Another Abhisit Flip-Flop Vendor Arrested

[phiphidon]

You may not be bothered, but other people may be interested so here are two sources;

http://www.nationmul...e-30142809.html

http://english.peopl...51/7205565.html

5 other sources are in the other paper, 3 under opinions, one under news local, one under news politics. Help yourself, or not.

So, what's your point ? You said "Can I suggest that you investigate for yourself what I am talking about with regard to a) the ban and b, Abhisits request and subsequent rejection. I'm not making this stuff up."

How does that match with 'We have to find a balance and see what is suitable so this will not cause more conflicts,' and 'He said he would discuss the issue with Defence Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan at their meeting yesterday.' (Nation)

The other newsflash has a.o. 'The PM is afraid CRES's ban may violate human rights and finally induce to conflicts.'

So? 'request - rejection' ? Maybe you posted the wrong links ?

Did you read the Bangkok Pundit link? It refers to quotes made by the Prime Minister wanting the order to be rescinded.

So, yes, these are the right links which provide background to the the "other paper" sources that you may not have read, that establish the PM's concern about possible violations of peoples rights .

Never mind here's a couple of sources from the TAN network. The first states that the ban is for "goods that may insult the monarchy" and notes that CRES met with PM Abhisit to clarify the need for the ban and "establish an understanding with him", whereas in the second link, a clarification from the CRES spokesperson includes goods that could "instigate political polarization".

I would imagine, just as PM Abhisit said, that existing laws already in place would cover "goods that may insult the monarchy" . So what is this ban for, other than to encompass the second instance of "political polarization" which in PM Abhisits' words would widen social rifts further.

Army Chief Firm on Ban on Products Bearing Offensive Messages

UPDATE : 24 November 2010

Army Chief insists the ban on goods that insult the monarchy will not be revoked, adding the protest of the yellow shirt people did not violate the law.

Army Chief, General Prayuth Chan ocha, stated the gathering to oppose the proposed constitution amendment by the yellow shirt people did not violate the Emergency Decree.

He insisted security officials did not practice double standards as claimed by some sides.

Concerning the charter adjustment, the army chief said he has no involvement in the issue as the matter is in line with the Democratic Principle and only MPs and Senates will carry out the procedure.

When asked about the ban on goods sales that offend the monarchy, General Prayuth said authorities are determined to protect the monarchy from being offended or dragged into politics.

He added the ban will not be lifted in the near futures.

The general disclosed Defence Minsiter General Prawit Wongsuwan met and talked to Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to clarify the purpose of this ban and also establish understanding with the premier.

He added officials have used soft measures instead of hard ones, and they really have no intention to infringe on human rights.

http://www.tannetwor...?DataID=1037749

CRES Clarifies Measures to Deal with Protests

UPDATE : 24 November 2010

The colonel (Sansern Kaeokamnerd, the CRES spokesperson) went on to say that those at the meeting insisted on continuing a ban on the sale of goods that could instigate political polarization or offend the monarchy.

http://www.tannetwor...?DataID=1037742

[whybother]

I have read that "someone" doesn't think the LM laws are good, but it seems no one is listening to him regarding this.

[rubl]

"Did you read the Bangkok Pundit link? It refers to quotes made by the Prime Minister wanting the order to be rescinded."

You didn't post a Bangkok Pundit link, dear PPD. The two you posted and the rest you just quoted do not say 'PM requested, CRES/Army general refused'.

So we're still at something like 'we need to handle this with care, ensuring security without violating peoples rights'. difficult, still studying I guess

Edited November 24, 2010 by rubl

[phiphidon]

"Did you read the Bangkok Pundit link? It refers to quotes made by the Prime Minister wanting the order to be rescinded."

You didn't post a Bangkok Pundit link, dear PPD. The two you posted and the rest you just quoted do not say 'PM requested, CRES/Army general refused'.

So we're still at something like 'we need to handle this with care, ensuring security without violating peoples rights'. difficult, still studying I guess

Doh! This one really is the link I was referring to

http://asiancorrespo...l-over-the-army

No wonder you hadn't read it!

[rubl]

"Did you read the Bangkok Pundit link? It refers to quotes made by the Prime Minister wanting the order to be rescinded."

