jayboy

If you have evidence that would shock the OAD why haven't you submitted it Khun Mahakun,, what is your game, trying to point score and get more gold stars on your resume, as a graft buster your duty is to reveal all corruption and all the facts , just on that comment alone I would sack you all immediately and get a new image.

Totally agree.

Duty seems to be the farthest item on his list.

Secrecy, hiding evidence is unwarranted if the case has been honestly built on factual evidence.

This is the same body that forbade YS to present more witnesses in her defense arguing that they already had enough evidence to convict her.

Guilty before a trial and without the opportunity of a good defense?

Fellow Farangs, hope and wish hard that we will never have to endure this type of "justice" in LOS.

All good points.Frankly it is the NACC that needs a thorough investigation - it's politicisation, it's incompetence and management integrity.

have any of these generals with all of their stars actually fought on a battlefield where their life was in real danger? or is it all for show? I think we all know the answer to that one.

I would suspect that in their junior officer days they were all at one time or another assigned to places like the South but as you are just posting to have a kick you wouldn't even make an attempt to find out..

The purpose of the Thai army is not to protect the country (there is no foreign enemy) but to acquire/maximise political power and above all generate profit for its senior officers.In the occasional time they have faced a foreign "enemy" the result has been catastrophic, eg the skirmish with Laos.Where the army has been involved in operations it is usually to murder Thai citizens.

They've got to. How else can Thailand prevent Thaksin from taking over the country again ?

We all know that in a race between Thaksin and Abhisit (and the little parties involved as well), Abhisit is NOT going to win. This is because Abhisit and the Democrats represent the mainly Chinese Bangkok middle-class, and a few other social groups, these people combined are outnumbered by the rural poor of Isaan (and people in Thaksin's backyard in Chiang Mai).

An election without the junta will just be a replay of previous elections, either Thaksin wins and we head back to the anti-Thaksinites doing mass demonstrations, they will find another person who will be the new Sondhi/Suthep. Or, Abhisit pulls out again, and we're back to an election that doesn't actually count. More chaos.

I think most of Thaksin's voters, even these people, don't want to see a repeat of the chaos.

The position is more complicated than you suggest.The Democrats have a strong foothold throughout the South and are also very significant in Central Thailand, in addition to Bangkok and other urban areas.It was the natural party of power and could be again with better leadership.You are right however to identify the Sino Thai middle class which (foolishly in the view of many) has aligned itself to the established old elite.The Thaksin oriented parties have support throughout the North and Northeast but also in Bangkok, and is by no means confined to the rural poor.Many fail to understand the changes in the North and North East in the last 30 years, but the notion of a poor uneducated peasantry is very outdated.In fact one could plausibly argue that there is support among most of the lower middle class.The key factor is that the elites (army, vested corporate and feudal) backed the Democrats though that for obvious reasons is on hold or possibly has even been abandoned.Thaksin and of course another key figure have finite time available.Thereafter one suspects the personality cult which has affected boh sides of the divide will become less significant.Therafter a deal will have to be done - as it has in almost every other society between old elites and the emerging middle class.In Thailand I fear the big losers will be the Sino Thai middle class.

I guess these bunch of losers didn't get the memo from their boss from Dubai! Stop making trouble or they'll freeze my money!

I guess that "bunch" of losers are exercising their democratic right to criticise what they regard as a self appointed "government" in a country where they are still able to demonstrate that right.

The only people disgruntled at the moment are those that that were living outside the law and it's being corrected slowly but surely, the red mafias grip on Thailand is no more and good ridence

You clearly are not aware of the views of many in the Democrat Party leadership which is very far from being happy with the current situation.But I suppose in the crazed world of some foreigners people like Abhisit and Korn are in the pay of Thaksin.

Given her perceived innocence and credible moral stance internationally, it would bring heavy woes on Thailand whose reputation already is in tatters .....we're she jailed.

I agree it's likely the woman was out of her depth.

But a junta run country jailing a woman while dismissing all charges of murder on democrat leaders might be too much for the world to tolerate.

Things have settled down .

Tourists slowly returning .

Jailing her would create an international back lash that would see countries urge citizens to boycott the place.

