• Ginola
  • ranking : General member
  • created : 2007-11-13
  • entry : 63
  • visitors : 30419
  • votes : 25
  • send msg :
A Man's Random Walk
politik, economik, foreign affairs
Permalink : http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ginola
Sunday , December 7 , 2008
Democrats Political Hijacking: Killing Two Birds with One Stone
Posted by Ginola , Reader : 818 , 09:14:50  
Print

As soon as street politics stopped, politics as usual resumed as negotiations and bargaining have been taking place among politicians in a bid by the two polars - Puea Thai and the Democrat - to form a new government.

Indeed, yesterday's announcement by the Democrat was a shocking and stunning move. 

The recruitment (or shall I say "purchase"?) of the Newin group and other party-less MPs from Machima and Chart Thai, if indeed successful, could become one of the most spectacular political hijackings ever witnessed in Thai politics.

The Democrats are not only thinking about today, they are also thinking about the future. Their latest move will be a stone that kills two birds in a row.

First, it should land the Democrats a precious opportunity to form and lead the government, something they have not been able to do in recent years.

Second, if the Newin group joins the Democrat Party, this will be a boost for the Democrats' position in the Northeast in future elections. They are likely to get more seats in Isaan in future elections - also something the Democrats have not managed to do in recent years.

This, combined with the addition of Chart Thai and Machima MPs, will give the Democrats a much better chance of winning future elections against the Thaksin camp.

So, in case you haven't noticed, the same old party-switching phenomenon is back (which raises the question: is the dissolution of a party a proper way to punish and prevent vote-buying? would it lead to unnecessary political instability? more detailed and careful analysis is needed here).

.........

While the Democrats say that they are doing it all for the interests of the country, the truth is that they are doing it for themselves, for their own survival. The truth is that they have been eagerly - in fact, desperately - waiting for this moment for a long, long time. No surprise that they remained quiet and never said a word about the PAD's seizure of the airports. 

It's all been calculated and prepared for.

If we take a look at the number of MPs each party has as of now (total of 438), this is how it stands:

PPP (now party-less) 212; Democrat 166; Chart Thai (now party-less) 15; Machima (now party-less) 10; Puea Pandin 21; Ruam Jai Thai 9; and Pracharat 5.

How the Democrats could somehow manage to grab power in the government, legally and legitimately so, is truly amazing.

It is, shall I say, such a classic... But given the Party's history, it is perhaps not that surprising after all.

.........

Of course, all the above remains uncertain at the moment. The case of who will be the next government is far from over.

Thaksin camp will not stop here and we may see more shocking developments in the days to come. Pojaman is still trying to regain control. Abhisit is accused of avoiding military conscription. The current caretaking PM, though connected with Newin, could still dissolve the House (can he do so legally? I'm not sure what the law says).

After all, every politician, like everything else, has a "price".

But, in any case, the latest development reminds us of the saying: there are no permanent friends or foes in politics.

Read comment

comment 53
DKO date : 11/12/2008 time : 12.25
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

I expected something like this - hence why I told Lalida in a previous comment not to worry the Dems have not got power yet

According to reports today the PTP are offering millions of baht for the Newin defectors to return.
IF true this tells me.

1) Nobody has learnt anything in the last 2-3 years its STILL all about money, bribery and greed.
2) The TRT, PPP, PTP do not seem able to Govern without bribery being their core policy.

2) The PTP are willing to work with anybody to keep power, just as much as the Dems are to get power.

Who would want turncoats twice over (if they come back) in Government. Clearly the PTP would.

3) The PTP are not democratic if this is how they continue to operate. I understand their frustration BUT sinking to massive bribery IF THE REPORTS ARE TRUE is not what one expects from a party that feels it has to a right to Govern (sounds like last ditch desperation in fact).

Sorry Lalida but I see less and less democracy in the PTP day by day as they desperately wheel and deal.

As a UK man I am disgusted with the whole Thai political scene and feel Thailand gets what it deserves if the the last few years are how their Politicians and elite are able and are allowed to behave (bribery, corruption, money politics, vote buying, power hungry and self interested).

I don't care if its Dems PTP or whoever. Its about time these MPs thought about their Country and people for a change - but there is more chance of Hell freezing over than that.

Still should be new trouble if the Newin group do go back and join PTP as no doubt the PAD will claim they were bought with Mr. T money, mobilise again and the nightmare that is Thai politics will start all over again.
comment 52
usmale date : 11/12/2008 time : 11.42

Lalida, to answer your question, "If they have solid prove, why they can’t nail him to death in court instead of taking it on the streets and cause unrest for the country and people, giving every reason to the military to stage a coup." The answer is "rich people do not go to jail" (they just go to England and avoid their jail time since they have lots of money they stole from the Thai people). They do not care if the credit (they give to the Thai poor people) will be paid back, because if the Thai poor spend money the economy will become better. Which in turn will keep them in office. But they did not care what it would do to Thailand's economy. Because they are rich and untouchable. Thailand's laws do not pertain to them.
comment 51
ys-lai date : 11/12/2008 time : 10.15
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ys-lai

DKO C50,
Tks yr feedback; Thaksin or whoever is none of my business, since I am not Thai same as another blogger Ian. What I wish also to reflect the actual events & hidden intention.
Thaksin was popularly elected in 2001 & 2005 with majority win due to his popular policy favoring the rural poors like cheap medical care etc. Despite his popular win; he creates a lot of enemies from Bangkok elite & military – the old powers. The main reason arose protest is his family’s sales of famous Shin Corp – a Telco company to Singapore Government amounting to USD2 billions – without need to pay any tax…. FYI, this prosecution already aborted by Court as stated by Nationnews by Thanong- but money still frozen by military since 2006. Being super rich and super successful perhaps is only root problem for Thaksin by jealousy and hatred instigated by military & Bangkok so called elite…..
Due to protests from PAD at that time. Thaksin called for a snub election in April 2006 to mandate his support although unnecessary since he already elected in 2005. Majority of opposition parties boycotted this election on April 2006. Almost uncontested of course TRT won this election as well. To show his sincerity through democratic election system Thaksin agreed for another election on Oct. 2006. In Sept 2006 – military coup rebellion overthrow the elected Government. Under Military control – a constitution court first legalizes the coup and then ruled Thaksin election in April 2006 was fraud??? Most MPs was banned and prosecuted, the whole TRT party was ordered to dissolve on May 30, 2007. Thaksin & most of his members was banned for election.
What fraud on April 2006 election??? There is no contest due to boycott by oppposition parties??? To add salt to injury; The court verdict to ban Thaksin & all major members of TRT over 100 of them from election????
PPP is formed by supporters of Thaksin; of course have strong Thaksin influence… It is a crime even to be proxy of Thaksin??? If people willing to vote for??
Same as it is a crime to worship “Allah” for muslim, or God for Christian and so on????
Look at latest events for past two years I am sure you have seem yrself in Bangkok. When justice is twisted by vested interest groups by FORCE– turmoil begin…….
Thailand is not yet Burma; but definitely are tilting that way …. No longer with debate or reason through legal procedure but by brutal force and illegal mean through “Judical coup” (now the red skirt is calling recent justice by Court) to achieve their purpose. Building their pleasure on agony of other is what’s Military and Bangkok elite are practicing now.
Look at International News start from wikipedia can link you to many more neutral views on Thai events.
comment 50
DKO date : 10/12/2008 time : 21.05
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

Hi ys-lai

(C49).

Thanks for your comments. To be honest I do not intend offering anybody excuses - just trying to interpret events and intentions as everybody else.

I am not aware of ever suggesting the PAD work alone and i am Sir they have some very powerful and rich backers. I have my suspicions of some powers behind them but to be honest I do not really know who they are or how many. What is clear is the PAD are well backed by sympathisers who mostly have not chosen to reveal themselves.

As far as dictators I agree the PAD's action are attempts to dictate to Country and Government and unacceptable to anybody who truly believed in democracy.

