• Thailand's rising tide of problems ( catch22 )
• The avoidable cost of progress ( catch22 )
• Timesonline refuses to release Thaksin interview tape to Thailand ( catch22 )
• How To Get Rid Of The Poor?....Just Bury Them! ( catch22 )
• Yuri - Abhisit Why Me? ( catch22 )
• Genuine software ( Tow )
• Meet the Gods (5. Zeus) ( yabua )
• Meet you when the country needs you. (พบกันเมื่อชาติต้องการ) ( Pomjuk )
• Amnesty International : Two Faced and Hypocritical !! ( Hermano_Lobo )
• The Democrat Party - Too predictable ?? ( Hermano_Lobo )

more

A Man's Random Walk

politik, economik, foreign affairs
Permalink : http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ginola

Posted by Ginola , Reader : 1043 , 09:17:29  
Print

The Thai society seems to be pretty excited about the new PM. Mr. Abhisit is often touted as an intelligent, gentle, highly educated, honest and well-spoken politician. Yet, in my view, I see Mr.Abhisit as an opportunist and someone who is willing to compromise good principles and values for his own benefits, not much different from Mr.Thaksin. In this blog, I shall argue that Abhisit's rise to PM, although perhaps constitutional in many people's view, is in fact undemocratic. His rise to premiership also destroys one of the practices - "buying of MPs" - that the 2007 Constitution tries to prevent. ......... Mr.Abhisit was able to form a government because many MPs of the former PPP, Chart Thai and Machima parties, all of which were recently disbanded by the Constitutional Court for electral frauds involving party executives, defected to vote for Mr.Abhisit as the new PM in a new coalition government. Why is this process undemocratic? First of all, when people vote, it is undeniable that they look at BOTH individual candidates and their respective political parties. For example, if an MP is running for your district, you probably consider whether he is from Thaksin-supported party or the Democrat party when casting your vote. Now, Article 106(7) in the 2007 Constitution states that if an elected MP were to resign from membership of the party, his MP status would cease to exist. What is the rationale of this very important clause? It is intended to prevent "buying of MPs" after elections. If MPs can resign from a party and switch to another party after being elected, then parliament would be full of "MP buying" and election results wouldn't matter since a party can buy MPs after elections anyway (like the "Cobra" case, for those who are familiar with Thai politics). Without this clause, a party which does not gain majority vote can still form a government if it can buy enough elected MPs from other parties. This makes a lot of sense in terms of preserving democratic principles as well. Why? When an MP is elected in a constituency, the people in that constituency voted for that MP taking into account the party he/she belongs too. So, if Mr.A is elected as a Party-X MP, then it makes sense that if Mr.A switches to another party later on, his or her MP status would cease to exist. This is to preserve the decisions made by the voters during the elections. There should then be a re-elections in that constituency. That MP who switched party could still run and might be re-elected but with a different party. The point is voters choose an MP based on his/her political party. As such, if he/she changes party, his MP status must cease to exist and voters must be given a chance to choose their new MP. It is thus clear that the Constitution, through Article 106(7), aims to prevent party switching and post-election MP buying. But what is happening now in Thai politics is clearly party switching and post-election MP buying! The case is very clear for Party List MPs. It makes no sense that a Party List MP can switch party and remain as MP since he/she has been elected solely because of the name of the party. This is so clear because when someone loses her Party List MP status (for whatever reason), the Constitution does NOT require a re-election. The parliament will simply has one less Party List MP. The case is also very convincing for constituency MPs because, as I explained above, people vote for MPs based on their personal characteristics as well as their respective politicial parties. For those who are anti-Thaksin, imagine that the current situation is the reverse of the reality. Suppose the Democratc Party ges dissolved and it was not Abhisit who is forming this government but a Thaksin nominee, would you be happy to see your constituency MP, formerly Democrat, switch to Thaksin's side and vote his nominee as the new PM? I guess not. If one thinks that this Abhisit's case is ok, the same thing can and will happen in the future. If Party A with a lot of elected MPs gets dissolved, then Party B can just buy off the MPs of Party A and form a new government, like the Democrat Party just did. Buying of MPs in order to form a government should not be allowed to take place in any circumstances. For this reason, I view this government as having no legitimacy to rule as its rise to power contradicts a key democratic principle: governments should come from elections which reflect the will of the majority. Thus, for the reasons outlined here and for other reasons not touched upon in this blog, I condemn the Democrats for taking advantage of a loophole in the constitution to seize government power, destroying good democratic principles in the process.

