Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Thread: Yingluck ran out of luck - game over

  1. #21

    Default Re: Yingluck ran out of luck - game over

    Yes & I know that you have openly declared Abhisit Vejjajiva as your idol as you think he is a very eloquent leader and has a cool mind And vowing & acting to take down a government like he did is considered a seditious act here. Public protests are banned here too.

    Quote Originally Posted by PinkDevil View Post
    It is a taboo and serious thing to be making the bold quote below especially if you are in Thailand. You can be put in jail for that.
    Last edited by s1221ljc; 10th May 2014 at 12:07 AM.

  2. #22
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,392

    Default Re: Yingluck ran out of luck - game over

    Quote Originally Posted by s1221ljc View Post
    Each country has to accept the system that is considered best suited to it & the stage of its political development.
    Good one. First of all, who is 'each country'? Secondly: how is a constitution created and changed?
    Countries consist of people, voters. In many countries it needs a large majority in the parliament to change the respective election laws or constitution. Now show me a country where the ruling party voluntarily changes the laws which might result in an election loss in the next years? So the question of 'best suited' has many answers, depending on who you ask. It needs a mature and active democracy where an answer is accepted that might result in political changes after next election.
    Let's not forget: what has worked in past might no longer work in the future. How realistic are the chances for a system like in SG that the respective laws will get changed? Ok, another topic..
    Quote Originally Posted by s1221ljc View Post
    Just for simple illustration. There are 10 positions/seats to be elected to form a government. All the candidates won by a simple majority of 51% & all candidates belong to the same party. Then the party has won 51% of all the votes but 100% of the positions/seats. The 10 elected vote among themselves who would hold what posts. This is our system & basically the system of many countries, with tweaks & variations. There is nothing unusual or weird about this. Unless you can come up with a better system with no downsides
    Well, if it makes sense to you that 51% of votes is enough to assume political power over 100% population then be happy with it. Other people (including many Singaporeans) will heavily dispute this and there is more than one country having an election system where the final seat distribution in the parliament is much closer to the ratio of votes given to the different parties. Have a good look at European countries for some working examples.
    I accept that there is no ideal way of condensing the voter's choice into a limited amount of seats. There will always be inaccuracies, even if it's just due to rounding. But my basic sense for a just election system tells me that 65% votes and 95% of seats is not a good way of translation.
    EOS

  3. #23
    Member Bukitimah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,261

    Default Re: Yingluck ran out of luck - game over

    Dear Octarine, whether it is Ying Luck or whoever, it is not going to be a corrupt free government in the near future or best government for Thailand unfortunately. Opposition has to fight to get in then they try their stuff and then the ruling party become opposition just like what happen in Taiwan. That is the political game.

    When everything fails, the people take over (people power). For Thailand, it is the military that is running the country! They couldn't care about the people but their self interest. To topple a government is easier than the army. To topple the army, you need outside power and if this army is supported by outside power for their own interest, that will take a long time.

  4. #24

    Default Re: Yingluck ran out of luck - game over

    Quote Originally Posted by s1221ljc View Post
    If there are elections & the people voted for their representatives to form a government, it is considered a democratic system, even if it is not perfect. China & Russia are run by those who are not elected by the people & so are considered oligarchs.

    There is no perfect democracy, even in the United States. It has been accused of being oligarchy before as those in power are from a small exclusive connected group, from the very rich upper class of society (millionaires/billionaires), graduates from Ivy League universities (Harvard, Princeton etc). I do agree that there are very powerful entrenched patronage systems in Thailand which is one of its main root problem. However patronage is always present, to a greater or lesser extent, in most if not all countries, even in those considered advanced democracies. IMO, with a equally strong & powerful opposition, there tends to be greater tensions, more political struggles & risks of conflicts rather than peace, co-operation & balance.
    It is more acute in Thailand, because before Thaksin's brand of "winners take all", the prime ministership was a musical chair between a few established familes who have members holding key positions within Thailand. Thaksin upset that balance and now the rest of them hate him.

  5. #25
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,392

    Default Re: Yingluck ran out of luck - game over

    Quote Originally Posted by Bukitimah View Post
    Dear Octarine, whether it is Ying Luck or whoever, it is not going to be a corrupt free government in the near future or best government for Thailand unfortunately. Opposition has to fight to get in then they try their stuff and then the ruling party become opposition just like what happen in Taiwan. That is the political game.

