Abhisit backs multi-party television debate on reform

[Lite Beer]

Abhisit backs multi-party television debate on reform
PIMNARA PRADUBWIT,
WASAMON AUDJARINT
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- DEMOCRAT PARTY leader Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday supported a debate involving different parties, including Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

In an attempt to discuss reconciliation and reform, the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) is inviting political parties and groups, and many prominent political figures to participate in the weekly "Moving Reform Forward" programme on Channel 5, initiated by the Centre for Reconciliation and Reform (CRR).

Earlier, NCPO secretary-general General Chatchalerm Chalermsukh said the show would bring together former heads of government such as Yingluck and Abhisit. Politicians from the Democrat and Pheu Thai parties will also be there, as well as chairmen of all National Reform Council panels.

"If PM Prayut joined the show it would benefit the people because there would offer a bigger variety of opinions, and we didn't have space for exchanging our views in the past," Abhisit said. "You can say what you like if it is one-sided talk, but if it is an exchange of opinions it will help to add more open views," he said.

However, the CRR has yet to invite Yingluck to join the programme, as she does not seem to be ready, Chatchalerm said. He said he did not pressure Yingluck to join the programme but if there is any issue involved with her and she is ready, the centre will welcome her.

Meanwhile, former foreign minister and key Pheu Thai Party member Surapong Tovichakchaikul said that if he were Yingluck, he would certainly not join, as he thought no one would follow what she said. "When she was the PM and defence minister, the Army chief at the time [Prayut Chan-o-cha] didn't listen to her. And then he became the PM, so now how will he ever listen to her?" he said.

The Democrat leader will appear on the programme on Monday to discuss bureaucratic reform with National Reform Council (NRC) member Thirayuth Lorlertratna and Tortrakul Yomnak, president of the Engineering Institute of Thailand.

Abhisit said it was a positive direction to see the NCPO open more space for concerned parties to express their views, adding that if the NCPO continued to do this it would help society return to normal.

Asked if he has any advice to Prayut, as the prime minister gets irritated easily, Abhisit said he believed Prayut could separate his emotions from his work. "But as a human, hard work always makes one tired," he said.

Meanwhile, the programme is aimed as a mechanism to highlight public platforms opened by the NCPO and is not a "newborn" idea, NCPO spokesman Colonel Winthai Suvari told The Nation.

He elaborated that the programme was aimed at increasing communication and brainstorming channels between representatives of the NRC and possibly some politicians or former executives whose names remain unconfirmed.

"We will discuss further to choose the topics and guests' names for the programme next week. Our selection may prioritise on trending issues," Winthai said, adding that former energy minister Pichai Naripthaphan and former education minister Chaturon Chaisang earlier had joined the programme, "because there should be knowledge exchange in such fields" as energy and education.

The "Moving Reform Forward" programme is not the first time the NCPO has opened public space, he said. "From the start, our bodies have been accessible to people. The programme simply emphasises how we have been open to public voices.

"It is also one of the mechanisms the NRC uses to communicate with people," he added, referring to the NRC's objective to approach people's thoughts on reforms. Asked whether the programme's intention would contrast with how the NCPO has asked media to report news "properly", he replied, "they are completely different things". While the programme provides space for figures to hold discussions based on facts and knowledge, some media, according to our consideration, tend to report controversial and sensitive issues that may cause a stir. However, though, we've never prohibited media from doing so. We've only asked for their cooperation with us."

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Abhisit-backs-multi-party-television-debate-on-ref-30264235.html

-- The Nation 2015-07-11

[smedly]

Meanwhile, former foreign minister and key Pheu Thai Party member Surapong Tovichakchaikul said that if he were Yingluck, he would certainly not join, as he thought no one would follow what she said. "When she was the PM and defence minister, the Army chief at the time [Prayut Chan-o-cha] didn't listen to her. And then he became the PM, so now how will he ever listen to her?" he said.

and Surapong Tovichakchaikul did you listen to her ? or did you get your orders straight from the real boss

what a pathetic man you are, and while we are on the subject - everyone knows exactly why Yingluk will not appear on a live TV show debate, because nobody wants to talk about salons and shoes

Edited July 10, 2015 by smedly

[RustBucket]

Why the hell anyone should think that Yingluck has any right to a say in how this country is run in the future is beyond comprehension.