But being Thailand it would not surprise me if they stupidly went right ahead and plunged the country into more civil strife .

It's obvious judicial coups and military ones are the stuff of power plays .

But jailing a popular woman who seems a very moral gentle person would reduce the Thais to vile and corrupt and this kangaroo court a mere arm of it.

Comparing Apple's and oranges works well, doesn't it.

Yingluck was probably just "tolerated" internationally. Its not like other leaders didn't know she was way out of her depth.

As for the murder charges, most people understand that they shouldn't have been charged as civilians.

No, your prejudice has led you astray as usual.Plutojames88 makes a very fair comment though I would put a slightly different spin to it.

A few points then.

1.It is true she had no experience of office.But being a leader is about much more than bureaucratic capability, and in some areas she ranked quite high.The people of Thailand voted her into office as the usual suspects usually forget to mention. (Spare me the parliamentaty democracy lecture.I know much more about that subject than you do)

2.The international community accept whoever is PM of Thailand.Yingluck made a very good impression internationally but in some ways so did Abhisit before he became tainted.Samak,Somchai,Chuan etc much less so.Internationally leaders deal with other leaders who are frankly often idiots, monsters and madmen.Yingluck is a perfect competent Sino Thai businesswoman with cosiderably more charm and affability than is usually associated with her type.She easily held up with foreign leaders.

3.It certainly would have seemed odd to have let Abhisit off his serious charges while penalising Yingluck for charges yet to be proved.I agree the two matters are not linked but perception is important.Anyway she hasn't been let off.(see the excellent exchange between Arkadt anmd Caterwell(sp?) in another thread.What a relief incidentally to see posts from people who actually know what they are talking about).In the exchanges between other international leaders there is absolutely no perception she was out of her depth.

4.There is or rather there was a hatefest about Yingluck, especially among the Bangkok middle class.Clearly some impressionable or weak minded foreigners have picked up on this.Obviously she only came to power in an odd set of circumstances.She's history now but she was a decent person.Good luck to her.

5.I'm guessing the Junta have no wish to rough up Yingluck if she plays ball.There's definitely a PR angle here.On the other hand there's an element in the elite which wishes to exterminate all Shin influence - so who really knows?

"I would put a slightly different spin to it."

Yes. You always put a spin to it. I'm surprised you don't fall over from dizziness.

"It certainly would have seemed odd to have let Abhisit off his serious charges while penalising Yingluck for charges yet to be proved. ... Anyway she hasn't been let off."

Some serious spin there. Abhisit's "serious charges" are also yet to be proved, and he hasn't been let off.

"I agree the two matters are not linked but perception is important."

Perception is important to people who like to spin. People like to make them look connected because it helps with the "double standards" crap that they like to push.

"Clearly some impressionable or weak minded foreigners have picked up on this."

You really are a condescending *****, aren't you!

There is always an element of subjectivity when opinions are expressed.That is part and parcel of a forum like this, but sometimes some inconvenient realities are beyond denial.

Clearly you are uncomfortable with some of these home truths being expressed, hence your rattled and crude response.

I know how parliamentary systems work. So does Abhisit. That's why he boycotted the last general election.

Talking was all Abhisit was good at. While he was the PM, all he did was talk, and accuse anyone who disagreed with him of LM.

He's nothing more than a shameless hypocrite and a deceitful charlatan. He lacks the courage to go to the country and win the hearts and minds of the citizenry, preferring instead to hide behind the army while holding up this pretence that he supports democracy.

If you know how parliamentary systems work, then you will know that Abhisit WAS elected.

As the Thais say you must have a very thick face since you have repeated this red herring several times on this forum as if it explains away Abhisit's grubby rise to power, the corrupt back door deals and ignoring the fact that the Thai people have consistently rejected him.I am actually intrigued who you think your audience is.Do you think anyone is convinced or persuaded by your irrelevant lectures on parliamentary democracy? Everybody knows Abhisit held the premiership legitimately but that is not the point being made.

It's reassuring to know the "good people" are in the vanguard of the anti - corruption campaign, and we will await Yingluck's charges (or not) with interest.

