite side

4) Not going to the people and putting up a credible opposition, hiding behind the army, then claiming the lead will make him a winner and endear yourself to the citizenry

5) Taking out an elected government by street protests makes you a winner

6) Calling yourself a democrat, using all kinds of sophistry and propaganda to redefine what this commonly understood word 'democrat' means, when if fact you are the exact opposite of a democrat makes you a winner

6) Etcetera

Edited September 4, 2014 by Thanet

[whybother]

I can certainly tell you the difference. But I have no desire to be baited by someone who knows what they are doing. You already know perfectly well the differences between an elected government coalition and one installed by a judicial coup. Now, stop with the baiting, please.

I don't want to bait you. I want to understand.

Just because deals were done that you don't like, doesn't make Abhisit's election to PM illegitimate.

Deals were also done to get Samak and Somchai elected. Were those elections illegitimate because I don't like the deals that were done?

[tbthailand]

to say that he held the post legitimately is going a bit too far in my opinion since it was exactly the way that the elected government was removed and a non-elected government installed which caused the protests against the Abhisit government in the first place.

he was officially voted in by the MPs. so was the current PM. Neither government could be called 'elected'.

The difference being that Abhisit was elected by the people, and the MPs that elected him PM were all elected by the people.

Can you explain to me the difference between the election to PM of Samak, Somchai and Abhisit?

stop, stop already - you are talking nonsense and you know it.

The tragedy is that he may not know it. He sounds like he is basing his arguments on falsehoods that he has somehow come to believe as the truth, despite logical rebuttals around factual evidence.

1) Boycotting elections makes you a winner

2) Losing elections makes you a winner

3) Taking out one side but not the other via a judicial coup makes you a winner, because you are the last man standing, until the citizenry re-elects the opposite side

4) Not going to the people and putting up a credible opposition, hiding behind the army, then claiming the lead will make him a winner and endear yourself to the citizenry

5) Taking out an elected government by street protests makes you a winner

6) Calling yourself a democrat, using all kinds of sophistry and propaganda to redefine what this commonly understood word 'democrat' means, when if fact you are the exact opposite of a democrat makes you a winner

6) Etcetera

you may be right about the poster, but I think it is just baiting.

to your points, it is true that democratic systems can be manipulated in undemocratic ways. it happens in Thailand. it happens in other countries. it is what happened in 2008.

one of the reasons it is sooooo hilarious to see Abhisit making his pronouncements now is that his only job after the 2006 coup was to win an election. Then his only job, after being installed and given the advantage of incumbency, was to win an election. It was the only thing that he and his party needed to do to give the post 2006 coup and the post 2008 judicial coup a sheen of democratic legitimacy. But he failed. He failed big time. He failed repeatedly.

I suspect that he (Abhisit) is trying to stay relevant for the next 'elections' but to be honest, I don't see the junta repeating their 'mistakes' of the last 8 years and leaving anything up to the voters in a significant way. The voters, when it is one person, one vote, do not elect Abhisit and his party. The junta knows that. When they do come out with a new constitution, it will be a sham.

[Thanet]

The tragedy is that he may not know it. He sounds like he is basing his arguments on falsehoods that he has somehow come to believe as the truth, despite logical rebuttals around factual evidence.

1) Boycotting elections makes you a winner

2) Losing elections makes you a winner

3) Taking out one side but not the other via a judicial coup makes you a winner, because you are the last man standing, until the citizenry re-elects the opposite side

4) Not going to the people and putting up a credible opposition, hiding behind the army, then claiming the lead will make him a winner and endear yourself to the citizenry

5) Taking out an elected government by street protests makes you a winner

6) Calling yourself a democrat, using all kinds of sophistry and propaganda to redefine what this commonly understood word 'democrat' means, when if fact you are the exact opposite of a democrat makes you a winner

6) Etcetera

you may be right about the poster, but I think it is just baiting.

to your points, it is true that democratic systems can be manipulated in undemocratic ways. it happens in Thailand. it happens in other countries. it is what happened in 2008.

one of the reasons it is sooooo hilarious to see Abhisit making his pronouncements now is that his only job after the 2006 coup was to win an election. Then his only job, after being installed and given the advantage of incumbency, was to win an election. It was the only thing that he and his party needed to do to give the post 2006 coup and the post 2008 judicial coup a sheen of democratic legitimacy. But he failed. He failed big time. He failed repeatedly.

I suspect that he (Abhisit) is trying to stay relevant for the next 'elections' but to be honest, I don't see the junta repeating their 'mistakes' of the last 8 years and leaving anything up to the voters in a significant way. The voters, when it is one person, one vote, do not elect Abhisit and his party. The junta knows that. When they do come out with a new constitution, it will be a sham.