Edited July 10, 2015 by RustBucket

[noitom]

Right, she's already been railroaded out of Thai town. However a rogue like Abhisit, is still visible and commanding influence despite he lead his party in a no show for a free national election.

[DP25]

Abhisit has been trying to get live TV political debates going for a decade now. Thaksin and his proxies are challenged to a debate before each election and they always refuse. Obviously Yingluck will not join if there is such an event, putting her up on live TV is only doing Thaksin's enemies a favor.

[zaphod reborn]

The fact that the media is still looking at Yingluck and Abhisit as political leaders demonstrates that the country is still not ready to return to democracy. It just isn't that the political system is immature, the media completely lacks the ability to properly frame a debate.

Edited July 11, 2015 by zaphod reborn

[scorecard]

Meanwhile, former foreign minister and key Pheu Thai Party member Surapong Tovichakchaikul said that if he were Yingluck, he would certainly not join, as he thought no one would follow what she said. "When she was the PM and defence minister, the Army chief at the time [Prayut Chan-o-cha] didn't listen to her. And then he became the PM, so now how will he ever listen to her?" he said.

and Surapong Tovichakchaikul did you listen to her ? or did you get your orders straight from the real boss

what a pathetic man you are, and while we are on the subject - everyone knows exactly why Yingluk will not appear on a live TV show debate, because nobody wants to talk about salons and shoes

Surapong, the man who blatantly and openly breaks laws and has no conscience to do so.

Surapong says the general didn't listen to yingluck, if true maybe there is a good reason - she had nothing of value to add because she doesn't even understand the discussions.

Actually I would welcome yingluck to join such debates, because it would show, live, that she doesn't even understand the issues. When put on the spot on specific issues she couldn't say things 'I have to protect democracy'. That's why surapong doesn't want her to participate. And quess who is pulling surapong's strings?

[Wilsonandson]

Invite Yingluck and why not her brother Thaksin via skype. Lets get everyones point of view on reform and start the healing in Thai politics. All avenues of ways to bring peace and harmony to Thailands violent political past must be tried. The people want to hear everyones ideas before choosing the right way to reform the countries political system.

[Bob12345]

"When she was the PM and defence minister, the Army chief at the time [Prayut Chan-o-cha] didn't listen to her.

That clearly indicates who the army is actually working for: not the people who elected a government to represent them, but just for themselves and their masters.

[Bannum opinions]

"However, the CRR has yet to invite Yingluck to join the programme, as she does not seem to be ready..."

Well, there is hope yet for the pro-democracy side of things.

Perhaps Ms. Y. sees through all this smoke. Posturing by anti-democrats now seeking to movie into a phase of trying to gain acceptance of their constitution and senate, under the code word of "reconciliation"

They would love it if Ms. Y./PTP/Jatuporn, etc., etc. joined this 'reconciliation charade'. If these people chime in with this thing, they will be no better than those anti-democrats, in the mind of their constituency.....If Ms.Y/PTP/Jatuporn join in, they do so at their own political peril.

The Bangkok-centric elite are seeking to move beyond themselves, now that their anti-democracy agenda ('er reform") is cast in Constitutional/senate stone.....Lauding AV's participation does zippo for that. In fact, does quite the opposite....His participation simply demonizes their phony reconciliation program, which is code for trying to attribute credibility to their political machinations..

