Prime Minister Abhisit Opposed To Amnesty For Thaksin

[RustyYellowDodge]

Will stir up a lot of conversation, but when the courts take away his ill gotten gains, things should settle down the rest of the year, back to the norm (government trying to progress in some haphazard way, and PTP objecting to them, and doing everything they can to be pains in the butts).

[animatic]

So much pedantry...... to such little purpose. Even in your own choice of a dictionary of LAW, I see they too perceive a distinction in the usage:

There is a difference between what is "legal" and what is perceived as "legitimate"

<snip>

Legal adjective

1 : of or relating to law or the processes of law legal question> legal action>

2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law legal tariff rate> legal government>

b : fulfilling the requirements of law legal voter>

c : having a status derived from law : recognized as such by law legal certainty>

d : created by operation of esp. statutory law <legal incompetence> legal presumption>

—compare CONVENTIONAL 1, JUDICIAL 2 e : established by law legal test for mental capacity>

3 : conforming to or permitted by law : LAWFUL legal>

4 : recognized or made effective under principles of law as distinguished from principles of equity :

deriving from or existing or valid in law as distinguished from equity

—see also EQUITY —compare EQUITABLE

Legitimate

adjective

<snip>

4 : conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards legitimate claim of entitlement>

<snip>

"the definitions, which are so close this parsing is rather moot"? For you, maybe; from your own evidence clearly not identical or fully interchangeable. In passing, I suggest you look up "equity" as juxtaposed in "Legal" definition #4.

Like the rest of your tired jibes....... not close - and no cigar.

Your creative editing doesn't win you the point, that your attempts

at word twisting didn't win you before.

Game, set, match, retired your side.

[baht&sold]

This just in (predictably)

Pheu Thai snubs govt's invitation to support charter amendments

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...-support-charte

Mr Thaksin wants (NEEDS!) the easily manipulated '97 charter back and PRONTO, before the looming mid-Feb FINAL court date on his frozen 76 billion.

Besides that, a retroactive switch back to the 'malleable' 1997 charter would conveniently make all charges brought against him disappear and allow himself to re-appear.

All red-hel_l WILL break loose prior to mid-Feb (unfortunately). Afterall, Mr Thaksin's needs MUST come first (as always)

And his needs have absolutely NOTHING whatsover to do with 'democracy' or 'helping the poor', rather helping himself, period.

As far as 'THE' military goes, that's a red-herring and master of obfuscation LaoPo knows it.

Mr Thaksin is currently amassing a legion of old soldier's of fortune to win back his, share in the spoils and double-up.

Puea Thai party member General Panlop will lead the reds in a 'all-out' rally to topple the govt to this end, conveniently BEFORE the Feb court verdict.

"Democracy", "helping the poor" If only. Unfortunately, just complete and utter prattle and pith trotted out to obfuscate what this is *REALLY* all about.

Obfuscate:

1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.

2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.

3. to darken.

And probably much to the glee of Mr Thaksin's apologists, the situation *IS* about to become darker for Thailand.

Obfuscate away, it hardly matters.

Edited January 4, 2010 by baht&sold

[brahmburgers]

I still get a bit miffed at how seamless the coup was.

Come on now, there must have been at least some 'behind the scenes wrangling going on before the tanks were rolled down the streets in Bangkok in Sept '06.

At least three things must have been true for the coup to have gone so smoothly:

A. All sorts of military, police and security people were roundly fed up with the then caretaker PM.

B. The 'follow the leader' mentality in all ranks of the military and other security forces was solid (or flaccid, as the case may be).

C. If B is true, then the hundreds of Thai generals either don't know intrinsically that the military is supposed to take orders from the PM's office - or they all knowingly trashed their directive. Did not one top brass raise a baton to support the Constitution?

.....Or am I being terribly naive in assuming that's stated in the Thai Constitution?

Edited January 4, 2010 by brahmburgers

[LaoPo]

I still get a bit miffed at how seamless the coup was.

Come on now, there must have been at least some 'behind the scenes wrangling going on before the tanks were rolled down the streets in Bangkok in Sept '06.

At least three things must have been true for the coup to have gone so smoothly:

A. All sorts of military, police and security people were roundly fed up with the then caretaker PM.

B. The 'follow the leader' mentality in all ranks of the military and other security forces was solid (or flaccid, as the case may be).

