Natthawut says no to national reconciliation government

[Baerboxer]

I couldn't agree more.

Every since the coup has taken place there has been a systematic routing of the Pheu Thai party members and all other associated parties so there would be no contest in the next election and this is just more of the same. Like them or not, Pheu Thai and it's offshoots represent a majority of the people in this country. Eviscerate them and you have effectively killed Democracy and handed the country to the elites.

Pheu Thai have never represented the majority of the people in this country. Nor have the Dems. And neither represent the large number of voters who vote for them especially well.

They are, like all the minor parties, in it for themselves. All are amply rich, rarely have to worry about the law and ain't going to give their position up easily.

Here we have someone who openly instigating violent insurrection, whose transport company allegedly benefited from the rice scheme perhaps more than it should, who clearly breached bail terms and is still going around full of self importance and apparently wealthy. And to be fair, he's not one of the biggest players by a long way.

"Killed democracy" - which gang do you want to vote for: one who'll rob you blind and lie and cheat all the time or one that will slowly bleed you so the goose never dies but make sure you're never allowed out of that situation or even allowed to discuss it?

Democracy would be something wonderful and new for the Thai people.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Baerboxer

[15Peter20]

"“The question today is not who will be in the government? But who are the real owner of democracy – the people or just the elites,” said Natthawut."

Spot on.

[halloween]

"“The question today is not who will be in the government? But who are the real owner of democracy – the people or just the elites,” said Natthawut."

Spot on.

The "elites" - that would be the 50+% of Thai voters who didn't vote for Thaksin's stooges?

[sawadee1947]

How is this guy not even in jail let alone able to be in the frame for running the country. He openly encouraged people to commit acts of arson and rebellion. With people like this even pulling any strings at any level the country is going to the dogs (even though it's probably already there now)

The same you can say about SUTHEP. Why he is not jailed?

Those questions would lead to nothing. It's only pointing to the others.

Give power to the people is easy to say but difficult to achieve here. Democracy means also here to understand the other party and work together for the benefit of this country. That does not mean to work forever but for the next 4 years term. I'm sure that corruption even will not be a big issue in that period. Also the army would have no reasons to interfere.

Of course I can see it's not easy for the participants to stay away from greediness and not being able to fill their pockets. But a coalition between the 2 big parties would be tempting for me.

He !

Take your RED sunglasses off !

Suthep protested and blocked some public areas !

Jatuporn and Nathawit bombed demonstrators, sniped to demonstarators

and burned down GVT halls and business centers !!

There is - sorry a " SMALL " difference !! within this guys !!

Suthep protested and blocked some public areas !

But without him the situation would not have increased. Who first? Useless question. But fact is that Suthep starts again. And this time first. And to favour a coalition between the big parties has nothing to do with RED sunglasses but with pure reason and strategic foresight

[Fat Haggis]

The REDs already showed their understanding from democracy -

Bombing and sniping on protesters !!

Better to have a Junta than a RED Monkey as PM !!

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

[tbthailand]

I couldn't agree more.

Every since the coup has taken place there has been a systematic routing of the Pheu Thai party members and all other associated parties so there would be no contest in the next election and this is just more of the same. Like them or not, Pheu Thai and it's offshoots represent a majority of the people in this country. Eviscerate them and you have effectively killed Democracy and handed the country to the elites.

Pheu Tai have NEVER represented the majority of people in Thailand nor at any time in their history did Thaksin's parties, the TRT, PPP nor the PTP ever represet democracy.

well, you say that with such fervor that you must be right

but of course ... you're not.

Any one who fails to recognize the popular support - yes, by the majority - of the governments formed by the PTP (300 or so of 500 MPs) or the support of the previous versions of that party is blind - purposefully, through ignorance, or due to their own political dogma.

[halloween]

"will require the next government to have the support of at least 360 votes in the parliament out of a total of 450." That's 80%, far more than 2/3's many democracies require. What percentage of parliament will be filled by military etc? 33%? Means no one could become PM without their approval, be they red, yellow or paisley. Ya think they planned it this way?

Assuming, and it's a huge assumption, that your 33% military is correct, if the reds elect 33% then no-one could be elected PM without THEIR approval. Which gives us a consensus leader rather than an autocrat ruling by bribery.

Yes, because that's how all democracies work, right? The party that wins the election is not allowed to form a government without the approval of the military, right??

You brown shirts disgust me

The depth of your comprehension is abysmal. I made it quite clear that i didn't accept his assumption, and even if it were true a government would require consensus. That big word means input from a large majority of voters' representatives, not just those who voted for the largest party.

