LevelHead

"He added, "The game must end. Therefore, that each Minister sends their children and wives to somewhere else, so they can escape in the case of emergency,"

Oh, how delightful of him - I control the protestors and I will not stop them from harming your families..... class, pure class....

An eye for an eye.

The Red shirt should not have threaten similar thing to the general's twin daughter in Phitsanulok.

A bit of a difference when its some red shirt who most people have never heard off and is running a splinter group AND the leader and chairman of the PDRC.

Or should we compare things Thida of the UDD says with the leader of the students who wants to shut down the SET and the airports...................

Also if you work on the principle of an eye for an eye, soon everyone is blind..................

It was not Yingluck who said she would not resign

It was Thaksin who said she would not resign

Poor now even allowed to make her own decisions about her own life ..

YS ...... "Thaksin is it ok if I go potty now"

You have made an outrageous allegation here which is highly inflammatory.

You state "It was Thaksin who said she would not resign"

You have not put this as an opinion, you have not referred to unverified and therefore possible false newspaper reports from unnamed and unknown people.

You have made a claim it was Thaksin.

Please back up this absolute allegation you have made with unequivocal proof that your statement is 100% correct !

I find it very difficult to believe that the rest of the world would accept Yingluck being held accountable if "something happens". What kind of rubbish is this? Thailand would become (even more of) an international laughing stock in the event that an elected PM is held responsible for the actions of anti-democratic street thugs. That would lead to sanctions, trade embargoes, investors fleeing the country, ASEAN intervention. It's complete rubbish. Classics case of blaming the victim.

Avoiding acknowledging the 'elephant in the room' are we? The OP is about a former Thai PM, who is a convicted felon living abroad to escape a prison term, ruling through his baby sister and telling her what to do in every circumstance.

I am confused here a little, perhaps someone can help ? I am referencing to the bold type above about the convicted felon.

Thaksin was convicted because his former wife committed an offense and purchased land from the government - is this correct ?

But the former wife of Thaksin was never actually convicted of any offense. I think the history books will show she was never actually convicted of any offense.

So, is it therefore correct that Thaksin was convicted by association to an illegal offense his former wife committed, even though she was never actually convicted of anything illegal.

Just want to be sure that in this case, nobody was convicted of any offense, apart from Thaksin for association with something that was not, it seems, illegal, according to the facts that nobody was convicted apart from him ?

Wonder if anyone can put some meat on that bone, is it correct ?

Not correct.

Yes there is discussion that a Thai wife must get the permission of her husband to buy land, but that's not quite correct, it's more of a common practice (to some extent from the past) rather than the law.

Now the real reason why the paymaster got sentenced to two years in jail. He was convicted of abuse of power. In Thailand (as in probably in every other country in the world, the law totally prohibits prime ministers (and other elected folks) from both buying state property and from signing documents (as the person who must sign to sell on behalf of the state) to sell to family members.

The law is quite clear, he broke the law (no maybe), he was convicted and sentenced to 2 years in jail.

It cannot even remotely be labeled as a politically motivated case.

The case was heard and the sentence pronounced during the tenure of his own political party.

Did his then wife also break the law? Probably not, however she is a very experienced business woman including vast long-term experience in real estate and had lawyers in her employ, and there can be little doubt that she knew the appropriate laws (as mentioned above) very well, and therefore knew what was happening was illegal.

Did the beaurocrats who prepared the state documents and witnessed the paymaster signing the documents (there was a photo op and the pics appeared in newspapers) break the law? Who knows, but there can be no doubt that they knew what they were witnessing was illegal.

So what you are saying is :

Nobody was convicted of anything apart from Thaksin, for something his wife did (as she purchased the land, the government of Thailand sold it)

She was innocent of any charges as was everyone else in the chain, the only person guilty of any offense at all is this illegal matter was Thaksin for signing the papers.

Everyone else involved in this illegal matter was never convicted of any wrongdoing, just him.

Interesting.

Sadly it's only a threat. If there would be a corruption blacklist or something in Thailand, these 5 guys would be in the top 10.

Thats interesting.