C. If B is true, then the hundreds of Thai generals either don't know intrinsically that the military is supposed to take orders from the PM's office - or they all knowingly trashed their directive. Did not one top brass raise a baton to support the Constitution?

.....Or am I being terribly naive in assuming that's stated in the Thai Constitution?

Slippery ice as we can't discuss everything here.

And, sorry to say but yes, you're being naive assuming that Thai constitution in itself contains the only truth (laws) and nothing but the truth, unfortunately.

LaoPo

[animatic]

Thaksin broke laws from under the 1997 Charter,

changing back does nothing for his court situation.

The whole point of 2007 was to make it harder to break those same laws,

and get away with it through abuse of power.

A constitution by it's very nature IS a truth.

It must be a truth in function and effect if it is voted into being.

So to say it isn't true in part or whole is impossible.

Edited January 4, 2010 by animatic

[LaoPo]

Thaksin broke laws from under the 1997 Charter,

changing back does nothing for his court situation.

The whole point of 2007 was to make it harder to break those same laws,

and get away with it through abuse of power.

A constitution by it's very nature IS a truth.

It must be a truth in function and effect if it is voted into being.

So to say it isn't true in part or whole is impossible.

Don't forget the "cleaning of ALL paths on the way out" for the coup players in the same constitution alterations

LaoPo

[Steve2UK]

So much pedantry...... to such little purpose. Even in your own choice of a dictionary of LAW, I see they too perceive a distinction in the usage:

There is a difference between what is "legal" and what is perceived as "legitimate"

<snip>

Legal adjective

1 : of or relating to law or the processes of law legal question> legal action>

2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law legal tariff rate> legal government>

b : fulfilling the requirements of law legal voter>

c : having a status derived from law : recognized as such by law legal certainty>

d : created by operation of esp. statutory law <legal incompetence> legal presumption>

—compare CONVENTIONAL 1, JUDICIAL 2 e : established by law legal test for mental capacity>

3 : conforming to or permitted by law : LAWFUL legal>

4 : recognized or made effective under principles of law as distinguished from principles of equity :

deriving from or existing or valid in law as distinguished from equity

—see also EQUITY —compare EQUITABLE

Legitimate

adjective

<snip>

4 : conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards legitimate claim of entitlement>

<snip>

"the definitions, which are so close this parsing is rather moot"? For you, maybe; from your own evidence clearly not identical or fully interchangeable. In passing, I suggest you look up "equity" as juxtaposed in "Legal" definition #4.

Like the rest of your tired jibes....... not close - and no cigar.

Your creative editing doesn't win you the point, that your attempts

at word twisting didn't win you before.

Game, set, match, retired your side.

If that guff gets you through your day, fine by me.

[brahmburgers]

Coup makers feel bound to an unwritten rule, which mandates that, as soon as they gain power, they have to utter the words, ".....and we will re-write the Constitution."

Plus, current and future coup makers have/will become savvy enough to realize they have to add specific wording that excludes them from any legal repercussions. If it was an Ecuadorian Colonel and a double chinned Captain who staged the coup, then the newly worded Constitution would have to explicitly mention that no legal repercussions will befall any Ecuadorian Colonels and a double chinned Captains involved in the recent turn of events.

I wonder if there's a required course at Officer's College called Coup D'etat 101.

[LaoPo]

Plus, current and future coup makers have/will become savvy enough to realize they have to add specific wording that excludes them from any legal repercussions.

You forgot to mention....."Plus, previous, current and future coup makers........snip..................excludes them from any legal repercussions"

And, that was exactly what they accomplished.

LaoPo

[clausewitz]

Abhisit says what he is told to say. He has no problem with the generals who led the coup being given amnesty- in fact the amnesty is written into the current constitution.

Yet in some countries using guns to take over the government is something that would lead to jail time.

[Siripon]

Abhisit says what he is told to say. He has no problem with the generals who led the coup being given amnesty- in fact the amnesty is written into the current constitution.

Yet in some countries using guns to take over the government is something that would lead to jail time.

In some countries Thaksin would never have been PM, in a 'developed' democracy hiding millions of baht in his servants' names would have seen to that.

