Politicians blast ministry's call for an unelected Thai PM

[Globeman]

This is entirely against the Democratic principal of governance. Don't bother to tell everybody how great Thailand is with a toss pot leader , the country is renowned for corruption , just watch the bank accounts start to jingle on this one, why do so many of so called leaders within Thailand each week bring up uneducated , brain dead stupid idea's is beyond belief , it must be the quality of education, people couldn't be so stupid, just have to ask yourself what was the Coup primary for, Democracy. Verdict: they make you sick.

Sorry to point this out, but if you are going to lambaste an educational system and condemn "stupid idea's" you might want to avoid undermining your own argument by breaking up your paragraph into actual punctuated sentences and perhaps also by correctly spelling the plural of "idea". That would be "ideas", by the way. Apostrophes are used only for possessives and contractions - or didn't they teach you that in the fine educational system you attended?

[halloween]

Without supporting the proposition, may I point out that the last PM was appointed by the fugitive criminal that owns PTP. As Weng said, when you are on the payroll, you follow the party line. the first step to stop this is abandoning the party list system.

BTW why are MPs allowed to accept payments other than their government salary and allowances? how is this not systematic bribery?

An interesting take on the election of Yingluck Shinawatra by her fellow MP's.........................

* just for the record, 296 of the 500 members of parliament voted to approve the premiership of Yingluck Shinawatra, three disapproved, and 197 abstained. 4 Dems didn't even bother to turn up.

As Weng said, if you want to stay on the payroll, you vote as you are told. Apparently this is what you call democracy.

[Baerboxer]

The last elected PM won in a landslide !

Just another article and statement trotting out the same rhetoric that the elite yellows know better than the majority of voters of Thailand .

They can't win one so use any means to take power.

The last elected PM won with the largest minority of votes, which under the current procedures translated into a majority in parliament. Very democratic.

PTP did not receive a majority of the votes cast.

PTP chose to put themselves above the law. Hardly surprising when they were controlled and followed the decisions of a convicted criminal fugitive.

Your're going back to the old pretences. Next it will be that Yingluck was the real leader and made the decisions.

[fab4]

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

Without supporting the proposition, may I point out that the last PM was appointed by the fugitive criminal that owns PTP. As Weng said, when you are on the payroll, you follow the party line. the first step to stop this is abandoning the party list system.

BTW why are MPs allowed to accept payments other than their government salary and allowances? how is this not systematic bribery?

An interesting take on the election of Yingluck Shinawatra by her fellow MP's......................... alt=coffee1.gif width=32 height=24>

* just for the record, 296 of the 500 members of parliament voted to approve the premiership of Yingluck Shinawatra, three disapproved, and 197 abstained. 4 Dems didn't even bother to turn up.

You think forum readers are that stupid fabie.

There can be no doubt that very large numbers of the house members (or to be more accurate the salaried members of the get rich quick club) voted as per instructions from the club owner / their paymaster.

On the other hand why did such a very large number abstain?

Er, because they were the opposition who had just lost an election badly? What do you think? Let's face it, it's part of dem DNA to either abstain or boycott votes.

[fab4]

Without supporting the proposition, may I point out that the last PM was appointed by the fugitive criminal that owns PTP. As Weng said, when you are on the payroll, you follow the party line. the first step to stop this is abandoning the party list system.

BTW why are MPs allowed to accept payments other than their government salary and allowances? how is this not systematic bribery?

An interesting take on the election of Yingluck Shinawatra by her fellow MP's.........................

* just for the record, 296 of the 500 members of parliament voted to approve the premiership of Yingluck Shinawatra, three disapproved, and 197 abstained. 4 Dems didn't even bother to turn up.

As Weng said, if you want to stay on the payroll, you vote as you are told. Apparently this is what you call democracy.

Perhaps you could dig that quote out, I don't recall it. You're saying that Dr. Weng dictates how PTP MP's vote, is that right? Not only do you have an interesting take on the Election of the PM, you are now branching out into definitions of democracy.

As I said, interesting, not in the least bit correct, but interesting.

[fab4]

The last elected PM won in a landslide !

Just another article and statement trotting out the same rhetoric that the elite yellows know better than the majority of voters of Thailand .

They can't win one so use any means to take power.

The last elected PM won with the largest minority of votes, which under the current procedures translated into a majority in parliament. Very democratic.

PTP did not receive a majority of the votes cast.

PTP chose to put themselves above the law. Hardly surprising when they were controlled and followed the decisions of a convicted criminal fugitive.