Read comment

comment 40 expresso date : 29/12/2008 time : 02.50 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/expresso

Ginola, so? Should the country then go down just because the word 'democracy' has been sold like whores? To many, they seem to equate 'democracy' with 'whore'. In this blog community, I see many have been doing such!

comment 39 Ian date : 24/12/2008 time : 15.22 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

38, naughty, naughty

comment 38 FelixQui date : 24/12/2008 time : 12.40 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

peacefulness, I'm glad to see we agree (c.35 & 37). Although I also agree with your examples, I thought the numerous Thai constitutions constituted better examples, not least the current one. Why start lower down like Taksin and Abhisit when you can subvert justice from the top down?

comment 37 peacefulness date : 24/12/2008 time : 11.26 nATIONMULTIMEDIA.COM

felix qui Emeritus Professor--"Laws are also often written with deliberate intent to facilitate injustice. " yes, u r absolutely RIGHT, many laws desperately written during the square face plutocrative regime for his own gain, both politically and financially. couple of cases already in thai court now. hahahaha.............. merry x'mas and happy new year.

comment 36 GO_GET_A_LIFE date : 24/12/2008 time : 04.10 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DCKK

Everything has a price on it. If they spent a little time(cost) on 'designing' (debating) the constitution 2007. Then, they have to spend more to 'repair' it later. I do hope the design could carry and support the load of Thai population before it breaks again.

comment 35 FelixQui date : 24/12/2008 time : 00.12 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

peacefulness, Laws are also often written with deliberate intent to facilitate injustice.

comment 34 peacefulness date : 23/12/2008 time : 21.35 Nationmultimedia.com

ginola/felix qui E/P-- may be Ian'S comment on piset's blog "40 senators seek rulings on party-list MPs, caretaker Cabinet status" can help.. qte comment 18 Ian date : 09/12/2008 time : 14.20 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36 Laws are designed by law makers, law makers in the final draft are lawyers, if laws were water tight and had no loopholes, you would not need lawyers to exploit these loopholes. If laws were crystal clear you would not need lawyers to interpret them. In summary, laws are written in such a way as to keep lawyers gainfully employed, you ever met a poor one? Unqte

comment 33 Ginola date : 23/12/2008 time : 19.43 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ginola ginola

Felix ct30, Very well said. My only addition to your comment is that it is not 100% certain that what has happened is constitutional/legal. There are debates among public law experts about the process of Abhisit's rise to power. It is the job of the Constitutional Court to say if this is constitutional or not. Plaadip 31,32: Exactly. I disagree with the constitution. I, together with some 45% of eligible voters, do not approve this constitution in the first place. The legitimacy of this constitution is highly controversial, as we all know. Where in the constitution does it say that Art 106(8) is an exception though? I can't find it, so what I see is just a contradiction between Art 106 (6) and 106 (8) in this case.

comment 32 Plaadip date : 23/12/2008 time : 17.29

I read your previous comments. I see, actually you argue that the constitution is wrong , not saying that the apppointment process is unconstitutional. I think you are right if Thailand have the election systme like Gernamny.

comment 31 Plaadip date : 23/12/2008 time : 17.04

In other words the artilce 106/8 gurantees MP stautus for them for 60 days, even though they don't belong to the party, when their party is disolved. This is the para which stipulate the exeptional case when MPs can maintain their MP status in spite of the provision of the article 101. You are confused because you think that A 101 and A 106 para 8 is contradicting, that's why you think the party-less MP's status is "questionable" It's not contradicting, but A 106 para 8 is stipulating the exception condition to the article 101.