You didn't post a Bangkok Pundit link, dear PPD. The two you posted and the rest you just quoted do not say 'PM requested, CRES/Army general refused'.

So we're still at something like 'we need to handle this with care, ensuring security without violating peoples rights'. difficult, still studying I guess

Doh! This one really is the link I was referring to

http://asiancorrespo...l-over-the-army

No wonder you hadn't read it!

Read it and the article pointed to. As we are into semactics I think your 'refused' is different from the BP's 'want them to revise'. That's were asking for more info, discussing the subject, etc. came into play.

To assume that an order was 'rejected' is your opinion. To assume nothing was changed after explanations and discussions is mine.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Goodness me. This is a little bit odious. I suppose if I take offence, I'll find myself on the sidelines again.

The article is an attack on Abhisit, clue: the title. "Another Abhisit Flip-Flop Vendor Arrested"

The article shows an incorrect image, which is ostensibly to draw attention to the fact that there is 'double-standards' between treatment of PAD flip-flop vendors and UDD flip-flop vendors.

The article doesn't mention the fact that everyone knows CRES introduced a new law.

The article doesn't mention the fact that the last UDD flip-flop vendor was arrested by police for breaking the Emergency Decree in a province where the Emergency Decree was not in force.

The article doesn't mention the fact that Abhisit has been outspoken against the NEW law passed this week by CRES making the offence a 'crime'.

Those who support the UDD, and have proved themselves aware of the NEW law, claim the PAD flip-flop sellers should now be arrested retroactively under the NEW law? And in what universe, is it logical or fair to arrest people who committed legal acts years ago under a NEW law banning those acts this week?

Meanwhile, the entire Thai media will be happy to keep calling this "Another Abhisit Flip-Flop Vendor Arrest" - no doubt they will not feel any of the above facts are important or worth mentioning. They will keep on attacking Abhisit for this arrest, and when it's pointed out that Abhisit has been outspoken against the new law, they will fire back "so who is really pulling the strings".

You can't have your cake and eat it as well. Or, if you are a UDD / Thaksin supporter, I guess....you can?

Absolutely correct. The police should arrest the PAD vendors retroactively to prevent themselves being accused of double standards!

They are, these flip flops were on sale at a PAD rally some time back - the point was presumably to show double standards as the women vendor in question was not arrested even retroactively. It might have helped if the article had pointed that out.............

The government at that time didn't see a reason, they were too busy trying to get a legal framework to allow the safe return of their lord and master k. Thaksin. K. Noppadon who normally is very keen on suing couldn't be bothered either. This implies the current government may be over-reacting, it don't imply the government is wrong.

I'm not implying the government is wrong. I was pointing out to those who didn't know otherwise why the picture was of flip flops not bearing the images of Suthep and Abhisit.

Unfortunately it's not the government that is over reacting - the "law" was promulgated by CRES and signed by one General Prayuth Chan-ocha and the "law" will not be rescinded despite Abhisits "request". Now tell me who is in charge again?

Many people, Sir.

Just like in all governments which - DON'T - have a single dictator who rules almighty. This is a good thing, usually. Sometimes it creates unfair laws like this latest CRES one. You may believe a single person who has ALL the power is a good thing. You may be right. I, and the US Constitution, and the concept of "Democracy"...will disagree.

[Thai at Heart]

The article doesn't mention the fact that everyone knows CRES introduced a new law.

Could Abhisit be getting it in the neck about this because no one really wants to notice or draw attention to the fact that the CRES is writing laws?

Edited November 24, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[TheyCallmeScooter]

The article doesn't mention the fact that everyone knows CRES introduced a new law.

Could Abhisit be getting it in the neck about this because no one really wants to notice or draw attention to the fact that the CRES is writing laws?

I don't think so. How would that be fair?

Drawing attention to the fact CRES is writing new laws should be as easy as focusing on the fact that CRES are writing new laws.

Framing the PM, even though he was outspoken against the new laws (which drew attention to the new law and the fact CRES were writing laws which were potentially infringing on human rights and not productive to democracy [Abhisit's words, I believe])...aside from being grotesquely unfair to the PM, really only can be motivated by one intent.