The headline here "Abhisit backs multi-party ......"......Of course he would....This thing is not multi-party nor is he anything beyond being one of them.......This is two-party...Anti-democracy and pro-democracy.....All these 'multi-partiers' can be slotted into one camp or the other. To keep trotting out AV as somehow not fitting that mold is political blindness.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Bannum opinions

[Bannum opinions]

Why the hell anyone should think that Yingluck has any right to a say in how this country is run in the future is beyond comprehension.

Let me clarify that mystery.

She would win a straight-up election in a landslide if it were held without Anti-democrats diddling the process..

That is why people think that Yingluck has a right to a say in how this country is run in the future.

​Compare her elect-ability to that of AV, and one gets the picture real fast.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Bannum opinions

[Anthony5]

Why the hell anyone should think that Yingluck has any right to a say in how this country is run in the future is beyond comprehension.

Let me clarify that mystery.

She would win a straight-up election in a landslide if it were held without Anti-democrats diddling the process..

That is why people think that Yingluck has a right to a say in how this country is run in the future.

​Compare her elect-ability to that of AV, and one gets the picture real fast.

Everyone who promises a pie in the sky can win an election in Thailand, but some have a conscience.

[LindsayBKK]

Right, she's already been railroaded out of Thai town. However a rogue like Abhisit, is still visible and commanding influence despite he lead his party in a no show for a free national election.

Railroaded? What part of the rice scheme, amnesty bill,

PheuThai buying weapons for UDD Red/Black Shirts...etc.. didn't you understand?

It's online for all to read.

bit.ly/1gGbTBy

Strange how people ignore reality.

Besides, what is she currently?

[Bannum opinions]

Why the hell anyone should think that Yingluck has any right to a say in how this country is run in the future is beyond comprehension.

Let me clarify that mystery.

She would win a straight-up election in a landslide if it were held without Anti-democrats diddling the process..

That is why people think that Yingluck has a right to a say in how this country is run in the future.

​Compare her elect-ability to that of AV, and one gets the picture real fast.

Everyone who promises a pie in the sky can win an election in Thailand, but some have a conscience.

To suggest the majority Thai electorate is devoid of political discernment is anti-democracy. It also dismisses Thai voters as somehow being lesser than their counterparts in other electoral democratic systems.

That certainly fits the arrogance of the Bangkok-centric elite.

In their heart-of-hearts, they would love to disenfranchise a huge sector of the electorate. The sector that demonstrates discernment beyond their own, arrogant, self-aggrandizing political perspectives.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Bannum opinions

[rubl]

"However, the CRR has yet to invite Yingluck to join the programme, as she does not seem to be ready..."

Well, there is hope yet for the pro-democracy side of things.

Perhaps Ms. Y. sees through all this smoke. Posturing by anti-democrats now seeking to movie into a phase of trying to gain acceptance of their constitution and senate, under the code word of "reconciliation"

They would love it if Ms. Y./PTP/Jatuporn, etc., etc. joined this 'reconciliation charade'. If these people chime in with this thing, they will be no better than those anti-democrats, in the mind of their constituency.....If Ms.Y/PTP/Jatuporn join in, they do so at their own political peril.

The Bangkok-centric elite are seeking to move beyond themselves, now that their anti-democracy agenda ('er reform") is cast in Constitutional/senate stone.....Lauding AV's participation does zippo for that. In fact, does quite the opposite....His participation simply demonizes their phony reconciliation program, which is code for trying to attribute credibility to their political machinations..

The headline here "Abhisit backs multi-party ......"......Of course he would....This thing is not multi-party nor is he anything beyond being one of them.......This is two-party...Anti-democracy and pro-democracy.....All these 'multi-partiers' can be slotted into one camp or the other. To keep trotting out AV as somehow not fitting that mold is political blindness.

Of course, Ms. Yingluck may democratically decide not to join, like she never was able to find the time to join other discussions. Not because she didn't like or didn't want to, but always because she was just a bit too busy. Same now, don't they know she's still busy with the Supreme Court who granted her some delay. Undoubtedly she's finalising her defence of the RPPS and together with her son tries to get the last few arithmetic errors out of her RPPS accounting.

