Constitution Court Acquits Thai Democrat

[Throatwobbler]

Well the expected Propaganda Fest is in full gear.

Seems if they can't win via dirty tricks go back to

ignoring facts and trying to make image more important

than reality.

You may support the reds for other reasons

and you may say you don't want Thaksin back,

but the reality is supporting PTP and Red Shirts

taking control defacto MEANS supporting Thaksin's return.

The positions are not mutually exclusive not matter what

wishful thinking of separation is imagined.

Please refer to my previous post about 30 minutes ago. You can scroll up it's not that hard to do.. This is my view on things and i think a lot of the other posters who are anti red. The People are being led to and used. I know a lot of Thais from "red areas" who feel the same.

So in effect what your saying is that anyone that supports the cause and injustices being done to the majority of the people that support the reds are pro Thaksin, what a crock of shit.

[Throatwobbler]

You may support the reds for other reasons

and you may say you don't want Thaksin back,

but the reality is supporting PTP and Red Shirts

taking control defacto MEANS supporting Thaksin's return.

The positions are not mutually exclusive not matter what

wishful thinking of separation is imagined.

So in effect what your saying is that anyone that supports the cause and injustices being done to the majority of the people that support the reds are pro Thaksin, what a crock of shit.

They won't understand or accept the difference - everyone who is sypathetic to the poor and downtrodden and undertstands the frustrations of the reds is a Thaksin supporter (not true), pro-violence (not true) and stupid (not true).

Wrong again ---

Many of us that are Pro-government and Anti-Thaksin also "feel the pain" of the rural poor in Thailand. That being said, since the PTP has one stated goal --- and the UDD has one stated goal --- and the red shirt movement backs up the PTP/UDD ---- then currently to be a "red" and claim that Thaksin is not at the center of it all is senseless.

The day that the reds drop Thaksin they will certainly get a little more support from many people. The day the reds stop violence and threats of violence, they will get even more.

I, too, wish they would drop the 'Thaksin Back' stance but I see the whole thing in a much larger context than thee

It's a shame the PTP cant' see things in the same way as you. They have often been quoted as their election goal is to get Thaksin back. I will find you proof later but it's late now.

[TAWP]

So in effect what your saying is that anyone that supports the cause and injustices being done to the majority of the people that support the reds are pro Thaksin, what a crock of shit.

One note: supporters of reds are far from any majority...

[Throatwobbler]

Ok ... seems you don't know either.

But I did find some information that reflects what I remember being discussed a few months ago.

The 2007 election resulted in 233 seats to PPP and 165 to the Democrats. The PPP got 3 red cards and 8 yellow cards, and the Democrats got 1 yellow card. I can't find specific results of those by-elections.

In 2008, as a result of the PPP (and 2 smaller coalition parties) being disbanded, there were 29 by-elections. The Democrats gained 7 seats from those by-elections.

Maybe you can find some more information to answer some of your own questions.

Again:

These by-election are hold in constituencies were the previous 'winner' came from various political parties. Yes and sometimes a candidate from a different political party wins, sometimes the same party again and sometime the new version of a banned party.

There are more political parties than only PTP and the Democrats and not all by-election are about to re-assign a former PPP win of the general election.

Your statement "the Democrats actually gained some seats in by-elections that the PPP had won in the general election." is false.

True is that the current government and its coalition members won 20 seats of these 29 seats in that by-election.

What people tend to forget is that 19 of these seats 29 seats came from a banned party, Chart Thai and that the successor of Chart Thai, Chart Thai Phattana is part of the current government coalition. Albeit the new party has a little bit fewer seats than before the ban and that mostly because they lost 'their' constituencies to coalition partners. And thats how the Democrats gained a few more seats.

The point is, the Democrat party won 7 seats previously held by the PPP coalition. That means that they gained support since the 2007 election. Other by-elections since the 2008 have also shown no loss of support for the Democrats.

Which all comes back to the initial question: How does the PTP expect to win the next election?

your statement is still false.

The point is that you see it only as a Democrats vs. PPP/PTP issue and totally fail to realise that there are also coalition partners and other parties.

TRT won previous election, PPP got the majority* of votes, close to an absolute majority and PTP is still the biggest party in parliament.

The Democrats don't have that history of big success on election day and with that 7 seats more still far from a majority.

And then there are the coalition partners. They are not married forever and its a rather shaky construct.

Does the PTP claim they would win (for shuure) and that is why the red shirts asking for election, because they think they will win?

You probably think the Democrats would win, right? Well that they will get a majority is more unlikely. Okay they are leading the government at the moment and got lucky because the PPP was banned and they found some partners of convenience. A technical 'victory'.

If they would win at the polling booth only an election could tell you.

A ban of three political parties which previously hold much more than 50% of the parliament seats would justify IMHO a new election (yes, even if the same MPs are still there under the name of new parties).