Ironically, if that intent has it's way, the end result will only be that CRES becomes more powerful. People need to be pragmatic. By 'people', of course I mean those who attack Abhisit in support of Thaksin. By 'pragmatic', of course I mean acceptance of the fact that the Army will not allow Thaksin back means any violence in support of that goal will only give the Army a chance for more power.

And they will, you know. Take those chances.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

My point being, the UDD might think it's being oh-so-crafty.

It is my strong belief it is instead they, who have taken the bait.

[whybother]

From the daily thread:

The CRES will continue to confiscate products deemed disrespectful to the Monarchy

BANGKOK, 24 November 2010 (NNT)-The Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) has disclosed that it will not abide by Prime Minister Abisit Vejjajiva's request that it revoke its order banning the sale or distribution of items deemed offensive to the highest institution.

Despite Prime Minister Abisit Vejjajiva's demand that it review its order on grounds that it might breach the constitution in relation to the rights of expression, the CRES said it would maintain its rights to ban the sale or distribution of items displaying political symbols, pictures, or words deemed disrespectful or even offensive to the royal institution. However, the red-shirt could still distribute any items they wished to, as long as they did not involve the monarchy..

<snip>

I thought Abhisit's request was about articles offensive to him, not articles offensive to the monarchy.

Edited November 24, 2010 by whybother

[rubl]

The article doesn't mention the fact that everyone knows CRES introduced a new law.

Could Abhisit be getting it in the neck about this because no one really wants to notice or draw attention to the fact that the CRES is writing laws?

I can only assume that the CRES has the right to make new regulations within the framework of their responsabilities. If that was not the case PTP, UDD, civil right watchers, k. Jatuporn, k. Noppadon, etc., etc. would have files cases in all and any commission and court to condemn this breach of charter and unlawful behaviour. Just my opinion, not necessarily correct

[Thai at Heart]

The article doesn't mention the fact that everyone knows CRES introduced a new law.

Could Abhisit be getting it in the neck about this because no one really wants to notice or draw attention to the fact that the CRES is writing laws?

I don't think so. How would that be fair?

Drawing attention to the fact CRES is writing new laws should be as easy as focusing on the fact that CRES are writing new laws.

Framing the PM, even though he was outspoken against the new laws (which drew attention to the new law and the fact CRES were writing laws which were potentially infringing on human rights and not productive to democracy [Abhisit's words, I believe])...aside from being grotesquely unfair to the PM, really only can be motivated by one intent.

Ironically, if that intent has it's way, the end result will only be that CRES becomes more powerful. People need to be pragmatic. By 'people', of course I mean those who attack Abhisit in support of Thaksin. By 'pragmatic', of course I mean acceptance of the fact that the Army will not allow Thaksin back means any violence in support of that goal will only give the Army a chance for more power.

And they will, you know. Take those chances.

Who said politics was fair?

I think however, that the role of the CRES in the political situation at the moment is very much hidden away in the background. My understanding of it was that essentially at any time it can sequester the government to do as it says, but by having Suthep involved in it, it gave the appearance that the CRES was under the control of the government. This is not at all how I understand it to be and is essentially the opposite.

Abhisit has been accused of not really being the man in control of the country, that the army is really running it etc. This discussion has been going on for the last 2 years. Now, clearly, against the wishes of the PM himself, the army is writing laws.

If the headline had been "Army randomly writing laws against wishes of government" the situation would be a hel_l of a lot stickier I feel. Has a newspaper openly come out and challenged the power of the army in this country in recent times? It may even be against the SOE to do so?

Being pragmatic about the situation, is to believe that Thaksin will never be allowed back in the country. But, that doesn't help to explain the fact that it appears that Abhisit may not really in full control of the country and that the CRES may simply be subverting democracy and civil liberties. This raises many serious questions that I think the government nor the army wishes to debate in public.

If Abhisit isn't running the country, why not? How long will the CRES stay around? Can Abhisit disband it tomorrow? Will the CRES linger around forever writing laws as it sees fit? Who are all the members of the CRES? Who chose these people? Who do they answer to? Why are they so worried about flip flops? What are they trying to do?