Forgive me (as I know you will never agree with this) I consider Mr. T also has dictatorial tendencies as well (But not comparable to the actions of the PAD I wish to state). Some of his actions are not in my PERSONAL Western minded opinion symptomatic of a person who believes in true democracy power to the people and to solely serve them.

To be fair I give an example of what I mean by that. He constantly attempts to influence and direct the elected PPP (PTP) Government and yet he has NOT been elected by any Thai (unlike the MPs in those parties, be they constituency MPs or Party Listed) who DO have a democratic mandate to Govern.

OK I know he was banned form politics for 5 years and unable to stand for election and I know many feel that ban (and the others' bans) were unfair and unjustified but even, so he was not elected because of it.

I pray that you are not really serious in comparing Thailand's current situation with Myanmar (Burma). I understand what you mean about democracy and the PAD's harm to it. I know Thailand is at a political low at present, BUT I truly believe that in Thailand the people have much more say, power and liberties than the unfortunate Myanmar people.

Just compare Thailand's last Military coup leaders' rule to that of the Burmese Juntas. I feel there is little comparison even if both are undemocratic.

The Thai coup leaders wished to and did hand power back to people after a year. The Myanmar have zero intention of ever doing that with their people unless forced to do so.

I hope you will agree Thailand is a long way from Myanmar Military Junta, (one of the most despised regimes in the whole World for suppressing its people and liberties. I am sure those living under the suppressive and ruthless Junta in Myanmar would agree on this.

Dave
comment 49
ys-lai date : 10/12/2008 time : 07.51
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ys-lai

DKO,
My C#47 is address to yr C34 (wrongly address the name).
U assume PAD work alone; that’s the big mistake as showed in my C#37 – PAD always have support from Military. Unofficial mafia is supported by official mafia. That’s the catch 22.
All motives is crystal clear to retain their old power under dictatorship. The rest is for SHOW….
Present situation is no differences from Burma military power suppressing public election by hook or by crook for old elite power to retain their absolute power. It is no for people in Thailand; It’s motive for a few powerful figure at the top.
All yr defense is excuse for dictatorship ruling. Period…..
comment 48
DKO date : 09/12/2008 time : 20.23
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

Hi Lalida (C46)

I know your stand pretty well also.
It seems we both have mostly settled in our minds what we each believe.

To clarify: I agree with you on ASTV and I was not actually intending to include them in my comment. I was meaning the neutral or near neutral media that started to have doubts about some of Mr.Ts activities during his reign as PM and started criticising and asking questions.

Your question about what purpose had Mr. T unintentionally of starting a coup. I think this is a misunderstanding of English between us. You are very good with English and great in debate and I write to you as if Ian, and yet English in not your native tongue nor have you know it all your life and I forget this when I use English expressions and terms so often - sorry, but please take that as a genuine compliment with much admiration).

I am not suggesting Mr.T had ANY desire or intention for a coup (of course he and most others did not). What I meant was that he did a few things which were a trigger to the coup.

May I give an example to what I mean.
Example of indirect trigger. The PAD say the police killed and injured PAD supporters with their tear gas grenades and are to blame.

However, indirectly of course the PAD are COMPLETELY to blame. Yes the injured/killed of the PAD were harmed by the direct consequence of the grenades used by the police BUT indirectly the PAD are entirely to blame because had they not taken over buildings, refused to leave and acted illegally the Police would not have been there nor would they have used the tear gas.

It is is this context that I say I believe Mr. T triggered the coup, by various individual actions which combined triggered others to decide the coup was correct to carry out. By this statement I am not saying the coup was correct, democratic or warranted or that I condone it in any way.

TRT's dissolution of the House.
Lalida I am not saying what Mr T. could have or should have done. (Many others say he should not have called such a quick General Election and then the Dems would not have boycotted).

As I see it under the Constitution at the time Mr.T had every right to call a snap election but unfortunately the Constitution had loopholes that the Dems legally used. Mr. T realising he had a problem then took actions that were later decided (by the judiciary BEFORE any coup) to be illegal under that Constitution.

It is not for me to comment on the old Constitution
merits and demerits. I merely stated what I understood to have happened.

On a personal opinion. I think the Dems took a legal but not very democratic action, BUY I also noted the TRT were found guilty of paying stooges to stand against their candidate (in some areas where the Dems refused to stand) in mock elections to get round the Constitution rules. That was also not democratic and also attempted to deny Thai people proper candidates to choose from.

Current EC.

Lalida I was referring to triggers of the Coup only. If you want me to broaden the trigger for PAD, biased judiciary, why more PPP MPs were yellow and red carded I could but my comment on the EC at the time of Mr. Ts rule and were PURELY trying to offer one reason I considered Mr. T unintentionally triggered the coup.

Lalida you wish to balance all my comment I understand that IF we are debating "cause and effect" "actions and reactions" but you asked me why I dislike Mt. T and I told you. You then counter my reasons with something like "well what do you think the PAD, Dems , Newin since etc. etc." but I was answering your question. What I think of those other issues had no bearing on what I think of Mr.T and his previous or unassociated actions like bail jumping for example.

If you wanted me to comment on the PAD's recent methods I would answer you and I would make NO reference to Mr.T AT ALL as (although they hate him) their methods used had nothing to do with Mr. T. They alone decided and used illegal
methods They cannot blame Mr. T for that -even indirectly as too remote and indirect)

Our airport situation. To be fair Lalida there were only 50 unarmed demonstrators and they made their demo and stand, but essentially were resigned to being arrested (which I believe 40 were). Our police were never really at risk nor was a major sit-in planned.

However, had they been as aggressive as the PAD I am sure the police or military would have been called in pretty quick. A short attempt to end it peacefully would have been attempted (maybe a day) then they would have been ordered in to use minimal (but necessary) force to remove the demonstrators. The forces in the UK would have obeyed and not said "no", tried to negotiate with our Government or tell it what to do. Our forces obey the elected Government of the day I am pleased to say. Luckily so do the British people support that line, even if sympathetic with the ideals of those who have done the sit-in.

Luckily any divides in UK is not as great or as entrenched as in Thailand. I have to assume the Dems must take much responsibility for that as they had many years of Government (I believe) before the TRT were elected, and yet failed to govern the Country equally.

Feel 100% free to respond Lalida (I am not seeking the last word). May I suggest after that we call it a truce and allow others to debate, or you debate with others. Me, I think my brain hurts with so much in-depth but interesting and thought provoking debate. Think I'll give debating Thai politics a rest for a while and enjoy lighter subjects. Dave
comment 47
ys-lai date : 09/12/2008 time : 18.56
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ys-lai

DTC C34
[quote]
Mr.T's involvement we ALL know triggers the PAD and powerful backers (and we have heard many reasons for their hatred of Mr.T (of which some will always believe 100%, and some never).

