In Town

Fantastic! How about you argue in detail what's wrong with the CCs judgment today, since you seem to know so much?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

You mean noting the ridiculousness of throwing out the premier and a big chunk of the government over the transfer of a single civil servant? That does not take much "arguing in detail", as it is self-evidently absurd.

What is self-evident is that today the CC has stood up and said, "No one is above the law; not even a PM."

Yes, you are right. Only the courts are above the law.

If we have a civil war will the expats be asked to leave the country? Or will they still be safe for them to live here?

There won't be a civil war; the government has tanks and F16s, whereas the Reds don't even have the farmers' tractors any more.

Actually, there could be civil war. The reason there has not already been a coup is that, unlike in 2006, the army is now divided, and if one part tries to have a coup, the other could resist. So, maybe both sides have tanks and F16s.

Also, you refer to "the government". Actually, that is PT, and unlikely to go to war with the reds. I think you mean, when you say government, the army or ammart.

If we have a civil war will the expats be asked to leave the country? Or will they still be safe for them to live here?

It will probably be safe in red areas, but dangerous in yellow areas. The reds accept international human rights and democracy norms, but the yellows reject them in favour of wholly Thai concepts of justice and democracy. Consequently when questioned they react violently (I believe the ultra nationalists attacked a German reporter today for daring to question their narrative).

they are acting as though the constitution wasnt a military coup imposed illegal document

must be a temporary facade before the music starts

It still was ratified 'Yes or No' by the public.

They STILL had the no choice, and start again, they voted it in.

All the Thai constitutions have been imposed by some influencial body.

Not really. It was either "Yes" or we re-write it any way we want. Read your history dude.

The '97 Constitution, that which limited the power of the amart and made the rise of populist politicians like Thaksin possible, is called the People's Constitution, and in that case the "influential body" was the body politic, the ordinary citizens of Thailand.

This is close to the dumbest thing I have ever read. Hottest day of the year?

d cartalucci or yon or better still a comprehensive "true" story of what happened in 2010. it's English title is The Simple Truth, read it. you'll love it.

(though if he's heard of Oscar Wilde you may wonder why he chose that title)

I you were here well before and during the 2010 you will not have to read anything or be in command of perfect English.

Maybe you could have been reading what you wanted to believe. Sort of self inflicted brainwash.

Sorry, run that past me again in English.

I think Ginjag was saying "if you were here and witnessed what was happening during the Red insurrection you wouldn't need to read what happened as it was all there to see,,,,, were you here during the burn Bangkok days Fab? or are you relying on media and propaganda to assert your biased views?

I was here for the burning of Bangkok. The devastation was terrible (reminded me of Mostar, or Berlin in '45). And the shoppers... Oh, the humanity.

Luckily, even though vast stretches of Bangkok are still desolate from "the Burning", Suthep & Co. have succeeded in bring back small business vendors and shopping, at least in Lumphini.

You are right, there were foreign fighters under the red shirts at that time

Do you have a problem with the English language? You understand the basics, yes? Right, then please tell me why, when I write this,

"You don't have to go back that far, unless I'm mistaken and the RTA regiments involved in abhisits "crackdown" were populated by foreigners"

Why on earth would you think that I was referring to the red shirts?

and then you take it further alleging that foreign fighters were involved with the red shirts in 2010! Do you believe everything you read? If so, I can recommend cartalucci or yon or better still a comprehensive "true" story of what happened in 2010. it's English title is The Simple Truth, read it. you'll love it.

(though if he's heard of Oscar Wilde you may wonder why he chose that title)

I you were here well before and during the 2010 you will not have to read anything or be in command of perfect English.

Maybe you could have been reading what you wanted to believe. Sort of self inflicted brainwash.

Sorry, run that past me again in English.

I was here for the burning of Bangkok. The devastation was terrible (reminded me of Mostar, or Berlin in '45). And the shoppers... Oh, the humanity.