How hard is it to understand that is more democratic than one side of politics dictating policy?

[MZurf]

"“The question today is not who will be in the government? But who are the real owner of democracy – the people or just the elites,” said Natthawut."

Spot on.

The "elites" - that would be the 50+% of Thai voters who didn't vote for Thaksin's stooges?

Look at how the brown shirts tie themselves into knots trying desperately to deny the fact that the PTP (in all its various guises) have won every election for the last 10 (?) years.

AFAIK no-one has suggested what you claim. On the other hand, the majority of Thai voters somehow become 'elite', a convenient label for hate propaganda, someone to blame for your own lack of success.

Actually, a majority of the Thai electorate have voted for PTP for years. Of course, this option has graciously been taken away by the benevolent General who will set things right - because after 21 coups and coup attempts this time they will finally make it right.

Sweet dreams.

[MZurf]

"will require the next government to have the support of at least 360 votes in the parliament out of a total of 450." That's 80%, far more than 2/3's many democracies require. What percentage of parliament will be filled by military etc? 33%? Means no one could become PM without their approval, be they red, yellow or paisley. Ya think they planned it this way?

Assuming, and it's a huge assumption, that your 33% military is correct, if the reds elect 33% then no-one could be elected PM without THEIR approval. Which gives us a consensus leader rather than an autocrat ruling by bribery.

Yes, because that's how all democracies work, right? The party that wins the election is not allowed to form a government without the approval of the military, right??

You brown shirts disgust me

The depth of your comprehension is abysmal. I made it quite clear that i didn't accept his assumption, and even if it were true a government would require consensus. That big word means input from a large majority of voters' representatives, not just those who voted for the largest party.

How hard is it to understand that is more democratic than one side of politics dictating policy?

"That big word means input from a large majority of voters' representatives"

Actually, before posting patronizing and condescending drivel you should be absolutely sure that what you write is correct. Well it's not, so hopefully the foot you have in your mouth is palatable.

consensus

noun, con·sen·sus often attributive \kən-ˈsen(t)-səs\

: a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group.

Edited August 14, 2015 by MZurf

[SABloke]

I couldn't agree more.

Every since the coup has taken place there has been a systematic routing of the Pheu Thai party members and all other associated parties so there would be no contest in the next election and this is just more of the same. Like them or not, Pheu Thai and it's offshoots represent a majority of the people in this country. Eviscerate them and you have effectively killed Democracy and handed the country to the elites.

''Like them or not, Pheu Thai and it's offshoots represent a majority of the people in this country. ''

No...no they don't. A large minority...yes.

[halloween]

The depth of your comprehension is abysmal. I made it quite clear that i didn't accept his assumption, and even if it were true a government would require consensus. That big word means input from a large majority of voters' representatives, not just those who voted for the largest party.

How hard is it to understand that is more democratic than one side of politics dictating policy?

"That big word means input from a large majority of voters' representatives"

Actually, before posting patronizing and condescending drivel you should be absolutely sure that what you write is correct. Well it's not, so hopefully the foot you have in your mouth is palatable.

consensus

noun, con·sen·sus often attributive \kən-ˈsen(t)-səs\

: a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group.

A little hypocritical from someone that calls accurate defining of majority nitpicking. FYI consensus can also mean majority agreement. Or did you decide to abbreviate that definition too. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus

BTW you forgot to mention the meat of the post. Would it not be more democratic if both sides of politics had input into policy? That is, if you don't mind getting back to the topic.

[MZurf]

The depth of your comprehension is abysmal. I made it quite clear that i didn't accept his assumption, and even if it were true a government would require consensus. That big word means input from a large majority of voters' representatives, not just those who voted for the largest party.

How hard is it to understand that is more democratic than one side of politics dictating policy?

"That big word means input from a large majority of voters' representatives"

Actually, before posting patronizing and condescending drivel you should be absolutely sure that what you write is correct. Well it's not, so hopefully the foot you have in your mouth is palatable.

consensus

noun, con·sen·sus often attributive \kən-ˈsen(t)-səs\

: a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group.

A little hypocritical from someone that calls accurate defining of majority nitpicking. FYI consensus can also mean majority agreement. Or did you decide to abbreviate that definition too. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus

BTW you forgot to mention the meat of the post. Would it not be more democratic if both sides of politics had input into policy? That is, if you don't mind getting back to the topic.

