pastitche

Why not? Why so many slamming Thailand over this? It's not like our home countries haven't allowed evil people to run things.

Agreed - Bobby Sands, a convicted IRA terrorist was elected to the UK parliament whilst on a fatal hunger strike. He would never have attended parliament, being committed to the cause that he espoused but nonetheless his election was legitimate. The same is true of members of the present Northern Ireland Assembly

Now if he was a British Asian then Howard would have pulled strings etc (He'd have been told to) and he'd have been out a lot quicker. It is a very sad fact that as a white male he is a 3rd class citizen according to his own country.

Is it really necessarily to introduce racist shit like this into the thread? No, I didn't think so, either.

Racist shit maybe it is, but also very true, working class white males have become 3rd class citizens of England despite being the ones who have been the soldiers, workers, and main tax payers of the country who have had their salaries undercut by planned MASS immigration by the British elite, who do not have to live next door to these new multi-ethnic "Britons". White English males have lost their rights to females and immigrants, all social engineering by BIG government and their bankster buddies

But it is all NOT real, of course, all the financial games have resulted in massive debt problems, and allowing feminism to control men has almost resulted in the collapse of society and a generation of feral kids

And of course only the English comprise the United Kingdom.

<br />Prime minister-designate Yingluck Shinawatra said her government would of course support plans that would benefit the country's national security.<br /><br />"But budget allocation must take into account other needs too. We also have to budget for people's well-being," she said.<br /><br />Is this a veiled threat to reduce military budget in the coming years. Thoughts please<br />

Well thank you for your introduction of irrelevance to a discussion between obvious experts about helicopters.

What has the performance of a 40-year old aircraft to do with the forthcoming administration's budget plans?

Oh I forgot - it has to be the fault of a Shinawatra.

Yellow shirts aside, why should the military in Thailand back down first? The cambodians have killed many Thai civilians in their villages / homes with artillery. What's to say they won't start doing to same thing after the Thai soldiers leave, or even take more land for themselves.

Because the Cambodians believe that they have the international community's support in this matter and that the Thais cannot afford to continue being seen as obdurate and unwilling to accept anything other than bilateral discussions

<BR>

<BR>

<BR>

<BR>The incompetance of the soon to be gone and not missed government is utterly staggering. When the Dems have their little soiree to select new leaders and executives they would well advised to ditch anyone in or associated with formation of this government (with a possible exception for Korn). Even their utterly incompetent election campaign pales compared to their total inability at governance with foreign policy deserving a special award for incompetence. My god what next reselect an unelectable and utterly despised by many leader and chose a secretary-general due up in court on corruption charges?<BR>

<BR>For me, it is all relative. Was this government incompetent? Yes. Was it more incompetent than all those that have come before it in recent history? Absolutely "no". Did it face unique and highly tricky challenges that would have brought prior governments to an early end? Yes. Let's not forget the number of people who were predicting the downfall of the Democrat coalition days after it was formed. It didn't collapse. It stayed reasonably strong under immense strain. Something i think to be said for that. <BR><BR>And as for Abhisit being "utterly despised by many", if that is indeed who you were referring, i personally think that it is mostly just hard-core red shirts that would harbour feelings as strong as that against him. The more common prevailing negative view i hear voiced against him would be more along the lines of him being a gentleman but a gentleman who was unable to get things done and who was under the control of others.<BR>

<BR><BR>The common one I have heard around upcountry folk when someone says they dont support Thaksin or criticise him is "who do you support then? Abhisit?" with the "Abhisit" stressed in a very negative manner. Im not reffering to openly red shirted people here but just those who vote for any party Thaksin is linked to. I'm not even sure it is the red shirt villification of Abhisit for the deaths that is the major reason for the way he is despised as much as that he is seen as being a representative of the establishment who only does things at their behest. Im not even sure people up there felt that way when he came to power (its hard to remember), but he is just very damaged goods with them now. <BR><BR>Sure the Dem government survived. It also managed to give away probably more than Thaksin ever managed, but it never ever managed to win over the people. And apart from some foreign policy nightmares, the April-May stuff, the 3G nightmare, populist policies that looked embarrasingly like just giving cash to people and which massively increased national debt, what can be rememebered about this government? <BR><BR>There is also just so much political awareness and talk about politics in Thailand now and the Democrats are just as a party not suited to this. They rely a lot more on "trust us", "clean leader even if flawed party", "not as dirty as the others", "natural party of government". They just dont listen to concerns or have any vehicle by which people can reach them. And they basically are seen to respond only to the wealthy elements of BKK, the people of the south and the middle classes around some central urban areas. There is no connect at all to virtually any rural Thai people north of BKK, and this is now all openly talked about. The Democrats used to the previous managed democracy have been left behind as Thailand becomes more demcoratic in terms of people realising their power, and they are struggling to catch up, or as we may see on August 6 if they select the same old faces under BKK and South faction dominance in total denial<BR>

