Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08BANGKOK1995
2008-06-27 10:36:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Bangkok
Cable title:
SAMAK ADMINISTRATION EASILY SURVIVES NO-CONFIDENCE
how-toVZCZCXRO4819 OO RUEHCHI RUEHCN RUEHDT RUEHHM DE RUEHBK #1995 1791036 ZNY CCCCC ZZH O 271036Z JUN 08 FM AMEMBASSY BANGKOK TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3551 INFO RUEHZS/ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS PRIORITY RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 0881 RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING PRIORITY 6122 RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY 8854 RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 1687 RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL PRIORITY 4754 RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC PRIORITY RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY RHHMUNA/USCINCPAC HONOLULU HI PRIORITY RHHMUNA/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L BANGKOK 001995
SIPDIS
NSC FOR PHU
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/27/2018
TAGS: PGOV KDEM TH
SUBJECT: SAMAK ADMINISTRATION EASILY SURVIVES NO-CONFIDENCE
VOTE
REF: BANGKOK 1951 (DEBATE BEGINS)
Classified By: Acting DCM Anne Casper, reason: 1.4 (d).
C O N F I D E N T I A L BANGKOK 001995
SIPDIS
NSC FOR PHU
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/27/2018
TAGS: PGOV KDEM TH
SUBJECT: SAMAK ADMINISTRATION EASILY SURVIVES NO-CONFIDENCE
VOTE
REF: BANGKOK 1951 (DEBATE BEGINS)
Classified By: Acting DCM Anne Casper, reason: 1.4 (d).
1. (U) On the morning of June 27, following three days of
debate, House legislators voted almost entirely along
partisan lines on the Democrat Party's no-confidence motion
that targeted Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej and seven other
cabinet members. There were up to 445 votes in play. Samak
received 280 votes in his favor, 162 against, with one
abstention. Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama, who came
under harsh attack for his agreement with Cambodia on the
Preah Vihear temple's disposition (reftel),received slightly
less support -- 278 in favor, 162 against, with two
abstentions. The other targeted cabinet members received
comparable support. (Of the 480 House seats, 10 are vacant
because of real or alleged election irregularities. The
targeted cabinet members are constitutionally prohibited from
voting on the resolution, and all other People's Power Party
cabinet members, as well as the formal House leaders, agreed
in a show of sportsmanship not to vote.)
2. (C) Comment: The result was as expected (reftel); the
debate nevertheless appeared to serve both sides' interests.
The Democrats were able to air criticism of the government
and demonstrate their commitment to serving as a credible
opposition party. The government, meanwhile, showed its
willingness to accommodate the opposition's legitimate
parliamentary efforts and to provide an outlet for the
expression of criticism; the government also shifted media
attention away from the agenda of the People's Alliance for
Democracy (PAD),which had recently captured headlines for
its march on Government House.
JOHN
SIPDIS
NSC FOR PHU
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/27/2018
TAGS: PGOV KDEM TH
SUBJECT: SAMAK ADMINISTRATION EASILY SURVIVES NO-CONFIDENCE
VOTE
REF: BANGKOK 1951 (DEBATE BEGINS)
Classified By: Acting DCM Anne Casper, reason: 1.4 (d).
1. (U) On the morning of June 27, following three days of
debate, House legislators voted almost entirely along
partisan lines on the Democrat Party's no-confidence motion
that targeted Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej and seven other
cabinet members. There were up to 445 votes in play. Samak
received 280 votes in his favor, 162 against, with one
abstention. Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama, who came
under harsh attack for his agreement with Cambodia on the
Preah Vihear temple's disposition (reftel),received slightly
less support -- 278 in favor, 162 against, with two
abstentions. The other targeted cabinet members received
comparable support. (Of the 480 House seats, 10 are vacant
because of real or alleged election irregularities. The
targeted cabinet members are constitutionally prohibited from
voting on the resolution, and all other People's Power Party
cabinet members, as well as the formal House leaders, agreed
in a show of sportsmanship not to vote.)
2. (C) Comment: The result was as expected (reftel); the
debate nevertheless appeared to serve both sides' interests.
The Democrats were able to air criticism of the government
and demonstrate their commitment to serving as a credible
opposition party. The government, meanwhile, showed its
willingness to accommodate the opposition's legitimate
parliamentary efforts and to provide an outlet for the
expression of criticism; the government also shifted media
attention away from the agenda of the People's Alliance for
Democracy (PAD),which had recently captured headlines for
its march on Government House.
JOHN