fab4

So, last push from some distracting.

Ms. Yingluck may never get the chance to clear her name. Pity really and an injustice in itself!

BTW you guys should try to make your story more consistent. Some said Ms. Yingluck more-or-less asked the senate to reject the 'blanket amnesty bill'

Not distracting, rubl, just countering some propaganda.

If you wish to query the consistency of "stories" I suggest you reply to those you believe are guilty of doing so. I made no claim on anybody's behalf about Yingluck's alleged requests of the Senate so I'm not really sure of what you are talking about - not for the first time.

So, back to pseudo modding for you, rubl............................

You're not sure what I'm talking about, but still you always seem to feel a need to reply to my posts with nonsense, misunderstanding and accusations of hypocracy?

Must be all those cups of coffee.

Anyway, a last push, from Pheu Thai that is, some posters here are more obdurate.

I understood the accusation about distracting , hence my reply to counter that false accusation. The rest of your post is just gibberish. The hypocrisy claims on this and other posts refer to your constant harping on about being off topic whilst doing the very same thing yourself and are therefore legitimate.

Not bad for a scam positioned as "self-financing' and meant to help poor farmers. Allegedly that is.

It must be like xmas for you rubl - now you can write 1000++ in your interminable posts about revolving rice funds............................

Interesting comment from a dyed-in-the-wool Thaksin apologist with more than 4000 posts mostly supporting the corrupt former regime.

Look in the mirror first.

That's kind of my point. My comments are interesting, or at least provoke some debate, otherwise why would you have bothered to reply? The same, however, cannot be said for rubl's never-ending posts on the rice subsidy scheme which comprise 700++ this, 700++ that, revolving funds, rinse and repeat ad nauseam.......................

"Anek Laothamatas said he would propose a coalition-led government to solve the problem of political parties split into two camps."

Are CDC members aware of the rest of the world?

Where a single party has been unable to form a majority government, coalition governments are inevitable. Ten major countries have had coalition governments during their history, among them Japan, India, Germany, Indonesia, Australia, Canada, and the UK. But what the CDC seems to imply is that a coalition government would be formed from political parties REGARDLESS of whether any one party could receive majority support from the electorate!

Even looking at Thailand when the electorate was allowed to vote for members of government, political parties were divided into five to ten camps. Yet, there was no need of a coalition party with one party winning the majority vote of the electorate. The situation has been that a major party is unable to win the majority of the electorate. And that is a problem with that's party ideology that doesn't comport with a majority of the electorate and has no interest in broadening its ideology to attract more votes.

However, as a practical matter for legislative efficiency, a majority party does not always present a monollithic political viewpoint, with members sometime acting independently (ie., "to cross the aisle") to support ideology of minority parties for a bill. Then there is an opportunity to build a coalition to reconcile legislative viewpoints to get bills passed; but this voting coalition lasts only so long as the majority party is splintered.

So it would seem incongruous that for Thailand a permanent coalition-led government is necessary or practical. Unless of course there is a hidden agenda to suppress formation of a majority party, ensure dilution of its ideology, and preserve the power base of an oligarchy.

The CDC is just quoting Thaksin, the guy who profited most from the coup.

A few years ago he said he'd learned that single party governments do not work well in Thailand.

Anyway, in real democracies people are allowed to be diverse enough to make parties with a majority in parliament only a theoretical possibility.

Ah, so it's Thaksin, again.

OK, rubl, why don't you tell the forum exactly where Thaksin proposed that a necessary reform for Thailand was to have a coalition led government by decree, that is what you're saying isn't it?

Oh, wait a minute, you quoted Thaksin as saying he learned that single party governments do not work well in Thailand and morphed that into a statement about support for compulsory coalition governments to suit your, for want of a better word, "argument". In fact, while you're at it, could you even give us a link to Thaksin saying he learned that single party governments do not work well in Thailand? No?

Precisely..................................

If Thaksin Shinawatra wasn't behind this boondoggle, then who was?

Wasn't he in Burma buying up large quantities of cheap Burmese rice to sell to the scheme as Thai rice?

Yes, of course he was..................................

Not bad for a scam positioned as "self-financing' and meant to help poor farmers. Allegedly that is.

It must be like xmas for you rubl - now you can write 1000++ in your interminable posts about revolving rice funds............................

My point as you very well know is that no amnesty for a criminal activity and misuse of political office for personal gain is acceptable.

Also remind me again, did the senate finally reject the amnesty bill before or after the protests against it began...deary me, this memory of mine..................

