gabruce

The outcome of the next election will give a true indication of the level of division in this land.

One would expect turnout will be very high - 75% +

Should things transpire in a similar fashion to Thaksins 2005 triumph, surely it would be the death knell of the anti-democrats.

PTP pushing 60% (2005 = 56.4%) of the popular vote and the Democrats sinking below 20% (2005 = 16.1%) would be a pretty clear indication of the unity of the vast majority of Thais as to how they want their country run and who they want to run it.

In the face of such an overwhelming and resounding defeat the geriatric generals, plutocrats, PAD, PDRC, Yellows, Pitak Siam, Suthep, Democrats, Abhisit, appointed Senators, NACC, CC judges, Health Dept. officials, ex military Thai Airways executives, Singha Beer heiresses and that crazy assed Monk would be forced to give up entirely their futile and illegal attempts to snatch power forever more.

Pretty obvious why they all are so afraid of elections being held isn't it!

On the other hand it could go the other way: PTP 20% Democrats 80%. Aren't baseless predictions fun? My prediction: Democrats 60% PTP 30% minor parties 10%.

why are these goons still calling themselves DPM's when they were removed from office by the court on Wed

They are still calling themselves DPM's because they think it's a clever way to defy the CC ruling.

It's like asking your son did you take a cookie from the cookie jar.

Answer I did not take "a" cookie from the cookie jar. (subtext: I took two cookies from the cookie jar. Alternate: I had my sister take two cookies from the cookie jar after I opened the jar and lifted her up to the chair so she could reach inside.)

Another reason why decisive, ruthless action is required to put an end to the shin dynasty and its hangers on, wipe them from the history books..

Or vote them out.

Still can't name those other pesky democratic principles heay?

Here is a reference from Taiwan (originally from the US department of State) where they attempt to layout the principles of Democracy. www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/prinDemocracy/what.html

It's heavily biased towards the American system, however it is still useful.

I would be interested in any better summary or reference.

I cannot believe anything else than PTP are just pretending they are confused. There is no possible way even a lawyer could pretend that the CC decision is specific to holding one specific Cabinet position and that you can then switch to another position. That sounds confusing. They must know they are spouting nonsense and are just trying to confuse everyone and stay in power.

Of course the PDRC have a plan to win todays final battle. They are going to blow their whistles as loudly as they possibly can and spout more rhetoric which will have Sutheps clowns orgasming in the streets and behind their computers. And when that fails miserably, Suthep will announce another final day, next week.

Which is the way it should be! Protest? Yes. Violence? No!

Wake up. The money spent to subsidize private schools -- private schools -- is a drop in the bucket compared to rice pledging.

Duh.

Ok I bite, why do you post the same BS!!! On every threat? If you have nothing to say, just stay away, stop trolling!

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I'm curious. How much is spent to subsidize private schools? How much for public schools? What's the ratio? What's the value/cost/subsidy per student? Are private schools ones where additional tuition needs to be paid? If so, isn't that most schools in Thailand? Some detail would make your claim more believable. I know little about the education system in Thailand, so sorry if this is common knowledge.

(quick math: rice losses 400billion? 20 million students, approx 20,000thb/student)

What would Jatupon do without the word 'coup'?

Probably shag few chickens, then throw their blood at all and sundry.

In fact, he might even do that before Sunday is out.

Gross and disturbing!

" As a matter of fact, the Court’s ruling did not have any effects on Mr Chalerm since his role as Deputy Prime Minister had already ended before the Cabinet ordered the transfer of the National Security Council chief which was deemed unlawful by the judges. "

There they go. They're already arguing his innocence even though the court found him guilty. In other words, they were fully prepared to not accept the ruling if Chalerm was actually ruled guilty. From the Earth to CAPO - Chalerm was indeed found guilty. So this bizarre thought from CAPO is the kind of point that one assumes can only be understood by fine minds like Chalerm - Mr. Paradox. Evidently the court felt differently on that legal point, by the way. But by all means, CAPO, re-litigate the case. Doubtless they were so spent before on questioning the court's legitimacy that they haven't had time yet to pull their defense together. Better late than never, I suppose. In the meantime, we have the prospect of Chalerm's smugness all over again before the cameras. No court in the land can hold that man down.