Luckily, even though vast stretches of Bangkok are still desolate from "the Burning", Suthep & Co. have succeeded in bring back small business vendors and shopping, at least in Lumphini.

" If the court steps across the boundary too much, do you think their decision will be respected? "

​This is a troubling leitmotiv, but it keeps cropping up again and again. Pheu Thai and the UDD in particular have adopted this as a common refrain. And it's truly dangerous. Never should any doubt in the judicial process be encouraged. And yet, every day we see evidence of it. It is to Pheu Thai and the UDD's advantage that people don't respect the verdict if they deem it " unfair " in some form or another. For Pheu Thai and the UDD, the law has always been malleable.

The only way forward constitutionally is to respect the ruling of the Constitutional Court.

The troubling leitmotif, throughout your posts is ignoring the will of the electorate in favour of a nondemocratic "solution". You may be a ( self proclaimed) expert on the Thai Constitution but you are no supporter of the democratic process prescribed by that constitution.Yet again, the constitutional way forward is to hold an election, and abide by the result. And all said in one paragraph!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

It's just as troubling to ignore the law in favor of a "democratic" tyranny, especially amid claims of corrupt voting. tyranny in any form is undesirable. My stance is that a balance of both is crucial along with some mechanism to ensure trouble free campaigning and voting.

What's troubling is that it is your side that is corrupting the voting process. What is clear is that the judiciary will never allow a government elected by the majority to remain in office. friday it will be Yingluck, and in a few months it will be whoever follows her.Then elections will be held in select constituencies, but voters will be blocked in others. And the unelected Senate will hurry its work so that the fix can be in before the elected Senators are approved by the "neutral" election commission. Corruption is rampant. Just look around.

UDD= Uneducated Dickheads for Dictatorship.

Sorry could resist a quick resist a quick change of that anagram to make it more accurate.

Anyone else?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Wow! You are so intelligent. And such a poet! Great to know that the democrats have people of such towering stature on their side.

Well here's a here's a good control group for a little experiement;

We all know the grenades fall like clockwork a Yellow gatherings. Let's keep a tally for how many land when the Reds are in town. Put this whole "third-hand" hypothesis to the test.

Very few, since it is the yellows who throw the grenades at their own rallies, trying to convince someone, anyone, that the country is in chaos and the military must intervene. Didn't work though, so they seem to have called the fellows back to the barracks.

The real question of import is this -

What will the UDD do in the event of a guilty verdict by the NACC and/or the Constitutional Court ? They have already said that they will not accept such a ruling. Pheu Thai has more than implied as much for themselves. If the UDD follows through with their threat to resist the judicial rulings, it will be a serious challenge to the very legitimacy of the judiciary and the checks and balances. But if Pheu Thai also resists such verdicts, it would be much more serious, because they symbolize the administration of the day. And if CAPO under Chalerm also chimes in with Pheu Thai - as he has without fail on every occasion in the whole of his public life - then it becomes even more serious. This is the real question of the day. The number of people the PDRC bring as opposed to the UDD is a parlour game. What is of consequence is the question as to what would happen if the courts were not respected.

The judiciary itself has created the challenge to its legitimacy. Everybody outside Thailand and more than 50% of the people in Thailand believe the courts are biased, and all the available evidence suggests such, so why should the people accept the ruling of the courts?

Instead of this "my dad is bigger than your dad" nonsense, perhaps they could hold a general election, no polling stations blocked, all parties involved and then see who gets the most votes.

The Thai People who are not sheep of a corrupt Government are aware of alleged corruption and abuses of authority by the current PTP Party

and the negative effects on the country associated with the influence of former prime minister Thakin Shinawatra.

In Jan 2014 the Election Commission (EC) had repeatedly stated it could not guarantee a fair election, but the Caretaker Government insisted on going ahead with it in a bid to whitewash its wrongdoings.

Was this a Democratic Election .............. No

Unless an election is fair, it can not be democratic.

Government supporters continued to threaten independent organisations, the people and political parties which opposed it. and the police fail to perform their duties.