The reds or the PTP will maybe not win, and for the experts like you is it 100% clear that they will not win, but surprisingly all that doubt they are willing to take that challenge. Is that the point that is so difficult to understand for you, that someone who will not win is still calling for an election?

*British English

As none has proved you lie wrong I though i should.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2007

If you look at the percentage of votes cast you will clearly see that the PPP did not get a majority of the votes, not anywhere close. Yes they got most but nowhere near a majority. Do yo know what that word means, majority. I think you don't. And as I've mentioned on previous threads you are clearly a troll. I would much rather discuss with people who have an opinion rather than people who blatantly LIE.

[animatic]

It rather amazes me so many don't understand a plain statement of fact.

PTP says they will use; bringing Thaksin back and getting his charges dropped,

as the center piece of their campaign and the UDD redhsirt leaders are being

cheek and jowl with PTP even running as PTP MP candidates,

means that the Red Shirt leadership is specifically and without question

supporting Thaksin's return to power. This is from their own words mind you.

SO:

You may support the reds for other reasons

and you may say you don't want Thaksin back,

but the reality is

supporting PTP and Red Shirts taking control,

defacto MEANS supporting Thaksin's return.

The positions are not mutually exclusive no matter what

wishful thinking of separation is imagined.

How can this statement be false?

You may want to say you don't support Thaksin's return,

but by supporting PTP/UDD you do.

And for most, NOT supporting PTP and UDD, has NOTHING to do

with NOT suporting the betterment of the majority of Thai citizens.

Many if not most of the anti-Thaksin side see his return as a

very BAD thing for the majority of poor Thais,

and that's why we want him out of the picture.

Edited November 30, 2010 by animatic

[whybother]

It rather amazes me so many don't understand a plain statement of fact.

PTP says they will use; bringing Thaksin back and getting his charges dropped,

as the center piece of their campaign and the UDD redhsirt leaders are being

cheek and jowl with PTP even running as PTP MP candidates,

means that the Red Shirt leadership is specifically and without question

supporting Thaksin's return to power. This is from their own words mind you.

SO:

You may support the reds for other reasons

and you may say you don't want Thaksin back,

but the reality is

supporting PTP and Red Shirts taking control,

defacto MEANS supporting Thaksin's return.

The positions are not mutually exclusive no matter what

wishful thinking of separation is imagined.

How can this statement be false?

You may want to say you don't support Thaksin's return,

but by supporting PTP/UDD you do.

And for most, NOT supporting PTP and UDD, has NOTHING to do

with NOT suporting the betterment of the majority of Thai citizens.

Many if not most of the anti-Thaksin side see his return as a

very BAD thing for the majority of poor Thais,

and that's why we want him out of the picture.

As the great philw said "well said".

[phiphidon]

There's that name again, Supoj Khaimuk. Wasn't he the judge who wanted to be excused from the case as he (along with Jaroon Intacharn) was currently in the process of suing Pasit, the PTP spokesman and Matichon over video allegations with regard to exam leaks for potential justice officials? Jaroon was excused, Supoj wasn't. When asked about whether what the videos showed was unethical, he replied "there is no code of ethical conduct for judges, only rules against them taking bribes".

Out of the original nine, three judges were excuses for possible conflicts because of other cases which had come up and they were starting to get involved in. K. Supoj wasn't amongst them. As for the quote on what he said, I don't remember having read that particular one. May it have been slightly different or needs to be seen in the context of what more was said at that time ?

Rubi, read my post again please. How many times, when I have an opinion I say it is an opinion, when I make a statement it is backed up by facts despite your subtle comments in various postings. I know the usual MO is to demand proof but can you not just accept that if I make a statement wrt a quote or whatever, it is not made up and is available on the web. It is becoming tiresome to provide links all the time. You know as I have said before that some links are not allowed to be quoted on this forum, fair enough, but do not discount my comments and try some digging for yourself.

For the record , I mentioned the two judges who asked to be excused from judging the democrat case. Supoj Khaimuk was one of those;

http://www.thaivisa....puty-pm-suthep/ webfact posted response 12

As for the quote, I relied on one Voranai Vanijaka, a fair commentator, I feel and I wish there were more like him.

[rubl]

There's that name again, Supoj Khaimuk. Wasn't he the judge who wanted to be excused from the case as he (along with Jaroon Intacharn) was currently in the process of suing Pasit, the PTP spokesman and Matichon over video allegations with regard to exam leaks for potential justice officials? Jaroon was excused, Supoj wasn't. When asked about whether what the videos showed was unethical, he replied "there is no code of ethical conduct for judges, only rules against them taking bribes".

Out of the original nine, three judges were excuses for possible conflicts because of other cases which had come up and they were starting to get involved in. K. Supoj wasn't amongst them. As for the quote on what he said, I don't remember having read that particular one. May it have been slightly different or needs to be seen in the context of what more was said at that time ?