BTW the proposed debate is multi party as in more than one party is invited.

[Ricardo]

Why the hell anyone should think that Yingluck has any right to a say in how this country is run in the future is beyond comprehension.

Perhaps she learned something, from being PM for three years, and now has something to offer ? What's to be gained, from denying that possibility

Or perhaps her brother will decide that she shouldn't contribute, since he wouldn't be able to control directly what she said, which would itself be revealing.

Either way, what's to lose in inviting her ?

[deckape]

BANGKOK: -- DEMOCRAT PARTY leader Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday supported a debate involving different parties, including Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

An excellent idea. All of the key players have shown they achieve the most with a free exchange of ideas

[rubl]

Why the hell anyone should think that Yingluck has any right to a say in how this country is run in the future is beyond comprehension.

Let me clarify that mystery.

She would win a straight-up election in a landslide if it were held without Anti-democrats diddling the process..

That is why people think that Yingluck has a right to a say in how this country is run in the future.

​Compare her elect-ability to that of AV, and one gets the picture real fast.

Everyone who promises a pie in the sky can win an election in Thailand, but some have a conscience.

To suggest the majority Thai electorate is devoid of political discernment is anti-democracy. It also dismisses Thai voters as somehow being lesser than their counterparts in other electoral democratic systems.

That certainly fits the arrogance of the Bangkok-centric elite.

In their heart-of-hearts, they would love to disenfranchise a huge sector of the electorate. The sector that demonstrates discernment beyond their own, arrogant, self-aggrandizing political perspectives.

Actually to suggest some part of the Thai electorate is 'devoid of political discernment' is part of democratically voicing ones opinion and in Thailands case also sadly close to the truth. The 'self-financing' RPPS to make all farmers rich is just a recent example, democratically so. Of course the 'leader' of the previous government was not Bangkok elite, just 'elitte' from another big city. Some elite like to have 'adoring' voters who can easily be attracted with empty promises and have them help with the arrogant, self-aggrandizing political perspective.

[Bannum opinions]

"However, the CRR has yet to invite Yingluck to join the programme, as she does not seem to be ready..."

Well, there is hope yet for the pro-democracy side of things.

Perhaps Ms. Y. sees through all this smoke. Posturing by anti-democrats now seeking to movie into a phase of trying to gain acceptance of their constitution and senate, under the code word of "reconciliation"

They would love it if Ms. Y./PTP/Jatuporn, etc., etc. joined this 'reconciliation charade'. If these people chime in with this thing, they will be no better than those anti-democrats, in the mind of their constituency.....If Ms.Y/PTP/Jatuporn join in, they do so at their own political peril.

The Bangkok-centric elite are seeking to move beyond themselves, now that their anti-democracy agenda ('er reform") is cast in Constitutional/senate stone.....Lauding AV's participation does zippo for that. In fact, does quite the opposite....His participation simply demonizes their phony reconciliation program, which is code for trying to attribute credibility to their political machinations..

The headline here "Abhisit backs multi-party ......"......Of course he would....This thing is not multi-party nor is he anything beyond being one of them.......This is two-party...Anti-democracy and pro-democracy.....All these 'multi-partiers' can be slotted into one camp or the other. To keep trotting out AV as somehow not fitting that mold is political blindness.

Of course, Ms. Yingluck may democratically decide not to join, like she never was able to find the time to join other discussions. Not because she didn't like or didn't want to, but always because she was just a bit too busy. Same now, don't they know she's still busy with the Supreme Court who granted her some delay. Undoubtedly she's finalising her defence of the RPPS and together with her son tries to get the last few arithmetic errors out of her RPPS accounting.

BTW the proposed debate is multi party as in more than one party is invited.

"BTW the proposed debate is multi party as in more than one party is invited".

True.

But that doesn't make multi-party, multi-party.

They can all be slotted onto a pro/anti Democracy spectrum, and their essence reduced to one or the other.

