Thai PM Abhisit Due In Court As Party Faces Ban Threat

[toddkritti]

Uh oh... I didn't think they were real either until Wirat admitted it himself on the second day after the clips came out, although he lied on the first that the meeting never took place. And now Pasit is fired and fled the country. The drama just keeps getting better.

[random]

With all the theft of Thailand assets both cash and hard form during Thaksins party reign, is it that everyone here has short term memory loss? Or is it selective memory?

The Dems right or wrong were appointed after the coup and removal of the thief, who was later convicted in one of many cases yet to come to light and endorsement of the new leader/PM came from the top. Enough said.

Let this 'case' takes its course and should it be found in the negative then the country goes into more strife. Should they remain, the country will go into more strife! Win-Win? I don't think so. Thai politics and the constant wasted efforts and time, surely this all could be put to better use? Bloody boring but essential I guess. Thai way!!!

It seems they could have avoided a lot of problems if they called for elections after the Dem party was appointed. The appointment could have been temporary until after elections. Then everyone is happy or at least could not complain..

"Appointed"??

The PTP (ex-PPP) MPs had a chance to call an election as they were still in government after the PPP were disbanded. They instead chose to go on with a vote for a new PM, as they did when Somchai was elected PM.

It's just that this time they had lost the support of some of the smaller parties. So instead of a new Thaksin proxy being elected PM, Abhisit was elected, which brought the Democrats and other minor parties into government.

Precisely. The present government was elected. There is a huge difference between being appointed and being elected. Stick to facts please.

Well they were elected as individual politicians (well not all of them, kasit, suthep et al), it would be wrong to say there were elected as the government because that would be wrong, as individual members of that party they won seats, not enough to form a government and not enough to persuade smaller parties to form a coalition. They were allowed to remain a party despite being guilty of vote buying, then were put into power via a parliamentary vote after buying smaller parties (yes buying, this fact was never disputed) and after the current government was disbanded for vote buying. Don't let facts get in the way of your anti red bias though.

On the plus side justice will hopefully soon be done and the current mob will quite rightly be disbanded, sadly they should have been disbanded earlier for the vote buying, or should never have been in power, and its a shame it has come to late to save the lives of many people slaughtered in central Bangkok just so this UNELECTED GOVERNMENT could cling onto their ill gotten power.

The fact they could not win an election in the past decade and only came to power via an illegal coup, followed by an election loss, followed by disbandment of the government, followed by the purchase of smaller parties seems to be wasted on you. The fact the Thai people have not voted them into power for over a decade also speaks volumes, and that wisdom is being shown now when we see what a pigs ear they are making of things and see how corrupt the actually are, a foreign minister involved in the takeover of an international airport and not an elected MP, a deputy PM that had to stand down as an MP because of financial irregularities and is now running to be an MP again so he can lead the party when Abhisit is quite rightly banned, just to reiterate, the possible new leader of the dems was in charge of the CRES during that slaughter, he is also about as clean as dog shit.

But hey if that's what you want.......................

Edited October 19, 2010 by random

[whybother]

Well they were elected as individual politicians (well not all of them, kasit, suthep et al),

Correct. Not all ministers are MPs. Same in all Thai governments.

it would be wrong to say there were elected as the government because that would be wrong, as individual members of that party they won seats, not enough to form a government and not enough to persuade smaller parties to form a coalition. They were allowed to remain a party despite being guilty of vote buying, then were put into power via a parliamentary vote after buying smaller parties (yes buying, this fact was never disputed) and after the current government was disbanded for vote buying. Don't let facts get in the way of your anti red bias though.

<snip>

There is no difference with how the PPP came to power and how the Democrats came to power. The only difference was the timing.

The PPP didn't win enough seats to form government. They came to power after a parliamentary vote (the only way a government can be formed). They were able to "persuade" smaller parties to support them in the parliamentary vote in electing Samak as PM (the only way someone can become a PM).

Please provide a link for the Democrats "being found guilty of vote buying".