Your're going back to the old pretences. Next it will be that Yingluck was the real leader and made the decisions.

How about the one before that? Any comments?

[whybother]

The last elected PM won in a landslide !

Just another article and statement trotting out the same rhetoric that the elite yellows know better than the majority of voters of Thailand .

They can't win one so use any means to take power.

The last elected PM won with the largest minority of votes, which under the current procedures translated into a majority in parliament. Very democratic.

PTP did not receive a majority of the votes cast.

PTP chose to put themselves above the law. Hardly surprising when they were controlled and followed the decisions of a convicted criminal fugitive.

Your're going back to the old pretences. Next it will be that Yingluck was the real leader and made the decisions.

How about the one before that? Any comments?

He didn't get a majority of votes either. But no one is saying he did.

[fab4]

The last elected PM won in a landslide !

Just another article and statement trotting out the same rhetoric that the elite yellows know better than the majority of voters of Thailand .

They can't win one so use any means to take power.

The last elected PM won with the largest minority of votes, which under the current procedures translated into a majority in parliament. Very democratic.

PTP did not receive a majority of the votes cast.

PTP chose to put themselves above the law. Hardly surprising when they were controlled and followed the decisions of a convicted criminal fugitive.

Your're going back to the old pretences. Next it will be that Yingluck was the real leader and made the decisions.

How about the one before that? Any comments?

He didn't get a majority of votes either. But no one is saying he did.

Nor indeed am I. My concern is with baerboxer's claim that largest minority of votes translated into a majority in parliament is undemocratic - I was alluding to the fact that the previous incumbent was elected under the same rules, as you confirm. Presumably baerboxer will therefore extend his "undemocratic" allegation to that government as well - or does that logic only apply to the PTP?

[northernjohn]

This is only one suggestion among many others put forward from one entity, it is not be any means a foregone conclusion.

There are other suggestions in the same package which sound very good even though appointing a PM from outside the political arena is not one of them.

It must be noted though that it has been done before with PM's appointed by someone who had no right to be involved in politics.

There will be many other suggestions from other groups before any decisions are made.

Would be even better with a greater range of ideas if some groups had not refused to take part, instead deciding only to stand back and criticize.

Are you crazy? Posting an intelligent reply on Thai Vista.

Why does every one assume that electing a government will make it a democratic government. Look at the last government of the Thaksin Shinawatra party. They had a convicted criminal running from the law running the country. That is not what I would call democratic. But there is always some brain dead follower who thinks it is.

How have all the supposed democratic governments in the past worked out?

As you say it was only one suggestion among many by one person. As of this point all I have heard is negative responses. No thinking what so ever. PTP supporters are easily led around by the nose.

Hopefully yours and mine are not the only intelligent posts.

There are city's in Canada that I know of who hire a city manager and are very successful with it. Not that I am for it but I do realize it is a proven working way of doing things in some places. Dish it but at least stop and think about it first.

[northernjohn]

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

"...an election should not be justified as the ultimate goal for democracy," he said" Priceless!

Please define democracy in a way that excludes getting the people's mandate via the electoral process. Roll out the model and let's take a peek, shall we?

Well you have a point there. But this is Thailand and how do you figure to get an honest vote. Honesty is inherent in Democracy. Far cry from what Thailand has.

The irony of the situation is just amazing with the PM in Myanmar; as Myanmar takes its first tentative steps towards democracy, Thailand makes more 'noises' that suggest it is taking its tentative steps in the opposite direction towards a more authoritarian and less democratically inclusive political system.

Don't get too excited about Myanmar just yet. too early to tell how that will play out. The same guys are in charge who have always been in charge and I can't see them just giving everything up for Democracy. They will implement a one-party state with a veneer similar to Cambodia. Much like what is about to happen here. This coup is very unlike the 2006 one. This time the 'born to rule' group are playing for keeps!

Yes Thailand is blessed with some born to rule people who are cleaning up the mess made by the previous governments. Is there any other kind of people that could do the job? They are not Democratic and do not claim to be. They do how ever say they will have the mess cleaned up enough to get a new government by election in next year. Thailand is in a win win situation. The government will be cleaned up quite a bit. As the Prime Minister has said there will still be much work to do after the election. Also you don't have to worry about some idiot shooting you because you are against corruption. As I say a win win situation.

Empty set had a long talk about the Chinese Thai and ended with a very good statement.

What does an 'indigenous Thai' look like anyway given that many taxi drivers and people from villages might have at least one Chinese relation somewhere down the line, and are Issan people properly 'Thai'? Some might beg to differ... ?

[northernjohn]

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

Without supporting the proposition, may I point out that the last PM was appointed by the fugitive criminal that owns PTP. As Weng said, when you are on the payroll, you follow the party line. the first step to stop this is abandoning the party list system.

BTW why are MPs allowed to accept payments other than their government salary and allowances? how is this not systematic bribery?

An interesting take on the election of Yingluck Shinawatra by her fellow MP's......................... alt=coffee1.gif width=32 height=24>

* just for the record, 296 of the 500 members of parliament voted to approve the premiership of Yingluck Shinawatra, three disapproved, and 197 abstained. 4 Dems didn't even bother to turn up.

You think forum readers are that stupid fabie.

There can be no doubt that very large numbers of the house members (or to be more accurate the salaried members of the get rich quick club) voted as per instructions from the club owner / their paymaster.

On the other hand why did such a very large number abstain?

Always sad to see stupid people think they are smarter than others.

Also as you say why did so many abstain? You might add how come it was only people who got a paycheck with Thaksin Shinawatra's name on it?

Also how did 49% of the population manage to get 59.2% of the vote?

fabie was wondering how money buys the election that is how. He also wonders why the money won't keep them in power. Well it would appear that the 51% had enough of his thievery.

[northernjohn]

The last elected PM won in a landslide !

Just another article and statement trotting out the same rhetoric that the elite yellows know better than the majority of voters of Thailand .

They can't win one so use any means to take power.

The last elected PM won with the largest minority of votes, which under the current procedures translated into a majority in parliament. Very democratic.

PTP did not receive a majority of the votes cast.

PTP chose to put themselves above the law. Hardly surprising when they were controlled and followed the decisions of a convicted criminal fugitive.

Your're going back to the old pretences. Next it will be that Yingluck was the real leader and made the decisions.

Surely you will agree she made all the decisions on what stores to shop in and what to buy. Come to think of it she might have had to have a little bit of help on what to buy.

[northernjohn]

The last elected PM won in a landslide !

Just another article and statement trotting out the same rhetoric that the elite yellows know better than the majority of voters of Thailand .

They can't win one so use any means to take power.

The last elected PM won with the largest minority of votes, which under the current procedures translated into a majority in parliament. Very democratic.

PTP did not receive a majority of the votes cast.

PTP chose to put themselves above the law. Hardly surprising when they were controlled and followed the decisions of a convicted criminal fugitive.

Your're going back to the old pretences. Next it will be that Yingluck was the real leader and made the decisions.

How about the one before that? Any comments?

Finally I can agree with you it is not a democratic system. It is a Parliamentarian system that does not require the majority of the people to vote for you. The people are just a needed incidental detail.

[fab4]

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

Without supporting the proposition, may I point out that the last PM was appointed by the fugitive criminal that owns PTP. As Weng said, when you are on the payroll, you follow the party line. the first step to stop this is abandoning the party list system.

BTW why are MPs allowed to accept payments other than their government salary and allowances? how is this not systematic bribery?

An interesting take on the election of Yingluck Shinawatra by her fellow MP's......................... alt=coffee1.gif width=32 height=24>

* just for the record, 296 of the 500 members of parliament voted to approve the premiership of Yingluck Shinawatra, three disapproved, and 197 abstained. 4 Dems didn't even bother to turn up.

You think forum readers are that stupid fabie.

There can be no doubt that very large numbers of the house members (or to be more accurate the salaried members of the get rich quick club) voted as per instructions from the club owner / their paymaster.

On the other hand why did such a very large number abstain?

Always sad to see stupid people think they are smarter than others.

Also as you say why did so many abstain? You might add how come it was only people who got a paycheck with Thaksin Shinawatra's name on it?

Also how did 49% of the population manage to get 59.2% of the vote?

fabie was wondering how money buys the election that is how. He also wonders why the money won't keep them in power. Well it would appear that the 51% had enough of his thievery.

You accuse posters of being stupid and then you ask this

"why did so many abstain?"

By the way if you had actually read my post instead of knee jerk reaction posting because it's a post from fab4, you would realise that my reference to why money wouldn't keep them in power is a reference to the Democrat Party.

On second thoughts perhaps you are right, some posters are stupid.

[billd766]

The last elected PM won in a landslide !

Just another article and statement trotting out the same rhetoric that the elite yellows know better than the majority of voters of Thailand .

They can't win one so use any means to take power.

The last PM was not elected by the public, had zero experience of politics and was not even elected by the PTP.

Yingluck was #1 in the party list and was nominated and elected by one vote only and that was Thaksin Shinawatra.

There was no landslide vote though the PTP did gain more votes and seats than the Democrats

The PTP did what the ministry has just called for but as it will go against the PTP who as has been pointed out recently don't want to take part in any reform.

The PTP are like the dogs that bark in the night and howl at the moon. Nobody knows why but they just do.

If you wish another anology they are like spoiolt children who cannot have their own way. They shout and scream and throw their toys out of the pram.

The PTP need to wake up. If you want to change, alter or save the system you have to join in. It can't be done from the outside.

[tbthailand]

The last elected PM won in a landslide !

Just another article and statement trotting out the same rhetoric that the elite yellows know better than the majority of voters of Thailand .

They can't win one so use any means to take power.

The last PM was not elected by the public, had zero experience of politics and was not even elected by the PTP.

Yingluck was #1 in the party list and was nominated and elected by one vote only and that was Thaksin Shinawatra.

There was no landslide vote though the PTP did gain more votes and seats than the Democrats

The PTP did what the ministry has just called for but as it will go against the PTP who as has been pointed out recently don't want to take part in any reform.

The PTP are like the dogs that bark in the night and howl at the moon. Nobody knows why but they just do.

If you wish another anology they are like spoiolt children who cannot have their own way. They shout and scream and throw their toys out of the pram.

The PTP need to wake up. If you want to change, alter or save the system you have to join in. It can't be done from the outside.

couple of points :

not a landslide? Whatever you think of PTP, they beat the pants off of everybody in that election. 40 parties in the running and they get nearly 49% of the vote and over 50% of the seats. THAT is not a landslide? in the US, if you win by more that 10 points, that is considered a landslide and there are only 2 or maybe 3 candidates in any race.

Second, Yingluck was not elected by the public? What is that nonsense? OK, if you want to fall back on the parliamentary details of the system, go ahead, but if you just want to pull a 'I hate Thaksin' rant, then the truth is that she lead the campaign, she went head-to-head with Abhisit, and she was overwhelmingly 'elected' given the results stated above.

Say what you want about PTP or Dem policies and legislation. She was popular among many many Thais.

[h90]

This is entirely against the Democratic principal of governance. Don't bother to tell everybody how great Thailand is with a toss pot leader , the country is renowned for corruption , just watch the bank accounts start to jingle on this one, why do so many of so called leaders within Thailand each week bring up uneducated , brain dead stupid idea's is beyond belief , it must be the quality of education, people couldn't be so stupid, just have to ask yourself what was the Coup primary for, Democracy. Verdict: they make you sick.

Well with "Democracy" it was much worse...Politicians buy themself into power with vote buying, act like dictators and fill their pockets.

yes lots of brain dead stupid ideas....but go back a few month and remember the brain dead stupid ideas of the ministers from Yingluck government.

[billd766]

The last elected PM won in a landslide !

Just another article and statement trotting out the same rhetoric that the elite yellows know better than the majority of voters of Thailand .

They can't win one so use any means to take power.

The last PM was not elected by the public, had zero experience of politics and was not even elected by the PTP.

Yingluck was #1 in the party list and was nominated and elected by one vote only and that was Thaksin Shinawatra.

There was no landslide vote though the PTP did gain more votes and seats than the Democrats

The PTP did what the ministry has just called for but as it will go against the PTP who as has been pointed out recently don't want to take part in any reform.

The PTP are like the dogs that bark in the night and howl at the moon. Nobody knows why but they just do.

If you wish another anology they are like spoiolt children who cannot have their own way. They shout and scream and throw their toys out of the pram.

The PTP need to wake up. If you want to change, alter or save the system you have to join in. It can't be done from the outside.

couple of points :

not a landslide? Whatever you think of PTP, they beat the pants off of everybody in that election. 40 parties in the running and they get nearly 49% of the vote and over 50% of the seats. THAT is not a landslide? in the US, if you win by more that 10 points, that is considered a landslide and there are only 2 or maybe 3 candidates in any race.

Second, Yingluck was not elected by the public? What is that nonsense? OK, if you want to fall back on the parliamentary details of the system, go ahead, but if you just want to pull a 'I hate Thaksin' rant, then the truth is that she lead the campaign, she went head-to-head with Abhisit, and she was overwhelmingly 'elected' given the results stated above.

Say what you want about PTP or Dem policies and legislation. She was popular among many many Thais.

Yes I want to fall back on the boring details of parliament which is what the post was about.

Not how popular the PTP and Yingluck were back in 2011.