I agree with you there. The interim constitution, with it's 'army has the final say' clause, will likely be adopted permanently. Any government that the citizenry then tries to elect, will in effect be cowed by the army and be supine and utterly powerless.

All this talk about democracy and elections is just a façade -- all the army offers people is lip service to democracy, and elections here are merely worthless devices to delude gullible people into thinking that they have any political rights. They don't.

[whybother]

The tragedy is that he may not know it. He sounds like he is basing his arguments on falsehoods that he has somehow come to believe as the truth, despite logical rebuttals around factual evidence.

1) Boycotting elections makes you a winner

2) Losing elections makes you a winner

3) Taking out one side but not the other via a judicial coup makes you a winner, because you are the last man standing, until the citizenry re-elects the opposite side

4) Not going to the people and putting up a credible opposition, hiding behind the army, then claiming the lead will make him a winner and endear yourself to the citizenry

5) Taking out an elected government by street protests makes you a winner

6) Calling yourself a democrat, using all kinds of sophistry and propaganda to redefine what this commonly understood word 'democrat' means, when if fact you are the exact opposite of a democrat makes you a winner

6) Etcetera

Point 3) All but 5 MP places were filled. Any constituency MPs that were banned were replaced in by-elections. The only MPs not replaced were PPP party-list MPs that were banned.

All the PPP MPs that were not banned went to other parties, mostly to PTP, others to BJT. PTP were in government but a PM needed to be elected. PTP chose to go to parliament to elect a new PM, as they did when Samak had to stand down and Somchai was elected.

Point 4) PTP could have decided to call a general election. After all, the coalition that they needed to form government in 2007 no longer existed. They chose not to go to the people.

[tonbridgebrit]

I really do think that the junta have already made up their minds on how to run the country, they're not that interested in Abhisit's ideas and advice.

One bit of advice for Abhisit is this. Abhisit, you dis-like Thaksin but not the junta. What you do right, is this. You should pull out of the next election, don't bother to be in it. This will mean that the next election will be a race between Thaksin and the junta. Yes, the other small parties will also take part.

Now then, if you and the Democrats do take part in the election, you're basically splitting the anti-Thaksinite vote and reducing the chances of the junta winning the election. If you pull out, surely, most of the votes for you will switch to the junta ? How many of the voters for you are going to switch to Thaksin ?

Surely, Thaksin is the one you don't want to see being in charge again ?

Are the junta planning to stand in the next election?

They've got to. How else can Thailand prevent Thaksin from taking over the country again ?

We all know that in a race between Thaksin and Abhisit (and the little parties involved as well), Abhisit is NOT going to win. This is because Abhisit and the Democrats represent the mainly Chinese Bangkok middle-class, and a few other social groups, these people combined are outnumbered by the rural poor of Isaan (and people in Thaksin's backyard in Chiang Mai).

An election without the junta will just be a replay of previous elections, either Thaksin wins and we head back to the anti-Thaksinites doing mass demonstrations, they will find another person who will be the new Sondhi/Suthep. Or, Abhisit pulls out again, and we're back to an election that doesn't actually count. More chaos.

I think most of Thaksin's voters, even these people, don't want to see a repeat of the chaos.

[jayboy]

They've got to. How else can Thailand prevent Thaksin from taking over the country again ?

We all know that in a race between Thaksin and Abhisit (and the little parties involved as well), Abhisit is NOT going to win. This is because Abhisit and the Democrats represent the mainly Chinese Bangkok middle-class, and a few other social groups, these people combined are outnumbered by the rural poor of Isaan (and people in Thaksin's backyard in Chiang Mai).

An election without the junta will just be a replay of previous elections, either Thaksin wins and we head back to the anti-Thaksinites doing mass demonstrations, they will find another person who will be the new Sondhi/Suthep. Or, Abhisit pulls out again, and we're back to an election that doesn't actually count. More chaos.

I think most of Thaksin's voters, even these people, don't want to see a repeat of the chaos.

The position is more complicated than you suggest.The Democrats have a strong foothold throughout the South and are also very significant in Central Thailand, in addition to Bangkok and other urban areas.It was the natural party of power and could be again with better leadership.You are right however to identify the Sino Thai middle class which (foolishly in the view of many) has aligned itself to the established old elite.The Thaksin oriented parties have support throughout the North and Northeast but also in Bangkok, and is by no means confined to the rural poor.Many fail to understand the changes in the North and North East in the last 30 years, but the notion of a poor uneducated peasantry is very outdated.In fact one could plausibly argue that there is support among most of the lower middle class.The key factor is that the elites (army, vested corporate and feudal) backed the Democrats though that for obvious reasons is on hold or possibly has even been abandoned.Thaksin and of course another key figure have finite time available.Thereafter one suspects the personality cult which has affected boh sides of the divide will become less significant.Therafter a deal will have to be done - as it has in almost every other society between old elites and the emerging middle class.In Thailand I fear the big losers will be the Sino Thai middle class.