The infighting, and actions of the PAD bring the country to its knees which Mr.T's PPP seems totally unable to deal with the illegality due to lack of support from police and military. Do you dispute this ys-lai?
[/quote]
DTC pls read following statement by Military coup leader in 2006
[quote]
General Sonthi later said in an interview that the coup was originally planned for 20 September, to coincide with a major anti-Thaksin rally also planned for that day. He cited the "Portuguese example" in which anti-government rallies coincided with a successful military rebellion which overthrew King Manuel II of Portugal and established the Portuguese First Republic. The coup was moved up to 19 September, when Thaksin was still in New York. Sonthi also stated that the coup was not an urgent measure mooted just a couple of days earlier. Sonthi also claimed that during a lunch that Thaksin had with the commanders of the armed forces, Thaksin had asked him "Will you stage a coup?" Sonthi replied: "I will."[48] This contradicted earlier public statements where he denied that the military would stage a coup.[49]
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Thai_coup_
One will be naïve thinking PAD can do alone without support of military power. Above is cystal clear evidence of terrorist act of PAD is supported by military (admitted by General Sonthi, himself) in 2006 and same for today situation.
Illegal terrorist act by PAD and support by illegal military coup against legally elected government is the root problem in Thailand.
What is wrong doing of Thaksin??? Here is self explanory
[quote]
Until early 2008, the military and their special investigation team comprising of political opponents of Thaksin Shinawatra could not find any evidence supporting the corruption accusation. There was only one case that can be charged against Thaksin and his wife in Court. That was a purchase of government land by bidding method which the military claimed to be violation of laws because Thaksin Shinawatra was a prime minister. Such law prohibits any spouse of government officer to do business with the government office which such officer is working for. Many in Thai legal profession found the charge to be groundless. Elections were held on 23 December 2007, after a military-appointed tribunal outlawed the Thai Rak Thai party of Thaksin Shinawatra and banned TRT executives from contesting in elections for 5 years.
Souce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Thai_coup_
[/quote]
Up to now, military and PAD still wish to eliminate Thaksin and his family. Why should he involved??? certainly he will, so do his ex-wife and his children to fight back to clear his name and recover his money. FYI, Sales of his family share of Shin Corpn worth USD 2 billions to Singapore Government was aborted by Court due to no evidence of tax evasion and wrong doing reported by Nation Journalist-Thannong.But this money still frozen by military coup since 2006.
The root problem is military power. PAD merely a puppet for hidden aganda…..
comment 46
FOS date : 09/12/2008 time : 12.18
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/Dom

Dave,

When I debate, I debate on the topic, the subject that’s been brought up and not personal issue, so there’s no issue between you and I on this. I have said it Dave, I’ve been trying to avoid a debate with you as I know and understand your stand, so basically there’s no end to it. Anyhow, since you insist, I just have to give you one ha, ha, ha…..

Coming back to your #42 and #43….

#42

You wrote “My understanding is that one of the reasons the newspapers are not keen on Mr. T was that he tried to suppress his critics and negative reporting and closed radio stations and was very keen on libel lawsuits. If you keep digging people in the ribs, correct or not, eventually one or many of them of them will hit you back and probably hard. Is that correct? No, but it is human nature.”

Out of the whole Paragraph, I can only agree with one thing and that is “Human Nature” as for the rest, I cannot agree to it at all and here’s my take.
The media itself should always be on neutral no matter what, it is their duty, their job, one cannot take sides or use his profession to revenge and reports what is not real or side with their own opinion out of hatred, the simple reason is they are responsible to the public of what they wrote. If one feels that their freedom of speech is being suppressed, one can always seek justice through legal system and even question the government on their rights being suppress. The media do not have the luxury of using the post as revenge or defamations just to vent its anger. Look at ASTV, what they are actually doing is inciting hatred among the people, using it as a tool to attack the government, how many news that they broadcasted was true by its nature? Freedom of Speech has it’s limit.

Did Mr. T encourage a coup? you ask. Well unintentionally yes I think he did.

May I ask for the purpose of………and how
unintentionally is that?

Again you wrote “He held a constitutionally illegal General Election” may I ask how illegal it is, he dissolve the house and threw the power back to the people. It was the Dem’s who started to boycott everything he does together with the PAD on the streets. What do you expect Thaksin to do since he’d already dissolve the house, put it back together again? The only way was to carry on with it with or without the Dems, they were given an opportunity and they rejected. How can you call that election as illegal? Is it what you’re saying is whenever a party boycotts an election, it makes it illegal? Don’t seem too logic to me my friend.
You claimed “His appointed EC panel refused to carry out their duties properly, and were very pro Mr. T”, So can you tell now who appointed the present EC or are they doing their duties and were they not very Pro Dems? Shall we throw them in Jail as well just to be fair….The coup took over the government and set up the AEC, New bunch of judges, NCCC all these are the junta’s work of art isn’t it? So you believe everything the junta’s appointed and refuse to accept what Thaksin government appointed, are you talking fair justice with me, Dave?

#43

I will not compare your country with ours Dave, its 2 different thing. Just look at the latest news about the environment guys took over the runway of the airport, they took action instantly and arrested the people involved and they’re back in business within 2 days. What happened to ours? Our ones became a stand still just because our people see their personal interest and status more important.
comment 45
Ian date : 09/12/2008 time : 09.57
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Comment 43. Dave the one big difference between the Thai and British systems is that we have constituency committees. Say a typical constituency fields a Labour, Conservative and LibDem candidate, perhaps with a few minor part candidates.
Each candidate will have been selected and approved by their respective local party committee, this committee will also fund his election campaign, provide the "foot soldiers" to go canvassing, pay for posters etc.
Now if he gets elected, and then at some later date switches party, what will his constituency committee do if this was done without consulting them and getting their agreement?
They will disown him, he will be deselected and not be able to stand for re-election in that party.
A British politician cannot afford to ignore the wishes of those who elected him.
Thai politicians do seem to have an "in group" of supporters who put up posters and organise "loudspeaker trucks", but the politician is the one who foots the bill.
A British politician cannot stand apart from his electorate, Thais seem to do this as a matter of course, go and ask a fw Thais in the street who is their local MP.
Also if a British government loses a vote of no confidence it automatically triggers an election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_of_no_confidence
comment 44
Pomjuk date : 09/12/2008 time : 07.50
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/pomjuk

I don’t know what to say, I think it is just another unofficial coupe with coordinating PAD protest, dictated constitution court and passive military action. Most politicians in the west would have been ashamed to take the virtual arrangement and appointing of the new prime minister, given the situation leading to it. But I bet you 2 baht, Abhisit wouldn’t mind a thing.
comment 43
DKO date : 08/12/2008 time : 21.46
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

Lalida C40,

You are getting predictable.

I nearly did not print the link you asked for as I guessed you would rubbish it on principal. Like it or not neither you nor I know for sure its truth or not so. However, just because Newin does not now like Mr. T and vice versa, that does not warrant others judge without ANY contrary evidence against the authenticity and accuracy of the report.

You asked me for back up facts to my comments but how can I, if your answer to everything negative to PPP/PTP/Mr. T reported in Bangkok Post and The Nation newspapers is going to be disbelief and ridicule (except when supportive or reporting positive news for PPP/PTP). Bangkok Post and The Nation are the only Thai English speaking papers I can read and my primary Thai source of information and news.

Much of what we all write is based upon TV, radio and newspapers (as few of us are eye witnesses). So we all believe or disbelieve who and what we choose to or what seems most logical to each of us.

I would however say that the US and UK TV stations and newspapers whilst universally against the PAD do not consider Mr. T a victim, innocent or the PPP clean.

---
Legitimacy of the Dems to form a Government.

Sorry but in the UK even though it would not be at all popular if a party disbanded or lost enough MPs to the second party by defections it could be considered that the second party had a right to form a Government and that the elected Government had lost its mandate.

Ian I am sure will correct me if I am mistaken. Normally an election would be called before that situation came about by the Government before it lost the majority. OR the opposition party would call for a House vote on "No Confidence in The Government" and if successful a General Election would be called.

I think it is not that uncommon in many democracies that where a Government resigns or is forced out for the main opposition party to try and form a Government . They usually would seek
coalition partners)

Once again I suspect Ian will have a broader and better knowledge than me on this.

If you do not agree with coalitions (I do not like them either - too often the tiny "tail tries to wag the dog") then why did the PPP form so many deliberately itself?. It is well known coalition parties are often unreliable. Maybe it proves the PPP national support was not as great as the PPP desired. I say this because no untouchable majority party would ever take on coalition partners and would only do so if it felt vulnerable and that they were necessary.

Additionally it could be suggested that people who voted PPP wanted a pure PPP Government and not a coalition with all minor parties (except the leading opposition Party). After all the coalition parties were the LEAST popular parties for the Thai nation. So I ask was the PPP's coalition morally democratic to form coalitions to ensure the Dems could not form a Government (which was impossible anyway unless enough PPP MPs were banned for irregularities).

Truth is Lalida, what is often allowed within electoral law and considered lawful are often not very moral or honourable.

