Only Higher Authorities Can Tell Me to Go

Can you believe this? He will only answer to higher authorities. The people, public opinion, even a growing chorus of members of his own party cannot make him leave.

It's time we start wondering what things will be like post-Thaksin. It could be much worse. Is Mr. P. still around or is he finally just enjoying the good life in NZ?


Only King can tell me to leave: Thaskin

Published on Feb 04 , 2006

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said on Saturday that he will not quit as long as His Majesty the King does not tell him to go.

"The only person who can tell me to quit is His Majesty the King. If His Majesty whispers to me that 'Thaksin please leave,' I'll go," Thasin said during his weekly radio programme Saturday morning.

During the programme, he reiterated that he has done nothing wrong regarding the sale of Shin Corp shares.

He said he was confident that most Thais still wanted him to remain in the office.

He said he was confident that most Thais still wanted him to remain in the office.

Yeh, most Thai wanted him when they ( 19 millions ) elected him. But I am not sure whether they want him now.

Well, justlike the American people, they've got to live with their mistake and wait until the next election, don't they?

Well, just like the American people, they've got to live with their mistake and wait until the next election, don't they?

I am not sure. Unlike us poor American slobs who have difficult to apply options (the next election, impeachment, forced resignation by public opinion), Thaksin is a parliamentary PM, and the government should be able to force him out, which would possibly just lead to a similar PM from his own party. I would expect the Thai gov't to be more like the British system where we hear of "no confidence" votes leading to the demise of politicians

Of course then in Thailand there is the possibility that the royal head could ask him to go, for which he would certainly be compelled to comply with, and "other options". But I would think that things should be done democratically, in interest of developing democracy here as opposed to prolonging the old order, as Thaksin himself has done with his disgraceful disregard for the constitution and dismantling of anti-corruption governance in Thailand. It shouldn't be TOO difficult.

[elephantspike]

'Those 19 million voters don't know anything about politics,' said Phuwadol. 'In Thailand, governments are elected by the people in the provinces and overthrown by the people in Bangkok.'

from

M&C News (http://news.monstersandcritics.com/asiapacific/article_1094478.php/Thai_ministers_resignation_undermines_embattled_pr ime_minister)

The latest:

From ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1581540)

Well, just like the American people, they've got to live with their mistake and wait until the next election, don't they?

I am not sure. Unlike us poor American slobs who have difficult to apply options (the next election, impeachment, forced resignation by public opinion), Thaksin is a parliamentary PM, and the government should be able to force him out, which would possibly just lead to a similar PM from his own party. I would expect the Thai gov't to be more like the British system where we hear of "no confidence" votes leading to the demise of politicians
I think you mean parliament "should be able to force him out". Essentially a no-confidence vote in a parliament against the prime minister could be equated to a successful impeachment motion against a president in the US Congress. And before the nit-pickers start, yes, there are significant differences but the concept is the same

So Thaksin's responded to a bunch of academics calling on him to resign just as Bush would do: he told them to get lost. He's been elected democratically, and he has to be removed democratically. That's how democracy works, girls. And a hundred thousand or a million people in Sanam Luang does not mean that he has lost the mandate of the majority of the Thai people. We'll see at next election...and I'll bet the country bumpkins still like him. Comparisons to the US are inevitable.

...and I'll bet the country bumpkins still like him.
That will depend on how much vote-buying goes on

Even the bumpkins aren't foolish enough to vote for someone they don't like, even if they've given them a few hundred baht. Give them some credit...

You people should really worry about your "disgraceful America".
You have people begging on the streets,people living in cardboard boxes,people living in squalor and filth in the Bronx.You couldnt even help yourselfs during the Hurricane.Many Aussie tourists had to call Australia TV channels to fly them out.We here also have had adverts on TV collecting for Hurricane Katrina,what a joke? Giving money to America?
Yes yes heres my $2.00 for America.We also saw your third world country on TV with many black people dying in that hurricane and no medical aid for days.Geez I would hate to see what would happen if a terrorists strike happened again.Shame on you for letting those people die.Your country worries about everyone else except their own people.How about instead of pouring billons of dollars in aid to Africa you put it in your own country.It took Sydneys channel 7 TV Station to fly their own helicopter looking for Aussies to get them out.I watched as people bashed each other for food and elderly people lay on the streets.
Doesnt your Govt care? You pay all those taxes and your Govt gives it away to the rest of the world.Unfortanetely our current Aussie Prime Minister Little Johnny Howard is in bed with pussy Bush.The PM of Australia from 1990 to 1995 Paul KeATING hated America and i can see why.You people dont even help your war veterans,they are also begging on the streets,why bother fighting for America if when u come back they forget about you.Shame on all of you,

