Pheu Thai Party Could Be Dissolved If Under Thaksin: EC

[scorecard]

10 minutes ago, tomta said:

The right of any free person to comment on whatever they want to comment on be it your own country or any other

Further, I have a Thai son born here and he has 3 Thai kids, I want something better for them and their families, and therefore I will comment. To be honest my son brings up discussions along these lines all the time, he wants to talk about and I'm glad that he does, he discusses the weak points and what he would like to see happen, I'm happy to talk about it.

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

You forgot the same hearts and minds which the yellow junta can't buy. 

 

Hearts and minds - ????????????

 

You can't half tell'em Eric! Good one.

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, JCauto said:

When I noted your consistency, I was referring particularly to your inability to understand the basic issue. That is that the A-maart will never let majority rule because they've lost the demographic ability to win elections and so rely on the military, courts and rigging elections through disqualification to maintain power. 

Any discussion about breaking laws and punishing crooks simply demonstrates your inability to understand the culture in Thailand. All ruling regimes, with the sole exception of the Anand Panyarachun Government that was installed after Suchinda's coup, are corrupt. All Thai people acknowledge this explicitly. However, according to the Yellow worldview, Thaksin was somehow too corrupt, and too power-hungry, and by being able to take over the entire political structure he would be able to make laws any way he wanted and evade taxes and engage in endless corruption and somehow rig the political system forever-more such that he'd be able to rule for life and turn the country into a Republic. Therefore it was important that the military take over to prevent this possibility from occurring and to punish this one-of-a-kind trickster who would somehow bring complete ruin to the country should he have been allowed to remain in power. 

 

Instead, in both instances, his political party has been replaced by someone with complete power, who grants no political freedom for anyone other than his own supporters, who implicitly supports the Yellow side who put him in power and who he is clearly courting so that he can remain in power. His government has been completely non-transparent, the press is not allowed to report on bad things and there are military courts for those who displease the Generals. And, of course, they've taken the constitution that was lauded as one of the most progressive of the many previous constitutions and ripped it up and replaced it with one of their own, enshrining all sorts of new power for the military. There is also, surprise, lots of corruption too. So exactly how is this vision any different than the supposed hell that Thaksin was going to bring? The economy is doing worse, so there's that...

 

There is only one difference, and that those who have always been in power remain so, and anyone from outside that circle who attempts to be elected with enough support to challenge that will be removed as soon as a reasonable excuse to do so is presented and the old regime is then installed to take over by the military. This is the fundamental problem of Thailand. It only ends when the military no longer enjoys amnesty for coups and citizens who lose elections stop demanding them. "The Junta will have to be judged." How and by whom? Why has it NEVER happened with all the other coups? You already know the answer.

Where exactly does the "law" fit into this? You're looking at this from the point of view of Western institutions and rule of law. It's charming, but completely irrelevant to Thailand. 

 

And you seem to want to ignore that Thaksin and his family are part of the elite. They want it all for themselves though which has caused the upset with the others. Just see how PTP ignore laws, lie, admit to lying and then lie some more, cheat and importantly how they react to when they have lost elections. Thaksin was very open that democracy wasn't his goal. He failed in creating the grip his mate Hun Sen has achieved for his family and cronies in Cambodia.

 

Hardly the honest bastion of democracy you seem to suggest now are they?

[Eric Loh]

9 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Hearts and minds - ????????????

 

You can't half tell'em Eric! Good one.

Don’t expect you to understand that. You more used to guns and intimidation. 

[Baerboxer]

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Don’t expect you to understand that. You more used to guns and intimidation. 

 

Yes, I was here when the Shin street militia was using weapons and trying to intimidate people who dared protest against their corrupt regimes as well as their insurgency. Not very pleasant.

[Eric Loh]

4 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Yes, I was here when the Shin street militia was using weapons and trying to intimidate people who dared protest against their corrupt regimes as well as their insurgency. Not very pleasant.

You only see the Shin militia? Very selective BB. But surely you see the tanks rolling in twice and seizing power, tore up the constitution, grant themselves amnesty and corrupt with immunity. 

[Baerboxer]

Just now, Eric Loh said:

You only see the Shin militia? Very selective BB. But surely you see the tanks rolling in twice and seizing power, tore up the constitution, grant themselves amnesty and corrupt with immunity. 

 

Yep saw that too. But at least you recognize the Shin militia exits. And perhaps appreciate the the police gave them free reign. That was always gonna mean the military stepped in to protect their own interests. Thaksin tried to grant himself and his family and cronies exactly the same amnesty and immunity. They all want to be, and believe they actually are, above the law. Only he wasn't so successful and had to do a runner along with little sister. 

[candide]

11 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

And you seem to want to ignore that Thaksin and his family are part of the elite. They want it all for themselves though which has caused the upset with the others. Just see how PTP ignore laws, lie, admit to lying and then lie some more, cheat and importantly how they react to when they have lost elections. Thaksin was very open that democracy wasn't his goal. He failed in creating the grip his mate Hun Sen has achieved for his family and cronies in Cambodia.

 

Hardly the honest bastion of democracy you seem to suggest now are they?

As usual, there is the theoretical way to look at this issue, and the practical way.

The practical way to look at it is the following:

- the yellow crooks clique already dominates a large share of the political system because of coups and because of their rigged constitution: senate, strategic committee in charge of applying the 20 years plan, so-called independent agencies, and even most of the judiciary

- the red crooks clique is the only one able to challenge (to some extent) the yellow crooks, as they are able to get elected

- is it better that the yellow crooks eliminates the red crooks for any reason, which will lead them to dominate also the government?

[Baerboxer]

1 minute ago, candide said:

As usual, there is the theoretical way to look at this issue, and the practical way.

The practical way to look at it is the following:

- the yellow crooks clique already dominates a large share of the political system because of coups and because of their rigged constitution: senate, strategic committee in charge of applying the 20 years plan, so-called independent agencies, and even most of the judiciary

- the red crooks clique is the only one able to challenge (to some extent) the yellow crooks, as they are able to get elected

- is it better that the yellow crooks eliminates the red crooks for any reason, which will lead them to dominate also the government?

Very pragmatic! Just add the red crook's clique are the new boys on the block and haven't been able to break the old alliances. 

 

As for your question - it's not better for either to have a grip on power. Both need to go.

[Eric Loh]

7 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Yep saw that too. But at least you recognize the Shin militia exits. And perhaps appreciate the the police gave them free reign. That was always gonna mean the military stepped in to protect their own interests. Thaksin tried to grant himself and his family and cronies exactly the same amnesty and immunity. They all want to be, and believe they actually are, above the law. Only he wasn't so successful and had to do a runner along with little sister. 

Some group need to surface to balance out the violent PAD and their benevolent military. Ignoring the people mandate has its consequences. Just imagine the yellows and the military given free rein, corruption will skyrocket. Resistance is needed and the people need to be represented. Not everyone can grant their own amnesty and blatantly corrupt in full public view and yet not punished. Others not aligned with the military ain’t not that lucky. 

[candide]

8 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

Very pragmatic! Just add the red crook's clique are the new boys on the block and haven't been able to break the old alliances. 

 

As for your question - it's not better for either to have a grip on power. Both need to go.

Unfortunately, this option is not on the menu.

[robblok]

1 hour ago, tomta said:

I presume that the law against "influence" to maintain a facade of respectability does not mention Thaksin or Pheua Thai by name although it may as well. It would be a law against "influence" by outsiders. Whoever they might be.

 

This is quite ridiculous. No political party in the world - unless its three revolutionaries plotting in a bedsit in Battersea - is free of outside influence. And nor should they be. Any political party will seek information, ideas and strategies from wherever they can get it - fugitive criminals, successful leaders, social and political theorists, And so they should. A political party that refused influence from outside itself would be ridiculous.

 

Palang Pracharat praises  Prayuth who is not (openly at least) a member of the party and are presumaby influenced by them. The Democrats are a member of the world wide asssociation of liberal democratic parties so presumably they are influenced by out siders - although given their illiberal undemocratic principle, it would appear that they have not been influenced enough.

 

 

Any  reasonable constitutional court in the world would throw this law out in a heartbeat

 

 

That is what you say but then you and I see things differently. I feel this law is a good law as MP's have to show what they own so others can spot conflicts of interests. Now if you have others steering a party leading it who don't show this they have an unfair advantage and people can't check if there are conflicts of interests. 

 

Its 2 different things leading a party like Thaksin does and asking someone for information or help.  I think you see the distinction too.

 

So don't be so sure, i know that where I am from these kind of laws would be applauded as bring murky deals out of the shadows by requiring anyone leading a party disclose assets. Many countries have laws like this that people in power should disclose assets.. now if someone could lead a party secretly (like Thaksin) he would not have to disclose assets and therefor can hide his interests and make murky deals that favor him and his. 

 

 

[Eric Loh]

9 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

Very pragmatic! Just add the red crook's clique are the new boys on the block and haven't been able to break the old alliances. 

 

As for your question - it's not better for either to have a grip on power. Both need to go.

Something new from you. Nice soundbit though. Tell me how will the elites and the military go. 

[robblok]

11 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

Very pragmatic! Just add the red crook's clique are the new boys on the block and haven't been able to break the old alliances. 

 

As for your question - it's not better for either to have a grip on power. Both need to go.

It seems so hard for the die hard red supporters to ever comment on failings in their own party. They only see the failings of the junta. They don't see that the reds want exactly what the junta does and would do so in a heartbeat given the chance. They are all crooks.

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Something new from you. Nice soundbit though. Tell me how will the elites and the military go. 

He will tell you after you tell him how Thaksin goes ????

[candide]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

Its 2 different things leading a party like Thaksin does and asking someone for information or help.  I think you see the distinction too.

Tomta forgot to mention the role of Thailand's big fortunes. On the list of Thailand's richest families, Thaksin is only a mosquito. Can anyone believe that the land of scams would be the only one in which economic powers don't meddle with politics? How have been financed the Dem party, the yellow protests, various yellow institutions, etc...? By cotisations from their members? Lol. The only difference is that they don't directly engage on the political arena, as Thaksin did, they are just pulling strings

[Eric Loh]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

He will tell you after you tell him how Thaksin goes ????

Thaksin will go one way or the other. Still waiting for an answer how the elites and military will go. You got a better answer ?

[JCauto]

55 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

And you seem to want to ignore that Thaksin and his family are part of the elite. They want it all for themselves though which has caused the upset with the others. Just see how PTP ignore laws, lie, admit to lying and then lie some more, cheat and importantly how they react to when they have lost elections. Thaksin was very open that democracy wasn't his goal. He failed in creating the grip his mate Hun Sen has achieved for his family and cronies in Cambodia.

 

Hardly the honest bastion of democracy you seem to suggest now are they?

They're part of a very different Elite, not the Old Guard. Thailand functions very much on a patronage basis, and the Elite maintain said position by ensuring that benefits accrue to their clients. When the Old Guard (and military) are in power, the Yellows provide support and gain benefit whereas when Thaksin was in power it was the Reds. Thaksin's greatest sin, and the one that he will never be forgiven for, was to demonstrate to the people in the Northeast and North how consolidated political power could bring a large increase in investment/funding into their provinces rather than to Bangkok, the Central and the South.

 

When exactly did the PTP lose an election? 

 

I don't know what your straw man about Hun Sen has to do with the topic at hand. 

[JCauto]

28 minutes ago, robblok said:

It seems so hard for the die hard red supporters to ever comment on failings in their own party. They only see the failings of the junta. They don't see that the reds want exactly what the junta does and would do so in a heartbeat given the chance. They are all crooks.

This is just disingenuous, and I'm disappointed that you would attempt to characterize our arguments as such. If you can point to a single post where I or others supporting the Reds not acknowledging the crookedness of Thaksin, then kindly point it out. You won't find one. 

[Redline]

8 hours ago, zzaa09 said:

Farang...??

 

????

Ummmm ok, I’ll have some of whatever you’re taking ????

[robblok]

40 minutes ago, candide said:

Tomta forgot to mention the role of Thailand's big fortunes. On the list of Thailand's richest families, Thaksin is only a mosquito. Can anyone believe that the land of scams would be the only one in which economic powers don't meddle with politics? How have been financed the Dem party, the yellow protests, various yellow institutions, etc...? By cotisations from their members? Lol. The only difference is that they don't directly engage on the political arena, as Thaksin did, they are just pulling strings

The difference is there are laws governing political parties and their MP's and by secretly being the leader but not being subjected to those laws he is breaking them. These laws are in place long before the coup and he is flaunting them by leading a party but not subjecting to those laws. The junta in their wisdom saw this and made it illegal (not often they do a good thing)

 

That is a fact and you and your side always come with examples of other crooks so not to have to punish your crook.

