In a certain respect one could say that for the present gov't to implement Toxin's policies is in the best spirit of democracy and legitimate governance since it reinstates the policies of the democratically elected gov't which was destroyed by the military dictatorship and it also is giving the voters what they want and have voted for.

Chownah

Your whole argument is unsound because there was no "elected gov't which was destroyed by the military dictatorship". The election was voided, and thus there was no "elected gov't" immediately prior to the coup.

The word "destroyed" needlessly dramatic... and inaccurate too, don't you think ?

I believe you are mistaken...the caretaker gov't was an elected gov't which was acting as caretaker until a new election could conclude in a new gov't.....it was an elected gov't.....absolutely....they weren't appointed....they didn't forcibly take over the previous gov't by gunpoint.....they didn't manifest a condition of mass hypnosis and then insert themselves during the stupor.....they were elected...hence the term "elected gov't".

I don't think "destroyed" is needlessly dramatic....that's what they did....I guess there are probably other terms that could be used....did they "terminate" the elected gov't?.....this reminds me of the terminator and seems needlesssly dramatic....did they "dismantle" it?....I think dismantle connotes a careful and systematic demise which is not what the military dictatorship did...they destroyed it in one fell swoop....now you see it and now you don't....destroy?...obliterate?... What word would you like to use. I think destroyed is quite accurate.

Chownah

On this ability to advise point, this is uncharted legal waters, both constitutional and under the organic law. The imprecation of the Political Parties Act and the disenfranchisement provisions would seem to suggest that an individual so disenfranchised is persona non grata in political terms. They may not hold offices, be sponsors, not hold official positions nor membership of political parties.

The legal question ultimately, which I suspect will not be tested, is by acting as an adviser and contributing to the decision making process within the political party are both the advised and advisor in technical breach of the organic law?

Regards

.....they were elected...hence the term "elected gov't".

umm, so how does an election that was pronounced null and void produce an elected government ?

I don't think "destroyed" is needlessly dramatic....that's what they did....

I just brought that up because it sounded misleading.

ok, if they were really destroyed then who are these people skulking behind the minister positions, shouldn't they have been destroyed too ?

The party was forced to disband and then banned from politics so I personally would have used these words instead.

i'm not trying to be pedantic, I just get stuck on misleading use of words.

And the winners are :-

Prime Minister

Samak Sundaravej, also Defence Minister

Deputy Prime Minister

Somchai Wongsawat, also Education Minister

Mingkwan Saengsuwan, also Commerce Minister

Dr Surapong Suebwonglee, also Finance Minister

Suwit Khunkitti, also Industry Minister

Sahas Banditkul

Sanan Kachornprasart

PM's Office Minister

Chakrapob Penkair, also government spokesman

Deputy Finance Ministers

Pradit Pataraprasit

Ranongrak Suwanchawee

Foreign Minister

Noppadon Patama

Tourism and Sport Minister

Weerasak Kohsurat

Social Development and Human Security

Sutha Chansaeng

Agriculture Minister

Somsak Prissananantakul

Deputy Agriculture Ministers

Sompat Kaewpijit

Theerachai Saenkaew

Transportation Minister

Santi Prompat

Deputy Transportation Ministers

Songsak Thongsri

Anurak Jureemart

Natural Resources and Environment

Anongwan Thepsutin

Information, Communication and Technology Minister

Mun Pattanothai

Deputy Commerce Ministers

Wiroon Techapaiboon

Banyin Tangpaporn

Energy Minister

Poonpirom Liptapanlop

Interior Minister

Chalerm Yoobamrung

Deputy Interior Ministers

Supon Fongngam

Sithichai Kohsurat

/edit format//

In a certain respect one could say that for the present gov't to implement Toxin's policies is in the best spirit of democracy and legitimate governance since it reinstates the policies of the democratically elected gov't which was destroyed by the military dictatorship and it also is giving the voters what they want and have voted for.

Your whole argument is unsound because there was no "elected gov't" which was destroyed by the military dictatorship". The election was voided, and thus there was no "elected gov't" immediately prior to the coup.

LOL... Only on Thaivisa... Listen, when tanks roll to government house and cabinet members are arrested by the military, it's a coup. Or are you going for Thaivisa's very own 'Tony Award' here?

Nominee or proxy relationships are unconstitutional.

..............

Ok.. military comes in, shreds constitution... appoints an assembly and a committee of constitution writers... write new constitution, and hey presto! It's now illegal to have anything to do with Thai Rak Thai, the most successful party (in an electoral sense) in the history of Thailand.

Sure.

... appoints an assembly and a committee of constitution writers... write new constitution, and hey presto! It's now illegal to have anything to do with Thai Rak Thai, the most successful party (in an electoral sense) in the history of Thailand.

Sure.

Do you unfortunately suffer from some form of attention disorder? As has been made painfully clear, the disenfranchisement orders against TRT members were made under the constitution, which was extant at the time of the offences, {the 1997 one} not the new, and further the charges were made under the organic law {Political Party Act 1998}.

Regards

I am starting to get the feeling that once he has full endorsement, Samak might just turn his back and try to wash his hands of the ex. chairman.

If he does that - he surely can't be as bad as many have portrayed him to be.

Not a personal attack on you, butttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

Perhaps he is the one responsible for how people portray him, don,t you think SM

marshbags

The comment was in jest marshbags.

Personally, I can't understand how a convicted criminal appealing the decision can be elected to the highest office with the support of the public and his peers.

Basically it is just thumbing one's nose at the legal system.

Agreed 100 %

We are where we are & hopefully his masters will be able to keep him on a very short leash.

I thought you were being a little flippant, hence the " nothing personal " comment S.M.

I saw it as an opening to add a bit of meat to it for a reaction from the posters who continue to rant on about unimportant issues on the use of words and give them convenient double meanings that most cetainly do not appear in the Oxford dictionary.

I reckon they are being tongue in cheek, ( Maybe ), they are certainly lacking in substance and conviction as far as i am concerned.

They cannot be serious to quote a certain J.Mac.

I long gave up on the real issues as it is a waste of time and repetative to get recognition / acknowledgement on the illegalities that many of us are concerned about.

We have several posters who are far more elequent in getting the points across and the stamina to stay the course.

They also need and have the skin of a Rhino regarding all the flaming they get.

Thanks for keeping us informed and up to date as always, are the order of the day

How the law can be ignored, along with the blatant criminality of it all is beyond me.

If you break the law, you should be dealt with accordingly, this being both during and before the elections.

Sorry, i forgot, certain Thai PUYAI can do anything, especially if they are / run for office as P.M.

How simple can it be F. F***Sake, they broke the law, talk about double standards and denial of the truth !!!!!!!!!!

marshbags

In a certain respect one could say that for the present gov't to implement Toxin's policies is in the best spirit of democracy and legitimate governance since it reinstates the policies of the democratically elected gov't which was destroyed by the military dictatorship and it also is giving the voters what they want and have voted for.

Your whole argument is unsound because there was no "elected gov't" which was destroyed by the military dictatorship". The election was voided, and thus there was no "elected gov't" immediately prior to the coup.

LOL... Only on Thaivisa... Listen, when tanks roll to government house and cabinet members are arrested by the military, it's a coup. Or are you going for Thaivisa's very own 'Tony Award' here?

It wasn't the coup I was doubting, it was the choice of term "elected gov't". I thought that was clear enough, apparently not. you're embarrassing yourself too

.....they were elected...hence the term "elected gov't".

umm, so how does an election that was pronounced null and void produce an elected government ?

The caretaker gov't was not the product of the election that was pronounced null and void. No one from the voided election took office......the gov't at that time was the same gov't that was elected in the previous election...the one which was not voided and which elected TRT with Toxin as PM.

What happened was that as Toxins second term as PM proceeded the public demonstrations intensified and Toxin called an election....when an election is called the same people who were elected and in office at the time the election is called stay there and continue to run the caretaker gov't which is supposed to continue to run the country until then election is finalized and the new gov't takes over.......but the military dictatorship took over the country after the election was voided and ended (destroyed) the caretaker gov't which by law should have remained until another election could be called and finalized.

I'm from the US and we don't have a parliamentary form of gov't so I'm not up on the technicalities and terms used.......it may be proper to refer to the caretaker gov't as a new gov't...I don't know....but what I think is true is that it is the same group of elected people who were installed by the previous election....in that respect it is an elected gov't...a gov't where the people who are running at were elected by the voters.....elected in a legitimate and officially recognized election...with its members receiving Royal Endorsement.

Telling people that they are embarassing themselves is very rude....there is no reason for it other than rudeness....that's why I'm not telling you that you are embarassing yourself. As for me....I've embarrassed myself so many times in my long life that I no longer even get embarassed from things that should embarrass me.....poo poo face kissy bottom....see....I'm not even embarassed at all.

Chownah

Telling people that they are embarassing themselves is very rude....there is no reason for it other than rudeness....that's why I'm not telling you that you are embarassing yourself.

It's only rude if it's not true.

Perhaps Traveller can clarify the exact rules, but technically speaking caretaker government was supposed to last no more than a couple of months and Thaksin wasn't supposed to resume his duties after his public resignation. No one invited or elected him to return from self-declared retirement.

And if you leave legalities aside, TRT has committed electoral offences for which it was dissolved long before the coup. Legally they were still presumed innocent, true, but in the public eye they were illegitimate already (not in the eyes of people who don't care about the laws, I admit).

in the public eye they were illegitimate already

in a pigs eye!

Chownah

Telling people that they are embarassing themselves is very rude....there is no reason for it other than rudeness....that's why I'm not telling you that you are embarassing yourself.

It's only rude if it's not true.

I think if done publicly it is rude regardless of the truth of the matter. In private it can be intended as a helpful message so I guess I should have qualified my statement and made it to apply to public declarations of self embarassing activity.

Chownah the poo poo face

.....they were elected...hence the term "elected gov't".

umm, so how does an election that was pronounced null and void produce an elected government ?

The caretaker gov't was not the product of the election that was pronounced null and void. No one from the voided election took office......the gov't at that time was the same gov't that was elected in the previous election...the one which was not voided and which elected TRT with Toxin as PM.

What happened was that as Toxins second term as PM proceeded the public demonstrations intensified and Toxin called an election....when an election is called the same people who were elected and in office at the time the election is called stay there and continue to run the caretaker gov't which is supposed to continue to run the country until then election is finalized and the new gov't takes over.......but the military dictatorship took over the country after the election was voided and ended (destroyed) the caretaker gov't which by law should have remained until another election could be called and finalized.

I'm from the US and we don't have a parliamentary form of gov't so I'm not up on the technicalities and terms used.......it may be proper to refer to the caretaker gov't as a new gov't...I don't know....but what I think is true is that it is the same group of elected people who were installed by the previous election....in that respect it is an elected gov't...a gov't where the people who are running at were elected by the voters.....elected in a legitimate and officially recognized election...with its members receiving Royal Endorsement.

Chownah

After Thaksin dissolved the house of representatives two years ago, the members automatically lost their 'elected' status along with their membership. Its because the membership is based from the results election, on a party-list and constituancy basis.

So it is misleading to say things like "the elected goverment was overthrown by a military dictatorship" as there was no elected goverment at that time. Why don't you just say something like "the caretaker goverment was overthrown by a military dictatorship", wouldn't that be more accurate?

Perhaps I was being a little rude there, and sorry if that offended anyone.

Telling people that they are embarassing themselves is very rude....there is no reason for it other than rudeness....that's why I'm not telling you that you are embarassing yourself.

It's only rude if it's not true.

I think if done publicly it is rude regardless of the truth of the matter. In private it can be intended as a helpful message so I guess I should have qualified my statement and made it to apply to public declarations of self embarassing activity.

Chownah the poo poo face

By calling me rude, one of the implications of your qualified statement is that lilawadee is embarrassing him/her self. Otherwise you would have said something like "...alledged self embarrassing activity".

So you are being rude too chownah. anyway, lets move on shall we.

And then .... Bangkok Post claims that New Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej

told his first press conference today he may consider giving amnesty to ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra - but not for at least* years. ... 'If the political climate is good and... if more than half of the 111 want it, then once the government has been in power for two years (we) will do it,' he said of the proposed amnesty.

The Nation says

... says he intends to stay in office for four years and will only seek amnesty for the 111 former executives of Thai Rak Thai party during the last three months of his term. 'The Constitution has stated that the government's term is four years, so I would like to keep the government going for four years. I think I can do it. And I will only work on the amnesty law in the last three months of my term,' he said.

* Note there is no number here in the breaking news report.

I have to say it make you wonder if they were at the same press conference, doesn't it?

Regards

Perhaps Traveller can clarify the exact rules, but technically speaking caretaker government was supposed to last no more than a couple of months and Thaksin wasn't supposed to resume his duties after his public resignation. No one invited or elected him to return from self-declared retirement.

And if you leave legalities aside, TRT has committed electoral offences for which it was dissolved long before the coup. Legally they were still presumed innocent, true, but in the public eye they were illegitimate already (not in the eyes of people who don't care about the laws, I admit).

This is an old chestnut yes I agree if we want to be technical the junta overthrew a caretaker government.It doesn't alter the criminality of the junta's intervention or the shocking damage to the evolution of Thai democracy, the consequences of which we are living with now.

As an aside you often use phrases like "in the public eye they were illegitimate already", apparently taking for granted a a majority position for which frankly there is not a shred of evidence.Perhaps on reflection you mean "public eye" to be the view of the PAD Bangkok grouping because of course the uneducated Thai majority doesn't really count does it?

I have more or less been sitting on the sidelines watching this whole thing unfold. At the moment there is not much to say except the EC appears to be mustering some courage to do what it must. There is overwhelming evidence that this government is way too cozy with the 111 banned. The EC was not to shy about saying that before, so I would expect the same again. The first time was a warning, this time it is action. The fact that Mr. Y is dragging his feet by loading up with witnesses suggests guilt. I hope the EC can pick out the lies in the added witnesses. I guess that is why I have not been posting along this story line as this all is likely to turnout to be just a nightmare and soon to wake-up. I hope too many wrongs don't make a right in this situation.

As an aside you often use phrases like "in the public eye they were illegitimate already", apparently taking for granted a a majority position for which frankly there is not a shred of evidence.Perhaps on reflection you mean "public eye" to be the view of the PAD Bangkok grouping because of course the uneducated Thai majority doesn't really count does it?

I qualified who I meant by "public eye" - people who care about the rule of law. Thaksin has lost ALL support in those circles. And he had A LOT of support in the same circles earlier.

Damage to Thailand's democratic evolution was done when the country operated for over half a year without Parlament, Senate, under the government that oversrayed their legal term, and Prime Minister who publicly resigned and then turned back on his word at his own will, and the situation was returning to square one.

What we see now is the consequences of letting the "uneducated majority" to have a go at running the country. It looks like a joke, hope they'll learn something from it.

That seems to be the plan - to give PPP a free hand at sinking itself.

As an aside you often use phrases like "in the public eye they were illegitimate already", apparently taking for granted a a majority position for which frankly there is not a shred of evidence.Perhaps on reflection you mean "public eye" to be the view of the PAD Bangkok grouping because of course the uneducated Thai majority doesn't really count does it?

I qualified who I meant by "public eye" - people who care about the rule of law. Thaksin has lost ALL support in those circles. And he had A LOT of support in the same circles earlier.

Damage to Thailand's democratic evolution was done when the country operated for over half a year without Parlament, Senate, under the government that oversrayed their legal term, and Prime Minister who publicly resigned and then turned back on his word at his own will, and the situation was returning to square one.

What we see now is the consequences of letting the "uneducated majority" to have a go at running the country. It looks like a joke, hope they'll learn something from it.

That seems to be the plan - to give PPP a free hand at sinking itself.

OK fair enough on "public eye".I'm not sure your qualification was quite so clear as you suggest.We have gone over the ground so often that you won't be surprised that I disagree fundamentally with your precis of the damage done to Thailand's democratic evolution.People who care about the rule of law don't support coups by the way.Thaksin certainly overreached himself and needed taking down a few pegs, but the coup was a "cure" at least as bad as the disease.On the micro aspects (your second para), although I'm a supporter of the Dems we shouldn't forget Abhisit and Chuan (we don't have majority support so let's sabotage the democratic process) played a fairly cynical and shameful game.

Let's see what happens.I agree the outlook's not promising.In the longer term it doesn't matter whether the PPP destroys itself or is destroyed (as per the intention of the junta).The forces it represent are at large and cannot be so easily crushed.

people who care about the rule of law

People who care about the rule of law abhor military dictatorship.

Chownah

The junta restored the rule of law. The only thing they destroyed was the book.

Suspension of electoral democracy for a few months is nothing comparing to benefits of restoring the rule of law.

The junta ate until it could eat no more, then retreated to the barracks to sleep it off; they will awake once more!

I don't see any benefits that have come to junta members one and half year after the coup. One thing they had enough is governing the country. I don't think they'll come back for more of that.

people who care about the rule of law

People who care about the rule of law abhor military dictatorship.

... and they also abhor civilian dictatorships.

people who care about the rule of law

People who care about the rule of law abhor military dictatorship.

... and they also abhor civilian dictatorships.

Civilians can be voted out.Juntas cannot.Geddit?

In theory, yes, in practice the junta behaved far better than Thaksin. You can't even compare them in real life response to public demands.

People who care about the rule of law abhor military dictatorship.

... and they also abhor civilian dictatorships.

Civilians can be voted out. Juntas cannot

Tell that to the Filipinos with their "civilian" Marcos for 20 years.

The junta restored the rule of law. The only thing they destroyed was the book.

Suspension of electoral democracy for a few months is nothing comparing to benefits of restoring the rule of law.

You give the junta too much credit.It couldn't have cared less about the rule of law.Not only did it launch the criminal coup (for which it then pardoned itself) but tried to launch a black propaganda campaign to frustrate the PPP victory, including attempting to pervert the EC and Supreme Court.It failed to demonstrate any serious corruption charge for which the coup was nominally launched.It didn't bother with the more serious civil right abuses (drug war, Tak Bai) since it was complicit directly or indirectly in those horrors.Its puppet government was spectacularly incompetent and the puerile economic policy slowed down the country's growth.What you call the suspension of electoral democracy (ie the coup) sets the precedent for another bunch of keystone cops to decide they know better than the Thai people and intervene in civilian politics.

Yours is pure banana republic rhetoric.If you really think Thailand is a Bolivia,Paraguy or Congo that's your prerogative.Forgive me if others don't share your feudal vision.

In theory, yes, in practice the junta behaved far better than Thaksin. You can't even compare them in real life response to public demands.

I disagree. Indeed you can compare how they responded to public demands....Toxin responded by giving his consituency what they wanted....the military dictatorship gave the elite and the urban class (primarily) what they wanted.

Chownah