Constitution Court Acquits Thai Democrat

[rubl]

Democrats Acquitted on Technicality

The court reasoned their acquittal on the fact that the Election Commission did not file the charges in accordance to Article 93 of the Constitution.

-- Tan Network 2010-11-29

Is the EC being bribed to file a late complaint...even if filed on time i am sure the kangaroo court would still acquit the Democrats...the whole system of governance..army, police judiciary etc etc is under the control of the " amartaya "..

they have treated the thai people as fools....

you forgot to add IMHO then you don't need to prove what you state

[gregb]

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.

From my perspective, yes, that is correct.

The main policy objective of the red shirts is to bring back Thaksin. If you wish to support other causes and not Thaksin, you need to start a new movement. It is disingenuous to use Thaksin's money, Thaksin's organizational skills, and Thaksin's name to further your own cause, and then claim you are not pro Thaksin. You obviously like him or you would not associate yourself with him.

When the reds vocally denounce Thaksin, then I will support them. I do not agree that it is OK to marginalize a segment of society. However, Thaksin is so much worse than any other faction in this mess that it is unthinkable to support any group that does not denounce him.

All reds support Thaksin, even if they don't wish to admit that inconvenient truth.

[hammered]

Winning elections is all about sitting MPs, provincial power players and canvassers. PTP had a lock on these in the Isaan and North and a few other rpovinces around Bangkok last time. If that remains the case they stand a good chance of winning. There is however, a lot of speculation that they are losing control of those needed people right now. We will see.

Hope you don't mind if I like to change 'chance of winning' into 'consolidating'. It would mean PTP be the largest party with 30+% with Dem's very close behind. Maybe a bit of movement between PTP, BJT and small splinter parties. If that happens who will be able to get a majority coalition together and the right to provide PM + cabinet is an interesting question I do not dare to answer.

Who knows. Old Chalerm reckons PTP havent got a hope in hell of forming a government unless they win an overall majority

The important aspect uis that before the last election the army had a very accurate opinion poll that they published. If they have another one and it shows PTP winning an overall majoprity on a bring back Thaksin and forgive him ticket, there could be some interesting pre-election fun. Winning an overall majority though is going to be very very difficult. Things are going on up north (not Isaan) that are weakening PTP. In the last round of elections even the Dems won rerpesentation in provinces like Uttaradit where they had never ever had any ever before. It is a shame there isnt a northern constituency up for grabs in the by-electiosn as that is the area of interest. Of the ones up for grabs PTP should win the 3 Isaan ones and Ayuthaya (controlled by their mafiosa friends) and the Dems the Bangkok one. The BJT may win an Isaan one alhtough with Peau Pandin wanting to punish them for being tossed form government it is unlikely now. CTP could win Ayuthaya although that would mean the end ofa certain persons dreams of becoming Thaksins nominee PTP leader so it is unlikely considering the effort he will put in.

[SergeiY]

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

[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.

From my perspective, yes, that is correct.

The main policy objective of the red shirts is to bring back Thaksin. If you wish to support other causes and not Thaksin, you need to start a new movement. It is disingenuous to use Thaksin's money, Thaksin's organizational skills, and Thaksin's name to further your own cause, and then claim you are not pro Thaksin. You obviously like him or you would not associate yourself with him.

When the reds vocally denounce Thaksin, then I will support them. I do not agree that it is OK to marginalize a segment of society. However, Thaksin is so much worse than any other faction in this mess that it is unthinkable to support any group that does not denounce him.

All reds support Thaksin, even if they don't wish to admit that inconvenient truth.

We agree on one thing at least and that is the influence of Thaksin is actually benefitting few supporters but your assumption that because I support people and not a political party anywhere that have a just cause of complaint against their government that I and others are in fact supporters of his regime.

So may I and other non supporters of this government be correct in assuming that you are indeed a supporter of corruption, as a main supporting party in this coilition government has more than it's fair share of alleged corrupt politicians and for a prime mimister to actively seek their support to retain power actually beggers belief, I am sure your familiar with the old saying "your judged by the company you keep".

[SergeiY]

Democrats Acquitted on Technicality

The court reasoned their acquittal on the fact that the Election Commission did not file the charges in accordance to Article 93 of the Constitution.