Ms Yingluck had never called for the pro-government and red-shirt demonstrators to behave, suggesting that she supported the actions of these same redshirt demonstrators.

Thai People have witnessed red-shirt demonstrators threaten other party members without facing arrest.

The Democrat Party has also been threatened, many times if they want to campaign in Issan

During the 2005 general election, a political canvasser belonging to his party in Phichit province had been told to stop his campaigning.

When the threat was ignored, the canvasser was shot dead in front of his house three days before the election. Police have still not arrested any suspects

In 2014 things are even worse. Anti-government demonstrators were being ambushed on a main Hyway and no suspects had been arrested.

Under these circumstances, No other party but the PTP is safe to campaign for votes in the North East of Thailand

“The [Democrat] party conducted a survey of potential candidates nationwide and found that 80% had no safe place to campaign for votes, except those in the South, Bangkok and parts of the Central Plains.

So, is this a democratic Election, is it fair if only one political party can campaign for votes but others cannot,

Wow! What planet are you from?

Instead of this "my dad is bigger than your dad" nonsense, perhaps they could hold a general election, no polling stations blocked, all parties involved and then see who gets the most votes.

you left out...

no 500 baht incentives

no intimidation

no blocking / threats to/of other parties from campaigning in all villages

anyone else want to add to this laundry list?

Sure, the Dems are guilty of all the above, but I don't think PTP are totally innocent either.

please point me to where the dems have blocked / threatened anyone from campaigning in certain villages/ towns/ districts?

I would suggest you worry about the current situation though, looks like another big ban from politics is coming to team red for obvious well documented reasons...or shall we start another list?

Rice, transfers, constitution, infrastructure voting....

If you didn't notice the Dem intimidation across the south in the last election, or any of the news stories that said the Dems spent more on vote buying than the PTP, you really are clueless.

Hilarious. But at least you are explicit in your rejection of democracy. A true tory.

Seeing the BIG disadvantage and the abuse of democracy does not mean to reject it -

but if I knew a better form of government I would for sure reject democracy.

Until then power to the people - but first make sure they are decent and know what they are doing.

And who is to determine if they are decent enough to vote, or know enough to vote? You? Suthep? Please define how you will achieve this laudable goal. Then we will know what steps must be taken to ensure that at some date in the future the majority of the people of Thailand can be allowed to choose their own leaders.

And who is to determine if they are decent enough to vote

Indirectly, the courts using the laws of the land; if the people in their ignorance elect someone who is on it to steal and amass power for themselves and their cronies it is the duty of the courts to prosecute and if proven to be guilty, sentence those elected.

Of course they are going to be screaming "judicial coup!" to try and legitimize their corruption. Nixon (among others) must be kicking his ectoplasmic bum for not coming up with that spin.

Besides there are already some minimum requirements to be eligible for office, not being a convicted criminal is one of them, of course some become criminals (at least visibly so) during office, so that's what independent agencies and courts are for.

What do the courts have to do with whether or not uneducated people will be allowed to vote?

Amsterdam is brilliant. He describes Thai democrats struggling to overcome the oppression of rich fat cats who bend the law for their own interest. Your only response is "Thaksin". If Thaksin and all his kin were gone would it then be okay with you if the red shirts elected someone else (they are the majority, after all)? I doubt it. Their candidate would then be "follower of Thaksin" or "successor of Thaksin". No matter what, you will never be happy with majority rule, because it will always return someone who doesn't agree with your selfish desire to exploit the poor.

The problem with democracy is, that it works as it should only, when the majority is decent and well educated,

if this is not the case we will always have a ruling of the lower educated or indecent masses

Hilarious. But at least you are explicit in your rejection of democracy. A true tory.

Seeing the BIG disadvantage and the abuse of democracy does not mean to reject it -

but if I knew a better form of government I would for sure reject democracy.

Until then power to the people - but first make sure they are decent and know what they are doing.

And who is to determine if they are decent enough to vote, or know enough to vote? You? Suthep? Please define how you will achieve this laudable goal. Then we will know what steps must be taken to ensure that at some date in the future the majority of the people of Thailand can be allowed to choose their own leaders.

Amsterdam is brilliant. He describes Thai democrats struggling to overcome the oppression of rich fat cats who bend the law for their own interest. Your only response is "Thaksin". If Thaksin and all his kin were gone would it then be okay with you if the red shirts elected someone else (they are the majority, after all)? I doubt it. Their candidate would then be "follower of Thaksin" or "successor of Thaksin". No matter what, you will never be happy with majority rule, because it will always return someone who doesn't agree with your selfish desire to exploit the poor.

The problem with democracy is, that it works as it should only, when the majority is decent and well educated,

if this is not the case we will always have a ruling of the lower educated or indecent masses

Hilarious. But at least you are explicit in your rejection of democracy. A true tory.

On the contrary, democracy is by definition majority rule. If the majority are uneducated, then rule is based on decisions of the uneducated. Does that make sense for the good of the country?

Lets take the micro-example, a family of Mum, Dad, and 3 children, Should the desires of the children govern what the family does? Should the family have chocolate ice cream for dinner every night, and pizza at other times? Move the scenario forward 20 years, and the kids are now educated. They tell Mum and Dad they want their 5+ veges per day, that Dad should dump his gas-guzzler car for an economic one, and suggest Mum take a 2 km walk every evening. Which scenario makes for a successful family?

This is wrong in so many many ways. But first, is there any evidence that increased education leads to better political decision-making?

Most of the people in Thailand have a high school education, so I guess you want to limit the vote to people with Bachelor degrees? Or Masters? Or Phd? Its a great idea, and if you can implement it you will make Thailand the only country on earth with an education requirement to vote.

Your analogy reveals your preference for paternalistic rule. Father should direct all. Since men are better educated than women, do you also think women should not be allowed to vote. In Great Britain and America coloured people and immigrants are less educated than white or native people, so I guess they should not be allowed to vote either.

Your proto-faschist corporatist agenda is clear. Rule by the rich and elite. And don't say Thaksn is rich and elite as well, because vitually every elected leader on earth is rich and elite. The difference between them and Suthep is that they have actually been able to convince the people to elect them based on merit, while Suthep seeks office at the point of a gun, and has to repress the masses along the way.

Amsterdam is brilliant. He describes Thai democrats struggling to overcome the oppression of rich fat cats who bend the law for their own interest. Your only response is "Thaksin". If Thaksin and all his kin were gone would it then be okay with you if the red shirts elected someone else (they are the majority, after all)? I doubt it. Their candidate would then be "follower of Thaksin" or "successor of Thaksin". No matter what, you will never be happy with majority rule, because it will always return someone who doesn't agree with your selfish desire to exploit the poor.

The problem with democracy is, that it works as it should only, when the majority is decent and well educated,

if this is not the case we will always have a ruling of the lower educated or indecent masses

Hilarious. But at least you are explicit in your rejection of democracy. A true tory.

Amsterdam is brilliant. He describes Thai democrats struggling to overcome the oppression of rich fat cats who bend the law for their own interest. Your only response is "Thaksin". If Thaksin and all his kin were gone would it then be okay with you if the red shirts elected someone else (they are the majority, after all)? I doubt it. Their candidate would then be "follower of Thaksin" or "successor of Thaksin". No matter what, you will never be happy with majority rule, because it will always return someone who doesn't agree with your selfish desire to exploit the poor.

The Main "fat cat" who bends the law Is Thaksin...

Just before his sale of Shin Corp, He/ Government changed the law so that he would not have to pay Capital Gains Tax

His Sister (Yingluck) was investigated for selling her shares (at a profit) in Shin Corp just before Shin Corp sale was announced ..The investigation was about insider Trading...Information from Guess who). No further action was taken with the investigation....who ordered it stopped/ Guess who.