<BR><BR>More democratic? It's Mr. T's sister. This is the banana republic style of government. It's like Fidel's brother taking over in Cuba.<BR>

She revealed that she already has the name of a House speaker in mind.

After only three=and-a-half weeks, she has someone "in mind", now that's what I (don't) call decisive !

I have heard Yingluck speak in a few interviews. She is very clear and appears to think very well on her feet although English not her preferred language. Does not look like a indecisive person like Abhisit. Hopefully decisions will now be made.

You think they went into the election, with no idea of who might be in the Cabinet if elected ?

She will need to start 'thinking on her feet', but only in the fullness of time, after due consultation & consideration, with proper input from Dubai (Whoops !) and a script placed in front of her.

Whereas it took former-PM Abhisit only a couple of days, to deliver upon his promise to resign as party-leader, if things went poorly at the election. And you call him "indecisive" ?

Get real - if you are the holder of power and lead your party/coalition in an election and are soundly defeated, what choice is there?

This thread really hit the gutter with this statement;

Churchill bombed Dresden, US nukes Japan, Brits invented concentration camps for Dutch people, Japans Nanking massacre etc etc. History is written by the victors.

This is offensive trash. If this is the best some people can do, is it any wonder why they are scorned?

The situation in Thailand cannot be compared. What an absolute insult to the brave people that served in the allied forces during WWII.

I think that we have a great deal in common in our political opinions and I agree once more that this statement has nothing to do with Thailand's present situation; but I have to disagree with you on one point and that is - what the Allied Powers inflicted on Germany with the bombing campaign was no better than terrorism in its true sense, not the car-bomb, suicide bomber scenario, but effectively an all-out offensive against the civilian population; and that occurred even though it was clear that the US involvement meant that Germany was sure to be defeated. It did arguably shorten the conflict but the devastation that it caused to civilians was appalling. I have seen the "before and after" scenes of German cities and I am ashamed

I understand part of where you are coming from, I voiced my sympathies for the suffering the allied bombers inflicted when I visited a bomb damaged church in Berlin, I was surprised to be told......that was then, this is now; we have moved on.....no need for sympathy or guilt, neither you nor I were involved.......these comments from the German people I spoke with.

I was impressed.......now if the interfering foreigners, and the politicians, would just set about promoting such an attitude in Thailand.......there is just a chance the healing process can take place and a unified Thailand can move forward.......

I agree with you that the Berliners have that attitude (and I know the church you mean) and that is true of virtually all of the many people I have met in what was West Germany where cathedrals all over the country were specifically targeted to demoralise the people but my experience of the former DDR people was that they felt no guilt about what the Nazi regime did - that was due to the capitalist system that the Nazis had embraced and they, of course were socialists.

But back to the topic, I agree wholeheartedly that Thailand needs a new attitude towards its governance- it is not about business, interest groups or individuals but what is best for the nation. I hope that the country that I have made my home matures beyond the divisions that so many here seem unable to overcome

Oh dear khun Yingluck what have you done!!!!

Looks like the economy, unemployment levels, cost of living (especially for the poor), business collapses, inflation, interests rates, strength of the baht and many more things are going to go through the roof - and that's from the minimum wage increase to 300 Baht ONLY!!!!!

At least I will benefit as I am repatriating money to England so will get a good rate of exchange when the strength of the Baht increases.

Perhaps now, the poor will realise the error of their ways in blindly supporting and voting for a bunch of incompetent cretins that know nothing about governing and lied to the people for the sole purpose of getting elected!!

