Thai Protesters Defy State Of Emergency

[way2muchcoffee]

Then taking your argument of an employee and his directors how can you explain that when dems MP were caught buying votes or other irregularities the entire dem party was not banned ?

Also how can you accept that as a result of such ruling banning a party in power , the ppl need not to be consulted in a general election ?

Or do you you consider them as culprits of such act as well ?

Do you actually read the posts as they are addressed to you?

It has been stated several times, if an executive member of an party is caught buying votes etc - in any way breaking the election laws - then the whole party will be deemed to have gained from it and it will be dissolved. Only the executives and the offending persons will be banned from their positions of MP however.

If a non-executive member is caught it is not proven that the inner circle knew about it and as such it is not considered proven that it was something the party sanctioned and knowingly gained from, hence only the offending member is banned.

Easy as pie, no?

Am quoting

Using your logic, would be similar to saying, if a company employee starts bribing officials and directors turn a blind eye, then the company should not fear any consequence, as only the employee is responsible. In fact the entire basis of corporate law looks at the relationship of directors and whether they should have known (not if they actually knew) regarding actions of staff. The employee, the directors and the company are responsible

So now if a non executive member of a party commits bribes then it should be assumed that the party management knows about it , if they dont know is irrelevant they still are responsible since they are the executives , the management .

You cant have it both ways .

Again I repeat why when dems are caught bribing regardless on whether they are executive or not , the management is not held reponsible and the party banned ?

Its easy as pie . Do you understand my question ?

And dont tell me because the law says so .

Since you already know the answer to your question why ask it?

The law is the law. It can be changed, but there are no double standards according to this particular law as it is written. The law was applied to the Dems. The law was applied to the PTP. Their cases were not the same and therefore the consequences were not the same. Had the Democrat leadership been filmed engaging in electoral fraud then there would not be a Democrat Party today. They would be banned.

Edited April 8, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[moresomekl]

Then taking your argument of an employee and his directors how can you explain that when dems MP were caught buying votes or other irregularities the entire dem party was not banned ?

Also how can you accept that as a result of such ruling banning a party in power , the ppl need not to be consulted in a general election ?

Or do you you consider them as culprits of such act as well ?

Do you actually read the posts as they are addressed to you?

It has been stated several times, if an executive member of an party is caught buying votes etc - in any way breaking the election laws - then the whole party will be deemed to have gained from it and it will be dissolved. Only the executives and the offending persons will be banned from their positions of MP however.

If a non-executive member is caught it is not proven that the inner circle knew about it and as such it is not considered proven that it was something the party sanctioned and knowingly gained from, hence only the offending member is banned.

Easy as pie, no?

It should be easy as pie to understand. But that wouldn't fit with their rhetoric. So you shall be ignored and the same lies will be repeated, no matter if they already know the truth. The truth has no part in their game plan.

Pls check my answer to TAWP , so that you have a better understanding . That wont fit your rethoric though

Let me retrace for you

A military coup to throw out a PM just before elections

One year of military dictatorship

A PM elected that is removed because of cooking shows

The party in power removed because of bribing (as is not the standard in THailand)

Am sure you got excellent reasons to justify ALL of those , even the coup .

But to an external observer it sounds extremely fishy and biased

.

Now let me tell me you and anotherpeter this . I share a negative impression about Thaksin , i did some research

, i much prefer Abhisit if he was a bit more efficient . That is a personal opinion however

But if the thai people prefer Thaksin or his party they have the right to elect whom they want

its their life

And the logic that the coup was alright because Thaksin was bad is totally flawed .

And if the coup was not alright then no one has the right to be against the red provided they dont

break the laws

Simple as pie

[moresomekl]

Then taking your argument of an employee and his directors how can you explain that when dems MP were caught buying votes or other irregularities the entire dem party was not banned ?

Also how can you accept that as a result of such ruling banning a party in power , the ppl need not to be consulted in a general election ?

Or do you you consider them as culprits of such act as well ?

Do you actually read the posts as they are addressed to you?

It has been stated several times, if an executive member of an party is caught buying votes etc - in any way breaking the election laws - then the whole party will be deemed to have gained from it and it will be dissolved. Only the executives and the offending persons will be banned from their positions of MP however.

If a non-executive member is caught it is not proven that the inner circle knew about it and as such it is not considered proven that it was something the party sanctioned and knowingly gained from, hence only the offending member is banned.

Easy as pie, no?