​That is an important distinction in this circumstance, because what they are being tasked to discuss, is 'Reform' of a democratic system to one that is not.

Recognizing that "Democracy" within a Thai context is far, far from perfect....Perfection must not be the reference point. But it is better than nothing. For example, entities that have been institutionalized which are unconnected to the electorate and have veto power over an elected Govt. I don't need to itemize them....Just consult the constitution currently being foisted upon the country, never mind the Senate.

It is my expectation that only one side - namely the anti-democrats - will join these discussions designed to legitimize their own perspectives, under the guise of "reconciliation". I think if any political entities from the pro-democracy side joined these discussions, would be political suicide...their constituencies see through the cynical objectives.

But we shall see.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Bannum opinions

[mike324]

Yingluck can't and won't debate end of story. Abhisit is yesterdays news, he lost his credibility when he was PM and due to the events following that, I would say that it was not his choice. Other than that he would probably have been the best candidate and most suitable PM for the future.

I do agree politicians including the General should be open up to a debate and be able to discuss about all issues effecting the country right now. The General is simply playing his cards wrong by not allowing criticism and freedom of speech.

[rubl]

"However, the CRR has yet to invite Yingluck to join the programme, as she does not seem to be ready..."

Well, there is hope yet for the pro-democracy side of things.

Perhaps Ms. Y. sees through all this smoke. Posturing by anti-democrats now seeking to movie into a phase of trying to gain acceptance of their constitution and senate, under the code word of "reconciliation"

They would love it if Ms. Y./PTP/Jatuporn, etc., etc. joined this 'reconciliation charade'. If these people chime in with this thing, they will be no better than those anti-democrats, in the mind of their constituency.....If Ms.Y/PTP/Jatuporn join in, they do so at their own political peril.

The Bangkok-centric elite are seeking to move beyond themselves, now that their anti-democracy agenda ('er reform") is cast in Constitutional/senate stone.....Lauding AV's participation does zippo for that. In fact, does quite the opposite....His participation simply demonizes their phony reconciliation program, which is code for trying to attribute credibility to their political machinations..

The headline here "Abhisit backs multi-party ......"......Of course he would....This thing is not multi-party nor is he anything beyond being one of them.......This is two-party...Anti-democracy and pro-democracy.....All these 'multi-partiers' can be slotted into one camp or the other. To keep trotting out AV as somehow not fitting that mold is political blindness.

Of course, Ms. Yingluck may democratically decide not to join, like she never was able to find the time to join other discussions. Not because she didn't like or didn't want to, but always because she was just a bit too busy. Same now, don't they know she's still busy with the Supreme Court who granted her some delay. Undoubtedly she's finalising her defence of the RPPS and together with her son tries to get the last few arithmetic errors out of her RPPS accounting.

BTW the proposed debate is multi party as in more than one party is invited.

"BTW the proposed debate is multi party as in more than one party is invited".

True.

But that doesn't make multi-party, multi-party.

They can all be slotted onto a pro/anti Democracy spectrum, and their essence reduced to one or the other.

​That is an important distinction in this circumstance, because what they are being tasked to discuss, is 'Reform' of a democratic system to one that is not.

Recognizing that "Democracy" within a Thai context is far, far from perfect....Perfection must not be the reference point. But it is better than nothing. For example, entities that have been institutionalized which are unconnected to the electorate and have veto power over an elected Govt. I don't need to itemize them....Just consult the constitution currently being foisted upon the country, never mind the Senate.

It is my expectation that only one side - namely the anti-democrats - will join these discussions designed to legitimize their own perspectives, under the guise of "reconciliation". I think if any political entities from the pro-democracy side joined these discussions, would be political suicide...their constituencies see through the cynical objectives.

But we shall see.

Independent of how you want to divide political parties in Thailand the debate is multi-party.

