49 minutes ago, bradiston said:

From the Thai PBS article above:

 

"The Move Forward party leader and prime ministerial candidate said that, during the past four years as an MP, he has consulted both the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the EC about his shares in iTV and they all assured him that there is no problem."

 

It would be useful if he had these assurances on record.

The issue for me is Pita is constantly moving on the share ownership. 

Pita's initial response that he did not own the shares. Or through public statements inferred non ownership.

Now he is saying nobody warned him. Pita kinds of acknowledges without actually stating , that he might have owned the shares.

 

Edited July 12, 20232 yr by cleopatra2

My wifey just laughs and says "Not my Promlam"

Probably sums it all up.????????

12 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

Like a dog that just can not let a bone go.....this is getting to the point where politics here is looking like a rugby match.

Like a dog without a bone an actor out of role riders on the storm.

What do you do?

The Election Commission is appointed on the advice of the Senate so no surprise in this appalling decision. It will soon be time for the fight for democracy to be taken to the streets. 

4 minutes ago, pegman said:

The Election Commission is appointed on the advice of the Senate so no surprise in this appalling decision. It will soon be time for the fight for democracy to be taken to the streets. 

Agree but it won't help I am afraid. 

6 hours ago, bradiston said:

Hey, wait a minute. Owning shares in a media company and publishing a book are 2 very different things. Anyone who has ever had an article published in a newspaper, and there must be hundreds of politicians who have, would be at risk of accusations otherwise. Or giving an interview on TV.

Or taking part in a TV cooking show...

10 hours ago, Otter3737 said:

Ah !!! i was just about to ask what would happen, to be honest i can not see the point to all this surly the old guard must know if another elect takes place it will come back a greater majority  just a diffrent party name ??????

They can drag their feet whilst they ban, disband and make ineligible the opposition parties, and buy time to select a fresh Senate and equip it with the appropriate powers.

 

With the courts in the mix, petitions to be heard, cases pending and some constructive ( obstructive) management then ten months should be possible.

10 hours ago, bradiston said:

Hey, wait a minute. Owning shares in a media company and publishing a book are 2 very different things. Anyone who has ever had an article published in a newspaper, and there must be hundreds of politicians who have, would be at risk of accusations otherwise. Or giving an interview on TV.

Which is why it is (from the establishment's point of view) such an excellent piece of legislation.

8 hours ago, champers said:

Nobody on here will be manning the barricades. Anyone tempted to should desist; photo recognition seems to work here.

I did make it clear enough (I hope) that anyone 'manning the barricades' (I'd rather say 'peacefully protesting') would be & should be Thais, naturally. 

5 hours ago, still kicking said:

Agree but it won't help I am afraid. 

Yeah, I was living there in May, 2014. People seemed to take it I stride. Might be about time to turn the response up a notch or two

Little boys trying to play a mans game. If there was brain cell between them, they would argue over who's turn it is next.

16 hours ago, jesimps said:

I won't say I told you so, but.......

 

There's no way that the junta would've gone to all the trouble of installing a military general in the chair, rewriting the constitution etc, only to let an elected civilian take the reins. You could tell that this power grab by the military was different to all the others, this time they were determined to remain and played some very clever moves. 

 

If Pita still owns those shares then I still find it unbelievable that he led MF into the election. Didn't someone feel that they should tip him off to get rid of them even if he didn't realise it himself? 

 

I hope I'm wrong. We'll have to see what the CC come up with.

Agreed. And it was naive of MF to publicise their plan to abolish lese majeste. They can't do that without having consolidated enough power to rewrite the constitution. They should at least have waited until they came to power to try it. And they can't come to power with the EC, CC, and Senate against them. Winning an election is not enough here.

 

Looks like Prayut stepped back in order to dissociate himself from the coming coup. He will come forward again 'by popular demand' when someone is needed to take the reins.

 

 

31 minutes ago, Mr Derek said:

Agreed. And it was naive of MF to publicise their plan to abolish lese majeste. They can't do that without having consolidated enough power to rewrite the constitution. They should at least have waited until they came to power to try it. And they can't come to power with the EC, CC, and Senate against them. Winning an election is not enough here.

 

Looks like Prayut stepped back in order to dissociate himself from the coming coup. He will come forward again 'by popular demand' when someone is needed to take the reins.