Please explain the difference between the Democrats "buying smaller parties" and the PPP "persuading smaller parties", and actually, of the Australian and British governments of forming minority governments.

But lets not let facts get in the way of your lies.

[jesse89]

There is no difference with how the PPP came to power and how the Democrats came to power. The only difference was the timing.

The PPP didn't win enough seats to form government. They came to power after a parliamentary vote (the only way a government can be formed). They were able to "persuade" smaller parties to support them in the parliamentary vote in electing Samak as PM (the only way someone can become a PM).

Please provide a link for the Democrats "being found guilty of vote buying".

Please explain the difference between the Democrats "buying smaller parties" and the PPP "persuading smaller parties", and actually, of the Australian and British governments of forming minority governments.

But lets not let facts get in the way of your lies.

There is a difference. The PPP formed a minority government after the 2007 General Election, in which they won 233 seats in comparison to the Dems 165 seats. The Democratic Party came to power on the back of the 2008 - 2009 political crisis, in which the PAD forced Thailand to a standstill in part leading to the Thai Constitutional Court taking the decision to dissolve the PPP to end the crisis. On the back of these events ex PPP coalition party MP's were coerced to cross the floor and endorse a Democrat led coalition government.

Edited October 19, 2010 by jesse89

[Buchholz]

LOL.... funny how well-documented events from as long as 3 years ago can get so discombobulated in their retelling.

[rubl]

Well they were elected as individual politicians (well not all of them, kasit, suthep et al), it would be wrong to say there were elected as the government because that would be wrong, as individual members of that party they won seats, not enough to form a government and not enough to persuade smaller parties to form a coalition. They were allowed to remain a party despite being guilty of vote buying, then were put into power via a parliamentary vote after buying smaller parties (yes buying, this fact was never disputed) and after the current government was disbanded for vote buying. Don't let facts get in the way of your anti red bias though.

On the plus side justice will hopefully soon be done and the current mob will quite rightly be disbanded, sadly they should have been disbanded earlier for the vote buying, or should never have been in power, and its a shame it has come to late to save the lives of many people slaughtered in central Bangkok just so this UNELECTED GOVERNMENT could cling onto their ill gotten power.

The fact they could not win an election in the past decade and only came to power via an illegal coup, followed by an election loss, followed by disbandment of the government, followed by the purchase of smaller parties seems to be wasted on you. The fact the Thai people have not voted them into power for over a decade also speaks volumes, and that wisdom is being shown now when we see what a pigs ear they are making of things and see how corrupt the actually are, a foreign minister involved in the takeover of an international airport and not an elected MP, a deputy PM that had to stand down as an MP because of financial irregularities and is now running to be an MP again so he can lead the party when Abhisit is quite rightly banned, just to reiterate, the possible new leader of the dems was in charge of the CRES during that slaughter, he is also about as clean as dog shit.

But hey if that's what you want.......................

you keep saying this "many people slaughtered in central Bangkok" and I keep asking when, 1973 or 1976 ? 1973 I have to look up again, but 1976 definitively qualifies with the late k. Samak as main instigator. Also as clean as ...., PPP member, former PM and memory problem. 1976 was the last time people were 'slaughtered' in Bangkok.

Read about it on http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=87178

[chantorn]

Doesn't exactly look like as clandestine lobbying meeting,

more like a well attended public legal meeting.

And there are reported to be tow very different sub-title transcriptions

depending on the side presenting the videos leanings.

Only if you could understand Thai. No caption needed.

Edited October 19, 2010 by chantorn

[rubl]

Doesn't exactly look like as clandestine lobbying meeting,

more like a well attended public legal meeting.

And there are reported to be tow very different sub-title transcriptions

depending on the side presenting the videos leanings.

Only if you could understand Thai. No caption needed.

To learn Thai is possible, but to understand them ?

[whybother]

There is a difference. The PPP formed a minority government after the 2007 General Election, in which they won 233 seats in comparison to the Dems 165 seats. The Democratic Party came to power on the back of the 2008 - 2009 political crisis, in which the PAD forced Thailand to a standstill in part leading to the Thai Constitutional Court taking the decision to dissolve the PPP to end the crisis. On the back of these events ex PPP coalition party MP's were coerced to cross the floor and endorse a Democrat led coalition government.