Also the reforms seem to favour multiple political parties rather than one or two big ones and some say even 'ensure' coalition governments will be seen more often. Coming from a democratic country which hasn't had single-party governments since a century or so, I see nothing wrong with that.

Interesting you already label anyone who participates as 'anti-democratic'. It would seem that's a bit premature, like with the reform committees some parties stated not to want to cooperate only to complain of no one asking them as if they meant what they had said.

BTW it would seem in many countries there are Supreme Court which can block government decisions. In Europe we even have supra-national courts doing such, democratically so.

[halloween]

Why the hell anyone should think that Yingluck has any right to a say in how this country is run in the future is beyond comprehension.

Let me clarify that mystery.

She would win a straight-up election in a landslide if it were held without Anti-democrats diddling the process..

That is why people think that Yingluck has a right to a say in how this country is run in the future.

​Compare her elect-ability to that of AV, and one gets the picture real fast.

Ah yes, electability. Not to be confused with ability to run the country of course.

"Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything." - Frank Dane

"Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time." - E. B. White

That is based on the assumption of an educated and informed populace. TIT

...

[oldsailor35]

I guess that all those who don't want Yingluck (the most wanted candidate for PM in the country) to be in the debate would gladly accept the arch corrupter Suthep take her place.

[seajae]

lets be honest here, yl would never appear in any form of live debate because it would show her up as she truly is, totally incompetent and devoid of sensible thinking. All this anti democracy crap is just that, the ptp were never in any shape or form democratic in anything, it all involved corruption and backhanders, they got in by paying the voters outright and promising them the earth while delivering nothing and turning the country into a huge debt. What they need to do is have an open and honest discussion so people can see and hear what the choices are with no false promises allowed, of course this would again make yl the odd one out as she would not be capable of doing so without a direct link to someone to tell her what to say, anyone that has watched her try to talk openly has seen how pathetic she is.

[halloween]

I guess that all those who don't want Yingluck (the most wanted candidate for PM in the country) to be in the debate would gladly accept the arch corrupter Suthep take her place.

If she doesn't start showing up at court, there might be "WANTED" posters put out.

Want in one hand and crap in the other, see which one gets full first.

[dageurreotype]

There's not a cat's in hell of Yingluck even wating to join in any TV debate. She's simply much happier being out of it all and growing mushrooms.

[smedly]

"When she was the PM and defence minister, the Army chief at the time [Prayut Chan-o-cha] didn't listen to her.

That clearly indicates who the army is actually working for: not the people who elected a government to represent them, but just for themselves and their masters.

isn't it just as well Thaksin couldn't railroad the Army like he did to the Police DSI CSI AG office and just about every other state agency in existence - if he couldn't buy them off he replaced them with yes men or relatives

[smedly]

Invite Yingluck and why not her brother Thaksin via skype. Lets get everyones point of view on reform and start the healing in Thai politics. All avenues of ways to bring peace and harmony to Thailands violent political past must be tried. The people want to hear everyones ideas before choosing the right way to reform the countries political system.

because he would then be giving Thaksin a convicted criminal some legitimacy that he actually matters

[jayboy]

Why the hell anyone should think that Yingluck has any right to a say in how this country is run in the future is beyond comprehension.

Perhaps the fact she is the only politician with real legitimacy has something to do with it.She won a clear mandate from the people of Thailand in a democratic general election.She didn't come to power through corrupt back room deals or by force of arms.

She remains the most popular politician in the country, and the zealots fear her (as evidenced by their bile and spite)

Nevertheless as another member commented she may well prefer to just cultivate her mushrooms, and who could blame her?

In her place I would nominate Suranand Vejjajiva. Abhisit's cousin.

[Mudcrab]

I guess that all those who don't want Yingluck (the most wanted candidate for PM in the country) to be in the debate would gladly accept the arch corrupter Suthep take her place.

It appears that the only people who don't want her to be in the debate are the reds themselves and the deluded red aligned posters on TVF, and for very good reasons.

Most thinking people would love to see her take part!