However to answer your slightly off topic reply.

What constituency did she stand for in the system? Not one is a good enough answer.

When and where did she go head to head with Abhisit? If you can provide a link then I would be grateful as I don't remember any head to head meeting at all.

She was never elected by anyone except her brother. No one voted for her outside of the PTP party and only the party leadership and the elected MPs had a vote. However every vote was trumped by the owner of the party, one Thaksin Shinawatra. No-one in the party would dare oppose him.

I grant you that Yingluck was popular among many Thais. The same could be said about Abhisit being popular among many Thais.

I suspect that at this time neither Yingluck or Abhisit are as popular as they were then.

[Robby nz]

This is only one suggestion among many others put forward from one entity, it is not be any means a foregone conclusion.

There are other suggestions in the same package which sound very good even though appointing a PM from outside the political arena is not one of them.

It must be noted though that it has been done before with PM's appointed by someone who had no right to be involved in politics.

There will be many other suggestions from other groups before any decisions are made.

Would be even better with a greater range of ideas if some groups had not refused to take part, instead deciding only to stand back and criticize.

Why participate in something that is inherently illegitimate?

Because these people are supposed to be and are saying they representing those from part of the country and not to participate is robbing those who they say they represent of a voice..

In fact posters like you are telling us it is a huge majority of the country they represent. They are getting no say in things like education reforms that can benefit their kids, health reforms, energy reforms, all of these and many more that are much needed

So the ordinary people are being left out, and why is that ?

Because the so called representatives can only see that any political reforms are most likely to prevent criminals and the corrupt from ever participating in politics and that will keep them as well as their patron saint out.

Their motives for not participating are purely selfish and they have no regard for the ordinary people.

They can only hope that some stage they can derail the process.

[halloween]

Without supporting the proposition, may I point out that the last PM was appointed by the fugitive criminal that owns PTP. As Weng said, when you are on the payroll, you follow the party line. the first step to stop this is abandoning the party list system.

BTW why are MPs allowed to accept payments other than their government salary and allowances? how is this not systematic bribery?

An interesting take on the election of Yingluck Shinawatra by her fellow MP's.........................

* just for the record, 296 of the 500 members of parliament voted to approve the premiership of Yingluck Shinawatra, three disapproved, and 197 abstained. 4 Dems didn't even bother to turn up.

As Weng said, if you want to stay on the payroll, you vote as you are told. Apparently this is what you call democracy.

Perhaps you could dig that quote out, I don't recall it. You're saying that Dr. Weng dictates how PTP MP's vote, is that right? Not only do you have an interesting take on the Election of the PM, you are now branching out into definitions of democracy.

As I said, interesting, not in the least bit correct, but interesting.

How quickly some of us forget, when it is convenient to do so. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Curbing-party-leaders-influence-30244342.html

"Hence, it's unfair to say a party member only follows the party line because they are on the payroll," the red-shirt leader said.

No, Weng doesn't dictate how they vote, the owner of the party does. Why should elected MPs have to vote the party line to stay on the government payroll?

Why are they on ANYBODY else's payroll?

[tbthailand]

The last elected PM won in a landslide !

Just another article and statement trotting out the same rhetoric that the elite yellows know better than the majority of voters of Thailand .

They can't win one so use any means to take power.

The last PM was not elected by the public, had zero experience of politics and was not even elected by the PTP.

Yingluck was #1 in the party list and was nominated and elected by one vote only and that was Thaksin Shinawatra.

There was no landslide vote though the PTP did gain more votes and seats than the Democrats

The PTP did what the ministry has just called for but as it will go against the PTP who as has been pointed out recently don't want to take part in any reform.

The PTP are like the dogs that bark in the night and howl at the moon. Nobody knows why but they just do.

If you wish another anology they are like spoiolt children who cannot have their own way. They shout and scream and throw their toys out of the pram.

The PTP need to wake up. If you want to change, alter or save the system you have to join in. It can't be done from the outside.

couple of points :

not a landslide? Whatever you think of PTP, they beat the pants off of everybody in that election. 40 parties in the running and they get nearly 49% of the vote and over 50% of the seats. THAT is not a landslide? in the US, if you win by more that 10 points, that is considered a landslide and there are only 2 or maybe 3 candidates in any race.

Second, Yingluck was not elected by the public? What is that nonsense? OK, if you want to fall back on the parliamentary details of the system, go ahead, but if you just want to pull a 'I hate Thaksin' rant, then the truth is that she lead the campaign, she went head-to-head with Abhisit, and she was overwhelmingly 'elected' given the results stated above.

