Thai Protesters Defy State Of Emergency

[clockworkorange]

When will the Thai political classes grow up enough so this isn't the case?

Don't hold your breath. Corruption is a way of life not only for the pollies - the cops and bureacrats get paid so little that a lot of them are on the take too.

[Insight]

Those photos do not look like they've been screened by the UDD PR dept. tomazbodner - what you've got there basically looks like the entire motorbike taxi population of Bangkok, in red.

[steveromagnino]

johncitizen - last April I took a taxi straight to the Urapong intersection in BKK - 9.00 AM - and spoke to several Red-Shirts who had been at Din Daeng just a few hours earlier.

Without exception they all told me - on more than one occasion - the same sickening story - that fellow Red-Shirts had been gunned down by the army just a few hours earlier.

And yet our 'illustrious" media here - both farang and Thai - reported dutifully that there had been no fatalities.

Truly sickening.

I have friends in ambulance & rescue, police, and I know some pretty senior red shirters. Not a single one will verify this story, and most say they would have known for sure and it didn't happen full stop.

Apparently there were a number of red shirts shot - as in a few. Almost all these were documented and were residents shooting or taking action themselves to take their streets back.

These were documented in local press; a couple ended in the river as I recall.

PT have never been willing to talk about this without parliamentary privilege; in other words....it's up there with the doctored video clip as another red shirt lie.

If you have proper evidence, then you must be the only one.

[anotherpeter]

You're so bloody boring.

100+ pages of the same gibberish repeating every few posts...

Did you read them all ???

Have a good rest, it might help, what with the hot weather and all........

ph

I used to... not anymore.

And I wish I could have sleep... if only I didn't have these thugs under my window...

<deleted pics>

And half an hour later they are still rolling pass...

http://65.181.179.181/IMG_0136.MOV

PS: What's with the guy that has an airplane on his head?

They don't look like they are "rolling" anywhere. Most of the bikes have their stands down.

[Sunderland]

THE NATION: Bad bad day for govt. Abhisit in particular. Now the plan to retake Rajprasong is off. Reason? The plan was leaked.

D'oh!!

Well, everyone on Thaivisa knew about an hour ago, so I am sure the red shirt leaders knew too.

Besides, if they retake the intersection, won't the red shirts just set up at Phayathai/Rama I (MBK) intersection or somewhere else???

[moresomekl]

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.

Pretty busy here thus my late answer .

Pa) Please reread also what i said . I never said the article of law do NOT exist . But there is a difference between the law and the application of the law . In the case of THailand the application of the law is partial , kind of "a la carte" one might say . Recently PPP was punished with all the severity of the law , while the dems were allowed off the hook for irregularities . Before that Thaksin , as you highlighted was left off the hook , while obvoiusly he should had been barred from becoming PM . It looks to me as if in Thailand judges are allowed to err . Its not a partisan argument , its valid for all parties

Pb) Yes the law exist about banning a political party , but its a bad law .

For one thing if the party is allowed a rebirth under another acronym the next day with the same people , minus the few offenders , whats the point ? Putting the offenders in jail or heavy fine + banning them from politics for life would have a much greater deterent effect . Not the banning of a party . But of course since lots of politician in Thailand are corrupt they would never allow such penalty . Instead the current law is meant to allow MPs to switch side with impunity and without public control , in other terms to continue parliament to conduct their internal machinations without any transparency over a hord of voters that are purposedly kept ignorant , poor and uneducated . Can you seriously believe that the tens of MPs that switched side or formed their own political parties did not received money OR some immunity for minor corruption issues . Like the kind of , "we know you bought some votes , but if you switch side we will not report you "

For a secund point if one citizen votes someone as a MP he votes for him because of his party affiliation not because of his haircut . Baning a party means that the popular vote is ignored . In fact i see no much difference with a military coup . Try to ban the labour party in England should Gordon Brown be found guilty of corruption and trust me the whole labour voters will be in the street , some other too . Now if you toss in the partiality of the judges in my first point it is even more unnaceptable not that it was acceptable otherwise

To preempt what you might say that the PPP knew the law and accepted its consequences is not relevant . THe law is unfair and amounts to a coup .

Pc) Finally talking about the military coup , it amounts to remove one abuse of power by another abuse of power . Equally unnaceptable

If I combine those 3 points it it clear to me why Thailand is on the brink of civil war . I hope it is clear to you as well

Edited April 9, 2010 by moresomekl

[moresomekl]

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.

You dont understand the mood of the red do you ? Of course you are in your plush seat

without any of the problems faced by the upcountry folks

The reds are frustrated , they have enough of promises not held , enough of beeing

kept poor , ignorant and uneducated. Enough of beeing considered secund class citizens

Enough of the machinations of a parliament whose only objective is to hang on

to their plush seats and earn untold amount of money though corruption and traffic of influence .

Enough of the lack of transparency .

Yes the reds commit mistakes but , except for extremists like Arisman , I salute them for

having refrain of violent acts .

I thought that giving Abhisit 9 months to adjust all the above would work but it increasingly

looks to me as if that will not be possible .

[khunjamespittman]

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.

Pretty busy here thus my late answer .

Pa) Please reread also what i said . I never said the article of law do NOT exist . But there is a difference between the law and the application of the law . In the case of THailand the application of the law is partial , kind of "a la carte" one might say . Recently PPP was punished with all the severity of the law , while the dems were allowed off the hook for irregularities . Before that Thaksin , as you highlighted was left off the hook , while obvoiusly he should had been barred from becoming PM . It looks to me as if in Thailand judges are allowed to err . Its not a partisan argument , its valid for all parties

Pb) Yes the law exist about banning a political party , but its a bad law .

For one thing if the party is allowed a rebirth under another acronym the next day with the same people , minus the few offenders , whats the point ? Putting the offenders in jail or heavy fine + banning them from politics for life would have a much greater deterent effect . Not the banning of a party . But of course since lots of politician in Thailand are corrupt they would never allow such penalty . Instead the current law is meant to allow MPs to switch side with impunity and without public control , in other terms to continue parliament to conduct their internal machinations without any transparency over a hord of voters that are purposedly kept ignorant , poor and uneducated . Can you seriously believe that the tens of MPs that switched side or formed their own political parties did not received money OR some immunity for minor corruption issues . Like the kind of , "we know you bought some votes , but if you switch side we will not report you "

For a secund point if one citizen votes someone as a MP he votes for him because of his party affiliation not because of his haircut . Baning a party means that the popular vote is ignored . In fact i see no much difference with a military coup . Try to ban the labour party in England should Gordon Brown be found guilty of corruption and trust me the whole labour voters will be in the street , some other too . Now if you toss in the partiality of the judges in my first point it is even more unnaceptable not that it was acceptable otherwise

To preempt what you might say that the PPP knew the law and accepted its consequences is not relevant . THe law is unfair and amounts to a coup .

Pc) Finally talking about the military coup , it amounts to remove one abuse of power by another abuse of power . Equally unnaceptable

If I combine those 3 points it it clear to me why Thailand is on the brink of civil war . I hope it is clear to you as well

You showed the offenses in the 1997 constitution. Then unfortunately you gave your opinion of wha the remedy should be.

Clearly a first year law student should have enough sense to understand that banning is not a reasonable remedy for being part of a cooking show. The maximum remedy would be to require divesture.

[TAWP]

No-one was banned for being in a cooking show.