comment 30 FelixQui date : 23/12/2008 time : 16.47 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

peacefulness, just as I guessed you would (c.8), you have rightly pointed out that the current government was legally elected according to the letter of the 2007 constitution. I don't disagree with that. Rather than risk an election, Abhisit exploited the law as written in teh constitution, to once again subvert justice and democracy: hardly surprising for Thailand. Conspicuously, he is less eager to apply the law of the land to the PAD. Unfortunately, since the 2007 constitution, like every previous Thai constitution, is not democratic, not just and not even internally consistent, all you have shown is that the current Thai government is legal; you have not shown that it is democratic, you have not shown that it is just, nor have you shown that it has any popular mandate or other democratic right to rule. It has legality, and that is all. Every time the army tears up the constitution and makes up a new one to forgive itself, as it did in 2006 before writing the 2007 version, it also has legitimacy. And the Burmese government is also legal according to their constitution. Perhaps you would write off all their crimes against their own people as "nobody is perfect" mishaps? The question is not can he exploit the law, which even Taksin was very good at, as I am sure you agree; teh question is whether or not there is any substance to Abhisit's pretence to be a man of honour, justice and commitment to democracy.

comment 29 Hermano_Lobo date : 23/12/2008 time : 16.47 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/yurivelasquez

Abhisit; of the elite, by the elite , for the elite.

comment 28 peacefulness date : 23/12/2008 time : 15.51 Nationmultimedia.com

ginola 26-- pls ref my c25. tks

comment 27 peacefulness date : 23/12/2008 time : 15.45 Nationmultimedia.com

ginola and felix qui(Emeritus Prof)-- there is a saying in chinese Qte It is by no means easy to satisfy everyone. 要满足每一个人绝非易事。Unqte. good day

comment 26 Ginola date : 23/12/2008 time : 15.40 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ginola ginola

Peacefulness, 24: I hate to discuss this using the 2007 constitution whose legitimacy is highly questionable to begin with. But in any case, read the arguments here and please respond to me why this process is not unconstitutional. From Article 172 of the Constitution: A PM candidate must receive more than half of the votes of the MPs in the parliament. From Article 106: An MP ceases to be an MP when one of the followings happen... (1), (2),.... (4) the MP "fails the criteria set in Article 101". Now, look at Article 101. One of the criteria is that an MP must be affiliated with a political party. Now, look at the vote for PM on Dec 15. Did every MP who voted had a party affiliation? No!!! Many were party-less. So they failed the Article 101 criteria, which means they were not MPs and could not vote for a new PM. Of course, you may cite Article 106(8) and say that after party dissolution, a party-less MP have 60 days to find new party. Yet, as I pointed out above, their MP status during the 60 day period is questionable since they are not affiliated with any party. Not to mention the party-list MP case. This is a legal argument for why the whole process is unconstitutional, although I would prefer to use democratic principles as my argument. But in any case, you can see that the process is far from being a clear-cut case. It is not obvious and yet the Democrats did not wait for a bit to seize the opportunity.

comment 25 peacefulness date : 23/12/2008 time : 15.38 Nationmultimedia.com

for the status of the proportional mps(party list mps) of the dissolved ptys is now in the constitutional court for ruling. ur comment23-- mps should be affiliated with pty , that is why all mps of the dissolved ptys hv to switch to another pty within 60 days. since there are no laws clearly mentioned that when pty dissolved , what is the status of mps (party list and constituency mps), therefore legally they all remain as normal until the final clarification or ruling from constitutional court. this is the loophole of the law........tks a milllion

comment 24 peacefulness date : 23/12/2008 time : 15.19 nationmultimedia.com

ginola Youngman—pls refer organic act on political parties section 12 qte Section 12. The Executive Committee of political party consists of the Leader, Deputy Leader, Secretary-General, Deputy Secretary-General, Treasurer, Spokesman and other members of the Committee elected from members who are not less than twenty years of age. Unqte This also serves as a response to your other article “are you happy?” Please refer section 180/182/172, also 237/65 and the organic act on political parties section 12 as quoted as above. The whole process of selecting abhisit/v as new pm is therefore considered as“DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED” acrdg to the constitution2007, without any untoward accusation. Some suggestions that you have argued are not written in the constitution therefore It should be treated as NULL and VOID. Ginola pls pay more attn on 237/65 , judging from ur comments u do not fully understand 106 para7/8, that is why i quote section 12 of organic act on political parties, and section 237/65 as well. Thai constitution2007, http://www.thailaws.com/law/t_laws/claw0002a.htm. hopefully u hv some idea of it. tks a million

comment 23 Ginola date : 23/12/2008 time : 15.15 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ginola ginola

I forgot to say one point: During the vote for the new PM last week, some of the ex-PPP, ex-Chart Thai and ex-Machima MPs did not yet have a new party affililation. The Constitution requires that a MP must be affiliated with a party. Does that mean that on Dec 15, when the vote for the new PM was casted, these MPs were not MPs? Should these "MPs" have the right to vote for PM when they were not affiliated to any party? A lot of legal questions remain in this whole process of Abhisit's rise to PM. Debates among the public espeically lawyers are ongoing and there is no clear-cut answer. Yet the Democrats, so desperately eager to be a government side, rushed things through so that they could become government asap. If the Dems really care about the country and want national reconcialition to occur, it should have called for national government. The fact that the Dems instead chose to try to form its own government means that they just want the best for themselves. The red shirts will resume their protests soon and thigns could get out of control for the new government. Is this a party to be respected? Is Abhisit someone to be respected? I don't think so. It makes me feel quite hopeless about Thai politics, filled with bad politicians everywhere whether in the Pheu Thai or the Democrat parties.

comment 22 FOS date : 23/12/2008 time : 14.58 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/Dom

C3, Aren't those words not familiar "give him a chance", I think there's going to be a song coming out soon..there's one called "Give peace a chance by John lenon" too bad he's not here anymore otherwise he just might write one for Abhisit. "give me a chance". If you do understand, it is not about chance, it's about "A matter of principle".

comment 21 FOS date : 23/12/2008 time : 14.53 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/Dom

C2 Rawfish, Your stupid questions asked "Chart Thai and Michima's supporters did not vote for PPP, but they joined the PPP led coalition. Was it undemocratic?" Of course it is, it is not MP's that jumped but the party joined, can you understand the difference? If you can't, try asking a 3 year old.

comment 20 Ginola date : 23/12/2008 time : 14.50 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ginola ginola

Ian ct18: Haha well.. I actually think independents should be allowed to run for MPs but unfortunately this is not the case. Anyway, I cited the constitutional requirement that MPs must be affiliated with a party only to support my claim that, according to this very constitution, any MP is inseparable from his/her party when it comes to elections. Thus, it doesn't make sense that an MP remains an MP when his/her party is disbanded. In any case, even if the constitution does allow independents, I still think that people vote for MPs taking into account their respective parties. Thus, MPs should cease to be MPs when their parties are gone.

comment 19 massein date : 23/12/2008 time : 14.46 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/massein

I sure that some of the MP's of the various parties or personally innocent of the crimes that their leaders engage in. But most engage in being part of the cover up, and the delaying efforts to allow the guilty leadership to continue. this I don't quiet understand, must be part of the grin jai of Thai culture. I seem that the only thing that is really banned is the party name. soon they will run out of names.

comment 18 Ian date : 23/12/2008 time : 14.42 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Ginola, so if an MP wanted to stand as an independent, he would have to first register himself as a one man party? Now if every MP did this there would be many benefits. Firstly financial, they could horse trade amongst themselves and form coalitions. Secondly if any MP got red carded it would only affect him, not other MPs

comment 17 massein date : 23/12/2008 time : 14.39 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/massein

