Fair Analysis.... I Think So

[Gadfly]

FM - The second point concerns the first government formed after the first elections after the coup. That government did not change because a coalition party changed allegiances; that occurred later on. Think about it: it took two court rulings and a lot of strong arming to form the current government.

 

Ignoring this and suggesting the current government was formed just like coalition governments in other parlimentary democracies is sheer nonsense. I certainly don't want to see a return of Thaksin or any of his proxies, but we need to be honest about this fundamental problem with the current government (and avoid the dissembling).

 

Notwithstanding how it came into power, my hope was always that the Democrats would be able to garner enough support from the Thai population to form a legitimate government. That's going to be much harder now. This is now a much more serious problem.

[bust]

The way I see it is that if and when they hold an election the current government in it's existing form will not be re-elected.

 

The big question is who will.

[ThaiHome]

The way I see it is that if and when they hold an election the current government in it's existing form will not be re-elected.

 

The big question is who will.

 

Currently the PT holds 189 seats in Parliament. With the defection of several factions that have gone over to the Bhumjaithai party and others, there is little reason to think the PT will get anymore seats in the next election. I think what happened last week, is going to hurt the PT in the urban areas (where voters tend to not vote for the local faction) and they could actualy lose some seats.

 

This will leave us with somebody having to form a coalition. There is no reason to think the Bhumjaithai, the Pheua Phaendin, the Ruam Jai and the Chart Thai will not join the Democrats in forming that coalition again.

 

TH

[ThaiHome]

Abhist came to power after a group of MPs changed sides - crossed the floor of the house is the usual description. On that basis he is legitimate.

You are right, provided we ignore the following:

 

1. It took a military coup to oust the opposition TRT.

 

2. After the military government left and even after banning leading politicians of the opposition TRT (now PPP) and re-drafting the constitution to favor the Democrats, the opposition PPP still easily obtained a majority and a member of the PPP became PM. It took a dubious court decision to oust this PM.

 

3. A second round of elections were held, and the opposition PPP again easily won and a member of the PPP became PM. Again, a dubious court decision ousted this PM. (Come on, I don't like Samak either, but kicking the guy out of office for a cooking show??)

 

4. In the third try to make sure the PPP didn't come into power, coalition partners of the PPP were strong armed into switching sides.

 

5. If elections were held tomorrow or even next month, its certainty that the PPP would win with an overwhelming majority.

 

But if we ignore all of this, we aren't being honest with ourselves and it certainly isn't the way coalition governments are typically formed in Britain.

 

Look, I don't like Thaksin or what he represents either (I much prefer Abbhisit and Korn, although some of their yellow partners make my stomach turn), but we need to be honest about how he came to power. It's a big part of the problem here in Thailand, and no "fair analysis" can ignore it.

 

This week's The Economist has a good analysis. So did Khun Pasuk and Chris Baker in the Wall Street Journal. But not this other stuff.

 

 

Your points 1 through 4 are filled with inaccuracies that have been previously been dealt with many times and I am not going to take the time to correct them as it seems to do little good when people just don't seem to care about the facts.

TH

[LizardKing]

And point number 5 just makes me laugh...

[Flashermac]

I am amazed at the "true believers" on this board. Point out reality and they still insist on believing something else.

 

My mind is made up! Don't confuse me with the facts.

 

 

I have been saying all along the Puea Thai is living in Lalaland if they think they are going to be voted into power. NO ONE WILL BE. It will be another coalition and I'll give odds that PT will not be in it.

 

 

[ThaiHome]

How's this for a campign poster?

TH

[soongmak]

Abhist came to power after a group of MPs changed sides - crossed the floor of the house is the usual description. On that basis he is legitimate.

You are right, provided we ignore the following:

 

1. It took a military coup to oust the opposition TRT.

 

2. After the military government left and even after banning leading politicians of the opposition TRT (now PPP) and re-drafting the constitution to favor the Democrats, the opposition PPP still easily obtained a majority and a member of the PPP became PM. It took a dubious court decision to oust this PM.

 

3. A second round of elections were held, and the opposition PPP again easily won and a member of the PPP became PM. Again, a dubious court decision ousted this PM. (Come on, I don't like Samak either, but kicking the guy out of office for a cooking show??)

 

4. In the third try to make sure the PPP didn't come into power, coalition partners of the PPP were strong armed into switching sides.

 

5. If elections were held tomorrow or even next month, its certainty that the PPP would win with an overwhelming majority.

 

But if we ignore all of this, we aren't being honest with ourselves and it certainly isn't the way coalition governments are typically formed in Britain.

 

Look, I don't like Thaksin or what he represents either (I much prefer Abbhisit and Korn, although some of their yellow partners make my stomach turn), but we need to be honest about how he came to power. It's a big part of the problem here in Thailand, and no "fair analysis" can ignore it.

 

This week's The Economist has a good analysis. So did Khun Pasuk and Chris Baker in the Wall Street Journal. But not this other stuff.

 

Hear hear.

[soongmak]

Your points 1 through 4 are filled with inaccuracies that have been previously been dealt with many times and I am not going to take the time to correct them as it seems to do little good when people just don't seem to care about the facts.

TH

 

I wouldn't waste my energy on a board like this, either, On the other hand, maybe you could do the world a favour and rewrite the wikipedia articles about Thailand's political crisis so that they concur with the 'facts'. That way foreign dumbasses like me could really understand the situation in Thailand, instead of getting swayed by biased propaganda. :content:

[ThaiHome]

The problem is Gaddies remarks bare little resemblance to the wikipedia articles.

 

If you see any, please show us.

 

Note that the wiki article on the 2008-2010 Political Crisis is not very detailed and is qualified in the quality rating as “… the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.â€Â

TH