Yingluck sold shares in Ample rich at cost to avoid Income Tax...paper transfer only and dividends etc finished up in a Bank account of Thaksins wife Pojamon.

Yingluck was investigated to explain why in 2009/2010, 150M Baht was deposited in one of her Bank accounts and 166m was withdrawn (144 m in one day)...Where did that money come from (Big Brother ??) (Payment for support in Elections ?).

Since Thaksin was ousted, The Prime Ministers have been Proxies of ThaKsin which is beyond doubt...ask the man himself...he is so smug he has admitted it.

If Amsterdam is so brilliant, why is he consorting with a convicted criminal who jumped Bail. In a lot of modern countries ....Consorting with a criminal is an Offence./

"In Town" has made this post and attracted a "like" from the idiotic biased frequent poster "Fresian boppe" or whatever his name...shows the common mentatity.

You are a perfect example. I talk about democracy, you talk about Thaksin. I ask if anyone else can be elected by the red shirts, and you talk about Thaksin. I talk about justice for the millions of poor Thais excluded from democratic participation, and you talk about Thaksin. I talk about double standards and politicisation and bias in the "independent" judiciary and you talk about Thaksin. So predictable.

1. "The HRC must not define Human Rights for Thailand.". Really? There's a couple of things seriously wrong with this sentiment. Firstly, the HRC is totally apolitical and relies on decades of profound thought and formulation of what human rights are. Secondly, he dismisses the HRC while reaching out to the UN, Geneva, Western governments, and "international intervention". Do you think for one millisecond any country, the UN or Geneva will entertain helping any government that dismisses the HRC? North Korea maybe?

2. "Time for the PTP Govt. to quit obstructing the Thailand’s case at the ICC". Really? Ya don't say! But I do wonder why he did admit that PTP is obstructing international justice.

3."​Simple way…Stop drinking beer…boycott other entities engaged in anti-democratic activism.". Ok, so he recognises the redshirts are always too drunk. Good. That's the first step. Strange though to recommend the redshirts boycott themselves (allowing that payed for votes are not true democracy).

4. "Call the PDRC what they truly are…They are Thailand’s Taliban and must be stopped." Really? Of the two sides, which side uses the most bombs, drive-by shootings, and sabotage??? If there is to be one side labelled the Taliban, it is the reds.

5. "May take months or years, but intend to list members of Independent Organizations who are thwarting Democracy in Thailand." Really? Then what, bomb them?

6. "We intend to place International sanctions against individual members of the anti-democratic networks." Ok, so you'd support international sanctions against a convicted criminal who fled the country? (and is now in Dubai).

7. ...... I could go on.

Tough talk some of it, but very hollow....ridiculous all of it.

Where does this verbal dairrhea come from? Who could think this stuff up and have the gall to say it out loud?

1. The HRC is in no way apolitical. But if you feel this way, and think the HRC will be supported by international human rights groups and the UN, then you should have no problem with them sending monitors, right? They will clearly support your position, right? Or is it that international HR norms are really different than Thai human rights?

2. Agreed. PTP is not pressing the case out of concern it will provoke a coup, but that is bad strategy. So we agree on this one.

3. No. He is recommending they boycott the Thai beer companies funding Suthep's astroturf rallies.

4. Which side? The PDRC, the smart (who happily run over motorcyclists that dare impede their way), and parts of the military. Check your facts.

5. No, shame them, like they do the oligarchs in russia and burma.

6. Sure, why not.

7. but thanks for stopping now.

1. Read what he said. "HRC must not define Human Rights for Thailand." ie he does not want international norms. I would welcome international monitors.

2. I'm not convinced of your reasoning (excuse), but fine, you agree.

3. He didn't phrase it very well. Lawyers should choose their words carefully, especially lawyers dabbling n political issues.

4. The facts are clear, redshirts like to bomb their opponants.

​5. You say shame, I reckon assassinate.

6. Please say again....you'd support Thaksin facing international sanctions and justice? Good...we are getting somewhere.

Yes, I'm for Thaksin getting any form of justice. Also, Suthep, Abhisit, and a host of others.