Am quoting

Using your logic, would be similar to saying, if a company employee starts bribing officials and directors turn a blind eye, then the company should not fear any consequence, as only the employee is responsible. In fact the entire basis of corporate law looks at the relationship of directors and whether they should have known (not if they actually knew) regarding actions of staff. The employee, the directors and the company are responsible

So now if a non executive member of a party commits bribes then it should be assumed that the party management knows about it , if they dont know is irrelevant they still are responsible since they are the executives , the management .

You cant have it both ways .

Again I repeat why when dems are caught bribing regardless on whether they are executive or not , the management is not held reponsible and the party banned ?

Its easy as pie . Do you understand my question ?

And dont tell me because the law says so .

Since you already know the answer to your question why ask it?

The law is the law. It can be changed, but there are no double standards according to this particular law as it is written. The law was applied to the Dems. The law was applied to the PTP. Their cases were not the same and therefore the consequences were not the same. Had the Democrat leadership been filmed engaging in electoral fraud then there would not be a Democrat Party today. They would be banned.

Alright i will do some research on the leadership of the dems say for the last 10 years and be back to you

[KireB]

A military coup to throw out a PM just before elections

One year of military dictatorship

A PM elected that is removed because of cooking shows

The party in power removed because of bribing (as is not the standard in THailand)

You live in the past and contradict your own red philosophy.

Vote buying is not a component of a democratic system. Vote buying and selling are undemocratic!

To say: he, its always been done like that" , is admitting that the democracy these reds are fighting for is a farce and nothing more than that. A farce and a blatant lie! All they want is to amend the constitution, so that Mr X T in Dubai can come back. Unpunished!

[chantorn]

Please stop now. Thai LOVE Thai. Not Thai fight Thai.

[AZBill]

If history is our teacher then violence is inevitable. The red shirt leaders are too invested in this now to lose face and face jail. Despite the peaceful cover that previously existed, the leaders have no doubt resolved to use violence if needed. No coupe in history is truly bloodless or achieved without the very real threat of violence. It is a shame but civil war is coming, and if it does the government is far outnumbered and I do not see the military full of young rural boys killing their neighbors. I suspect the vast number of rank and file are red shirts at heart. Generals do not fight or win wars! I never understood why the Thais are so proud of never being colonized given that civil war seems to be a way of life in this country and is a shameful state of affairs for a so-called democracy . They don't need any outsiders to destroy their country - they do a good enough job themselves. Look for tourism to dry up like an Isaan rice field in a drought if this silliness continues. Already really bad press here in the US and people I speak to think I'm crazy to even consider going to Thailand with what is going on. I'm starting to agree with them.

[krakatoa]

If you are going to bust up a protest, need to do it from the very beginning. Too bloody late now.

It's never too late. Bring in the water cannon, rubber bullets and the real ones "double metal jacket and shoot down a few of these anarchists.

They would run like the yelow bellied cowards that they are.

Nuff is enough. Abhisit should be nominated for a Nobel peace prize.............

[animatic]

Yes concurr . I dont think any such legitimate lawbook exist .

You mean the Constitution...this is where it specifically addresses this point.

Section 237. A candidate in an election who commits an act or causes or supports another person to act in violation of the organic law on election of members of the House of Representatives and acquisition of senators or regulations or notifications of the Election Commission which resulting in the election not to be honest and fair, his right to vote at an election shall be suspended under the organic law on election of members of the House of Representatives and acquisition of senators.

If it appears convincing evidence, through an act of the person under paragraph one, that the President or an executive board of director of a political party connives or neglects at such commission or such commission is known to him but he fails to deter or revise such commission for the maintenance of honest and fair election, it shall be deemed that such political party doing an act for the acquisition of the power to rule the country by means which is not in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution under section 68. In such case, if the Constitutional Court orders to dissolve such political party, the right to vote at an election of the President or the executive board of directors of a political party shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date such order is made.

Using your logic, would be similar to saying, if a company employee starts bribing officials and directors turn a blind eye, then the company should not fear any consequence, as only the employee is responsible. In fact the entire basis of corporate law looks at the relationship of directors and whether they should have known (not if they actually knew) regarding actions of staff. The employee, the directors and the company are responsible.

PPP were fully aware of this, but did it anyhow, because they were sure they could change the constitution fast enough to not face the consequences. Incidentally, Samak kept doing the TV show and breached both the 1997 and 2007 constitutions, as both prohibit paid employment outside of working as a govt official. Not many people mention that bit - he knew he was not allowed to run his political show masquarading as a cooking show, also the fact he did it helps explain why he was the least hard working PM we've had; he literally did nothing, so I suppose at least we can look back at his gaeng and think well at least he produced that :-) He was sure, I guess, that he would be able to change that one as well.

It doesn't matter much whether you consider this to be a legitimate law book or not. The current constitution is all we have at the moment, and it sure is funny that all agree it should be changed, although we don't agree yet what. That still doesn't give people or parties the right to just assume that laws don't apply to them just because they don't like them.

If the PPP feel that the constitution doesn't apply to them at all, perhaps they can go and do whatever they want, since no laws apply at all right?

Hold up, yep, that's what they are doing now :-)

Another thoughtful and well informed post Steve. Thank you yet again.

That analogy to corporate law was quite apropos also.

Though the 'should have known' bit would mean

EVERY SINGLE PARTY would get banned after EVERY ELECTION,

because ALL party leaders SHOULD have known their members were cheating.

Essentially an unworkable interpretation.

Moresomekl, sadly you seem a bit out of your depth in this.

Edited April 8, 2010 by animatic

[FatherF]

The guy had an American accent, was tall & white.

(walks like a duck, sounds like a duck...... Generally is a duck!)

Could be an imposter tho........

FF

[Jerrytheyoung]

If history is our teacher then violence is inevitable. The red shirt leaders are too invested in this now to lose face and face jail. Despite the peaceful cover that previously existed, the leaders have no doubt resolved to use violence if needed. No coupe in history is truly bloodless or achieved without the very real threat of violence. It is a shame but civil war is coming, and if it does the government is far outnumbered and I do not see the military full of young rural boys killing their neighbors. I suspect the vast number of rank and file are red shirts at heart. Generals do not fight or win wars! I never understood why the Thais are so proud of never being colonized given that civil war seems to be a way of life in this country and is a shameful state of affairs for a so-called democracy . They don't need any outsiders to destroy their country - they do a good enough job themselves. Look for tourism to dry up like an Isaan rice field in a drought if this silliness continues. Already really bad press here in the US and people I speak to think I'm crazy to even consider going to Thailand with what is going on. I'm starting to agree with them.

COOL DOWN

We are in Thailand, nobody want blood (except a few fools).

But gambling is Asian and when you play Poker.... you have to bluff...

So everything has to be relativised. Yes, there are some issues, but Thai people Red and Yellows are civilised and polite people.

Keep your Cultural benchmarks in USA, come in Thailand in this wonderful Country (Do not bring your Girl Friend... plenty of charming and beautiful resources here)

About ThaiVisa forum, a website animated by a bunch of old (except me) fencers, using their keyboard instead of a sword (less dangerous) and some old Vietnam veterans...Not a real representativity of Thailand

Do not miss the opportunity to come here, it will be your life's mistake.

A Froggy (French)

Edited April 8, 2010 by Jerrytheyoung

[connel707]

"......forcibly entering government buildings is not an appropriate means of protest."

Number one, who cares what the US Govt. says. Their double-standard in the way they treated the Honduras coup from the Thailand coup makes their pronouncement meaningless.

Was there a coup in Honduras? Did USA treat Thailand differently?

Wheres Honduras.... is that where they build Hondas..??

[Thai at Heart]

"......forcibly entering government buildings is not an appropriate means of protest."

Number one, who cares what the US Govt. says. Their double-standard in the way they treated the Honduras coup from the Thailand coup makes their pronouncement meaningless.

Was there a coup in Honduras? Did USA treat Thailand differently?

Wheres Honduras.... is that where they build Hondas..??

And as for Thailand everyone knows it is just off the coast of China.

[steveromagnino]

A PM elected that is removed because of cooking shows

The party in power removed because of bribing (as is not the standard in THailand)

Am sure you got excellent reasons to justify ALL of those , even the coup .

But to an external observer it sounds extremely fishy and biased

And if the coup was not alright then no one has the right to be against the red provided they dont

break the laws

Simple as pie

1. Please reread what I wrote on an employee stealing - if the employee bribes/steals whatever and the directors knew or should have known, they are typically held to be liable; this is an analogy - we are not talking company law here, we are talking Thai law.