Say what you want about PTP or Dem policies and legislation. She was popular among many many Thais.

Yes I want to fall back on the boring details of parliament which is what the post was about.

Not how popular the PTP and Yingluck were back in 2011.

However to answer your slightly off topic reply.

What constituency did she stand for in the system? Not one is a good enough answer.

When and where did she go head to head with Abhisit? If you can provide a link then I would be grateful as I don't remember any head to head meeting at all.

She was never elected by anyone except her brother. No one voted for her outside of the PTP party and only the party leadership and the elected MPs had a vote. However every vote was trumped by the owner of the party, one Thaksin Shinawatra. No-one in the party would dare oppose him.

I grant you that Yingluck was popular among many Thais. The same could be said about Abhisit being popular among many Thais.

I suspect that at this time neither Yingluck or Abhisit are as popular as they were then.

I did not discuss how popular she or the PTP was except for the closing comment - like you I talked about results of the election and the fact that it was a landslide... just sayin.

seems to have followed perfectly the discussion - not so off-topic, eh.

If the Democrats had won enough seats to form a government, do you honestly expect that Abhisit would not have become PM? Honestly, every Thai voter and every Falang on this forum must have understood that. Where did she and Abhisit go head-to-dead, you ask? Well, were you in Thailand in the spring of 2011 and did you watch the news at least once a week, It would have been hard to miss.

[tbthailand]

This is only one suggestion among many others put forward from one entity, it is not be any means a foregone conclusion.

There are other suggestions in the same package which sound very good even though appointing a PM from outside the political arena is not one of them.

It must be noted though that it has been done before with PM's appointed by someone who had no right to be involved in politics.

There will be many other suggestions from other groups before any decisions are made.

Would be even better with a greater range of ideas if some groups had not refused to take part, instead deciding only to stand back and criticize.

Why participate in something that is inherently illegitimate?

Because these people are supposed to be and are saying they representing those from part of the country and not to participate is robbing those who they say they represent of a voice..

In fact posters like you are telling us it is a huge majority of the country they represent. They are getting no say in things like education reforms that can benefit their kids, health reforms, energy reforms, all of these and many more that are much needed

So the ordinary people are being left out, and why is that ?

Because the so called representatives can only see that any political reforms are most likely to prevent criminals and the corrupt from ever participating in politics and that will keep them as well as their patron saint out.

Their motives for not participating are purely selfish and they have no regard for the ordinary people.

They can only hope that some stage they can derail the process.

the PTP and all of the politicians associated with Thaksin are being pushed to the sidelines if not completely out of the country.

did you miss that?

The 'NCPO' is in control. They call the shots. It is a dream fantasy to imagine that any proposals from anywhere will become reality if the 'NCPO' does not like the policy.

To claim that not participating in the 'reforms' means that the PTP is robbing the people they represent of their 'voice' is patently absurd - robbing them of their voice has been going on every day since May 22nd.

The PTP, UDD, in fact anyone from any group which doesn't agree with the 'NCPO' doesn't have a voice in reforms. Basta.

[billd766]

to tbthailand #51

I hate it when the board tells me there are too many comments already

Quote

"I did not discuss how popular she or the PTP was except for the closing comment - like you I talked about results of the election and the fact that it was a landslide... just sayin.

seems to have followed perfectly the discussion - not so off-topic, eh.

If the Democrats had won enough seats to form a government, do you honestly expect that Abhisit would not have become PM? Honestly, every Thai voter and every Falang on this forum must have understood that. Where did she and Abhisit go head-to-dead, you ask? Well, were you in Thailand in the spring of 2011 and did you watch the news at least once a week, It would have been hard to miss."

My reply

Yes if the Democrats HAD won the election then I would have expected Abhisit to become the PM. Firstly because he was and had been a politician since 1992 winning the Bangkok seat in 1992, 1995 and 1996. In 2001 and 2005 he was selected as a party list MP for the Democrats. So in 2011 he was a veteran politician of some 19 years compared to Yingluck's zero political experience.

I have not left Thailand since 2009 and probably never will.

Please provide the link of when Abhisit and Yingluck met face to face in a televised debate because as far as I remember they never did.

However at 70 I am sure my memory is not as good as it was.

[Wombat6]

The last elected PM won in a landslide !

Just another article and statement trotting out the same rhetoric that the elite yellows know better than the majority of voters of Thailand .

They can't win one so use any means to take power.

Just another comment from a redshirt who still believes that Thaksin and his sister did no wrong.....a landslide ???....don't think so !! I think you should put your head back under your wing until all the damage that the Shins and their cronies created is rectified.