Well live up to your promises khun Yingluck as the people are not prepared to be let down - even though this will bring Thailand to it's knees and make life so much more difficult for the poor. Al least their children can play with their tablets assuming the family can afford to pay for the electricity that is!!!

The University of the Chamber of Commerce sounds as objective as would be the University of Manchester United.

You are repatriating money to England you say, that means you are no longer committed to being here. Why will your business suffer here, what industry are you in that can be moved there?

This thread really hit the gutter with this statement;

Churchill bombed Dresden, US nukes Japan, Brits invented concentration camps for Dutch people, Japans Nanking massacre etc etc. History is written by the victors.

This is offensive trash. If this is the best some people can do, is it any wonder why they are scorned?

The situation in Thailand cannot be compared. What an absolute insult to the brave people that served in the allied forces during WWII.

I think that we have a great deal in common in our political opinions and I agree once more that this statement has nothing to do with Thailand's present situation; but I have to disagree with you on one point and that is - what the Allied Powers inflicted on Germany with the bombing campaign was no better than terrorism in its true sense, not the car-bomb, suicide bomber scenario, but effectively an all-out offensive against the civilian population; and that occurred even though it was clear that the US involvement meant that Germany was sure to be defeated. It did arguably shorten the conflict but the devastation that it caused to civilians was appalling. I have seen the "before and after" scenes of German cities and I am ashamed

totally greedy and hero worshipers Can i say Stalin Hitler Poll pot mugabwie all like Taksin ok get it

letitbe You have told us all many times that you see a dire future for Thailand and that your priority now is to escape with your assets intact. That is fine but will you stop making totally absurd allegations. Thaksin is not Stalin, he is not Pol Pot and he is not Mugabwe ( try to get the spelling correct next time) and most relevantly, he is not here.

Take your predictions and go

I am asuming that these acts will be claimed by an Islamic group.

Actually, my understanding so far is that this was the work of a single Norway citizen/resident which just goes to show that EVERY society has those that live within the laws and values and those that don't.

If the number of kids that were killed even approaches the 80 quoted in the topic, this is indeed a horror.

The story in Adelaide so far ...

http://www.adelaiden...l-1226100231078

"Actually, my understanding so far is that this was the work of a single Norway citizen/resident"

Al Qaeda is known to be recruiting caucasions to carry out acts of terror in Europe. This is too big and requiring organised resources to be the work of one blue-eyed boy with a grudge.

Really? Al Qaeda is known to be recruiting Caucasians ( by which, I presume you mean Europeans). Tell me where they are likely to find recruits who will carry out acts of terrorism for Islamic Jihad amongst the holders of a white supremacist belief. Your paranoia is blinding you to the history and mythology of the USA's Ku Klux Klan

The guy is a neo-Nazi christian fundamentalist and also a mason

Hardly someone al qaeda would be able to recruit

I agree with you - there is a minority of right-wing white supremacists out there in many western democracies who do not acept that all humans are equal. Occasionally there is one who will go beyond the absurdity of his creed and take the logical (to him) action of attacking the establishment that has reduced the purity of the race and allowed inferior beings to be in the genetic mix. It is perhaps no coincidence that the bomb exploded near the PM's office and that the shootings were at a Labour Party holiday camp. The linkage is patently obvious

Yellow shirts + Multi-colored shirts = PAD....these people are the biggest problems facing Thailand today. If they are not eliminated Thailand can never move forward.

No. The biggest problem is the international Global movement that is supporting the reds and Thaksin. And it is they who have created the problems in the first place. The story does not end with the election of the neo fascists. There's a long way to go yet.

Neo faciasts? Which group is which now? Many in the forum call the Redshirts commmies or socialists.

Would it be possible for you anti PTP people to have a meeting and decide upon which derisive label you wish to assign to the PTP and UDD members.?

It would make it easier for some of us to more easily follow the rants.

Thank you.

Which shows yoiu how much of a construct from thin air the Red Shirt movement is. It contains old school Communists, Socialists, Fascists and Just plane thugs for hire. All mixed in under one umbrella message.

Facsists need not be right wing exclusively.