-- Tan Network 2010-11-29

Is the EC being bribed to file a late complaint...even if filed on time i am sure the kangaroo court would still acquit the Democrats...the whole system of governance..army, police judiciary etc etc is under the control of the " amartaya "..

they have treated the thai people as fools....

No, I think it was more that they were being forced to file a complaint. They decided a number of times previously not to file it, until they had reds on their doorstep giving them a bit of encouragement.

All sides involved the EC, its members, the Court and the judges declared that they didn't act under pressure.

The Democrats got lucky because of a procedural error. I think to argue on a on technicality was also a strategy of the democrats defence. Its part of the law and their right to do so.

[whybother]

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.

From my perspective, yes, that is correct.

The main policy objective of the red shirts is to bring back Thaksin. If you wish to support other causes and not Thaksin, you need to start a new movement. It is disingenuous to use Thaksin's money, Thaksin's organizational skills, and Thaksin's name to further your own cause, and then claim you are not pro Thaksin. You obviously like him or you would not associate yourself with him.

When the reds vocally denounce Thaksin, then I will support them. I do not agree that it is OK to marginalize a segment of society. However, Thaksin is so much worse than any other faction in this mess that it is unthinkable to support any group that does not denounce him.

All reds support Thaksin, even if they don't wish to admit that inconvenient truth.

We agree on one thing at least and that is the influence of Thaksin is actually benefitting few supporters but your assumption that because I support people and not a political party anywhere that have a just cause of complaint against their government that I and others are in fact supporters of his regime.

So may I and other non supporters of this government be correct in assuming that you are indeed a supporter of corruption, as a main supporting party in this coilition government has more than it's fair share of alleged corrupt politicians and for a prime mimister to actively seek their support to retain power actually beggers belief, I am sure your familiar with the old saying "your judged by the company you keep".

You're probably right there. The grass roots reds are keeping company of the red leaders and the red leaders are keeping the company of Thaksin. So ........

[jdinasia]

From my perspective, yes, that is correct.

The main policy objective of the red shirts is to bring back Thaksin. If you wish to support other causes and not Thaksin, you need to start a new movement. It is disingenuous to use Thaksin's money, Thaksin's organizational skills, and Thaksin's name to further your own cause, and then claim you are not pro Thaksin. You obviously like him or you would not associate yourself with him.

When the reds vocally denounce Thaksin, then I will support them. I do not agree that it is OK to marginalize a segment of society. However, Thaksin is so much worse than any other faction in this mess that it is unthinkable to support any group that does not denounce him.

All reds support Thaksin, even if they don't wish to admit that inconvenient truth.

We agree on one thing at least and that is the influence of Thaksin is actually benefitting few supporters but your assumption that because I support people and not a political party anywhere that have a just cause of complaint against their government that I and others are in fact supporters of his regime.

So may I and other non supporters of this government be correct in assuming that you are indeed a supporter of corruption, as a main supporting party in this coilition government has more than it's fair share of alleged corrupt politicians and for a prime mimister to actively seek their support to retain power actually beggers belief, I am sure your familiar with the old saying "your judged by the company you keep".

Keyword in your supposition based argument is "alleged".

Coalition governments are a pain in the butt. I don't think many people would argue that. Can you kick out coalition ministers/mp's that you do not like to hear allegations about? no. The Dems would suggest that they step down until cleared but they can't require it.

But if you want to put it into such stark black and white statements and you forced me to pick between the current government with some dirty coalition partners, and the red shirt Thaksin fueled violence, I wouldn't have much of a problem picking the government

[whybother]

All sides involved the EC, its members, the Court and the judges declared that they didn't act under pressure.

The Democrats got lucky because of a procedural error. I think to argue on a on technicality was also a strategy of the democrats defence. Its part of the law and their right to do so.

Agreed. Unfortunately it didn't play out. edit: Ofcourse, they would all say that there wasn't any pressure.

But it is probably irrelevant if it did play out. If the Democrats got off for any other reason, for example, not actually doing anything illegal, we would be in the same situation as now.

The only acceptable result for the reds was disbanding. It's irrelevant whether laws were actually broken or not.

Edited November 30, 2010 by whybother

[jayboy]

Democrats Acquitted on Technicality

The court reasoned their acquittal on the fact that the Election Commission did not file the charges in accordance to Article 93 of the Constitution.

