Abhisit Is The Legitimate Thai Prime Minister

[termad]

What a load of tosh. There are at least four major corruption cases being investigated and Abhisit has tried to cover each one up what about the Ministry of Health for starters?

Really ? Sure of that ?

Well when Abhisit is rich corruption will stop then , it will take many years , yes agree LOL .

Unless there is a coup . Then i buy you dinner

Could you re-write your reply as in it's present format I have no idea what your trying to say.

[moresomekl]

Gosh you assume that Somchai was some kind of robot, and the red shirts the same ?

Its always the same here ....

Were you here then? Somchai was exactly a robot. To argue otherwise is laughable.

Well thats your opinion . Fine ... But not mine ...

[termad]

The last election returned the seats for the people who are now Bhumjaithai after they jumped ship. That makes them elected and legitimate members of parliament, and can vote and support anyone who pays the most they want.

They were returned as Phue Thai MPs and were bought by the Elite and the military. Bhumjaithai have never stood in an election

and I repeat that as Abhisit was fully aware of what was happening he is as much responsible for the betrayal of the millions of voters whose votes were stolen as those forty MPs are themselves.

He knows he has no mandate but he is so thrilled with being the PM there's no way that he will step down. The problem is he's leading this country into civil strife which is something else he's prepared to gamble with as long as he can be PM.

[moresomekl]

Give Abhisit a chance, he won't be able to stop corruption in one swoop, it will take years, but he's trying, also unheard of in the past.

What a load of tosh. There are at least four major corruption cases being investigated and Abhisit has tried to cover each one up what about the Ministry of Health for starters?

Really ? Sure of that ?

Well when Abhisit is rich corruption will stop then , it will take many years , yes agree LOL .

Unless there is a coup . Then i buy you dinner

[WinnieTheKhwai]

The last election returned the seats for the people who are now Bhumjaithai after they jumped ship. That makes them elected and legitimate members of parliament, and can vote and support anyone who they want.

They were returned as Phue Thai MPs and were bought by the Elite and the military. Bhumjaithai have never stood in an election

and I repeat that as Abhisit was fully aware of what was happening he is as much responsible for the betrayal of the millions of voters whose votes were stolen as those forty MPs are themselves.

Well, words like 'betrayal' aside I don't think this is in dispute. I'd agree with the above.

He knows he has no mandate but he is so thrilled with being the PM there's no way that he will step down. The problem is he's leading this country into civil strife which is something else he's prepared to gamble with as long as he can be PM.

I think you're attributing too much to Abhisit. I think he's mostly a passenger on this ride.

[lannarebirth]

What is your source for saying that Thaksin resigned and did so to get a popular mandate so that he could sell Shin Corp anyway? I've never heard of this.

Thaksin dissolved parliament after he had sold Shin Corp and when he realised that a lot of Thai people were unhappy about many aspects of that deal. He called new elections knowing that should he win - which was highly likely what with the tight grip he had established on power - he would be able to shut these people up and prevent the deal being scrutinized any further.

The courts have of course since spoken on this matter and proved that the people who were upset, had every right to be, and it's a good thing that the polls weren't used to decide on his guilt - that's not what polls are for after all, is it?

http://www.sfchron.com/cgi-bin/blogs/world...p;entry_id=4118

[jdinasia]

The last election returned the seats for the people who are now Bhumjaithai after they jumped ship. That makes them elected and legitimate members of parliament, and can vote and support anyone who they want.

They were returned as Phue Thai MPs and were bought by the Elite and the military. Bhumjaithai have never stood in an election

and I repeat that as Abhisit was fully aware of what was happening he is as much responsible for the betrayal of the millions of voters whose votes were stolen as those forty MPs are themselves.

Well, words like 'betrayal' aside I don't think this is in dispute. I'd agree with the above.

He knows he has no mandate but he is so thrilled with being the PM there's no way that he will step down. The problem is he's leading this country into civil strife which is something else he's prepared to gamble with as long as he can be PM.

I think you're attributing too much to Abhisit. I think he's mostly a passenger on this ride.