So if the PTP had come to power on the back of the April/May protests, that wouldn't have been legitimate?

The PAD were actually at the airport to harass Somchai (I'm not agreeing with them, just pointing out why they were there).

They weren't there because of the court case. That was going on regardless, and based on the detail of the verdict, would have led to the disbanding of the PPP regardless of the airport situation.

After the court decision the remaining PPP MPs were still actually in government, but the PAD called off their protest anyway. It wasn't until 2 weeks later that the MPs voted for a new PM.

The ex-PPP could have called an election and gone back to the voters. Why didn't they? Maybe they realised that they wouldn't have been able to cobble together a coalition after a new election. They lost many seats in by-elections to replace the banned PPP MPs.

The MPs that decided not to support the next Thaksin proxy party were either smaller coalition partners or under Newin. Just because the PPP bought those MPs into their fold before and after the 2007 election doesn't mean that they can't change their minds. They decided that the PPP were incompetent and unable to run the government, and certainly that the remaining ex-PPP MPs were even less competent ... as they have shown while they have been in opposition. There only aim while they were in government was to try and white wash Thaksin's crimes and bring him back to Thailand.

Coerced??? How exactly? Maybe they just didn't want to support Thaksin anymore.

[animatic]

There is a difference between being coaxed to say something

and actively trying to create the situation.

Pasit created then situation and tried coaxing Wirtat to

incriminate himself and the party. It is unclear how far Wirat went,

but he did not initiate or move the discussion into forbidden territory.

Also the choice of location, by Pasit, and lack of witnesses,

and quiet near silent room shows intent to do this done to

create the situation.

So it was quite likely a set up, and Pasit's perfectly time departure,

and his firing lend much credence to that position.

Edited October 19, 2010 by animatic

[random]

Well they were elected as individual politicians (well not all of them, kasit, suthep et al),

Correct. Not all ministers are MPs. Same in all Thai governments.

it would be wrong to say there were elected as the government because that would be wrong, as individual members of that party they won seats, not enough to form a government and not enough to persuade smaller parties to form a coalition. They were allowed to remain a party despite being guilty of vote buying, then were put into power via a parliamentary vote after buying smaller parties (yes buying, this fact was never disputed) and after the current government was disbanded for vote buying. Don't let facts get in the way of your anti red bias though.

<snip>

There is no difference with how the PPP came to power and how the Democrats came to power. The only difference was the timing.

The PPP didn't win enough seats to form government. They came to power after a parliamentary vote (the only way a government can be formed). They were able to "persuade" smaller parties to support them in the parliamentary vote in electing Samak as PM (the only way someone can become a PM).

Please provide a link for the Democrats "being found guilty of vote buying".

Please explain the difference between the Democrats "buying smaller parties" and the PPP "persuading smaller parties", and actually, of the Australian and British governments of forming minority governments.

But lets not let facts get in the way of your lies.

Are you really not aware that the dems were found guilty of vote buying, however the executive were allowed to carry on and there was no party disbandment as it was believed that the executive had no knowledge of the buying, but the dems then went out and paid for coalitions, yes the paid, this is admitted, or rather not denied by the dems. Provide a link? I would have thought you would have at least had basic facts before embarking on the conversation.

Do you really not know the difference between persuading and buying? when you go to tesco today try and persuade them to let you take the stuff out of the store.

[way2muchcoffee]

Well they were elected as individual politicians (well not all of them, kasit, suthep et al),

Correct. Not all ministers are MPs. Same in all Thai governments.

it would be wrong to say there were elected as the government because that would be wrong, as individual members of that party they won seats, not enough to form a government and not enough to persuade smaller parties to form a coalition. They were allowed to remain a party despite being guilty of vote buying, then were put into power via a parliamentary vote after buying smaller parties (yes buying, this fact was never disputed) and after the current government was disbanded for vote buying. Don't let facts get in the way of your anti red bias though.