1. "The HRC must not define Human Rights for Thailand.". Really? There's a couple of things seriously wrong with this sentiment. Firstly, the HRC is totally apolitical and relies on decades of profound thought and formulation of what human rights are. Secondly, he dismisses the HRC while reaching out to the UN, Geneva, Western governments, and "international intervention". Do you think for one millisecond any country, the UN or Geneva will entertain helping any government that dismisses the HRC? North Korea maybe?

2. "Time for the PTP Govt. to quit obstructing the Thailand’s case at the ICC". Really? Ya don't say! But I do wonder why he did admit that PTP is obstructing international justice.

3."​Simple way…Stop drinking beer…boycott other entities engaged in anti-democratic activism.". Ok, so he recognises the redshirts are always too drunk. Good. That's the first step. Strange though to recommend the redshirts boycott themselves (allowing that payed for votes are not true democracy).

4. "Call the PDRC what they truly are…They are Thailand’s Taliban and must be stopped." Really? Of the two sides, which side uses the most bombs, drive-by shootings, and sabotage??? If there is to be one side labelled the Taliban, it is the reds.

5. "May take months or years, but intend to list members of Independent Organizations who are thwarting Democracy in Thailand." Really? Then what, bomb them?

6. "We intend to place International sanctions against individual members of the anti-democratic networks." Ok, so you'd support international sanctions against a convicted criminal who fled the country? (and is now in Dubai).

7. ...... I could go on.

Tough talk some of it, but very hollow....ridiculous all of it.

Where does this verbal dairrhea come from? Who could think this stuff up and have the gall to say it out loud?

1. The HRC is in no way apolitical. But if you feel this way, and think the HRC will be supported by international human rights groups and the UN, then you should have no problem with them sending monitors, right? They will clearly support your position, right? Or is it that international HR norms are really different than Thai human rights?

2. Agreed. PTP is not pressing the case out of concern it will provoke a coup, but that is bad strategy. So we agree on this one.

3. No. He is recommending they boycott the Thai beer companies funding Suthep's astroturf rallies.

4. Which side? The PDRC, the smart (who happily run over motorcyclists that dare impede their way), and parts of the military. Check your facts.

5. No, shame them, like they do the oligarchs in russia and burma.

6. Sure, why not.

7. but thanks for stopping now.

Amsterdam is brilliant. He describes Thai democrats struggling to overcome the oppression of rich fat cats who bend the law for their own interest. Your only response is "Thaksin". If Thaksin and all his kin were gone would it then be okay with you if the red shirts elected someone else (they are the majority, after all)? I doubt it. Their candidate would then be "follower of Thaksin" or "successor of Thaksin". No matter what, you will never be happy with majority rule, because it will always return someone who doesn't agree with your selfish desire to exploit the poor.

I was also living and working in Bangkok in 2010 and I also saw firsthand the violence and rioting from the red shit protestors (terrorists). It was a war zone. Without the rioting and violence, there would have been no crackdown. Cause and effect.

What?

Too difficult to understand? Let me try and make it simpler. If the red shirt terrorists hadn't occupied downtown Bangkok for months on end in 2010, disrupted businesses (many of them their own supporters) and made it into a actual war zone with their constant shootings and bombings, there would have been no crackdown.

Let me make it simple for you. It involves third grade arithmetic, so you may not be quite ready for it yet, but do give it a try. Its helps to stretch soft, unformed minds.

Count the bodies.

Also, I am politically neutral, but seems you are not. You constantly refer to the red shirts as "terrorists", but not the yellow shirts or PDRC, although they also are engaged in political demonstrations.. Are you advocating against multi-party democracy? Are you engaging in the racist conceit that the red shirts are merely "buffaloes" and their lives and interests are unimportant? Do you really believe that millions of people who feel they have had a raw deal in Thailand are actually manipulated by a shadowy puppet master in Dubai. That they have no independent minds or morals or interests. You sir, are sad.