Ummm you better check again to see if they were returned as PTP MP's ... since the way it works here is that they have a set amount of time to join an existing party.

He has the same mandate that the PPP had ... but besides being practical his position is ethical and moral as well! Something TRT could never say nor any of his following crony parties

[anotherpeter]

What is your source for saying that Thaksin resigned and did so to get a popular mandate so that he could sell Shin Corp anyway? I've never heard of this.

Thaksin dissolved parliament after he had sold Shin Corp and when he realised that a lot of Thai people were unhappy about many aspects of that deal. He called new elections knowing that should he win - which was highly likely what with the tight grip he had established on power - he would be able to shut these people up and prevent the deal being scrutinized any further.

The courts have of course since spoken on this matter and proved that the people who were upset, had every right to be, and it's a good thing that the polls weren't used to decide on his guilt - that's not what polls are for after all, is it?

You talking absolute rubbish. He didn't disolve Parliament after he sold Shin I think that your time scale is out.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_...ion,_April_2006

"Thaksin's decision to call early elections followed a mounting campaign of criticism of his personal financial dealings. In January his family sold its stake in Shin Corporation, a leading communication company, for 73 billion baht (about $US1.88 billion), an enormous profit on which the Shinawatras legally paid no tax."

[rixalex]

What is your source for saying that Thaksin resigned and did so to get a popular mandate so that he could sell Shin Corp anyway? I've never heard of this.

Thaksin dissolved parliament after he had sold Shin Corp and when he realised that a lot of Thai people were unhappy about many aspects of that deal. He called new elections knowing that should he win - which was highly likely what with the tight grip he had established on power - he would be able to shut these people up and prevent the deal being scrutinized any further.

The courts have of course since spoken on this matter and proved that the people who were upset, had every right to be, and it's a good thing that the polls weren't used to decide on his guilt - that's not what polls are for after all, is it?

You talking absolute rubbish. He didn't disolve Parliament after he sold Shin I think that your time scale is out.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_...ion,_April_2006

"Thaksin's decision to call early elections followed a mounting campaign of criticism of his personal financial dealings. In January his family sold its stake in Shin Corporation, a leading communication company, for 73 billion baht (about $US1.88 billion), an enormous profit on which the Shinawatras legally paid no tax."

Thanks to both anotherpeter and lannarebirth for substaniating with links what i said and what termad claimed to be "absolute rubbish".

[rixalex]

The Court did not say that Samak was receiving a salary from the TV company they said that the expenses that he claimed from the company for his car and driver had to be construed as wages. Fair verdict?

Considering that Samak lied to the courts as well, seems pretty fair.

He said that he wasn't an employee, but he had worked for the channel for seven years. In Thai law, if you work for a company for more than two, you are automatically considered as being employed - something i'm sure his lawyer could have told him - probably did.

He also lied about payment. At first, he said he wasn't paid at all. Then he said he was offered money but refused. Then he finally admitted he was, but it was simply petrol money. 80,000 baht for 4 shows is quite a bit of petrol wouldn't you say? His final lie was to say he gave all the money to his driver.

[moresomekl]

The Court did not say that Samak was receiving a salary from the TV company they said that the expenses that he claimed from the company for his car and driver had to be construed as wages. Fair verdict?

Considering that Samak lied to the courts as well, seems pretty fair.

He said that he wasn't an employee, but he had worked for the channel for seven years. In Thai law, if you work for a company for more than two, you are automatically considered as being employed - something i'm sure his lawyer could have told him - probably did.

He also lied about payment. At first, he said he wasn't paid at all. Then he said he was offered money but refused. Then he finally admitted he was, but it was simply petrol money. 80,000 baht for 4 shows is quite a bit of petrol wouldn't you say? His final lie was to say he gave all the money to his driver.

Those MP's and ministers in Thailand are dirt poor

No wonder they moonlight

I propose that they should get a raise

[dominique355]

Just thought I would let the readers know how the rest of the world see's what caused the change in government in Thailand.

Here is a quote from Yahoo.ca website frontpage.

