Abhisit blasts CDC for creating new parliamentary dictatorship

[tullynagardy]

Suthep got banished off to be a monk because he couldn`t keep his mouth shut and Mark is now working out he also doesn`t figure in the elites plan post (cannot say) era.

Bless. The fractures in the elite are growng by the day and will explode sooner rather than later. These dinasaurs are doomed and their patronage world is caving in around them

[Ricardo]

Ricardo, you are defending the democractic value of a man who boycotted 50% of Thailand general election held under his leadership. I remembered back in December 2013 on CNN, he unequivocally said that he would "welcome an election and that it is the first step towards trying to solve the country problems". 2 weeks later, he boycotted the election.

It's not unusual for Thai politicians to say one thing, then do another, especially in the run-up to an election.

I think (and did say) that he was wrong to take the Dems out of the February-2014 election, where I think PTP would have done quite badly. He should have let Suthep quit the party, to lead his campaign, and carried on within the system. But he didn't, the whole elected-party had quit, supporting Suthep when they'd already forced an election. But was that his tactical-error, or just something which he had to live with, once they'd resigned as MPs ?

You're saying that he was conveniently used, then thrown away, and is actually weak and lets others dominate him, yet here he is standing up and saying something which will be unpopular with the military & amart, which takes courage IMO.

The popular Red view, which I'm not necessarily attributing to you, is that he is a total puppet for the military, but that doesn't square with what he's doing now, does it ? You view it as him being cast aside, once his usefulness is passed, I believe it might be genuine conviction.

There are times when he does act like a Western-educated leader, and stands up for what he thinks is right, this makes him stand out from other former-PMs like Samak ("did you have vigorous sex last night ?") or Somchai (who was playing golf in Chiang Mai while Rome burned Bangkok was in turmoil) or Yingluck ("pity me, how badly my family has been treated, smirk three times !").

I would argue that he's been the best, of a pretty bad bunch, in recent times !

He does seem to keep standing up, and saying things which make sense, like this criticism in the OP. Would you say he's wrong about that ? Does he believe what he's saying, or is he merely following orders from above, would you say ?

Edited April 29, 2015 by Ricardo

[jayboy]

Interesting, so he is being critical of the Junta Gov ?

Did i read that right ?

If the army rules with little corruption where is the profit for him?

What a strange post.For all his faults Abhisit is personally free of the taint of corruption.The army wallows in it.

[Truth4All]

Interesting, so he is being critical of the Junta Gov ?

Did i read that right ?

Just saw this on Yahoo.com

http://news.yahoo.com/n-koreas-kim-jong-un-executed-15-top-090014485.html

[oneday]

Well you've done it now Abhisit...the NACC is out to get you. The message is clear...don't fight the CDC and those who back them.

[kingalfred]

All the Red Poo Thai loving falang out. Abhisit lead the last government which had any economic competence. Then the corrupt gangsters with their empty head minions backing tried to throw the country down the drain!

[heybruce]

He doesn't understand. Maybe he can explain why he still has a public role when he sponsored his supporters in to a "no show" at the last democratic election in Thailand.

In 2014 he assumed that if the misnamed Democrats could invalidate the election then the judiciary or military would topple the PTP government and put someone from his party in charge, just like after the 2006 coup. That didn't happen, and now that he's realized that the junta is determined to see that no political party or politician will ever have meaningful power, he's suddenly become a true democrat.

Whether he stays a true democrat is open to question.

[heybruce]

Maybe this is how the general intends to reconcile the nation. By having the red and yellow shirts join together to take out the current D word which cannot be said.

From the March 28 Economist:

"This month Abhisit Vejjajiva, leader of the pro-establishment Democrat Party and a former prime minister, called the constitutional proposals “a step back for democracy”. Members of Pheu Thai warn that the new constitution could cause fresh conflict. The generals had always promised that their takeover would help Thailand’s feuding politicians find common ground. It has happened in ways they did not intend." http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21647334-juntas-plans-thailands-future-grow-clearer-though-no-more-welcome-pen-and-sword

It would be nice if the PTP and the Democrats could find away to oppose the junta, bring back democracy, and agree to accept election results rather than have the losing party do everything possible to topple the winning party between elections. It's not likely, but it's possible.

[Eric Loh]

Ricardo, you are defending the democractic value of a man who boycotted 50% of Thailand general election held under his leadership. I remembered back in December 2013 on CNN, he unequivocally said that he would "welcome an election and that it is the first step towards trying to solve the country problems". 2 weeks later, he boycotted the election.

It's not unusual for Thai politicians to say one thing, then do another, especially in the run-up to an election.