[NCFC]

It is good to see the Right Honorable Ahbisit giving constructive criticism and advice honed from his education at Oxford and Eton.

He is not running away and he is not staying silent. He is not projecting a negativity seen by the shadowy undemocratic PTP (oh yes, one principle of democracy). There is no "this won't work" or "I was forced to come to this meeting" or "I don't want to be on the NRL because I won't be eligible to be a minister" All selfish, self serving, greedy and self centered responses by morons that show why reform is needed. Those are the attributes of gutter folk, not politicians.

He is a shining beacon offering advice to benefit…..guess who? Yep, the voters, the population. The people of Thailand. Not just 7% mind you. The whole country.

What a refreshing change and it is nice to hear the input. Lets see if the Junta take his advice.

is this the same person who has boycotted two out of four elections because he couldn't win?

What do they teach at Eton and Oxford these days?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[tonbridgebrit]

They've got to. How else can Thailand prevent Thaksin from taking over the country again ?

We all know that in a race between Thaksin and Abhisit (and the little parties involved as well), Abhisit is NOT going to win. This is because Abhisit and the Democrats represent the mainly Chinese Bangkok middle-class, and a few other social groups, these people combined are outnumbered by the rural poor of Isaan (and people in Thaksin's backyard in Chiang Mai).

An election without the junta will just be a replay of previous elections, either Thaksin wins and we head back to the anti-Thaksinites doing mass demonstrations, they will find another person who will be the new Sondhi/Suthep. Or, Abhisit pulls out again, and we're back to an election that doesn't actually count. More chaos.

I think most of Thaksin's voters, even these people, don't want to see a repeat of the chaos.

The position is more complicated than you suggest.The Democrats have a strong foothold throughout the South and are also very significant in Central Thailand, in addition to Bangkok and other urban areas.It was the natural party of power and could be again with better leadership.You are right however to identify the Sino Thai middle class which (foolishly in the view of many) has aligned itself to the established old elite.The Thaksin oriented parties have support throughout the North and Northeast but also in Bangkok, and is by no means confined to the rural poor.Many fail to understand the changes in the North and North East in the last 30 years, but the notion of a poor uneducated peasantry is very outdated.In fact one could plausibly argue that there is support among most of the lower middle class.The key factor is that the elites (army, vested corporate and feudal) backed the Democrats though that for obvious reasons is on hold or possibly has even been abandoned.Thaksin and of course another key figure have finite time available.Thereafter one suspects the personality cult which has affected boh sides of the divide will become less significant.Therafter a deal will have to be done - as it has in almost every other society between old elites and the emerging middle class.In Thailand I fear the big losers will be the Sino Thai middle class.

Thanks for your response "Jayboy".

I do think that Thailand has had a 'middle-class' for a few decades now, and it is made up mainly of Chinese-Thais. The middle-class, surely, would rather vote for the Democrats rather than Thaksin, because they don't want their tax money being used to subsidise the poor ?

I think the 'poor uneducated peasantry' are simply not accepting a system where they are kept poor, these people have had a taste of 'equality' and they want more. Yes, in a free vote, a lot of people (most people are actually poor, income distribution is usually a pyramid structure in most countries) are going to vote for 'we want more equality, let their be usage of tax money to subsidise us and bring on the equality'.

The junta are in power now, and who knows, they might carry out or continue policies like 'subsidise petrol and diesel, subsidise rubber, other stuff too, and throw in the sweetener of free World Cup football for everybody'. Yes, they themselves are (a little bit) carrying out populist policies that basically use tax money to subsidise poorer people. Hey, a number of Thaksin's voters might switch to the junta if it is a race between the junta and Thaksin. After all, if you're better off, you're better off, a different man handing out the benefits might not matter to you.

Yes, the personality cult. Thaksin is not going to be around forever. The big issue to me, once he's gone, are those Thaksin voters going to rally around a new candidate, a candidate who is going to say "Vote for me, I'ill make the rich pay the tax needed for your subsidies, it's only right that the rich subsidise you, after all, society is based on the rich using their money (capital) to exploit you".

Is that going to happen ?

If it does, then Thailand in the future, will not be a country where a vast number of people work for 300/400 baht per day, whilst there's also a rich minority who have four million and five million baht cars.

The Chinese-Thai middle-class ? Well, if they lose, I think they will be losing because they will be paying more tax money. I can't see ethnic tensions between the Chinese-Thais and the Thai-Thais rising. And I massively hope it doesn't happen.