Can you back up this allegation of corruption against these 5 people with a list of all corruption convictions they have, along with a list of all the corruption charges filed against them which are pending with the police.

Thanks in advance .

It is very simple in my opinion and my opinion is below :

The caretaker government cannot delay the election. It has to be carried out before February the 6th or the caretaker government will be in breach of the constitution and the PDRC will pretty surely in my opinion on Feb 7th be straight along to file a complain with the Constitution Court to get a new PM appointed.

The Constitution of Thailand says that an election is to be held within a fixed timescale (presently Feb 6th is the deadline), and if the seats are not filled then by-elections are to be held until the seats are filled.

Until 95% of the seats are filled by way of election, or series of by-elections after the initial election, the caretaker government stays in power.

When by-elections have been held, over and over again if necessary, and 95% of the seats are filled then the new parliament is in effect.

The caretaker government cannot delay the election. The only way it can be delayed is if the Constitution Court rules in advance that it can be delayed. If there is no Constitution Court ruling in advance that it may be delayed then any delay will breach the Constitution and the Constitution Court will find the caretaker PM and the caretaker government in breach.

I agreed with you. Only that the Constitution Court cannot rules in advance that it can be delayed. It will be unconstitutional if the section concerned is not amended. The CC is to follow the law passed by parliament. They have no power to make law and ruling must follow the principle of justice and evidence, not personal opinions.

Thanks, so its all very clear then.

The law of the land says an election has to be held by Feb 6th.

It can only be delayed in the event of a national emergency, like countrywide flooding or earthquake or something.

In the absence of national emergency the election has to go ahead, whether it is successful or not. If not successful then by-elections can be held in individual constituencies or if a total failure a new election can be called within 180 days of the failed one.

Caretaker PM and cabinet stay in power until a successful election is held.

A caretaker prime minister and their caretaker cabinet would be in breach of the constitution and in serious trouble if they delayed an election for any other reason other than that of a national emergency.

I think my opinion above just about covers it then now.

The only problem is that the questions being asked cannot be answered by an election. Large sections of society support PTP and large sections of society do not. We have a society of polar opposites and supporters who are vocal and vociferous in their near hatred of each other.

Returning PTP to power will not pacify those who are opposed to PTP and all it stands for. The idea that keeps being bleated "democracy and we have the majority" is of little concern to those who oppose the, at times shambolic mis-administration of the country. Returning PTP will not change their views of opposition. The protests will not go away, Thailand will remain bogged down in a stalemate

The simplest analogy i can give to this election as a panacea to Thailand's problems is this - Imagine going to a doctor complaining of a broken arm (protestors complaints) and he amputated your leg (election results)- Oversimplistic - perhaps but it gets the point across that the symptom has not been addressed and still persists and the medication has only made matters worse

That a small section of the country is not happy with PTP is not a real valid concern.

No government will ever have total support, there will always be those who complain. The protests so far have at most only got around 200,000 people, which is less than 0.5% of the Thai population. You cannot hold 99.5% hostage for the whims of the 0.5%.

Majority rule from elections is the fundamental point of all democratic countries.

The rules do not need changing, PTP do not need to be decimated.

It needs a new alternate and real opposition party to come up that will take away the PTP vote.

Most people in Thailand see Suthep and Abhisit and the Democrats as more corrupt than Thaksin, people who have sold their souls time and time again for money and power and land and favour. Now, people can have that opinion, that is their human right and its that opinion which makes the Democrats unelectable. Vote buying is an excuse, a very poor excuse for the simple fact that the Dems are, in my opinion, despised by a large swath of the population.

So the only reform needed is to the opposition, they need to start thinking about the whole country, the whole population, the need to get rid of their perceived corrupt leaders and sponsors and make themselves electable, that is my opinion.

An election with a good opposition is the way to defeat PTP and until the new party comes up, or the Democrats reform themselves and their backers massively.

I therefore do not see what the problem is.

Have an election.

EC declares the election void.

Constitution states that another election must be held in 180 days.

180 days allows for reforms to be made under the present caretaker government in line with the Constitution.

Democrats can enter the next election. All very simple and the Constitution of Thailand is correctly adhered to by all parties.