So their point is that he was NOT in the Cabinet at the time? If so, then the CC made a mistake, a big one. Personally, not knowing directly, I believe that he was in the Cabinet at the time and they are just trying to blow smoke and confuse things.

By the way, I just noted on Wikipedia that Cabinet members do NOT need to be MP's, so anyone can be in the Cabinet. They must also not be mentally infirm and must have a bachelors degree or equivalent. (they can also NOT be a monk, a member of the judiciary or have been bankrupt and a number of other restrictions.).

This dirt will never see a day in jail. Sad but true.

Jail for what?

Thumping the Democrats in an election?

Yingluck is far and away the cleanest, least corrupt PM this nation has ever seen.

I assume you have not been here for a long time with that silly statement.

She does look like she showers often.

She was not defence Minister until 2013 and the court only targetted the ones who were ministers in 2011.

Now we see what happens when you rush a decision and it may be why the NACC are late with thier bit of the Coup.

More important is the question of whether she can stand in the July 20th election.

If Thailand had proper judges instead of Ammart bully boys this sort of thing would not happen (so often)

So, following that logic Chalerm while no longer caretaker Minister of Labour could now be appointed caretaker Minister of Finance? Somehow I don't think it works that way, and who knows when lawyers get involved?

Ousted Yingluck To Be Re-Ousted By Senate, NACC Rules

By Khaosod English

BANGKOK — Ex-Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has been indicted for corruption charges in connection with the government's rice-pledging scheme, paving the way for the Senate to impeach her.

In an unanimous 7-0 vote on Thursday, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) ruled that Ms. Yingluck was aware of massive corruption in the government’s controversial rice program, but refused to put an end to it.

The offence amounts to an abuse of bureaucratic power, as outlined in Thailand’s Criminal Codes, the NACC ruled..

The case will now head to the Senate, who will decide on whether or not to impeach Ms. Yingluck and ban her from political office for the next five years. An affirmative vote would effectively rule out the possibility of Ms. Yingluck running in the next general election, which is scheduled to take place on 20 July. It would also open Ms. Yingluck up to being sued in Criminal Court for the damages caused by the rice program’s corruption.

The controversial rice-pledging scheme was intended to bring in more revenue for Thailand’s rice farmers, but backfired dramatically, causing the government to lose billions of baht and fail to pay farmers on schedule.

It is unclear when the Senate will convene to proceed with the impeachment against Ms. Yingluck.

The NACC's ruling came only a day after Ms. Yingluck was found guilty by the Constitutional Court of unlawfully removing the National Security Council (NSC) director, and subsequently removed from her caretaker position.

Source: http://en.khaosod.co.th/detail.php?newsid=1399543179

-- Khaosod English 2014-05-08

The controversial rice-pledging scheme was intended to bring in more revenue for Thailand’s rice farmers, but backfired dramatically, causing the government to lose billions of baht and fail to pay farmers on schedule.

---------------------------------

Wonderful understatement to conflates 100's of billions of baht with mere billions. Technically a correct statement. I'm surprised they didn't go with "lose many baht" or "lose several baht". Perhaps it would have been too obvious.

PS. The rice program should have lost money, that's what a subsidy is, however it should have been an order of magnitude smaller. Losing billions or 10's of billions instead of 100's of billions.

Here's where it all comes crashing down, thanks to the recent senate elections.

The coup clowns don't have the required 3/5 of the senate vote.

There will be no impeachment.

With the Senate being 49% appointed by the Ammart the numbers are very close with slightly more than 60% favouring the old-guard.

Thailand needs reform and the first reform should be an elected senate.

tell me who is the Ammart

I think I met him. He drives a cab in Bangkok. His name is Ammart, or something like that. If I had known who he was at the time I would have asked him to stop for a beer and a chat.