There is a teeniest problem however that not only is the military corrupt, but corrupt on a massive scale.The following Asia Times article sets out the scale of the criminality involved:

http://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/thailand-crooked-army/

Fortunately (phew) the NCPO is composed of good clean people without a corrupt stain on their character.That is why they have been so keen to declare their assets to ensure transparency.Oh wait.....

I didn't say that the army weren't corrupt, but it is a bit of a laugh that a Yingluck supporter complains about it.

Glad you are so easily amused though not really clear why.Surely one can object to corruption wherever it is found.

In the case of the military it's the hypocrisy that is so striking - given its self appointed role as scourge of corruption.The case against Yingluck ( unlike the case against the army which is never accountable for its crimes) has yet to be proved.When or if it is proven then all reasonable people will condemn it and endorse the appropriate sentence.

But in the grisly league of these matters, even if found guilty ( actual corruption, not mismanagement or lack of oversight) Yingluck would not even be close to the venality of the military.

How much of the rice went bad from last November till now when the government were not able to function due to the PRDC/Army teamwork?

yes of course, all problems started in November 2013....

How much rice was already rotten in November 2013? You can't answer that because nobody knew that at that stage. Thanks to Yingluck's transparent way of working.

How much where the losses in November 2013? You can't answer that because nobody knew that at that stage. Thanks to Yingluck's transparent way of working.

Only thing we know is that in November 2013, payments from May 2013 to farmers where outstanding.

What we know for sure is that since the day Yinglck was put on non-active, everything started to become clear.

Right, you mean from the really transparent junta, who don't have to declare or be held liable for anything they do. LOL!

A Yingluck supporter complaining about junta transparency???? 55555555555555555555555

It's reassuring to know the "good people" are in the vanguard of the anti - corruption campaign, and we will await Yingluck's charges (or not) with interest.

There is a teeniest problem however that not only is the military corrupt, but corrupt on a massive scale.The following Asia Times article sets out the scale of the criminality involved:

http://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/thailand-crooked-army/

Fortunately (phew) the NCPO is composed of good clean people without a corrupt stain on their character.That is why they have been so keen to declare their assets to ensure transparency.Oh wait.....

His posting as Deputy is absolutely spot on; proves of leadership qualities by the PM and will be a fantastic back-up help for the Foreign Minister.

Give them a chance - they certainly deserve it!

So you think pushing this brilliant, excellent diplomat down to second place under a four-star general and coup-maker without a shred of diplomatic, international experience — shunting aside an excellent diplomat with rafts of experience - someone you personally known and admire - is proof of excellent leadership. The logic of that escapes me even further than the actual goofiness of the action itself, which appalls me.

Just wondering what you would have thought if Don had been appointed as minister of foreign affairs, instead of Briefcase Holder of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I think it would have been a good idea. You seem to think he's not really qualified for the job, compared with this actual appointee who has no experience at all and who is weighed down by guns, medals and dress greens. I think Don would have actually got respect.

.

Excellent post on a very foolish one.I have no reason to doubt this particular bureaucrat's professional skills but he will wrestle with having a dimbulb general as his boss - as welcome to the rest of the civilised world as a fart in a phone box.Anyway that ludicrous and rather sinister little dumpling Kasit was Head of Mission in his time, so that fact doesn't exactly guarantee quality control.

An enlightened approach from the UK in that they would judge in accordance with actions. Wonder if the US and Aussie are as enlightened yet.

Read what Mark Kent commented more carefully.Of course everybody is judged by their action, but what the Ambassador said in diplomatic language reflects the UK's profound unhappiness with the coup, the Junta's dictatorship and the excessively vague timetable to democracy when the Thai people's wishes will be properly reflected.It is not the UK's role to interfere in Thailand's internal affairs and there is an acceptance of the status quo but equally friends should speak frankly to friends.If you have the slightest doubt of the Ambassador's views on this you should scrutinise his blog and twitter feed.

To me it reads like the old elite is hedging its bets.

Prayuth controls the country as a dictator, but when democracy comes back in fashion the old elite has their person ready by letting him make some remarks now which some people classify as courageous. Either dictatorship or democracy, the old elite will be in power.

Right.

"The old elite are setting it up so that Abhisit becomes PM".

If Abhisit gets elected: "See, the old elite set it up so that Abhisit would become PM."

If someone else gets elected. "The old elite failed in getting Abhisit elected PM".

Maybe "the old elite" are just trying to set up a system that stops one person from controlling everything.

As usual you completely miss the point, in this case spectacularly.The price of flawed judgement that often affects rigid ideologues.

Abhisit was guided towards power but thereafter became damaged goods (hopeless in elections, tainted by bloodshed, weird unsympathetic image), and was put on one side.He may seem irreversibly sidelined but it's possible he could have some kind of zombie existence if the old elites see the need to resuscitate him.

In my view he is a tragic Shakespearian figure.The brightest and most talented Thai politician around, brought down by his own character defects and cowardice.He KNEW what was right but did nothing.

You just make up "points" so that you can spout crap, don't you?

Translation: you have no coherent response.

To me it reads like the old elite is hedging its bets.

Prayuth controls the country as a dictator, but when democracy comes back in fashion the old elite has their person ready by letting him make some remarks now which some people classify as courageous. Either dictatorship or democracy, the old elite will be in power.

Right.

"The old elite are setting it up so that Abhisit becomes PM".

If Abhisit gets elected: "See, the old elite set it up so that Abhisit would become PM."

If someone else gets elected. "The old elite failed in getting Abhisit elected PM".

Maybe "the old elite" are just trying to set up a system that stops one person from controlling everything.

As usual you completely miss the point, in this case spectacularly.The price of flawed judgement that often affects rigid ideologues.

Abhisit was guided towards power but thereafter became damaged goods (hopeless in elections, tainted by bloodshed, weird unsympathetic image), and was put on one side.He may seem irreversibly sidelined but it's possible he could have some kind of zombie existence if the old elites see the need to resuscitate him.

In my view he is a tragic Shakespearian figure.The brightest and most talented Thai politician around, brought down by his own character defects and cowardice.He KNEW what was right but did nothing.

A functioning democracy was never the aim of Thaksin and his stooges. Gangs of mercenary thugs killing those with opposing views was hardly democratic was it? So is stopping that moving towards or away from democracy?

I would have thought your key priority should be to " move towards" a quiet spot for some serious reflection on what is reality and what is not.

Were the questions a little awkward for you to answer? Sorry, I forgot, you don't answer questions.

Actually I enjoy debating with intelligent people who hold different views.To answer a question requires a premise that makes some kind of sense.Yours doesn't.

However in an effort to be conciliatory even with the dimmer section I do agree that Thaksin's commitment to democracy was dubious.He exploited it as other authoritarian leaders have done.

No you are wrong.The President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.He does not tolerate insubordinate generals with ideas above their station challenging the elected civilian authorities - and if necessary (Obama and Truman did exactly this) will throw the bums out. That is how a proper democracy works.

But this is Thailand, which has never been a proper democracy and certainly not a republic, thankfully. Here, the generals throw the bums out.

Whether or not a country is a republic is irrelevant.The US is a republic but the UK,Japan,Holland,Norway,Denmark,Sweden,Spain and Begium are constitutional monarchies.In all these countries the military is completely subordinate to elected politicians.

In Thailand as you say the generals reserve the right to "throw the bums out", though strangely one of the recommendations of a functioning democracy is that the electorate can do just that.

Exactly, the US is a republic with a completely different system of government, and irrelevant as a comparison. Yet you continually use it as an example.

In Thailand there are many facets of a functioning democracy that need improving before military oversight is removed, and IMO they are more likely to be improved under the current system than the previous kleptocracies.

You seem incapable of processing information.I specifically referred to parliamentary democracies which are constitutional monarchies,very similar to Thailand.

In any event the point was about the military being subordinate to civilian authorities in democracies.Actually that is also the case in most authoritarian or ersatz "democracies" - China, Russia etc.

No you are wrong.The President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.He does not tolerate insubordinate generals with ideas above their station challenging the elected civilian authorities - and if necessary (Obama and Truman did exactly this) will throw the bums out. That is how a proper democracy works.

But this is Thailand, which has never been a proper democracy and certainly not a republic, thankfully. Here, the generals throw the bums out.

Maybe Thailand has never had a proper democracy because the generals keep throwing "bums" out.

A democracy is not something you can install overnight. It takes time to work properly and for everyone to see the value of it. But if generals keep interfering it will never reach a stage where it works.

A functioning democracy was never the aim of Thaksin and his stooges. Gangs of mercenary thugs killing those with opposing views was hardly democratic was it? So is stopping that moving towards or away from democracy?

I would have thought your key priority should be to " move towards" a quiet spot for some serious reflection on what is reality and what is not.

No you are wrong.The President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.He does not tolerate insubordinate generals with ideas above their station challenging the elected civilian authorities - and if necessary (Obama and Truman did exactly this) will throw the bums out. That is how a proper democracy works.

But this is Thailand, which has never been a proper democracy and certainly not a republic, thankfully. Here, the generals throw the bums out.

Whether or not a country is a republic is irrelevant.The US is a republic but the UK,Japan,Holland,Norway,Denmark,Sweden,Spain and Begium are constitutional monarchies.In all these countries the military is completely subordinate to elected politicians.

In Thailand as you say the generals reserve the right to "throw the bums out", though strangely one of the recommendations of a functioning democracy is that the electorate can do just that.

What I learned from the Thai CEO of a big bank who gave a guest lecture at my university is that Thai leaders do not ask their subordinates for input; they go into a meeting knowing 85% of the answers to not lose face and be able to lead the group.

Knowing that, it is really worrying that at least 10 of the new cabinet ministers have about zero to none specific knowledge of their portfolio ( i assume that the general doing the defense portfolio will know a bit about the military). If he wanted to really change the country for the good, why didn't he pick people who are right for the job instead of people who he owes?

The first group consists of those who deserve his gratitude (...)

The second group consists of Prayuth's close friends who he believes deserve rewards and important posts (...)

The third group consists of his trusted subordinates who are to act as his "limbs" in his Cabinet (...)

Could you then please explain how a woman with zero political experience was elected by her brother to be the Prime Minister of Thailand?

When you have done with that can you please explain how a woman with zero experience of the military elected herself as Defence Minister of Thailand?

Both ridiculously easy questions.She was nominated by her party and them elected by the people of Thailand.Though like Obama, Cameron and Merkel she had no military experience, as a legitimate democratically elected leader (like the others mentioned) took on responsibility for oversight of the armed forces.

Did Obama, Cameron and Merkel have any political experience before being elected as leaders of the respective countries. In the USA I believe the President is elected by a popular vote in their party after spending many millions of $ to get there. In the UK the PM is elected by a popular party vote and I confess I have no idea how it is done in Germany. AFAIR remember none of those 3 were also Defence minister at the the same time and the only oversight they have is that of being the leader and not the actual Minister of Defence.

No you are wrong.The President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.He does not tolerate insubordinate generals with ideas above their station challenging the elected civilian authorities - and if necessary (Obama and Truman did exactly this) will throw the bums out. That is how a proper democracy works.

I don't think the topic is about Thaksin.It's about the alleged crimes of Abhisit and Suthep and the unlikelihood they will ever be held accountable for the murder of innocent civilians.Interesting that the relatives of the nurse that was murdered by the army have recently been arrested for seeking justice and accountability.Even the most bone headed quisling must wonder whether the Junta has its public relations finely tuned given this debacle.

The question that needs to be answered is: Are they accountable for the murder of innocent civilians?

Shouldn't it be first determined who killed these innocent civilians? Then, if it was the army that killed them, were they following direct orders that came down from Abhisit and Suthep?

Just because Abhisit and Suthep gave the ok for the soldiers to be armed with live ammunition, doesn't make them murderers. Soldiers were being attacked by protesters armed with military weapons. Do you think the soldiers should have dealt with those attacks with riot shields and water cannons?

Yes, some unarmed protesters were killed by the army. That doesn't make the people that allowed them to be armed with live ammunition guilty of murder. If it did, every police chief, police minister, and PM in the world would be in jail for murder.

A reasonable post and I would not argue against it.Some of the comments on this thread defending Abhisit and Suthep have been dishonest and even unhinged - so it's welcome to see rationality ( even though I might question some details )

Incidentally the Criminal Court dismissal of the case was not unanimous indicating there was a good argument that it should have been heard.The NACC has of course no experience of this kind of case - so the reality is they are off the hook.

I don't think the topic is about Thaksin.It's about the alleged crimes of Abhisit and Suthep and the unlikelihood they will ever be held accountable for the murder of innocent civilians.Interesting that the relatives of the nurse that was murdered by the army have recently been arrested for seeking justice and accountability.Even the most bone headed quisling must wonder whether the Junta has its public relations finely tuned given this debacle.

Actually the topic is "Tarit shrugs off court decision to reject case against Abhisit, Suthep".

BTW I like you're crummy English, learned it while studying in Cambridge I guess? Your

"alleged crimes of Abhisit and Suthep and the unlikelihood they will ever be held accountable for the murder of innocent civilians"

starts with "alleged" and continues with the suggestion that they should be held accountable for murders. Almost as if you do not believe in their innocence, as if the charge of "premeditated murder as private citizens" can only be the correct charge.

Anyway, Tarit who was only the 'secretary' in the CRES and had absolutely no say in things shrugs off the court decision. I'm sure he'll be more than happy to cooperate with the NACC if necessary as also he wants to see 'justice' done.

Apparently I was wrong.Some boneheaded quislings remain boneheaded.

did someone roll over a large stone - what a horrible man

That's no way to describe Abhisit, or Suthep for that matter.They may have blood on their hands but this need to be determined or otherwise in the courts.There must be a presumption of innocence until proved guilty.

But I appreciatre your disgust and revulsion at the deaths of many innocent civilians.

Not only should there be a presumption of innocence until proved guilty, there should also be sufficient competence in those laying charges to bring the case to the appropriate court for rapid decision. As the AG and Tarit are assumed to be intelligent men, or at least have staff to advise them, can we assume the use of an inappropriate venue was a delaying tactic so that the charges could be used as a smear against the accused for as long as possible? And as neither have anything to gain from that, that is was done at the behest of others, in return for some consideration?

Ah yes the hand of Thaksin at work again.Strange how these fantasies occupy the minds of some more than the fates of innocents mown down in the street.

Unlike your fantasies about Abhisit and Suthep.

All those videos showing the criminal fugitive inciting his minions and the old AG said couldn't prosecute him as he was out of the country when he committed the offences.

The financier, instigator, manipulator and controller of the insurrection should be held accountable - he had the most to gain, gained the most and lost nowt. And some of those who did his bidding are still rotting in jail despite 3 years of his government through his sister as it doesn't suit his agenda to release them.

You may well see them as fantasies, like the ones that promote Thaksin as honest,caring, man of the people - which he has proven he's not.

I don't think the topic is about Thaksin.It's about the alleged crimes of Abhisit and Suthep and the unlikelihood they will ever be held accountable for the murder of innocent civilians.Interesting that the relatives of the nurse that was murdered by the army have recently been arrested for seeking justice and accountability.Even the most bone headed quisling must wonder whether the Junta has its public relations finely tuned given this debacle.

did someone roll over a large stone - what a horrible man

That's no way to describe Abhisit, or Suthep for that matter.They may have blood on their hands but this need to be determined or otherwise in the courts.There must be a presumption of innocence until proved guilty.

But I appreciatre your disgust and revulsion at the deaths of many innocent civilians.

Not only should there be a presumption of innocence until proved guilty, there should also be sufficient competence in those laying charges to bring the case to the appropriate court for rapid decision. As the AG and Tarit are assumed to be intelligent men, or at least have staff to advise them, can we assume the use of an inappropriate venue was a delaying tactic so that the charges could be used as a smear against the accused for as long as possible? And as neither have anything to gain from that, that is was done at the behest of others, in return for some consideration?

Ah yes the hand of Thaksin at work again.Strange how these fantasies occupy the minds of some more than the fates of innocents mown down in the street.

did someone roll over a large stone - what a horrible man

That's no way to describe Abhisit, or Suthep for that matter.They may have blood on their hands but this need to be determined or otherwise in the courts.There must be a presumption of innocence until proved guilty.

But I appreciatre your disgust and revulsion at the deaths of many innocent civilians.