The events in Thailand as they are could trigger an election every 3rd month, It will continue down that road until ppl like fos have the confidence to believe that they have a voice and can even be part of the government. The common men and women have come to realize that government is not just for elitest but for them. They have to know that the Pu Yai or not the only ones that can run for political office, but one of their own can as well. In the last few years 1000's of ordinary have received BA degrees but i regulated to low paying job , anyone of the people have the qualification to be a MP , they can start their on political movenments. After all all the banned Pu Yai or running out of relatives to replace them.

comment 16 Ginola date : 23/12/2008 time : 14.09 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ginola ginola

Another evidence supporting my argument is that fact that the constitution REQUIRES every MP candidate to be a member of a political party. This means that an MP, even if constituency one, is inseparable from the party of which he/she is a member. The constitution implies that party affiliation is important in the election process. Thus, should a party gets dissolved, all constituency MPs of that party should also cease to be MPs and re-elections should then be held.

comment 15 sven date : 23/12/2008 time : 13.50 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/sven

You can argue about defection being undemocratic. In our country, a MP is explicitly free in his decisions and affiliations. Think of a situation where a party is or becomes undemocratic in itself, then it might be a virtue of not following their orders. Defecting isn't that common though, because your chance to get listed again are nil. What I think is undemocratic is not some betrayal or bad laws. It is the elected majority being cajoled and not given a chance until someone changes sides. It is the controlling of the legislative and executive by some higher forces. I also don't accept the jurisdiction that only one side is corrupt. To any foreign observer, it's clear that PPP was forced out by all means, which indeed are even worse than the crime they are accused of. Thailand has a military super-government. It's a dictatorship which tries to clad in democratic paper. If that doesn't work, just make another coup. This time, the democratic clad worked, but the paper is too thin. It stands almost naked.

comment 14 Ginola date : 23/12/2008 time : 13.48 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ginola ginola

Also, if you read the Constitution Article 109: (below is my translation of the article in a nutshell) "When an MP position is empty because of any other reasons apart from parliament finishing its 4-year term and from house dissolution, the followings must be done: (1) For constituency MPs, there must be re-election in that constituency within 45 days after the position becomes empty. (2) For party-list (aka proportional) MPs, the next person in the party list should fulfil the empty MP position. (so if a Democrat party-list MP dies, then the next person in the Democrat party list will fill up that position). However, should there be no available persons in the party list, then the empty seat should be left empty." We can see that the Constitution implicitly puts an emphasis on 1) when an elected constituency MP ceases to exist, then there should be re-elections. 2) party-list MPs cannot be separated from membership of a particular party. When there is no person available in a party list, the Constitution says that empty seat should be left empty. If does not say that we should take a new MP from another party's party list. This is because a party-list MP must be attached to the party that the people voted for. It is so clear that any party-list MPs should not retain their MP status when they change parties. What the Democrats have done is to take advantage of the loophole in Article 106(8) of the Constitution and interpret it to its favors. What they did may be ok under Article 106(8) but if you read the whole constitution you will feel that what they did is unconstitutional and undemocratic. Yet noone goes against it because of powerful forces behind the scene.

comment 13 Ginola date : 23/12/2008 time : 13.31 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ginola ginola

Plaadip ct7: Please see my previous comment. In short, I think what has happened is not right and undemocratic because the MPs who were Chart Thai, Machima and PPP members should not be allowed to continue their jobs as MPs. Their MP status should be finished and they should find new parties to be member of while re-elections should then be held to fill up the empty seats. That way, voters get to vote based on the candidates' new party membership information.

comment 12 Ginola date : 23/12/2008 time : 13.26 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ginola ginola