Most communist societies devolved into being under the thumb of leadership that fit this description well.l.

fas·cism

  –noun

1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Think Mao or Stalin.

3. a fascist movement, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

Communism and fascism are not mutually exclusive in practice.

It need not resemble Only Mussolini's version.

Interesting piece of rhetoric but nonetheless completely fallacious.

Both have led to authoritarian rule but they are mutually exclusive.

Communism is a system pledged to the public ownership of the means of production, fascism is totally accepting of capitalism. That they both have led to unacceptable systems is certainly true but they are totally different philosophies.

No. The biggest problem is the international Global movement that is supporting the reds and Thaksin. And it is they who have created the problems in the first place. The story does not end with the election of the neo fascists. There's a long way to go yet.

Neo faciasts? Which group is which now? Many in the forum call the Redshirts commmies or socialists.

Would it be possible for you anti PTP people to have a meeting and decide upon which derisive label you wish to assign to the PTP and UDD members.?

It would make it easier for some of us to more easily follow the rants.

Thank you.

Hard to put a lable on schizophrenics.

A number of red leaders are in fact ex-communists. Hence "The People's Rhetoric" in many of the stage speeches.

Hard to put a label on schizophrenics? What is "schizophrenic" then, if not a label?

EX-communists are now neo-fascists - that is quite a turnaround

by raising the mininum wage increases more immmergrant like Bermease and Camidoians to come over. seems like a Taksin move. Seems like he wnta tro open the doors of Thailand to get back at the Thai people.

If the minimum age goes up then the customer would be charged more. inflation would go up. or bosses would look for more reasons to charge the workers like up their accomdation 300 vbaht more and stilll charge the customer.

Wasn't this tried in Greese and failed badly. unless that is what Taksin wants.

sounds like the future means more immergrants more poor thai people then back to where we started. good for me though i wnt to sell houses which means to build houses the same as mine would probably cost 40% more due to building the same house would cost 40 % more plus the rise in building materials.

but i ain't greedy prefer a stable economy to value of my house rising there again houses are only worth as much as what people want to pay. they might just not come here.

i know the thais really do not wnat to sell of land to forangs.

SHame they cannot do a deal where in sertain provinces of ampers we can buy stuff. like forangs land zones or thai/ forang zones.

here you go again alway having a go at the new government give them a chance we all know by now you dont like the red shirt's but try and say something new1

Well I'm glad that someone could decipher what he was saying

Gives new meaning to the word "horny", and there must be a joke in there somewhere - "How do you tell a Thai hooker is on safari? Because........".

Or "A horn in the hand is worth two in the bush"?

Or "A horn in the bush is worth two in the hand"

I can't believe it.

Someone actually saying it out loud, what we all have known for a long time.

This really is an important statement and let's hope the powers that be in the Dems are listening.

To become a mainstream political party with policies that really are relevant, the party needs to reinvent itself and broaden its appeal.

This is encouraging and can only be viewed as a forward step.

We have all known for a long time clearly does not include the Dem groupies on TV for whom the Dems can do no wrong and for whom every problem in the world can be traced to Thaksin and George Bush.

Not sure who you're referring to, as I've seen posters saying this sort of thing here for several years, just because they/we are anti-Thaksin doesn't mean that the Dems have ever been seen as more-than the least-bad next-alternative. Not that every single post takes the time to spell that out, of course.

I suspect that the problem (as I see it) of a deeply-entrenched well-organised party-machine in the North/North-East, which can deliver a very-substantial (if not always overall-majority) share of the vote/seats, will be with Thailand for some time to come. Equally the twin-base Bangkok/South support of the Dems has existed for many years.

This is problematical especially if it continues to be the property of any one man, who wants to run things long-term ("We will rule for 20+ years"), as one essential aspect of democracy is that there always needs to be the opportunity/possibility for change-of-control. It helps encourage the politicians to be less-dictatorial and slightly-more-honest, and can help minimise personality-politics (only one person can 'Save The Country' ! Oh Really ?), or single-party politics (where the example of Singapore springs to mind).

So long as `Thai-politics remains based upon regional/feudal power-groups & influential-families, rather than national-parties with alternative sets of policies, it's hard to see much changing IMO. But putting the importance of improving life for the poor on-the-agenda, so that now both PTP & the Dems frame their election-policies to meet these aspirations, has definitely been progress, so long as those promises are kept & not forgotten/reneged-upon/retracted once the elections end !

