Pi Sek

Thaksin's son has said the voice in the tape is that of his old man.

Ouch! Neither Thaksin nor Yinglak will be happy with this.

I wonder if he'll issue a statement saying his Facebook page got hacked or something?

Well, if Thaksin's son Oak is to be believed, the audio clip was indeed of his father.

So, regardless of whether the people voted for Yinglak, her own deputy at the Defence Ministry is calling someone else his "boss" and "Mr. Prime Minister". Yinglak is not the Prime Minister according to the Deputy Defence Minister.

I guess we can forget about elections then, Yinglak's own team and her party's sponsor seem to have.

The Thai army's main responsibility (almost its only significant one) is supressing any threats to the existing power structure. As it has shown time after time after time, it has no qualms whatsoever about slaughtering large numbers of Thai citizens in pursuit of this goal so to the extent that Yingluck threatens the exisitng power structure, she faces the reciprocal threat of (yet another) coup. It's a very simple, straightforward relationship.

I think you got it backwards dude. It is the Shinawatra clan and the extremist communist factions that they have aligned with that have no qualms in murdering Thai citizens to further their goals. Can you please elaborate on what exactly you mean by slaughtering? If you are going to reference the legal control of a private army set up to deny Thai citizens of their rights then it is a non-starter. So go ahead and give us the details.

hahahaha Communists? Seriously, have you seen ever a communist, or any other person with leftist ideas here in Thailand? Oh, I get it… you tell by the red color of the "red-shirts". Perhaps you are too influenced by the education given by your government or Disney cartoons against all red, or Cuban or Russian accent…

Don't know why you all distress so with Yingluck. It does not matter who's the puppet in power. They are all garbage, here or anywhere in the world ...

When you were a kid at school, and talking to other kids about "when I grow up I want to be…" have you ever heard any of them say "I want to be a politician or president"? anyone…

Anyways, if here, or anywhere, had any government sympathizer with something like Communists, simmer down man, the CIA would had eliminated them surreptitiously, as they come doing throughout their brief history…

I do not sympathize with Yingluck, but I see here on TV a blind rage against "Shinawatra clan," as if the alternative to them, were to be the panacea to all our concerns as "guests" in their country. Here commands only one (or two) and got an army at his disposal, trained by whom we all know. Everything else is just makeup to everyone thinks that they are "playing to democracy".

I like Yingluck… from my condition as a man, I mean . To my rights as a citizen be stolen by a ugly guy, I'd rather be stolen by a beautiful female

Whilst I agree with you that "communism", which in its purest form is actually quite a nice concept, has been unfairly demonised by the West... there are Communist thinkers (e.g. Dr. Weng Tojirakarn) within the Shinawatras' camp. There are also leftist thinkers (e.g. Sombat Boonngamanong), but they are mostly the ones who side with the Red Shirt ideology rather than with the Shinawatras themselves.

Fascinating as it would be to discuss Thai politics with people who don't know the most elementary facts about the country's history (Really? You're posting about politics and you don't know what happened in 73 and 76?), my blood pressure is peculiarly sensitive to the presence of ill-educated fascists so, under doctor's orders, I must say goodbye.

As my profile suggests, I would argue that fascism has its pros. Of course it has its cons too (as does democracy).

What's interesting is: your unwillingness to discuss is a fascist trait.

I think it was Egypt that suffered a Thai style coup, actually.

I thought that too, actually. His removal was not democratic - and two wrongs don't make a right. Of course, the tricky question is: what would have made a right?

It explains the lack of integration in Thailand, they still havn't got a grasp of differentiation.

I think this bunch is more "apple on the head" stuff than calculus

The Thai word for calculus, if they don't use the word "calculus" (with a "T" sound for the "S"), is withi-kamnuan, or "method of calculation". I don't know many Thai people who understand exactly what it's for.

Lots of cracking snippets in this article…

Yingluck, who is also defence minister, said it's unclear at this stage if a committee would be set up for the task as it depends very much on the due process of the bureaucratic system.

Erm… no, it doesn’t at all. It depends on whether she wants to act justly or not. Her comments here suggested not.

"[We're] in a mode where everything is politicised. I want people to differentiate things," she said.

What is there to differentiate? Is Thaksin calling the shots with your own deputy at the Defence Ministry or not?

She went on to urge the public to give the government some time to prove itself.