-- Tan Network 2010-11-29

Is the EC being bribed to file a late complaint...even if filed on time i am sure the kangaroo court would still acquit the Democrats...the whole system of governance..army, police judiciary etc etc is under the control of the " amartaya "..

they have treated the thai people as fools....

No, I think it was more that they were being forced to file a complaint. They decided a number of times previously not to file it, until they had reds on their doorstep giving them a bit of encouragement.

All sides involved the EC, its members, the Court and the judges declared that they didn't act under pressure.

The Democrats got lucky because of a procedural error. I think to argue on a on technicality was also a strategy of the democrats defence. Its part of the law and their right to do so.

Got lucky? Hmm. I don't remember too many procedural errors in the cases against the Democrats' opponents

For those tired of the predictable half truths we have seen too much of since the verdict, here is the Economist's useful summary.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/asiaview/2010/11/thailands_political_parties

[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.

From my perspective, yes, that is correct.

The main policy objective of the red shirts is to bring back Thaksin. If you wish to support other causes and not Thaksin, you need to start a new movement. It is disingenuous to use Thaksin's money, Thaksin's organizational skills, and Thaksin's name to further your own cause, and then claim you are not pro Thaksin. You obviously like him or you would not associate yourself with him.

When the reds vocally denounce Thaksin, then I will support them. I do not agree that it is OK to marginalize a segment of society. However, Thaksin is so much worse than any other faction in this mess that it is unthinkable to support any group that does not denounce him.

All reds support Thaksin, even if they don't wish to admit that inconvenient truth.

We agree on one thing at least and that is the influence of Thaksin is actually benefitting few supporters but your assumption that because I support people and not a political party anywhere that have a just cause of complaint against their government that I and others are in fact supporters of his regime.

So may I and other non supporters of this government be correct in assuming that you are indeed a supporter of corruption, as a main supporting party in this coilition government has more than it's fair share of alleged corrupt politicians and for a prime mimister to actively seek their support to retain power actually beggers belief, I am sure your familiar with the old saying "your judged by the company you keep".

You're probably right there. The grass roots reds are keeping company of the red leaders and the red leaders are keeping the company of Thaksin. So ........

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.

[jdinasia]

No, I think it was more that they were being forced to file a complaint. They decided a number of times previously not to file it, until they had reds on their doorstep giving them a bit of encouragement.

All sides involved the EC, its members, the Court and the judges declared that they didn't act under pressure.

The Democrats got lucky because of a procedural error. I think to argue on a on technicality was also a strategy of the democrats defence. Its part of the law and their right to do so.

Got lucky? Hmm. I don't remember too many procedural errors in the cases against the Democrats' opponents

For those tired of the predictable half truths we have seen too much of since the verdict, here is the Economist's useful summary.

http://www.economist...litical_parties

Not much in that Economist piece (can't be called news ... Op-Ed maybe?) It states that the reds cry at every slight (real or imagined) and rehashes the recent youtube story. It doesn't seem to draw any conclusion other than Abhisit is still PM.

[gregb]

"your judged by the company you keep".

At least we can all agree on this. If you associate yourself with a movement, any movement, you need to accept responsibility for that association.

I don't like the BJT, but I accept them because I know the alternatives are all worse. That is what a coalition government is all about. I take responsibility for the evil in my camp. That is the grown up thing to do. Some of these MPs are real bastards, but this is making the best of a bad situation. So in that sense, yes, I do support them. I am an enabler of corruption. I see no better option available to me.

By that same standard, you support arson, looting, pillaging and violence. You are condoning all of that, as well as Thaksin's greed and excess, by being part of the red cause. Own up to it. Be a man. Stop being disingenuous. You are pro Thaksin.

[jdinasia]

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?

[whybother]

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.

Do you think Abhisit should give up because of who he has to deal with? Or do you think he should slowly work on changing people from where he can actually do something about it?

The only way forward is not to go backwards. The red shirts just want to go backwards, otherwise they would be presenting policies for change, not for the same thing that they had before.

[webfact]

Related article:

PM orders tightened security for Constitution Court judges

Follow this link:

[SergeiY]

All sides involved the EC, its members, the Court and the judges declared that they didn't act under pressure.