 

 

The intent was not to abolish 112 but to amend it. As far as I know, that's as far as it's got. The CC will be asking Pita what exactly his intention is. That's their concern. If Pita can satisfy the court the intention is in no way to harm the monarchy or the constitution, they might go on to want to know the finest details. But they're not going to approve anything that could come back to bite them. I can't see him scrapping the whole idea, but who knows? It's a total disgrace how the CC is interfering in the democratic process, but if that's the only way through, then maybe that's the way to go. I don't think the MFP has done or is doing anything illegal in putting it in their manifesto. Where's the law that says they can't? Putting it on the agenda, and then millions voting for it, how can that be against the law? Why was nothing said before? Why was voting for a party that is putting this forward not outlawed? It's been many months since. They simply can't deal with the support it got.

 

So now, as I see it, they have 15 days in which to prepare their arguments/defense. We don't know the charges yet, or if there are any even. 15 days? Plenty of time, surely, to cover your bases.

Edited July 13, 20232 yr by bradiston

12 minutes ago, bradiston said:

The intent was not to abolish 112 but to amend it. As far as I know, that's as far as it's got. The CC will be asking Pita what exactly his intention is. That's their concern. If Pita can satisfy the court the intention is in no way to harm the monarchy or the constitution, they might go on to want to know the finest details. But they're not going to approve anything that could come back to bite them. I can't see him scrapping the whole idea, but who knows? It's a total disgrace how the CC is interfering in the democratic process, but if that's the only way through, then maybe that's the way to go. I don't think the MFP had done or is doing anything illegal in putting it on their agenda. Where's the law that says they can't? Putting it on the agenda, and then millions voting for it, how can that be against the law? Why was nothing said before? Why was voting for a party that is putting this forward not outlawed? It's been many months since. They simply can't deal with the support it got.

Depends on your perspective. Conservatism believes that a society has  "collectively inherited good things that we must strive to keep” (Roger Scruton). Those things are too important to be subjected to the marketplace. There are some grounds for defending that position in a world that is rapidly falling into social degeneracy.

MF was naive, and arguably dangerous, for wanting to change too much too fast.

Both the Election Commission and the Constitutional Court, are puppets of the Military

 

The springboard quivers

The colours run

Negotiating with a loaded gun

24 minutes ago, Mr Derek said:

Depends on your perspective. Conservatism believes that a society has  "collectively inherited good things that we must strive to keep” (Roger Scruton). Those things are too important to be subjected to the marketplace. There are some grounds for defending that position in a world that is rapidly falling into social degeneracy.

MF was naive, and arguably dangerous, for wanting to change too much too fast.

A quote from Roger Scruton on AN. That's got to be a first. And "collectively", meaning, in reality, for the chosen few. Who benefits from 112? A marketplace some would say is the ONLY test in a democracy, but what was on offer was still down to choice. No amount of regulation will change people's minds. I really don't buy that stuff about the guardians of the "inherited good things". Like privilege, Eton College, inherited wealth? That's Scruton to a tee. Spent much of his life in Peterhouse College, Cambridge, then writing for The Spectator. I bitterly object to that Tory philosophy that suggests there is a superior race of beings destined to secure the future of mankind. Neo nazism. Utter crap, but at the heart of the Rees Moggs of this world. And why do I keep reading about "social degeneracy"? What golden era are you harking back to that was regenerative? 

Edited July 13, 20232 yr by bradiston

There are those who fail, 

there are those who fall,

           

Then there are those who fight 

for the things they believe,

1 hour ago, bradiston said:

A quote from Roger Scruton on AN. That's got to be a first. And "collectively", meaning, in reality, for the chosen few. Who benefits from 112? A marketplace some would say is the ONLY test in a democracy, but what was on offer was still down to choice. No amount of regulation will change people's minds. I really don't buy that stuff about the guardians of the "inherited good things". Like privilege, Eton College, inherited wealth? That's Scruton to a tee. Spent much of his life in Peterhouse College, Cambridge, then writing for The Spectator. I bitterly object to that Tory philosophy that suggests there is a superior race of beings destined to secure the future of mankind. Neo nazism. Utter crap, but at the heart of the Rees Moggs of this world. And why do I keep reading about "social degeneracy"? What golden era are you harking back to that was regenerative? 

Ah, I get it. Degenerate in the sense of ruled by an old and verging on the senile, decrepit, uninspiring, old guard who, despite their military background,  probably never saw action. Yes, that could seriously drag a country down and cause chaos and disorder. Of course, any movement away from that would appear dangerous and a threat. To some.

1 hour ago, Mr Derek said:

Depends on your perspective. Conservatism believes that a society has  "collectively inherited good things that we must strive to keep” (Roger Scruton). Those things are too important to be subjected to the marketplace. There are some grounds for defending that position in a world that is rapidly falling into social degeneracy.

MF was naive, and arguably dangerous, for wanting to change too much too fast.

They propose to reform 112, not abolish it 

In 10 years time, their position will be considered the norm.

 

21 hours ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

People already look at me funny when I tell them I have lived through 3 coups.

 

Imagine when I tell them I have lived through 4! 

 

Most people don't even experience one!

For me the 2014 one was the worst, with curfews, TV blackouts, and what I found most shocking were those ( I've forgotten the real terminology of the time) Thought adjustment camps/ attitude adjustment camps/prisons✔ and only released when agreeing to not speak of them.

1 hour ago, brianthainess said:

For me the 2014 one was the worst, with curfews, TV blackouts, and what I found most shocking were those ( I've forgotten the real terminology of the time) Thought adjustment camps/ attitude adjustment camps/prisons✔ and only released when agreeing to not speak of them.

I reread Prayut 's Wikipedia entry. It's really quite staggeting how he got away with it. Meet The Joker.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayut_Chan-o-cha

Edited July 13, 20232 yr by bradiston

23 hours ago, Bim Smith said:

Well it keeps the baht low while the circus continues. They are already preparing for mass civil unrest so I think the outcome is already pre decided. 

One would think the case but before announcement the Baht vs USD was 35 plus to 1, after it drop a near full point to 34.50

5 hours ago, bradiston said:

And why do I keep reading about "social degeneracy"? What golden era are you harking back to that was regenerative? 

1800 to the 1950s?  When society was being built rather than taken apart. (Talking about western civilisation here, as the topic is liberal democracy.) Don't forget that everything is now speeding up exponentially. The west has already fallen into the latrine. Newly 'democratic' countries like Thailand will rapidly follow unless they retain some conservatism. 

3 hours ago, bannork said:

They propose to reform 112, not abolish it 

In 10 years time, their position will be considered the norm.

Maybe 20 years. In 10, people will still be wearing masks, the population is that conformist.

As to abolition vs reform of lese majeste - have they made it abundantly clear what they intend to do? I can't see any clear statement - only talk of one or the other. Reform in what way? That confusion only adds to the problem. It's a pity a better quality opposition hasn't emerged, only a new bunch of incompetents.

9 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

They can drag their feet whilst they ban, disband and make ineligible the opposition parties, and buy time to select a fresh Senate and equip it with the appropriate powers.

 

With the courts in the mix, petitions to be heard, cases pending and some constructive ( obstructive) management then ten months should be possible.

Worked for Hun Sen

42 minutes ago, Mr Derek said:

Maybe 20 years. In 10, people will still be wearing masks, the population is that conformist.

As to abolition vs reform of lese majeste - have they made it abundantly clear what they intend to do? I can't see any clear statement - only talk of one or the other. Reform in what way? That confusion only adds to the problem. It's a pity a better quality opposition hasn't emerged, only a new bunch of incompetents.

They have been clear. Lowering the penalties and only allowing the subjects or their authorized representatives to file charges under 112, i.e. Somchai, who hates Mr. So Andso, cannot file charges against him if he posts or says anything defamatory under 112. As a further example, probably more than 90 percent of those currently facing charges, would not be facing charges under the proposed amendment, as those who filed charges would not have the authority/right to do so. So the serial complainers would have to find something else to do.  

56 minutes ago, Mr Derek said:

1800 to the 1950s?  When society was being built rather than taken apart. (Talking about western civilisation here, as the topic is liberal democracy.) Don't forget that everything is now speeding up exponentially. The west has already fallen into the latrine. Newly 'democratic' countries like Thailand will rapidly follow unless they retain some conservatism. 

Ah, I see. ???????????? So we can forget for instance, the Romans, the Vikings, the Anglo Saxons, the Normans, Shakespeare, Chaucer, Henry 1 to 8, Elizabethan England, the Renaissance in Italy, Cromwell, the Civil War here, Newton? Nothing to do with the shaping of society?

 

So how do you see society being taken apart?