.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
slimdog
-
Posts
816 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by slimdog
-
-
"The decision to cancel his passport was based on passport issuing regulations, which state that the ministry can cancel or recall a passport if it can prove that a person has caused damage to the country," he said.
Though, wouldn't it need to be decided by the courts if the person has done damage or not? Nobody is denying the events of the past days, but I would think that a court decision was needed.
In my passport it is written "this passport is property of my Government". As far as I can read it states clearly, this pp was given to me by my country/Government temporarily. It is not my property, and they can take back their property any time they want, without any court involved. Am I correct?
Maybe different rules apply for Thailand
Yes you are correct.
Last month the Government tried to find a legal interpretation in order to revoke Thaksin's passport, to the extent that the Government asked the Council of State to find a legal basis for the action. The Council refused to look into the matter as they said that the revoking of an individual's passport was a "Political Issue", not a legal issue.
To that extent, this should be seen as probably a bad move, as almost certainly Thaksin has other passports, so will effectively cause little problems for him, but it does set a very bad precident, as it means that should any Government in the future, decide to take action against individuals who cause them problems, the revoking of a passport may become a standard practice.
It also means that the revoking of Thaksin's Passport is labelled as "Political" rather than "Legal".
-
Did the democrats really received the "donation" the opposition claims they received ?
According to the man who gave the donation, Yes (12.2.2009) and No (14.2.2009)
Yes source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/02/12...cs_30095551.php
No source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/02/14...cs_30095698.php
Was it illegal ?
According to the Election commission, they have no record of either TPI or Prachai Leophairatana having given a donation. In which case if a donation was given it would be in breech of the Organic Laws on Political Parties (1998) Articles 45,46,48,49,50 & 51 and the possible penalties for these, are a combination of fines and prison sentences ranging from 6 months to 3 years
If, using the same standards that lead to the dissolution of the TRT, PPP ..., does it mean that the Democrat party should be dissolved as well ?
For the donations, No. What the Democrat Party are also accused of is receiving money from the Election Commission and not using it in the way that they stated they had used it, which would be in violation of the Political Party Act (1998) Section 62, which is punishable by the Party being dissolved.
Will the EC committee handle this case in a fair and non partisan manner ?
That is the question; irrespective of whether or not the Election Commission is really partisan or not, there is a perception that they are less harsh when the accused is a Democrat member than other parties, meaning out of the major 5 political parties which contested the last General Election, 3 have been dissolved, 1 is probably in the process of being dissolved, and the last one, The Democrats were cleared of all violations.
There is the additional problem with this case, in that Chalerm used 3 hours of the censure debate to clearly spell out all the transactions showing exactly where money came from, and where it went, or in some cases where it didn't go. Whilst all the information would need to be verified, there is the perception that there is a case to answer, meaning that regardless of ones political affiliations, Chalerm did a very good job at explaining the money trail, and as the censure debate was watched live by millions of people, this will put a considerable amount of additional pressure on the Election Commission.
The final piece of the puzzle is the make up of the Election Commission, when there has been a split vote, the ruling has always gone in a certain way 3-2, as one of the Election Commissioners has to be replaced due to retirement, the choice of his replacement could be crucial, as he or she will really be the swing vote in deciding how a decission comes out.
-
A link for some of the old hands.
http://www.geocities.com/doxyblue/alltrink.html
Only about 10 (the ones highlighted in green) can be downloaded.
-
Does anyone know what Bernard is doing now ? His columns went downhill in the last few years, but I always enjoyed him.
"nuff said.
Semi retired, but he still writes everynow and again for the Bangkok Post his last piece yesterday...
-
the 4 letter word usually comes with "off" or "you".
I would like to see this "debate" televised
It is televised live on NBT.
The offending words were blocked out, but were in Thai, not English. It was all over in a matter of seconds, with both told to behave and Chai telling Ronritthichai Khankhet that he had no right to interupt the censure. Just a case of over inflated ego.