Rubi, read my post again please. How many times, when I have an opinion I say it is an opinion, when I make a statement it is backed up by facts despite your subtle comments in various postings. I know the usual MO is to demand proof but can you not just accept that if I make a statement wrt a quote or whatever, it is not made up and is available on the web. It is becoming tiresome to provide links all the time. You know as I have said before that some links are not allowed to be quoted on this forum, fair enough, but do not discount my comments and try some digging for yourself.

For the record , I mentioned the two judges who asked to be excused from judging the democrat case. Supoj Khaimuk was one of those;

http://www.thaivisa....puty-pm-suthep/ webfact posted response 12

As for the quote, I relied on one Voranai Vanijaka, a fair commentator, I feel and I wish there were more like him.

Dear PPD, yes I was wrong, k. Supoj's request was denied. Probably the case should have been postponed till NINE judges would be available again.

Would have made the situation much clearer and transparent I guess. It would also have allowed the second case to be postponed a wee bit longer. Maybe k. Pasit would even have returned from his HK shoppingtrip.

As for k. Supoj saying "there is no code of ethical conduct for judges, only rules against them taking bribes", haven't found it yet. My fault probably, as usual with you. Seems it's a major part of your accusation though (or is it just a gentle suggestion that something must be wrong?).

To hide behind 'some links are not allowed' is really a weak argument, even Thai courts wouldn't accept it.

Apart from that, keep up the good work of sowing doubt in anything the government, courts, commissions and other non-Thaksin, non-red-shirts do. I would be disappointed if you didn't try

PS: IMHO of course

[Buchholz]

I am glad the Democrats survived this case, but they still face the one regarding the 250M Baht from TPI. Could the current ruling have any impact on the pending one?

Also the Democrats were not acquitted (Note to mods re. topic title) but the case was dismissed. Is there any chance that somebody could come up with a way to re-file the charges at a later time?

No chance that the same charges can be re-filed later. The EC got its bite at the apple and failed to do it properly. The TPI case is a different type of issue but it has no clean money trail (to my understanding) and is thus "he says, she says".

The Pheu Thai Party Spokesman announced that Pheu Thai's legal team would discuss today if the Party should launch another lawsuit against the Democrat Party in the Constitution Court over the case.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Agreed, but the not so subtle difference is that one assumes having been educated in one of the worlds top universitys then would know the difference between collusion and being a comparatively uneducated rural farmer used by corrupt politicians as cannon fodder for the benefit of getting their snouts in the trough as well.

I would like to see fair elections with no vote buying, bring in observers from around the world, see this government root out corruption and go from there but of course no corruption has or will be rooted out because unlike western values on the whole, here it is endemic and a way of life that I do not believe anyone will find a cure for in my lifetime.

Hmmm now you seem to be holding the fact that Abhisit is well educated against the government?

I agree with you that the IDEA of observers is a good idea. The problem is, would these observers be fluent in the Thai spoken in rural villages and understand the kanman system and how vote buying and coercion occurs in Thailand? Would they be participating in the entire run-up to the elections to see that all political parties could campaign in all areas of Thailand? Would they be able to catch outright lies being told and say anything about it?

If so then I am ALL for it! If not, then what is the use?

This is absurd - obervers work in Africa, Arabia and even Afghanistan so don't use language as an excuse for why you don't think monitors would work. Abhisit would actually EARN some kudos by bringing in impartial monitors but he won't do it - why? why? why? because it would expose, not only red infringments, but also his rich pals in power and his Army bosses.

[wackysleet]

So in effect what your saying is that anyone that supports the cause and injustices being done to the majority of the people that support the reds are pro Thaksin, what a crock of shit.

One note: supporters of reds are far from any majority...

I suggest that you read the whole sentence and try to understand the difference between, THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THAT SUPPORT THE REDS, RATHER THAN YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE MAJORITY OF THE THAI PEOPLE.

As for the reds not having the support you think one will have to wait and see but they have far more support than the present government and the shame of the whole thing is that the government is ruling the country with a rag bag of a coalition of corrupt people whatever you or anyone else says and should the red shirt leaders get in there will be more of the same.

[Buchholz]

As for the reds not having the support you think one will have to wait and see but they have far more support than the present government

If a general election was held today, slightly more than half of respondents surveyed by Abac poll said they would vote for the Democrat Party to form the next government, according to survey results.

The survey showed both the ruling Democrat Party and the Opposition Pheu Thai Party would not win enough seats to allow either to form a one-party government, Abac poll director Noppadon Kannikar said.

Noppadon said the smaller parties would decide who would get to form the next government if a general election was held now.

50.7% said they had decided to support the Democrats, 33 per cent said they would opt for Pheu Thai, and 16 per cent preferred other parties.

Of total residents in the Northeast, the largest group (49 per cent) said they would vote for Pheu Thai, while 32 per cent would vote for the Democrats and 19 per cent would back other parties.

The Democrats won support from more than half of total respondents in the Central and South regions. But support in the North was split, with 44 per cent saying they would vote for the Democrats and 42 per cent saying they would vote for Pheu Thai.

[Siam Simon]

Agreed, but the not so subtle difference is that one assumes having been educated in one of the worlds top universitys then would know the difference between collusion and being a comparatively uneducated rural farmer used by corrupt politicians as cannon fodder for the benefit of getting their snouts in the trough as well.

I would like to see fair elections with no vote buying, bring in observers from around the world, see this government root out corruption and go from there but of course no corruption has or will be rooted out because unlike western values on the whole, here it is endemic and a way of life that I do not believe anyone will find a cure for in my lifetime.

Hmmm now you seem to be holding the fact that Abhisit is well educated against the government?

I agree with you that the IDEA of observers is a good idea. The problem is, would these observers be fluent in the Thai spoken in rural villages and understand the kanman system and how vote buying and coercion occurs in Thailand? Would they be participating in the entire run-up to the elections to see that all political parties could campaign in all areas of Thailand? Would they be able to catch outright lies being told and say anything about it?

If so then I am ALL for it! If not, then what is the use?

This is absurd - obervers work in Africa, Arabia and even Afghanistan so don't use language as an excuse for why you don't think monitors would work. Abhisit would actually EARN some kudos by bringing in impartial monitors but he won't do it - why? why? why? because it would expose, not only red infringments, but also his rich pals in power and his Army bosses.

So you haven't noticed that this guy is one of the posters who posts in an expedient rather than honest way?

[ChiangMaiFun]

Agreed, but the not so subtle difference is that one assumes having been educated in one of the worlds top universitys then would know the difference between collusion and being a comparatively uneducated rural farmer used by corrupt politicians as cannon fodder for the benefit of getting their snouts in the trough as well.

I would like to see fair elections with no vote buying, bring in observers from around the world, see this government root out corruption and go from there but of course no corruption has or will be rooted out because unlike western values on the whole, here it is endemic and a way of life that I do not believe anyone will find a cure for in my lifetime.

Hmmm now you seem to be holding the fact that Abhisit is well educated against the government?

I agree with you that the IDEA of observers is a good idea. The problem is, would these observers be fluent in the Thai spoken in rural villages and understand the kanman system and how vote buying and coercion occurs in Thailand? Would they be participating in the entire run-up to the elections to see that all political parties could campaign in all areas of Thailand? Would they be able to catch outright lies being told and say anything about it?

If so then I am ALL for it! If not, then what is the use?

This is absurd - obervers work in Africa, Arabia and even Afghanistan so don't use language as an excuse for why you don't think monitors would work. Abhisit would actually EARN some kudos by bringing in impartial monitors but he won't do it - why? why? why? because it would expose, not only red infringments, but also his rich pals in power and his Army bosses.

So you haven't noticed that this guy is one of the posters who posts in an expedient rather than honest way?

Yes I noticed a long, long time ago

[wackysleet]

As for the reds not having the support you think one will have to wait and see but they have far more support than the present government

If a general election was held today, slightly more than half of respondents surveyed by Abac poll said they would vote for the Democrat Party to form the next government, according to survey results.

The survey showed both the ruling Democrat Party and the Opposition Pheu Thai Party would not win enough seats to allow either to form a one-party government, Abac poll director Noppadon Kannikar said.

Noppadon said the smaller parties would decide who would get to form the next government if a general election was held now.

50.7% said they had decided to support the Democrats, 33 per cent said they would opt for Pheu Thai, and 16 per cent preferred other parties.

Of total residents in the Northeast, the largest group (49 per cent) said they would vote for Pheu Thai, while 32 per cent would vote for the Democrats and 19 per cent would back other parties.

The Democrats won support from more than half of total respondents in the Central and South regions. But support in the North was split, with 44 per cent saying they would vote for the Democrats and 42 per cent saying they would vote for Pheu Thai.

http://www.thaivisa....omsearch__1#top

Agreed that in certain areas Democrats are fairly strong ie Bangkok and of course other places but the reds support is based primarily in the northern areas but has a relatively large support in BKK as well, obviously among the lower working class and lets be realistic about polls and not think for one minute that they are always correct, they are not, take a look at recent history in England and all the polls were forecasting a labour landslides only to have egg on their face, and as I said we will have to wait and see but even counting the relative number of seats won by a party does not give the real picture of the of the support given by the majority of the population hence the call for proportional representation in England rather than first past the post.