If everyone holds the Constitution as the law, then it must be adhered to, which means the 2nd Feb election cannot be delayed.

I find it very difficult to believe that the rest of the world would accept Yingluck being held accountable if "something happens". What kind of rubbish is this? Thailand would become (even more of) an international laughing stock in the event that an elected PM is held responsible for the actions of anti-democratic street thugs. That would lead to sanctions, trade embargoes, investors fleeing the country, ASEAN intervention. It's complete rubbish. Classics case of blaming the victim.

Avoiding acknowledging the 'elephant in the room' are we? The OP is about a former Thai PM, who is a convicted felon living abroad to escape a prison term, ruling through his baby sister and telling her what to do in every circumstance.

I am confused here a little, perhaps someone can help ? I am referencing to the bold type above about the convicted felon.

Thaksin was convicted because his former wife committed an offense and purchased land from the government - is this correct ?

But the former wife of Thaksin was never actually convicted of any offense. I think the history books will show she was never actually convicted of any offense.

So, is it therefore correct that Thaksin was convicted by association to an illegal offense his former wife committed, even though she was never actually convicted of anything illegal.

Just want to be sure that in this case, nobody was convicted of any offense, apart from Thaksin for association with something that was not, it seems, illegal, according to the facts that nobody was convicted apart from him ?

Wonder if anyone can put some meat on that bone, is it correct ?

Just when I was getting to like Yingluck she goes and receives her instructions from her brother again which is one of the reasons the country is in <deleted>.

Do you have unequivocal factual evidence that she got instructions from her brother as is is reported in this article, an article which is based on unknown and unnamed sources who may be totally illegitimate and could be perpetuating lies for the purpose of propaganda, unbeknown to the writer of the article and the editor at the Nation ?

I generally ignore any unnamed source articles in the Thai press.

Name the name and make the person libel to libel or defamation if its false............ and if the person is unwilling to be named, ignore it.

As the world turns and ponders on the age-old fundamental questions - can Pheu Thai think ? - and if so, will they make the obvious decision and acquiesce to the EC's suggestion and delay the election ? Or will they barrel ahead, full cylinders thrusting - gleefully towards an election that will result in a parliament that cannot be opened ? We have to give Pheu Thai a lot of time for this decision. It's really tough.

On the other hand, stop thinking. Just do it.

You mean the constitutionally mandated schedule for elections ??

That constitution that the democrats are so adamant to defend ??

The constitution does not mandate Feb. 2 for elections. The constitution allows 180 days which means before May 9. May 4 has been proposed by the EC but Thaksin knows the dormant Amnesty Bill will expire before then so he and his propagandists are hysterical that the election take place Feb. 2. Why are you so strongly in favor of elections on Feb. 2 when it is clear they will be for naught? Are you a Thaksin propagandist? What are your motives for wanting the election on Feb. 2? Instead of putting the idea of waiting down, give us one good reason, besides the fact that they are already scheduled, why they need to be in such a hurry to hold elections.

Please read - http://www.senate.go...itution2007.pdf to enlighten you.

It states on dissolving the house, the election must be held not less than 45 days and not more than 60 days after.

The 180 days is when an election has *already* been held with no result. Then the caretaker government and the EC must schedule new elections within 180 days.

Well said ! My opinion is below :

The caretaker PM and caretaker government are well aware , however the media in Thailand appears to be trying to portray them as bad for not delaying, knowing full well this is baiting them into a trap.

If there is no election attempted by Feb 6th, whether successful or not, then the caretaker PM and caretaker government will breach the Constitution and its game over.

So the election has to go ahead.

I think you should keep looking over your shoulder for a man in a white coat holding a butterfly net. Clearly you are in serious danger of losing the plot.

81% of the Thai population were against an amnesty that eventually passed through the house be a vote of 307-0. The house being the representatives of the people that voted them into the house in the first place. Why did it pass 307-0? Because Thaksin told them to vote that way or else!

I think that is undemocratic yet I am the crazy one compared to people that think the above is democratic!

Go figure.

I would like to see specific evidence to back up your claim of "Thaksin told them to vote that way or else!".

If you cannot post actual evidence to back up your claim then your post is purely inflammatory. You are not posting an opinion, your post is worded that you claim fact. So please, post the facts.

To suggest otherwise shows a complete naivety towards the PTP and how it operates. PTP supporters spout at every opportunity that Thaksin runs the show and they always highlight the catch cry "Thaksin Thinks. PTP Acts" So one would have me believe that Thaksin controls every facet of PTP politics and political maneuvering EXCEPT when it comes to an amnesty that will ensure he is back on Thai soil absolved of his crimes. That is when he decides to turn Skype of, but not before he ordered every MP to be in parliament that day or they would be diciplined? So you suggest he said "turn up to parliament and then vote how ever you want!!" Come on. I think we all know Thaksin was behind it. He had to be because the majority certainly weren't. If they were the voting would have reflected their voice accordingly. It didn't. It reflected Thaksins. AND to have to explain this to you epitamizes the UDD supporter to a tee.

So you have no evidence and what you posted was misleading and designed to be inflammatory (certainly was to me based on the misleading comment) due to it being misleading and based on your opinion, not facts.

Perhaps you should add "in my opinion" in future, as opposed to attempting to make factual statements based on nothing but your opinion.

What authority does this man have from a legal standpoint on this situation?

Could this article (if taken from statements directly from her and also possibly from the brawler himself) be an admission of associating with and acting on behalf for the benefit of a known fugitive?

If Thai law does not cover this kind of activity then perhaps it is time Thai law was modernised into the digital era to reflect this type of crime. This goes not only for dialogue between PTP and Thaksin but all other fugitives of the Kingdom - he is not the first and will not be the last unless the law is changed.

Considering how awful the Thai media is, how often lies are disseminated for propaganda purposes well, one needs to look closely at the article.

Who is making the claims in the article ? What is their name ?

Or is it just "source" ?

One major reform needed worldwide with the media is reform on the un-named source articles. Most of which are total lies based around a source who is in fact someone who knows nothing or is deliberately spreading false lies.

So, let me read the article.

Aha......... no name, just a "source", which to me says the article is in my opinion, a total bunch of lies. And I am freely entitled to express that opinion.

Indeed, @Robby nz, completely true. This whole rice subsidising system is the base of all current problems. But logically the ricefarmers want to stick to it. They do not understand that their product will become to expensive on the worldmarket when the governement wants to get it s paid subsidies back by adding it to the sellingprice. They do not see that this is not a subsidy at all, it s money to buy votes. It is corruption on a megascale. Peter Scheffer

Corruption ? For there to be corruption someone who is dealing out the money has to steal the money and put it into their own bank account.

Subsidy ? Well yes, the rice pledging scheme is a subsidy. Rice farmers have made big profits on their rice and the government, but way of a subsidy has run a loss making subsidy.

Loss making subsidies are quite common by governments all over the world.

Are governments all over the world buying votes by handing out subsidies ? Well basically the principle of staying in power is to keep the majority of the people happy and subsidies are a method that is approved worldwide as acceptable.

If you have a problem with government subsidies then look all over the world, pretty much all governments subsidize things.

Provided there is no corruption then a rice subsidy scheme is perfectly legitimate.

I think you should keep looking over your shoulder for a man in a white coat holding a butterfly net. Clearly you are in serious danger of losing the plot.

81% of the Thai population were against an amnesty that eventually passed through the house be a vote of 307-0. The house being the representatives of the people that voted them into the house in the first place. Why did it pass 307-0? Because Thaksin told them to vote that way or else!

I think that is undemocratic yet I am the crazy one compared to people that think the above is democratic!

Go figure.

There was no referendum therefore there is no figure available for how many people were against the amnesty bill.

Your claim that 81% were against it is total and utter nonsense without a referendum and subsequent result.

By the same token we can say that the protests, at their peak, against the amnesty had around 200,000 people. This represents less than 0.5% of the total Thai population. One could therefore make claim if someone so wished that 99.5% of the Thai population supported it by not attending any protest.

In the main photo, people are holding placards that say "respect my vote". Why would it be written English ???? How could anyone with a bit of intelligence respect a vote that has been bought ??

So you claim that the person holding the placard had their post bought.

Can you post the evidence to back up this claim you make in the quoted post ? If you cannot post the evidence to prove what you posted and the person holding it had sold their vote, then you have defamed that person and your post is not only defamatory but it is inflammatory as well.

I think you should keep looking over your shoulder for a man in a white coat holding a butterfly net. Clearly you are in serious danger of losing the plot.

81% of the Thai population were against an amnesty that eventually passed through the house be a vote of 307-0. The house being the representatives of the people that voted them into the house in the first place. Why did it pass 307-0? Because Thaksin told them to vote that way or else!

I think that is undemocratic yet I am the crazy one compared to people that think the above is democratic!

Go figure.

I would like to see specific evidence to back up your claim of "Thaksin told them to vote that way or else!".

If you cannot post actual evidence to back up your claim then your post is purely inflammatory. You are not posting an opinion, your post is worded that you claim fact. So please, post the facts.

Respect my vote...my ass! How much did they get paid for the vote???

That is a very inflammatory post.

If you have any shred of evidence that vote buying went on - you should have reported it to the EC along with the proof and then the politician in question would have been Yellow or Red carded. This is the anti-corruption process during elections.

If you have no evidence at all of any vote buying by any present Member of Parliament then why are you asking this question ?

Either post your evidence of proof against whichever politician you claim purchased votes - or your comments are there fore purely inflammatory reasons.

So evidence of vote buying by an elected MP who has passed the EC's examinations at the end of the last election................ come on. Real evidence please.

It seems now to be considered a PR advantage not to don red shirts, which is fascinating. Perhaps the UDD history catching up with them. I wonder what Thida and Jatuporn think ? But in any event, once they get their election and their vote, what will happen to all those colourful balloons when parliament won't be able to open ? What will the placards say then ?

The UDD have learned from Suthep on this matter is the view of many.

If you have no colour then photographs printed in newspapers not only capture the real protestors, but also everyone standing around watching, everyone there just to get a photo, everyone there just for the free food and because there is no colour then more people are tempted to stroll along and have a look as they will not be discriminated for not wearing the colour.

And suddenly rather than 20,000 protestors in one colour, you can claim everyone there is a protestor and there is 40,000 protestors, when in fact probably half are just sight seeing, having a nose around, there for free entertainment and food.

There has been press reports for a very long time saying that " A coup is coming" and the "Army/Elite will not accept PTP victory".

Therefore it is my opinion, and only opinion, that this is simply the threat of a coup having its seeds planted.

Follow this potential timeline of events (again its opinion of what COULD happen).

Threaten to Red card Yingluck and others and drag their feet.

Response is "Reds will come out to protest".

Reds come out to protest and then "fake reds are inserted into the real reds" to cause trouble.

Army steps in to fill the power vacuum as no government is formed and "trouble on the streets".

In other words, you have another coup by the back door.

Yet again it seems that the Arny/Elite will not accept a TRT/PPP/PTP victory, but will they get away with another coup ? That is the question ? It could lead to a very nasty situation.

Enough already.. politicians, and political clans ALWAYS come back in Thailand.

Everyone knows it's going to happen, let's call amnesty for the Airport idiots, the Ratchaprasong idiots, the army generals who sent in war weapons, and Thaksin, who's actual 'conviction' on a conflict-of-interest charge is so minor you'd almost smile about it. (Looking at what past PM's got away with; if you jail Thaksin for that then you need to jail absolutely everyone with the possible exception of Chuan.)

Done.

I agree with you, except for Khun Chuan exxoneration. He was the PM that had the cabinet resigned for Khun Suthep misappropriated the Sor Por Kor 4-01 land for farmers to his fellows Democrat elites in the south instead. While, Khun Thaksin was convicted for influenced in the sales of land to his wife, who was the highest bidder. His PM id card was used as the evidence.

And we all wonder why Suthep was never charged, convicted and jailed for the Phuket Land Scandal.

One rule for them and another for others............

Perhaps Thaksin should join the Democrats ? Instantly he would be innocent of everything and never ever get convicted of anything in future..........