-
Not the best link I have ever provided, as the website is in Thai. But for people interested in Thai/English translated law books an online source can be found at:
Maybe of use to someone..
-
24 hours after, I remembered 24 hours before.
I don't see how zipcodes can be assumed from cellphones.
A public outreach for feedback from a new government in waiting
never seemed like a negative thing to me, seemed a very positive thing.
It was done using publically allocated air waves,
it need not be seen as a billable favor,
but a public service from public concessionaires.
All it takes is a bill to appear, appropriately dated
and net 180 days terms for payment.
Case closed.
Abhisit was endorsed by the King on 17th December 2008
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7787505.stm
The SMS message was sent on the 18th December 2008
source: http://bangkokpost.com/191208_News/19Dec2008_news04.php
The Message Read:
"I am your new PM. I would like to invite you to help our country pull out of the crisis. If you are interested in receiving my messages, please send your five-digit postal code to 9191."
source:http://www.dailyxpress.net/2008/12/19/coverstory/coverstory_5184.php
The Message is alleged (By PTP) to have cost concession holders B 150 Million
source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/30091616.html
Anyone who responded had to pay a fee Bt 3.00, but that earnings by the phone companies was offset by a new message from Abhisit reading:
"I am Abhisit Vejjajiva. Please accept my thanks. I will be in touch with you shortly"
source:http://www.dailyxpress.net/2008/12/19/coverstory/coverstory_5184.php
Whilst the airwaves belong to the Public, they are Public companies that have the legal right to utilise the different frequencies, and pay a considerable amount of money for this right. For this reason both the Office of the Prime Minister and the Democrat Party (As well as all Political parties) are legally allowed to reclaim from the Public purse the legitimate costs of Phone calls, Fax's even SMS's. Meaning, they get a bill, they pay it, then present the receipt to the relevent authority for the costs involved.
There are many laws to prevent abuse of power by government officials. To the best of my knowledge they don't say, "Give us free phone calls and then present us with a bill if anyone asks....."
-
SURAT THANI, March 18 (TNA) – Two bombs planted in separate locations in the Democrat Party stronghold of Surat Thani province were successfully defused on Wednesday morning.
Neither exploded, but at least one seemed to give a message to the ruling Democrat party.
One bomb was found at the base of a large Democrat party signboard, and another was placed at the base on an electrical power pole, both on the Surat Thani-Ban Nasan Road in the provincial seat.
A bomb squad from nearby Chumporn province used a high-pressure water cannon to short-circuit the explosive device’s electronic circuitry and cut the mobile phone signal.
The initial investigation found that the devices were fire bombs and ignited by mobile phone signal and could have damaged within a radius of 100 metres.
Police noted that the bombs were similar those used in insurgent incidents in the southernmost provinces of Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat. (TNA)
-
One slight hitch in the lemming parade.
Abhisit was not yet PM when that SMS went out,
and even if it WAS considered a gift,
he was NOT IN OFFICE YET.
As nit picking a point as the one that says he got a gift.
IIRC the telephonbe companies were told to do it.
and never thought to send a bill, but could have.
And still can send a bill, since it was lost on some ones desk
and misplaced over the New Years holiday..
oops found it.
This dog don't hunt.
Just for info:
The sms messages were sent out on 18th December, 24 hours after HM officially endorsed Abhisit Vejjajiva as the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Thailand. So article 103 of the NCCC Act is applicable.
As the Government had not been formed, then it is also possible to state that the gift was also to the Democrat Party itself as the information (if any) received was to get a demographic profile of users which went to the Democrat Party officials, in which case it could also be in violation of the Organic Act on Political parties if no receipt was issued to the Donors within 7 days.
After all a Democrat MP publically stated:
MP Sirichok Sopha, a close aide of the PM, says the messages were sent out to encourage public participation. "Cellphones allow us to reach people in all sectors, regardless of their gender and age," he says.
Plus, he says, the postal codes will help the Democrat Party identify the clusters of Abhisit supporters.
source: http://www.dailyxpress.net/2008/12/19/cove...rstory_5184.php
So for the moment I will say "woof woof"
-
it would appear so from the report,
the transcript or video will surface soon then we will know for sure about his performance.
Basic transcript can be seen at:
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/20...side/#more-4540
You tube clip can be seen at:
-
[since the whole rendition operation occurred in 2005 under Thaksin's nose, he must be held responsible. He had a penchant to do things on his own, and to make decisions without consulting any person.
Just for reference in the Washington post Article which names Thailand as having "Secret Prisons" there is the following quote:
Then the CIA captured its first big detainee, in March 28, 2002. Pakistani forces took Abu Zubaida, al Qaeda's operations chief, into custody and the CIA whisked him to the new black site in Thailand, which included underground interrogation cells, said several former and current intelligence officials. Six months later, Sept. 11 planner Ramzi Binalshibh was also captured in Pakistan and flown to Thailand.
But after published reports revealed the existence of the site in June 2003, Thai officials insisted the CIA shut it down, and the two terrorists were moved elsewhere, according to former government officials involved in the matter. Work between the two countries on counterterrorism has been lukewarm ever since
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0101644_pf.html
-
Hammered
I suggest that you look at the original post where you linked to a Bangkok Post article, which claimed a cabinet decision of November 26 2003..
I am absolutey positive that the Democrats are now trying to put the blame at anything other than this cabinet resolution, which was put forward by the Department of Agriculture, eg Newin, sora-at and Somsak
-
Thaksin-era order at heart of milk shame
Good politcal play by the government on this one. It is a bigger more widespread scandal than the canned fish. And its still in the news as the censure approaches with reports that most censure material is groundless. We will see but having a ticking bomb under teh ooposition is useful poltically. Abhisit et al are proving far more poltically savvy in the battels with PTP than I thought they would be. I guess having fairly influential turncoats on their side helps know where the skeletons are buried.
I wouldn't say accusing the three former members linked to the Department of Agriculture and Co-operatives was a good political play especially when they are:
Newin Chidchob
Sora-at Klinpratoom
Somsak Thepsutin
All of whom are currently a big part of the Bhum Jai Thai Party and hence the government coalition
-
And let's not forget, these paragraphs in the Thai Penal Law dealing with LM also apply to insults against any other head of state.
Source please.
*bump*
Any progress on providing proof of this previously unheard of assertion, dominique355 ?
As you are aware both the Criminal code and the Penal code are not available online, however, what dominique is refering to is :
Penal Code Section 133
Whoever defames, insult or threatens the Sovereign, his Queen or her Consort, Heir-apparent, or Head of a foreign state shall
be punishable with imprisonment of one to seven years or fine of two thousand to fourteen thousand baht or both.
There is also the Criminal code section 112 which carries a higher penlty, which is why nearly all LM cases use this article instead of the Penal code
-
Corruption? His wife bought a land. No mistake was found.
He, being her husband, signed ok for her to buy, as per the law.
As said above she was innoccent her act was legal, But, a BIG but,
be HE broke a law long on the books,
not one put in place by the junta to nail him.
He did it in broad daylight for all to see. His personal arogance about his power
led hem to believe he could do it and get away with it.
But they called him on it, and got a conviction in open court for all to see.
That's why England and Japan have pulled their welcoming carpets.
NO AMOUNT OF ROSE COLORED WISHFULL THINKING
can make theses facts go away Koo...
The bit highlighted is the BIG but,
Under the ORGANIC ACT ON COUNTER CORRUPTION (BE 2542), the only people who can be prosecuted under article 100, are those who are considered to be "Alleged culprits", whose crime would be considered sufficient to justify either a criminal conviction, due to malfeasance or corruption, or could be a basis for removal of office.
In November 2006, the AEC Chairman tried to get this changed, so that an individual could be prosecuted purely on the basis of breaking the conflict of Interest rule as stipulated in Article 100, however this was ruled against by the NCCC, as they concluded that every individual that is covered by the NCCC Act could be guilty purely by carrying out everyday activities such as banking, telecommunications or having public utilities, and that the interpretation imposed when the NCCC was formed would have to remain in place.
As such the AEC were forced to include 2 penal codes into the suit, even though they at no time called any witnesses to show that there was either any abuse of power, or malfeasance in office. (The only witness's called to the stand regarding the criminal aspect of the case were from one of the failed bidder's and representatives from the FIDF, all of whom were there to represent the accused,not the plaintiff, and each stated that the bidding was fair and totally transparant). The Prosecutions case purely rested on the fact that the FIDF was State Agency, and that Thaksin did have the power of Inspection.
As you stated, she was innoccent, her act was legal, therefore the only conclusion that can be reached is that ALL the criminal aspects of the case were only included to facilitate the inclusion of Article 100 of the NCCC Act...
-
National police chief reinstated
BANGKOK: -- Caretaker prime minister Chaovarat Chanweerakul Sunday signed an order to reinstate Pol Gen Phatcharawat Wongsuwan as the police commissioner-general.
The order cancelled an earlier order dated November 28 that seconded Phatcharawat to an inactive post at the PM's Office.
Phatcharawat is a brother of Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan.
-- The Nation 2008-12-22
From some of the previous replies, it appears necessary to point out to the some of the clueless that the outgoing government's caretaker PM Chaovarat signed the order before leaving office and prior to new PM Abhisit assuming office.
You could also have noted that Former Caretaker Prime Minister Chaovarat left office and became the Interior Minister...
-
I fail to understand how treatment would eliminate transmission.
hiv medication is designed to reduce dramatically the viral load (amount of virus) in the body, to the extent where it is to all intents, undetectable, this supression of the virus (By medication as well as the hiv antibodies the body has produced)helps the infected person to regain at least part of their immune system.
By reducing the amount of the virus in a person it also has the added benefit of making it less likely that the virus can be transmitted to others.
-
Just for reference:
Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation
source: http://www.nti.org/e_research/official_doc...pdfs/civair.pdf
Signed by Thailand and in effect since 13.06.1996
source: http://www.icao.int/icao/en/leb/Via.pdf
Compliance and Enforcement: The convention requires states to make the offenses punishable by severe penalties, and it lays out guidelines for custody of suspects. States Parties are required to either extradite the offender or submit the case for prosecution. States Parties are also required to assist each other in connection with criminal proceedings brought under the convention.
Supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation Done at Montreal on 23 September 1971
source: http://www.ciaonet.org/cbr/cbr00/video/cbr...cbr_ctd_35.html
Article II
destroys or seriously damages the facilities of an airport serving international civil aviation or aircraft not in service located thereon or disrupts the services of the airport, if such an act endangers or is likely to endanger safety at that airport."
Article 82 of The Constitution of Thailand 2550 (2007)
The State shall promote relations and cooperation with other countries and shall adhere to the equal treatment principle and comply with treaties related to human rights to which Thailand becomes a party as well as international obligations made with other countries and international organisations.
-
Abhisit has a chance to clean Thai politics once and for all - just dissolve the house and call the elections ASAP - that way hundreds of MPs will be kicked out and ineligible to run again. That would be one devious plan, Friends of Newin will probably made a big barbeque out of that soft Democrat meat.
I think you ought to read the Constitution...
Section 101.
A person having the following qualifications has the right to be a candidate in an election of members of the House of Representatives:
(3) Being a member of any and only one political party for a consecutive period of not less than ninety days up to the election day, except that in the case where a general election takes place as a consequence of the dissolution of the House of Representatives such person must be a member of any and only one political party for a consecutive period of not less than thirty days up to the election day
-
This article is larded with such bland superficialities, basic generalizations as to be in a junior high school textbook. It says next to nothing about the current crisis. That of course might be just the reason Bangkok Post printed it ….
Have to say I agree with you, it takes a quite complicated issue and then tries (un-successfully) to explain what it is all about, and why people are behaving as they are.
There are some westerners who have tried (sucessfully) to explain some of the reasons that Thailand has been in a mess for as long as I have lived here, which is basically most of my adult life. The three who spring to mind are Marc Askew ,Duncan McCargo and Chris Baker.
The difference between the three authors above and Kaye Eldridge (Who wrote The Bangkok Post Article), is that they actually understand the complexities of the phuak system, and how it has been successfully used (Abused) by Politicians and Political Parties for the past 25 years or so,(And is currently being used/abused by PAD), and they would never dream of coming up with such idiotic conclusions as Eldridge did, let alone asking Thai people to change their basic cultural beliefs.
In a sense it is all about manipulation, how your group is right, how people not in your group are bad, how your group loves the country, and by extension how people not in your group hate the country, logic and reasoning will never work any more than asking a sports fan to switch their affections to a rival team, it has been so drummed into them that the rival is the opposite of everything that you hold dear, that to do so makes the person feel like a traitor, even when the rival holds exactly the same beliefs as you do.
Everyone in Thailand loves the Country
Everyone in Thailand loves the King
Everyone in Thailand want's the Country to prosper
It's just that when you are part of a group,you are led (manipulated) to believe that Your Group has loves and cares greater than your rivals.
-
PAD's blockage of Parliament will cause damages to country: PM
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30089131
Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat said Sunday that the country would stand to lose if the People's Alliance for Democracy
blocks senators and MPs from approving the government's plan to ink trade pacts with other Asean countries.
What! They SUDDENLY are dealing with the ASEAN charter issue...
that they have ignored it till the last minute...
but it's PAD's fault if it doesn't get singed??
Utter tripe from the PM.
The weasel was saving this issue to hit PAD with it later.
No consideration of the actual trade agreement was stated as planned,
this ONLY came up after PAD said they are moving on Parlement.It's just a cudgel to hit is enemies with.
B.S. from South American where he can't be blamed for the destcruction and mayhem.
This was published in Thailand Outlook Channel (TOC) web page on the 19th of this month following this weeks cabinet meeting.
source: http://www.thailandoutlook.tv/toc/ViewData...?DataID=1010621
-
Apirak should just have folded his arms and refused to sign the letter of credit.
& let them litigate. (and let them explain why the deal was overpriced)
He should be more of a conviction politician.
Agreed.
Granted we are thinking like westerners here.
Hammered, he publicly complained about having to sign it,
and stalled for a good while. Something forced his hand.
Not sure what.
There are stories that the Democrat Party board advised him not to sign it but he (eventually) did anyway. Its up to the courts now anyway. He has been indicted but not convicted.
Apirak's problem is more than the L-O-C. The deal was signed in 2004, but the first payment wasn't due until 2007, by which time the AEC had already stated that there was a probability of corruption on the deal, yet in Feb 2007 he authorised the first payment of 845 Million baht, in August 2007 he authorised the second payment of 743 Million baht, and even after the AEC threatened him he made the third payment in Feb 2008 of 600 Million baht, it wasn't until the 4th payment in August this year was due that he finally suspended payment.
sources:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/rea...newsid=30064886
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/rea...newsid=30080359
-
What the Supreme court ruled in 4655/2533 (1990) was that the FIDF was governed by Section 29 (ter) of the Bank of Thailand Act, and as such was not responsible to pay in full all monies lost by individual investors in the event of financial Institutions failure and that Section 29 (Octo) determined that the FIDF was only liable to pay "reasonable" amounts" due to a financial Institutions failure which results in a serious financial crisis.
Section 29 (ter):
A fund shall be established in the Bank of Thailand and called the “Financial
Institutions Development Fund”. The Fund shall be a juristic person with the purpose of
reconstructing and developing the financial institution system to accord it strength and
Stability. It shall have the “Department of Financial Institutions Development Fund” as its
competent authority and shall be separate and kept wholly distinct from the Bank’s other
business.
Interesting not that it has bearing here as the CC judges weren't obligated to follow other courts' decisions, but out of curiosity, since your comments directly counter what is being widely reported elsewhere have you read (in Thai) the actual decision? Please note, I am not debating this with you, I am just wondering. Also, how about SC decisions 8792/2544 and 1486/2549?
No idea as to 8792/2544 or 1486/2549, to be honest never heard of them before. The only reason I had any recollection on the 1990 ruling is that it was mentioned in an article I read (English not Thai) and was related to Erawan Trust, which was something I was interested in finding out about, primarily because so little was reported about Erawan Trust, and simple google searches turned up virtually nothing. Absolutely nothing to do with the Ratchada land case, but was curious as to why considering how high profile it was, it was always neglected, sad to say I found it more interesting than Thaksins troubles.
-
Long before this case came to trial, the Supreme Court determined that FIDF is not a 'State Body'. Decision No. 4655/2533 ruled that the FIDF is a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand. It has its own rights and duty in accordance with laws and regulations within the boundary of its objectives.
The Supreme Court ruling takes precence over other courts.
Therefore, clearly within the law Taksin is not in breach of section 100 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, which which he was charged.
The decision of the court was truly politically motivated.
What the Supreme court ruled in 4655/2533 (1990) was that the FIDF was governed by Section 29 (ter) of the Bank of Thailand Act, and as such was not responsible to pay in full all monies lost by individual investors in the event of financial Institutions failure and that Section 29 (Octo) determined that the FIDF was only liable to pay "reasonable" amounts" due to a financial Institutions failure which results in a serious financial crisis.
Section 29 (ter):
A fund shall be established in the Bank of Thailand and called the “Financial
Institutions Development Fund”. The Fund shall be a juristic person with the purpose of
reconstructing and developing the financial institution system to accord it strength and
Stability. It shall have the “Department of Financial Institutions Development Fund” as its
competent authority and shall be separate and kept wholly distinct from the Bank’s other
business.
NCFC
You could of course argue that the Supreme Courts verdict 4655/2533 was politically motivated, after all the case originated from the 1983 financial crisis. So 2 questions
Which financial Institution was the worst offender in paying back it's depositors when it defaulted on payments
Who was the Prime Minister at the time of the ruling
Give you a hint: Ratchada Land
My Friend Just Found Out He's Hiv+. What Can I Do To Help?
in Health and Medicine
Posted
Well the good news is that his viral load is still fairly low. Generally the higher the viral load the greater the deterioration of cd4 cells. The cd4 count is fairly low, but from personal experience, the cd4 count does go up and down like a yoyo, and if your friend is in the condition that you descibe, then in all likelihood, his cd4 count is about the lowest it is likely to get at present. With reasonable care, meaning good nutrition, plenty of sleep and stress levels reduced, the cd4 count should rise quite considerably, and give both your friend and his doctors a better overall view of his current status
If he hasn't already has a hepatitus C test, then would advise he undergoes one. Also, it would be advisable to get a flu shot.
Agree with repeating the cd4 test in a months time. Delay it if neccessary until your friend is getting plenty of sleep, and his stress levels are reduced somewhat.
Not sure why they are asking to do a Genotype test for. The medication available today is just as effective with all the various strains of hiv.
Make sure your friend has tests for all common std's
Make sure you friend is fully aware of all the pro's and cons regarding when to start medication. For me it was never an issue as my cd4 count was virtually non existant, but from what my doctor has said, there is still no clear consensus amongst the medical profession. Going onto medication early generally means that the chances are that your cd4 count will be higher, whilst the medication will never get the count up to it's original level, it should still rise to a reasonable level. The drawback in starting medication early is that over time, the medication may stop being as effective, this was particularly worrying a number of years ago, but seems to be becoming less of an issue with the newer drugs available today.
It will take quite a while to come to terms with being hiv+, but it does happen, it just takes time. For me the first month was a nightmare, and it it took nearly 12 months when I can honestly say, I didn't think about it nearly every day. Now after more than 5 years, I can say that I am fully accepting of my hiv status, thinking about it rarely. Having someone, you can confide in is absolutely a must.
You have been a good friend..