[wackysleet]

Agreed, but the not so subtle difference is that one assumes having been educated in one of the worlds top universitys then would know the difference between collusion and being a comparatively uneducated rural farmer used by corrupt politicians as cannon fodder for the benefit of getting their snouts in the trough as well.

I would like to see fair elections with no vote buying, bring in observers from around the world, see this government root out corruption and go from there but of course no corruption has or will be rooted out because unlike western values on the whole, here it is endemic and a way of life that I do not believe anyone will find a cure for in my lifetime.

Hmmm now you seem to be holding the fact that Abhisit is well educated against the government?

I agree with you that the IDEA of observers is a good idea. The problem is, would these observers be fluent in the Thai spoken in rural villages and understand the kanman system and how vote buying and coercion occurs in Thailand? Would they be participating in the entire run-up to the elections to see that all political parties could campaign in all areas of Thailand? Would they be able to catch outright lies being told and say anything about it?

If so then I am ALL for it! If not, then what is the use?

This is absurd - obervers work in Africa, Arabia and even Afghanistan so don't use language as an excuse for why you don't think monitors would work. Abhisit would actually EARN some kudos by bringing in impartial monitors but he won't do it - why? why? why? because it would expose, not only red infringments, but also his rich pals in power and his Army bosses.

So you haven't noticed that this guy is one of the posters who posts in an expedient rather than honest way?

Not sure who you are actually referring to but everyone, even people who have opposing views are entitled to have their say and if that is the real view then it is honest whatever anyone thinks.

Unfortunately if your a supporter of the democrats then your also by definition accepting for whatever personal reason you may have of corruption and basically saying that the end justifies the means, by the way, my wifes just a little bit pregnant

[Mario2008]

2 post deleted as off topic. Don't derail the topic and stick to the issue.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Hmmm now you seem to be holding the fact that Abhisit is well educated against the government?

I agree with you that the IDEA of observers is a good idea. The problem is, would these observers be fluent in the Thai spoken in rural villages and understand the kanman system and how vote buying and coercion occurs in Thailand? Would they be participating in the entire run-up to the elections to see that all political parties could campaign in all areas of Thailand? Would they be able to catch outright lies being told and say anything about it?

If so then I am ALL for it! If not, then what is the use?

This is absurd - obervers work in Africa, Arabia and even Afghanistan so don't use language as an excuse for why you don't think monitors would work. Abhisit would actually EARN some kudos by bringing in impartial monitors but he won't do it - why? why? why? because it would expose, not only red infringments, but also his rich pals in power and his Army bosses.

So you haven't noticed that this guy is one of the posters who posts in an expedient rather than honest way?

Not sure who you are actually referring to but everyone, even people who have opposing views are entitled to have their say and if that is the real view then it is honest whatever anyone thinks.

Unfortunately if your a supporter of the democrats then your also by definition accepting for whatever personal reason you may have of corruption and basically saying that the end justifies the means, by the way, my wifes just a little bit pregnant

Huh? he was referring to the poster that I replied to? read the thread?

[Buchholz]

As for the reds not having the support you think one will have to wait and see but they have far more support than the present government

If a general election was held today, slightly more than half of respondents surveyed by Abac poll said they would vote for the Democrat Party to form the next government, according to survey results.

The survey showed both the ruling Democrat Party and the Opposition Pheu Thai Party would not win enough seats to allow either to form a one-party government, Abac poll director Noppadon Kannikar said.

Noppadon said the smaller parties would decide who would get to form the next government if a general election was held now.

50.7% said they had decided to support the Democrats, 33 per cent said they would opt for Pheu Thai, and 16 per cent preferred other parties.

Of total residents in the Northeast, the largest group (49 per cent) said they would vote for Pheu Thai, while 32 per cent would vote for the Democrats and 19 per cent would back other parties.

The Democrats won support from more than half of total respondents in the Central and South regions. But support in the North was split, with 44 per cent saying they would vote for the Democrats and 42 per cent saying they would vote for Pheu Thai.

http://www.thaivisa....omsearch__1#top

Agreed that in certain areas Democrats are fairly strong ie Bangkok and of course other places but the reds support is based primarily in the northern areas but has a relatively large support in BKK as well, obviously among the lower working class and lets be realistic about polls and not think for one minute that they are always correct, they are not, take a look at recent history in England and all the polls were forecasting a labour landslides only to have egg on their face, and as I said we will have to wait and see but even counting the relative number of seats won by a party does not give the real picture of the of the support given by the majority of the population hence the call for proportional representation in England rather than first past the post.

I agree that polls are not always the most accurate, but it is interesting that even in the North, the Democrats outpaced the Pheu Thai.

Still, it will be a very close race and certainly not the "blow-out", "over-whelming", "landslide" Pheu Thai victory that is so often posted about here as exemplified by the original quote.