What have the protests against the Amnesty Bill (organised and sponsored by the Democrat Party) have to do with the Senate rejecting the Amnesty bill. Oh, wait a minute, the crowds influenced them - don't make me laugh, they were there to be manipulated later for their real purpose which we are now experiencing. The Amnesty Bill in it's final form was an ill thought out piece of legislation but there was no way it was going to pass through the Senate - from the horses mouth;

Appointed senator Somchai Sawaengkarn said the voting patterns of appointed senators show that 60 of the 73 appointed senators are in the anti-government camp.

The remaining 13 are believed to be aligned with the government, Mr Somchai said.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/121241/the-reason-why-the-thai-establishment-likes-appointed-senators/

Presumably Somchai didn't include himself in that number. The 76 other Senators are elected from each of Thailand's Provinces. Just how many of those do you think are not anti - government (Shianwatra led government, that is)?

So, last push from some distracting.

Ms. Yingluck may never get the chance to clear her name. Pity really and an injustice in itself!

BTW you guys should try to make your story more consistent. Some said Ms. Yingluck more-or-less asked the senate to reject the 'blanket amnesty bill'

Not distracting, rubl, just countering some propaganda.

If you wish to query the consistency of "stories" I suggest you reply to those you believe are guilty of doing so. I made no claim on anybody's behalf about Yingluck's alleged requests of the Senate so I'm not really sure of what you are talking about - not for the first time.

So, back to pseudo modding for you, rubl............................

rotary post # 18.

Do you feel unions are good?

At the time of their establishment and indeed for a good many years after trade unions were essential in improving the lot of their membership, there was a bond of common sense between both employers and the union bosses as time went on.

However as time passed certain union bosses saw a chance to strengthen their future both politically and financially, that is when the rot set in.

I well remember Scargill staying in a top hotel during the miners strike while the striking miners were all but destitute and in many cases nearly starving, Scargill and his ilk did not go short in Scargills political war campaign.

The miners were the poor pawns and Scargill continues to this day to abuse both his long gone authority and position, see how the N.U.M had to seek a court order to actually remove Scargill from their property ,Oh yes Arthur Scargill and his ilk destroyed decent trade unionism.

Scargill and one or two other so called union leaders were out to undermine the governments of their day. The supported a soviet style form of government and used the unions through strikes and agitation to try reach their objective, Scargill was closely connected to the soviet union.

The mining and car industries were completely ruined by these despots who had no real concern for their members welfare.

Scargill received a high salary and lived in a very nice property. As always some "workers" are more equal. I remember his thugs out on the street corners shaking their collecting buckets for donations during the miner's strike; and the courage of those who formed the NUDM as an alternative to his extreme politics.

Thailand does not need corrupt liars like Scargill. But they do need some who will fight for the basic rights of workers who are in many cases still treated like serfs.

You weren't one of thatchers private army were you? I don't think I have read such a load of rubbish (by you and siampolee) about Scargill, the Miners Strike and the Trade Union movement since thatcher was alive.

fab4 post # 12

Of course there are some (generally, and I write that without even a hint of irony, well, maybe a bit, by those who are ardent supporters of such people) that will still insist that there is no such thing as the "elite" or "amart" whose mantra is feudalism .............................

Indeed a gem of wisdom from the greatest supporter of a corrupt privileged elite clan their ilk and all of their assorted enterprises both business and politically.

Maybe you'll learn something, siampolee, though I have my doubts............................ You may have read my reply to another of "your ilk" who seems to regard that people who are rich cannot be "champions" of the poor - you appear to be of the same mindset. I don't recall either myself or indeed, Thaksin himself, denying that he could be regarded as part of the "elite" though I do have a problem with your assertion that Thaksin by extension of being such is also a supporter of feudalism. That would be a stupid accusation to make.

Oh, the Amnesty Bill that was rejected by the Senate as part of the checks and balances of the constitution? That one?

Or amnesties that have actually been implemented like Section 309 of the 2007 Constitution and Section 48 of the 2014 Interim constitution where no military coup leader has ever been accountable for overthrowing the democratic regime of government in Thailand?

I'm sorry, what was your point again..............................

My point as you very well know is that no amnesty for a criminal activity and misuse of political office for personal gain is acceptable.

Also remind me again, did the senate finally reject the amnesty bill before or after the protests against it began...deary me, this memory of mine..................

What have the protests against the Amnesty Bill (organised and sponsored by the Democrat Party) have to do with the Senate rejecting the Amnesty bill. Oh, wait a minute, the crowds influenced them - don't make me laugh, they were there to be manipulated later for their real purpose which we are now experiencing. The Amnesty Bill in it's final form was an ill thought out piece of legislation but there was no way it was going to pass through the Senate - from the horses mouth;

Appointed senator Somchai Sawaengkarn said the voting patterns of appointed senators show that 60 of the 73 appointed senators are in the anti-government camp.

