Panich Is Back In Thailand But Is He Still An MP?

[jayboy]

I think i read a few days ago about one of abhisits aides being found guilty in Thailand of defamation and was given a suspended sentence. If memory serves me right this guy has kept his position as an aide and MP ( the case was brought by the police agaisnt him after he claimed irregularities in buying bullet proof vests).

I seem to recall reading that his position as an MP is not affected despite being found guilty, did I also hear that being guilty of defamation does not mean removal from post?

It seems the constitution allows for MPs to keep their positions based on what they are convicted of, so it is not guarantee that this oaf will lose his position, although here's hoping he does.

It was a case from 2003 (so not an Abhisit aide) and yes, it was decided 8 years later, 2 days ago.

He was given a suspended sentence on his jail sentence (six months).

AFAIK, defamation is specifically mentioned as an exclusion to the loss of being an MP in Article 106(11) of the Constitution.

I think the guiding principle is that those erring politicians who are Democrats (the elite's chosen party) can get away with anything.For the rest the courts throw everything at them except the kitchen sink (and that too sometimes).

[random]

I think i read a few days ago about one of abhisits aides being found guilty in Thailand of defamation and was given a suspended sentence. If memory serves me right this guy has kept his position as an aide and MP ( the case was brought by the police agaisnt him after he claimed irregularities in buying bullet proof vests).

I seem to recall reading that his position as an MP is not affected despite being found guilty, did I also hear that being guilty of defamation does not mean removal from post?

It seems the constitution allows for MPs to keep their positions based on what they are convicted of, so it is not guarantee that this oaf will lose his position, although here's hoping he does.

It was a case from 2003 (so not an Abhisit aide) and yes, it was decided 8 years later, 2 days ago.

He was given a suspended sentence on his jail sentence (six months).

AFAIK, defamation is specifically mentioned as an exclusion to proceedings to terminate membership in the House of Representatives in Article 106(11) of the Constitution.

But he is an abhist aide now, or am I mistaken?

[whybother]

I think the guiding principle is that those erring politicians who are Democrats (the elite's chosen party) can get away with anything.For the rest the courts throw everything at them except the kitchen sink (and that too sometimes).

Do all the red elites choose the Democrats too?

[jayboy]

I think the guiding principle is that those erring politicians who are Democrats (the elite's chosen party) can get away with anything.For the rest the courts throw everything at them except the kitchen sink (and that too sometimes).

Do all the red elites choose the Democrats too?

Yawn

[jayjay0]

I think the guiding principle is that those erring politicians who are Democrats (the elite's chosen party) can get away with anything.For the rest the courts throw everything at them except the kitchen sink (and that too sometimes).

Do all the red elites choose the Democrats too?

Take it out side kid's

[whybother]

I think the guiding principle is that those erring politicians who are Democrats (the elite's chosen party) can get away with anything.For the rest the courts throw everything at them except the kitchen sink (and that too sometimes).

Do all the red elites choose the Democrats too?

Yawn

Oh. So the Democrats aren't the elite's chosen party then ...

[Buchholz]

I think i read a few days ago about one of abhisits aides being found guilty in Thailand of defamation and was given a suspended sentence. If memory serves me right this guy has kept his position as an aide and MP ( the case was brought by the police agaisnt him after he claimed irregularities in buying bullet proof vests).

I seem to recall reading that his position as an MP is not affected despite being found guilty, did I also hear that being guilty of defamation does not mean removal from post?

It seems the constitution allows for MPs to keep their positions based on what they are convicted of, so it is not guarantee that this oaf will lose his position, although here's hoping he does.

It was a case from 2003 (so not an Abhisit aide) and yes, it was decided 8 years later, 2 days ago.

He was given a suspended sentence on his jail sentence (six months).

AFAIK, defamation is specifically mentioned as an exclusion to the loss of being an MP in Article 106(11) of the Constitution.

I think the guiding principle is that those erring politicians who are Democrats (the elite's chosen party) can get away with anything.For the rest the courts throw everything at them except the kitchen sink (and that too sometimes).

The article makes no provision for any particular political party, eg. the many defamation cases against PTP MP Jatuporn would have the same clause applied.