[Thai at Heart]

Coup makers feel bound to an unwritten rule, which mandates that, as soon as they gain power, they have to utter the words, ".....and we will re-write the Constitution."

Plus, current and future coup makers have/will become savvy enough to realize they have to add specific wording that excludes them from any legal repercussions. If it was an Ecuadorian Colonel and a double chinned Captain who staged the coup, then the newly worded Constitution would have to explicitly mention that no legal repercussions will befall any Ecuadorian Colonels and a double chinned Captains involved in the recent turn of events.

I wonder if there's a required course at Officer's College called Coup D'etat 101.

Coup D'etat 101?

I would imagine they have Master's degrees in it by now in the Thai military college. They have refined it to a fine art. MA Coup D'Etat. I presume all you need to get it is to arrive at college with a gun and force your lecturer to award it to you. I wouldn't be surprised if Doctorates can be awarded also.

Oh what it is to be above the law.

[Publicus]

Abhisit says what he is told to say. He has no problem with the generals who led the coup being given amnesty- in fact the amnesty is written into the current constitution.

Yet in some countries using guns to take over the government is something that would lead to jail time.

Jail time for coupmakers in countries prone to coups is uncommon, rare. Governments susceptible to coups are too weak to enforce constitutions and laws, their judiciaries are as riddled with injustice, immorality and corruption as the governments and societies themselves (naturally). 

The closest we came in recent history to holding a coupmaker accountable was in the instance of the late Chilean Gen Pinochet, but he was let off the hook in collusion with an advanced democracy's conservative leader, Baroness Thatcher. During that Cold War time and since neither did the US government contribute much to getting Pinochet into the dock - Spain tried but was unable to follow through (the home of Franco, so perhaps there's some hope sometimes, someplaces).

While some coups have had the collusion of advanced democracies due to geopolitics, the 2006 coup was yet another typical coup as it was entirely motivated by internal factors - corruption, money and power being at the center of it all, not to mention tradition, custom and culture.  

[animatic]

Thaksin broke laws from under the 1997 Charter,

changing back does nothing for his court situation.

The whole point of 2007 was to make it harder to break those same laws,

and get away with it through abuse of power.

A constitution by it's very nature IS a truth.

It must be a truth in function and effect if it is voted into being.

So to say it isn't true in part or whole is impossible.

Don't forget the "cleaning of ALL paths on the way out" for the coup players in the same constitution alterations

LaoPo

Ah, but it is now the truth.

It is reality and that makes it so.

Western standards don't apply because... regardless of our sensibilities

this is not the west.

Edited January 5, 2010 by animatic

[animatic]

Abhisit says what he is told to say. He has no problem with the generals who led the coup being given amnesty- in fact the amnesty is written into the current constitution.

Yet in some countries using guns to take over the government is something that would lead to jail time.

In some countries Thaksin would never have been PM, in a 'developed' democracy hiding millions of baht in his servants' names would have seen to that.

The basic difference is Winners and Losers.

History is ALWAYS written by the winners.

And winners protect their own butts as much as anyone.

Constitutions are ALWAYS written by the winners.

Governments are formed by the winners.

It has always been so, even in USA cheating goes on

and HISTORY is written by the winners.,

The military still controls the government too much,

and idiot sons like Bush the lesser get into power,

because money talks LOUDLY.

So really just because a coup here was including tanks,

doesn't mean not seeing the tanks means an election wasn't stolen

else wheres also.

Just because it wasn't PROVED, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And just because an election had some of the 'appearances of democratic fairness',

doesn't make that so.

What matters more is that those in power are

doing positive things more than negative things for the people they are leading.

That's where the rubber really meets the road.

Edited January 5, 2010 by animatic

[animatic]

.... While some coups have had the collusion of advanced democracies due to geopolitics,

the 2006 coup was yet another typical coup as it was entirely motivated by internal factors -

corruption, money and power being at the center of it all,

not to mention tradition, custom and culture.

Pretty well sums up the Thailand equasion.

We can't bitch too loudly, because this is the slow but steady road they tread.

I think the internet will be the only route by which Thailand changes it's culture,

and that is still a generation's time off for any substantive repair to the culture,

long hamstrung by a 30-50's style school culture of nationalist mind control.

It will eventually happen as the older Phu Yai generations die off

and the newer world viewing people come in to power.

I think, regardless of his accent modus, that Abhisit is the tip of a rising iceberg towards the future.

Add also Kunying Dr Porntip Rojanasunan,

another future outward looking voice and role model for Thailand.

She just made cnn's front page

http://edition.cnn.com/

With a link leading here :

http://www.cnngo.com/bangkok/none/dr-pornt...ce-death-995617

Edited January 5, 2010 by animatic

[bendejo]

...

Come on now, there must have been at least some 'behind the scenes wrangling going on before the tanks were rolled down the streets in Bangkok in Sept '06.

...

I recall reading in the newspapers months before the coup (as early as May, maybe before) that military brass were practically waiting in line at the palace, each telling the King "we're here to do your will" (can't recall the exact words from B. Post, but I understood it to mean "we're ready to throw the bum out").

I think that the whole game plan was laid out out well in advance, contingent on him being out of the country. New York is about as far away as you can get from Thailand (12 time zones). I truly appreciated the way he was made to lose face the way his speech was canceled at the UN after his arrival in NYC.

I think the next uprising is crucial, and if it doesn't gain him anything that's it, no more money for loyalty. Maybe reality TV is his next move. Something he has in common with Donald Trump (or so I hear) is that the most dangerous place in the world is between him and a TV camera -- let them have at eachother.

[LaoPo]

Thaksin broke laws from under the 1997 Charter,

changing back does nothing for his court situation.

The whole point of 2007 was to make it harder to break those same laws,

and get away with it through abuse of power.

A constitution by it's very nature IS a truth.

It must be a truth in function and effect if it is voted into being.

So to say it isn't true in part or whole is impossible.

Don't forget the "cleaning of ALL paths on the way out" for the coup players in the same constitution alterations

LaoPo

Ah, but it is now the truth.

It is reality and that makes it so.

Western standards don't apply because... regardless of our sensibilities

this is not the west.

Who's talking western standards?

Knowing the Far East pretty good, I know all too well and see it day-in-day out that most members here comment from a western point of view, not Asian.

LaoPo

[Old Man River]

Abhisit says what he is told to say. He has no problem with the generals who led the coup being given amnesty- in fact the amnesty is written into the current constitution.

Yet in some countries using guns to take over the government is something that would lead to jail time.

In some countries Thaksin would never have been PM, in a 'developed' democracy hiding millions of baht in his servants' names would have seen to that.

You are making the assumption that Thaksin would have done this in countries where you can't get away with it. I don't think he would have. In every country there are some who figure out what can and can't be done in the prevailing system and then work it better than others. I would put Thaksin in this category. Don't underestimate this guy. He is street smart and has great business sense.

[LaoPo]

^^^^

LaoPo

[Publicus]

^^^^

LaoPo

[Siripon]

Abhisit says what he is told to say. He has no problem with the generals who led the coup being given amnesty- in fact the amnesty is written into the current constitution.

Yet in some countries using guns to take over the government is something that would lead to jail time.

In some countries Thaksin would never have been PM, in a 'developed' democracy hiding millions of baht in his servants' names would have seen to that.

You are making the assumption that Thaksin would have done this in countries where you can't get away with it. I don't think he would have. In every country there are some who figure out what can and can't be done in the prevailing system and then work it better than others. I would put Thaksin in this category. Don't underestimate this guy. He is street smart and has great business sense.

Thaksin has shown great business sense in Thailand when operating with monopolies and has been able to use money to have decisions go his way, but I haven't seen his acumen working so well outside.

The ill advised attempts to buy Liverpool FC and Manchester City didn't turn out as he planned and he may well have lost money in Dubai.

[scorecard]

Abhisit says what he is told to say. He has no problem with the generals who led the coup being given amnesty- in fact the amnesty is written into the current constitution.

Yet in some countries using guns to take over the government is something that would lead to jail time.

In some countries Thaksin would never have been PM, in a 'developed' democracy hiding millions of baht in his servants' names would have seen to that.

You are making the assumption that Thaksin would have done this in countries where you can't get away with it. I don't think he would have. In every country there are some who figure out what can and can't be done in the prevailing system and then work it better than others. I would put Thaksin in this category. Don't underestimate this guy. He is street smart and has great business sense.

Thaksin has shown great business sense in Thailand when operating with monopolies and has been able to use money to have decisions go his way, but I haven't seen his acumen working so well outside.

The ill advised attempts to buy Liverpool FC and Manchester City didn't turn out as he planned and he may well have lost money in Dubai.

QUOTE from above: "....great business sense in Thailand ...."

Somehow, at least for me, the word 'opportunist' seems to be more appliceable.

QUOTE from above: ".... street smart...."

Somehow, at least for me words like: ruthless, lacking in ethics, human rights abuser seem to be more applicable.

[animatic]

One must wonder why the semantics discussions are so powerful

in sidetracking the actual intent of the threads.

Watch what you say, because someone will parse it to death, or at least the nth degree.

And often using colloquial meanings and not actual meanings.

Then someone else will give you the Third Degree over

not saying what you originally intended,

but over another's overly and overtly parsed interpretation of it.

So much time wasted giving explanations of what you originally said clearly.

Yet say it too precisely, using words of narrow meanings,

and you are accused of linguistic elitism.

Well one must conclude that some want the actual idea to be obscured and the point lost

for partisan reasons, in somecase to the point of attempting to ban the op[position party,

and still others for simple the joy winning a point against a rival in any way possible,

or others just have lost too many points over time, and can't deal with it evenly.

No doubt other reasonings, or lack of reason, also applies periodically.

Edited January 6, 2010 by animatic

[Old Man River]

Abhisit says what he is told to say. He has no problem with the generals who led the coup being given amnesty- in fact the amnesty is written into the current constitution.

Yet in some countries using guns to take over the government is something that would lead to jail time.

In some countries Thaksin would never have been PM, in a 'developed' democracy hiding millions of baht in his servants' names would have seen to that.

You are making the assumption that Thaksin would have done this in countries where you can't get away with it. I don't think he would have. In every country there are some who figure out what can and can't be done in the prevailing system and then work it better than others. I would put Thaksin in this category. Don't underestimate this guy. He is street smart and has great business sense.

Thaksin has shown great business sense in Thailand when operating with monopolies and has been able to use money to have decisions go his way, but I haven't seen his acumen working so well outside.

The ill advised attempts to buy Liverpool FC and Manchester City didn't turn out as he planned and he may well have lost money in Dubai.

He has shown great business sense in Thailand because he understood how to operate in this country better than most. While he didn't come from a poor family, as has been errantly reported in the past, he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth either. Ultimately, he got greedy and this was his downfall.

I agree, given his expertise is Thailand, his offshore investments were foolish. He should have stuck with the system he knows the best.

[Old Man River]

QUOTE from above: "....great business sense in Thailand ...."

Somehow, at least for me, the word 'opportunist' seems to be more appliceable.

QUOTE from above: ".... street smart...."

Somehow, at least for me words like: ruthless, lacking in ethics, human rights abuser seem to be more applicable.

There are many people that are ruthless, lacking in ethics, etc., who have not been as successful in their country as Thaksin has been. Opportunist, yes, absolutely, but with great business sense and street smarts to know where the opportunities lie. His downfall was greed, as it ultimately is for most.

[Publicus]

Despite the weaknesses and shortcomings of Abhisit as a PM, many people whether Thai or farang just don't expect the same or similar negatives of him that we got from Thaksin 2001 into 2006 and which we since have been getting from him in spades. Abhisit and the Dems are establishment elite types who are rooted in the 1932 origins of Thai democracy. They, like all the political groupings, simply want their time in power, their slice of the pie, and to basically continue to go with the flow domestically and internationally/globally.

Conversely and from the outset, Thaksin and his group set out to remake Thailand so a new guy would bestride the country from atop a new pinnacle of political power, to include creation of a new corporate domestic empire of Thaksin-Thailand Inc, and who would become a regional leader during a transformational time when regional geographic groups are being accepted as necessary due to evolving economics both domestically and globally, with a concomitant expanding reach of political power and influence for its leaders.

Thaksin clashed with the steady as we go elites who haven't any such radically different ego and appetite for so much in riches and political power. A major difference is that to achieve his ends Thaksin had to incorporate the dispossed rural agrarian poor into his planned journey, but only because they were the one segment of the population which was ripe for the pickings during the new age of the mobile phone, slick new motorcycles, electronic gadgets of all make and manner, color/cable tv etc etc.

Abhisit and the ordinary sociopolitical groupings would plod along in the usual ways with democracy and economic development in Thailand plodding along with them. Thaksin was eviscerating democracy, undermining traditional institutions and morphing the country's economy into new classes of the super-super rich who by the way would provide a new standard of living for the peasantry, a new standard of living however that is dependent on handouts and giveaways by the ever paternalistic and otherwise self serving new political elite. 

Thaksin in his greed and meglomania simply took on too much.  

Edited January 6, 2010 by Publicus

[jayboy]

Despite the weaknesses and shortcomings of Abhisit as a PM, many people whether Thai or farang just don't expect the same or similar negatives of him that we got from Thaksin 2001 into 2006 and which we since have been getting from him in spades. Abhisit and the Dems are establishment elite types who are rooted in the 1932 origins of Thai democracy. They, like all the political groupings, simply want their time in power, their slice of the pie, and to basically continue to go with the flow domestically and internationally/globally.

Conversely and from the outset, Thaksin and his group set out to remake Thailand so a new guy would bestride the country from atop a new pinnacle of political power, to include creation of a new corporate domestic empire of Thaksin-Thailand Inc, and who would become a regional leader during a transformational time when regional geographic groups are being accepted as necessary due to evolving economics both domestically and globally, with a concomitant expanding reach of political power and influence for its leaders.

Thaksin clashed with the steady as we go elites who haven't any such radically different ego and appetite for so much in riches and political power. A major difference is that to achieve his ends Thaksin had to incorporate the dispossed rural agrarian poor into his planned journey, but only because they were the one segment of the population which was ripe for the pickings during the new age of the mobile phone, slick new motorcycles, electronic gadgets of all make and manner, color/cable tv etc etc.

Abhisit and the ordinary sociopolitical groupings would plod along in the usual ways with democracy and economic development in Thailand plodding along with them. Thaksin was eviscerating democracy, undermining traditional institutions and morphing the country's economy into new classes of the super-super rich who by the way would provide a new standard of living for the peasantry, a new standard of living however that is dependent on handouts and giveaways by the ever paternalistic and otherwise self serving new political elite.

Thaksin in his greed and meglomania simply took on too much.

Thaksin was right and his early moves were on the right lines.Thailand does need to be remade but his own greed and meglomania got in the way, a tragedy of Shakespearian proportions.As far as Thaksin's support for the rural majority is concerned your remarks reflect bile and ignorance.The reality is that he was just a supreme politician and saw how mobilising the rural majority would support his political platform.That's what democratic politicians do whether Sarkozy, Obama or Blair.The steady as you go elites as you describe them are not less greedy than Thaksin, just less competent and more reliant on brute force.I agree Thaksin took on too much but if you just ascribe his motives to personal aggrandisement you completely miss out on the big picture.I am afraid very few of you post indicate a rounded comprehension.It can't be very intellectually or morally satisfying to be a standard bearer for the gruesome collection of soldiers, monopolist capitalists and fading aristocrats that dominate Thailand now.Their marginalisation is of course not an "if" but a "when" question.Abhisit could be the great catalyst but does he have what it takes, not least to cut the military interest down to size?

[Steve2UK]

Watch what you say, because someone will parse it to death, or at least the nth degree.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3238358

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

and still others for simple the joy winning a point against a rival in any way possible,

Game, set, match, retired your side.

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

Projection

Description

When a person has uncomfortable thoughts or feelings, they may project these onto other people, assigning the thoughts or feelings that they need to repress to a convenient alternative target.

Projection may also happen to obliterate attributes of other people with which we are uncomfortable. We assume that they are like us, and in doing so we allow ourselves to ignore those attributes they have with which we are uncomfortable.

* Neurotic projection is perceiving others as operating in ways one unconsciously finds objectionable in yourself.

* Complementary projection is assuming that others do, think and feel in the same way as you.

http://changingminds.org/explanations/beha.../projection.htm