Even the bumpkins aren't foolish enough to vote for someone they don't like, even if they've given them a few hundred baht. Give them some credit...
To paraphrase (I think) HL Mencken "No-one will ever go bust by underestimating the public's intelligence"; assuming that people vote according to principles such as not "to vote for someone they don't like" has been disproven over and over and over again. Politicians such as Howard in Australia or Bush in the US are masters at manipulating public perceptions and fears, and Thaksin will be no different. People vote self-interest ("what's in it for me?"); like or dislike doesn't have a lot to do with it

I think you mean parliament "should be able to force him out".

Maybe a stupid question from Baziel, ( i not follow Thai politics ) but in your treats, i can not find WY he has to force out ?

mrsydney wrote
Shame on all of you, regarding Americans. Believe me, not all of us voted for Mr. Bush. And even a lot of those who did regret it now. So be fair and don't blame all American's for what "we" are doing. Be nice and I will buy you a pint...hahaha.

Essentially a no-confidence vote in a parliament against the prime minister could be equated to a successful impeachment motion against a president in the US Congress. And before the nit-pickers start, yes, there are significant differences but the concept is the same

The no confidence has the same effect as an impeachment. But in America there seems to need have had a CRIME committed to bring impeachment proceedings, like breaking privacy laws (spying without good cause) or enjoying an afternoon in the oval office. Unfortunately, we can't just kick someone out just for being incompetent.

But we may get lucky soon!

[Smiles]

In the British parliamentary system (which means also Canada, New Zealand, Australia and "others") a vote of non confidence in the ruling party simply means that the leader of that party would be 'forced' (certainly morally, if not always legally) to call an election essentially to take the issue to the people.
A vote of nonconfidence is self explanatory and has nothing whatsoever to do with criminal law . . . though a criminal act on the part of the ruling party may well be the reason for the triggering a non-confidence motion in the first place. Usually not though.

Just by way of example, I would think that the ruling party here in Canada would definitely have had a non-confidence motion brought forward in parliament if the government had ordered such a violent anti-drug campaign as took place in Thailand a few years ago where thousands of alledged drug dealers were killed in "interesting" circumstances. The Thaksin government got away scot-free with that horror with relatively little criticism within Thailand.

I'm not certain how closely the Thai system of government follows that tradition, or whether the Thai democracy is more along the lines of the US or French system. I have not heard of a Thai 'President' so I assume that the Prime Minister (i.e. Thaksin) & his cabinet holds most of the power, as in the British system.

The other stumbling point is whether or not the Thai parliamentary rules give any place at all for motions of non-confidence.

Cheers ...

In the British parliamentary system (which means also Canada, New Zealand, Australia and "others") a vote of non confidence in the ruling party simply means that the leader of that party would be 'forced' (certainly morally, if not always legally) to call an election essentially to take the issue to the people.
A vote of nonconfidence is self explanatory and has nothing whatsoever to do with criminal law . . . though a criminal act on the part of the ruling party may well be the reason for the triggering a non-confidence motion in the first place. Usually not though.

Succesful votes of no confidence in the British Government are extremely rare. The last 'no confidence' victory came in 1979, when the extremely unpopular (at the time) Labour Party was forced into an election. They didn't get back into power for a further 18 years! Votes of no confidence depend on numbers in the opposition parties outweighing the Government (something quite rare also in British Politics). Even disillusioned Government Members of Parliament are unlikely to vote against their own party and so 'no confidence' remains a limited power to invoke a replacement of Government.

I think I watched far too much 'Question Time' with Sir Robin Day when I was younger! :cyclopsani: