Pi Sek

I don't imagine shift of support has been done with benefits of their constituencies in mind, but it is considered acceptable to enjoy perks as a Thai MP in a ruling coalition. One could argue that they are doing what is best for their constituencies by publicly aligning themselves with those who have power, as their constituency might get more than if they didn't (I suppose this is where the legal issue comes up).

I think the Opposition is correct to scrutinise the nature of the shift of support, but should not focus too much on it as I expect they will be unlikely to find any irregularities.

A successful prosecution to a murder charge here would have to prove that Abhisit & Suthep ordered the shooting-to-kill of foreign journalists, no?

I thought it was some splinter Red Shirt stages set up after the main one was dispersed on 19 May that was calling for "action" against foreign journalists?

When some idiot American soldiers behaved badly during the Vietnam war, it caused all the soldiers there to suffer and was counter to the war efforts. This undermines the Thai security operations.

Interesting how the government tells people to kill, maim and cause suffering to fellow humans for the governments gains and in fact say they should be seen as heroes for doing such but then look at these soldiers as evil if they do any of these things for their own gains ... in reality governments expect these kinds of acts during war time and really don't care much about them unless of course they become public.

You just cannot give people the right to kill and hurt others and not expect a good number of them to act out in ways they normally would have never done. An example is the US Military, which is much more professional, trained and accountable than the Thai Military, where rape is now at a point which they themselves describe as epidemic but still have done nothing to curtail the increasing incidents.

<deleted>! conscript some poor kid, put him in a green uniform and teach him to use a rifle, and instantly he turns into a killing machine devoid of all moral judgement and quite happy to rape any woman that gets within penis range.

Could there not be some social and situational problems here? Young men scared crapless that they could be killed or maimed at any time may resort to intoxicants off duty, they may have problems differentiating the willingness to participate in sexual congress of the local girls compared to those at home, they may also be quite attractive in some of their attitudes and other attributes, especially disposable income (flash Harrys, if you like) to local girls.

Are the girl's parents likely to consider consensual fraternisation/canoodling as much different from sexual assault? Will there be obvious differences between rape and consensual sex, with or without 4 male muslim witnesses? What does a society that seems to view a girl as a chattel valued somewhat less than a cow but more than a goat think about her voluntarily deciding to marry outside her religion? Could not some local women see marriage as an escape from a restrictive religion?

Not when they're 10 years old.

Will the government minister care to come and take my wife away. She won't stop asking for more money. She keeps saying prices are up. I fear she may be crazy,

If she keeps on with these slanderous statements, I would contact Prompong's office and get him to raise a defamation charge. For the good of the country, of course.

Interesting to see how few people on here have been fooled by the preposterous suggestion that Thailand has any chance whatsoever of re-gaining the #1 rice export position by the end of the year; but the vast majority of Thais don't even know they're not #1 any more.

That's the point though isn't it.

Looters,arsonists, redshirts, call them what you like they did burn down Zen.

I'm amazed at the video of Centralworld burning down almost exactly 3 years ago late afternoon.

Cameramen milling around. Onlookers,locals, redshirts looking on.

Why was it that the fire engines didn't arrive until 10 pm?

The public it seems were invited to observe this spectacle of a massive department store burning down and no-one was there to try and save the site.

Amazing.

For whose edification was this display presented?

We now know that Centralworld wanted their own instore staff to return after leavinh at 4:40 pm to return at 7 pm to save their shop.

For reasons unknown the army wouldn't allow it.

Later Abhisit claimed the redshirts prevented the fire brigade from presenting.

I would love to hear what they the fire brigade have to say and furthermore I would love to hear what the security and ancillary staff/shopkeepers present on the day have to say.

It's been 3 years now.

Are you deliberately obtuse? You have finally admitted that the looting redshirt arsonists burnt Centralworld, but now its the army's fault because the fire engines didn't come. Do you think that arsonists appreciate firemen spoiling their fun? Is it not possible that these armed persons in full dummy-spit mode might prevent firemen from dousing their flames by attacking them?

Sorry, I haven't got a video of that, so it obviously didn't happen.

I remember news at the time saying the firefighters were being prevented from working and being shot at. As we all know the Red Shirts were unarmed (!), it must have been the army.

I have found the Rawai area to be far more dangerous in terms of drunken moron tourists than Patong.

Similarly, Lamai attracts a lot more of the "wrong type" than Chaweng.

I wonder how much stronger the PAD will get in the next couple of weeks.

And as more evidence piles up, Red Shirt fans slide further and further into self delusion.

It's amusing, a little sad, but amusing to see this process.

Reminds me of the recent "Thaksin should respect the Law" thread where a pro-Red poster claimed that Thaksin "could not be considered a terrorist if he was organising and funding the armed faction of Red Shirts". His justification of this - "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

Truly, I've had Red Shirts claim to me until they're blue in the face (ironic, eh) that the army killed 20 Red Shirts in 2009 too, although we've yet to hear about any witnesses, missing persons reported - nada. Or that Jatuporn's proven fake voice clip of Abhisit issuing orders to "kill them all" wasn't actually faked after all

Astonishing (to me, anyway). A little sad, yes, but I'm a little too jai-ron to consider it "amusing". Amazing, maybe.

Or to put it another way... Thaksin won his election fairly in 2001, won fairly again in 2005 (through some "fairly" underhand tactics, much the same as how the last Democrat govt was formed... i.e. join us and get rich). Then he called a snap election, with some unbelievably dodgy election protocol and, when this election was annulled and the Election Commission (which Thaksin had stacked with allies) were impeached, he decided that he should be caretaker PM in 2006 after he dissolved his government at the behest of quite a lot of people. He is autocratic, the opposite of democratic.

As regards the Democrats under Abhisit, the boycott of the April 2006 snap election was absolutely justified and, yes, he has lost at every general election he has run in. But, to put it in perspective... he has always accepted the election results. Oh, and he never "stalled going to another". That decision was made by UDD leaders on television after one of them got an SMS. I have yet to see any evidence that suggests Abhisit's hand was forced to disperse a violent armed insurrection attempt, and I have yet to see anything that suggests this insurrection wasn't organised and funded by Thaksin. If Thaksin was organising and funding the armed faction of Red Shirts (which isn't proven), would that make him a terrorist in your book?

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

Acknowledged, but that doesn't answer the question.

On balance, because of the military & judicial coups, I'd have to say no (ie. he'd be justified in funding a fightback).

btw, most likely the MIB were a military faction anyway

OK, so Thaksin was funding a "fightback" - against what...? The constitutional rules that he broke? Or the constitutional rules the army broke when they disbanded TRT? Or the unconstitutional removal of an unconstitutional caretaker PM? (The supreme Court didn't break any rules when they disbanded PPP.)

I do not believe from the facts we have available on public record that the MIB were a military faction. It is fairly clear that they were working together with the Red Shirt leadership, as the Truth & Reconciliation Committee found and provided evidence for.

No, they were seen hurriedly leaving the building by a back entrance from one of the upper floors. At the time twitter was full of accounts.

Another example of this high-stakes form of negative public relations strategy involved the evacuation of Chulalongkorn Hospital in Bangkok on April 30, 2010. It was widely reported that the evacuation was prompted by an invasion of Red Shirt demonstrators searching for snipers. In fact, the incident was planned in advance by the Government Leadership and the Army Leadership, in collusion with certain members of the Thai media and certain members of the board of Chulalongkorn Hospital. After members of the press challenged Red Shirt leaders to back up their claims that Army snipers had fired shots from atop the hospital, hospital management immediately ordered the evacuation. There was never any genuine belief that the Red Shirt leaders presented a threat, and the orders to evacuate were given in order to heighten tensions and reinforce the false impression that the Red Shirts were violent and a threat to the monarchy.

.

Planned in advance? So they knew that the red shirts would storm a hospital?

Could the red shirt leaders back up their claims that Army snipers had fired from the hospital?

Having red shirts wandering around a hospital armed with sticks etc looks like a threat to the patients to me.

It does to any reasonable person too.

In Samui, mostly power cuts don't affect Phang Ka/Thong Krut/Taling Ngam as it does for the rest of the island because the sub-station is there. (Late last year most of Samui had no power for 3 days - Thong Krut and Phang Ka didn't have a problem.)

Last night power went down around 7pm. Mobile networks were down a lot too. I called a friend who lives in Bophut, power came back around 9-9.30 but Thong Krut was still black as night, and I went to sleep at around 10.30pm. I woke up at 5.30 this morning and power was on.

Somehow I don't think we've seen the last of this.

You perception seems a bit off - Thaksin is the guy who has always been happy to contest elections, and Abhisit is the guy from the party which has boycotted one election, and stalled going to another (at great cost to life and limb of many Thai)

Or to put it another way... Thaksin won his election fairly in 2001, won fairly again in 2005 (through some "fairly" underhand tactics, much the same as how the last Democrat govt was formed... i.e. join us and get rich). Then he called a snap election, with some unbelievably dodgy election protocol and, when this election was annulled and the Election Commission (which Thaksin had stacked with allies) were impeached, he decided that he should be caretaker PM in 2006 after he dissolved his government at the behest of quite a lot of people. He is autocratic, the opposite of democratic.

As regards the Democrats under Abhisit, the boycott of the April 2006 snap election was absolutely justified and, yes, he has lost at every general election he has run in. But, to put it in perspective... he has always accepted the election results. Oh, and he never "stalled going to another". That decision was made by UDD leaders on television after one of them got an SMS. I have yet to see any evidence that suggests Abhisit's hand was forced to disperse a violent armed insurrection attempt, and I have yet to see anything that suggests this insurrection wasn't organised and funded by Thaksin. If Thaksin was organising and funding the armed faction of Red Shirts (which isn't proven), would that make him a terrorist in your book?

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

Acknowledged, but that doesn't answer the question.

I think this has been a long time coming. Justice Minister Pracha has never liked her because of both of their affiliations.

Earlier in her career, she established herself as the best forensics analyst in Thailand - the cream rose to the top. Later in her career she appeared arrogant and not scrutinising enough in her analysis - she got rich, famous and lazy.

As for the GT-200 involvement - she may have authorised her deputy to sign for it, maybe due to some misplaced confidence, but it wasn't her that signed for it.

She certainly was never a fraud, although maybe she decided to become a charlatan at some point.

I most certainly do not have the hots for her!

There are no cleanskins in Thai politics, but the major difference is Thaksin gets his power from the people whilst Abhisit got his from the military++

Someone who gets power from the people can be removed by the people when they are sick of him, but how do you remove the military++ ?

Even by your own "logic" you fail, "Abhisit got his (power) from the military++", then you say only people voted in can be removed by the electorate.

Thaksin was removed by the military after most people were sick of him but he refused to let go of the premiership (as he had promised) by reinstating himself as PM after dissolving parliament and calling sham elections riddled with electoral frauds. Obviously the people had no power to vote him out at that stage.

Abhisit on the other hand stepped down graciously after the last election.

I suggest you readjust your perception of reality and historical facts.

You perception seems a bit off - Thaksin is the guy who has always been happy to contest elections, and Abhisit is the guy from the party which has boycotted one election, and stalled going to another (at great cost to life and limb of many Thai)

Or to put it another way... Thaksin won his election fairly in 2001, won fairly again in 2005 (through some "fairly" underhand tactics, much the same as how the last Democrat govt was formed... i.e. join us and get rich). Then he called a snap election, with some unbelievably dodgy election protocol and, when this election was annulled and the Election Commission (which Thaksin had stacked with allies) were impeached, he decided that he should be caretaker PM in 2006 after he dissolved his government at the behest of quite a lot of people. He is autocratic, the opposite of democratic.

As regards the Democrats under Abhisit, the boycott of the April 2006 snap election was absolutely justified and, yes, he has lost at every general election he has run in. But, to put it in perspective... he has always accepted the election results. Oh, and he never "stalled going to another". That decision was made by UDD leaders on television after one of them got an SMS. I have yet to see any evidence that suggests Abhisit's hand was forced to disperse a violent armed insurrection attempt, and I have yet to see anything that suggests this insurrection wasn't organised and funded by Thaksin. If Thaksin was organising and funding the armed faction of Red Shirts (which isn't proven), would that make him a terrorist in your book?

That's the point - he shouldn't have been PM - he was only there because of the coup process (military then judicial coups)

Both Abhisit & the redshirts knew that.

If Abhisit really believed in democracy he wouldn't have taken the position that was handed to him, or at the very least he should have gone to the electorate immediately to prove his legitimacy.

Redshirts were protesting about the injustice of how Abhisit was installed as PM, and the Thai people eventually proved that Abhisit was an illegitimate PM, as evidenced by the overwhelming result once the election was finally held.

You do know that Abhisit was elected by those who elect Prime Ministers (i.e. the electorate, which is made up of Members of Parliament), right? So, after the electorate voted him in, why should he have gone to the electorate immediately to prove his legitimacy?

Can you explain how the "judicial coup" that ousted Somchai for electoral fraud (under rules from both the 1997 and the 2007 constitutions) had anything to do with why MPs elected Abhisit after PPP was dissolved?

If you can give decent answers to these questions, you will be doing your own argument a great service.

The Thai people in 2011 proved that they wanted a PTP-led government in 2011. It says nothing about whether Abhisit was a legitimate Prime Minister, all it says is that PTP won the election. There are many possible reasons for PTP winning the election, including the promise to make all Thais rich within 6 months and their promises that their actions will be for the country (not for one man). Their dwindling support over the last year or so suggests the public are not as impressed with their performance in 2013 as they were with their potential in 2011.

You know the deal to put Abhisit in was done by the military plus an "irresistible power" (as Chumpol Silpa-archa called it)

As for dwindling support, I'm happy to see that tested at elections, and will accept whoever the electorate chooses - will you?

1) Yes, I'm aware of the meeting at Prem's house. I'm also aware that the Silpa-archa family business, Chart Thai Pattana, was worried about being Bhum Jai Thai'd like the Chidchob family was. Besides, they were "forced to" join the Democrat coalition before it was ever formed? It was a business proposal, which was duly accepted... there was no reason that the party couldn't have changed its mind the next day. One person has claimed the purpose of this meeting was to "force" other parties to join the Democrat-led coalition and many have refuted it. Note that Chumphol only said this after the Democrat govt had been dissolved in preparation for new elections, and Chart Thai Pattana had already put their chips in with Peua Thai's stack.

2) Yes. I accepted it last time and I will again next time. The last election was one of the fairest that Thailand has ever seen.

What is the difference between fighting DSI murder charges in Thailand and jumping bail after being convicted by a Thai court?

I know which one I would choose as an example of respect for the law.

Sent from my GT-I9003 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

He jumped bail before he was convicted - his trial was pending. He wouldn't have be en able to jump bail afterwards as he was to be tried by the Supreme Court, which is the third and highest court in Thailand (Supreme Court > Court of Appeals > Provincial Courts).

His point of view is that, to respect the Law, he had to completely disrespect it first, because he says the courts are corrupt. The very-carefully explained 6-hour verdict was pure fabrication, and that's why no one has been able bothered to refute any of it.

Any Thaivisa reader who has not read Orwell's 'Animal Farm' should do so immediately.

Animal Farm is an excellent read if one holds Thai politics in mind.

But actually your point has a flip side... one could also read Orwell's 1984 or, even better, Huxley's Brave New World. That's the essential message we get from the more intellectual Red Shirts like Sombat Boonngamanong and Veera Musikapong.

Is a coup a rule of law?

No. And?

And you can't see the inference? Odd, it's quite obvious

>

Yeah, right. So you believe all the PTP BS for one then.

Presumably you'd like Thaksin to stand up for all the other outstanding criminal charges he's facing. And maybe someone (not the DSI) should start an investigagtion into all those "judicial" executions and disapperances whilst your hero was in charge.

We don't want any double standards now do we?

His 'hero'? How old are you? Why the need to be so overly aggressive when the poster ha a valid point . . . and I have yet to see him state that Thaksin shouldn't be held accountable for his crimes . . .

Infantile much?

1) No, it's not really obvious. The Democrats didn't support the coup... they just didn't go any further in their condemnation of it than saying "it was undemocratic". You are buying into the Thaksin-sponsored belief that the coup-makers, the Democrats and PAD are the same people.

2) Yes, it is infantile, as is the nature of the Thai political divide. Right and wrong are no longer of relevance and have been replaced by colour-coding, much as a devoted fan of Michael Jackson won't give credence to any kiddie-fiddling accusations and a devoted bunch of football hooligans don't see anything wrong with tearing up a public train.

Excellent post (edit to add - ^^ TheGhostWithin's post above).

I too am familiar with the Deep South, much moreso than Chalerm. I am most acquainted with Narathiwat as I did a big job down there a few years ago.

Chalerm is right that, based on a ceteris paribus assumption, then poor police work will result in less convictions. However one cannot work on a ceteris paribus assumption because, as is the crux of your point, all other things are not equal.

Chalerm knows only too well and first-hand that reminding witnesses of repercussions can result in a case where the accused is blatantly guilty of murder getting thrown out due to lack of evidence.

<snip>

Now back to the OP where obviously Abhisit/Suthep can be charged for murder as the army just shot up some unarmed protesters.

BTW with "Black Shirts, a radical faction under the Red Shirts, started firing grenades" so clinically described, the other side should be described as "he Army when returning fire after terrorists started to fire grenades, unfortunately caused some collateral damage".

You can look at it in two ways, unless I am being unfairly tunnel-visioned:

1) A faction of the Red Shirt movement opened fire on the army and the army were over-zealous, scared, poorly prepared, or whatever other reason when responding in kind in later-date operations.

2) The army were correct to respond in kind as they were faced with an armed threat when attempting to restore order.

Note that there are arguments for and against bringing the army into the equation in the first place.

As regards Suthep/Abhisit, their exact involvement and their orders behind closed doors are not public knowledge - but their official orders were quite clearly stated pubicly on television almost every day, and their official orders were not the "kill 'em all" that Jatuporn and his ilk would have us believe, they were to follow internationally-accepted guidelines to deal with civil strife. That means that, even if it is judged in a court of Law that soldiers were shooting-to-kill, there is not a court in the world that would (or could) convict Abhisit & Suthep of murder.