<snip>

There is no difference with how the PPP came to power and how the Democrats came to power. The only difference was the timing.

The PPP didn't win enough seats to form government. They came to power after a parliamentary vote (the only way a government can be formed). They were able to "persuade" smaller parties to support them in the parliamentary vote in electing Samak as PM (the only way someone can become a PM).

Please provide a link for the Democrats "being found guilty of vote buying".

Please explain the difference between the Democrats "buying smaller parties" and the PPP "persuading smaller parties", and actually, of the Australian and British governments of forming minority governments.

But lets not let facts get in the way of your lies.

Are you really not aware that the dems were found guilty of vote buying, however the executive were allowed to carry on and there was no party disbandment as it was believed that the executive had no knowledge of the buying, but the dems then went out and paid for coalitions, yes the paid, this is admitted, or rather not denied by the dems. Provide a link? I would have thought you would have at least had basic facts before embarking on the conversation.

Do you really not know the difference between persuading and buying? when you go to tesco today try and persuade them to let you take the stuff out of the store.

Do you really not know that the PTP made huge cash offers to BJT ministers to persuade them to remain in the coalition?

Edited October 20, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[hanuman1]

Please explain the difference between the Democrats "buying smaller parties" and the PPP "persuading smaller parties", and actually, of the Australian and British governments of forming minority governments.

Do you really not know the difference between persuading and buying? when you go to tesco today try and persuade them to let you take the stuff out of the store.

:lol: :lol: :jap:

[whybother]

Are you really not aware that the dems were found guilty of vote buying, however the executive were allowed to carry on and there was no party disbandment as it was believed that the executive had no knowledge of the buying, but the dems then went out and paid for coalitions, yes the paid, this is admitted, or rather not denied by the dems. Provide a link? I would have thought you would have at least had basic facts before embarking on the conversation.

Do you really not know the difference between persuading and buying? when you go to tesco today try and persuade them to let you take the stuff out of the store.

Individual MPs committing electoral fraud is very different from the executive committing electoral fraud. The Democrat executive were found not to be involved in the electoral fraud, so the party was not disbanded. The PPP executive were filmed making payments, that's why they were disbanded.

"Persuading" ... with payments ... ie "buying". Just because you use different words doesn't make it a different meaning. Are you suggesting that the smaller parties sided with the PPP through the goodness of their heart? They wouldn't side with anyone unless there was a benefit to their hip pockets.

[rubl]

Well they were elected as individual politicians (well not all of them, kasit, suthep et al), it would be wrong to say there were elected as the government because that would be wrong, as individual members of that party they won seats, not enough to form a government and not enough to persuade smaller parties to form a coalition. They were allowed to remain a party despite being guilty of vote buying, then were put into power via a parliamentary vote after buying smaller parties (yes buying, this fact was never disputed) and after the current government was disbanded for vote buying. Don't let facts get in the way of your anti red bias though.

On the plus side justice will hopefully soon be done and the current mob will quite rightly be disbanded, sadly they should have been disbanded earlier for the vote buying, or should never have been in power, and its a shame it has come to late to save the lives of many people slaughtered in central Bangkok just so this UNELECTED GOVERNMENT could cling onto their ill gotten power.

The fact they could not win an election in the past decade and only came to power via an illegal coup, followed by an election loss, followed by disbandment of the government, followed by the purchase of smaller parties seems to be wasted on you. The fact the Thai people have not voted them into power for over a decade also speaks volumes, and that wisdom is being shown now when we see what a pigs ear they are making of things and see how corrupt the actually are, a foreign minister involved in the takeover of an international airport and not an elected MP, a deputy PM that had to stand down as an MP because of financial irregularities and is now running to be an MP again so he can lead the party when Abhisit is quite rightly banned, just to reiterate, the possible new leader of the dems was in charge of the CRES during that slaughter, he is also about as clean as dog shit.

