Posted 2010-03-21 21:54:11
Chart Thai Pattana Party vows not to withdraw from govt
BANGKOK (NNT) -- The coalition Chart Thai Pattana Party has promised not to pull out from the government coalition, according to Party Leader Chumpol Silpa-archa.
Mr Chumpol stated that it was unnecessary for the Chart Thai Pattana to withdraw from the Democrat-led government at present since cooperation among the coalition partners had been smooth so far.
The United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) has asked coalition parties, especially the Chart Thai Pattana, to withdraw from the government to result in an automatic House dissolution, which the UDD has been pressing Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to do himself.
Regarding the negotiations between the government and the UDD, the Chart Thai Pattana Party leader viewed that both sides should talk in compliance with the law with respect towards each other. He believed that every side wanted the ongoing political conflict to be solved urgently so that the nation could move on.
As for a possible demonstration of the anti-government UDD protesters at Government House, Mr Chumpol said it was just speculation. However, he admitted that the overall situation must be evaluated again to see when the government could resume working there.
-- NNT 2010-03-21
Posted 2010-03-21 21:57:45
So, the majority of Thailand still want a Democrat led coalition government. What are the VERY minority reds going to do now?
Posted 2010-03-21 22:02:49
 anotherpeter, on 2010-03-21 21:57:45, said:
So, the majority of Thailand still want a Democrat led coalition government. What are the VERY minority reds going to do now?
Beg for more money,
throw some more small bombs,
pretend this isn't about Thaksin,
and demand a house dissolution.
Business as usual.
Posted 2010-03-21 23:06:33
Where are all the red supporters posts about how undemocratic this is?
Posted 2010-03-21 23:44:54
anotherpeter, on 2010-03-21 23:06:33, said: Where are all the red supporters posts about how undemocratic this is?
They are sleep already. May be tomorrow. They had a rough day today after all celebration and drinking after the parade on Saturday
Posted 2010-03-22 01:18:44
anotherpeter, on 2010-03-21 21:57:45, said: So, the majority of Thailand still want a Democrat led coalition government. What are the VERY minority reds going to do now?
If that is the case, then why not hold an election and find out? Because the reds would win again? I don't see how that is the VERY minority. So instead you have an unelected government who points to maybe having an election in a year from now. Perhaps by then they will change it so people from the north or northeast only count as 1/5th of a vote, or so that they don't get a vote at all. How is that "Democratic"?
Edited by jcsmith, 2010-03-22 01:20:31.
Posted 2010-03-22 01:24:13
jcsmith, on 2010-03-22 02:18:44, said: anotherpeter, on 2010-03-21 21:57:45, said: So, the majority of Thailand still want a Democrat led coalition government. What are the VERY minority reds going to do now?
If that is the case, then why not hold an election and find out? Because the reds would win again? I don't see how that is the VERY minority. So instead you have an unelected government who points to maybe having an election in a year from now. Perhaps by then they will change it so people from the north or northeast only count as 1/5th of a vote, or so that they don't get a vote at all. How is that "Democratic"?
There's no call for an election now because the law doesn't mandate there need be an election now. It is a political decision, within the parameters of the constitution when the election be held. If they decide unwisely they will be punished for their decision. If you think they will be punished by waiting to hold elections, one would think you'd be grateful for that.
BTW are you familiar with the concept of a "loaded question", or "logical fallacy" ?
Edited by lannarebirth, 2010-03-22 01:26:17.
Posted 2010-03-22 01:29:59
Having elections every five minutes is something Thailand should be moving AWAY from, not endorsing. Be patient redheads, the election time will come, and you will probably lose, then what will you do?
Posted 2010-03-22 02:51:23
Jingthing, on 2010-03-22 02:29:59, said: Having elections every five minutes is something Thailand should be moving AWAY from, not endorsing. Be patient redheads, the election time will come, and you will probably lose, then what will you do?
Aw Jingthing, Thaksin and his Redshirts don't want elections willy-nilly. Thaksin only wants one more 'election,'. Sure it'll be expensive to him but there's the old saying about having to spend money to make money. 
Hey, after one more election who needs any more elections? Certainly not Thaksin. 