Are you saying that in a parliamentary democracy the opposition has no input on policy? Should or should not the party that gets the most votes form the government (yes, I know even the term "most" is problematic for you cheerleaders but am at a loss for an alternative word that won't get your titties in a twist)?

[metisdead]

A post containing a controversial image has been removed.

[Singharh]

Yes,they do have political ideologies ...get as much corruption/bribery money as possible !

[tbthailand]

"“The question today is not who will be in the government? But who are the real owner of democracy – the people or just the elites,” said Natthawut."

Spot on.

The "elites" - that would be the 50+% of Thai voters who didn't vote for Thaksin's stooges?

Look at how the brown shirts tie themselves into knots trying desperately to deny the fact that the PTP (in all its various guises) have won every election for the last 10 (?) years.

AFAIK no-one has suggested what you claim. On the other hand, the majority of Thai voters somehow become 'elite', a convenient label for hate propaganda, someone to blame for your own lack of success.

On the other hand, the majority of Thai voters somehow become 'elite', a convenient label for hate propaganda

which is not what the poster said to whom you replied....

The "elites" - that would be the 50+% of Thai voters who didn't vote for Thaksin's stooges?

so maybe those voters only became the "elite" in your own mind?

[halloween]

Are you saying that in a parliamentary democracy the opposition has no input on policy? Should or should not the party that gets the most votes form the government (yes, I know even the term "most" is problematic for you cheerleaders but am at a loss for an alternative word that won't get your titties in a twist)?

Well if you had read the OP, Natthuwut was rejecting the proposal for a super majority (80%) government, which would mean a large majority of MPs from many parties would form the government. I was commenting on that, strange though that concept may be to you.

Whether or not the last elected government was part of a parliamentary democracy is arguable, but if you think the Democrat opposition had much input into PTP policy, you are delusional.

[billd766]

How is this guy not even in jail let alone able to be in the frame for running the country. He openly encouraged people to commit acts of arson and rebellion. With people like this even pulling any strings at any level the country is going to the dogs (even though it's probably already there now)

The same you can say about SUTHEP. Why he is not jailed?

Those questions would lead to nothing. It's only pointing to the others.

Give power to the people is easy to say but difficult to achieve here. Democracy means also here to understand the other party and work together for the benefit of this country. That does not mean to work forever but for the next 4 years term. I'm sure that corruption even will not be a big issue in that period. Also the army would have no reasons to interfere.

Of course I can see it's not easy for the participants to stay away from greediness and not being able to fill their pockets. But a coalition between the 2 big parties would be tempting for me.

Actually the difference is that Nattawut has been charged, had a trial, been found guilty and is out on bail.

Suthep has not been charged, gone to trial, been found innocent OR guilty and is not on bail.

During the last "elected" government the PTP had an overall majority, slim but a majority with quite a few other parties which completely nullified the Democrats so in effect the PTP could do as they wished.

I don't think that the next Thaksin party, if they are allowed to have one, and the Democrats could work together for the country and the people as they are diametrically opposed to each other and neither of the parties are really interested in the people, just in power and what can WE get out of it.

I agree with you completely about the greediness of the politicians but that is much the same worldwide but perhaps a bit more blatent in Thailand.

[billd766]

I couldn't agree more.

Every since the coup has taken place there has been a systematic routing of the Pheu Thai party members and all other associated parties so there would be no contest in the next election and this is just more of the same. Like them or not, Pheu Thai and it's offshoots represent a majority of the people in this country. Eviscerate them and you have effectively killed Democracy and handed the country to the elites.

Pheu Tai have NEVER represented the majority of people in Thailand nor at any time in their history did Thaksin's parties, the TRT, PPP nor the PTP ever represet democracy.

well, you say that with such fervor that you must be right

but of course ... you're not.

Any one who fails to recognize the popular support - yes, by the majority - of the governments formed by the PTP (300 or so of 500 MPs) or the support of the previous versions of that party is blind - purposefully, through ignorance, or due to their own political dogma.

But other than you who says I am not right and that you are wrong?

Either both of us are wrong, both of us are right, or just one of us is right.

Who can adjudicate?

It can't be you or me as we are both biased in our own ways.

[billd766]

Look at how the brown shirts tie themselves into knots trying desperately to deny the fact that the PTP (in all its various guises) have won every election for the last 10 (?) years.

AFAIK no-one has suggested what you claim. On the other hand, the majority of Thai voters somehow become 'elite', a convenient label for hate propaganda, someone to blame for your own lack of success.