The Democrats got lucky because of a procedural error. I think to argue on a on technicality was also a strategy of the democrats defence. Its part of the law and their right to do so.

Agreed. Unfortunately it didn't play out. edit: Ofcourse, they would all say that there wasn't any pressure.

But it is probably irrelevant if it did play out. If the Democrats got off for any other reason, for example, not actually doing anything illegal, we would be in the same situation as now.

The only acceptable result for the reds was disbanding. It's irrelevant whether laws were actually broken or not.

The Dems didn't got off for the reason like that the judges declared there wasn't anything illegal and no law broken.

And in case the court would rule not in favour of the Dems and order the dissolution as requested/suggested by the EC - you wouldn't accept that the Dems were declared guilty but just come with your 'the EC/court was under pressure and threatened by the red shirts' argument.

You always have a line like that 'the red would accept any other opinion', 'the reds want only their way', but its more like that you cannot accept any other opinion and if someone is disappointed with yesterdays ruling he must be obviously one of the red shirts.

[whybother]

The Dems didn't got off for the reason like that the judges declared there wasn't anything illegal and no law broken.

Yes. I already agreed with you on that.

And in case the court would rule not in favour of the Dems and order the dissolution as requested/suggested by the EC - you wouldn't accept that the Dems were declared guilty but just come with your 'the EC/court was under pressure and threatened by the red shirts' argument.

Would I have any choice but to accept it?

You always have a line like that 'the red would accept any other opinion', 'the reds want only their way', but its more like that you cannot accept any other opinion and if someone is disappointed with yesterdays ruling he must be obviously one of the red shirts.

It seems most of those statements are usually true.

As I said, I was disappointed with yesterdays decision - not disappointed that they got off, but disappointed how they got off. I would have preferred a result that explained why the Democrats were guilty or not guilty. As it was, they were found "not guilty on a technicality".

But as I said above, the only result the red shirts would have accepted is guilty. They would have brought out their "double standards" mantra, or corruption for any other result other than guilty.

[rubl]

From the Economist article:

"For months, the court has considered arguments on both sides, and heard witnesses contradict each other in testimony about what happened to the money.

However, the final verdict did not decide the merits of these competing claims. Instead the court decided that the EC had not filed the charge within 15 days of its decision to prosecute, thereby invalidating the entire process."

Nothing more, nothing less. This case closed, now for the THB 290M case.

"Thanapit said he was confident the judicial review on the second case would not end in a dismissal on legal technicality like the first case. The charges were different and hinged on differing legal procedures, he added."

Somewhere I read that this case had an even lesser paper trail and more of 'he said - she said' stuff. Should be interesting again with many contradictions. Probably also with a surprise CD as in the first case.

Sanuk, sanuk

[jdinasia]

I am disappointed with yesterday's decision, in that I wanted a decision based on the merits of the case and not to see the case thrown out on a technicality. That being said, I think the result would have been the same. I do think that since case was not valid due to the time frame it was submitted in, that the judges made the very best decision available to them.

BTW Serge ... not only did the judges not say the Dems were innocent, they also did not say they were guilty. To state only 1/2 of that is to not be very forthright in how you present it.

[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.

Do you think Abhisit should give up because of who he has to deal with? Or do you think he should slowly work on changing people from where he can actually do something about it?

The only way forward is not to go backwards. The red shirts just want to go backwards, otherwise they would be presenting policies for change, not for the same thing that they had before.

I have never been an advocate of "the end justifies the means" and I certainly do not have any magic formula to root out the fundamental problems in this society but taking your point about DO I THINK HE SHOULD SLOWLY WORK ON CHANGING PEOPLE well there you have it, nearly 2 years and what has changed, police even more corrupt than ever {my opinion} nothing apparently changing for the rural poor, an absolutely embarrassing statement concerning English as the official language, a real cock up over 3G well I could go on but what's the point.

[phiphidon]

Constitution Court president among two minority judges in Democrat's case

Constitution Court President Chat Chonlaworn was among the two judges who voted against the Democrat Party in the dissolution case.

The other judge is Udomsak Nitimontree.

The four other judges, who voted in favour of the Democrat, are Boonsong Kulbuppha, Jaral Phakdeethanakul, Supoj Khaimuk and Nurak Praneet.