Posted 2010-03-22 02:57:10
I agree. They want one election and then a dictatorship. If Thaksin gets his miracle, there is no way he would EVER let go of power again.
Posted 2010-03-22 03:10:25
Is that the same Party the Dems bribed to boycot elections in 2006?
Posted 2010-03-22 06:04:17
monkfish, on 2010-03-22 03:10:25, said: Is that the same Party the Dems bribed to boycot elections in 2006?
Bribery is something flowing through the very veins of Thaksin.
Thaksin apologists are the hand-maidens of the blood-drip.
They don't like to share.
Posted 2010-03-22 07:28:31
I wonder if the Chart Thai statement has been made following any consultation with their constituants?
Posted 2010-03-22 08:44:52
CLOD, on 2010-03-22 07:28:31, said: I wonder if the Chart Thai statement has been made following any consultation with their constituants?
How often do political parties in any democratic country go back to the constituents before making a decision?
They were elected by the people to be their represenatives in parliament.
If the MPs don't do what the electorate wants, then they don't get elected in the next election.
Posted 2010-03-22 08:54:32
anotherpeter, on 2010-03-22 01:44:52, said: CLOD, on 2010-03-22 07:28:31, said: I wonder if the Chart Thai statement has been made following any consultation with their constituants?
How often do political parties in any democratic country go back to the constituents before making a decision?
They were elected by the people to be their represenatives in parliament.
If the MPs don't do what the electorate wants, then they don't get elected in the next election.
That assumes that politicians care what their constituents want.
One of the clearest things that should happen, would be for the party leaders to declare before the election, with whom they would partner in a coalition. Of course, that would mean some kind of a manifesto. I mean telling your constituents what you plan to do once in power would require a level of political sophistication not yet around in Thailand.
Of course that would presume that not everyone is available to be bought by everyone, which would be another important development in politics here. Prostitution isn't limited to the streets. It is alive and well in most coalitions.
There is a certain satisfaction in voting labour or conservative in the UK on the basis that they won't ever get together to remove a Lib Dem majority.
Posted 2010-03-22 09:48:33
Thai at Heart, on 2010-03-22 08:54:32, said: anotherpeter, on 2010-03-22 01:44:52, said: CLOD, on 2010-03-22 07:28:31, said: I wonder if the Chart Thai statement has been made following any consultation with their constituants?
How often do political parties in any democratic country go back to the constituents before making a decision?
They were elected by the people to be their represenatives in parliament.
If the MPs don't do what the electorate wants, then they don't get elected in the next election.
That assumes that politicians care what their constituents want.
One of the clearest things that should happen, would be for the party leaders to declare before the election, with whom they would partner in a coalition. Of course, that would mean some kind of a manifesto. I mean telling your constituents what you plan to do once in power would require a level of political sophistication not yet around in Thailand.
Of course that would presume that not everyone is available to be bought by everyone, which would be another important development in politics here. Prostitution isn't limited to the streets. It is alive and well in most coalitions.
There is a certain satisfaction in voting labour or conservative in the UK on the basis that they won't ever get together to remove a Lib Dem majority.
If they declare who they would partner with, then why wouldn't the voters just vote for that partner?
The voter wants the elected MP to do what is good for the electorate. They can do that best if they are in government and not in opposition.
A minor party needs to campaign for what they want to do if they are in (a coalition) government, then they need to join the party that best serves that interest. In forming a coalition with one of the major parties, they may be able to get some concessions that match what they were campaigning for.
Ofcourse, I'm not suggesting that this has happened in Thailand. There are many posts suggesting that the minor parties campaigned that they wouldn't form a coalition with one of the major parties and then did (either with PPP originally, or with the Democrats now). It's possible that the minor parties thought it was in the electorates best interests to form these coalitions. But there will always be rumour of corruption when the result doesn't go with someones liking.
Posted 2010-03-22 10:09:22
jcsmith, on 2010-03-22 01:18:44, said: <snip>
Perhaps by then they will change it so people from the north or northeast only count as 1/5th of a vote, or so that they don't get a vote at all. How is that "Democratic"?
Or perhaps they won't, since it isn't (and never has been) part of the Democrats' policy, and would anyway surely require a Referendum, to allow a change in the constitutional voting-system ? Strawman argument, I fear, and muddy thinking to boot ! 
Perhaps they could just 'do a Thaksin', and promise than any province which failed to vote for them, would be last in the queue, when it came to handing-out government-funds ? But I think PM-Abhisit has more integrity than that. 
Posted 2010-03-22 10:17:52
yoshiwara, on 2010-03-22 06:04:17, said: monkfish, on 2010-03-22 03:10:25, said: Is that the same Party the Dems bribed to boycot elections in 2006?
Bribery is something flowing through the very veins of Thaksin.
Thaksin apologists are the hand-maidens of the blood-drip.
They don't like to share.
No, it ias the party that got caught cheating with a Thaksin party
and was renamed with Banharns son in charge.
Reality Banharn in charge of course.
Chart Thai is dead, long live Chart Thai Pattan.
Oh, and by the way,
these were only charges by TRT that the Dems paid anyone for boycotting.
That was a tit for tat political maneuvering charges when TRT got charged
for bribing small parties to run against them and lose,
lowering the 20% rule to biggest percent.
Not a thing was proved against the Dems in this,
and those making the charges almost got charged for false statements to boot.
Posted 2010-03-22 16:00:33
CLOD, on 2010-03-22 08:28:31, said: I wonder if the Chart Thai statement has been made following any consultation with their constituants?
Members of parliament are not delegates.
If that is what you want maybe you should call for a Soviet type system.
Posted 2010-03-22 16:19:57
anotherpeter, on 2010-03-22 02:48:33, said: If they declare who they would partner with, then why wouldn't the voters just vote for that partner?
The voter wants the elected MP to do what is good for the electorate. They can do that best if they are in government and not in opposition.
A minor party needs to campaign for what they want to do if they are in (a coalition) government, then they need to join the party that best serves that interest. In forming a coalition with one of the major parties, they may be able to get some concessions that match what they were campaigning for.
Ofcourse, I'm not suggesting that this has happened in Thailand. There are many posts suggesting that the minor parties campaigned that they wouldn't form a coalition with one of the major parties and then did (either with PPP originally, or with the Democrats now). It's possible that the minor parties thought it was in the electorates best interests to form these coalitions. But there will always be rumour of corruption when the result doesn't go with someones liking.
That is the nature of the beast. Deals were done, as far as I know some parties didn't field candidates everywhere because they didn't want to potentially split the vote. The incentive for a small party is always to enter a coalition particularly in Thailand because opposition is as good as being nowhere. Apparently they didn't move where it best suited their campaign manifestos because they don't have one. They are simply available to be purchased by who offers the most. Thaksin offered a lot so he had them in his pocket, the Dems obviously offered more so they jumped (of course some would deny that the Dems would stoop so low). This is I suppose modern day electoral politics, but it doesn't mean that if I voted for them on the basis of a tacit promise that I would approve of such duplicity.
In some countries it is expected that there will be unusual coalitions, but the ramifications of say the communists allying with the right wing to form are politically devastating in the future. In Thailand the so called smaller parties made certain spoken or unspoken undertakings about their intentions about whom they would partner with. I don't expect a lot of the electorate will forget this.
Promises made in elections are unusually flexible in Thailand, fortunately or unfortunately, it may appear that finally the electorate may wake up and hold those who broke their promises to account.
The first question a lot of people will ask at the next election might not be "how much will you pay me?", but better "Who are you or are you not willing to join with to form a government". That alone would be a development for democracy in Thailand.
Posted 2010-03-22 16:56:13
Thai at Heart, on 2010-03-22 17:19:57, said: The first question a lot of people will ask at the next election might not be "how much will you pay me?", but better "Who are you or are you not willing to join with to form a government". That alone would be a development for democracy in Thailand.
Yes, but they may leave the boat if they feel it is sinking too fast. Until the last minute, they will affirm the contrary.
This kind of side changer has no self esteem, is not reliable, nobody can trust them. they are worst than 10 T. How the pure A can accept them in his coalition? This is a stain ....
Edited by Jerrytheyoung, 2010-03-22 17:00:10.
