jayboy

too much noise for nothing

the children of Abhisit, Suthep, Sondhi,... actually signed a letter.

they should be deported from England

 

Bender may be some facts like the names of the offspring's at Oxford...

 

 

I am sure if Abhisit was concerned he could easily arrange for the the Oxford Students Union to give Phongthep a welcome to Oxford that he would like to forget.

I doubt it.The Oxford Students Union is a private society to which only a small minority of students belong.Secondly Abhisit has zero influence over students,the vast majority will have never heard of him.Thirdly and most importantly student opinion would not be on the side of ultra royalists, coup lovers and reactionaries and would be on the side of the red shirts.This was the university that refused to offer Mrs Thatcher an honorary degree.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Mr Pedant, Oxford Brookes is in Oxford the 'student friend' was in Oxford, the fail applies in yet again instead of taking a path that displays even the slightest integrity and say fair enough you just wriggle and wiggle looking for any chance to avoid responsibilty for your own comments. Infact now I see why you are such an ardent red supporter, you display similar qualities. Say what you want and from then on deny all reason that it could possibly ever be wrong, even when it is. Oxford Brookes is counted as one of Oxfords Universities, and is a University in Oxford.

The letter from the students was headed University of Oxford so clearly that is the context.

Oxford Brooke's is a former polytechnic just outside Oxford.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Not sure how reliable your student friend was given that there is no way to study accounting at Oxford University, no course being on offer.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Probably means Oxford Brookes, which I would guess has accounting.

Absolutely correct! Oxford Brookes offers a wide range of graduate and post graduate courses in Accounting and Finance. Jayboy epic......fail !

Don't get too excited.Oxford Brookes is a separate institution altogether and has nothing repeat nothing to do with Oxford University.What was that about "epic fail"?

The middle class is utterly sick of the Shinawats, that much is exceedingly clear.

Agreed and that has been the case for some time but important to remember that this won't translate necessarily to support at elections for the Democrats.I know for a fact there are many professional middle class Thais who are fed up with Thaksin (though initially attracted by his "modernity") but are also heartily sick of the old unelected elites, and the jurassic mindset of these dinosaurs.

The remedy is in the hands of the middle class.Find leadership more competent than the hopeless Abhisit and less loathesome than Suthep, take the rest of Thailand seriously and victory is absolutely possible.

Suthep's articulation of objectives today doesn't however suggest success is just round the corner.

I wonder how many Thai students there are at Oxford University and how many went to Thai schools first.

 

There are quite a lot of Thai students at Oxford.  I met one a couple of years ago, studying accounting, and he said there quite some hundreds (although he didn't quote a figure).

 

When we were walking around there, I could hear Thai being spoken quite a lot.

Not sure how reliable your student friend was given that there is no way to study accounting at Oxford University, no course being on offer.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Well muddled thinking - maybe you are confused?

The UK is not the same as the US or Thailand both examples of constitutional democracies. The constitution is the highest law in the land and parliament is beneath it. In the UK the system is quite different with the judiciary interpreters of the law. Often the judiciary will interpret the law in a way to curb the worst excess of parliaments over zealousness which acts as a check, though parliament can always revise subject to House of Lords approval. In Thailand the Constitutional Court serves that purpose a little more directly and in this case have done their job. Constitutions are written with longevity in mind - the US an example - and not for meddling by each set of people elected from time to time and for short terms. They really are not capable of the mindset necessary to write a constitution. The only reason PTP want an elected upper house is to seize the advantage they currently have with the electorate ( who are hardly able to put rational thought together ) and gain complete and unfettered control. That is not good for any country.

Hmm.I wonder where the criminal junta's initiative to scrap the 1997 constitution fits in with your interpretation.Perhaps it, its quisling government and compliant judges were "capable of the necessary mindset".I do however note your view of the Thai electorate - "hardly able to put rational thought together" - which more or less explains your reactionary position.

Then the question to this protest leaders : why the majority of Thai people's chosen PM Yinluck by Democratic election as There's political leader of Thailand !!??

To put you back on track NOBODY from the public voted for Yingluck at all.

She is a party list MP and was in the #1 slot because her brother Thaksin put her there and then told ALL the PTP MPs to vote for her as PM and who among them would dare to disobey the master.

It was a private party vote and as Thaksin owns the PTP lock, stock and two smoking barrels his was the ONLY vote that counted. Not the MPs and certainly NOT the majority of the Thai people, they had NO say in it at all.

Perhaps you should communicate your information to Reuters (and indeed every other news agency domestic and international)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/03/us-thailand-election-idUSTRE76013T20110703

Otherwise there is a danger you would be seen as just another demented old nutjob (and I mean that caringly)

This post and many others shows muddled thinking or simple ignorance about the principles involved in the role of the judiciary vis a vis parliament.The attached article by Michael Howard, scarcely a fire breathing radical, sets out the key issues.It of course relates to the UK where judges, unlike Thailand, are not tainted by political pressure.Several justices on the Constitututional Court for example were intimately involved in the drasfting of the constitution propagated by the military junta

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3618954/Judges-must-bow-to-the-will-of-Parliament.html.

The UK has vote buying too? Which position does the UK hold on the corruption index vs Thailand. Sooooooo easy what you are doing.

Like many of the usual suspects you struggle to understand the point.Corruption exists in Thailand and has flourished under different forms of government including military dictatorships and democratic.The "leader" of the current street demonstrations against corruption is himself notoriously corrupt.By some international yardsticks Thailand is now less corrupt than under the last administration.However that is not relevant to the subject under discussion which is the relationship between the different branches of government.The article by Michael Howeard deals with fundamental principles and is thus directly relevant to Thailand.

Like so many pro Thaksin supporters, the fact other politicians past and present are corrupt is brought up to somehow justify the current and past corruptions of their favored politician.

Poor Thaksin, he's only doing what all the others do/did? Enriching his family by robbing the people. So, that makes it o.k then, its the norm here. Even though his little sister spouts on about no corruption in her (does anyone really still think she's in charge of anything) government.

Michael Howard - what makes him the expert? He's a lawyer and politician, failed wannabee PM. Entitled to his opinion but that's relevant to the U.K. and specific to a UK context. You can distill fundamental principles but applying them in different contexts will not be straightforward, nor will it necessarily be appropriate.

No it doesn't make it ok, far from it.I simply pointed out the stunning hypocrisy.And if you can't see the cosmic irony of someone like Suthep leading the charge against corruption there may be a slight SOHF on your part.

Yes there need to be comonsense adaptations to different circumstances but the underlying principles of democracy are universal.I don't really want to get into a debate on Michael Howard but his political understanding, legal expertise and sheer intelligence might be (I'm guessing) be a match for some of us.

It seems that any of the possible rulings would have failed to restore stability. This ruling, that cut down the bill and didn't ban the MPs, is the closest they would get to a "everybody wins" or "nobody loses" solution.

I see the logic of your point and indeed partly agree with it.As a matter of detail the PTP needs to review very carefully its slovenly voting procedures which were rightly condemned by the judges.

But overall it's just the same old pattern of the old unelected elites fighting a rearguard action.The New York Times has a balanced summary:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/world/asia/thailand-court-says-ruling-party-tried-to-overthrow-monarchy.html?ref=world&_r=0

Yes tyranny of the majority is a problem and has been preoccupying the attention of political philosophers for centuries, notably Edmund Burke.

But here in Thailand there is a more insidious problem - the tyranny of the minority.The distaste for democratic electoral politics is deeply ingrained among the elite and urban middle class, partly for valid reasons (hatred of corruption, notwithstanding the comic sight of Suthep heading this platoon) and partly for ignoble selfish reasons.

The answer, easier stated than implemented, is to improve the standard of politicians.There's no other way and to look to non democratic avenues leads to a "cure" worse than the disease itself.

I don't really see the courts knocking back a single bill as being tyranny.

Who said it was? It is symptomatic however of a much wider issue, namely that a self perpetuating privileged minority (and a myopic largely Sino Thai urban middle class) in Thailand feels that it can overrule the majority's wishes - whether through military or judicial intervention.With Thaksin and the PTP there are of course plenty of tempting excuses.But ultimately the old unelected elites will fail - whether in a peaceful transition or a river of blood is really up to them to decide.

PTP HAVE THE RIGHT AS A GOVERNMENT to change / alter the constitution they just have to learn that there are rules when you do such a thing. The Constitution Court just reminded the about some and I'm sure soon they are going to remind them again reference the infrastructure voting.

PTP learn how to govern for the people of Thailand and you will not keep getting yourself in these pickles. You only have yourselves to blame.

I think that is a well made point.The PTP has been quite hopeless at getting even procedural matters right.A crisis was created where one didn't exist through the foolish umbrella amnesty, thereby yielding the high moral ground to the opposition.But on the constitution there's no doubt the elected government has the right to amend.It just has to go about it the right way.The Constitutional Court has rightly blocked the attempt, but equally there are some fundamental issues with trhe Constitutional Court itself, its findings, its makeup and its motives.Don't believe anybody who suggests any of this is straightforward.

And they wonder why the anti-govt protest continued after the Senate threw out their whitewash bill? With statements like this, it's clear they'll try and resurrect it at some point, no matter what the public thinks.

It really does look ridiculous when CNN and BBC report that Peua Thai are accepting the court's verdict whilst the Interior Minister and Labour Minister, two of the party's biggest names, say they "can't accept it" and the "low intellect puppet" (according to Chai-anan Samudavanija) Prime Minister only answers "ka" when asked about her next step.

This post and many others shows muddled thinking or simple ignorance about the principles involved in the role of the judiciary vis a vis parliament.The attached article by Michael Howard, scarcely a fire breathing radical, sets out the key issues.It of course relates to the UK where judges, unlike Thailand, are not tainted by political pressure.Several justices on the Constitututional Court for example were intimately involved in the drasfting of the constitution propagated by the military junta

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3618954/Judges-must-bow-to-the-will-of-Parliament.html.

It seems that any of the possible rulings would have failed to restore stability. This ruling, that cut down the bill and didn't ban the MPs, is the closest they would get to a "everybody wins" or "nobody loses" solution.

I see the logic of your point and indeed partly agree with it.As a matter of detail the PTP needs to review very carefully its slovenly voting procedures which were rightly condemned by the judges.

But overall it's just the same old pattern of the old unelected elites fighting a rearguard action.The New York Times has a balanced summary:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/world/asia/thailand-court-says-ruling-party-tried-to-overthrow-monarchy.html?ref=world&_r=0

Yes tyranny of the majority is a problem and has been preoccupying the attention of political philosophers for centuries, notably Edmund Burke.

But here in Thailand there is a more insidious problem - the tyranny of the minority.The distaste for democratic electoral politics is deeply ingrained among the elite and urban middle class, partly for valid reasons (hatred of corruption, notwithstanding the comic sight of Suthep heading this platoon) and partly for ignoble selfish reasons.

The answer, easier stated than implemented, is to improve the standard of politicians.There's no other way and to look to non democratic avenues leads to a "cure" worse than the disease itself.

I really don't see how allowing the senate to be democratically elected is unconstitutional; unless there is some vested interest that fears an elected senate.

Er, yes there is.

Seems like a pretty fair decision. Making the Senate nothing more than an extension of the lower house would indeed change the system of government. The procedural issues in the debates were also problematic. Not dissolving the coalition parties avoids giving them a reason to bellyache and lets people focus on the genuine unconstutionality of what they attempted to do.

Disagree completely though there's a certain karma given PTP's foolish attempt to steamroller the umbrella amnesty.Verdict underwrites the wholesale politicisation (keeping the Senate 50% appointed is fundamental for the old unelected elites) of the Constitututional Court.Furthermore the contempt for elected politicians was very clear.The Court ludicrously tried to set a precedent for any elected government to make a change to the coup makers driven 2007 constitution.There's absolutely no reason why the 2007 constitution should be sacrosact.Ironic that the excellent 1997 constitution largely driven by Khun Anand was trashed without a thought.No progress at all and Thailand remains stuck in its old rut.

It's plain as day Yingluck is afraid to face Apisit, Jurin, Korn etc, and she has good reason to.

A lamb to the slaughter.

I doubt whether she is afraid though probably very aware of the Democrat leadership's strengths.

What is beyond dobt is that Abhisit, Korn and Jurin are frightened as kittens that if they play this wrong Yingluck will dissolve parliament and appeal to the Thai people.

What a profound comment considering that 6 Democrat MP's resigned to join the anti-government protestors, who's goal is to remove the corrupt Yingluck administration and have a general election. Really you need to research this issue more thoroughly as your read is way off the mark.

Not sure whether it's that profound.This is an internet forum for expatriates with time on their hands - not a parliamentary select committee.Still one wonders whether the Dems are really that keen on facing the Thai electorate.Much of the evidence suggests they would prefer some kind of judicial deus ex machina involving the dissolution of PTP and a back door shady entry into government - just like last time.Still I would give the Dems a sporting chance at a general election.The PTP and Yingluck are definitely less popular.The trouble is the Dems haven't really capitalised on this and Abhisit is to campaigning what the Mayor of Toronto is to skinny jeans..Still who knows?

It's plain as day Yingluck is afraid to face Apisit, Jurin, Korn etc, and she has good reason to.

A lamb to the slaughter.

I doubt whether she is afraid though probably very aware of the Democrat leadership's strengths.

What is beyond dobt is that Abhisit, Korn and Jurin are frightened as kittens that if they play this wrong Yingluck will dissolve parliament and appeal to the Thai people.

all 200 senators would be elected, rather than having 76 elected and 74 appointed as currently.

Are they planning to raise the number of senators from 150 to 200? Or maybe they're planning on getting better reporters.

I believe the extra 50 will be party list senators, so that Thaksin can reward more criminals.

There's a perfectly legitimate debate to be had whether the Senate should be wholly elected or appointed, and there's no "right" answer.Obviously if the Senate appointed members were simply party hacks that doesn't make any sense.It's dishonest to pretend that the present Senate isn't packed with the unelected elites favourites - many unreconstructed reactionaries.So the discussion about Thaksin putting his own people in is somewhat ironical.Personally I'm not too exercised about this (ie an establishment bias in the Senate) and in fact an awkward Senate can form part of the checks and balance on the government with the electoral mandate.After all isn't this what the House of Lords (with a built in conservative bias) did for decades.

Suthep has the support of the South oitside of the deep south, central Bangkok, a few provinces south of BKK and the majority of the elite. He is reviled in most Bangkok suburbs and anywhere north, north east or east of Bangkok excluding possibly Rayong and Mae Hong Song and a couple of other town centers.

Which, of course, is why the Dems have little chance of ever winning a General Election. All their whining about vote-buying, etc. is just a smoke screen to hide the fact that they are simply detested by the vast mass of rural voters.

Could I suggest that instead of blindly following this little tinpot would-be dictator ("The Butcher of Bangkok" as he is known as up here!), the Dems could sit down and come up with policies that appeal to the entire population, not just their BKK chums. Getting rid of their English Public School elites might be a good start.

In a blind poll, the Democrat policies came off quite well in the north east.

It's not the policies that are the issue.

Well it's partly the policies.But it's also the toxic leadership and the unimpressive record of the last Democrat administration.

I assume you are referring to Thaksin since Abhisit, though his alleged crimes are much more serious, has not been convicted yet.

Can you remind us which of Abhisits crimes are worse than mass extra-judicial killings, dividing a nation for power and greed, policy corruption and theft on a never before seen scale? As far as I'm aware Abhisit's "crimes" consist of his taking a holiday in the Maldives during Yingluck's great flood, and having some wrong date on his national service paperwork some 25 years ago(although nobody disputes that he actually did the national service).

You missed out mass murder charges.

Occasionally now his critics will raise the drugs war as a means of attacking Thaksin secure in the knowledge there will never be an investigation in to it.The vast majority of his critics were silent when the crimes were being carried out.

No one is too keen on becoming another victim.

I rarely see Jayboy's posts (the ignore option is excellent) but he constantly uses the "the war on drugs was widely popular" argument for human rights abuses. Well, at the time of the removal of Thaksin from his extra constitutional position as on again off again PM ... nobody said or did anything either, That coup was widely popular" Months and months later when the offers of cash started flowing it became unpopular in the NE.

I'm assuming you have not thought very carefully about this (my polite and charitable interpretation of your foolish post).If you read my references to the drugs war I have gone out of my way to state it was Thaksin's worst abuse.Its popularity is irrelevant and in any case it cannot absolve him of responsibility and the matter should be dealt with in a court of law.

Whether the coup was popular is debatable even ignoring your lies about "cash flowing".It was certainly broadly welcome in middle class Bangkok.But it doesn't actually matter because it was a criminal act whatever its degree of initial popularity.As we know it didn't take long for the coup makers and the miserable incompetent government of Surayud to become unpopular.Subsequent elections more accurately measured the views of the Thai people.

I have to assume that the vast majority of posts on ThaiVisa forums are made by individuals whose home countries respect and follow democratic principles and yet, when commentating on Thai politics they appear to be completely blind to the results of the 2011 elections when Pheu Thai took 265 seats and the Democrat party 159

This was despite Abhisit trying to 'buy votes' from poorer Thais by promising to increase the minimum wage to a level that employers felt would be unsustainable.

Pheu Thai didn't become the ruling party because of military or 'other' interventions they did so because a healthy majority of ordinary Thai people wanted them to be in office. That's what democracy is all about and I can never understand how Abhisit of all people cannot accept this. He spent his formative years living in the 'cradle of democracy' the UK and was educated at Oxford University where no debate would have countenanced the denial of democratic rights.

Perhaps it's his devotion to Newcastle United football club that has in some way distorted his view of life. The constant disappointment of his team's failures are now mirrored in his political life.it's a modern day tragedy

For many years growing up in England I could never see the Conservative government being ousted from power but I didn't take to the streets to insist on a change of govermnment but used the BALLOT BOX with the result we had a change of government and that's how it should be in Thailand

Thaksin is just an unwelcome distraction to this democratic process

Does the British government take orders from a convicted criminal facing several other charges?

Do they try to pass a law to absolve all corruption cases over the last 7 years as well as rioting offences?

I assume you are referring to Thaksin since Abhisit, though his alleged crimes are much more serious, has not been convicted yet.

We know that Thaksin's convictions would not stand in an independent court of law since they were pressed with political motivation (similar case in the Ukraine).We know that for sure from Wikileaks though it was always obvious the old elites were out to nail him come what may.

Doesn't mean of course he isn't guilty of all or some of the charges.But it would be absurd to suggest they are unusual in Thailand or that someone like Suthep (oh the irony) is much different.

Who is trying to pass a law absolving all corruption cases over the last 7 years ? - first I've heard of it.Rioting offences are different and could sensibly be covered in an amnesty notwithstanding the grotesque difference in treatment between redshirts and the yellow shirt thugs and their quasi fascist leadership.Plenty of examples overseas = S.Africa, N.Ireland etc

The umbrella amnesty proposal was a classic piece of Thaksin stupidity - handing the opposition a hand up from the low place it had fallen.Can the Dems capitalise on this and erode the PTP so that an election win in less than two years is possible? Could do it with intelligent leadership but the performance over the last few days doesn't give much grounds for hope.In their hearts the Dems don't really believe they can win over the Thai people at an election so hope for a coup (the stupid bone headed ones) or a judicial intervention (the less stupid ones).Still even if they manage to diitch Yingluck or ban the PTP, ther's still that pesky problem of winning an election thereafter.Frankly it might be easier all round for the DEms to abandon plotting and licking the army's posterior to concentrate on decent policies and bonding again with the country.Believe it or not that's what I would prefer.

You couldn't make it up.The usual suspects always spoil their case by going over the top.For example this suggestion that Thaksin's populist policies were in fact initiated by the Democrats only they didn't quite get time to put any of them in place.Also a first for me was the zany idea that Thaksin was responsible for the Asian Crisis.If this level of insanity is to be the usual suspectrs mantra why not go the whole hog and make him responsible for cholera,global warming, junk food,James Blunt and alchopops.It's the same deranged mindset that queries the Thaksinite parties electoral success because it was all down to "vote buying" or that an absolute majority of Thais didn't vote that way.

In this case, ONE poster has suggested ONE Thaksin policy was suggested before Thaksin was in power.

IIRC, this policy was suggested a few years before Thaksin was in power, but it was found to be unaffordable at the time, so wasn't implemented. It seems that they were correct at that time given that it costs more to collect the fee than the fee itself.

And you seem to be suggesting the same thing - viz it was a Democrat policy that after careful investigation was not implemented.Main line usual suspect material I'm afraid.