Actually, a majority of the Thai electorate have voted for PTP for years. Of course, this option has graciously been taken away by the benevolent General who will set things right - because after 21 coups and coup attempts this time they will finally make it right.

Sweet dreams.

Actually that is not correct at all. The PTP only won about 43% of the votes and the people only voted one time for the PTP.

[halloween]

Actually, a majority of the Thai electorate have voted for PTP for years. Of course, this option has graciously been taken away by the benevolent General who will set things right - because after 21 coups and coup attempts this time they will finally make it right.

Sweet dreams.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that this is a lie. PTP did NOT receive a majority of votes to be elected. 48% is NOT a majority.

[MZurf]

Actually, a majority of the Thai electorate have voted for PTP for years. Of course, this option has graciously been taken away by the benevolent General who will set things right - because after 21 coups and coup attempts this time they will finally make it right.

Sweet dreams.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that this is a lie. PTP did NOT receive a majority of votes to be elected. 48% is NOT a majority.

Nitpicking. Let's try this; did they get most of the votes?

A fellow cheerleader suggested that using this term might confuse people so should be avoided.

[halloween]

Actually, a majority of the Thai electorate have voted for PTP for years. Of course, this option has graciously been taken away by the benevolent General who will set things right - because after 21 coups and coup attempts this time they will finally make it right.

Sweet dreams.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that this is a lie. PTP did NOT receive a majority of votes to be elected. 48% is NOT a majority.

Nitpicking. Let's try this; did they get most of the votes?

A fellow cheerleader suggested that using this term might confuse people so should be avoided.

No, they got more votes than any other party, troll. It's not nitpicking it's correction of a repeated lie.

Edited August 14, 2015 by halloween

[Linky]

"will require the next government to have the support of at least 360 votes in the parliament out of a total of 450." That's 80%, far more than 2/3's many democracies require. What percentage of parliament will be filled by military etc? 33%? Means no one could become PM without their approval, be they red, yellow or paisley. Ya think they planned it this way?

Assuming, and it's a huge assumption, that your 33% military is correct, if the reds elect 33% then no-one could be elected PM without THEIR approval. Which gives us a consensus leader rather than an autocrat ruling by bribery.

No, it just means that when they cannot agree then the army steps in, yet again.

[tbthailand]

I couldn't agree more.

Every since the coup has taken place there has been a systematic routing of the Pheu Thai party members and all other associated parties so there would be no contest in the next election and this is just more of the same. Like them or not, Pheu Thai and it's offshoots represent a majority of the people in this country. Eviscerate them and you have effectively killed Democracy and handed the country to the elites.

Pheu Tai have NEVER represented the majority of people in Thailand nor at any time in their history did Thaksin's parties, the TRT, PPP nor the PTP ever represet democracy.

well, you say that with such fervor that you must be right

but of course ... you're not.

Any one who fails to recognize the popular support - yes, by the majority - of the governments formed by the PTP (300 or so of 500 MPs) or the support of the previous versions of that party is blind - purposefully, through ignorance, or due to their own political dogma.

But other than you who says I am not right and that you are wrong?

Either both of us are wrong, both of us are right, or just one of us is right.

Who can adjudicate?

It can't be you or me as we are both biased in our own ways.

voters, ...

[tbthailand]

Actually, a majority of the Thai electorate have voted for PTP for years. Of course, this option has graciously been taken away by the benevolent General who will set things right - because after 21 coups and coup attempts this time they will finally make it right.

Sweet dreams.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that this is a lie. PTP did NOT receive a majority of votes to be elected. 48% is NOT a majority.

grammar police:

actually, they did win a "majority" - it is sometimes also called a plurality.

They did not win more than 50% of the total votes.

But they did win more than 50% of the MP seats.

And in the end, the government coalition which was formed and named after the PTP as the lead in the coalition had far far far more than 50% of both...

[halloween]

"will require the next government to have the support of at least 360 votes in the parliament out of a total of 450." That's 80%, far more than 2/3's many democracies require. What percentage of parliament will be filled by military etc? 33%? Means no one could become PM without their approval, be they red, yellow or paisley. Ya think they planned it this way?

Assuming, and it's a huge assumption, that your 33% military is correct, if the reds elect 33% then no-one could be elected PM without THEIR approval. Which gives us a consensus leader rather than an autocrat ruling by bribery.

No, it just means that when they cannot agree then the army steps in, yet again.

All the more reason to come to an agreement then. Would it be easy? No. Would it be more democratic than having some criminal in Dubai giving orders?