But how do you get from a regional power-base system to a national-party/policy-based system ? Hopefully not via a dictatorship.

Basically the answer is that you don't and never will until a completely new phenomenon arises in Thai politics - integrity. For however long the polity in this country has been the heritage of a history that was fundamentally feudalism much more recently than our western experiences.

The reason why, for example, the UK developed a parliamentary system that has stood the rigours of time was not the introduction of universal suffrage or a sudden shift in belief where the rich and powerful accepted that equality was a good thing and wealth should be shared.

What in fact occurred was that the ruling plutocracy was faced with a working-class who had fought and died in their millions for King and Empire against another country with exactly the same motivations.

Unfortunately for the elite who ruled Britain, there was an incipient movement led by men such as Keir Hardie whose conviction that all men were equal and that the "land fit for heroes" was a lie meant a complete change, however painfully, over the ensuing decades.

I do not think that Thailand needs a war of attrition with any of its neighbours but to my mind there is not a party in this country that has the kind of men of honesty, integrity and conscience that is needed to make this a better and more equal place for all of its people.

I have read over many threads that Abhisit is the best prospect for the future and his background and eucation make him the beacon for the future. Leaving aside the present controversy surrounding his fellow Etonian and Oxford graduate David Cameron's plight with News International, I have never seen any convincing evidence that he has a genuine wish to improve the situation in his native land.

Is he the Messiah who will inspire the Thai masses to follow the lead to a true democracy? If he believed in that as a cause, he would quit the Democrats and found a new political party dedicated to a more just and and equal society. I personally believe that many Thais would welcome someone who says with credibility "No more corruption. Our people deserve better" Such a leader must exist but he is not Thaaksin

A legally operating business, currently paying minimum wage to at least some of their employees when faced with a significant increase in the cost of labor can do one of a few things...

1) They can just pay the increase - assuming they have the excess profit just flowing in or laying around that enables them to "just pay it". (If you think many businesses can or will make this decision, you are not living in the real world.)

2) They can pay the increase by increasing price to their customers... but they will be thinking, how much can I increase price and not lose business? Can I increase at all?

3) They can fire some workers, outsource that labor to contract workers or send it to other countries. This is an easy decision for many minimum wage jobs (office cleaning, grounds maintenance, certain unskilled assembly, etc.)

4) They can become "illegal" and pay some workers "off the books" or find some other way around the increase in their labor costs. Many workers when faced with no job or a job "off the books" will welcome this option.

There are a few variations and combinations of these actions and probably a few more things but you get the idea. So what do you think businesses will do? Who really benefits in the end by each one of these decisions? Is the worker better off? Are ALL workers better off? Who is really better off with an increase in minimum wage?

If a 33% increase in the minimum wage is good from 200 to 300 baht per day is good, then why wouldn't 400 baht per day be even better? 500? 600?

You really believe that you can you can outsource office cleaning and ground maintenance to other countries?

OK!! so two of the 11 aren't facing legal proceedings. That means that 9 are and the 2 that are not must have done something dubious in their electioneering to prevent them from being endorsed by now.

The planned visit by a bunch of Pheu Thai's will vist Thaksin in Bali for his birthday - this is unconnected and has no linkage to the party, mmmhhh!!!! As another source states "he is still a fugitive" (on the run from Thailand). The whole thing becomes more and more unbelievable by the day, just who are they trying to kid??

They certainly know that they take NO risk in doing so, and that their party, as well as elected MP and soon to be PM will face NO consequences. It becomes more and more obvious that 1) Taksin runs the country 2)There will be no legal attempt to prevent it from happening 3)Lots of official talk a lot, make noise about this matter, but no action is taken or will be taken. 4) Once again, law will simply be ignored

I don't think so.

Thaksin is starting to lose his popularity and hold on PT as a whole. His sister will bungle everything on account of her inexperience and abundance of useless MP's surrounding her that haven't got a clue about what it takes to be an MP.