I remember thinking the day that I saw the concept of the SOE and CRES explained in the papers, that it represented a very simple way for the army to have control by proxy. Despite all the protests that it would be good for the country, it would respect democracy bla bla bla, it looks like unaccountable control by proxy.

Isn't this essentially what is being shown by the CRES defying the PM over this issue?

[rubl]

The article doesn't mention the fact that everyone knows CRES introduced a new law.

Could Abhisit be getting it in the neck about this because no one really wants to notice or draw attention to the fact that the CRES is writing laws?

I don't think so. How would that be fair?

Drawing attention to the fact CRES is writing new laws should be as easy as focusing on the fact that CRES are writing new laws.

Framing the PM, even though he was outspoken against the new laws (which drew attention to the new law and the fact CRES were writing laws which were potentially infringing on human rights and not productive to democracy [Abhisit's words, I believe])...aside from being grotesquely unfair to the PM, really only can be motivated by one intent.

Ironically, if that intent has it's way, the end result will only be that CRES becomes more powerful. People need to be pragmatic. By 'people', of course I mean those who attack Abhisit in support of Thaksin. By 'pragmatic', of course I mean acceptance of the fact that the Army will not allow Thaksin back means any violence in support of that goal will only give the Army a chance for more power.

And they will, you know. Take those chances.

Who said politics was fair?

I think however, that the role of the CRES in the political situation at the moment is very much hidden away in the background. My understanding of it was that essentially at any time it can sequester the government to do as it says, but by having Suthep involved in it, it gave the appearance that the CRES was under the control of the government. This is not at all how I understand it to be and is essentially the opposite.

Abhisit has been accused of not really being the man in control of the country, that the army is really running it etc. This discussion has been going on for the last 2 years. Now, clearly, against the wishes of the PM himself, the army is writing laws.

If the headline had been "Army randomly writing laws against wishes of government" the situation would be a hel_l of a lot stickier I feel. Has a newspaper openly come out and challenged the power of the army in this country in recent times? It may even be against the SOE to do so?

Being pragmatic about the situation, is to believe that Thaksin will never be allowed back in the country. But, that doesn't help to explain the fact that it appears that Abhisit may not really in full control of the country and that the CRES may simply be subverting democracy and civil liberties. This raises many serious questions that I think the government nor the army wishes to debate in public.

If Abhisit isn't running the country, why not? How long will the CRES stay around? Can Abhisit disband it tomorrow? Will the CRES linger around forever writing laws as it sees fit? Who are all the members of the CRES? Who chose these people? Who do they answer to? Why are they so worried about flip flops? What are they trying to do?

I remember thinking the day that I saw the concept of the SOE and CRES explained in the papers, that it represented a very simple way for the army to have control by proxy. Despite all the protests that it would be good for the country, it would respect democracy bla bla bla, it looks like unaccountable control by proxy.

Isn't this essentially what is being shown by the CRES defying the PM over this issue?

'defying the PM' ? The PM wanted the flip-flop rule revised and would talk with people concerned. I wasn't present during those talks. Since nothing seems changed, maybe the parties involved agreed on that ?

Furthermore as I wrote just before if the CRES is unlawfully, unconstitutionally setting up new rules, I'm sure lots of parties, groups, colors would file charges against them and/or ask commissions to investigate if the CRES had that type of power.

[Thai at Heart]

'defying the PM' ? The PM wanted the flip-flop rule revised and would talk with people concerned. I wasn't present during those talks. Since nothing seems changed, maybe the parties involved agreed on that ?

Furthermore as I wrote just before if the CRES is unlawfully, unconstitutionally setting up new rules, I'm sure lots of parties, groups, colors would file charges against them and/or ask commissions to investigate if the CRES had that type of power.

Well, I wish anyone trying to undertake that kind of investigation against the CRES all the very best of luck.

I presume they are acting perfectly within the law as it is written today, by writing laws. If it wasn't legal for them to write laws, how could they be writing them? I presume they aren't writing them for their own personal enjoyment, and someone will have to enforce them, and the court's will have to try the offenders.

This is the CRES' order, not parliament's. So I presume, they have the legal right to issue the order. Why and how this is the case is the issue.