Do I agree with or like a 2nd Party being able to form Government in the way the Dems may - NO I I do not (but I suspect its legal).

Do I like a Government, just banned by the courts needing only to regroup under a new name being able to continue as normal if it chooses - NO.

In the current situation I have much sympathy for the PPP over the ban, BUT Lalida supposing a future Government was disbanded over some horrendous National outrage and reformed in this way and just carried on - for me that's scarey

Seems to me the rules are not severe enough or too severe. To be fair, I know the PPP wanted amend parts of these constitutional rules. Unfortunately many (much more than just the PAD) feared the PPP was planning to amend the parts to protect itself only, if it transgressed, rather than to protect all parties in future.

Politics is complicated and troublesome the world over, but regretfully Thai Politics seems to have found itself a brand new level of divisiveness.

-----
Lalida, on a personal note I hope my friend, we are not falling out over this issue. I do not see this as as my view is better or correct over yours or that I am right and you are wrong or vice versa.

We each care about a good and effective outcome for Thailand and its just that we feel differently how best that can be achieved.

well in fact I am not sure how it can be achieved. For me a coalition of all parties for a while is my preferred option as that would hopefully allow all a breather and to work on Thai matters without loss of face or a new bitter General Election before the country is ready.
comment 42
DKO date : 08/12/2008 time : 21.45
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

Lalida C41,

Just seen this as I was about to answer C40.

I do not support the Dems and have never said I did

I have never made any views from what I can recall about Abhist being good or bad.

I do not think Mr. T is evil. I think he is greedy like most Thai politicians but he stepped on a few too many toes and was too greedy to be ignored by his enemies who he mistakenly underestimated.

I have often said what the PAD have been doing recently is outrageous an criminal and they should answer for their actions.

Sorry Lalida, but I do think Mr. T started the ball rolling. I have been following the Thai political scene DAILY since I came here 2½ years ago as politics interests me (as did the US primaries an presidential election - lasted a year in all)
and it as so often is the case the whole situation escalated out of control and into violence

My understanding is that one of the reasons the newspapers are not keen on Mr. T was that he tried to suppress his critics and negative reporting and closed radio stations and was very keen on libel lawsuits. If you keep digging people in the ribs, correct or not, eventually one or many of them of them will hit you back and probably hard. Is that correct? No, but it is human nature.

Did Mr. T encourage a coup?, you ask. Well unintentionally yes I think he did.

He held a constitutionally illegal General Election (yes I know th Dems sued a legal loophole and that was the reason he was tempted into transgressing - but their actions were legal but his party's was not). His appointed EC panel refused to carry out their duties properly, and were very pro Mr. T (the whole country almost were against them). Mr.T made no real effort to expedite and call a new General Election - he seemed pretty content as caretaker PM. During that time, I understand he reassigned Military personnel and others (very poor timing) in favour of those he trusted and seemingly favoured and as a consequence I feel he panicked the rest and those concerns encouraged them to undemocratically act against him and the TRT whilst he was out of the country.
comment 41
FOS date : 08/12/2008 time : 20.01
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/Dom

#C38 Dave,

(I find your political views currently tend to respond to very current situations without looking back at history. For example you repeatedly remind us of the sins of the PAD. I think 99% of us agree with you entirely, but then you make the massive jump in conclusion to its not Mr.T's fault Thailand is in mess")

Fine Dave, you want to put it that way then let’s talk logic…..talk facts….talk justifications.

Let say what the PAD or the rest who is against him was 100% correct of what he did and that he should be condemned. So what’s wrong with the justice system that those people trusted so much, what happen to the poll that they can cast their rights? Those people are good at using the laws and judges aren’t they. If they have solid prove, why they can’t nail him to death in court instead of taking it on the streets and cause unrest for the country and people, giving every reason to the military to stage a coup. This time is even worst putting the whole country into a standstill with the financial crisis one step away from us. So who’s fault is it, who’s the root to all these?

Now coming back to “T” of what he was accused of, even if he is guilty as charged, did he caused unrest to the country, did he bring up any group that went against the PAD? Did he tell his supporters to take to the street? Did he encourage a coup to overthrown him so he has an excuse to live in exile? Did he not let those who accused him of what he did to present it to the court? OH, he’s got influence in the court with the judges, tell me what influences is there now between the Dems’, the military, the judges, the PAD’s, why haven’t anyone said anything in the public excepts the reds, why haven’t the Nation print one word about it? Yes Dave, go back to the history from day 1 when the PAD took to the streets then you come back and tell me where the root is of today’s Chaos.

To you and to everyone who is anti-Thaksin he is the worst of all evil and Abhisit is the saint and savior of the country, have you guys neglected all the dirty tricks that they did during the last election, have you guys forgotten the VCD that Suthep claimed it’s prove that the TRT was buying votes, has anyone seen any of the VDO’s that they said they have? Have you guys forgotten that they were the ones that’s been throwing fire to the flames while the PAD occupied the government house? Were they not the ones that went down moral support of hanging us by the neck? Is it by throwing everything at Thaksin makes you all feels better? Is it not all I hear is only Thaksin did this and did that? Why not one word from you about the others? Justify that Dave….
comment 40
FOS date : 08/12/2008 time : 19.28
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/Dom

#C36 Dave,

So you point me to an article printed in the Bangkok Post, you did mentioned “Article” and not prove is it?

Am I suppose to believe 100% sure what the article wrote of what Newin said to the media?
Am I supposed to take his word as prove? Hey! remember he jumped ship and went against the “T” family that he once kneel before? Does that gives me every reason not to believe him? To you he might be trusworthy but to me he far from it.

OK, you’ve got the right figure and right statement…I got it wrong but did I get the facts wrong that the PPP won the election, you can throw me as much figure as you wrong but you can’t deny that the PPP have won the seat and in a majority vote. Does it matter how close the Dem’s came in? Is there a law that said if the elected government that had been overthrown, the closest one gets to replace it?

Dave, it is not my concern of who you like or dislike, until to-date I did not make any judgment on anyone except I make judgment of the situation and happenings that is being unfairly looked into. I don’t see how the seat can be given to Abhisit when people condemn Somchai as illegitimate when his was nominated. Is it not nomination the parties are trying to grap or is the 65million Thais?

I do not wish to go on with the subject of what Thaksin did or did not do, you have your own conclusion and I have mine. To discuss further is basically pointless.

Dave, I never debate without seeing the actual facts myself or do I simply make a comment out of nothing, If it’s not a fact or something that I don’t know about, I will not say a word but watch what others write and compare the logistic of who is making more sense. That I call it as an opinion not statement and when I make a statement I make sure I have something to back me up. For me to accept others view, they will have to throw me the logic of it and if in the case of facts, give me your backups.
comment 39
Ian date : 08/12/2008 time : 19.24
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Dave, egg and ego are very similar sounding words, the egg was Thaksin but it was his ego that caused the egg to hatch. His ego led him to believe he was as popular, or more so than the king, he did not understand the non political power of the forces that support the King. His ambitions blinded him to reality.
comment 38
DKO date : 08/12/2008 time : 18.48
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

Lalida,

One final observation,

I find your political views currently tend to respond to very current situations without looking back at history.

For example you repeatedly remind us of the sins of the PAD. I think 99% of us agree with you entirely, but then you make the massive jump in conclusion to its not Mr.T's fault Thailand is in mess".

I quote:
"Real Damages were not done by “T”, if in the past months with the GH, Airports being seized you have not understood a thing or haven't been able to see where’s the root to the damages. There is nothing else to debate".

I think I HAVE looked for the root of the problems (and tried to) you however go on about PAD and coup as if nothing caused their uprising and dissent.

As I asked before, "which came first the Chicken or the Egg". Ian, I think, suggested the egg.

So I ask did the PAD, Coup and injustice come mainly as a result of the Mr. T's egg OR would they have happened anyway and caused all this mayhem whether he was around or not. Was Mr. T merely an unfortunate innocent victim caught up in all this?.

As dislikable and undemocratic as the coup was and the recent PAD actions ARE, I suggest Mr.T was indeed a trigger, looking at history and the build up as best I can. That does not mean I agree with Coups or PAD activities over th last 2-3 months.
comment 37
DKO date : 08/12/2008 time : 18.15
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

(Ian C35)

Once again I agree with you 100%.

Whether I like Mr. T or whether people sympathise with PPP, Dems or PAD the fact STILL remains that an elected Government should have been allowed to govern AND if not, then they should have been able to call upon and rely on Thai Police and Military to obey their instruction (as they were the people's democratically elected government (I am sure any vote rigging from any side would not have changed the election outcome)
comment 36
DKO date : 08/12/2008 time : 18.09
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

Lalida C33.

The article was printed in The Bangkok Post yesterday

http://www.bangkokpost.com/071208_News/07Dec2008_news03.php

You comment "So you give me figures of the last election, seems you have only counted the ones in Bangkok, you have forgotten the ones up north and northeast or in General?"

Yes I do give you figures of the last election (unless i have made an innocent error) as that was the last democratic vote by the people of Thailand and the mandates for all the MPs of all parties currently in parliament is based upon - Am I incorrect in doing so?

Your comment "seems you have only counted the ones in Bangkok",

You think 26 million votes for PPP and 21 million votes for Dems (47 million out a Thai population of 61 million) are only votes from Bangkok?
If so I cannot answer that.


My dislike for Mr.T.
I have ALWAYS said I do not like what many consider Mr. T has been up to, nor his fleeing bail when trusted not to. (losing the bail money is no excuse to bail jumping just coz he can afford to do so).

Your comment:
"Dave, you’re one of those who don’t like Thaksin or anyone that’s related to him. Fine, fair enough, everyone’s got their own choice but there’s no need throw a bucket of black paint over to the ones that support him or he alone".

To suggest I do not like anybody connected to Mr. T is a false accusation, nor do I "throw paint" as you call it at those who support him. If that was the case I would dislike most living in Khon Kaen, including my wife and her family, and would be throwing a lot of paint.

However, I do disagree with what I see as unquestioning to the PAD AND loyalty of Mr. T by so many in KK purely coz he gave the Village fund and the 30 Baht medical scheme so anything else he gets up to is OK. I have always said I thought the 30 Baht scheme was a wonderful policy and the Village scheme if executed better may have been - but sorry for me Two swallows do not make a summer" nor excuse any transgressions.

Most in KKC I have spoken to about TRT, PPP and Mr. T seem to know very little of what he is accused yet they all quote on similar lines "Mr. T he very good man, he give us Village Fund and 30 Baht Health Scheme. He help poor people". When I chat to them further they seem to know little or nothing else about him or what he is accused of (or do they not care).

If certain members of Mr. T’s family are involved in transgressions either with or on behalf of him then yes they should stand accountable as well. However I am sure a large number of his family are not involved with his political and financial business.

My view on transgressions applies EQUALLY to the PAD, Dems and all other politicians as well.
I know I will be told "then we will have no politicians" I know this but that dose not justify wrong doing, nor does it suggest the suspected worst offender should not be questioned or held to account if guilty.

I have strong views on many things as do you Lalida and as we do then we must accept that others will challenge us just as strongly (maybe more so) with opposing views and reasons for opposition. They are not throwing paint and nor do I consider they are. Neither am I, in disagreeing with one or two of your views and interpretations.
comment 35
Ian date : 08/12/2008 time : 17.46
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Dave, I think most people know what the real fight is about, if they don't there have been plenty of links to articles recently.
The problem is that instead of making it a clean fight between two opposing viewpoints it has turned into a dirty game which has embraced politics, the army, the police, the courts and powerful figures that should be above politics.
The real losers are the public.
comment 34
DKO date : 08/12/2008 time : 16.41
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

ys-lai (C30)

So your level of debate sinks to "None of yr business"

I live here with my wife and have done so for 2½ years. I am not allowed to vote but so far I am allowed to voice my opinions.

I may not be Thai (and my views not as important as yours) but it IS my business unless you consider what affects me and therefore affects my Thai family, our safety, our democracy is none of my business.

Mr.T's involvement we ALL know triggers the PAD and powerful backers (and we have heard many reasons for their hatred of Mr.T (of which some will always believe 100%, and some never).

The infighting, and actions of the PAD bring the country to its knees which Mr.T's PPP seems totally unable to deal with the illegality due to lack of support from police and military. Do you dispute this ys-lai?

Will the PTP have more support from police and military and PAD if elected WITH Mr. T pulling the strings/ You and we all know they will not.

If this is what we can expect from a PTP government with Mr.T's involvement, then I repeat out of Thailand necessity, we need PTP without Mr.Ts involvement for the benefit of Thailand and its people and the benefit of the PTP to be able to Govern without mass demos and threats of coups and the PAD.

I stand by my comment concernign Mr. T's involvement with the PTP and Thai politics at the current time.
comment 33
FOS date : 08/12/2008 time : 13.09
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/Dom

Dave,

You Wrote “A fact clearly supported by the news that Mrs. (Ex) T. tried desperately to make calls to the Newin group almost as soon as she arrived.”

Fact, which fact is it? Supported by the new……can you lead me to the post?

“I thought she was supposed to be here on private business. How naive can people be to have believed that, and even more naïve in trying to tell those who thought she was hear on Mr.T business they were mistaken.”

Is this an accusation or your thoughts are base on facts? Again please lead me to the source…..

“I feel your comments are mostly valid and accurate BUT you missed my point Lalida I said clearly I was raising mostly TECHNICAL points. This was deliberate.”

I’m talking about actual not technical.If “Technically speaking” everything should be on track base on a democrat system and base on the legal system but then it’s not, that is why this country is in Chaos.

“Nobody suggests for one second that the PPP did not get the majority of the Nation's constituency votes (26,293,456 ) at the last General Election but the Dems were voted for by millions of Thais as well (21,745,696). Hardly what you describe as "a few groups of politicians with agenda up their sleeves".”

So you give me figures of the last election, seems you have only counted the ones in Bangkok, you have forgotten the ones up north and northeast or in General? Let say your right but it’s a election by the people, correct? Now it’s an election within the parliament by dirty politicians switching parties to gain political benefits benefits, is that not an FACT or is still is people’s choice now?

“If we analyse the National vote we see that 36.3% of the Thai Nation voted PPP. This means a massive majority of 63.7% did not vote or did NOT vote for PPP. Admittedly less voted for the Dems (30.3%) but only 6% less compared to the PPP. This suggests, as most say and know, the Nation is very divided and not as you seem to wish to infer pro PPP/PTP.”

I don’t know what you’re trying to tell me on this, the fact is the PPP won the majority vote and took the office, that’s call “Democracy”. Now is not….the constitutional rights of the people was over thrown.

“If you wish to argue the "righteous democratic credentials” of the PPP/PTP then I put it to your that a MASSIVE number of PPP voters had an agenda up their sleeves TOO and voted PPP for Mr. T and not primarily for PPP policies. You think that comment unfair, then look at your own comment about the Red shirt rally you attended where you said some were not there for democracy (as you were) but in support of Mr. T.”

I never deny the votes were without the influence of Dr. “T”. No matter who or what those was aimed for, it’s still one citizen one vote and that was fair and square. Did they tried to overthrown any government by force and purposely turning this country into Chaos to hang us by the neck so they can get their own party in it? Did they?

3) You feel Dems are not a democratic option

Wrong, I said they are not democratically elected……As I’ve said, if they came out by one citizen one vote, I will even support them if they’ve done a good job. Now even if they comes out, it is all because their associate with the PAD and the others in power. FACT

4) You feel a new General Election and election of the PT/PPP is the answer to Thailand’s woes, even if Mr.T is involved (please note I have not surmised whether you agree with his involvement or not as only you know how you feel about him).