(Thailand was plagued by political upheaval in 2008 when yellow-shirted protesters who opposed Thaksin's allies in the previous government occupied the prime minister's office for three months and then blockaded Bangkok's international airport until a court ousted the government.)

So how legitimate is this government?

A classical error in logical thinking. Because one thing happened AFTER another, doesn't mean it happened BECAUSE of it. What sometimes is a temporal connection is not a causal connection. The Romans already saw this error in logic: "Post hoc ergo propter hoc"

OK, the Court declared Somchai's government as illegal AFTER the Yellow Shirts occupied the airports, but not BECAUSE the occupied them. Timely coincidence, that's all. He was caught cheating at the election. But obviously Thaksin's cronies, in search of a culprit, blamed the court and the Yellow shirts, instead of themselves. Classical Thai behavior: I am not responsible, I blame everybody else.

It is true, however, that the PAD vacated the airports after and because Somchai's government was ousted. But the PAD was not the reason why Somchai was ousted.

And finally a note to "legitimate" and "legal".

Whether Aphisit's government is legitimate can be debated. Obviously some people deny this. That's more a political issue or let's say an issue of emotions (as opposed to reason).

But whether or not Aphisit's government is legal must clearly be affirmed. No question about this. No constitutional rule, no law, no regulation has been broken.

Let's give the guy a chance. Thaksin had his and blew it.

[CLOD]

Abisit the legitimate thai PM........only in a thai pantomine! (Where even the horse objected to abisit being its rear end).

Oh no he isnt!

Abisit has been geremandered from an illegal military junta coup, on the back of that great democratic institution "coup-issued law" (whatever that is-maybe Democrat Obama can explain to everyone, if he calls.)

Ably aided and abetted by that other pillar of thai "democracy"... "junta appointed judiciary"

Illegal Military junta coup

coup-issued law

Appointed judiciary

Look behind you.....

[Richard W]

The coup led to an election that saw a Thaksin backed government installed. There is no link between the coup and the current government, no matter how many times one might proclaim it.

Actually, but for the coup, Thailand might well now be controlled by dictator Thaksin.

After they were bought by the Military and Ruling Elite the forty Phue Thai Mps crossed the floor and joined Abhisit. They then formed a new party called Bhumjaithai Party. A party that has never stood for election

That's a bit of an exaggeration. BJT = Friends of Newin + reincarnated Matchima Thippathai (+ 2 other MPs). And the BJT won the Prachinburi by-election in January.

[way2muchcoffee]

Abisit the legitimate thai PM........only in a thai pantomine! (Where even the horse objected to abisit being its rear end).

Oh no he isnt!

Abisit has been geremandered from an illegal military junta coup, on the back of that great democratic institution "coup-issued law" (whatever that is-maybe Democrat Obama can explain to everyone, if he calls.)

Ably aided and abetted by that other pillar of thai "democracy"... "junta appointed judiciary"

Illegal Military junta coup

coup-issued law

Appointed judiciary

CLOD - please provide evidence for your 'junta appointed judiciary' claims. I have seen this claim repeated many times, but not one shred of evidence for this has ever been posted. Yes, the CNS formed the AEC. But the AEC was an investigative body, designed to gather evidence. This was necessary because Thaksin controlled the police. The judges are a different matter. You are claiming the judges were hand-picked and appointed to make the rulings. For all the research I've done I've not found any evidence to suggest that was the case. Since you seem so certain and willing to post this over and over I assume you do have evidence. So please post it here.

[termad]

What is your source for saying that Thaksin resigned and did so to get a popular mandate so that he could sell Shin Corp anyway? I've never heard of this.

Thaksin dissolved parliament after he had sold Shin Corp and when he realised that a lot of Thai people were unhappy about many aspects of that deal. He called new elections knowing that should he win - which was highly likely what with the tight grip he had established on power - he would be able to shut these people up and prevent the deal being scrutinized any further.