I think (and did say) that he was wrong to take the Dems out of the February-2014 election, where I think PTP would have done quite badly. He should have let Suthep quit the party, to lead his campaign, and carried on within the system. But he didn't, the whole elected-party had quit, supporting Suthep when they'd already forced an election. But was that his tactical-error, or just something which he had to live with, once they'd resigned as MPs ?

You're saying that he was conveniently used, then thrown away, and is actually weak and lets others dominate him, yet here he is standing up and saying something which will be unpopular with the military & amart, which takes courage IMO.

The popular Red view, which I'm not necessarily attributing to you, is that he is a total puppet for the military, but that doesn't square with what he's doing now, does it ? You view it as him being cast aside, once his usefulness is passed, I believe it might be genuine conviction.

There are times when he does act like a Western-educated leader, and stands up for what he thinks is right, this makes him stand out from other former-PMs like Samak ("did you have vigorous sex last night ?") or Somchai (who was playing golf in Chiang Mai while Rome burned Bangkok was in turmoil) or Yingluck ("pity me, how badly my family has been treated, smirk three times !").

I would argue that he's been the best, of a pretty bad bunch, in recent times !

He does seem to keep standing up, and saying things which make sense, like this criticism in the OP. Would you say he's wrong about that ? Does he believe what he's saying, or is he merely following orders from above, would you say ?

Not the first time that Ahbisit made a statement of clear principled intention and then do something totally undemocratic later.. His political life time as leader of the Dem Party has been full of half truth and insincerity. I am also not taken by his facade as a good orator as it is the content that really count. To me he is much like a chameleon and have made very poor major judgement and decision. In politics it's suicidal and have hurt his credibility for his politial life time. I still think that he should step aside as he carries just too many political baggages and liabilities for his party.

[jayboy]

Ricardo, you are defending the democractic value of a man who boycotted 50% of Thailand general election held under his leadership. I remembered back in December 2013 on CNN, he unequivocally said that he would "welcome an election and that it is the first step towards trying to solve the country problems". 2 weeks later, he boycotted the election.

It's not unusual for Thai politicians to say one thing, then do another, especially in the run-up to an election.

I think (and did say) that he was wrong to take the Dems out of the February-2014 election, where I think PTP would have done quite badly. He should have let Suthep quit the party, to lead his campaign, and carried on within the system. But he didn't, the whole elected-party had quit, supporting Suthep when they'd already forced an election. But was that his tactical-error, or just something which he had to live with, once they'd resigned as MPs ?

You're saying that he was conveniently used, then thrown away, and is actually weak and lets others dominate him, yet here he is standing up and saying something which will be unpopular with the military & amart, which takes courage IMO.

The popular Red view, which I'm not necessarily attributing to you, is that he is a total puppet for the military, but that doesn't square with what he's doing now, does it ? You view it as him being cast aside, once his usefulness is passed, I believe it might be genuine conviction.

There are times when he does act like a Western-educated leader, and stands up for what he thinks is right, this makes him stand out from other former-PMs like Samak ("did you have vigorous sex last night ?") or Somchai (who was playing golf in Chiang Mai while Rome burned Bangkok was in turmoil) or Yingluck ("pity me, how badly my family has been treated, smirk three times !").

I would argue that he's been the best, of a pretty bad bunch, in recent times !

He does seem to keep standing up, and saying things which make sense, like this criticism in the OP. Would you say he's wrong about that ? Does he believe what he's saying, or is he merely following orders from above, would you say ?

Not the first time that Ahbisit made a statement of clear principled intention and then do something totally undemocratic later.. His political life time as leader of the Dem Party has been full of half truth and insincerity. I am also not taken by his facade as a good orator as it is the content that really count. To me he is much like a chameleon and have made very poor major judgement and decision. In politics it's suicidal and have hurt his credibility for his politial life time. I still think that he should step aside as he carries just too many political baggages and liabilities for his party.

He is something of a paradox and in many senses Thailand's "lost leader". It is difficult to imagine a better qualified person to be Prime Minister.A first class intellect grounded in attending some of the best educational institutions in the world, cosmopolitan and highly presentable.Able through perfect command of English and obvious intelligence to represent Thailand on the world stage.Full grasp of strategic issues and well versed in finance and economics.I don't believe he "looks down" on any part of the Thai people.He is from a patrician background and does not pretend to be anything else.At heart a decent and good man - much loved by his friends.

Yet there is something not quite right.It's difficult to be precise - a defensiveness, an unwillingness to show generosity of spirit, an inability to confront those who used him as a puppet etc.His behaviour in the months before the coup was cowardly and indefensible.Unlike Suthep a crude and corrupt thug, Abhisit knew exactly what the score was, what was right and what was wrong - and chose the wrong path nevertheless.Above all he lacks the supreme and indispensable political virtue - courage.