Bruin ct6,10: I don't feel robbed or anything as I didn't vote for PPP in the last elections. I voted for the Democrats actually. My point is this: After an MP runs for an election in the name of Party X and gets elected, his MP status should be tied to him being member of that party. Should his membership with party X ceases to exist, his MP status should be removed too. In other words, the MP status must be conditional upon his/her maintaining the party membership. This is what Article 106(7) in the constitution states and this is why it is fair to voters. As I said before, imagine you voted for a Democrat MP. Then, the MP is no longer a member of the Party because of whatever reason (maybe the party is dissolved) and switches to be a member of another party (which you may dislike). Should we accord him/her the MP status? I don't think so. So, my whole point is that there should be re-elections for all the MPs who were ex-members of PPP, Chart Thai and Machima. But the Constitution does not say this. The Constitution in Article 106(8) just says that "When a party gets dissolved, the party's MPs will cease to be MPs if they cannot find new party within 60 days." I disagree with this clause. It's not fair to voters because, when voting, they take into account the party that the MPs are members of. I think re-elections should be held for all the MPs from the dissolved parties. Then, with the new elected MPs, parliament can convene and choose the new PM and form a new government. Of course, this didn't happen because there are powerful forces in Thai politics who pull the strings and call the shots behind the scenes... Like Felix said, when something is constitutional or legal, it doesn't mean it's right. In this case, it's actually debatable if Abhisit's rise to power is constitutional especially in the case of the party list MPs.

comment 11 Ian date : 23/12/2008 time : 13.06 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

I agree with Alien , comment 9. Any one of the events over the last year would have automatically triggered a General Election in any normal country. But TIT, here politicians make up the rules as they go along.

comment 10 Bruin date : 23/12/2008 time : 11.55 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/bruin

I really don’t want to play the IF game, but if we had adopted your policy on Dec. 12 with the the dissolved parties’ MPs losing the status then we left with the Democrat’s 165 MPs vs Pracharaj + Pua Pandin + Ruam jai thai. Democrat would have won overwhelmingly majority and without need for a coalition government. Then everybody would be screaming Abhisit for being even bigger opportunist, undemocratic than now.

comment 9 Alien date : 23/12/2008 time : 11.49

That is the part I do not get. "PPP, you are guilty of corrupton and you are no longer a political party" "Your honor, we are now the PT2." "OK, go about your business" "John, you are guilty of being a thief". "My name is BOB now" "Oh, OK, go about your business then".

comment 8 FelixQui date : 23/12/2008 time : 11.22 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

peacefulness, and perhaps others, will point out that Abhisit's rise has been strictly legal and in accord with the current Thai constitution, which is true. However, as we saw with Taksin's strictly legal manoeuvres to avoid taxes and impose his will unjustly, legal does not mean just or right and is often used to circumvent what is right. The mere fact of its happening to be legal and in perfect accord with any Thai constitution is no guarantee at all that anything is just or democratic since no Thai constitution has ever been remarkable for adhering to either virtue. THis is perhaps somewhat academic as it becomes increasingly clear that the people he sold himself to are already exerting so much control over Abhisit that he can no longer even keep his own party in line. Any hope that he might have done what is right for THailand, what is in Thailand's best interests or what might have brought peace and prosperity to Thailand is rapidly fading. His mercenary "allies" will not permit any interference with their interests.

comment 7 Plaadip date : 23/12/2008 time : 11.17

You see, if adopting your theory, the PPP does not exist anymore, how come can PTP, a new party, can claim to be majority party, (anyway they did not have majority even beforethe party disolution). The party is disolved and the MPs decided whych party they will belong, then house majority shifts to the other side. This is what happened, what's wrong with that? If you claimed the same, when the party was disolved, there might have been SOME legitimacy in what you are claiming now, but now that a new government is established, and the opposit side, after failed to organize majority in the house, start claiming that the house should be disolved: this type of attitude cannot but considered but they do it for their political benefits not for democratic principal. You should remember which party has care-taker status and has the right to disolve the house. They never seriously pressure the care-taker PM to do so because they still believed that they could win in the parliamentray "vote-buying" game, which you considers undemocratic. The new government was established withing the rule of game, which is considered a legitimate way to change government anyway, that's why the PTP joined it, so the pary and their supporters should stop crying sour grapes.

comment 6 Bruin date : 23/12/2008 time : 10.57 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/bruin