[Buchholz]

I think i read a few days ago about one of abhisits aides being found guilty in Thailand of defamation and was given a suspended sentence. If memory serves me right this guy has kept his position as an aide and MP ( the case was brought by the police agaisnt him after he claimed irregularities in buying bullet proof vests).

I seem to recall reading that his position as an MP is not affected despite being found guilty, did I also hear that being guilty of defamation does not mean removal from post?

It seems the constitution allows for MPs to keep their positions based on what they are convicted of, so it is not guarantee that this oaf will lose his position, although here's hoping he does.

It was a case from 2003 (so not an Abhisit aide) and yes, it was decided 8 years later, 2 days ago.

He was given a suspended sentence on his jail sentence (six months).

AFAIK, defamation is specifically mentioned as an exclusion to proceedings to terminate membership in the House of Representatives in Article 106(11) of the Constitution.

But he is an abhist aide now, or am I mistaken?

No, he is not an aide, he's a Deputy Cabinet Minister.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Buchholz

[jayboy]

I think the guiding principle is that those erring politicians who are Democrats (the elite's chosen party) can get away with anything.For the rest the courts throw everything at them except the kitchen sink (and that too sometimes).

Do all the red elites choose the Democrats too?

Yawn

Oh. So the Democrats aren't the elite's chosen party then ...

How that bizarre conclusion follows is inexplicable.

It's tiresome question you raised because this area has been discussed so many times.

Of course there are many elites but in the context the controlling elite in Thailand has a very distinct identity - feudal, military, corporate monopolists who won't hand over or share power even when the Thai people express themselves in a popular vote.

Professor McCargo summarises the position.

"Asking the question as to whether the Democrats could win in the forthcoming general election, which is widely anticipated to take place in 2011, Professor McCargo reviewed the party’s performance at the ballot box going back to the mid 1980s. What he noted, is that one needs to go back to 1986 to find the last time they won a decisive election victory. And, as McCargo continued through the nineties and into the noughties, a clear pattern emerged. Yes, the Democrats can win power but rarely via an election and, moreover, they struggle to hold onto it. The key point, as McCargo delicately put it, is that time and time again “extra-electoral forces” intervene to seal their fate either way."

On the forum the question can either be discussed as intelligent adults or as hare brained bar talk.Your choice.

[whybother]

How that bizarre conclusion follows is inexplicable.

It's tiresome question you raised because this area has been discussed so many times.

Of course there are many elites but in the context the controlling elite in Thailand has a very distinct identity - feudal, military, corporate monopolists who won't hand over or share power even when the Thai people express themselves in a popular vote.

Professor McCargo summarises the position.

"Asking the question as to whether the Democrats could win in the forthcoming general election, which is widely anticipated to take place in 2011, Professor McCargo reviewed the party's performance at the ballot box going back to the mid 1980s. What he noted, is that one needs to go back to 1986 to find the last time they won a decisive election victory. And, as McCargo continued through the nineties and into the noughties, a clear pattern emerged. Yes, the Democrats can win power but rarely via an election and, moreover, they struggle to hold onto it. The key point, as McCargo delicately put it, is that time and time again "extra-electoral forces" intervene to seal their fate either way."

On the forum the question can either be discussed as intelligent adults or as hare brained bar talk.Your choice.

Yes ... "yawn" sounds more like hare brained bar talk to me.

Feudal ... are you suggesting that this doesn't exist in the North/North East?

Military ... are you suggesting that there is no military support for Thaksin's parties?

Corporate ... are you suggesting that no rich business people support the red shirts?

Your constant references to the "elite" and "sino-thai" keep pushing your premise of this being a rich vs poor fight.

IMO, it is no such thing. The fight is actually between two groups of "elite", neither of which, historically, have done anything to improve the lives of the poor.

[jayjay0]

I think i read a few days ago about one of abhisits aides being found guilty in Thailand of defamation and was given a suspended sentence. If memory serves me right this guy has kept his position as an aide and MP ( the case was brought by the police agaisnt him after he claimed irregularities in buying bullet proof vests).