[phiphidon]

There's that name again, Supoj Khaimuk. Wasn't he the judge who wanted to be excused from the case as he (along with Jaroon Intacharn) was currently in the process of suing Pasit, the PTP spokesman and Matichon over video allegations with regard to exam leaks for potential justice officials? Jaroon was excused, Supoj wasn't. When asked about whether what the videos showed was unethical, he replied "there is no code of ethical conduct for judges, only rules against them taking bribes".

Out of the original nine, three judges were excuses for possible conflicts because of other cases which had come up and they were starting to get involved in. K. Supoj wasn't amongst them. As for the quote on what he said, I don't remember having read that particular one. May it have been slightly different or needs to be seen in the context of what more was said at that time ?

Rubi, read my post again please. How many times, when I have an opinion I say it is an opinion, when I make a statement it is backed up by facts despite your subtle comments in various postings. I know the usual MO is to demand proof but can you not just accept that if I make a statement wrt a quote or whatever, it is not made up and is available on the web. It is becoming tiresome to provide links all the time. You know as I have said before that some links are not allowed to be quoted on this forum, fair enough, but do not discount my comments and try some digging for yourself.

For the record , I mentioned the two judges who asked to be excused from judging the democrat case. Supoj Khaimuk was one of those;

http://www.thaivisa....puty-pm-suthep/ webfact posted response 12

As for the quote, I relied on one Voranai Vanijaka, a fair commentator, I feel and I wish there were more like him.

Dear PPD, yes I was wrong, k. Supoj's request was denied. Probably the case should have been postponed till NINE judges would be available again.

Would have made the situation much clearer and transparent I guess. It would also have allowed the second case to be postponed a wee bit longer. Maybe k. Pasit would even have returned from his HK shoppingtrip.

As for k. Supoj saying "there is no code of ethical conduct for judges, only rules against them taking bribes", haven't found it yet. My fault probably, as usual with you. Seems it's a major part of your accusation though (or is it just a gentle suggestion that something must be wrong?).

To hide behind 'some links are not allowed' is really a weak argument, even Thai courts wouldn't accept it.

Apart from that, keep up the good work of sowing doubt in anything the government, courts, commissions and other non-Thaksin, non-red-shirts do. I would be disappointed if you didn't try

PS: IMHO of course

I do not sow doubt in everything, just the events that lead themselves to some valid questioning from those with an enquiring nature. Hoovering up pro government media pieces not really my style as you know. Just think of me as an informal check and balance instrument.

Anyway back to the link - it's not a weak argument, I've had my wrist slapped by the mods before for even mentioning a particular quote from another newspaper. There is a hint given in my text, a certain Mr.V.

Edited December 1, 2010 by phiphidon

[hammered]

As for the reds not having the support you think one will have to wait and see but they have far more support than the present government

If a general election was held today, slightly more than half of respondents surveyed by Abac poll said they would vote for the Democrat Party to form the next government, according to survey results.

The survey showed both the ruling Democrat Party and the Opposition Pheu Thai Party would not win enough seats to allow either to form a one-party government, Abac poll director Noppadon Kannikar said.

Noppadon said the smaller parties would decide who would get to form the next government if a general election was held now.

50.7% said they had decided to support the Democrats, 33 per cent said they would opt for Pheu Thai, and 16 per cent preferred other parties.

Of total residents in the Northeast, the largest group (49 per cent) said they would vote for Pheu Thai, while 32 per cent would vote for the Democrats and 19 per cent would back other parties.

The Democrats won support from more than half of total respondents in the Central and South regions. But support in the North was split, with 44 per cent saying they would vote for the Democrats and 42 per cent saying they would vote for Pheu Thai.

http://www.thaivisa....omsearch__1#top

Agreed that in certain areas Democrats are fairly strong ie Bangkok and of course other places but the reds support is based primarily in the northern areas but has a relatively large support in BKK as well, obviously among the lower working class and lets be realistic about polls and not think for one minute that they are always correct, they are not, take a look at recent history in England and all the polls were forecasting a labour landslides only to have egg on their face, and as I said we will have to wait and see but even counting the relative number of seats won by a party does not give the real picture of the of the support given by the majority of the population hence the call for proportional representation in England rather than first past the post.

I agree that polls are not always the most accurate, but it is interesting that even in the North, the Democrats outpaced the Pheu Thai.

Still, it will be a very close race and certainly not the "blow-out", "over-whelming", "landslide" Pheu Thai victory that is so often posted about here as exemplified by the original quote.

The two keys to the elcetion are the North where PTP influence has slipped although how it comes out in a vote is not so easy to see as it is often not just a two horse race in a constituency. The other key area is what inroad BJT will make into PTP in the lower Isaan. Certainly in the North the PTP have lost local elections in unexpected places in the past year although it seems to hold up a lot better in the Isaan. Either way it is hard to see a 50%+1 of seats for anyone.