Here's where it all comes crashing down, thanks to the recent senate elections.

The coup clowns don't have the required 3/5 of the senate vote.

There will be no impeachment.

With the Senate being 49% appointed by the Ammart the numbers are very close with slightly more than 60% favouring the old-guard.

Thailand needs reform and the first reform should be an elected senate.

No, Thailand' senate should be 100% appointed as is Canada's.

Yes. Someone else sees the light!!!!

So now we have the Prime Minister position that can be taken away if the incumbant fails to stop corruption. In future they will not have to prove that any corruption has taken place or name the people who have been corrupt.

Seems like there will never be a stable government in Thailand again.

Isn't it more of "Chose to deliberately ignore (encourage) corruption." rather than fail to stop. If the verdict and charge is fair, if she had done anything to stem the tide or even tried, then there wouldn't have been a charge.

Of course that's assuming the charge is valid, which it seems to be since the defence seems to have been "it's not my fault. I wanted to do the right thing. I just didn't believe there was any corruption in the rice program so didn't think there was anything to do. Everyone one else was just jealous of our success."

All in all, it's a right mess. It's better to be optimistic that things will improve in the future.

I like it...

But....but.... Suthep, Abhisit..........what about their crimes of genocide?

I think the answer is "What crimes of genocide?". Agreed there are pending charges, if they are ever brought to trial.

Sucking up to the boss by praising his idiot sister! Now that's a politician!

If you leave politics aside, it's quite possible that Yingluck is a very nice person and could easily be quite polite. So Minister Chatchart may easily be sincere. Is there any real reason to presume otherwise?

Caught with your hands in the cookie jar once topo often and now SMACK! Thats what has happened. I am in Chiang Mai and was in a Noodle shop when this was on TV. All in Thai so I was just there eating then APPLAUSE. I asked what happened and they said YINGLUCK IS GONE TODAY. They were happy.

So where are all these red shirts who are angry? Not in Hang Dong Chiang Mai I can assure you

I think the next election (whenever that is) will be interesting. Maybe especially if the EC get's tough with making campaigning safe and get's tough with intimidation and whatever else is necessary and possible to tweak to get closer to free and fair elections. My impression as well is that hard-core red support is waning as well. More people that I know seem to be tired of the PTP (regular people at least, don't know any of the wealthy people in chiangmai). Couple that with the low turnout on Feb 2, the number if invalid ballots and no votes, and I think the end result is unpredictable. I think too that people (at least in Bangkok) are tired of the protestors, though this is just from what I read since I'm in Chiang Mai.

Mostly, I think everyone is tired of violence and intolerance.

Best wishes!

So where is the technical analysis of the ruling? I see a lot of editorials and commentary but no scholarly analysis. Where are the constitutional scholars? Does a straightforward reading of the constitution plainly forbid certain actions of which the PM is known to have done?

Why doesn't political science Professor Paul Chambers explain precisely why the justices are wrong in their ruling?

My opinion. There is no technical analysis because the ruling is legally correct and no real expert wants to look stupid by releasing a technical analysis that has no legal basis.

The defense. I'm not actually PM now. Caretaker PM doesn't count. I didn't do it. I just signed whatever was put in front of me. I did no wrong. Appointing family members to high positions is the right way to run a country.

Personally I was surprised the entire cabinet didn't go because I thought the constitution said that the entire cabinet went if the PM went. That's probably why I'm not a judge.

Personally I think that Thailand needs to develop a little patience. If the Red Shirts in 2010 were a bit patient there would have been elections. On the other hand Central World would have missed a renovation opportunity. If the PDRC were a bit patient - the country might have been bankrupt - but there would have been an election. If the government was a bit patient now and delayed elections by a further 3 months, and allowed a reform referendum, there might be an election.

Okay, reading this now, I think I'm wrong. No answers here.