But hey if that's what you want.......................

you keep saying this "many people slaughtered in central Bangkok" and I keep asking when, 1973 or 1976 ? 1973 I have to look up again, but 1976 definitively qualifies with the late k. Samak as main instigator. Also as clean as ...., PPP member, former PM and memory problem. 1976 was the last time people were 'slaughtered' in Bangkok.

Read about it on http://www.asiamedia...?parentid=87178

How many people died this year at the hands of the military in Central Bangkok, we both know that you know what I am talking about and to be honest by denying what went on you are making yourself look a bit of a prick, but then again maybe it is hard to see when you have your head buried so far in the sand.

I do not deny that the March - May protests have a casualty list of 91, never have and never will. I object to you calling this 'slaughtered'.

Just blaming the government, continuing with 'slaughtered people' and calling names seems much more a case of trying to avoid ugly truths. On April 10th when the army tried to disperse the crowd and unknowns started shooting almost indiscriminately and lopped grenades on a colonel with staff, that's when things went wrong.

As for the 'prick', one suggestion to you 'buy mirror, look into it'

[whybother]

How many people died this year at the hands of the military in Central Bangkok, we both know that you know what I am talking about and to be honest by denying what went on you are making yourself look a bit of a prick, but then again maybe it is hard to see when you have your head buried so far in the sand.

You continue talking about a slaughter as if unarmed protesters were cut down by rampaging soldiers.

You continue to ignore the facts that the red shirts were armed and shooting at the army.

[Ricardo]

There is a difference. The PPP formed a minority government after the 2007 General Election, in which they won 233 seats in comparison to the Dems 165 seats. The Democratic Party came to power on the back of the 2008 - 2009 political crisis, in which the PAD forced Thailand to a standstill in part leading to the Thai Constitutional Court taking the decision to dissolve the PPP to end the crisis. On the back of these events ex PPP coalition party MP's were coerced to cross the floor and endorse a Democrat led coalition government.

With respect, the PPP-led coalition-government had a majority in Parliament, which is how they were able to form the government, it was not "a minority government".

And the Constitutional Court dissolved the PPP because of vote-rigging in the 2007-election, not to end any crisis of the PPP-led coalition-government, which would not be their role.

Similarly the Democrat-led coalition-government also has a majority at present.

Both PPP and the Democrats have less-than a majority, on their own, hence the need for coalition-partners.

[Rimmer]

Inflammatory name calling post removed from view

[SergeiY]

The PPP executive were filmed making payments, that's why they were disbanded.

not true.

[rubl]

The PPP executive were filmed making payments, that's why they were disbanded.

not true.

2008-06-09 Bangkok

'The court said there was nothing wrong with the two VCDs used as evidence to back up the electoral fraud allegations against Mr Yongyuth'

You'll find a more detailed article on 'one of the other English language newspapers' website

[whybother]

The PPP executive were filmed making payments, that's why they were disbanded.

not true.

What is true then?

[chantorn]

The PPP executive were filmed making payments, that's why they were disbanded.

not true.

2008-06-09 Bangkok

'The court said there was nothing wrong with the two VCDs used as evidence to back up the electoral fraud allegations against Mr Yongyuth'

You'll find a more detailed article on 'one of the other English language newspapers' website

A payment is a payment regardless.

May it be at the supermarket till or ...

[SergeiY]

The PPP executive were filmed making payments, that's why they were disbanded.

not true.

What is true then?

true is that you posted some false statement.

[whybother]

The PPP executive were filmed making payments, that's why they were disbanded.

not true.

What is true then?

true is that you posted some false statement.

Your posts have become as pointless as Chantorn's, but at least his/hers are funny.

Why do you bother? Have you run out of excuses for red shirt actions that you can't even have a proper discussion now?

[SergeiY]

Your posts have become as pointless as Chantorn's, but at least his/hers are funny.

Why do you bother? Have you run out of excuses for red shirt actions that you can't even have a proper discussion now?

What?

Your statement above is not true. that is all.

"The PPP executive were filmed making payments, that's why they were disbanded." - FALSE and that on many different levels.

I don't make any excuse for red shirt actions nor do i invent or fantasize something.