The courts have of course since spoken on this matter and proved that the people who were upset, had every right to be, and it's a good thing that the polls weren't used to decide on his guilt - that's not what polls are for after all, is it?

http://www.sfchron.com/cgi-bin/blogs/world...p;entry_id=4118

The election wasn't held until April 2006 and in the words of the report on the BBC website Thaksin was saying to the Democrats " Put up or Shut up." He admitted after the the election (In a press interview with the better of the two English Language newspapers) that he was frustrated with Thai politics and wouldn't run as Premier in the next election. He in fact did step down for two weeks but was back in office in May. Nobody except for you as far as I know has suggested a link between the sale and the election. The link that you have posted to justfy your allegation leads to an e mail by somebody called Edward G. Gomez that that Edward G sent to the San Francisco Chronicle. Is he somebody that everybody should know?

At the moment the appeal is being prepared so there's not much point in you attempting to forecast the results of that appeal until it is heard.

I'm not sure why you're bringing polls into this question as the greatest opinion poll of all is a general election and I doubt if you could find a bookmaker who would not have the Phue Party as favourites to win. Which is exactly why Abhisit won't call an election.

Edited March 20, 2010 by termad

[termad]

Abisit the legitimate thai PM........only in a thai pantomine! (Where even the horse objected to abisit being its rear end).

Oh no he isnt!

Abisit has been geremandered from an illegal military junta coup, on the back of that great democratic institution "coup-issued law" (whatever that is-maybe Democrat Obama can explain to everyone, if he calls.)

Ably aided and abetted by that other pillar of thai "democracy"... "junta appointed judiciary"

Illegal Military junta coup

coup-issued law

Appointed judiciary

Look behind you.....

It's actually very interesting that as we hear that another 100 thousand redshirts are coming to Bangkok Obama has delayed his trip to SE Asia until next week as he needs to ensure his health reform bill gets passed this weekend. So he should arrive right in the middle of things. What's the betting that he passes a couple of comments?

[Livinginexile]

Simple answer to this post, call a general election and let the people decide!

[termad]

The coup led to an election that saw a Thaksin backed government installed. There is no link between the coup and the current government, no matter how many times one might proclaim it.

Actually, but for the coup, Thailand might well now be controlled by dictator Thaksin.

After they were bought by the Military and Ruling Elite the forty Phue Thai Mps crossed the floor and joined Abhisit. They then formed a new party called Bhumjaithai Party. A party that has never stood for election

That's a bit of an exaggeration. BJT = Friends of Newin + reincarnated Matchima Thippathai (+ 2 other MPs). And the BJT won the Prachinburi by-election in January.

January when? Bhumjaitai party was founded at the end of 2008.

[termad]

The Court did not say that Samak was receiving a salary from the TV company they said that the expenses that he claimed from the company for his car and driver had to be construed as wages. Fair verdict?

Considering that Samak lied to the courts as well, seems pretty fair.

He said that he wasn't an employee, but he had worked for the channel for seven years. In Thai law, if you work for a company for more than two, you are automatically considered as being employed - something i'm sure his lawyer could have told him - probably did.

He also lied about payment. At first, he said he wasn't paid at all. Then he said he was offered money but refused. Then he finally admitted he was, but it was simply petrol money. 80,000 baht for 4 shows is quite a bit of petrol wouldn't you say? His final lie was to say he gave all the money to his driver.

Those MP's and ministers in Thailand are dirt poor

No wonder they moonlight

I propose that they should get a raise

You neglected to say that the TV company stressed that he was not an employee of theirs and in fact none of their guest chefs were. So he did not work for the company as you claim and the law that you quote refers to full time employment anyway.

He said that he wasn't paid by the TV company which he wasn't. He said that they offered to pay him but he refused.

A cookery show would most probably mean very unsociable hours for that driver i.e. sitting outside the studio waiting for Samak and it wouldn't be one trip to the studio per show there would be at least one rehearsal, most probably at least one meeting plus the show ityself. So take away the cost of the petrol, the cost of the ingredients and cooking paraphenalia and yes he most probably did give the balance to the driver - not that there would be that much left.

All your doing is making a cheap snide remark about a man who had a very raw deal from a Thai court. And if you are also saying that there were no politics involved you must be about as stupid as your post.

Edited March 20, 2010 by termad

[termad]

The AOT closed the airport, after the Thaksin government did not evict them. Thaksin's fault.

More tosh - he wasn't the Prime Minister then.

quote

He most certainly was - just not in title. The reality is that the Somchai government acted at the beck and call of Mr. T.

Gosh you assume that Somchai was some kind of robot , and the red shirts the same ?

Its always the same here ....

Read my post dozy the goverment requested the Army's help as they are entitled to but Anupong refused so what do you think Somchai should have done? Gone down there with his mother and told them to leave?

[rixalex]

The election wasn't held until April 2006 and in the words of the report on the BBC website Thaksin was saying to the Democrats " Put up or Shut up." He admitted after the the election (In a press interview with the better of the two English Language newspapers) that he was frustrated with Thai politics and wouldn't run as Premier in the next election. He in fact did step down for two weeks but was back in office in May. Nobody except for you as far as I know has suggested a link between the sale and the election. The link that you have posted to justfy your allegation leads to an e mail by somebody called Edward G. Gomez that that Edward G sent to the San Francisco Chronicle. Is he somebody that everybody should know?

The issue of why Thaksin called a snap election is harder to prove because it comes down to opinion. All i will say is that if i am the first person you have heard mention about Thaksin trying to use a fresh mandate to silence critics, then you clearly have more research to do - try stepping outside of the red haze this time.

What on the other hand is not hard to prove is the timeline. It's a matter of fact. In case you forgot, let me remind you of your comment:

You talking absolute rubbish. He didn't disolve Parliament after he sold Shin I think that your time scale is out.

He did disolve Parliament after he sold Shin. Your time scale is out. You are talking absolute rubbish.

[rixalex]

You neglected to say that the TV company stressed that he was not an employee of theirs and in fact none of their guest chefs were. So he did not work for the company as you claim and the law that you quote refers to full time employment anyway.

What the TV company said matters not a jot. Of course they were going to say whatever they could to help Samak squirm his way out. What matters is what the law says and from what i have read, it makes no mention of how many hours a person is working per week. What is says is working on a consultancy basis for one company can only last two years, and if it continues beyond this time then that person, in the eyes of the law, becomes an employee.

He said that he wasn't paid by the TV company which he wasn't. He said that they offered to pay him but he refused.

Actually his statements changed a lot and he contradicted himself frequently. First he said he wasn't paid anything. Then he said he was offered but refused. Then he said he was paid but only petrol money. Then in the Bangkok Post he made this statement " I presented the cooking show and got paid for my acting". The man lied so much it obviously became very confusing for him.

A cookery show would most probably mean very unsociable hours for that driver i.e. sitting outside the studio waiting for Samak and it wouldn't be one trip to the studio per show there would be at least one rehearsal, most probably at least one meeting plus the show ityself. So take away the cost of the petrol, the cost of the ingredients and cooking paraphenalia and yes he most probably did give the balance to the driver - not that there would be that much left.

Did you ever see Samak's cooking show? I did. I think you are fooling yourself if you think he did anything other than turn up, have someone powder his nose and put him in front of the camera.

If you are right, and the sort of meticulous planning and dedication from Samak you suggest did go into the show, don't you perhaps think he should have been concentrating more on saving Thaksin's bacon running the country?

Anyway, it's all academic to the court case, as is your nonsense about Samak paying for cooking ingredients and paraphenalia.

All your doing is making a cheap snide remark about a man who had a very raw deal from a Thai court. And if you are also saying that there were no politics involved you must be about as stupid as your post.

Nothing cheap or snide about my remarks whatsoever. Just stating the facts. One of those facts being that he was found guilty. You might not respect that decision, i do.

P.S. Calling me or my posts stupid is flaming. Disagreeing is perfected possible without it. That you seem incapable speaks volumes.

[Sing_Sling]

Ahhh the puppet PM is legitimate?

Well, I posted my reasoning as to why he was.

Rather than the usual one liners that actually mean nothing, how about some reasoning as to why he isn't legitimate.