You do realize it was an appointed Senator, one of the gang of 40, that made the complaint about Thawils transfer, after the "old" cabinet had agreed to reinstate him.

Presumably not, judging by your irrelevant post about senator elections.

reinstall? First of all obviously they didn't reinstall him, so that agreement was also a lie. Second even if they would have reinstalled him, it is still abuse of power.

It's a bit like stealing my card and returning it two years later and expecting to be forgiven and not charged because you returned the car. Never going to happen.

Just more criminal court activities, Charlerm devides the country, commits massive criminal acts and nothing done. Yet Yingluck wasn't even the person whom removed the person but since she didn't stop it, she is removed. Yup seems legit.

The best part about all of this is, in the short time she has been PM she has managed to go to court and be removed.

Yet the mass murder Abisit hasn't and is still in a Government position. When wil lthe murder be put in jail? Oh wait that's right he is on the other side they don't go to court, jail or held responible for any of their actions.

Well at least when someone comes along and removes the justice system to revamp it all will understand.

Very sad day for Thailand

or he isn't a mass murderer and the case hasn't gone to court yet because the prosecutors don't have a case yet.

Or, the conspiracy-minded would say that Thaksin is keeping the case around as leverage.

The NACC ruling will be tomorrow. It will almost certainly involve a recommendation to conduct impeachment proceedings through the Senate, at which point Yingluck's defense would be transported to that venue. Such a recommendation would of course involve stepping down immediately. Today, that is likely to happen in any event from the ruling from the Constitutional Court. All eyes will be on the Constitutional Court today as they could affect one of a number of possibilities. One of the strongest possibilities could be the removal of Yingluck and her cabinet as a result of a guilty verdict, along with enabling the path to pursue the nomination of a prime minister through the Senate, which the constitution allows in lieu of a quorum-less parliament. If that were the case, there would be a rush to elect a Senate speaker and nominate a prime minister before the current Senate session ends on Saturday. So this could move very quickly. Of course, if this route were recommended, that would in effect mark the end of Thaksin's influence. It would affect a break from it. There would be no relatives to pool from - no confidants.

But the ruling - whatever it may be - will not be the end of the story, though of course it should be. We still do not know how the various participants in this drama will react - Yingluck and her administration, the UDD, Abhisit and the Democratic party, Suthep and the PDRC, Thaksin, and of course - the army. The army would likely only step in if the authority of the court were challenged. Everybody in this drama - regardless as to political stripe - realizes that, and that's a good thing, because all have respect for the power of the army. It has kept them all in check. Just that awareness alone has kept this crisis from spilling over. The first signs will come from Yingluck and her ministers. If they show even the slightest indications of balking or resisting the ruling, then the crisis will likely escalate, as all the other participants in this game of dominoes would react to that in kind - almost in a knee-jerk reaction. So the first step towards healing would be if Yingluck and her ministers were to unconditionally and gracefully accept the ruling. That is the best case scenario. But even if that were the case, there is the question of the UDD and all the others. With all those tensions and competing narratives at play the army may be the only hope of being peace and order to the crisis, starting with the protection of the courts and their rulings.

I don't think there will be a rush. Once they opened the Senate session and determined that there wasn't immediate agreement on the Speaker, they announced that the Speaker will be elected on Friday. As you imply, there will be pressure to keep to their plan. Your comment about there possibly being a rush to nominate a caretaker Prime Minister is likely.

"The reform process should take about 18 months, and the election should be organized within 150-180 days upon the completion of the reform."
------------
Sloppy reporting or deliberately wrong and misleading?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Abhisits plan for a 5 month delay for an election: 1 month to prepare a reform proposal - 2 months to conduct a referendum - 2 more months for an election - then 1 year later a new election.

This was a fair editorial (for once), until this bit:

The breakdown of trust. Virtually all supporters of the anti-government People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) do not trust Yingluck and her elder brother, Thaksin. They believe Thaksin does not just want his confiscated money back, but wants to become Thailand's first president.

how many of these people are there? Without an election, we will never know if they constitute a majority of Thais or not.