If a member of the executive of a party is buying votes, then that's the same as a director directly bribing/stealing; they represent the company and therefore the company faces the consequences. If a member of the non exec, but party nevertheless is caught bribing, then it depends on whether the directors should have known - a bit of a subjective test, but to use an example, the red carded cheaters from PPP Prakit Poldej, Pornchai Srisuthiyothin, Rungroj Thongsri, Prasop Busarakham AFAIK did not have any effect on the PPP as they are not party executives; there were MANY cheats in the 2007 election although less apparently than previous elections....so now....do you understand the difference and in particular, can you reread the piece of the constitution and see how the exec and non exec components differ in terms of repercussions?

2. Samak - cooking show. I suggest you read very carefully the 2007 Constitution, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR

He was being paid for it, he was a part owner effectively of the show, and he should have been doing his job as PM, not posturing on his lousy cooking er politics, er cooking show.

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.

Section 269. The Prime Minister and a Minister shall not be a partner or shareholder of a partnership or a company or retain his being a partner or shareholder of a partnership or a company up to the limit as provided by law. In the case where the Prime Minister or any Minister intends to continue to receive benefits in such cases, the Prime Minister or such Minister shall inform the President of the National Counter Corruption Commission within thirty days as from the date of the appointment and shall transfer his shares in the partnership or company to a juristic person which manages assets for the benefit of other persons as provided by law.

Section 182. The ministership of an individual Minister terminates upon:

(7) having done an act prohibited by section 267, section 268 or section 269;

And as a kicker......

Section 48. No person holding a political position shall be the owner of, or hold shares in, newspaper, radio or television broadcasting or telecommunication business, irrespective of whether he so commits in his name, or through his proxy or nominee, or by other direct or indirect means which enable him to administer such business as if he is the owner of, or hold shares in, such business.

Now just in case you pull some line about, well we should use the 1997 constitution....here it is.

Section 207 A Minister shall not be a Government

official holding a permanent position or receiving a salary

except political official.

Section 208 A Minister shall not hold a position or

perform any act provided in section 110, except the position

required to be held by the operation of law, and shall not hold

any other position in a partnership, company or any

organisation which engages in a business with a view to

sharing profits or incomes or be an employee of any person.

If you really read the 1997 Constitution, it becomes so clear that had THaksin been fairly tried under 1997's version, he would have been banned for sure based on the conclusion that he still had effective control of Shin (well that plus the asset declaration).

So really....that's why they want to bring 1997 back....because they ignored it last time, why not ignore again. But he of course needs Amnesty too.

Yep, the fight really is about democracy innit.

[Sunderland]

From Thai Television:

Thai Police now hunt for 7 red-shirt leaders

7 leaders gone!

More as we have it

That is convenient!! Has anyone ever been arrested for anything the yellow or red protesters did, other than the bloke who threw <deleted> over a wall???

[lannarebirth]

From Thai Television:

Thai Police now hunt for 7 red-shirt leaders

7 leaders gone!

More as we have it

That is convenient!! Has anyone ever been arrested for anything the yellow or red protesters did, other than the bloke who threw <deleted> over a wall???

I assume news updates will clarify, but my initial reaction was to wonder, has Thaksin been punked?

Edited April 8, 2010 by lannarebirth

[steveromagnino]

I assume news updates will clarify, but my initial reaction was to wonder, has Thaksin been punked?

I think you me animatic Jayboy koo82 samran siriusblack and Britmaveric should create a new reality TV show.

Basically, we show up with 10,000 red shirt clapping foot waving people to someone's house or their place of work, and have a number of huge trucks with big expensive sounds systems and lots and lots of noise, motorcycles and so on.

Then we pour blood on them and say 'YOU'VE BEEN RED SHIRTED!!!!'

Now...as long as none of us are Prime Minister (because you are breaching the law by holding another job or shares in media) then we can keep this running.

I might suggest it to Dr Weng. I am sure this was his plan for democracy. You know, to create truth and stuff, by playing that doctored clip on stage and generally boring everyone to death.

Instead....we can make it reality TV!!

It will be awesome.

You want to invest?

[Thai at Heart]

I assume news updates will clarify, but my initial reaction was to wonder, has Thaksin been punked?

I think you me animatic Jayboy koo82 samran siriusblack and Britmaveric should create a new reality TV show.

Basically, we show up with 10,000 red shirt clapping foot waving people to someone's house or their place of work, and have a number of huge trucks with big expensive sounds systems and lots and lots of noise, motorcycles and so on.