[rubl]

'defying the PM' ? The PM wanted the flip-flop rule revised and would talk with people concerned. I wasn't present during those talks. Since nothing seems changed, maybe the parties involved agreed on that ?

Furthermore as I wrote just before if the CRES is unlawfully, unconstitutionally setting up new rules, I'm sure lots of parties, groups, colors would file charges against them and/or ask commissions to investigate if the CRES had that type of power.

Well, I wish anyone trying to undertake that kind of investigation against the CRES all the very best of luck.

I presume they are acting perfectly within the law as it is written today, by writing laws. If it wasn't legal for them to write laws, how could they be writing them? I presume they aren't writing them for their own personal enjoyment, and someone will have to enforce them, and the court's will have to try the offenders.

This is the CRES' order, not parliament's. So I presume, they have the legal right to issue the order. Why and how this is the case is the issue.

Your last paragraph I can only agree with. As to why and how, I don't know the Thai law or constitution on this particular point or this particular commission. None of the other posters either it seems, at least I have seen nothing substantial on this.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

This is the CRES' order, not parliament's. So I presume, they have the legal right to issue the order. Why and how this is the case is the issue.

We all understand the issue. Well, most of us do. Some might even surprise as to what side of the issue they're really on.

Attacking the PM unfairly, after he made it quite apparent - publicly - that he cannot overrule CRES on the issue, seems like it is only intended to benefit one party. And it seems like it can only result in the benefit of another party.

It is my strong belief Abhisit is caught in the middle.

It is my strong belief the UDD is playing straight into the hands of their opponents, by (ironically unfairly) attacking those who they think are their opponents (all evidence to the contrary, aside).

Who said politics was fair?

Sucker idealists like myself - and I firmly believe Abhisit - merely hope it was fair.

The more pragmatic an idealist can be - I am pragmatic, Abhisit is 100x better at it than I - the more effective they will be.

When the Thai media attacks Abhisit for his pragmatism, or in spite of his pragmatism, it is my firm belief they are sealing their own fate. And I don't think it's a good one. It's certainly not the one they think they are supporting with their attacks on Abhisit - but then, that's a risk you run when you fight those who are pragmatic. You set up a clearly defined black v white scenario.

And I don't think people are fully accepting of how this is all clearly angled towards achieving that scenario. And I am QUITE sure people aren't fully understanding the guaranteed result of that scenario.

[GTV]

I don't suppose anyone knows where I could get a couple of pairs by mail order (I'm in UK)?

[Buchholz]

Another version of semantics....

As the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) order issued Friday prohibits the sale or free distribution of politically-oriented materials including shirts, photographs, illustrations and printed texts apparently aimed at sparking disunity in society, Gen Prayuth said the ban would not be lifted.

He said the order would remain in effect even though Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva believed it might violate people's right to free speech.

Mr Abhisit earlier said he would ask CRES to review the ban.

Gen Prayuth said CRES clarified the ban to Mr Abhisit explaining that it did not intend to violate people's rights, but is focusing on things that could offend the monarchy.

http://www.mcot.net/cfcustom/cache_page/134035.html

[Thai at Heart]

Your last paragraph I can only agree with. As to why and how, I don't know the Thai law or constitution on this particular point or this particular commission. None of the other posters either it seems, at least I have seen nothing substantial on this.

Well here are a few points raised by various organisations about the ISA.

Human Rights Watch view on ISA

http://icj.org/IMG/REPORT-ISA-THAILAND.pdf

The increased use of the ISA raises important issues of human rights and democratic

governance, especially given the current realities of political polarisation in the country.

The Royal Thai Government is justified in enacting and enforcing laws to protect the

security of its citizens. Indeed, this is one of the crucial responsibilities of any

government. However, such security measures must be taken in compliance with the rule of law and international human rights obligations. Experience from around the world, including Southeast Asia, shows that these laws are often used to empower

executive authority and security forces, suppress political opposition and undermine

the rights of citizens. As a result, the ICJ is concerned about how Thailand intends to

strike a balance between security and rights protection through the ISA.