I 100% disagree.
The PT should go forward to the next General Election with their policies and with NO Mr.T involvement and it need to be clearly and transparent seen he is NOT involved otherwise we will have the current troubles all over again,”
Do you seriously think the troubles are over with the Dem’s taking over? Think again…..
“T” got kick out by injustice, by mob, by coup. If he decided to come back and take back what’s been taken from him illegally, fair enough to me. Don’t forget not one of the corruptions case against him has prove him guilty yet .

Enough damage has been done to Thailand and its people due to Mr.T's, his diehards and his family's involvement in the PPP & PTP AND by the PAD's involvement based mostly on their fear, hatred and opposition of Mr.T and his activities.

Real Damages were not done by “T”, if in the past months with the GH, Airports being seized you have not understood a thing or haven't been able to see where’s the root to the damages. There is nothing else to debate.

Dave, you’re one of those who don’t like Thaksin or anyone that’s related to him. Fine, fair enough, everyone’s got their own choice but there’s no need throw a bucket of black paint over to the ones that support him or he alone. I debate with what I see not because of him, not because of anger over the Dem’s. If justice that is not being served then I cannot agree to anything except power back to the people and to me that is the only solution and if people understand the “Democracy” they hang around their lips, they will have to accept the outcome of whoever takes control of the government.
comment 32
Ginola date : 08/12/2008 time : 13.08
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ginola
ginola

Thanks for all the comments and discussions. I admit I haven't had time to read them all. today was busy, preparing for exams and writing papers...

The Post however made a good point: Last week the Democrats were asking the govt to dissolve the House. Now they want to form a new govt.

Well, I guess when "circumstances" change, one's stance also changes.
comment 31
massein date : 08/12/2008 time : 12.19
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/massein

C22 thanks for the effort. Understanding is a little clearer.
comment 30
ys-lai date : 08/12/2008 time : 12.09
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ys-lai

DKO,

What the problem of Thaksin involvement??? So what??? If people willing to vote for proxy of Thaksin it is people's choice.... None of yr business or PAD's business.

Which domocratic society don't respect the vote on majority??? Even by one vote more. Do Republic party in USA after losing vote to Obama have uprighting??? With court order and disolved the elected party itself???

This is rule of the game; PAD, Bangkok elite and military refused to obey. Especially the military; that's the root problem. This is a land of FALSE smile .....
comment 29
DKO date : 08/12/2008 time : 11.42
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

Lalida C24

Hi Lalida Thanks for you reply .

I did clearly say the PT would win any new election t I when I said it would not solve anything as the PAD is still organized and would not accept them or allow them to Govern without hindrance as they would continue to believe Mr. T was pulling the strings. A fact clearly supported by the news that Mrs. (Ex) T. tried desperately to make calls to the Newin group almost as soon as she arrived.

I thought she was supposed to be here on private business. How naive can people be to have believed that, and even more naïve in trying to tell those who thought she was hear on Mr.T business they were mistaken.

I feel your comments are mostly valid and accurate BUT you missed my point Lalida I said clearly I was raising mostly TECHNICAL points. This was deliberate.

I think your one comment referring to the Dems
"Elected by WHO? The 65million Thais or a few groups of politicians with agenda up their sleeves?"
is not based on any form of factual reality.

Nobody suggests for one second that the PPP did not get the majority of the Nation's constituency votes (26,293,456 ) at the last General Election but the Dems were voted for by millions of Thais as well (21,745,696). Hardly what you describe as "a few groups of politicians with agenda up their sleeves".

If we analyse the National vote we see that 36.3% of the Thai Nation voted PPP. This means a massive majority of 63.7% did not vote or did NOT vote for PPP. Admittedly less voted for the Dems (30.3%) but only 6% less compared to the PPP. This suggests, as most say and know, the Nation is very divided and not as you seem to wish to infer pro PPP/PTP.

If you wish to argue the "righteous democratic credentials” of the PPP/PTP then I put it to your that a MASSIVE number of PPP voters had an agenda up their sleeves TOO and voted PPP for Mr. T and not primarily for PPP policies. You think that comment unfair, then look at your own comment about the Red shirt rally you attended where you said some were not there for democracy (as you were) but in support of Mr. T.

In addition I understand Mr. T suggested often that a vote for the PPP was a vote for him.

I appreciate your replies Lalida as it is important to hear views from all. I do not attack your beliefs and comments I merely wish to debate where I feel there are other possible valid viewpoints / options or where agreed facts can be interpreted differently depending on the persuasions of the readers and their beliefs on what is best for Thailand.

Examples: If I understand your views correctly from your many blogs and comments

1) You believe PAD is not in Thailand's best interests and recently have been an illegal mob that has done great damage to Thailand and its people

SO DO I.

2) You believe that the PPP/PTP are closer to democracy than PAD

I TOTALLY agree but let us not pretend the PTP have not got a long way to go too (just not as far as some others).

3) You feel Dems are not a democratic option

I cannot agree with that one. I will wait and see.

4) You feel a new General Election and election of the PT/PPP is the answer to Thailand’s woes, even if Mr.T is involved (please note I have not surmised whether you agree with his involvement or not as only you know how you feel about him).

I 100% disagree.
The PT should go forward to the next General Election with their policies and with NO Mr.T involvement and it need to be clearly and transparent seen he is NOT involved otherwise we will have the current troubles all over again,

Enough damage has been done to Thailand and its people due to Mr.T's, his diehards and his family's involvement in the PPP & PTP AND by the PAD's involvement based mostly on their fear, hatred and opposition of Mr.T and his activities.
comment 28
Ian date : 08/12/2008 time : 09.35
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

If one compares the two electoral systems, "first past the post" and "Proportional representation", they both have pros and cons. Countries that have FPTP usually have strong governments, those that have PR have weak and unstable governments. However, FPTP governments can be too strong, can steamroller through parliament laws beneficial to just themselves.
By combining the two systems, as is done in Thailand, it was hoped to gain the strengths of the FPTP system combined with the greater fairness of the PR system.
Its failure during the Thaksin era was due to the overwhelming dominance of one party, TRT and then PPP.
With what looks like a more balanced two party system emerging in Thailand this dual electoral system should work.
comment 27
expresso date : 08/12/2008 time : 03.38
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/expresso

Ginola, I respect your analysis.

When will I see you, one day, a one that doesn't analyze what has had become? Instead, I would like you being one that could dictate?

Perhaps, you and Patriot should start taking the lead! Lead us, please, instead of being an analysts condoning poor politicians leading us! You guys are the men!
comment 26
Seven date : 07/12/2008 time : 22.56
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/truethai
Sao Grabrong Hian

A shocking move? Aha. Your choise of words tell me who you are. I have always known that. At least I was not shocked by your blog. I know my enemy.
comment 25
Piset date : 07/12/2008 time : 22.47
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai
Piset

I am guessing the rationality of this dual system of area representatives and proportional representatives. Area representatives are elected on a win-loss basis while the proportional representative tries to reflect the relative popularvotes received by each political parties. If a particular political party win by big margin in its constituencies, it would get more proportional representatives, this would further expand the margin of differences in the total number of seats in the house between the "popular" and the "unpopular" parties.

I am just guessing. I don't think there would be any need for these proportionate MPs at all. As many have said. If you think people will support you, throw in your hat and join the election.
comment 24
FOS date : 07/12/2008 time : 22.12
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/Dom

Dave,

I have avoided to confront with you but since you insist of me coming in to debate with you, here it is…..word for word, sentence by sentence.

You wrote “This is just sort of rhetoric the PAD and Yellow shirts started with. If the Dems and coalition get the MPs to form a coalition votes are you telling me that they are not allowed to form a government under the constitutional laws, and that dissolution is mandatory (or else).”

By constitutional laws, they are allow and lawful. The dissolution is mandatory but tell me it’s not a set up, it is to everyone’s eyes that the purpose is for the Dem to sneak in. So don’t talk to me about constitutional Law, talk to me about democracy, talk to me about the constitutional rights of the 18 million Thais that got their right overthrown by a bunch of hooligans and dirty politicians, crooked justice. The ex- government was overthrown with a silent coup and everybody can see that. If you Dave wants to side with the PM you like, fine with me but don’t throw me all this BS about mandatory and constitutional law.

“you preferred choice PT may not be able to hold on to power without dissolution or an election.”

First, the PPP was elected by the people and was overthrown by dirty politicians and laws that has been abused, so I see nothing wrong if PT took back the seat. Secondly it is not what I prefer but what I feel is right. What I prefer most is the government elected by the people and not chosen by a few groups of dirty politicians playing merry go round.

“(C13) The PPP no longer exists as Thailand's judiciary has disbanded them so the votes cannot stay with the PPP, as you suggest.”

Votes stay with the ppl within party, so whether i
t is PPP or PT, it doesn’t matter. If you have understood how PPP won the last election, then you know what I’m talking about, furthermore to a majority of ppl like me have already lost our confidence of the judiciary in this country.

“Most MPs from the now defunct PPP has formed the new PT but that new party has NOT been elected - that is a fact.”

Right it’s a fact and what do you think the result will be if there’s a new election? PPP was new wasn’t it then?

Although many individual MPs who joined the PT were individually elected NONE are now with the party that the voters voted for - that is also a fact
True, but they are not used for an election but to play against the Dems for sneaking in.

On the other hand, like it or not, the Dem MPs are still with the party that they were elected to represent. So I ask "who TECHNICALLY has a more valid mandate and case of being elected?

Elected by WHO? The 65million Thais or a few groups of politicians with agenda up their sleeves?

“Now there is further even more complex point. Some MPs of the bigger parties were not individually elected but party listed (under a proportional system). As the PPP no longer exists there is a legal question (that has already been raised I understand) that the party listed proportional MPs of the defunct PPP are no longer valid.”

I’m a simple person. I only see what is right and what is wrong. If you want to talk to me by the book then you don’t talk politics. Every single person that watches Thailand knows bloody well what happened to the PPP and how they got dissolve. What was the agenda of the military, the judiciary, the PAD, The Dems. What happens now in the political scene was all planned for. So don’t throw me these entire legal BS. There was not one thing that was legal in the first place.
comment 23
FOS date : 07/12/2008 time : 22.11
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/Dom

Massein,

Do you really see the board will be clean even with Abhisit takes over the seat. Do you not see what's going on now. It's 65 millions Thais being played arounf by a few groups of politicians who is trying to gain interest of it. Is the wellfare of the people or the country are put in the first place. Tell me everything is settle and back to normal and it's way forward if Abhisit is chosen. You think the reds will let him have a easy one? who will suffer? Is it not us again? The only way out to this that could keep everybody's mouth shut is holding a new election.
comment 22
DKO date : 07/12/2008 time : 21.48
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

massein C20,

I am no expert so do not quote me. but I will try in my long winded way.

My understanding is that a certain number percentage of MPs are elected in their areas by the voters by obtaining more votes than others in their area standing for election. (they obviously represent different parties)

There is another percentage of MPs not actually standing for individual election but are placed on each parties pre list election list and are elected by proportional Representation.

The most important people are at the top of these lists.

For example if there are 100 party list MPs to be allocated to parliament from all Parties combined, then the total vote nationwide is looked at for each party.

If a party has under a minimum percentage of the national vote they may be allocated no Party List MPs at all.

So in my example If the PPP got 50% of the National vote and Dems got 40% (others 10%) then simplistically the the PPP would get 50% of the 100 MP parliamentary positions (their top 50 pre listed names would become MP). The Dems would get 40 MPs (their top 40 pre listed names). Others would make up the remaining 10 MPs.

This is simplistic and not precise, but the gist is on the right lines. Others I am sure can be more accurate than me.

Many countries like the UK have MPs voted for in areas on a "who wins the most votes in their area". The party with the most MPs on this basis forms the next government. By this method MPs could be very unequally divided around the country AND a party could win the General Election with less National votes than the party that came second.

Other Countries have only Proportional Representation. They count all the Nation's votes and if 500 MP seat are up for grabs they are split up on the Party List basis only on a percentage of National vote basis.

One weakness with the PR basis is that often it can lead to minority Governments and coalitions because opposition parties MPs collectively often outnumber the largest winning party's total MPs.
This leads usually to short term and weak government. The strength is that MPs are allocated in line with the voting views of the Nation as a whole.

Thailand has a system partly of both MP election methods.

Bet you are now REALLY confused and sorry you asked
comment 21
massein date : 07/12/2008 time : 20.08
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/massein

fos don't you think it it would be good to just wipe the board clean as Ian use to do with the old fasion black board
comment 20
massein date : 07/12/2008 time : 20.06
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/massein

C18 some very good points, can someone explain to me the difference between party list canidates and a indivual
part candidate I'm confused
comment 19
DKO date : 07/12/2008 time : 20.00
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

Ian C12,

Agreed but before the SDP faded they were for a while looking very strong and won a few very impressive by-elections.

I agree with you that the UK and most people do not like turncoats (neither do I) but at the time the SDP seemed to be initially well supported and popular because many were disillusioned with the Tory's, many labour supporters felt their party had gone too far left so the SDP seemed the face of Labour reasonableness) and the Liberals were seen as a party who could only win by-elections.

As we both know as meteoric as the SDP popularity and rise was, as you said it subsequently faded almost as fast into oblivion.
comment 18
DKO date : 07/12/2008 time : 19.51
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

Lalida (C11 & C13)

Just a couple of technical points I wish to have clarified.

But firstly on your comment"

"I don't know how powerful of the red shirts are but I know a majority will not support a non-elected government whether is Abhisit or who ever takes the place. A house dissolution will be coming into the scene otherwise the red shirts will be on the street and I can gtd you there will be a lot more than the ones in the Govt house.... "

This is just sort of rhetoric the PAD and Yellow shirts started with. If the Dems and coalition get the MPs to form a coalition votes are you telling me that they are not allowed to form a government under the constitutional laws, and that dissolution is mandatory (or else).

I may be wrong but I believe it IS within the rules to form a Government (even if not exactly honourable to do so). I would also point out that the newly formed PT (NOT ELECTED - that was the PPP) had already decided (although a new unelected ed party) NOT to dissolve the house and hold an election.

Seems to me you would have agreed with that, but not now you preferred choice PT may not be able to hold on to power without dissolution or an election.

TWO TECHNICAL MATTERS regarding what you said:

I wish to state this is not my Country, my Constitution nor my Judiciary nor democracy I can only obverve and try to interpret. On a couple of technical points these are my observations:

(C13) The PPP no longer exists as Thailand's judiciary has disbanded them so the votes cannot stay with the PPP, as you suggest.

Most MPs from the now defunct PPP has formed the new PT but that new party has NOT been elected - that is a fact.

Although many individual MPs who joined the PT were individually elected NONE are now with the party that the the voters voted for - that is also a fact

On the other hand, like it or not, the Dem MPs are still with the party that they were elected to represent. So I ask "who TECHNICALLY has a more valid mandate and case of being elected?

Now there is further even more complex point. Some MPs of the bigger parties were not individually elected but party listed (under a proportional system). As the PPP no longer exists there is a legal question (that has already been raised I understand) that the party listed proportional MPs of the defunct PPP are no longer valid.

Comments anybody please.
comment 17
Ian date : 07/12/2008 time : 19.44
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

rad, 15. I agree the money could be used in other ways, but you can only do the things you suggest if you are in power, So the "expenses" money is a bit like a "loss leader" in marketing. Unfortunate but that's the way Thais play the game.
comment 16
DKO date : 07/12/2008 time : 19.12
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

Lalida C4,

I fully understand your dissatisfaction with the Newin MPs. If I had been a PPP supporter I would be far from happy too (although it could be argued the elected PPP no longer exists so each MP is free to choose. Additionally, according to the Newin group Mr. T no longer trusted them, so they were hardly made to feel welcome if they joined the new PT).