[Ricardo]

He is something of a paradox and in many senses Thailand's "lost leader". It is difficult to imagine a better qualified person to be Prime Minister.A first class intellect grounded in attending some of the best educational institutions in the world, cosmopolitan and highly presentable.Able through perfect command of English and obvious intelligence to represent Thailand on the world stage.Full grasp of strategic issues and well versed in finance and economics.I don't believe he "looks down" on any part of the Thai people.He is from a patrician background and does not pretend to be anything else.At heart a decent and good man - much loved by his friends.

Yet there is something not quite right.It's difficult to be precise - a defensiveness, an unwillingness to show generosity of spirit, an inability to confront those who used him as a puppet etc.His behaviour in the months before the coup was cowardly and indefensible.Unlike Suthep a crude and corrupt thug, Abhisit knew exactly what the score was, what was right and what was wrong - and chose the wrong path nevertheless.Above all he lacks the supreme and indispensable political virtue - courage.

Yet he stands up now, and criticises the CDC, and the new Constitution ?

I agree that a braver leader might (along with Korn ?) have left the Dems and started a new party.

A tougher leader would probably not have let the 2010-protests drag on, for so long.

I also doubt that, after 2010, he can ever be elected as PM again, just too much mud stuck to him, for too many voters.

And yet he did resign as party-leader, having lost the 2011-election, as he'd promised to do ... only to be re-elected.

A paradox indeed, especially compared with the Sutheps or Chalerms and their ilk, of old-fashioned Thai politics.

[heybruce]

Ricardo, you are defending the democractic value of a man who boycotted 50% of Thailand general election held under his leadership. I remembered back in December 2013 on CNN, he unequivocally said that he would "welcome an election and that it is the first step towards trying to solve the country problems". 2 weeks later, he boycotted the election.

It's not unusual for Thai politicians to say one thing, then do another, especially in the run-up to an election.

I think (and did say) that he was wrong to take the Dems out of the February-2014 election, where I think PTP would have done quite badly. He should have let Suthep quit the party, to lead his campaign, and carried on within the system. But he didn't, the whole elected-party had quit, supporting Suthep when they'd already forced an election. But was that his tactical-error, or just something which he had to live with, once they'd resigned as MPs ?

You're saying that he was conveniently used, then thrown away, and is actually weak and lets others dominate him, yet here he is standing up and saying something which will be unpopular with the military & amart, which takes courage IMO.

The popular Red view, which I'm not necessarily attributing to you, is that he is a total puppet for the military, but that doesn't square with what he's doing now, does it ? You view it as him being cast aside, once his usefulness is passed, I believe it might be genuine conviction.

There are times when he does act like a Western-educated leader, and stands up for what he thinks is right, this makes him stand out from other former-PMs like Samak ("did you have vigorous sex last night ?") or Somchai (who was playing golf in Chiang Mai while Rome burned Bangkok was in turmoil) or Yingluck ("pity me, how badly my family has been treated, smirk three times !").

I would argue that he's been the best, of a pretty bad bunch, in recent times !

He does seem to keep standing up, and saying things which make sense, like this criticism in the OP. Would you say he's wrong about that ? Does he believe what he's saying, or is he merely following orders from above, would you say ?

Not the first time that Ahbisit made a statement of clear principled intention and then do something totally undemocratic later.. His political life time as leader of the Dem Party has been full of half truth and insincerity. I am also not taken by his facade as a good orator as it is the content that really count. To me he is much like a chameleon and have made very poor major judgement and decision. In politics it's suicidal and have hurt his credibility for his politial life time. I still think that he should step aside as he carries just too many political baggages and liabilities for his party.

He is something of a paradox and in many senses Thailand's "lost leader". It is difficult to imagine a better qualified person to be Prime Minister.A first class intellect grounded in attending some of the best educational institutions in the world, cosmopolitan and highly presentable.Able through perfect command of English and obvious intelligence to represent Thailand on the world stage.Full grasp of strategic issues and well versed in finance and economics.I don't believe he "looks down" on any part of the Thai people.He is from a patrician background and does not pretend to be anything else.At heart a decent and good man - much loved by his friends.

Yet there is something not quite right.It's difficult to be precise - a defensiveness, an unwillingness to show generosity of spirit, an inability to confront those who used him as a puppet etc.His behaviour in the months before the coup was cowardly and indefensible.Unlike Suthep a crude and corrupt thug, Abhisit knew exactly what the score was, what was right and what was wrong - and chose the wrong path nevertheless.Above all he lacks the supreme and indispensable political virtue - courage.

"Yet there is something not quite right.It's difficult to be precise"

I'd say it's his eagerness to attain power through any means available. If he can't win an election he'll try backroom deals, if that doesn't work he'll help create the circumstances conducive to a coup and hope to be appointed.