Posted 2010-03-22 17:10:28
Jerrytheyoung, on 2010-03-22 16:56:13, said: Thai at Heart, on 2010-03-22 17:19:57, said: The first question a lot of people will ask at the next election might not be "how much will you pay me?", but better "Who are you or are you not willing to join with to form a government". That alone would be a development for democracy in Thailand.
Yes, but they may leave the boat if they feel it is sinking too fast. Until the last minute, they will affirm the contrary.
This kind of side changer has no self esteem, is not reliable, nobody can trust them. they are worst than 10 T. How the pure A can accept them in his coalition? This is a stain ....
It may be a stain, but it is better than having them in a coalition government with the other side.
Posted 2010-03-22 17:14:46
Jerrytheyoung, on 2010-03-22 09:56:13, said: Thai at Heart, on 2010-03-22 17:19:57, said: The first question a lot of people will ask at the next election might not be "how much will you pay me?", but better "Who are you or are you not willing to join with to form a government". That alone would be a development for democracy in Thailand.
Yes, but they may leave the boat if they feel it is sinking too fast. Until the last minute, they will affirm the contrary.
This kind of side changer has no self esteem, is not reliable, nobody can trust them. they are worst than 10 T. How the pure A can accept them in his coalition? This is a stain ....
It might however lead to a little bit more principled politics. The ultimate oxymoron in a Thai context.
I don't approve of negative polling tactics, but there are a myriad of reasons why someone votes a certain way. However there are often more clear beliefs about who I won't vote than for who I will. I am often intrigued by the possibility of there being a none of the above option with a minimum amount of positive number of ballots having to be placed for a valid poll. Could you imagine the possibility of over 50% saying none of the above.
One could foresee in many parts of the world 'none of the above" making up a very large amount of votes in an election. At least it would make the parties listen to the people a bit more. That is better than being faced with the choice of the lesser of 2 or 3 evils, only to find out they lied to you anyway.
We will never know how many people would have not voted for relevant parties if they had known who they eventually would have partnered with. Essentially they lied to their electorates. Today there are no real principles in the smaller parties, and as far as I know TRT was the first one to publish what amounted to a manifesto and that is after 70 years of democracy. The Dems have something approaching an ethos, but even they don't really campaign on policy. Thai politics has amounted to nothing more than let me give you a 100 baht and "trust me", I will take care of you. Well that idea may be changing by the people realising that the politicians had better do a bit more for them and less for themselves. This is the start of true electoral party politics with manifestos. It will take time in Thailand but it will get there.
Posted 2010-03-23 07:07:25
anotherpeter, on 2010-03-22 08:44:52, said: CLOD, on 2010-03-22 07:28:31, said: I wonder if the Chart Thai statement has been made following any consultation with their constituants?
How often do political parties in any democratic country go back to the constituents before making a decision?
They were elected by the people to be their represenatives in parliament.
If the MPs don't do what the electorate wants, then they don't get elected in the next election.
I would hope that most members of Parliment don't share your view of Representative Democracy.
In most legitimate Representative Democracies the elective elected representatives usually maintain Constituent Offices where they continuosly consult with their constituents and assist with their problems to understand how thay want to be represented.
Posted 2010-03-23 07:24:23
khunjamespittman, on 2010-03-23 07:07:25, said: anotherpeter, on 2010-03-22 08:44:52, said: CLOD, on 2010-03-22 07:28:31, said: I wonder if the Chart Thai statement has been made following any consultation with their constituants?
How often do political parties in any democratic country go back to the constituents before making a decision?
They were elected by the people to be their represenatives in parliament.
If the MPs don't do what the electorate wants, then they don't get elected in the next election.
I would hope that most members of Parliment don't share your view of Representative Democracy.
In most legitimate Representative Democracies the elective elected representatives usually maintain Constituent Offices where they continuosly consult with their constituents and assist with their problems to understand how thay want to be represented.
Correct. They have these offices so people can air their views if they have problems.
They don't go back there and have town hall meetings to discuss government business and make decisions. Occasionally some politicians may do it, but in general, it doesn't happen.
|
Sponsored by ...
|
0