-- The Nation 2010-11-29

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".

[rubl]

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.

Do you think Abhisit should give up because of who he has to deal with? Or do you think he should slowly work on changing people from where he can actually do something about it?

The only way forward is not to go backwards. The red shirts just want to go backwards, otherwise they would be presenting policies for change, not for the same thing that they had before.

I have never been an advocate of "the end justifies the means" and I certainly do not have any magic formula to root out the fundamental problems in this society but taking your point about DO I THINK HE SHOULD SLOWLY WORK ON CHANGING PEOPLE well there you have it, nearly 2 years and what has changed, police even more corrupt than ever {my opinion} nothing apparently changing for the rural poor, an absolutely embarrassing statement concerning English as the official language, a real cock up over 3G well I could go on but what's the point.

You forgot to mention a few things, slight oversight I assume:

Whenever the government and PM Abhisit does or says something groups petition commissions to investigate a) is that allowed, b} is it in the right form, c) is it proper? Furthermore a few court cases are filed to get answers on such important things like 'can the PM lift his finger without full backing of the parliament' and 'didn't he lift the wrong finger'. If the opposition had given a wee bit more constructive comments and spent less time on traveling to see their lord and master, maybe we would have seen some progress. Still to educate people in self-reliance and entitlement you need more than just a few years.

Edited November 30, 2010 by rubl

[hammered]

I am disappointed with yesterday's decision, in that I wanted a decision based on the merits of the case and not to see the case thrown out on a technicality. That being said, I think the result would have been the same. I do think that since case was not valid due to the time frame it was submitted in, that the judges made the very best decision available to them.

BTW Serge ... not only did the judges not say the Dems were innocent, they also did not say they were guilty. To state only 1/2 of that is to not be very forthright in how you present it.

People are innocent until proven guilty.

Interesting thing is this was very law based decision. Technicalities always are. Snoh got off the other week on a technicality and a year or so ago on one of the most double stabndard for rich cases ever seen, and a year or so ago several Thaksin cases fell on technicalities.

[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 ?

[jdinasia]

I am disappointed with yesterday's decision, in that I wanted a decision based on the merits of the case and not to see the case thrown out on a technicality. That being said, I think the result would have been the same. I do think that since case was not valid due to the time frame it was submitted in, that the judges made the very best decision available to them.

BTW Serge ... not only did the judges not say the Dems were innocent, they also did not say they were guilty. To state only 1/2 of that is to not be very forthright in how you present it.

People are innocent until proven guilty.

Interesting thing is this was very law based decision. Technicalities always are. Snoh got off the other week on a technicality and a year or so ago on one of the most double stabndard for rich cases ever seen, and a year or so ago several Thaksin cases fell on technicalities.

Oh, I agree with the innocent until proven guilty statement. I would just have liked to have seen that happen!

Sticking to the rule of law is vital. It is how this case was decided and the others too. It sucks to see people freed on technicalities but the adversarial nature of justice systems loads the deck for the state so often that keeping the technicalities in play levels the field sometimes.

[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?

Why cant it be done, Thailand is not unique in the way it holds it's elections, it's much the same story in most third world countries, corruption, violence, vote buying and the whole nine yards, observers have been at numerous government elections in recent times but unfortunately the corrupt usually find a way around it, often with the collusion of the main party who will do all they can to insure they get the result they want.

As for holding it against Abhisit for being well educated on the contrary, but I did hope and expect a somewhat different approach bearing in mind he spent a lot of his life in England where one assumes he learnt something about the democratic approach to politics from a system and country while not perfect is considerably better and fairer than most.

[wackysleet]

"your judged by the company you keep".

At least we can all agree on this. If you associate yourself with a movement, any movement, you need to accept responsibility for that association.

I don't like the BJT, but I accept them because I know the alternatives are all worse. That is what a coalition government is all about. I take responsibility for the evil in my camp. That is the grown up thing to do. Some of these MPs are real bastards, but this is making the best of a bad situation. So in that sense, yes, I do support them. I am an enabler of corruption. I see no better option available to me.

By that same standard, you support arson, looting, pillaging and violence. You are condoning all of that, as well as Thaksin's greed and excess, by being part of the red cause. Own up to it. Be a man. Stop being disingenuous. You are pro Thaksin.