First I would like to say I think one of the reasons why many folks have accepted this government because 63% of electorate voted for parties other than PPP in the last election. Sure the PPP won the most votes, but not majority. 63% that is majority of voters did not approve of the PPP. If the PPP had got more than 50% we will not see this kind of acceptance and support of Abhisit. I could be totally wrong but are you saying in the last election, Chat Thai, Pua Paendin, Ruam Jai Thai, Matchima, Phracharaj all ran under the banner of Thaksin? People voted for the MPs from above parties because of they promised only to form government with PPP and support Thaksin during the campaign? Now these parties are betraying the folks by forming government with Democrat party? It depends on how you look at it. In a coalition government, maintaining support of your coalition parties is of extreme importance. I could just say this government rose to power because the PPP has failed to maintain the coalition. They have failed to win the confidence of majority of MPs, who are elected by the people and voted on our behalf, to form the government. By voting to support Abhisit is essentially is the vote of no confidence to the PPP/PTP to form another government. You may feel robbed of power, but your democratic rights are not robbed. you can put an end to this government by go out and organize rallies and get people in your constituents to urge MPs not to give vote of confidence in the upcoming no confidence debate. Give donations to PTP, teach your children about PTP etc. who knows what’s going to happen in the next 1-2 months. I am myself not very optimistic about the country.

comment 5 Ginola date : 23/12/2008 time : 10.39 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ginola ginola

Happyjack, Don't bring Thaksin into this. My opinion of Thaksin has nothing to do with whether Abhisit's rise to PM is democratic or constitutional or not. So if I think Thaksin is so bad and corrupt, does that mean I should automatically give Abhisit a chance? No way. Democratic principles and the rule of law should be applied to all. Everyone should be subject to criticisms when they do something wrong. Democrats, PPP, PAD, Red Shirts or whoever. If they do bad things, then they should be condemned. Their bad actions should not be ignored.

comment 4 Ginola date : 23/12/2008 time : 10.35 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ginola ginola

Plaadip ct2: You missed my point. When Chart Thai and Machima MPs were elected, voters voted for them because they belonged to Chart Thai and Machima parties. As such, the MPs from the two party have every right to choose whether to join the PPP-led coaltion or not. They also have every right to choose to form a government with a minority Democrat Party. But in the case we are seeing now, these MPs are no longer Chart Thai nor Machima party members. Common sense would tell you that their MP status, which they had acquired through running for a particular party, should no longer be valid. Their MP status was based on voters' choice which took into account the MPs' respective parties. Now that these MPs no longer belong to those parties, their legitimacy as MPs is no longer there and voters should be given a chance to elect new MPs. As such, these MPs should cease to be MPs and should not have any right to pick a new PM. Do you get it? And for your second paragraph in ct2, you have to be really naive or really new to Thai politics not to know that there has been a clear case of MP buying. It's the same as when Thaksin bought up politicians from other parties. They don't leave solid evidence but everyone knows it happens.

comment 3 happyjack date : 23/12/2008 time : 10.33

Well, if thats youre oppinion of Abhisit,whats youre take on Thaksin.?.A Man of Principles who did nothing for personall gain,an honest man.Has anyone seen here before a P.M. with a clapped out B.M.,no Mobile stuck in his ear,replies to Reporters as if their Human Beings,doesnt speak English like a Yank chewing gum ,or a Bar Girl.Doest use a Calculator to halve 100.Give the Man a Chance ,the older generation of Thais had their chance,give him his.

comment 2 Plaadip date : 23/12/2008 time : 10.14

Chart Thai and Michima's supporters did not vote for PPP, but they joined the PPP led coalition. Was it undemocratic? This is the way they form government in parliamentary cabinet system. Besides theoritically, the second largest party and other small parties can organize majority in the lower house without Newin group's defection, even though their move was a decisive factor politically. Vote buying of MPs should be proved and the wrongdoners should be punished if it turns out to be true, but by now, the information coming out amid the political rivaly is nothing more than a rumar as usual. The EC examines it and gives some weight to the cases first then it would become a political issue.

comment 1 sul date : 23/12/2008 time : 10.12 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/sul

the Democrats were desperate to form the next government for whatever reasons

Comment

"If you are not member, please register to comment. It take only a few steps." member sign in   |   member register Username: Password:

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