Red Shirts Set Up At Sanam Luang

[Plus]

Does the current Government or the top police and judiciary really care about the extra-judicial killings in the drug war?

My guess is that it's far from their minds. Even if they do care, the probably think: "Jeez, not now, I have enough on my plate already"

[jayboy]

Does the current Government or the top police and judiciary really care about the extra-judicial killings in the drug war?

My guess is that it's far from their minds. Even if they do care, the probably think: "Jeez, not now, I have enough on my plate already"

Agreed, and perhaps one should also note that many of them were active cheerleaders - reflecting I would say the views of most Thais.Sad but true.

Also slightly problematic in tightrope walk between using campaign as stick to beat Thaksin and embarassing the might and powerful who gave the campaign support, at least initially.

[tig28]

Party executive board is responsible for wrongdoing committed by executive members in their official capacity and in the interests of the party. It is their job to know, it is their official position to be "accomplices", you don't need to prove any special connection.

thanks to a swiftly re-jigged constitution that proof is not required here

What's your point?

TRT was dissolved before the constition was "re-jigged".

PPP knew the deal when they took the jobs.

If you mean to say that the rule is unfair - that's your opinion, it can be argued. It IS argued right now in that parliamentary commission.

In my view the rule is fair to the people, and is practical - it's physically impossible to try hundreds of politicians to accertain their connection to wrongdoing. If the agreement to engage in fraud is not entered into official meeting minutes, there will be no evidence, and no witnesses.

The rule as it is, however strict, is not practical enough - it took a year to punish a party that had been governing the country illegitimately.

Hi Plus

It is not difficult to understand why you think this application of "hang'em all" justice is a really great idea !!

That the executive is also barred is patently excessive and ridiculous. That these people ---- who may have had no knowledge of any wrong-doing are also banned ------ is obviously unjust. Your position that the executive (either did or) should have known what each of their underlings were doing is unrealistic and self-serving in the extreme. Consider voters who elected these people who have committed no crime ---- punish them also ?? --- by banning their elected representatives. Way to go !!! An excellent way to emasculate your opposition ---- particularly when you have been unable to defeat them at the polls !!! What was it ---- 3 times in a row ??? Without the coup it would have been 4.

By all means punish those who have been proven to have broken the law. Ban them not just for 5 lousy years ---- ban them for life!! Punish those who actually committed the offense --- not those around them.

"What's your point?

TRT was dissolved before the constition was "re-jigged".

PPP knew the deal when they took the jobs."

The point is Plus ------ that those in power apply the rules to suit themselves.

News » Local News BANGKOK POST

Democrat escapes poll fraud charge

Published: 15/05/2009 at 12:00 AM

Newspaper section: News

The Supreme Court's Election Case Division has dropped poll fraud charges filed by the Election Commission against a Democrat MP for Yasothon, citing conflicting witness testimony.

Niratthakarn Srilarp, who won a seat in Constituency 1 in the December 2007 election, was yellow-carded by the EC. She was accused of giving money to voters through canvassers.

The court yesterday overturned the EC ruling and rejected the EC's request for the court to order a fresh election for the constituency.

The court said the EC's witnesses gave conflicting testimony and their evidence did not carry enough weight.

In another case, the court yesterday upheld an EC red card disqualifying Puea Thai MP for Sakon Nakhon Pongsak Boonson. The court also ordered a by-election in the province's Constituency 3 where the red card was issued. Mr Pongsak was a member of the People Power Party at the time of the offence.

A red card bars a candidate from a by-election and disqualifies him or her from politics for five years. A yellow card means a candidate is suspected of cheating but can stand in a new poll.

Mr Pongsak was accused by the EC of breaking the election law by making defamatory remarks about the Puea Pandin Party during his campaign.

(http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/16695/democrat-escapes-poll-fraud-charge)

[rixalex]

Does the current Government or the top police and judiciary really care about the extra-judicial killings in the drug war?

No, they do not.

Sadly have to concur.

I saw no sign whatsoever of Samak or Somchai's administrations giving a toss about it - to be fair though they did have their hands full trying to re-write the constitution to whitewash the master of all charges - that kept them busy.

And as for Abhisit's government, they have made no progress either to-date.

My feeling is that the whole sorry business will never be properly looked into, nor will anyone be held responsible. And to be honest, i'm sad to say that Thai people seem ok with that. If not, why haven't there ever been any campaigns/protests?

3,000 plus people shot down like dogs without trial not good enough reason to take a stand and hit the streets in disgust and anger? Of course not. One corrupt billionaire after the return of his ill-gotten gains and to be cleared of all his sins without the bother of penance - now there's an issue that society (the red half anyway) can really get behind.

It's a sick world we live in my friends.

[Plus]

That the executive is also barred is patently excessive and ridiculous. That these people ---- who may have had no knowledge of any wrong-doing are also banned ------ is obviously unjust. Your position that the executive (either did or) should have known what each of their underlings were doing is unrealistic and self-serving in the extreme.

How is it self-serving? Who is getting self-served here?

Running a party is a teamwork, and the team goes up or down together.

Or consider this - they reap the benefits of the fraud together, but only one gets punished when something goes wrong. Do you realise that it iwould be in their interest to encourage vote buying and the wrongdoers, if we accept your proposal. Chances of them being caught are minimal and scapegoats are ready to be sacrificed.

Or how do you get around this situation - a party exec commits some fraud that brings the party twenty extra seats on a party list. What should happen to these seats when this exec is punished? How do we even know how many seats exactly were gained due to fraud? How about justice for those who actually deserved those seats?

Bottom line - collective responsibility was introduced to force executives watch over each other and thus reduce vote buying, first and foremost. I, personally, do not see any real value in proposals that would lead to increase in vote-buying. The aim of these laws is to protect the public, not politicians.

[justanothercybertosser]

My feeling is that the whole sorry business will never be properly looked into, nor will anyone be held responsible.

It's a sick world we live in my friends.

That is an issue we can agree upon, somewhat.

The drugwar killings and the lack of any substantial investigations by all sides are a key issue for understanding the complexities of Thai politics. This is very much in the tradition of the Thai state. Have any of the numerous massive human rights violations in Thailand ever been properly investigated, and the guilty parties brought to justice? No, not in one single case. Everything has been swiped under the table, ranging from Oct. 6th 1976, the aftermath, the killing of the Vietnamese boat people, and May '92.

While many western critics of Thaksin (including me) continue to hold up the drug war killings, for Thailand's power networks this is a minor issue, that when properly investigated, would destroy a long established system. Too many people have been actively involved and have legitimized those killings. Too many are tainted by these, and many other such human rights violations.

The surreal fact, for example, of last year during the Samak administration, is how opponents of that government have accused Samak of his involvement in the 1976 massacer (rightly so), but have completely ignored that several accusers of Samak have been as tainted in the same incident, such as Chamlong Srimuang.

Kraisak Choonhavan, another example, Democrat party list MP, PAD member, and hero of arts and civil rights, member of the investigation committee into the drug war killings, has been advisor of the government of Chatchai Choonhavan, during which the killings of the Vietnamese boat people were ordered. He has not seen it necessary at the time to step down from his position in protest of the killings. I have never seen Kraisak making any public statement regarding this, or regarding the outrageous corruption and brutality of his grandfather, of whose fortunes Kraisak himself has benefitted.

For many ordinary Thais the drug war killings are a uncomfortable issue. They know that the killings were against human rights, but they do see that from the perspective of massively decreasing the amount of drugs in the communities "the end justifies the means". I do not agree with this asessment, of course. A different way to combat drugs should have had to be found. Something though had to be done, but not with the tool of extrajudicial killings.

Thailand is an emerging democracy, and it is difficult to analyze the country and society with the same standard as we do with developed nations. The number of dead, sad as it is, are actually a minor issue. The real issue is how the system can enable such incidents, and how the system can be strengthened and developed so that such incidents will not happen anymore, and if they do, how these incidents can be investigated.

Simply blaming Thaksin does not change or improve the system, as long as all contributing factors are not equally investigated. Thaksin wasn't the system - he was just a product of this system. Thaksin is now gone, but the same system is still in place. Also this government has used very similar extraconstitutional tactics to combat their opponents, such as setting up a shady militia, gave them Blue Shirts, and let them fight Red Shirts. The question here is not the amount of dead or injured, but why and how the law can be circumvented this way, and responsible people get away with it, media and justice system cannot and does not investigate these mechanics.

[sriracha john]

Best to discuss the Thaksin Drug War on the new Thaksin Drug War thread re-started just recently.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Police-Charg...ar-t267555.html

This thread is about Red Shirts Setting Up at Sanam Luang... or at least originally it was... afterall, it did, however, end an ever-growing number of days ago.

Edited May 23, 2009 by sriracha john

[dbrenn]

My comment about not having to support either side was very much directed at you and your friends on this forum. You continue to huff and puff and get your knickers in a twist at the suggestion that you support Thaksin, but continue to come out with comments that start like this:

There doesn't have to be just two sides to this dicussion. This is not a football match - one side against the other with colour coded shirts for easy recognition.

I'm for democracy. Now if that means Thaksin is the PM, or if it means that Abhisit is the PM, all well and good if the people have chosen their PM is a free and fair election. All my posts here have supported that view, and haven't deviated from it.

The only reason that I despise Abhisit is that his rule is illegitimate - he was put there by military and mafia handlers. He preaches democracy, when he himself is not democratically elected.

Imagine that the situation was reversed, that Thaksin was in opposition to a democratically elected Abhisit government. Supposing Thaksin had resorted to using the army to topple a democratically elected Abhisit government, instead of winning the hearts and minds of the people to get elected fairly and squarely. If that were the case, I would still be supporting the side that was democratically elected.

My revulsion of using military force to unseat a government, and the utter hypocrisy of the present government when it claims to represent democratic values, is the overriding factor for me, and dwarfs any party political considerations. I really couldn't care less about the individual personalities of Thaksin or Abhisit against the much more serious backdrop of civil unrest and chaos that Thailand is up against. It's who the citizens choose that counts. The people chose Thaksin, not Abhisit. The people are angry that their choice has been disregarded.

Now you will probably resort to your usual tactics of telling me that I support a criminal, then implying that I am in contempt of court in an effort to shut me up by using the TV rule book, like you always do when you run out of things to say. Wasn't Thaksin supposed to be the one who was at fault for using tactics like that? That's what the PAD were saying when they started their ralles at Suan Lum.

There is nothing that justifies or outweighs the bad things that Thaksin did to this country.

Nothing??? Wow! Brave words!

If you think that dividing Thai society and risking civil is was doesn't outweigh Thaksin's unspecified 'bad things', then that's your opinion. I hope that you will never have first hand experience of a civil war, but the ones on the television look a lot worse than anything that Thaksin was doing. Civil wars start when a country becomes idealogically divided, then people start fighting each other, then they start killing each other. Without a democratic process that gives the masses the choice that they have already had a taste of, the very process that was arrogantly crushed by the yellows, the smouldering problem could reignite exposively at any time.

You can vote out Thaksin, but you can't vote away a civil war.

Edited May 23, 2009 by dbrenn

[dbrenn]

Given their penchant for deceit and rejigging, I have no confidence that that the Reds would respect the results of an election even if one was called sooner than what is to be projected as within the year.

*sigh* you may have a point. But sending tanks rolling down the street, to topple an elected civilian government so that a bunch of corrupt generals could have their turn at filling their pockets. That isn't respecting the results of an election either.

What's a voter to do? They are all as bad as each other. Was it worth risking civil war for?

Elections are not perfect, but they are the best choice out of a bad lot.

Where did you get the idea that BEFORE the coup those same generals

were NOT "filling their pockets"? Of course they were.

So they need not have taken out Thaksin for that reason.

And they WERE getting their budgets and they were running their little scams.

They never got touched in the War on Drugs, and just started back up again.

Thaksin was getting quite unstable and that was obvious to any unbiased observer at the time.

I was UNBIASED against him till his ACTIONS and WORDS changed that position.

The generals didn't need to remove him to add their snouts to the trough,

they have their own whole end all to themselves already.

Thaksin was getting unstable? So he should have been voted out of office in a general election.

[dbrenn]

Elections are not perfect, but they are the best choice out of a bad lot.

and it's good news that one is projected within a reasonable time frame.

When it happens, yes, and let's hope that it is fair. The problem is that the yellow people can't seem to accept the results of elections, pols from one side are banned, and the Dems boycott elections that they think they will lose.

[tig28]

That the executive is also barred is patently excessive and ridiculous. That these people ---- who may have had no knowledge of any wrong-doing are also banned ------ is obviously unjust. Your position that the executive (either did or) should have known what each of their underlings were doing is unrealistic and self-serving in the extreme.

How is it self-serving? Who is getting self-served here?

Running a party is a teamwork, and the team goes up or down together.

Or consider this - they reap the benefits of the fraud together, but only one gets punished when something goes wrong. Do you realise that it iwould be in their interest to encourage vote buying and the wrongdoers, if we accept your proposal. Chances of them being caught are minimal and scapegoats are ready to be sacrificed.

Or how do you get around this situation - a party exec commits some fraud that brings the party twenty extra seats on a party list. What should happen to these seats when this exec is punished? How do we even know how many seats exactly were gained due to fraud? How about justice for those who actually deserved those seats?

Bottom line - collective responsibility was introduced to force executives watch over each other and thus reduce vote buying, first and foremost. I, personally, do not see any real value in proposals that would lead to increase in vote-buying. The aim of these laws is to protect the public, not politicians.

Hi Plus

It is self serving in that when combined with a few other simple steps it can and is being used be those in power to destroy an opposing political party. This is after all simply an extension of a policy of the junta when they held total power ---

some seem to forget that the 2007 elections were held with the Junta actively trying to suppress support for the PPP. They were even found guilty of doing so by the EC investigating committee, but wriggled out of a formal charge by the EC by claiming that as their dirty-tricks campaign had been drawn up under the interim constitution which gave them immunity, they couldn't be investigated.

Justice is justice. Right is right. Convicting people with no proof of guilt whatsoever ---- is neither !! Whatever justification you can come up with for your position (not necessarily unsound) one irrefutiable principal should override all ---- before anyone can be convicted for any crime they must be proven guilty.

"Collective responsibility" particularly when combined with a warped and unjust judiciary results in a perversion of justice that should be opposed at every opportunity. The reality is that most of the "red cards" were not awarded for the extreme team efforts you outline --- rather they were for such classic crimes as committed by that perennial mastermind Yongyuth Tiyapairat --- this did, after all, cause the dissolution of the PPP. His corrupt actions could in no ones dreams have had any effect on the election result either locally or nationwide. Ban the gentleman for life --- apply massive fines --- incarcerate him for years ---- by all means --- (in fact ---why not??)

Ban the executive etc ...... destroy the party ????? .... totally outside most peoples idea of justice !!

I apreciate Plus that on this we shall agree to disagree --- fair enough !!! There is one question over which you might be able to help me .... in the "red card" case I posted above are not the entire executive of the Puea Thai party now eligible to be banned ???

A red card for --- " Mr Pongsak was accused by the EC of breaking the election law by making defamatory remarks about the Puea Pandin Party during his campaign." Ghastly crime ---- oh ... the humanity!!!!! ---- call Interpol immediately ---- we must stamp this out ---

The less I say about the dismissal of the "yellow card" for vote buying by the democrat member --- the better. ( democrat members simply do not do this despite what the EC may say)

[sriracha john]

Elections are not perfect, but they are the best choice out of a bad lot.

and it's good news that one is projected within a reasonable time frame.

When it happens, yes, and let's hope that it is fair. The problem is that the yellow people can't seem to accept the results of elections, pols from one side are banned, and the Dems boycott elections that they think they will lose.

Hopefully, all the sides includes the red people, too, whose adherence to it is doubtful due to their past behavior.

And hopefully all parties will avoid the cheating that was being done on such a massive level that strategically-thinking parties like Democrats won't have to boycott in order to avoid another sham election.

[dbrenn]

Kuhn Thaksin came to power with the help of the army.

You are forgetting a couple of minor details there -- a general election, followed a full term in office, followed by another general election. Thaksin was not installed by the army in the way that Abhisit was, and to claim otherwise in unrealistic.

At the time when Thaksin was elected, the army was relatively quiet politically. They had been sidelined from politics since they were discredited in the 1992 military crackdown on the Black May protesters. The yellows gave them the excuse to reemerge from their barracks and start meddling in politics again.

[sriracha john]

"Collective responsibility" particularly when combined with a warped and unjust judiciary results in a perversion of justice that should be opposed at every opportunity. The reality is that most of the "red cards" were not awarded for the extreme team efforts you outline --- rather they were for such classic crimes as committed by that perennial mastermind Yongyuth Tiyapairat --- this did, after all, cause the dissolution of the PPP. His corrupt actions could in no ones dreams have had any effect on the election result either locally or nationwide. Ban the gentleman for life --- apply massive fines --- incarcerate him for years ---- by all means --- (in fact ---why not??)

Ban the executive etc ...... destroy the party ????? .... totally outside most peoples idea of justice !!

Looking at People Power Party's dissolution. It was The Deputy Party Leader as a member of the Party's Executive Board who committed the electoral fraud. The Party's Executive Board was banned and the Party dissolved.

Duplicity of the Executive Board of Party Executives with the actions of the Deputy Party Leader is not a stretch by any means, is it? Furthermore, if the Party's Executive Board is that bad, the notion that the Party itself be expunged is not much of a stretch, either.

AFAIK, in your posted example, an ordinary MP who is not a member of the Party's Executive Board does not trigger a dissolution of the Party investigation. That is done only when the electoral fraud involves a Party Executive.... such as People Power Party's Deputy Leader Yongyuth... Mr. Refrigerator... who still is awaiting a separate criminal prosecution for attempted murder... of a couple of senior citizens.

Edited May 23, 2009 by sriracha john

[rixalex]

I'm for democracy. Now if that means Thaksin is the PM, or if it means that Abhisit is the PM, all well and good if the people have chosen their PM is a free and fair election. All my posts here have supported that view, and haven't deviated from it.

Free and fair are the key ingredients of a functioning democracy. They were both missing during Thaksin's time in power.

Perhaps they always have been to some degree, but Thaksin took it to a whole new level - to the point where he had a complete strangehold on power. Those who say that in the fullness of time the public would have come to their senses and voted him out don't understand or appreciate the extent to which he had interferred and meddled with institutions that help to keep leaders in check. Nor do they seem to care about the damage that he would have done in the time it took to get him out. He would have remained in power for many more terms, have no doubt - and not because of "winning hearts and minds". That's no more democracy than a coup is. It might look like it but it's not - those who lived in the country and weren't sucked up in propoganda or personal gain could see that.

The only reason that I despise Abhisit is that his rule is illegitimate - he was put there by military and mafia handlers. He preaches democracy, when he himself is not democratically elected.

Didn't hear you squealing about Somchai. Who put him in charge of this country?

Imagine that the situation was reversed, that Thaksin was in opposition to a democratically elected Abhisit government. Supposing Thaksin had resorted to using the army to topple a democratically elected Abhisit government, instead of winning the hearts and minds of the people to get elected fairly and squarely. If that were the case, I would still be supporting the side that was democratically elected.

Thaksin was not elected fairly and squarely. Statements like this are exactly what i was talking about when i told you if you don't want people to think you support a side (ie Thaksin), then stop defending him with false assertions.

[Koo82]

Everyone ALSO knows

Kuhn Thaksin came to power with the help of the army.

I didn't know it.

Before Khun Thaksin became Prime Minister, I didn't hear the story that army helped him to ask politicians to switch votes. Watching the protest banners of PAD, I didn't see they wrote down that Khun Thaksin's government is an army backed government.

Same for Khun Samak and Khun Somchai. PAD only protested because they claimed these two are Khun Thaksin's puppets.

[Koo82]

Didn't hear you squealing about Somchai. Who put him in charge of this country?

Khun Somchai is in the biggest party. If they didn't vote for Khun Somchai but voted for Abhisit, Abhisit still could not win. Because PPP had more members. Only after their 37 members were banned, Abhisit had enough votes and won.

[rixalex]

Didn't hear you squealing about Somchai. Who put him in charge of this country?

Khun Somchai is in the biggest party. If they didn't vote for Khun Somchai but voted for Abhisit, Abhisit still could not win. Because PPP had more members. Only after their 37 members were banned, Abhisit had enough votes and won.

Who chose Somchai to be leader Koo?

[Koo82]

Who chose Somchai to be leader Koo?

His party members chose him. I love Khun Somchai too.

[dbrenn]

.. the damage that he would have done in the time it took to get him out. He would have remained in power for many more terms, have no doubt ....

And you 'understand the damage that would have been done'? What are you, a fortune teller? Did your crystal ball give inside knowledge, first hand, on what Thaksin's plans were, what he would have, might have, done? All you have is what you read in the papers, and many of them spout just the kind of propaganda that you insist only people who disagree with you fall for.

Again, you are second guessing what might have been, what might have happened but hadn't happened yet, and using it to justify a military coup, economic ruin, risk of civil war and unending chaos. The time to kick Thaksin out with the army would have been if he refused to leave office after getting voted out in a general election, which was not on the cards. To preemptively send tanks on to the streets on a whole load of 'what might have been' hunches caused a whole lot of mahhem and civil unrest, sparked of a class strucggle, and destroyed faith in democratic values at home and abroad. All for no clear purpose.

Thaksin was not elected fairly and squarely.

Well a lot of people don't agree with that, as we can see from all the protests and chaos. Thaksin's lot was elected with a parliamentary majority, twice. And the present government can't brush that glaring fact under the carpet, nor can it come clean and put its democratic credentials to the test in an election, which says a lot. Election results, it seems, can only be believed if Rixalex's preferred side gets in. That's the scary part of the PAD doctrine - they know what's best for all of us, so democracy can take a back seat. No need for elections with them around, right?

You will be telling us that the moon is made of green cheese next.

Edited May 23, 2009 by dbrenn

[Insight]

.. the damage that he would have done in the time it took to get him out. He would have remained in power for many more terms, have no doubt ....

And you 'understand the damage that would have been done'? What are you, a fortune teller? Did your crystal ball give inside knowledge, first hand, on what Thaksin's plans were, what he would have, might have, done? All you have is what you read in the papers, and many of them spout just the kind of propaganda that you insist only people who disagree with you fall for.

Again, you are second guessing what might have been, what might have happened but hadn't happened yet, and using it to justify a military coup, economic ruin, risk of civil war and unending chaos. The time to kick Thaksin out with the army would have been if he refused to leave office after getting voted out in a general election, which was not on the cards. To preemptively send tanks on to the streets on a whole load of 'what might have been' hunches caused a whole lot of mahhem and civil unrest, sparked of a class strucggle, and destroyed faith in democratic values at home and abroad. All for no clear purpose.

Thaksin was not elected fairly and squarely.

Well a lot of people don't agree with that, as we can see from all the protests and chaos. Thaksin's lot was elected with a parliamentary majority, twice. And the present government can't brush that glaring fact under the carpet, nor can it come clean and put its democratic credentials to the test in an election, which says a lot. Election results, it seems, can only be believed if you preferred side gets in. That's the scary part of the PAD doctrine - they know what's best for all of us, so democracy can take a back seat.

You will be telling us that the moon is made of green cheese next.

I think it's been established what side errs towards myth and fantasy. Now where did that post go?

[tig28]

"Collective responsibility" particularly when combined with a warped and unjust judiciary results in a perversion of justice that should be opposed at every opportunity. The reality is that most of the "red cards" were not awarded for the extreme team efforts you outline --- rather they were for such classic crimes as committed by that perennial mastermind Yongyuth Tiyapairat --- this did, after all, cause the dissolution of the PPP. His corrupt actions could in no ones dreams have had any effect on the election result either locally or nationwide. Ban the gentleman for life --- apply massive fines --- incarcerate him for years ---- by all means --- (in fact ---why not??)

Ban the executive etc ...... destroy the party ????? .... totally outside most peoples idea of justice !!

Looking at People Power Party's dissolution. It was The Deputy Party Leader as a member of the Party's Executive Board who committed the electoral fraud. The Party's Executive Board was banned and the Party dissolved.

Duplicity of the Executive Board of Party Executives with the actions of the Deputy Party Leader is not a stretch by any means, is it? Furthermore, if the Party's Executive Board is that bad, the notion that the Party itself be expunged is not much of a stretch, either.

AFAIK, in your posted example, an ordinary MP who is not a member of the Party's Executive Board does not trigger a dissolution of the Party investigation. That is done only when the electoral fraud involves a Party Executive.... such as People Power Party's Deputy Leader Yongyuth... Mr. Refrigerator... who still is awaiting a separate criminal prosecution for attempted murder... of a couple of senior citizens.

Hi siracha john

I read that if any standing MP was awarded a red card the entire executive was banned. It did seem totally unreasonable --- hence my question. Does it apply only to transgressions by members of the executive ??

In the case of the genius YT ---- if the other members of the PPP executive were aware of his intentions and went along with it --- then the banning of them all was a beneficial and helpful gesture towards the entire PPP membership. Far to stupid to be allowed to consume oxygen.

In what was probably the most secure PPP electorate in the nation YT was video taped paying money. If I were not such a fair minded individual I would suspect that the entire "sting" operation was entrapment by the special branch --- ably aided and abetted by the brilliance of YT himself of course. As far as I am awaer this was the only such "sting" operation mounted during the entire campaign. I do acknowledge that it was probably difficult for special branch to find anyone else equally as stupid.

On the other hand should these actions in his sisters electorate have been his own amazingly cunning plan ---pursued only for reasons known to TY ---- then why on earth should others be punished for his crime?? Why should those who voted to elect the other executive members to parliament be penalized??

[sriracha john]

.. the damage that he would have done in the time it took to get him out. He would have remained in power for many more terms, have no doubt ....

And you 'understand the damage that would have been done'? What are you, a fortune teller? Did your crystal ball give inside knowledge, first hand, on what Thaksin's plans were, what he would have, might have, done?

Now then, if only ALL predictions, prognostications. hunches, or "I'm certain of that's" that are posted by the dozens by nearly every poster involved on almost all News Clippings Forum threads, were met with such a retort.

All you have is what you read in the papers, and many of them spout just the kind of propaganda that you insist only people who disagree with you fall for.

One of the best predictors of future behavior is past behavior, as many a psychologist will say.

With Thaksin, an ever-increasing stranglehold on control was building... not declining... nor even stablizing... only ever-increasing, just like Marcos.

Talks by Thaksin of a Shinawatra dynasty... a "TRT-ruled Thailand for 20 years" (conveniently never mentioning who is exactly is going to exceed term limits and be at the top)... Shades of Marcos and the many parallels between the two began appearing more evident (Marcos also won a popular vote... and upon nearing the expiration of his term limit, declared martial law and subsequently ruled with tyranny for over 20 years resulting in the near annihilation of his country). This is certainly what peaked my interest in the matter. I had already lived under the Marcos tyranny... and finding myself now living in Thailand, I saw a repeat of it for my newer SE Asian home.

Any means, including an intervening coup, to take this man down before he created the atrocities that Marcos career did... such as a 100,000 disappeared and presumed dead Filipinos during his long stretch of terror as well as an empty National Treasury...

is justified IMO.

which sort of responds to

Again, you are second guessing what might have been, what might have happened but hadn't happened yet, and using it to justify a military coup, economic ruin, risk of civil war and unending chaos. The time to kick Thaksin out with the army would have been if he refused to leave office after getting voted out in a general election, which was not on the cards. To preemptively send tanks on to the streets on a whole load of 'what might have been' hunches caused a whole lot of mahhem and civil unrest, sparked of a class strucggle, and destroyed faith in democratic values at home and abroad. All for no clear purpose.

[sriracha john]

Looking at People Power Party's dissolution. It was The Deputy Party Leader as a member of the Party's Executive Board who committed the electoral fraud. The Party's Executive Board was banned and the Party dissolved.

Duplicity of the Executive Board of Party Executives with the actions of the Deputy Party Leader is not a stretch by any means, is it? Furthermore, if the Party's Executive Board is that bad, the notion that the Party itself be expunged is not much of a stretch, either.

AFAIK, in your posted example, an ordinary MP who is not a member of the Party's Executive Board does not trigger a dissolution of the Party investigation. That is done only when the electoral fraud involves a Party Executive.... such as People Power Party's Deputy Leader Yongyuth... Mr. Refrigerator... who still is awaiting a separate criminal prosecution for attempted murder... of a couple of senior citizens.

Hi siracha john

I read that if any standing MP was awarded a red card the entire executive was banned. It did seem totally unreasonable --- hence my question.

AFAIK, that's not the case. If you can recall where you read that, I'd be interested in it.

Does it apply only to transgressions by members of the executive ??

AFAIK, yes.

In the case of the genius YT ---- if the other members of the PPP executive were aware of his intentions and went along with it --- then the banning of them all was a beneficial and helpful gesture towards the entire PPP membership.

That's the presumption... that these Party Executives attending Party Executive Board meetings with The Refrigerator would

know of his intentions to commit electoral fraud. The same as any other organized crime boss meeting, these are exactly the sort of things are discussed and shared. The who, what, when, where, hows are shared to whichever gangster is doing it. It's called conspiracy... and the duplicity is presumed for mafioso members attending "Party Executive Board" meetings.

Does that sort of Leadership deserve to have its Party dissolved? IMO, yes it does.

Edited May 23, 2009 by sriracha john

[rixalex]

And you 'understand the damage that would have been done'? What are you, a fortune teller?

Dbrenn, do you need to be a fortune teller to predict that in the middle of April next year, hundreds of people will die on Thai roads in traffic related accidents?

Thaksin had done enough damage already - the pattern was well established. Do you really think that had he stayed in office he would have suddenly changed his ways, that he would have stopped changing the laws to benefit his own family and friends, that he would have stopped silencing critics by slapping lawsuits out left right and centre, that he would have stopped interfering and meddling in the bodies and institutes that keep leaders in check, that he would have stopped covering up disease outbreaks etc etc etc?

Again, you are second guessing what might have been, what might have happened but hadn't happened yet, and using it to justify a military coup, economic ruin, risk of civil war and unending chaos.

The country is in economic ruin? What a daft exaggeration, and once again shows your agenda in all of this. The economy isn't good but look around you man - where in the world is it good?

Risk of civil war? The biggest risk of that has come from your man himself - both when he was struggling to hold onto power and wanted to have an excuse to go in heavy handed, and again just recently when he paid a mob to take to the streets.

Unending chaos? Again wishful thinking from you. Besides a few pockets of paid thugs, Thai people are getting on with their lives and really are bored with all this nonsense.

Thaksin was not elected fairly and squarely.

Well a lot of people don't agree with that, as we can see from all the protests and chaos.

Actually i don't think even ardent red supporters such as Koo deny illegal activity went on. Of course they'll quickly add that it occured on both sides, but that doesn't change the fact that it did happen and therefore that elections were not free and fair.

[tig28]

That's the presumption... that these Party Executives attending Party Executive Board meetings with The Refrigerator would

know of his intentions to commit electoral fraud. The same as any other organized crime boss meeting, these are exactly the sort of things are discussed and shared. The who, what, when, where, hows are shared to whichever gangster is doing it. It's called conspiracy... and the duplicity is presumed for mafioso members attending "Party Executive Board" meetings.

Does that sort of Leadership deserve to have its Party dissolved? IMO, yes it does.

Hi siracha john

'That's the presumption' ---- presumption of guilt dos not cut it for me I'm afraid. Shan't repeat the known reasons. Probably best to agree not to agree.

I can honestly conceive of occasions when the executive would not have been aware of intended actions of individuals ---- equally as well as I can ... occasions when they may have colluded over every single juicy step --- but just as the probable guilt cannot be punished without evidence of wrongdoing in most western courts ---- nor should the presumption of guilt be punishable here in these cases. Guilt (and punishment) by association is an extremely dangerous path to follow.

[h90]

Didn't hear you squealing about Somchai. Who put him in charge of this country?

Khun Somchai is in the biggest party. If they didn't vote for Khun Somchai but voted for Abhisit, Abhisit still could not win. Because PPP had more members. Only after their 37 members were banned, Abhisit had enough votes and won.

The 37 members were replaced in by elections! And still Abhisit has enough MPs. There are no missing MPs in Parliament.

[dbrenn]

Dbrenn, do you need to be a fortune teller to predict that in the middle of April next year, hundreds of people will die on Thai roads in traffic related accidents?

Thaksin had done enough damage already - the pattern was well established.

Traffic accidents? Is Thaksin now responsible for deaths on the roads? That's so silly. You are reduced to trying to use road accident statistics as a way of judging what a Thai politician might or might not have done? Pull the other one!

Hold an election and see what the people think. Why is that such a difficult concept for you? Ahh, I know - the Dems would lose an election - they can only cling to power by sucking up to the CDR corrupt army generals, and mafia like Newin

Edited May 23, 2009 by dbrenn

[dbrenn]

Talks by Thaksin of a Shinawatra dynasty... a "TRT-ruled Thailand for 20 years" (conveniently never mentioning who is exactly is going to exceed term limits and be at the top)... Shades of Marcos and the many parallels between the two began appearing more evident (Marcos also won a popular vote... and upon nearing the expiration of his term limit, declared martial law and subsequently ruled with tyranny for over 20 years resulting in the near annihilation of his country). This is certainly what peaked my interest in the matter. I had already lived under the Marcos tyranny... and finding myself now living in Thailand, I saw a repeat of it for my newer SE Asian home.

Any means, including an intervening coup, to take this man down before he created the atrocities that Marcos career did... such as a 100,000 disappeared and presumed dead Filipinos during his long stretch of terror as well as an empty National Treasury...

is justified IMO.

It's anybody's guess as to what level of exaggeration that statement merits.

Claims that Thaksin might have turned out like Marcos are pure conjecture. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact is that there was a democratic mechanism in place to unseat Thaksin, i.e. the ballot box. Quite unlike the corrupt PAD/CDR/army clique that replaced the democratically elected government. While Thaksin was arrogant and unpleasant. there was nothing that he did while in power to change the constitution or dismantle the democratic process that got him in power, and coulod have removed him from power.

What was the first thing that the CDR did? Tear up the constitution.

[rixalex]

Dbrenn, do you need to be a fortune teller to predict that in the middle of April next year, hundreds of people will die on Thai roads in traffic related accidents?

Traffic accidents? Is Thaksin now responsible for deaths on the roads?

Do you continually deliberately miss the point? Or is this a sad attempt at irony?

Hold an election and see what the people think. Why is that such a difficult concept for you?

I've said many many times that i would like to see an election sooner rather than later. Where i don't agree with you is that you think it's the right of a small minority of hired red thugs to hustle the Prime Minister into calling an election immediately - and this from the supposed champion of democracy.

The Prime Minister will call the election when he likes - it's a perk of the job.

Ahh, I know - the Dems would lose an election -

And who was just talking about crystal balls? Do you see your own ridiculous contraditions, or are you blissfully oblivious?