After 2 years, I would say that the government has proved itself already, or certainly what’s motivates them. We’ve had a natural disaster (flooding), national electricity issues, continuing societal division, spiraling cost of living, employment issues, a farce of a Southern “peace deal”… the government has meanwhile been more preoccupied with the two mega scams (rice pledging scheme and 2.1 trillion Baht loan), moves to censor critics (whether they be the Constitution Court or a Facebook user), refusal to answer to official government watchdogs and an all-important move to offer whitewash Thaksin (including issue of a passport, totally illegally).

In a related development, Air Force commander-in-chief Air Chief Marshal Prajin Jantong said the supreme commander, General Thanasak Patimapra-korn, will discuss the leaked audio clip with the Navy and Army chiefs so they can take a common stance on the matter. Prajin added that the issue discussed in the clip would not necessarily manifest into reality.

So, the joint Chiefs of Staff are having a meeting to discuss a “common stance” and that what was discussed in the audio clip “might” not happen. Some could interpret that as a threat!

Asked whether he trusted the deputy defence minister, Prajin said all will be made clear and that the armed forces needed stability to continue their work. He went on to say that the clip needed to be authenticated first. As for the rude prefix Yuthasak allegedly used when referring to him in the clip, Prajin said it was all right, as the deputy defence minister was his "older brother" and boss.

When asked if the armed forces could accept Thaksin's return to Thailand provided he quits politics, Prajin said people should look at both sides of the issue. First, he said, the people should be united and love one another, and secondly, the law would have to be upheld in the cases Thaksin faces.

Very diplomatic, whilst clearly stating that Thaksin is not above the Law - I wonder if this guy could qualify as a minister in a Junta government? The armed forces need “stability”? Again, some could interpret that as a threat.

Sorry to dig up old content, but something in the news this morning about the infamous audio clip of Thaksin & Yuthasak highlighted another example of the "politically motivated" thing:

The clip that has gone viral has become another hot potato for the government.

While many believe it is genuine, Pheu Thai MPs claim it was made to sabotage the Yingluck government.

So, they're not saying whether it's real or not - they're saying its production was "politically motivated".

Whilst they are most likely correct, the "politically motivated' line has just been used to obfuscate the matter at hand, as it was by Thaksin.

The charges made against Thaksin were politically motivated... doesn't make them false however.

So you think they were politically motivated. Please tell me in what way and why you hold this view.

If he abused his position by purchasing land at way below market prices (because he could) and got sussed, then why is the prosecution politically motivated???

I think that the charges against Thaksin were politically motivated because the prosecution would not have followed through had there not been an enemy of Thaksin preaching about them to the public. If Thaksin had not been a politician, and was merely a purchasing manager for the police buying computers from his own computer company or something like that, he probably wouldn't have been prosecuted at all... there's no motivation to do so here, it's just run-of-the-mill endemic corruption which sadly seems to be accepted by the majority of Thais.

The charges against quite a lot of politicians are "politically motivated" - i.e. the motivation behind the charges is not for the public good, it is to bring someone down. Just like the murder charges (ridiculous though I think they are) against Abhisit & Suthep. Or like the charges against Berlusconi (which are very valid and should be heard).

Anyway, I really can't stand this "politically motivated" tag. It shouldn't matter who motivates a prosecution or why. At the end of the day, if someone has committed a crime, then that person should be charged. Unfortunately this is not always the case, especially in Thailand and especially for Thais with any degree of power.

(Edited to add the Berlusconi bit.)

Your 'run of the mill endemic corruption' would have netted the best part of a billion baht in profits overnight! Plenty of people have received prison sentences for stealing substantially less that that.

Correct, on both counts... I suppose the "plenty of people" that you mention above doesn't cover everyone!

The charges made against Thaksin were politically motivated... doesn't make them false however.

So you think they were politically motivated. Please tell me in what way and why you hold this view.

If he abused his position by purchasing land at way below market prices (because he could) and got sussed, then why is the prosecution politically motivated???

I think that the charges against Thaksin were politically motivated because the prosecution would not have followed through had there not been an enemy of Thaksin preaching about them to the public. If Thaksin had not been a politician, and was merely a purchasing manager for the police buying computers from his own computer company or something like that, he probably wouldn't have been prosecuted at all... there's no motivation to do so here, it's just run-of-the-mill endemic corruption which sadly seems to be accepted by the majority of Thais.

The charges against quite a lot of politicians are "politically motivated" - i.e. the motivation behind the charges is not for the public good, it is to bring someone down. Just like the murder charges (ridiculous though I think they are) against Abhisit & Suthep. Or like the charges against Berlusconi (which are very valid and should be heard).

Anyway, I really can't stand this "politically motivated" tag. It shouldn't matter who motivates a prosecution or why. At the end of the day, if someone has committed a crime, then that person should be charged. Unfortunately this is not always the case, especially in Thailand and especially for Thais with any degree of power.

(Edited to add the Berlusconi bit.)

I accept that Thai politicians are subjected to closer scrutiny than 'ordionary' people but why shouldn't they be, as they are in office, supposedly, to serve the people rather than themselves (it isn't like that in reality,clearly).

It is an accepted fact that Democrats are at an intelligence level that is way beyond that of Pheu Thai, and their lawyers are infinitely more clever than PT's lawyers. It stands to reason why Pheu Thai's commit corruption and fraud and get found out about their wrongdoings (this also stands for their PM's that get turfed out on a regular basis through impeachment brought on by the Democrats).

To get back to this so-called politically motivated thing with Thaksin. Are we supposed to let him get away with these crimes and when he was called to account for them he cries foul and bleats about these nasty Democrat politicians only splitting on him because they don't want him there running/ruining the country!! It is clearly 'not playing ball' if he gets reported for dodgy dealings, as this is Thailand and corruption is acceptable here, or so I am led to believe.

I'm not saying politicians shouldn't be under scrutiny. I'm not saying we should let Thaksin get away with any crimes - I think that he should have served his corruption sentence because he was guilty, and that that conviction is the least of his worries!

I'm not saying the judgement was political - in fact I will say it was correct. However, the fact that his crimes were brought to the public's attention in such a prominent fashion was most certainly political, and that's why the charges were "politically motivated".

As I struggled to emphasise before, I really don't give a damn what motivated the charges... he should have been charged, and he was. The "politically motivated" tag came for two reasons: firstly to cast doubt on the judgement, as he thought he can throw enough money at the problem to try and get off; and secondly to cast doubt in the minds of the Western media, and more gullible parts of the electorate. The first bit didn't come off; the second worked very well (and, in my opinion, that's why not everyone despises him).

Of course, he is despicable! The best fictional person I could liken him to is Emperor Palpatine from the Star Wars movies. He is a power-crazy demagogue who represents everything bad about democracy and shamelessly regards fear and deception as his allies.

Also, about the intelligence thing you bring up... I don't think the Democrat side is any more intelligent than the Peua Thai one. However, I do think that many of those within Peua Thai are just mercenaries doing what they're told in order to get paid vast sums of money. Many of the Democrats are, too... but the party line is more about developing the nation than serving the needs of Thaksin, so they just sound more intelligent.

The charges made against Thaksin were politically motivated... doesn't make them false however.

So you think they were politically motivated. Please tell me in what way and why you hold this view.

If he abused his position by purchasing land at way below market prices (because he could) and got sussed, then why is the prosecution politically motivated???

I think that the charges against Thaksin were politically motivated because the prosecution would not have followed through had there not been an enemy of Thaksin preaching about them to the public. If Thaksin had not been a politician, and was merely a purchasing manager for the police buying computers from his own computer company or something like that, he probably wouldn't have been prosecuted at all... there's no motivation to do so here, it's just run-of-the-mill endemic corruption which sadly seems to be accepted by the majority of Thais.

The charges against quite a lot of politicians are "politically motivated" - i.e. the motivation behind the charges is not for the public good, it is to bring someone down. Just like the murder charges (ridiculous though I think they are) against Abhisit & Suthep. Or like the charges against Berlusconi (which are very valid and should be heard).

Anyway, I really can't stand this "politically motivated" tag. It shouldn't matter who motivates a prosecution or why. At the end of the day, if someone has committed a crime, then that person should be charged. Unfortunately this is not always the case, especially in Thailand and especially for Thais with any degree of power.

(Edited to add the Berlusconi bit.)

Pol.Maj. Kamronwit Thoopkrachang, commander of the Bangkok Metropolitan Police, is also said to have submitted his leave to the office and believed to be traveling to Hong Kong with Mr. Chalerm.

So finally the Thai police gonna do their duty and fly to Hong Kong to arrest a fugitive criminal...............or do I read that wrong

I think you read that wrong.

I don't see how Thaksin committing fraud can be construed as being politically motivated. Is he supposed to get away with breaking the law simply because 'you are prime minister'. He got caught for committing fraud and ran away like a coward.

So where does this so called political motivation aspect come into the equation??? I just don't get it!!!

The charges made against Thaksin were politically motivated... doesn't make them false however.

Acting out crimes is necessary (for entrapment): police

As others have mentioned, the trial should be where judgement is passed by a judge; not by some policeman, who don't exactly have the best track record of non-involvement in crime, after they have beaten a confession out of some poor fall guy. As we all know: in Thailand, real top criminals are supported by authorities, not arrested.

She probably needs to change the water piping.

Yeah Ok, Unkomoncents

PI Sek did not say that at all and you very well know that he did not say that.

But here you are, redacting his brief statement and then extrapolating the nonsensical argumentum ad logicum straw men UTTERLY of your own creation. How fun it must be to placidly rework an honest response into such an egregious bolus of verbal excrement and then to serve it to unsuspecting members of this forum as foie gras.

You know that you're being dishonest and that you're defending hate and haters with your own disgusting crimes against logic but you do it anyway.

You knew that when you wrote that silly rant up there but you posted it any way.

To have done so, to have posted such an openly craven misrepresentation of Pi Sek's original post and to ascribe your rant to "WE" as if you spoke for some perceived majority was to insult the education, intelligence and the thought processes of the majority of this forum.

Your purpose was simply to fan dance and to pander to the lowest elements of human nature.

Ignorance (of the facts)

Hatred (of an American of Islamic origin)

Fear mongering

Prejudice

Exclusionary ritual and incantation

and much much more.

You and your lying, smearing hate-mongering antics are merely sharpening your opponents wit and strengthening their resolve.

Love

Donnie

Dear Love Donnie:

People like you and Pi Sek don't run countries. In fact, you charming firebrands couldn't run any organization bigger than a Dunkin Donuts franchise. You couldn't recognize an aggregate perspective if it gave you prostate exam. You can try to smear my thinking with creative accusations of racism all day long. The fact is that your concept of the collective good is as deficient as a contingency plan for a Ponzi scheme.

Tenderly,

Unkomoncents

I don't think any of this bickering is extending the debate at all.

As Donnie suggested, the Voice of Fear is strong within many - including you - and that is no insult... it is a shame.

My original point, which seems to have been lost, stands: bending to the will of the Voice of Fear is bending to the will of terrorism and is not helping. It exacerbates the problem and creates further division, which creates further tension and brings about further terrorism (on both sides, too!).

I won't go into whether or not people are wrong or right to "dress like a terrorist" when getting on airplanes because my opinion is so diametrically opposed to some others that it can only end up with some poor chap (maybe me, maybe someone else) getting offended. For this reason I decided to butt out of this thread but I got a Thaivisa notification that someone liked my original post which led me to your comment above.

Some have suggested that I "sit on a plane next to this guy for 23 hours" in an attempt to prove whether people are scared of this type of thing or not, and whether this is justified. Well, when I was managing a project in Narathiwat (2009-2011), I had FAR more obvious examples of perceived threats to my safety (I see you changed your post from "you can be sure people like you don't manage anything" to "couldn't run any organization bigger than a Dunkin Donuts franchise"). I was slightly worried more than once, but I found I was wrong to be. However, you're right, I don't manage countries. I can't see what is "firebrand" about my posts either, I just said I was sickened by the inherent prejudice against guys with beards on a gap year from college. Maybe you can enlighten me.

No, I don't offer enlightenment, unfortunately for me. I see this man's perspective. I also see the perspective of people who have survived terrorist attacks. As some my family friends died in the attacks on 9/11, I happen to choose what I see is a safer perspective. If this gentleman was smart, he would have cooperated, as trying to be Che Guevera will get trustafarian political dilettantes nowhere. I'm not sorry, I don't care. This has nothing to do with me outside my preference for freedom balanced with safety. You can preach all day long about how this man is innocent but I don't care. You are simply speaking speculatively about what you think you know and what you think you don't know. At the end of the day, it's irrelevant whether you think this is "just" or not. It's irrelevant what I think. A far larger system than (it seems) you could begin to contemplate exists, and if you look closer, the number of people who are perfectly content with the ability to care for their families makes the number of psychopaths who think the world cares about their tribal political views look insignificant. Western philosophy helps people conclude that their personal gripes somehow matter to the world. They don't.

Again, you're mis-interpreting what I was writing... I'm not saying this guy is innocent or guilty. The US aren't offering anything to say about this guy's innocence/guilt and neither is anyone else - outside public discussion.

I'm saying that some of the comments in public discussion reflect fear through ignorance, and that is dangerous because it makes other ignorant people hate more, which genuinely makes me afraid for the future of the human race and therefore sickens me. It's going backwards, not forwards - and offers no solution to any problem. I think that's what Donnie was suggesting too.