The ICJ is concerned that the ISA fails to guarantee civilian authority over ISOC by allowing the Prime Minister to delegate his powers as Director to the Commander-

in-Chief of the Army. Civilian control thus depends on the relative strength, negotiating

power and will of the Prime Minister in a country where coups are frequent and civilian governments often short-lived. This risk is not merely theoretical: Former

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej reportedly delegated his authority as Director of ISOC to Army Commander-in-Chief General Anupong Paochinda.13

It is all interesting reading.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[philw]

The article doesn't mention the fact that everyone knows CRES introduced a new law.

Could Abhisit be getting it in the neck about this because no one really wants to notice or draw attention to the fact that the CRES is writing laws?

Nail, head, hammer...........

The CRES is writing laws under the powers that they gave themselves.

This is rather a long way from a parliamentary democracy where the government proposes laws to be approved or not by the elected representatives.

The question to worry about about is what laws are next.........

[philw]

Another version of semantics....

As the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) order issued Friday prohibits the sale or free distribution of politically-oriented materials including shirts, photographs, illustrations and printed texts apparently aimed at sparking disunity in society, Gen Prayuth said the ban would not be lifted.

He said the order would remain in effect even though Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva believed it might violate people's right to free speech.

Mr Abhisit earlier said he would ask CRES to review the ban.

Gen Prayuth said CRES clarified the ban to Mr Abhisit explaining that it did not intend to violate people's rights, but is focusing on things that could offend the monarchy.

http://www.mcot.net/cfcustom/cache_page/134035.html

Did not intend to violate but does.........clearly !

[Beetlejuice]

The Prime Minister said today; I`m going to stop this, I am sick and tired of people walking all over me.

[Thai at Heart]

The Prime Minister said today; I`m going to stop this, I am sick and tired of people walking all over me.

Maybe the CRES can issue an edict that all Thai's remove their shoes before stomping on Abhisit metaphorically.

Wouldn't want to endanger national unity you know.

[rubl]

Your last paragraph I can only agree with. As to why and how, I don't know the Thai law or constitution on this particular point or this particular commission. None of the other posters either it seems, at least I have seen nothing substantial on this.

Well here are a few points raised by various organisations about the ISA.

Human Rights Watch view on ISA

http://icj.org/IMG/REPORT-ISA-THAILAND.pdf

The increased use of the ISA raises important issues of human rights and democratic

governance, especially given the current realities of political polarisation in the country.

The Royal Thai Government is justified in enacting and enforcing laws to protect the

security of its citizens. Indeed, this is one of the crucial responsibilities of any

government. However, such security measures must be taken in compliance with the rule of law and international human rights obligations. Experience from around the world, including Southeast Asia, shows that these laws are often used to empower

executive authority and security forces, suppress political opposition and undermine

the rights of citizens. As a result, the ICJ is concerned about how Thailand intends to

strike a balance between security and rights protection through the ISA.

The ICJ is concerned that the ISA fails to guarantee civilian authority over ISOC by allowing the Prime Minister to delegate his powers as Director to the Commander-

in-Chief of the Army. Civilian control thus depends on the relative strength, negotiating

power and will of the Prime Minister in a country where coups are frequent and civilian governments often short-lived. This risk is not merely theoretical: Former

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej reportedly delegated his authority as Director of ISOC to Army Commander-in-Chief General Anupong Paochinda.13

It is all interesting reading.

OK, I'm also concerned. I might be more willing than others to accept the necessity, but that doesn't mean I'm not concerned.

What I was asking was what is the legal status of CRES ? Are they operating within the framework of laws regulating CRES, ISOC, E.D.'s ? Till now I only see 'it's deplorable'.

[Buchholz]

CRES said it would maintain its rights to ban the sale or distribution of items displaying political symbols, pictures, or words deemed disrespectful or even offensive to the royal institution.

However, the red-shirt could still distribute any items they wished to, as long as they did not involve the monarchy.

-- NNT 2010-11-24

[SergeiY]

BANGKOK, 24 November 2010 (NNT)-The Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) has disclosed that it will not abide by Prime Minister Abisit Vejjajiva’s request that it revoke its order banning the sale or distribution of items deemed offensive to the highest institution.