I find your logic and powers of deduction somewhat suspect, because a person has sympathy for a group of people that are getting the short end of the shitty stick and that includes all the rural people and there are many that would not support any party believing them to be serving their own interests first and formost.

I condone nothing of an illegal nature and never have but you on the other hand admit to condoning it, the difference between you and I is the basic principle that you do not seem to be able to get your head around, your philosophy would appear to encompass the idea that "if your not with us then your against us" I believe that ultimately we both want the same thing and that is a government for the people by the people, fairness for all.

Of course the country will always be run by the elite classes, they are the only ones educated enough to understand the complexities but be fair and be seen to be fair. I had hoped that Mark would have pulled the country together but nearly two yrs and very little to show, for a start lets get all of these so called red shirt investigations out in the open and see and punish the perpetrators make public all information possible.

[jdinasia]

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?

Why cant it be done, Thailand is not unique in the way it holds it's elections, it's much the same story in most third world countries, corruption, violence, vote buying and the whole nine yards, observers have been at numerous government elections in recent times but unfortunately the corrupt usually find a way around it, often with the collusion of the main party who will do all they can to insure they get the result they want.

As for holding it against Abhisit for being well educated on the contrary, but I did hope and expect a somewhat different approach bearing in mind he spent a lot of his life in England where one assumes he learnt something about the democratic approach to politics from a system and country while not perfect is considerably better and fairer than most.

Abhisit is stuck with the system that Thailand has, and he is doing quite well (imho) about making a stand. Think back not too long ago. Dem gov of BKK steps down over firetruck scandal. PPP PM (that started the scandal) stays in office. More recently, Suthep steps down as DPM while contesting the by-elections. MP's from other parties choose not to leave their minister status while doing the same thing. I doubt if you took any UK PM and put him in the middle of the Thai system that they would do any better! (Worse in Maggie Thatcher's case!)

Regarding election monitors --- you ask why it can't be done and then proceed to tell us all why it can't. In this case the collusion would be from whoever controlled the region. I would LOVE to see free and fair elections here! With no vote buying. With no coercion. etc etc ... but that won't be happening. All we can do is hope and pray for more conscientious Thais to point out voting fraud as they see it happening.

[Throatwobbler]

I will, however, point out one aspect of your post and that is if people do support the red shirts, then they do support Thaksin.

That's just not true. If you look at someone like Giles Ungpakorn, you'll see that he's very sympathetic to the reds but was a critic of Thaksin.He's very clear about this and, in fact, it's hardly surprising that a Trotskyite would be critical of a capitalist bastard like Thaksin, whilst being sympathetic to a movement predominantly of the urban and rural poor. The reds are clearly a broad church - maybe too broad - and whilst the inane Thaksin-red-Thaksin-red merry-go-round may read nicely in rags like the Nation, it's balls.

What some seem to forget is that there is a significant difference between party line, party leaders and the 'common' members. Enough examples can be found to say Thaksin = PTP = red-shirts = PTP = Thaksin.

Having said that only means the organization and the leaders are close to synonyms. UDD leaders had frequent calls with Thaksin, red-shirts listened to the UDD leaders (like burn-it-my-way Arisman), etc., etc..

The tragedy is that the common red-shirt with valid griefs have had their cause high-jacked by professional demagogues who seem bound on re-instating k. Thaksin and his power clique. The "I'll make you rich" from k. Thaksin may have helped. Better to be duped and exploited by your local elite who you've known for decades than being ruled by those from far-away Bangkok.

The last few years have seen billions spent on 'get back Thaksin'. If that money and especially the effort had been spent differently ......

Exactly what I feel. The common red shirts with very valid causes have been mislead by people who only care about them as a large group that they can use to put pressure on the government or whoever. The Udd leaders couldn't care less about the plights of the poor. All they want to do is to throw them the odd meatless bone from the table they are gorging themselves on. that is why i can not support this movement. The leaders do not want to do anything to help their supporters. If a real movement came along, borne from the poor rural class and with genuine ideas to improve the lot of their people then they would have my support 100%. The Udd is not this movement and I hope one day the rural people realize this, and put their energy into a true movement that has their interests at heart.