Muslims make up a significant proportion of the human race, and we have people here posting utter hatred - "How to wink at a Muslim" being a great example. How can this type of stuff do anything other than create further hatred and division? It's not about taking sides, it's about mutual human respect.

There's some sickening opinions on here.

Muslims may be responsible for most of the Western-reported terrorism but the terrorism that goes on every day in the name of freedom - of which this is an example - is not acceptable.

You need to take a look at yourselves and ask whether you are part of the problem.

Are you trying to suggest that the posters on TV are even remotely personally responsible for human atrocities that occur all over the world and have occured throughout history? By this logic, it would make sense for each individual German to apologize for what happens in Palestine, each Russian to apologize for what happens in post-Soviet satellite states like Turkmenistan, each denizen of Japan to personally apologize for what happened in China, each American to apologize for every Iraqi casualty, and all Europeans and Americans to apologize for the state of Africa today. Not only would that be absurd, but it would simultaneously suggest that only Americans are responsible for Islamic terrorism, as though Muslims themselves never should have to bear any responsibility for the state of affairs in their respective countries. I think most people around the world would like to go about their days taking care of business and family without worrying about whether a bunch of crazed-zealots are going to murder their husbands, wives, and children. Do TV posters strap on explosives and murder women and children? Your point makes a lot of sense (depending on perspective), but everything is relative, and if you go back far enough, we would all be criminals and murderers at some point. The question is, relatively speaking, who is more morally culpable for modern atrocities? You can make the argument that Linda in Kentucky is as culpable as Zacarias Moussaoui for violence and evil, but I wouldn't buy it, and I'm sure I'm not alone. I support more awareness of how certain countries foreign policies affect people around the world. I don't think that every American is personally responsible for what happens in Syria today.

Yeah Ok, Unkomoncents

PI Sek did not say that at all and you very well know that he did not say that.

But here you are, redacting his brief statement and then extrapolating the nonsensical argumentum ad logicum straw men UTTERLY of your own creation. How fun it must be to placidly rework an honest response into such an egregious bolus of verbal excrement and then to serve it to unsuspecting members of this forum as foie gras.

You know that you're being dishonest and that you're defending hate and haters with your own disgusting crimes against logic but you do it anyway.

You knew that when you wrote that silly rant up there but you posted it any way.

To have done so, to have posted such an openly craven misrepresentation of Pi Sek's original post and to ascribe your rant to "WE" as if you spoke for some perceived majority was to insult the education, intelligence and the thought processes of the majority of this forum.

Your purpose was simply to fan dance and to pander to the lowest elements of human nature.

Ignorance (of the facts)

Hatred (of an American of Islamic origin)

Fear mongering

Prejudice

Exclusionary ritual and incantation

and much much more.

You and your lying, smearing hate-mongering antics are merely sharpening your opponents wit and strengthening their resolve.

Love

Donnie

Dear Love Donnie:

People like you and Pi Sek don't run countries. In fact, you charming firebrands couldn't run any organization bigger than a Dunkin Donuts franchise. You couldn't recognize an aggregate perspective if it gave you prostate exam. You can try to smear my thinking with creative accusations of racism all day long. The fact is that your concept of the collective good is as deficient as a contingency plan for a Ponzi scheme.

Tenderly,

Unkomoncents

I don't think any of this bickering is extending the debate at all.

As Donnie suggested, the Voice of Fear is strong within many - including you - and that is no insult... it is a shame.

My original point, which seems to have been lost, stands: bending to the will of the Voice of Fear is bending to the will of terrorism and is not helping. It exacerbates the problem and creates further division, which creates further tension and brings about further terrorism (on both sides, too!).

I won't go into whether or not people are wrong or right to "dress like a terrorist" when getting on airplanes because my opinion is so diametrically opposed to some others that it can only end up with some poor chap (maybe me, maybe someone else) getting offended. For this reason I decided to butt out of this thread but I got a Thaivisa notification that someone liked my original post which led me to your comment above.

Some have suggested that I "sit on a plane next to this guy for 23 hours" in an attempt to prove whether people are scared of this type of thing or not, and whether this is justified. Well, when I was managing a project in Narathiwat (2009-2011), I had FAR more obvious examples of perceived threats to my safety (I see you changed your post from "you can be sure people like you don't manage anything" to "couldn't run any organization bigger than a Dunkin Donuts franchise"). I was slightly worried more than once, but I found I was wrong to be. However, you're right, I don't manage countries. I can't see what is "firebrand" about my posts either, I just said I was sickened by the inherent prejudice against guys with beards on a gap year from college. Maybe you can enlighten me.