Just as I predicted, they would come to regret all of these "sweetener" pre-election promises that they don't have a hope of implementing as they are simply unaffordable and will be the death nell for SEM companies and the tourist industry. It may not have escaped you that there are louder and louder stirrings of dissatisfaction at their backtracking on literally all of their policies. The warnings given by industry and business leaders were not heeded and this will come back to haunt them in the near future.

She may not last as long as Brian Clough did at Leeds (44 days I think). Her followers have shown what spirit they have and will fight for their cause - I bet she never expected that her worshippers might turn against her but this is what I think will happen unless she is a magician and someone provides her with a hat and a white rabbit!!!

Alas Khun Yingluck, I fear for you (no wonder she was a bit apprehensive about taking on this task) - she should have stuck to her initial feelings about this and kept out of politics!!!

How do you justify saying that Thaksin is losing his popularity and hold on PT and that his sisters inexperience is an impediment to a PT government?

It is normal that warnings appear after any change of ruling party from those "business leaders" whose interests are understandably not the same as those of the voters

Have you ever thought about keeping out of politics which, as an alien, are none of your concern? Your predictions are no more valuable than the opinions of the self-glorified Brian Clough

The elections law did not prohibit the involvement of barred party executives in political activities. The ban was limited to holding office.

In big bold letters, a statement of what the law is. Now, will any of the people screaming in the forums cease and desist from making claims that there was an illegal act?

I think there is a dead crow on the road near the Phuket aerodrome. Perhaps it can be cooked up,. some balloons hung near one of the Patong beer bars and the TVF "legal experts" can come by and feast on some delicious crow.

I love it!!!! I pointed out in a previous thread that the Act specified only that banned politicians could not be office holders and was given the usual browbeating from the usual suspects; my error on that occasion was to believe that the Democrats were not so stupid that they would not consult the EC to ensure that their complaint was prima facie able to be substantiated as an infringement. That resulted in the accusation that I was implying collusion between the Democrats and the EC, which I was most certainly not doing.

It seems a good thing to me that the "Rule of Law" so beloved by the anti-Thaksin faction has been properly applied in this case.

Oh! and I am still not a supporter of any Thai political party - merely someone who likes to question...........

"Some people could not afford to pay money for medical treatment for inpatient services," he said.

It's a tough choice...a pack of cigarettes and a bottle of beer vs. paying for needed medical services.

I wonder what it would cost to treat such a bad case of rampant bigotry

OK, as a foreigner I read the Act in the IFES (International Foundation for Electoral Systems) website. It said that a banned politician could not be a leader or executive member of a political party but made no mention of any other activity... what I want to know and have been asking is what is the alleged infringement that Thaksin has committed if the Act does not have provision for "acting in a manner to suggest that he holds such a position" . Why has nobody thought of this?

Surely the Democrats must know that without a ruling on their case is doomed without such a proviso; I believe that they know perfectly well and have consulted the EC and been given the go-ahead

Care to provide a link?

Thaksin as the de facto leader of both the reds and the PTP has never much been in dispute. The only people that can make the final calls on this are the EC and the Constitution court. The wording you are giving is certainly up to interpretation in English in several ways. "cannot be a leader or..." could mean exactly what it says. If you are the one picking the #1 position on the party-list, then you ARE the leader and whatever the by-laws of the organization says are moot. If the party MP's bypass the executive committee and fly to see you for cabinet level positions, then again, you ARE the leader if you have the power to make that decision.

I don't know what you are implying with your last line, the first 1/2 is opinion and the second half looks like innuendo ....

I provided the source in which I read the Act; it has a disclaimer on the accuracy of translation, presumably for legal reasons. You might want to find the Thai version of the Act to see how they compare but that is beyond my Thai abilities.

I agree with you that there is an irrefutable case that Thaksin and Pheua Thai are inextricably tied but his role is ex officio - to exploit this apparent loophole, I suspect.

All political parties have expert advisers, including experts in law so they will realise that their case requires an interpretation of the law that is not in the Act . I was not indulging in innuendo when I suggested that the Dems might well have sought confirmation that their complaint was prima facie sustainable. That is perfectly reasonable and legitimate; indeed it would be astounding if they had not done so.

