In your article in The Nation, you mention Abhisit's speech to a " 'Political Development' class....... organised by the National Election Commission". Bangkok Post carried a significantly different report of that speech in which a fourth requirement appeared - actually listed there as the third condition: "that an election would end political conflict and a House dissolution and fresh polls could raise the country from crisis."
As I commented on that report, just who can guarantee that any election will achieve those aims? Apart from anything else, it sounds rather like someone needing to pre-ordain the winner before allowing the contest - as tried in 2007 but that didn't quite work as planned........
The Post article notes that "reporters were excluded" - and attributes their report to a "source". You, presumably, must therefore have your own "source". I would welcome your thoughts on this version - particularly on what you think the "current ground rules" for an election are.... i.e. with or without the charter reform amendments already recommended by the panel set up to consider them - that Abhisit appears to have kicked into the long grass? And what are your thoughts on the requirement that all parties agree the basis? Very sensible, of course, but doesn't that effectively give a veto to the likes of PAD with their newly-minted party? It at least guarantees virtually perpetual argument and wrangling that will be used as an excuse to go on delaying yet further the calling of an election.
I agree with much of what you say in your video blog - but disagree that there is no pressure in Abhisit to call an election. Sure, currently no "effective" pressure (i.e. from the powers-that-be or through parliament - not the same thing), but there are widespread calls for an election. Given his weak (and, I would say, weakening) position, it won't take much for one of the many issues confronting him to escalate and make his fragile position untenable.
I note that you also stop short of considering just how "convenient" these conditions (be it three or four - or however more he comes up with next) are for a PM who surely can be in no doubt that he and his party will not "win" an election held in the foreseeable future.
Agree with the assessment on elections, though skeptical Abhisit can get the economy where he wants and a non-turbulent campaign trail. But this isn't your precise argument. The amendments issue will force a clash with PAD, but its not insurmountable I'd think. When you speak of the budget--what percentage usually get siphoned to replenish party coffers? Like the Blogger video tool, pretty cool stuff! But you are not in the office?
2 comments:
Dear Khun Yoon,
In your article in The Nation, you mention Abhisit's speech to a " 'Political Development' class....... organised by the National Election Commission". Bangkok Post carried a significantly different report of that speech in which a fourth requirement appeared - actually listed there as the third condition: "that an election would end political conflict and a House dissolution and fresh polls could raise the country from crisis."
As I commented on that report, just who can guarantee that any election will achieve those aims? Apart from anything else, it sounds rather like someone needing to pre-ordain the winner before allowing the contest - as tried in 2007 but that didn't quite work as planned........
The Post article notes that "reporters were excluded" - and attributes their report to a "source". You, presumably, must therefore have your own "source". I would welcome your thoughts on this version - particularly on what you think the "current ground rules" for an election are.... i.e. with or without the charter reform amendments already recommended by the panel set up to consider them - that Abhisit appears to have kicked into the long grass? And what are your thoughts on the requirement that all parties agree the basis? Very sensible, of course, but doesn't that effectively give a veto to the likes of PAD with their newly-minted party? It at least guarantees virtually perpetual argument and wrangling that will be used as an excuse to go on delaying yet further the calling of an election.
I agree with much of what you say in your video blog - but disagree that there is no pressure in Abhisit to call an election. Sure, currently no "effective" pressure (i.e. from the powers-that-be or through parliament - not the same thing), but there are widespread calls for an election. Given his weak (and, I would say, weakening) position, it won't take much for one of the many issues confronting him to escalate and make his fragile position untenable.
I note that you also stop short of considering just how "convenient" these conditions (be it three or four - or however more he comes up with next) are for a PM who surely can be in no doubt that he and his party will not "win" an election held in the foreseeable future.
Agree with the assessment on elections, though skeptical Abhisit can get the economy where he wants and a non-turbulent campaign trail. But this isn't your precise argument. The amendments issue will force a clash with PAD, but its not insurmountable I'd think. When you speak of the budget--what percentage usually get siphoned to replenish party coffers? Like the Blogger video tool, pretty cool stuff! But you are not in the office?
Post a Comment