So if you believe in 1 person=1 vote, you are a redshirt??

Many redshirts worldwide!!

If you have been reading Thai Visa for awhile you would have noticed the squwarks made by the "stuttering Parrot". his posts support the Shins and the "red shirt" group. Nothing to do with 1 person=1 vote

[billd766]

to tbthailand #51

I hate it when the board tells me there are too many comments already

Quote

"I did not discuss how popular she or the PTP was except for the closing comment - like you I talked about results of the election and the fact that it was a landslide... just sayin.

seems to have followed perfectly the discussion - not so off-topic, eh.

If the Democrats had won enough seats to form a government, do you honestly expect that Abhisit would not have become PM? Honestly, every Thai voter and every Falang on this forum must have understood that. Where did she and Abhisit go head-to-dead, you ask? Well, were you in Thailand in the spring of 2011 and did you watch the news at least once a week, It would have been hard to miss."

My reply

Yes if the Democrats HAD won the election then I would have expected Abhisit to become the PM. Firstly because he was and had been a politician since 1992 winning the Bangkok seat in 1992, 1995 and 1996. In 2001 and 2005 he was selected as a party list MP for the Democrats. So in 2011 he was a veteran politician of some 19 years compared to Yingluck's zero political experience.

I have not left Thailand since 2009 and probably never will.

Please provide the link of when Abhisit and Yingluck met face to face in a televised debate because as far as I remember they never did.

However at 70 I am sure my memory is not as good as it was.

To tbthailand

I looked around the internet last night and found NO references to a face to face debatsit and Yingluck but I did find several threads of them talking about the debate which does not seem to have happened.

The links are here.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Debate-about-the-debate-is-missing-the-point-30156203.html

She hasn't totally ruled out a debate with Abhisit... Yingluck Says Policy More Appealing Than Debate

by Surasak Tumcharoen 15 มิถุนายน 2554 เวลา 13:42 น.

Facebook Twitter Google plus

To make it easier I did a copy and paste and hung them all together here

Abhisit and Yingluck debate

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Debate-about-the-debate-is-missing-the-point-30156203.html

Debate about the debate is missing the point

By Suthichai Yoon

The Nation

Published on May 26, 2011

Despite all the denials and sarcastic comments from the Pheu Thai Party's executive, it is still possible that Yingluck Shinawatra will decide to debate Abhisit Vejjajiva, perhaps just a few days before the July 3 general election.

Yingluck is gearing up for the big confrontation with the country's best-known political debater in her own way. Abhisit has thrown down the gauntlet several times, in the hope of forcing Thaksin Shinawatra's "clone" to confront him on real issues.

Why have Yingluck's handlers advised her against a one-on-one face-off with Abhisit?

They have argued that such a debate would be a waste of time. It would be tantamount to a noisy squabble, something akin to a shouting match in a busy market that benefits nobody.

Yingluck herself, in an attempt to avoid an early verbal battle, to which she was admittedly new, has said that there will be "plenty of time for debate" in the House after the election. But an Abac Poll suggested that nearly 60 per cent of the people polled wanted to see an Abhisit-Yingluck debate.

PNET, a non-partisan election watchdog, has said it will organise a debate to which the leaders of six major political parties will be invited to "show their visions" to the voters. Last time such a public forum was held, Thaksin Shinawatra, then leader of the Thai Rak Thai party, refused to take part. The organisers placed a huge picture of Thaksin in the empty seat allocated for the leader of the biggest party in the country.

But is a live televised debate a crucial part of parliamentary democracy?

As far as Thai politics goes, those who think they will win will try to avoid a debate. It is believed that if you are the underdog, a debate could turn the tide. But that's electioneering tactics. One must consider how and whether a live debate would benefit voters.

It has been said that the two major prerequisites of democracy are the fair and inclusive right to vote and the opportunity to conduct informed, uncensored public discussion of ideas.

But those against the idea of a debate argue that there is no need for an adversarial confrontation between the leading candidates, who may only try to "win" through rhetoric rather than substance. In this digital age, they insist, voters can have access to all the information they need about the candidates anytime, anywhere, without opponents having to exchange blows in public.

But precisely because we are caught in this digital age, the need for a vigorous, well-moderated debate is even more important. True, individuals can self-select the information they want from a multitude of sources. But often that means picking and choosing information that conforms to their existing views, thereby reinforcing their respective biases.