OK, as a foreigner I read the Act in the IFES (International Foundation for Electoral Systems) website. It said that a banned politician could not be a leader or executive member of a political party but made no mention of any other activity... what I want to know and have been asking is what is the alleged infringement that Thaksin has committed if the Act does not have provision for "acting in a manner to suggest that he holds such a position" . Why has nobody thought of this?

Surely the Democrats must know that without a ruling on their case is doomed without such a proviso; I believe that they know perfectly well and have consulted the EC and been given the go-ahead

The website of the EC list 'Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2550 (2007), unofficial translation by IFES'. Unfortunately you have to refer to documents in THAI to have an official status and point of view.

BTW some info, but not really much on the EC site http://www.ect.go.th...web/en/sitemap/

So are you saying that it is incorrect or just that it is an unofficial translation?

I give you the fact that the website I mentioned is not in Thai but the the website you referred me to had no relevant information that I could find. If you can show me that there is a part of the legislation that widens the scope of the Act as I have read it then I will be happy to accept that but for now I remain suspicious that advice has been sought from the EC as to whether the legislation as enacted can be widened in scope to include Thaksin's activities which do not appear to infringe the law

I have no regard for either party in this election but I suspect that there is a plan to change the rules with a judicial ruling which will cause yet more division in Thai society at a time when there is a greater need for reconciliation.

OK, as a foreigner I read the Act in the IFES (International Foundation for Electoral Systems) website. It said that a banned politician could not be a leader or executive member of a political party but made no mention of any other activity... what I want to know and have been asking is what is the alleged infringement that Thaksin has committed if the Act does not have provision for "acting in a manner to suggest that he holds such a position" . Why has nobody thought of this?

Surely the Democrats must know that without a ruling on their case is doomed without such a proviso; I believe that they know perfectly well and have consulted the EC and been given the go-ahead

The website of the EC list 'Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2550 (2007), unofficial translation by IFES'. Unfortunately you have to refer to documents in THAI to have an official status and point of view.

BTW some info, but not really much on the EC site http://www.ect.go.th...web/en/sitemap/

So are you saying that it is incorrect or just that it is an unofficial translation?

It's not just not being allowed to be a party leader or executive.

It's basically, not allowed to be involved in politics. That would generally include not being allowed to campaign.

I would respectfully suggest that this is no more than your opinion; as I said before "involved in politics" is vague and is too all-encompassing to be acceptable in any legislation as an offence. What I asked was whether there is a clearer definition of what the offender has to be shown to have done for an offence to have been committed. This thread has been going for a very long time with many posters claiming that they are supporting the rule of law but apparently none can say how that law has been broken

Correct, none of us posters seem specializes in Thai law in general and the Election Law specifically. Still applauding 'rule of law' means to accept that the Dem's filed a legal claim for the EC to investigate, for the EC to rule on the validity of the claim and for the EC to decide with lots of argumentation as to why or why not they forward the case to the appropriate court to judge.

As foreigner, non-law specialist I can only say, let the judicial system have a go at it.

Well done Rubl after 38 pages you have finally come up with the perfect solution.......let the Thai deal with their own issues their own way

Wasn't that difficult was it?

OK, as a foreigner I read the Act in the IFES (International Foundation for Electoral Systems) website. It said that a banned politician could not be a leader or executive member of a political party but made no mention of any other activity... what I want to know and have been asking is what is the alleged infringement that Thaksin has committed if the Act does not have provision for "acting in a manner to suggest that he holds such a position" . Why has nobody thought of this?

Surely the Democrats must know that without a ruling on their case is doomed without such a proviso; I believe that they know perfectly well and have consulted the EC and been given the go-ahead

This thread has been going for a very long time with many posters claiming that they are supporting the rule of law but apparently none can say how that law has been broken

Because supporting the rule of law doesn't mean saying how or even whether a law has been broken. That is for the people with the expertise and with the job of investigating the matter. The investigation is what is being supported here... by some.... not by others.

By quoting only the final sentence of my post you have ignored the question I asked and implicitly aligned me with those who do not support an investigation. That is not the case

I asked what the legal definition of "involved in politics while banned" because it must be rather more than this vague phrase which could be interpreted in so many ways that it is meaningless; I thought that one of you protagonists might know; it appears that you certainly don't so why did you bother to respond?