[hammered]

Politcally there are many subtexts to the decision. No party is going to election with a disolution hanging over it as disbandment of a party after an election is called means all candidates in the disolved party cannot match the time frame to change party and stand, so thay are all wiped out of an election. PPP didnt countenance an election for this reason and likely the Dems wont either alhtough they could be timed ou ton case two. Because of this poltical reality PTP couldnt really give a toss about the court outcome and would probably like to see the second case tossed now as it is just an impediment to early election. I wouldnt expect them to say this though. Most poltical observers also see a Dem disolution as being a harbinger of a coup and PTP certainly dont want this.

PTP want an early election before:

1. Economic stimuli and infrastructure projects inparticular kick in

2. Having to run the risk of more extreme red elements go beserk around hot season when it is easy to assemble

3. More dissidents within the party come to the surface

The Dems seem to be taking a wait and see approach. If PTP lose any if the Isaan by-elections or Ayuthaya, they may favour early.

BJT want a later election because:

1. Infrastructure projects in PTP heartlands are going to be quite dramatic

2. Another round of moving civil servants around can take place

3. The debilitating affect on PTP of having to make loyalty payments with a longer election run up

4. More chance to turn certain reds and PTP MPs

5. Relative power vis-a-vis Dems may turn back their way from a recent drift the other

Then we have the military which is more united than a year ago and which last time predicted the electoral outconme almost perfectly sitting around seeing what happens while holding the ultimate veto.

The court decisions are just one thing going on in a very complicated power game.

[Buchholz]

PTP want an early election before:

1. Economic stimuli and infrastructure projects inparticular kick in

2. Having to run the risk of more extreme red elements go beserk around hot season when it is easy to assemble

3. More dissidents within the party come to the surface

A potential perfect storm for them encapsulated by:

1. Thai Govt Populist Policies Set To Roll

2. Red Shirt Faction Leader Warns Some Red Shirts May Become Suicide Bombers

3. PTP is looking to throw out 6 of their own MP's from the Party, (the Cobra 6)

.

[rubl]

Not sure who you are actually referring to but everyone, even people who have opposing views are entitled to have their say and if that is the real view then it is honest whatever anyone thinks.

Unfortunately if your a supporter of the democrats then your also by definition accepting for whatever personal reason you may have of corruption and basically saying that the end justifies the means, by the way, my wifes just a little bit pregnant

Congratulations. I hope your wife will have no problems during her pregnancy and will have a easy, speedy delivery. Keep her away from this forum, it tends to upset people and is certainly not good for pregnant women.

Stay cool and strong, a wifes pregnancy isn't easy on the husband.

[Deeral]

I'd say that the EC's response shows how flimsy the court ruling was and how sadly insubstantial all the democratic institutions in Thailand are.

firstly we are witness to perpetual legal challenges to any government in office - what kind of democratic opposition is that? just a symptom of those who think they can take power without a vote?THen we have the courts making a decision that is no more than a brown-nosing exercise for the benefit of the incumbent govt.

THe situation that repeatedly allows this sort of thing to happen can only indicate that Thailand is not functioning as a democracy - or even a stable nation.

Couple this with a propensity for coups instead of elections and one's conclusion can only be reinforced.

It is certain that the country is headed for a major constitutional crisis within the next few years and it looks like the various factions of the ruling elite are jostling for position - and what say will the rank and file of Thailand have?NONE WHATSOEVER!

[jdinasia]

I'd say that the EC's response shows how flimsy the court ruling was and how sadly insubstantial all the democratic institutions in Thailand are.

firstly we are witness to perpetual legal challenges to any government in office - what kind of democratic opposition is that? just a symptom of those who think they can take power without a vote?THen we have the courts making a decision that is no more than a brown-nosing exercise for the benefit of the incumbent govt.

THe situation that repeatedly allows this sort of thing to happen can only indicate that Thailand is not functioning as a democracy - or even a stable nation.

Couple this with a propensity for coups instead of elections and one's conclusion can only be reinforced.

It is certain that the country is headed for a major constitutional crisis within the next few years and it looks like the various factions of the ruling elite are jostling for position - and what say will the rank and file of Thailand have?NONE WHATSOEVER!

The country just cleared a major constitutional crisis in 2006, when Thaksin's extra-constitutional, non-elected government was overthrown in a bloodless coup.

The EC's response doesn't reflect on the courts so much as a CYA (it wasn't our fault) attempt. The court decision was based on the law. You can deride them for a "brown-nosing exercise for the benefit of the incumbent government." Others will call it having "rule of law".

The people have the vote. They elected MP's in 2007. They will elect MP's again in 2011.

Is there a deep power struggle going on? Yes. I can only assume by 'ruling elite' you are including Thaksin and his cronies.