The remaining 13 are believed to be aligned with the government, Mr Somchai said.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/121241/the-reason-why-the-thai-establishment-likes-appointed-senators/

Presumably Somchai didn't include himself in that number. The 76 other Senators are elected from each of Thailand's Provinces. Just how many of those do you think are not anti - government (Shianwatra led government, that is)?

Just how many aircraft have crashed during the large number of years that Loy Krathong and air travel have co existed? What is the problem with doing exactly as has happened in the last few years like rescheduling flights etc? Could it be that with the junta in control, the various airlines have decided to chance their arm and are lobbying furiously so that we now end up with these knee jerk reactions?

Ah PTP logic.. no planes have crashed so its safe to light laterns around airports. I guess you think driving drunk is ok too. I mean most of the time nothing happens so its ok.

I think its a sensible thing to put a stop to an unsafe practice, the punishment is overkill but could be seen as a deterrent. (i somehow doubt it would ever put in practice )

Good grief! Can you not discuss anything on this forum without trying to tie it back to a political party you hate? Pathetic.

"The passage of the bill apparently caught the opposition and the government's opponents off guard as the third reading vote was caught at about 4am, immediately after the last article of the bill was passed in the second reading."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-bill-sails-through-third-reading-30218475.html

Of course in 'real' democracies a government which proposes a blanket amnesty bill with a clause on amnesty 'to all charged in politically-motivated cases' and changes the coverage period to include their own two years in office, would be forced to step down and be under immense scrutiny as to for what they thought they might need amnesty themselves.

Anyway, this time no rallies, neither pro nor contra.

Apparently not all off topic posts are off topic........................

yours still being here you mean?

I corrected some misunderstanding. Read it, you may learn something

No, my explanation of the reality of the Amnesty Bill Vote was removed. Your variation on reality remained but has since been removed. Oh, and your correction of some misunderstanding? - I don't recall you correcting anything on this thread.

"The passage of the bill apparently caught the opposition and the government's opponents off guard as the third reading vote was caught at about 4am, immediately after the last article of the bill was passed in the second reading."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-bill-sails-through-third-reading-30218475.html

Of course in 'real' democracies a government which proposes a blanket amnesty bill with a clause on amnesty 'to all charged in politically-motivated cases' and changes the coverage period to include their own two years in office, would be forced to step down and be under immense scrutiny as to for what they thought they might need amnesty themselves.

Anyway, this time no rallies, neither pro nor contra.

are you still trying to imply that some how the democrats were 'fooled'? because they were not.

Even the Nation reported that the democrats were there until late in the night and then, 'Democrat MPs staged a walkout so no one voted against the bill.'

Whether you agree with the bill or not, and I do not, the Nation even provided the rational behind the immediate vote:

Chief coalition whip Amnuay Klungpha said the coalition needed to rush the bill through the third reading because the government expected that protesters would besiege Parliament later Friday to prevent MPs from entering the t compound to vote.

hmmmmm

Interesting justification. Democratic anti-government protests against a 'blanket amnesty bill' which even grants amnesty to the government's own two years in office whereas nothing they did had any relation to the 2006 - 2010 period and here a democracy lover sees nothing wrong with a rushed vote?

Peculiar type of democracy

and it's a peculiar type of "democracy loving person" that ignores protesters besieging parliament to prevent MP's from voting, after the opposition had boycotted the vote, ( the same crowd of "democracy loving protesters" that successfully physically restrained Thai Citizens from voting )....................

to convince the National Legislative Assembly that it is not conforming to tradition when it comes to impeachment.

...because when it comes to impeachment, tradition is so much more important than conforming to law.

If the NACC and the NLA actually conformed to the Law this impeachment bid would not exist, but I suppose that is just being picky.......................

"In a last ditch move to block the impeachment of Yingluck Shinawatra, Pheu Thai Party will today present what it believes to be the strongest legal points to convince the National Legislative Assembly that it is not conforming to tradition when it comes to impeachment."

If she's innocent why worry?

Or is the tradition they are really referring to the one where no one is liable for their criminality?

Oh I don't know, perhaps the tradition that is most prevalent here is that of Junta vs Shinawatra - they might as well make it a precedent........................

No, I'm guessing the one they want to enshrine and for others to uphold is no politician is ever accountable for their criminal actions while in office...i.e amnesty anyone?

Oh, the Amnesty Bill that was rejected by the Senate as part of the checks and balances of the constitution? That one?