    When everything fails, the people take over (people power). For Thailand, it is the military that is running the country! They couldn't care about the people but their self interest. To topple a government is easier than the army. To topple the army, you need outside power and if this army is supported by outside power for their own interest, that will take a long time.
    Now please tell me why you address this slightly incoherent stuff to me? Especially the second paragraph is a contradiction it itself.
    EOS

  6. #26

    Default Re: Yingluck ran out of luck - game over

    Quote Originally Posted by Octarine View Post
    Good one. First of all, who is 'each country'? Secondly: how is a constitution created and changed?
    Countries consist of people, voters. In many countries it needs a large majority in the parliament to change the respective election laws or constitution. Now show me a country where the ruling party voluntarily changes the laws which might result in an election loss in the next years? So the question of 'best suited' has many answers, depending on who you ask. It needs a mature and active democracy where an answer is accepted that might result in political changes after next election.
    Let's not forget: what has worked in past might no longer work in the future. How realistic are the chances for a system like in SG that the respective laws will get changed? Ok, another topic.
    I mean each or every country has to decide & choose for itself what system it considered best. These may shed some light on the creation of constitutions & specifically for Spore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Singapore. Constitutional changes require a 2/3 majority vote in parliament, where the legislators (MPs) are elected by the people. Major changes of the constitution is a very serious matter & a national referendum may be conducted. Whatever system we have, end of the day, it all rests on the people, the voters who determine who represents them in the government. If voters are unhappy with their choices, they just have to vote them out. The vote is the only power we have, so we have to vote very carefully And if MPs make changes so they lose in an election, perhaps they shouldn't be there in the first place?

    Quote Originally Posted by Octarine View Post
    Well, if it makes sense to you that 51% of votes is enough to assume political power over 100% population then be happy with it. Other people (including many Singaporeans) will heavily dispute this and there is more than one country having an election system where the final seat distribution in the parliament is much closer to the ratio of votes given to the different parties. Have a good look at European countries for some working examples.
    I accept that there is no ideal way of condensing the voter's choice into a limited amount of seats. There will always be inaccuracies, even if it's just due to rounding. But my basic sense for a just election system tells me that 65% votes and 95% of seats is not a good way of translation.
    Let me tweak my earlier illustration a little to "scare" you more There are 10 positions/seats to be elected to form a government. There are 4 candidates from different political parties for each position. Voting for candidates goes 26%-25%-25% & 24% for each & every position. We may end up having a government who only has 26% of all the total votes cast! ! You can try different variations for yourself. Candidates can argue about the margin of win & fairness till the cows come home but it doesn't change anything. There is a saying "a miss is as good as a mile". A contest is just a contest, there must be a winner & loser, even if there is a difference of 1 or 100 votes between contestants. Can you stipulate that a winner must have at least 75% of the votes to be legitimate? It is not practical & wont work. Nothing to do with inaccuracies. You can set a quorum on voters though. As a matter of fact, even a party with the most votes may lose an election! (e.g. M'sia recent elections). Elections are not about total votes. Maybe you can point out a specific country & system which you think it better? For me, even USA the "beacon" of democracy is not without faults & weaknessess & I dread to find such a system in our country

    P.S. You can try a system where there are no electoral divisions & ALL voters in a country just vote for a list of ALL the candidates. The candidates with the highest number of votes win, regardless of the party they belong to (or there are no political parties). Seems ideal to a preferred concept of most votes rule, but I can still poke plenty of holes in it
    Last edited by s1221ljc; 11th May 2014 at 11:11 AM.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Sion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    新天地
    Posts
    4,768

    Default Re: Yingluck ran out of luck - game over

    Quote Originally Posted by Octarine View Post
    Now please tell me why you address this slightly incoherent stuff to me? Especially the second paragraph is a contradiction it itself.
    Do you seriously expect coherent and non-contradictory wisdom in Kopitiam?