[halloween]

Actually, a majority of the Thai electorate have voted for PTP for years. Of course, this option has graciously been taken away by the benevolent General who will set things right - because after 21 coups and coup attempts this time they will finally make it right.

Sweet dreams.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that this is a lie. PTP did NOT receive a majority of votes to be elected. 48% is NOT a majority.

grammar police:

actually, they did win a "majority" - it is sometimes also called a plurality.

They did not win more than 50% of the total votes.

But they did win more than 50% of the MP seats.

And in the end, the government coalition which was formed and named after the PTP as the lead in the coalition had far far far more than 50% of both...

When proved wrong, don't admit it, change the subject by deleting "of votes". Is there some standing order that says this shall never be admitted?

[Linky]

"will require the next government to have the support of at least 360 votes in the parliament out of a total of 450." That's 80%, far more than 2/3's many democracies require. What percentage of parliament will be filled by military etc? 33%? Means no one could become PM without their approval, be they red, yellow or paisley. Ya think they planned it this way?

Assuming, and it's a huge assumption, that your 33% military is correct, if the reds elect 33% then no-one could be elected PM without THEIR approval. Which gives us a consensus leader rather than an autocrat ruling by bribery.

No, it just means that when they cannot agree then the army steps in, yet again.

All the more reason to come to an agreement then. Would it be easy? No. Would it be more democratic than having some criminal in Dubai giving orders?

Who do you think should give in to come to an agreement? What has Mr T got to do with it? Unless you think that only the Dems should have their man as PM as the Reds cant be trusted.

Your own posts and reasoning by bringing that up proves my point. They will never agree and the army will have power. Yes that is worse than the people deciding who they want.

[halloween]

No, it just means that when they cannot agree then the army steps in, yet again.

All the more reason to come to an agreement then. Would it be easy? No. Would it be more democratic than having some criminal in Dubai giving orders?

Who do you think should give in to come to an agreement? What has Mr T got to do with it? Unless you think that only the Dems should have their man as PM as the Reds cant be trusted.

Your own posts and reasoning by bringing that up proves my point. They will never agree and the army will have power. Yes that is worse than the people deciding who they want.

Get off your high horse. No-one has to give in, a compromise has to be reached. Thaksin was the de facto head of the last government with autocratic control from the bribes he paid monthly to his PTP MPs, And he certainly can't be trusted.

Your argument that the people decide who they want is fallacious. If all the MPs are elected they have decided who they want, but a simple 51% majority would not over-ride the other 49%, they will have input too. It is a PROPOSAL, it has some merit though the percentage is likely too high at 80, but I don't see inclusiveness as being wrong. Why do you?

[tbthailand]

Actually, a majority of the Thai electorate have voted for PTP for years. Of course, this option has graciously been taken away by the benevolent General who will set things right - because after 21 coups and coup attempts this time they will finally make it right.

Sweet dreams.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that this is a lie. PTP did NOT receive a majority of votes to be elected. 48% is NOT a majority.

grammar police:

actually, they did win a "majority" - it is sometimes also called a plurality.

They did not win more than 50% of the total votes.

But they did win more than 50% of the MP seats.

And in the end, the government coalition which was formed and named after the PTP as the lead in the coalition had far far far more than 50% of both...

When proved wrong, don't admit it, change the subject by deleting "of votes". Is there some standing order that says this shall never be admitted?

yawn, did I not wonder with reason about your understanding of English as a native speaker just a few days ago?

As you will notice, the only ones who don't admit that the PTP and their previous incarnations were popular and had the popular support of the Thai people are you and other like minded posters around here, ... along with Suthep and his "mass of people" foundation, of course...

But for the record, as noted above, the PTP government had far more than an absolute majority of both votes and seats - the coalition had right around 300 seats out of 500.

As for the lack of English comprehension on your part, here is the definition of "majority" and if you manage to understand the definition correctly, then you will see that even 48.41% of the vote in the 2011 elections in Thailand does indeed constitute a "majority" of the votes...

1. ma·jor·i·ty

   məˈjôrədē,məˈjärədē/

   noun

   1. 1.

      the greater number.

      "in the majority of cases all will go smoothly"

      synonyms: larger part/number, greater part/number, best/better part, most, more than half;

      plurality, bulk, mass, weight, (main) body, preponderance,predominance, generality, lion's share

      "the majority of cases"
   2. 2.

      the age when a person is legally considered a full adult, in most contexts either 18 or 21.

      synonyms: legal age, adulthood, manhood/womanhood, maturity; More