Then we pour blood on them and say 'YOU'VE BEEN RED SHIRTED!!!!'

Now...as long as none of us are Prime Minister (because you are breaching the law by holding another job or shares in media) then we can keep this running.

I might suggest it to Dr Weng. I am sure this was his plan for democracy. You know, to create truth and stuff, by playing that doctored clip on stage and generally boring everyone to death.

Instead....we can make it reality TV!!

It will be awesome.

You want to invest?

It sounded good until you included Weng.

I think he has had his 15 minutes.

[erobando]

I assume news updates will clarify, but my initial reaction was to wonder, has Thaksin been punked?

I think you me animatic Jayboy koo82 samran siriusblack and Britmaveric should create a new reality TV show.

Basically, we show up with 10,000 red shirt clapping foot waving people to someone's house or their place of work, and have a number of huge trucks with big expensive sounds systems and lots and lots of noise, motorcycles and so on.

Then we pour blood on them and say 'YOU'VE BEEN RED SHIRTED!!!!'

Now...as long as none of us are Prime Minister (because you are breaching the law by holding another job or shares in media) then we can keep this running.

I might suggest it to Dr Weng. I am sure this was his plan for democracy. You know, to create truth and stuff, by playing that doctored clip on stage and generally boring everyone to death.

Instead....we can make it reality TV!!

It will be awesome.

You want to invest?

I think this would work.

Somehow you got to work in a vote for kicking people off the show, but every few episodes a dozen or so dudes dressed in military garb burst onto the set claiming that the voting results have been annulled, and they kick someone else off instead.

Maybe add another group that bursts onto the show during every episode to campaign for ousted contestants to be reinstated.

[Thai at Heart]

I assume news updates will clarify, but my initial reaction was to wonder, has Thaksin been punked?

I think you me animatic Jayboy koo82 samran siriusblack and Britmaveric should create a new reality TV show.

Basically, we show up with 10,000 red shirt clapping foot waving people to someone's house or their place of work, and have a number of huge trucks with big expensive sounds systems and lots and lots of noise, motorcycles and so on.

Then we pour blood on them and say 'YOU'VE BEEN RED SHIRTED!!!!'

Now...as long as none of us are Prime Minister (because you are breaching the law by holding another job or shares in media) then we can keep this running.

I might suggest it to Dr Weng. I am sure this was his plan for democracy. You know, to create truth and stuff, by playing that doctored clip on stage and generally boring everyone to death.

Instead....we can make it reality TV!!

It will be awesome.

You want to invest?

I think this would work.

Somehow you got to work in a vote for kicking people off the show, but every few episodes a dozen or so dudes dressed in military garb burst onto the set claiming that the voting results have been annulled, and they kick someone else off instead.

Maybe add another group that bursts onto the show during every episode to campaign for ousted contestants to be reinstated.

If you take the gameshow format, the contestants need to be able to have immunity idols. Sort of a get out of jail free card, the same one that the PAD seem to have.

[Jerrytheyoung]

From Thai Television:

Thai Police now hunt for 7 red-shirt leaders

7 leaders gone!

More as we have it

That is convenient!! Has anyone ever been arrested for anything the yellow or red protesters did, other than the bloke who threw <deleted> over a wall???

The Red Shirts have seized the Parliament during 20 minutes, What about the Yellow shirts seizing the same Parliament during months? Both set of Leaders should be arrested simultaneously.

[lannarebirth]

I assume news updates will clarify, but my initial reaction was to wonder, has Thaksin been punked?

I think you me animatic Jayboy koo82 samran siriusblack and Britmaveric should create a new reality TV show.

Basically, we show up with 10,000 red shirt clapping foot waving people to someone's house or their place of work, and have a number of huge trucks with big expensive sounds systems and lots and lots of noise, motorcycles and so on.

Then we pour blood on them and say 'YOU'VE BEEN RED SHIRTED!!!!'

Now...as long as none of us are Prime Minister (because you are breaching the law by holding another job or shares in media) then we can keep this running.

I might suggest it to Dr Weng. I am sure this was his plan for democracy. You know, to create truth and stuff, by playing that doctored clip on stage and generally boring everyone to death.

Instead....we can make it reality TV!!

It will be awesome.

You want to invest?

I think this would work.

Somehow you got to work in a vote for kicking people off the show, but every few episodes a dozen or so dudes dressed in military garb burst onto the set claiming that the voting results have been annulled, and they kick someone else off instead.