It was a very good, thoughtful, and balanced editorial. I would say that it's totally non-partisan.

Picking one paragraph out to make it look unbalanced is not honest.

I would say that it's not relevant what the percentage of people in either camp is. Both groups are sizable, so both are relevant. It doesn't matter if one group can elect a majority in Parliament or not, the other group cannot be ignored.

My opinion is that like the last election, the next election won't see an absolute popular majority, only a largest of the different popular minorities. No prediction as to which party that will be.

The UDD activist also warned the court not to attempt to replace Ms. Yingluck with an unelected Prime Minister.

Unfortunately your opinion means nothing. The constitution which is the highest law in the land states otherwise and the powers that oversee this law have the final say.

​If your decide not to accept the rule of law you must prefer anarchy. So what is it democracy or anarchy?

I broke the law once when I drank and drove in AUstralia. By god I tried to get off the charge. Never worked. I was so upset with the courts. I even said they were biased against me. Suffice to say I finally accepted I did wrong and decided never to drink and drive again.

If the law states that drink drivers go to jail I cannot "warn the court not to attempt to send me to jail" WHat should I say..This is a judicial coup drunk driving charge.

Silly isn't it...

Respect the law and lets move forward.

​I would love a Shin govt in power IF the respected the law/ I would love yingluck to rule if she had lawyers that told her when she was breaking the law.

Nope. Doesn't happen. So I can only support a "team" that ensure 15 principles are supported. AND rest assured I can name the 15 principles….Can you?

Actually you could have warned the court to not send you to jail or else. If you were sufficiently intimidating and you did it privately, you might sway the judge, in Australia, America or any other country. However in those countries, you would run a very high risk of being charged with coercion or something similar and go to jail seriously. A public threat would likely result in a charge. This is as far as I know, not being a lawyer.

Yingluck blames Kowit in transferring Thawil

BANGKOK: -- Caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra today blamed former police chief Kowit Wattana as a person who transferred the former national security chief to inactive post while she was busy with fighting the great flooding in 2011.

She testified to the Constitutional Court today to defend malfeasance and interference of official work involving the unlawful transfer of Mr Thawil Pliensri from the National Security Council to the prime minister’s office as advisor.

If found guilty, she will lose her premiership status and must step down.

In defending the transfer, Ms Yingluck said in a 8-point written statement that her premiership and the cabinet status have ended on the day when she dissolved Parliament. Therefore, she argued that her ended status could not be cited again for the Constitutional Court to rule if her status had been ended.

She compared her ended status to a dead person who died of a certain cause and therefore that person could not be revived to die of another cause.

She also said she had authority given by the law to transfer Mr Thawil and her act was not an interference as accused by the petitioner.

She also said the transfer was not solely decided by her but the entire cabinet and it was not meant to pave the easy for the appointment of Pol Gen Pliewphan Damapong to the Royal Thai Police chief as alleged.

The transfer of Pol Gen Vichien Photposri from Royal Thai Police chief to permanent secretary of Transport also was not to open the police chief seat for Pol Gen Pliewphan but merely a routine meeting to endorse the appointment without prior approaches.

Yingluck insisted during testifying that no matter the Constitutional Court will rule that her premiership has ended, she and her cabinet which have lost cabinet status after dissolution of parliament will continue to perform duties until a new government is formed under Article 181 of the Constitution.

During the testifying, Yingluck repeatedly claimed that the transfer was made by her deputy Pol Gen Kowit Wattana as she had designated him to undertake the job while she was busying herself helping people affected by the great flooding during the period.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/yingluck-blames-kowit-transferring-thawil/

-- Thai PBS 2014-05-06

It's an interesting argument that because she no longer is Prime Minister but is Caretaker Prime Minister she can longer be held responsible for actions taken as Prime Minister and that as Caretaker Prime Minister she is immune.

I do note that she stated that she will NOT step down, nor will her cabinet, no matter what the court decides.