Anyway, on your other comment concerning the Dems. I agree with you on your analysis, but I also feel you are guilty of doing what so many are doing, not fully committed to seeking a possible solution for Thailand but partly hanging on to party politics.

Judging any new coalition (Dem or PT) before any of us know how they will govern or perform seems very negative and presumptive. Assuming it will be the Dem's (this time) it may even turn out to be a poison chalice for them and of ultimate benefit of the PT and /or Mr.T - who knows?

Maybe however, just MAYBE, the Dems have AT LAST learnt a few things about needing to recognise there is life and millions of Thais outside Bangkok, the South and the middle classes and that the majority of Thais have different problems and needs which this time need to be positively addressed by any Dem Government.

Personally I would have liked to see ALL parties TRY to form a government of National Unity for a while, putting party politics and personalities aside for the sake of Thailand, until such time that a new General Election could be called where the result would be likely to be honoured by all in the Country (whether likes or not) without demos and confrontation, illegality, mobs and vendettas.

Many Red Shirts and pro democracy feel a new election should be held now (especially now it looks as if the Dems may lead a coalition and not the PT). I need to ask,

"is that not being naive. Even if well intended AND democratic nothing has really changed. As you have often pointed out Lalida, the PAD leaders, and mob have not been brought to justice or disbanded. If we go to the Country now, the PT will of course get elected and the PAD will almost certainly remobilises and THEN WE GO AGAIN!.

Such further PAD activity sure would NOT be democracy but we all know that would almost certainly happen. Therefore, the illusion of a new snap election and new mandate hoping to calm things down, in MY opinion, is just an illusion and wishful thinking and not realistic of these sad times.

Lalida what do you think? Do you see a different outlook if we went to a new General Election now? whilst the PAD is still formed, functional and seemingly cash rich, powerful and well organised?
comment 15
rad date : 07/12/2008 time : 19.05
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/rad

Ian,
I originally thought it was vote buying, but seeing other similar things it is really closer to what you describe. It looks like more of a thank you.

The shame is that the money could be invested in programs to actually help long term. That fish thing you mentioned. 200 baht to 40 million people is a fair sum, books? teacher training?.
comment 14
Ian date : 07/12/2008 time : 18.38
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Massein, of course people are paid, it is not bribery, it is to allow them and their families to live. These are not middle class people with good jobs and bank accounts, these are people who live from day to day, usually on credit. The money is to make it possible for them to go, not to pay them to go.
Can you see the difference?
comment 13
FOS date : 07/12/2008 time : 18.36
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/Dom

Futhermore, If Abhisit never had won before, what makes you think he'll win this time if there's going to be a new election, regardless which MP moves to which party, the votes still stays with PPP. You think just because of Newin moved over will be a different story? You'll be dreaming like Abhisit......A speech from Thaksin will turn him into nothing....This is how the game plays.

The point is, no one at the moment is playing for the country but self interest, everybody can see that and since that's the case, ppl will lean to the ones they want. Don't forget, the majority is still in the North and Northeast not down BKK or in the South.
comment 12
Ian date : 07/12/2008 time : 18.33
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Dave you are right but I don't think we have seen such wholesale jumping around of MPs in England as we are seeing in Thailand. Also whilst the gang of six did not consult, neither did they survive. Even uniting with the Liberal party to form the LibDems did not save their political skins. I think basically we Brits don't like turncoats, it shows a lack of loyalty.
The other big difference is we don't have party list politicians, this seems a mixture of "first past the post" and "proportional representation". Weird.
comment 11
FOS date : 07/12/2008 time : 18.27
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/Dom

Massein,

So that 50 ppl that you saw and understood represents the majority in general, is that what you're say?

I don't know how powerful of the red shirts are but I know a majority will not support a non-elected government whether is Abhisit or who ever takes the place. A house dissolution will be coming into the scene otherwise the red shirts will be on the street and I can gtd you there will be a lot more than the ones in the Govt house....
comment 10
DKO date : 07/12/2008 time : 18.20
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

Ian C1,

Ian haven't MPs switched parties mid term in Britain for many years.

I was under the impression many years ago that the gang of six jumped ship and actually set up a new party (SDP) rather than even joining an existing party without immediately seeking new voter mandate

I feel there is nothing unusual here in Thailand on THIS particular issue.

It could also be argued that when you vote for a party you are not voting for it to almost immediately join a coalition with a party you may not like or agree with.

On an aside don't you think that the concept of any a party when legally (rightly or wrongly) disbanded already has a new party and name in waiting for most to join and continue to govern as before.

I was told I could live decades in Thailand and never understand Thai culture. Sure is true with Thai politics - not sure most Thais understand it either.
comment 9
massein date : 07/12/2008 time : 16.44
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/massein

Fos , you talk as if the Red shirts are a powerful army capable of defeating all comers, If the politicians take care of the needs of the people, they will changes sides
after all the people in my area sold out for bicycles that are already worn out. The frames were rusted through in 1 year. At least 50 ppl from my village went to BKK and they all were paid. Not hardly a case for ideological loyalty
comment 8
Ian date : 07/12/2008 time : 16.40
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

In the UK you can stand as an Independant, I was an Independant on my local council. But here it seems you have register a party (strange idea), so I guess you cannot be an independant.
No Monster raving Loonie party allowed here.
comment 7
massein date : 07/12/2008 time : 16.37
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/massein

A party is traditonally for ideological support and is part of the age old tradition of you scratch my back and I will scratch yours. That doesn't mean you should march in lock step. It some case what would be good for a particular area will be bad for other areas. You need to seek the middle ground of what is good the most not the least, At the same time not ignoring the needs of a minority.
comment 6
massein date : 07/12/2008 time : 16.29
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/massein

Voting for the man and his policy seems very democratic to me. If the party put forth a policy that you find repugnant you should vote against it. Voting a straight party line allows for dictatorship by the party leaders IE: Mr. T, He simple made policy and the coalition simple signed off on it. Parliament simple became a place to go to get out of the house. when you weren't playing golf or having lunch and dinner with your Mia Noi. Mr T brag during his last election he no longer need the coalition. Since so many people left their party and joined his
comment 5
massein date : 07/12/2008 time : 16.19
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/massein

C3 Ian that brings or Independents allowed in Thai politics
This happens often in US politic such as the case of of a former democrat who lost his party nomination in the US but retained this seat as a independent by winning the vote of the voters in his district. I wasn't sure if this was a option in parliament type government. Although sometime it does make it hard to get your programs through.
comment 4
FOS date : 07/12/2008 time : 14.46
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/Dom

Newin will lose their votes in the Northeast once they've joined the Dems and the Dems will never get what they want by election....The only chance they have is to sneak in now and even then if they suceeded, they won't last. They've got the reds on their tail...
comment 3
Ian date : 07/12/2008 time : 11.42
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

I think a partyless MP should either resign and force a bye election or remain as an independant, unaffiliated.
comment 2
Ginola date : 07/12/2008 time : 10.59
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ginola
ginola

Ian,

Your question is especially relevant for party-list MPs whom voters vote for the party, not the individual.

As for constituency MPs, the question is less but still relevant because while one could argue that voters vote for individuals, not the party, others could argue that people consider both the individual and the party when voting for constituency MPs.

Given the current situation, it seems to be legal for party-less MPs to switch parties as they wish. I disagree with the concept, but I guess I have to bear with it since it seems relatively legitimate at the moment.
comment 1
Ian date : 07/12/2008 time : 10.31
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

What is not clear to me is if an MP is elected on a particular party ticket, if that party is then disbanded can he switch to another party without first seeking a mandate from the people who elected him? If so this makes the concept of democracy a farce.
Comment

  "If you are not member, please register to comment.
It take only a few steps."

  |  
name :  
email :  
website :  
comment :  
   
   

back top

<< December 2008 >>
s m t w t f s
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31