Maybe add another group that bursts onto the show during every episode to campaign for ousted contestants to be reinstated.

If you take the gameshow format, the contestants need to be able to have immunity idols. Sort of a get out of jail free card, the same one that the PAD seem to have.

Something like "phone a discredited ex PM for help" option. Yeah.

[Thai at Heart]

Something like "phone a discredited ex PM for help" option. Yeah.

Hey, I think we are onto something. Maybe we could syndicate it to Simon Cowell.

"Thai Political Idol"

Let the people vote....................

Ah shoot. Back to Democracy again. It'll never catch on.

[Siripon]

From Thai Television:

Thai Police now hunt for 7 red-shirt leaders

7 leaders gone!

More as we have it

That is convenient!! Has anyone ever been arrested for anything the yellow or red protesters did, other than the bloke who threw <deleted> over a wall???

The Red Shirts have seized the Parliament during 20 minutes, What about the Yellow shirts seizing the same Parliament during months? Both set of Leaders should be arrested simultaneously.

They didn't seize Parliament, they seized Government House, but I think they should be in prison for that.

[animatic]

A PM elected that is removed because of cooking shows

The party in power removed because of bribing (as is not the standard in THailand)

Am sure you got excellent reasons to justify ALL of those , even the coup .

But to an external observer it sounds extremely fishy and biased

And if the coup was not alright then no one has the right to be against the red provided they dont

break the laws

Simple as pie

1. Please reread what I wrote on an employee stealing - if the employee bribes/steals whatever and the directors knew or should have known, they are typically held to be liable; this is an analogy - we are not talking company law here, we are talking Thai law.

If a member of the executive of a party is buying votes, then that's the same as a director directly bribing/stealing; they represent the company and therefore the company faces the consequences. If a member of the non exec, but party nevertheless is caught bribing, then it depends on whether the directors should have known - a bit of a subjective test, but to use an example, the red carded cheaters from PPP Prakit Poldej, Pornchai Srisuthiyothin, Rungroj Thongsri, Prasop Busarakham AFAIK did not have any effect on the PPP as they are not party executives; there were MANY cheats in the 2007 election although less apparently than previous elections....so now....do you understand the difference and in particular, can you reread the piece of the constitution and see how the exec and non exec components differ in terms of repercussions?

2. Samak - cooking show. I suggest you read very carefully the 2007 Constitution, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR

He was being paid for it, he was a part owner effectively of the show, and he should have been doing his job as PM, not posturing on his lousy cooking er politics, er cooking show.

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.

Section 269. The Prime Minister and a Minister shall not be a partner or shareholder of a partnership or a company or retain his being a partner or shareholder of a partnership or a company up to the limit as provided by law. In the case where the Prime Minister or any Minister intends to continue to receive benefits in such cases, the Prime Minister or such Minister shall inform the President of the National Counter Corruption Commission within thirty days as from the date of the appointment and shall transfer his shares in the partnership or company to a juristic person which manages assets for the benefit of other persons as provided by law.

Section 182. The ministership of an individual Minister terminates upon:

(7) having done an act prohibited by section 267, section 268 or section 269;

And as a kicker......

Section 48. No person holding a political position shall be the owner of, or hold shares in, newspaper, radio or television broadcasting or telecommunication business, irrespective of whether he so commits in his name, or through his proxy or nominee, or by other direct or indirect means which enable him to administer such business as if he is the owner of, or hold shares in, such business.

Now just in case you pull some line about, well we should use the 1997 constitution....here it is.

Section 207 A Minister shall not be a Government

official holding a permanent position or receiving a salary

except political official.

Section 208 A Minister shall not hold a position or

perform any act provided in section 110, except the position

required to be held by the operation of law, and shall not hold

any other position in a partnership, company or any

organisation which engages in a business with a view to

sharing profits or incomes or be an employee of any person.

If you really read the 1997 Constitution, it becomes so clear that had THaksin been fairly tried under 1997's version, he would have been banned for sure based on the conclusion that he still had effective control of Shin (well that plus the asset declaration).

So really....that's why they want to bring 1997 back....because they ignored it last time, why not ignore again. But he of course needs Amnesty too.

Yep, the fight really is about democracy innit.

Moresomekl I said it before, but will reiterate,

you are WAY out of your depth on this one.

Thaksins crew though for the longest time the were invincible,

but the last few years proved them wrong, both in power management and legal interpretation.