There's some sickening opinions on here.

Muslims may be responsible for most of the Western-reported terrorism but the terrorism that goes on every day in the name of freedom - of which this is an example - is not acceptable.

You need to take a look at yourselves and ask whether you are part of the problem.

Are you trying to suggest that the posters on TV are even remotely personally responsible for human atrocities that occur all over the world and have occured throughout history? By this logic, it would make sense for each individual German to apologize for what happens in Palestine, each Russian to apologize for what happens in post-Soviet satellite states like Turkmenistan, each denizen of Japan to personally apologize for what happened in China, each American to apologize for every Iraqi casualty, and all Europeans and Americans to apologize for the state of Africa today. Not only would that be absurd, but it would simultaneously suggest that only Americans are responsible for Islamic terrorism, as though Muslims themselves never should have to bear any responsibility for the state of affairs in their respective countries. I think most people around the world would like to go about their days taking care of business and family without worrying about whether a bunch of crazed-zealots are going to murder their husbands, wives, and children. Do TV posters strap on explosives and murder women and children? Your point makes a lot of sense (depending on perspective), but everything is relative, and if you go back far enough, we would all be criminals and murderers at some point. The question is, relatively speaking, who is more morally culpable for modern atrocities? You can make the argument that Linda in Kentucky is as culpable as Zacarias Moussaoui for violence and evil, but I wouldn't buy it, and I'm sure I'm not alone. I support more awareness of how certain countries foreign policies affect people around the world. I don't think that every American is personally responsible for what happens in Syria today.

No, I'm suggesting that people shouldn't be supportive of clear measures to suppress freedom in the name of freedom. I don't think that's fair.

edit to add - especially when the only "threat" is derived through racial profiling.

There's some sickening opinions on here.

Muslims may be responsible for most of the Western-reported terrorism but the terrorism that goes on every day in the name of freedom - of which this is an example - is not acceptable.

You need to take a look at yourselves and ask whether you are part of the problem.

After seeing the video that katana kindly posted above, all I can say is that I hope this guy gets the help he is clearly in need of and not just left in prison or dumped back on the streets.

He's actually a verified agent at the Ministry of Extra-Terrestrial Protection.

This gets better every day... she puts herself in charge of the Ministry of Defence and then states she won't meddle. Then she adds that the only reason she's doing it is so she can find out what they do.

Some might praise her enthusiasm to "get involved" but couldn't she have got some lackey to report to her and sit under a real Defence Minister? She's the PM for goodness sake. Or maybe get someone close with some military understanding to run the ministry?

It all stinks. The only reasons I can think of this "appointment" are either to have a say in spending or to exercise some sort of "control". Like saying which unspecified VIPs get to use the new unspecified VIP Boeing.

If they started busting some Thai Mr. Bigs, it might help.

Personally I think the best way to curtail drug use is to give people something else to do.

One of the only positives I can see from this weekend's political news is the appointment of Paveena Hongsakul as Social Development Minister. The fact that most Thais (in my experience) identify her as some sort of Mother Theresa activist rather than a politician speaks volumes. She's one of very few politicians around that does a lot of work and one day I expect she'll be a senator.

It will be interesting to see what impact she can have on Thailand's ya-ba/ice (the two drugs that have serious nationwide issues at the moment) problem, as all previous governments have attacked the issue prohibitively, not socially.

actually it is quite a common occurrence in Thailand, but the ironic thing is the defendant has to pay everyone's fees still, even the judge.

Proof please , and not uninformed prejudice

Sent from my GT-S5360 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Sometimes lawyers here do not show up, especially defense lawyers or even the accused in civil cases, and especially when the accused are fighting the case as a stalling tactic not to pay something which is clearly documented they have to pay. I won't go into details, but I've seen this myself more than once. The usual line is sending a lackey from the office to tell the court "Sorry he can't come, he's sick". In criminal cases it is much more uncommon as the defence want to put on a good image.

In civil cases the defendant does not have to pay as stated by pikeybkk above, as the administrative court charges are paid by the plaintiff. In criminal cases I'm not sure who pays - but I think the Public Prosecutor's office does.

I have seen a judge say, "if the prosecutor's witness isn't here by lunch, we won't accept his testimony", although that was after the first no-show.