[Deeral]

I'd say that the EC's response shows how flimsy the court ruling was and how sadly insubstantial all the democratic institutions in Thailand are.

firstly we are witness to perpetual legal challenges to any government in office - what kind of democratic opposition is that? just a symptom of those who think they can take power without a vote?THen we have the courts making a decision that is no more than a brown-nosing exercise for the benefit of the incumbent govt.

THe situation that repeatedly allows this sort of thing to happen can only indicate that Thailand is not functioning as a democracy - or even a stable nation.

Couple this with a propensity for coups instead of elections and one's conclusion can only be reinforced.

It is certain that the country is headed for a major constitutional crisis within the next few years and it looks like the various factions of the ruling elite are jostling for position - and what say will the rank and file of Thailand have?NONE WHATSOEVER!

The country just cleared a major constitutional crisis in 2006, when Thaksin's extra-constitutional, non-elected government was overthrown in a bloodless coup.

The EC's response doesn't reflect on the courts so much as a CYA (it wasn't our fault) attempt. The court decision was based on the law. You can deride them for a "brown-nosing exercise for the benefit of the incumbent government." Others will call it having "rule of law".

The people have the vote. They elected MP's in 2007. They will elect MP's again in 2011.

Is there a deep power struggle going on? Yes. I can only assume by 'ruling elite' you are including Thaksin and his cronies.

Your understanding of the current situation seems very naive.

Firstly if you think the country has "cleared" the crisis of 2006, you are in for a rude awakening - the future crisis will be far more significant. Unfortunately the previous "crisis" is not resolved and is also very connected to the next..

"Rule of law" - the whole point I'm making is the WEAKNESS of democratic institutions - rule of law being one. I'm not sure you even understand what a democratic institution is judging by your response.

[jdinasia]

Your understanding of the current situation seems very naive.

Firstly if you think the country has "cleared" the crisis of 2006, you are in for a rude awakening - the future crisis will be far more significant. Unfortunately the previous "crisis" is not resolved and is also very connected to the next..

"Rule of law" - the whole point I'm making is the WEAKNESS of democratic institutions - rule of law being one. I'm not sure you even understand what a democratic institution is judging by your response.

Then you are saying we are still IN a constitutional crisis? or are you saying that one is coming? (kinda can't have it both ways!)

You suggest that a case that was thrown out due to rule of law is an example of rule of law not existing? (again, you can't have it both ways)

Do I understand democratic institutions? Hmmm since it appears that the courts settled the last several major cases in accordance with the rule of law, I would say that apparently I have a better idea about institutions than you do. The fact that before parliament was dissolved in Feb of 2006, he had been systematically destroying the checks and balances required by an effective democracy to survive. That in the Thaksin years we had anything BUT the rule of law in Thaland (see Feb 1 2003 and the events following for some clear examples.)

For other examples of how democracy is plodding along at a painfully slowly pace (yet still plodding) feel free to look at the by-elections that keep occurring

[Deeral]

Your understanding of the current situation seems very naive.

Firstly if you think the country has "cleared" the crisis of 2006, you are in for a rude awakening - the future crisis will be far more significant. Unfortunately the previous "crisis" is not resolved and is also very connected to the next..

"Rule of law" - the whole point I'm making is the WEAKNESS of democratic institutions - rule of law being one. I'm not sure you even understand what a democratic institution is judging by your response.

Then you are saying we are still IN a constitutional crisis? or are you saying that one is coming? (kinda can't have it both ways!)

You suggest that a case that was thrown out due to rule of law is an example of rule of law not existing? (again, you can't have it both ways)

Do I understand democratic institutions? Hmmm since it appears that the courts settled the last several major cases in accordance with the rule of law, I would say that apparently I have a better idea about institutions than you do. The fact that before parliament was dissolved in Feb of 2006, he had been systematically destroying the checks and balances required by an effective democracy to survive. That in the Thaksin years we had anything BUT the rule of law in Thaland (see Feb 1 2003 and the events following for some clear examples.)

For other examples of how democracy is plodding along at a painfully slowly pace (yet still plodding) feel free to look at the by-elections that keep occurring

Sorry your opening line indicates you really aren't clued up on this -so I'll have to decline to discuss with you.Might I suggest you try to get up to speed on Thai history and politics first?

If you come up with an intelligent proposal them I'll discuss - but I find I waste too much time responding to people on thai Visa who missed the starter's gun but still want to take part in the race

[jdinasia]

Always best to attack the man instead of the argument, if you are in a losing position. Congrats! You did that well!

First you suggest there is a constitutional crisis coming. Then you suggest that we are still in one. Which is it?

Then you suggest 'rule of law' is not being used in the courts. I suggest that every recent case has been soundly vested in rule of law (even Sanoh's case) and certainly the assets forfeiture case and the RadchadaPisek land case.

So you drop the idea that I don't understand democratic institutions and then decide I don't understand Thai history Good job! I am proud of you!