As proved by TWO group convictions for stupid election trickery...

Now Thaksin is thinking to go right around the constitutions with People Power...

no mistaking why that name was chosen for his comeback from the politically dead.

It was a declaration of war and showed off his intended weapon.

Now he is weilding that sword as an actual weapon, since each episode of his using force

sets him farther back, and his response is always MORE FORCE. Well Abhisitn is being

very Gandhi'sh and that is making it harder for him to play the down trodden and beaten poor card.

They have visibly tried to provoke violence in an discredit attempt,

and even if for some Mark appears weak, in effect his strength is

both holding back the hawks, letting the reds show ALL that they ARE violent

reactionary and not interested in dialog. Leaving them with a need to up the anti...

but to where. They are used to violence provoking a reaction, and yet they get moderation.

The Thais psyche likes a reasonable and accommodating consensus man.

But also a strong man. Holding back the army seems pretty strong to me.

[britmaveric]

^Hmmm sounds like one of those whacky Japanese Game (torture) Shows.

[Thai at Heart]

^Hmmm sounds like one of those whacky Japanese Game (torture) Shows.

Maybe they could put Thaksin in one booth, Abhisit in the other and play Sondhi's and Jatuporns speeches to their relevant foes and see who begs for mercy first.

Winner is PM.

Now I would pay to watch that.

[britmaveric]

^kick in the <deleted> for each wrong answer.

[philw]

If you are going to bust up a protest, need to do it from the very beginning. Too bloody late now.

It's never too late. Bring in the water cannon, rubber bullets and the real ones "double metal jacket and shoot down a few of these anarchists.

They would run like the yelow bellied cowards that they are.

Nuff is enough. Abhisit should be nominated for a Nobel peace prize.............

Very constructive............although following your logic is it ok if me and my staff shoot a few scientologists ???

On sight, perchance ??

Am I correct that your avatar is John Travolta ?

Edited April 8, 2010 by philw

[philw]

" webfact

Rating: 2

View Member Profile

View Member Albums

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts

post Today, 2010-04-08 18:15:04

Post #54

Admin

*******

Group: Admin

Posts: 8,434

Joined: 2003-02-11

Member No.: 327

Poll: Nearly half want Red Shirts to end protest now

BANGKOK (TNA) -- Nearly half of those polled in an opinion poll released Thursday-- 49.2 per cent-- wanted Thailand's anti-government Red Shirts to end their nearly one-month-long demonstration immediately and return home.

The poll conducted among 1,156 residents in Bangkok and nearby provinces between April 4 and 5 by Dhurakij Pundit University in reference to the red-shirted demonstrations found that 22.8 per cent of respondents wanted the movement to temporarily suspend the rally and resume political activities later after the traditional Thai New Year Songkran festival.

Nearly one in five-- 17.7 per cent-- said the ‘Red Shirt’ United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) should prolong its protest.

Regarding the real objectives of the UDD-led mass rally, over one-third-- 39 per cent-- thought the Red Shirts intended to help fugitive former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

One-third-- 32.6 per cent --believed that that the demonstrators were demanding democracy, about one in six, or 14.4 per cent, commented that the red-shirted supporters did not know clearly what they wanted to call for.

Nearly sixty-one per cent-- 60.6 per cent-- did not think that dissolving Parliament would help solve the current social conflicts, while 71.1 per cent believed that the demonstration failed to resolve the ongoing problems.

In addition, almost two-thirds or 64.2 per cent believed that the UDD demonstration would finally fail to achieve its aim against 35.8 per cent of respondents who believed otherwise.

Over forty per cent-- 41.8 per cent-- of respondents were 'bored' with the red-clad protest -- with about one-third describing themselves as sick and tired of it, one in four-- 24.6 per cent-- wanted the Reds to stop their anti-government protest.

About one in six-- 16.9 per cent-- were urging the Reds to be patient and continue their political fight.

Regarding Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva’s performance in handling with the intensified protest, only 18.5 per cent rated the premier’s performance as excellent, while nearly half or 47.9 per cent evaluated his performance as fairly well.

One-third -- 33.5 per cent -- were dissatisfied with the premier’s performance, saying he was almost unable to solve the problem."

Straight from the horses mouth, as it were................

"Nearly half want Red Shirts to end protest now"

What do we conclude about the other nearly more than half ??

ph

[animatic]

^kick in the <deleted> for each wrong answer.

AH right, sort of like posting in TVF News !