Or amnesties that have actually been implemented like Section 309 of the 2007 Constitution and Section 48 of the 2014 Interim constitution where no military coup leader has ever been accountable for overthrowing the democratic regime of government in Thailand?

I'm sorry, what was your point again..............................

Meanwhile, he said the new charter was unique in the sense that it would be drafted in accordance with Article 35 of the interim charter, which would create new dimensions and perspectives in drafting the law.

Yes, it certainly will be unique, again putting it very mildly. Interm Constitution Article 35 has this to say;

"That the form of administration is a democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State which is appropriate for Thai society"

and who gets to decide what is an appropriate form of democracy for Thai society? Why, our old friends, the junta appointed Charter Drafters. And just what is an appropriate form of democracy for Thai society - one that doesn't include people who are not of the "right" mentality, one would hazard a guess..........................

the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) was "colour blind" because it consisted of all colour-coded political factions

An "interesting" take on the situation, putting it very mildly..............................

"In a last ditch move to block the impeachment of Yingluck Shinawatra, Pheu Thai Party will today present what it believes to be the strongest legal points to convince the National Legislative Assembly that it is not conforming to tradition when it comes to impeachment."

If she's innocent why worry?

Or is the tradition they are really referring to the one where no one is liable for their criminality?

Oh I don't know, perhaps the tradition that is most prevalent here is that of Junta vs Shinawatra - they might as well make it a precedent........................

Of course there are some (generally, and I write that without even a hint of irony, well, maybe a bit, by those who are ardent supporters of such people) that will still insist that there is no such thing as the "elite" or "amart" whose mantra is feudalism .............................

"The passage of the bill apparently caught the opposition and the government's opponents off guard as the third reading vote was caught at about 4am, immediately after the last article of the bill was passed in the second reading."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-bill-sails-through-third-reading-30218475.html

Of course in 'real' democracies a government which proposes a blanket amnesty bill with a clause on amnesty 'to all charged in politically-motivated cases' and changes the coverage period to include their own two years in office, would be forced to step down and be under immense scrutiny as to for what they thought they might need amnesty themselves.

Anyway, this time no rallies, neither pro nor contra.

Apparently not all off topic posts are off topic........................

Any decision to impeach Yingluck requires three fifths of total votes - or 132 votes.

Ooohh, the suspense.... how will the vote turn out???????

These NLA stooges will vote exactly how their told to vote, just like with the Junta budget - not a single dissension.

Or perhaps like the PTP voted 312 to 0 to pass the Thaksin amnesty bill at 4.30 am when there was no opposition in the house. Those PTP stooges certainly earned their "extra salary" that night.

And do you know why there was no opposition in the house? It was because they boycotted the vote and walked out. Opposition - not worthy of the name.

If I recall, the case was brought by the junta-created AEC and then the conviction came down from a junta-packed criminal court.

that's globally acceptable... or maybe not.

Having a PM have his wife do business with a government institution is a 'conflict of interest'. Now that's the case in most 'democratic' countries.

The military having extensive business holdings as well as dominating the boards of state enterprises is a massive conflict of interest. That is also the case in most democratic countries.

Could be, but that has nothing to do with the topic here.

Yet talking about Thaksin's wife and an 11 year old land purchase is?

Good to see that you're still a major advocator of the Hypocritical Oath, rubl...................................

Do you have a reading problem?

Its not about the price.

No it's not about the price, it's about an "interesting" adjudication on a matter that the NCCC had previously said would not be illegal.

As rubl said, but obviously hasn't followed his own advice, I suggest you read all of this site to get a less jaundiced view of what actually occurred; http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com/

Surely our general can find time to create acceptable kids TV in between his soap scripting, songwriting and poll-result creation?

Well there was a pretty disturbing article in the other paper on Sunday. An organisation called Plan for Kids has started publishing children's books promoting the generals 12 core values. One book entitled, without a trace of irony, "I love Democracy" illustrates Value 7, "Understanding, learning the true essence of democratic ideals with His Majesty the King as the Head of State" (*) with children running towards soldiers in a sandbag bunker to give them flowers.

(*) yes I did have to look them up. I haven't quite got to the stage where I can recite them verbatim but maybe the song will help me,

http://asiancorrespondent.com/126873/all-thai-students-required-to-recite-daily-prayuths-12-core-values/

I kid you not.....................

Umm...Just about everybody's poor compared to the General and his Cabinet.

The Shinawatras are not and neither are ANY of the PTP MPs.

But don't forget billd766 they are the (self styled) champions of the poor so they are allowed to be rich and elite.

Is there a rule that to champion poor peoples causes you have to be as poor as the people you're trying to help? If that's true it kind of blows a big hole in the theory of Philanthropy, doesn't it?....................................