Despite Prime Minister Abisit’s demand that it review its order on grounds that it might breach the constitution in relation to the rights of expression, the CRES said it would maintain its rights to ban the sale or distribution of items displaying political symbols, pictures, or words deemed disrespectful or even offensive to the royal institution. However, the red-shirt could still distribute any items they wished to, as long as they did not involve the monarchy..

As for the recent cancellation of the planned trip to Thailand by the British Prime Minister, the Thai premier said the move was not in any way related to the current political situation and violence in Thailand as rumored. However, the cancellation has cast Thailand in a bad light in the international community, given the British government until now has not given any clear indication why the trip has been cancelled, Mr Abisit admitted.

-- NNT 24 November 2010

http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=255311240002

[Asa]

Did he feel being offended?

[Thai at Heart]

OK, I'm also concerned. I might be more willing than others to accept the necessity, but that doesn't mean I'm not concerned.

What I was asking was what is the legal status of CRES ? Are they operating within the framework of laws regulating CRES, ISOC, E.D.'s ? Till now I only see 'it's deplorable'.

Well as the document states there is a certain ambiguity with a very broad definition of powers vested into the CRES should they wish to exercise them.

However, reading it quickly, it appears to me to say that what the PM says should be, should be. So who has the final say on the issue, despite how it appears to be written?

I am not going to say any more than that to be honest. I am not a lawyer, and I like my life the way it is.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Nail, head, hammer...........

The CRES is writing laws under the powers that they gave themselves.

This is rather a long way from a parliamentary democracy where the government proposes laws to be approved or not by the elected representatives.

The question to worry about about is what laws are next.........

Sorry. That's incorrect.

CRES is writing laws under the umbrella of powers afforded them by the Constitution (lese majeste) - and they're backing that up with the all-encompassing power that arises from good old Might = Right.

The Thai people, for better or for worse, are responsible for the former.

I believe Thailand is politically advanced enough that - if they were not hoodwinked into driving forward a scenario which gives those who would take power via force an opportunity...no one who wished to take power through force would dare. In every 'civilised' nation on the planet, the military could run roughshod over 'democracy'. But in most nations, they wouldn't dream of it. The people keep them in check.

There's no escaping the fact that, for all the revolutionaries' wishing otherwise, there is a HUGE majority of the nation that supports the umbrella under which CRES operates.

The Prime Minister said today; I`m going to stop this, I am sick and tired of people walking all over me.

Maybe the CRES can issue an edict that all Thai's remove their shoes before stomping on Abhisit metaphorically.

Wouldn't want to endanger national unity you know.

I thought we just had a mature conversation where it was agreed that Abhisit said "I'm going to push for the right of people to 'walk' all over my image on their flip-flops - it's their democratic right!"

Now we're back to attacking Abhisit again? All my talk about pragmatism and the UDD taking CRES bait wasn't deemed rational?

Well as the document states there is a certain ambiguity with a very broad definition of powers vested into the CRES should they wish to exercise them.

However, reading it quickly, it appears to me to say that what the PM says should be, should be. So who has the final say on the issue, despite how it appears to be written?

I am not going to say any more than that to be honest. I am not a lawyer, and I like my life the way it is.

There is nothing ambiguous about it.

Even the PM can be guilty of lese majeste. The PM only directs the government's agenda. He does not rule like a CEO Dictator. Last guy that tried that found out the majority shareholders sent him packing, sans golden parachutes or handshakes.

[Thai at Heart]

To Scooter, (there are so many embedded quotes in your message it is very difficult to pull out the comments I would like to answer).

The issue is, is the CRES able to defy the prime minister over this issue? The CRES is supposed to be headed by the PM. I was not attacking the PM over the issue of putting his image on shoes. I am pondering why the CRES thinks they need to legislate against it, when the man himself says it is something that is a constitutional right. It is not Abhisit that is the issue, it is the CRES. Abhisit is basically saying I don't want your protection, yet they insist on providing it.

As for the Lese Majeste issues, I am not concerned about that, since it is covered very clear and serious laws and everyone is more than aware.

The idea however, that putting a lay person's face on a shoe is something that the CRES should get involved in and issue laws punishing such images, is as the PM has mentioned something he doesn't want the CRES to get involved in. But they refuse to back down.