It is important to realise that election debates, if carried out in a professional manner, have the positive effect of compelling individual voters to hear opposing positions on the issues that are crucial to their decision-making. In other words, in a democracy, the public should be given the chance to hear all points of view from all parties concerned before they enter the polling booth to cast their ballots.

The fact that Thailand hasn't written into law the creation of a Thailand Debates Cooperative to organise such discussions doesn't mean the Election Commission can't take that initiative for future elections.

For this election, the choice of the next Parliament and prime minister is vital to the future of political reform and national reconciliation. It is imperative that the two PM hopefuls, representing two extremes of the spectrum, must be required to step forward together in a debate that will shed light on how they intend to take this country forward.

It's not about the presentation style. It's all about the quality of leadership, the substance of the policies and, most important, a public appearance to pledge to the whole country that they will accept the outcome of this election, whatever it may be.

Saturday, May 21, 2011 She hasn't totally ruled out a debate with Abhisit...

All the public statements from Pheu Thai Party may point to the party's refusal to put Yingluck Shinawatra in a one-on-one debate with Abhisit Vejjajiva. But if you read between the lines of Yingluck's own words in the past 24 hours, you would get the sense that she has not totally ruled out that possibility.

"I will see how it goes. There is plenty of time to debate in parliament. Let me consider it as the election draws near," the Pheu Thai's Party List's No 1 has said something along this line a few time now.

So, don't be taken aback if Yingluck, having built up sufficient confidence after launching into some hectic campaign activities, may decide in the next few weeks to debate Abhisit after all.

Posted by suthichaiyoon at 11:49 AM

Yingluck Says Policy More Appealing Than Debate

by Surasak Tumcharoen 15 มิถุนายน 2554 เวลา 13:42 น.

Facebook Twitter Google plus

Yingluck Shinawatra said on Wednesday policy speeches delivered by election contenders to constituents were more interesting than a verbal tug of war between the candidates.

The top Puea Thai contender contesting Jul 3’s nationwide polls commented the people would prefer lending an ear to policy matters directly from the party on its campaign trails throughout the country to rhetoric-ridden debate which might be held between rival candidates on TV.

However, Ms Yingluck, who might possibly make herself Thailand’s first woman leader, remained non-committal to persistent calls from the Democrats to debate live on TV with caretaker prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. She said she will have to consult the Puea Thai Party’s schedules for its nationwide stumps to see if she could possibly meet the challenge.

The youngest sister of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra was apparently not moved by criticisms she and her party might come off less popular than ever only if she skipped such verbal exchanges with an archrival Abhisit, who is contesting to return to power.

‘The people would prefer to see candidates in the flesh and directly hear of their attitudes and policy matters rather than debate,’ she said.

Mr Abhisit earlier said he will immediately step down as leader of the Democrat Party only if the ruling party won less 170 MP seats in next month's nationwide polls. The caretaker premier forecast his party will grasp up to 200.

Meanwhile, the Puea Thai woman contender added she remained hopeful with her plan to see army chief Gen Prayudh Chand-ocha, probably following the election, so she could solicit his advice pertaining to ways and means to resolve the country’s varied problems.

Ms Yingluck earlier commented she was strongly opposed to possibilities of the ‘powers that be’ allegedly lurking behind the scenes to orchestrate the setting up of a post-election government as had been the case a few years ago.

Besides, she said she definitely agreed with Gen Prayudh’s stand against any politicians allegedly involving the monarchy during their electoral contests.

Produced by VoiceTV

Moderators. Please accept my apology for posting this much. If it is too much then dump the text and just leave the links in.

[citizen33]

It's difficult to parse this comment, but if I understand you rightly, you're claiming that the only way that people of Chinese-Thai ethnicity could 'seize' power was via a coup? Though I'm totally anti-coup - and if I have understood what you say correctly - this notion strikes me as particularly stupid given the ethnicity of Thaksin and Yingluck, and given that the man in the picture (one of the 'good people', one of the incorruptible reformers charged with bringing forth a new order of clean politics and rule of law), is Chai Chidchob, surely the epitome of the rural machine politician, a man who knows more than most about winning elections, I'd say. I have no idea whether he's Sino-Thai or not, but many if not most elected politicians in provincial areas are.

This is a well-argued counterpoint to the earlier post. I still wonder though whether the current anti-democratic turn, which undoubtedly has strong support within certain metropolitan circles, reflects a wllingness to look to China rather than the West as a political model. I'm not saying that the royalists want to take on the trappings of a 'peoples' republic', but I think they are attracted by the idea of elite rule unencumbered by popular elections.