Seeing as you left out many salient points Britmaveric is quite correct in answering with a one-liner.

Oh, and could you people please stop using wiki as your sole source of information and then claiming to have the answer for all things wrapped up . . . remember where the contributions come from for those wiki entries

[moresomekl]

Under Thai law, Abhisit's election as prime minister by parliament was/ is legal. Look at this Wiki entry to understand how he basically became prime minister:

"After Somchai was removed and the PPP dissolved, many MPs defected to the Democrat side thus forging a new alliance. Defectors included MPs from the For Thais Party (Puea Thai, the successor of the PPP), the former Chart Thai Party under Sanan Krachonprasat, the Thais United National Development Party, and the Neutral Democratic Party, and the "Friends of Newin" faction of the former Peoples Power Party. The enlarged Democrat-led coalition was able to endorse Abhisit as Prime Minister. Abhisit became Prime Minister after winning a special vote in parliament on 15 December 2008." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhisit_Vejja...r_2007_election

Now, I am not sure how your political system works, but where I am from MPs don't simply "defect" to another party. Greens don't just form a coalition with Conservatives without a new public election being held. Moreover, you don't have a group of the Greens defect and join the Conservatives.

If a prime minister had come into office under these circumstances back home, people would be on the streets as well!!

****************************************************

I really have some problem to fully understand the british system but what you say about defecting without new elections makes sense

I think that you are right . Unfortunately many observers and myself ask ourselves on whether the reds

only or main objective is not the return of Thaksin as PM . See the BBC . That would be not so good

for Thailand because of his abuses of power

[moresomekl]

Those MP's and ministers in Thailand are dirt poor

No wonder they moonlight

I propose that they should get a raise

You neglected to say that the TV company stressed that he was not an employee of theirs and in fact none of their guest chefs were. So he did not work for the company as you claim and the law that you quote refers to full time employment anyway.

He said that he wasn't paid by the TV company which he wasn't. He said that they offered to pay him but he refused.

A cookery show would most probably mean very unsociable hours for that driver i.e. sitting outside the studio waiting for Samak and it wouldn't be one trip to the studio per show there would be at least one rehearsal, most probably at least one meeting plus the show ityself. So take away the cost of the petrol, the cost of the ingredients and cooking paraphenalia and yes he most probably did give the balance to the driver - not that there would be that much left.

All your doing is making a cheap snide remark about a man who had a very raw deal from a Thai court. And if you are also saying that there were no politics involved you must be about as stupid as your post.

It was just some humor on ALL politicians , not a particular one targetted nothing harmless really .

On the substance i totally agree with you , it was politically motivated , in fact i find what happened

revolting .

I prefer to choose to ignore the rest as you obviously misinterpreted

[rixalex]

On the substance i totally agree with you , it was politically motivated , in fact i find what happened

revolting .

Taken from the constitution:

Section 267. The provisions of section 265 shall apply to the Prime Minister and Ministers, except for the holding of position or an act to be done under the provisions of law. The Prime Minister and Ministers shall neither hold any position in a partnership, a company or an organisation carrying out business with a view to sharing profits or incomes nor being an employee of any person.

What is it about making people abide by the law, that you find revolting?

[michaelc]

Sorry bout the quote thing , not so sure how to do .

Yes perhaps .... But its unlikely Thaksin himself can be PM again .

You press the reply button and then type in the box that appears below all the other writing.

TH

Really...thats easy. Been dying to buy into this discussion, but couldnt work out how!

[Krungbin]

Sure in 2001, the TRT won the elections with 40,6% of the votes.

But everybody, it seems, has forgotten that in order to obtain a comfortable and total majority, TS cooked a deal with both the New Aspriration Party (Chavalit) and the Thai Nation Party. This gave him a comfortable 325 seats on 500...

[Sing_Sling]

What is it about making people abide by the law, that you find revolting?

Possibly the fact that these laws are used about as arbitrarily as possible? Nah, that couldn't be it, surely

You can quote pretty much any passage from the Constitutional Laws and see it applied, or not . . . whoever seems to be in power