  8. #28
    Member Bukitimah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Octarine View Post
    Now please tell me why you address this slightly incoherent stuff to me? Especially the second paragraph is a contradiction it itself.
    No offence, my simple mind is just trying to say whoever is in power, it will never satisfy everyone but at least Ying Luck is elected by majority under their current system.

    You did mention their current system is not fair so I am saying if they allow a few 'generals' or so called advisers to decide things, won't that be worst? How many coups over the years and who are the ones that suffer?

    Of course you may also not agree with what is happening over there. We are just kopitiam here. What has all these got to do with us. Actually I directly a bit. Cheers.

  9. #29

    Default Re: Yingluck ran out of luck - game over

    Kopitiam talk is very Chim leh...time for non commercial break:



    By hanging the PDRC leader photo on the gate of one of AIS office buildings, the building has to close.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Sion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    新天地
    Posts
    4,768

    Default Re: Yingluck ran out of luck - game over

    Quote Originally Posted by Bukitimah View Post
    Of course you may also not agree with what is happening over there. We are just kopitiam here. What has all these got to do with us. Actually I directly a bit. Cheers.
    If democracy fails in Thailand it would spill over to Malaysia then to our country.

    Hungry wild wolves will roam the country looking for flesh and blood.

    Please contemplate that scenario.

  11. #31
    Member Bukitimah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,261

    Default

    [QUOTE="Sion;8859611"] If democracy fails in Thailand it would spill over to Malaysia then to our country. Hungry wild wolves will roam the country looking for flesh and blood. Please contemplate that scenario.[/QUOTE

    Fully agree. My last sentence was suppose to be indirectly but it turns out I directly. The wonder of spelt check and auto correct. Banks iPhone. Haha.

    We are small country. What happen next door will affect us. Good and bad.

  12. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by s1221ljc View Post
    I mean each or every country has to decide & choose for itself what system it considered best. These may shed some light on the creation of constitutions & specifically for Spore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Singapore. Constitutional changes require a 2/3 majority vote in parliament, where the legislators (MPs) are elected by the people. Major changes of the constitution is a very serious matter & a national referendum may be conducted. Whatever system we have, end of the day, it all rests on the people, the voters who determine who represents them in the government. If voters are unhappy with their choices, they just have to vote them out. The vote is the only power we have, so we have to vote very carefully And if MPs make changes so they lose in an election, perhaps they shouldn't be there in the first place?

    Let me tweak my earlier illustration a little to "scare" you more There are 10 positions/seats to be elected to form a government. There are 4 candidates from different political parties for each position. Voting for candidates goes 26%-25%-25% & 24% for each & every position. We may end up having a government who only has 26% of all the total votes cast! ! You can try different variations for yourself. Candidates can argue about the margin of win & fairness till the cows come home but it doesn't change anything. There is a saying "a miss is as good as a mile". A contest is just a contest, there must be a winner & loser, even if there is a difference of 1 or 100 votes between contestants. Can you stipulate that a winner must have at least 75% of the votes to be legitimate? It is not practical & wont work. Nothing to do with inaccuracies. You can set a quorum on voters though. As a matter of fact, even a party with the most votes may lose an election! (e.g. M'sia recent elections). Elections are not about total votes. Maybe you can point out a specific country & system which you think it better? For me, even USA the "beacon" of democracy is not without faults & weaknessess & I dread to find such a system in our country

    P.S. You can try a system where there are no electoral divisions & ALL voters in a country just vote for a list of ALL the candidates. The candidates with the highest number of votes win, regardless of the party they belong to (or there are no political parties). Seems ideal to a preferred concept of most votes rule, but I can still poke plenty of holes in it
    No need to tweak and scare us.

    Our Tony Tan only has how many votes to get the Presidency?

  13. #33

    Default Re: Yingluck ran out of luck - game over

    That proves my point, isn't it.

    For that election, he got 745,693 votes (35.2%) & there was a gap of 7,382 votes (not >1%) from the next popular candidate. But that is just a ceremonial position, not MPs, legislators who can pass, change the laws.

    Anyway, I think we are veering OT already...

    Quote Originally Posted by donut88 View Post
    No need to tweak and scare us.

    Our Tony Tan only has how many votes to get the Presidency?
    Last edited by s1221ljc; 11th May 2014 at 01:38 PM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •