rickirs

Amazingly the PDRC who is soooo sympathetic with the farmers plight to be paid will now do everything to slam this good news as a deception, corruption, lie, etc., maybe even file another lawsuit that an interim government cannot make such sales and protest in the streets and shutdown businesses and the government. Anything to keep any payments from going to the farmers because then the sale shows AFTER THE FACT that there was no criminal derelection of duty by the Government in the operatopn of the program. Unfortunately the Court seems focused only in one direction and that is a predictive mind-set to find the government (vis a vis Yingluck) quilty of some criminal act that would dissolve the interim government and play into Suthep's People Committee.

Other than not actually attending the meetings, I would like to know what they want to lay on her.

This could set an amazing precedent for politics in Thailand. Do anything that loses the state money and you can be held responsible. What a ridiculous concept.

By this measure, 95% of the politicians in the world would be in the clink. Maybe they can get her for lying to parliament.

Ridiculous indeed, it's un-Thai to have to take responsibility for your mistakes!

Mistake - an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.

Dereliction of Duty - deliberate or conscious neglect.

What the prosecution is arguing is that Yingluck should have know the rice program would fail because the Democrats told her it would. Since it did fail, she committed a derelection of duty in her mistake of deliberately continuing with the program. The evidence thus far to support this criminal charge is after-the-fact documentation of the rice program troubles - an "I told you so" evidence.

No other specific evidence has been released (is it priviledged?) to the public (so much for transparency) that Yingluck had independent confirmation that the program would fail with certainty before hand, nor that any ANTICIPATED problems with the rice program couldn't be resolved. What is certain AFTER-THE-FACT evidence is that an interim government was created in October 2013 and a national election scheduled for Feb. 2nd as a means to resolve the UNANTICIPATED Democratic-led anti-government protests and that Suthep filed numerous law suits and successively intimated banks not to participate in government loans for rice sales; actions that disrupted the rice program and prevented its completion. If failure to predict the future is a criminal act, Thailand government officials or any nation's leaders, no matter what the party affiliation, can never avoid derelection of duty, and never have any effectiveness in governing the country.

And if Yingluck is convicted, Suthep should be charged and convicted as well. Clearly by the Democrats own charges, they knew the rice program was going to fail, informed Yingluck of such destiny, and took no actions, ie., court challenges, themselves to stop its operation. Some readers will quickly say, "Where is my evidence?" And I respond, "Where was the Democrat lawsuits at that time?" Democrats silent opposition constitutes concurrence.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I am certainly not promoting seperation but maybe the solution is to have 1 Thailand but greater autonomy for the regions , a bit like Scotland within the UK.

Or like Crimea within Ukraine?

Sehgal petitions His Majesty the King to challenge deportation? This is a right that is good to know for foreigners who disagree with Thai immigration that they can personally go to the highest law of the Land for review.

Can someone track down the number of foreigners who have taken advantage of this amazing petitioning process, how many succeeded, and what their immigration issue was? I would have thought any appeal to the King might be made through one's embassy, and that foreigners would not be allowed to personally petition the King.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I got you Sir.OK.If the Supreme Court found him not guilty why would he have to appeal.Or did the Supreme Court find him guility and appealed and was found not guilty.

You have it reversed. It is possible that the prosecution appealed it all the way up to the appeals court and then the supreme court. because the courts found him not guilty.. Or he appealed it to the appeals court and then the prosecution appealed it to the supreme court.

You have to remember that Thailand has no double jeopardy clause in it's constitution. The prosecution here can appeal a not guilty decision.

Similar to Italy where Amanda Knox was found innocent on Appeals but is now being retried. Also, there seems to be no time limit in Thailand as to when the prosecution can retry someone initially ruled innocent such as was the case of Thaksin.

I can appreciate the problems fare maids have with passengers and other obstacles doing their job. But why are there fare maids at all? Can't fare boxes be installed by the driver with no entry through side doors to eliminate the fare maid position? It strikes me that the fare maid is a "featherbedding" position to help with general employment of Thais than it is as a necessity of public tansportation service.

Both sides want to negotiate from a position of strength so as to remove any risk of falling short of their goals. That philosophy will lead to intractible positions with the "too little sitting down and listening bravery" for both sides and assure complete failure every time. A mediator could enhance removing barriers of intractibility and the sitting down and listening process.

If there is to be any constructive negotiations, there has to be a safe, nuetral environment to do so. This environment has to be without nationalistic "encouragements" and without the cultural comfort zones that would otherwise reinforce each side's position. A mediator without national and cultural ties to either party would enhance an environment of cooperative interaction. A nuetral place for mediation would further enhance cooperative interaction.

There are a number of internationally recognized sources that fit such a mediator profile. The most obvious ones are the former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and current Secretary General Ban Ki-moon who can bring vast resouces to assist mediation. There are Nations that have an interest to mediate intractable conflicts that are a genuine threat to international peace and regional stability and still able to provide significant mediation resources such as Norway, Canada, and Switzerland that have international recognition as nuetral parties. As another alternative, albeit with far less resources, there are individuals who have no official role in their own country, or who do not represent his/her country in any capacity that would again enhance a moderator's nuetrality and creditibility such as Jimmie Carter.

My long-winded point here is that there is no intractible conflict between the Thailand government and the "opposition" that can't at least be approached by a mutually agreed mediator to get the parties to sit and listen to each other, and maybe achieve even a limited, concensual agreement for the good of Thailand and its peoples.

"It is inevitable to suspect that the government is linked with these attacks.'' Wow that's enough proof for me! Not really but many a dictator has used that line of logic to suppress opposition; no evidence needed, just suspicions. Maybe this group has listened to Suthep's speeches a few too many times.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The lumphini park ecosystem?

&lt;deleted&gt; does that mean? Its a manicured park. I dont think they are going to find any endangered species in there.

Democrats may become the endagered species by Summer.

The army is to "help prevent people from being manipulated by false information?" Is that in reference to claims that active army personnel are involved in violence? This statement raises a lot of questions of the army's role beyond just keeping the peace. I would like to know more of how people are "prevented" and how "false information" is identified. The army is going a bit beyond its constitutional role by entering the public relations areana.

I can see Suthep saying, "No big deal. I'll just send in a representative to be arrested as I'm too busy still trying to overthrow the government, or whatever is left of the government." And after April he'll have a whole new government to overthrow. For being charged with an alleged criminal offense that happened in 2010, he is the master at manipulation.

So after five months of throwing every kind of roadblock in front of the government to pay the farmers, including third party loans, the EC now says the government can use its own central funds to finance the rice sales and pay the farmers. Coincidentally right after the final elections ended. It's not like the central fund just showed up on someone's doorstep like an abandoned baby needing a home, its been there all along crying for attention. EC should be investigated for being one (and some might say among others) of the most inept independent Thai agencies there is.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Why hasn't this all been already done ?

How long have the PT Govt known about the AEC and the 2015 date ?

Surly it should have been a priority as it is something, as the gent says, that will have a big impact on the country.

All the ministries are still in place and the same, there are supposed to be caretaker ministers, so why cant the individual ministries go ahead and prepare the detailed plans to be forward to a parliament once one is in place ?

In reality what would MP's add to the process except rubber stamping the plans and law changes put forward by those in the ministries who have the real knowledge of what is needed.

MP's are after all, with a few exceptions, a bunch of know nothings elected on promises and big talk.

Anything the interim government has to do seems always unconsitutional. So from October 2013 to now the government rally can't do anything that might affect the new government, if and when it ever gets formed. What a way to not run a country.

Sadly Mr. Yuem didn't notice that Lumpini Park was renamed Suthep Park who has entitled himself to all rights and priviledges of ownership including the collection of rent.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

He cited Article 181 of the Constitution, which states, "The outgoing Council of Ministers shall remain in office for performing duties until the newly appointed Council of Ministers takes office."

About says it all, unfortunately.

Can they still be Ministers from their prison cell?

Simply yes. The Senate has to oust them. Albeit it with someone already in prison it shouldn't take much of an argument to do so.

Human rights applies to all regardless of income, politics, religion, nationality, gender, etc. A person's past does not justify inhumane treatment. Pojaman did not place herself in the middle of a protest demonstration, she was in a peaceful shopping mall minding her own business and not participating in any mob action. But she was singled out and abused (you don't have to touch someone to abuse them) by a mob who sought to intimidate her and place her in a seemingly frightful situation than she deserved. So there are legitimate grounds for a human rights investigation.

Perhaps more interesting is that if NAAC rules Yingluck quilty of dereliction of duty, her removal from government may have to wait until the election of the new Senate who alone has authority to remove the PM. Election of half the senators is on March 30th, appointment of the other half could take longer? April or May is beginning to look llike the point a new government will be able to function, unless of course Suthep could still succeed to keep the government in an interim status beyond summer.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Yes you can, It's up to the Constitutional Court to rule on the issue, and former-DPM caretaker-Labour Minister Chalerm is not part of the court, is he ?

So "Mr Chalerm’s confirmation of Ms Yingluck’s status" means diddly-squat, until the Court agrees or disagrees, it's only his personal opinion.

Not that he's biased, in any way, or also affected by the decision himself ! alt=facepalm.gif width=24 height=18>

The Constitution Court will never rule on this issue! The Reds will make sure of this!

PTP never has stopped the CC from ruling. it just refuses to recognize and adverse rulings.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

he should have used 10 Billion Dollar Bills.

Or Obama's Trillion Dollar coin. Hate to confuse it with the quarter you put into the candy vedning machine!

There is no justification for the assult and robbery. But if I had 10,000 bht and other valuables on me, and it's 3am in the morning I'd try to get a taxi.

An often saying is that you can't put a price on the freedom of speech. Looks like in Thailand we'll have a first. For the sake of the country's economy I hope there will now be more attention given by all political factions to the economic needs of the nation that allows its people to prosper in the face of a very comeptitive world economy. Continuing unresolvable political conflicts will only continue to divide and conquer the nation, a fate no other nation has accomplished in Thailand's history.

Maybe someday there will be a way to constitutionally elect all Senators. That would seem to provide for a more accountable and transparent government than with half being appointed. What political party wouldn't want more accountable and transparent government? But I certainly can understand Democrat's opposing such a measure as it would support the one man-one vote concept that they seem so adverse to.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"But just when courts begin to hear cases, there was a shooting at the court premises. I don't understand why Thais lack the tolerance to accept different opinions,'' he said.

Try looking at how students are taught at school. There is only ever one right answer, and the teacher is always right! Questions are not encouraged as an expression of curiosity but are treated as a challenge to the teacher's authority. That attitude needs a serious change, but that won't happen quickly enough to affect the current situation.

So, back to the judges. I think it is not enough to publicly plead independence, they have to be seen to be independent and unbiased. And that means not bending the rules depending on who is the defendant. Laws are always badly written and always appear to be black and white when in reality human experience is in shades of grey. Having the judges constantly reinterpreting bad laws does not turn them into good laws.

When Thailand became a constitutional monarchy it copied many structures of the UK, but they didn't put in place some form of common law and the rule of precedent. Instead, they rely on statutory law without guidance from previous similar cases, hence the charge that some of them just seem to be making shit up depending on who is in the dock. They don't have to rewrite their statutory laws; they just need to have a mechanism whereby such laws are interpreted fairly and consistently. Then the judges can earn back the respect they demand.

Thailand uses a civil law system found in continental Europe, Russia, most of Asia including Japan and former French colonies. The judiciary can adjust rules to social change and new needs, by way of interpretation and "creative" jurisprudence. It can follow social and cultural practices as well. Unlike the other common law countries, however, Thailand does not use the the jury system to determine innocence or guilt; that is the sole domain of the judge(s). So Thailand's judicial system produces a process that is potentially less transparent, allows corruption, and increases the likelihood of wrongful convictions.

"Senior judge says judiciary can provide solutions to conflict." I am sure they all have their own personal political beliefs but they do not have the authority to provide solutions to conflict. They have the authority to rule on cases brought to the court in an unprejudicial, unbiased manner irrespective of their political beliefs based only on law and fact. All Thai courts should remain nuetral to the ongoing political conflict to preserve their credibility as judges. If any judges want to become involved in conflict resolution they should resign their office to do so. I believe there will be no volunteers.