 

How hard is it to admit he is a crook and needs to be punished but so do other crooks. Would make a nice change from constantly defending him.

[robblok]

43 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Thaksin will go one way or the other. Still waiting for an answer how the elites and military will go. You got a better answer ?

The junta will be gone one way or the other too.. lets keep it vague as long as you can't condemn the crook that is Thaksin and admit he wrong what use is it to talk about other crooks and problems.

[robblok]

26 minutes ago, JCauto said:

This is just disingenuous, and I'm disappointed that you would attempt to characterize our arguments as such. If you can point to a single post where I or others supporting the Reds not acknowledging the crookedness of Thaksin, then kindly point it out. You won't find one. 

I did not know you were a die hard red supporter ? 

 

You seem to agree with me that whoever is in power goes after their enemies and not their own even if they break the law. (both applying the law selectively) That admission in my eyes clears you of being a die hard red supporter. Thaksin and his are as much a problem as the junta. They both abuse the system and id rather see them both go or at least both get punished every time they break the law until they follow the law.

 

When that happens i won't comment on junta or PTP.. too bad i doubt it will happen. I

[Eric Loh]

29 minutes ago, robblok said:

The junta will be gone one way or the other too.. lets keep it vague as long as you can't condemn the crook that is Thaksin and admit he wrong what use is it to talk about other crooks and problems.

Junta has been around for 86 years and counting. They will be around staging coups for a long time after a crooked Thaksin gone. Even the current army chief has say that the junta will continue to stage coups. You have not provided an adequate answer. 

[scorecard]

5 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Junta has been around for 86 years and counting. They will be around staging coups for a long time after a crooked Thaksin gone. Even the current army chief has say that the junta will continue to stage coups. You have not provided an adequate answer. 

"Even the current army chief has say that the junta will continue to stage coups."

 

As is your way when needed you quote things not quite / very not in context, not complete, and not what was quite possibly meant in his comment.

 

You should be banned.

 

[Eric Loh]

22 minutes ago, scorecard said:

"Even the current army chief has say that the junta will continue to stage coups."

 

As is your way when needed you quote things not quite / very not in context, not complete, and not what was quite possibly meant in his comment.

 

You should be banned.

 

Ban me and ban coup. I will take one for the people. 

[scorecard]

2 hours ago, JCauto said:

This is just disingenuous, and I'm disappointed that you would attempt to characterize our arguments as such. If you can point to a single post where I or others supporting the Reds not acknowledging the crookedness of Thaksin, then kindly point it out. You won't find one. 

I don't agree. First who do you mean when you say "...our arguments..." .  You make me laugh when you say "... you won't find one...". Not even one? You can't be serious or perhaps just a strategically convenient comment. 

 

I have no intention of doing any search however I have no doubt they're are many such posts over the last 12 or so years. 

 

 

[scorecard]

55 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Ban me and ban coup. I will take one for the people. 

Ahh your so sweeeeeet.

[candide]

4 hours ago, candide said:

As usual, there is the theoretical way to look at this issue, and the practical way.

The practical way to look at it is the following:

- the yellow crooks clique already dominates a large share of the political system because of coups and because of their rigged constitution: senate, strategic committee in charge of applying the 20 years plan, so-called independent agencies, and even most of the judiciary

- the red crooks clique is the only one able to challenge (to some extent) the yellow crooks, as they are able to get elected

- is it better that the yellow crooks eliminates the red crooks for any reason, which will lead them to dominate also the government?

 

3 hours ago, robblok said:

The difference is there are laws governing political parties and their MP's and by secretly being the leader but not being subjected to those laws he is breaking them. These laws are in place long before the coup and he is flaunting them by leading a party but not subjecting to those laws. The junta in their wisdom saw this and made it illegal (not often they do a good thing)

 

That is a fact and you and your side always come with examples of other crooks so not to have to punish your crook.

 

How hard is it to admit he is a crook and needs to be punished but so do other crooks. Would make a nice change from constantly defending him.

Obviously, you did not read well my first post. What do you think of the question I ask in conclusion? (As I explain, the option "punish both" is not available, only "punish red crooks and not yellow crooks" is available)

[zzaa09]

4 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Thaksin will go one way or the other. Still waiting for an answer how the elites and military will go. You got a better answer ?

Mass rebellion and exiled removal of those responsible?