I seem to recall reading that his position as an MP is not affected despite being found guilty, did I also hear that being guilty of defamation does not mean removal from post?

It seems the constitution allows for MPs to keep their positions based on what they are convicted of, so it is not guarantee that this oaf will lose his position, although here's hoping he does.

It was a case from 2003 (so not an Abhisit aide) and yes, it was decided 8 years later, 2 days ago.

He was given a suspended sentence on his jail sentence (six months).

AFAIK, defamation is specifically mentioned as an exclusion to the loss of being an MP in Article 106(11) of the Constitution.

I think the guiding principle is that those erring politicians who are Democrats (the elite's chosen party) can get away with anything.For the rest the courts throw everything at them except the kitchen sink (and that too sometimes).

The article makes no provision for any particular political party, eg. the many defamation cases against PTP MP Jatuporn would have the same clause applied.

Buchholz You must be new here. (Sorry couldn't resist)

Only a newbie would think reality has any thing to do with jayboy's thought process.

Edited January 23, 2011 by jayjay0

[jayboy]

How that bizarre conclusion follows is inexplicable.

It's tiresome question you raised because this area has been discussed so many times.

Of course there are many elites but in the context the controlling elite in Thailand has a very distinct identity - feudal, military, corporate monopolists who won't hand over or share power even when the Thai people express themselves in a popular vote.

Professor McCargo summarises the position.

"Asking the question as to whether the Democrats could win in the forthcoming general election, which is widely anticipated to take place in 2011, Professor McCargo reviewed the party's performance at the ballot box going back to the mid 1980s. What he noted, is that one needs to go back to 1986 to find the last time they won a decisive election victory. And, as McCargo continued through the nineties and into the noughties, a clear pattern emerged. Yes, the Democrats can win power but rarely via an election and, moreover, they struggle to hold onto it. The key point, as McCargo delicately put it, is that time and time again "extra-electoral forces" intervene to seal their fate either way."

On the forum the question can either be discussed as intelligent adults or as hare brained bar talk.Your choice.

Yes ... "yawn" sounds more like hare brained bar talk to me.

Feudal ... are you suggesting that this doesn't exist in the North/North East?

Military ... are you suggesting that there is no military support for Thaksin's parties?

Corporate ... are you suggesting that no rich business people support the red shirts?

Your constant references to the "elite" and "sino-thai" keep pushing your premise of this being a rich vs poor fight.

IMO, it is no such thing. The fight is actually between two groups of "elite", neither of which, historically, have done anything to improve the lives of the poor.

Yes there is an argument that the current struggle is between competing elites, but your attempts to muddy the water doesn't help understanding.If one refers to the ruling elite I think all but the most obtuse will understand what is meant.

I'm not sure the Sino-Thai dimension is particularly relevant, except that the PAD oriented Bangkok middle class, who have been the ruling elite's useful idiots, are mostly Sino-Thai.I don't by the way regard Sino-Thai as a term of abuse.

Of course there's a rich/poor dimension to this but it's only part of the explanation.Driving all is a greedy ruling elite's greed and fear, abetted by an equally fearful middle class.Of course there are businessmen, intellectuals, military people and students on the Red side.Since it's quite possible the Reds command a majority of the Thai people it's hardly surprising.And yes of course there are some cynical opportunist from Thaksin downward who also support the Reds.

I note you simply ignore Professor McCargo's point.The trouble is that too many people seize on peripheral detail to provide a general explanation of events in Thailand.It requires knowledge, wide reading and an analytical capability.Otherwise it's just tribal stuff or in the case of some foreigner "businessmen" a horror they can't always prance around Siam Paragon or Central World at their pleasure.

[whybother]

Yes there is an argument that the current struggle is between competing elites, but your attempts to muddy the water doesn't help understanding.If one refers to the ruling elite I think all but the most obtuse will understand what is meant.

I'm not sure the Sino-Thai dimension is particularly relevant, except that the PAD oriented Bangkok middle class, who have been the ruling elite's useful idiots, are mostly Sino-Thai.I don't by the way regard Sino-Thai as a term of abuse.

Of course there's a rich/poor dimension to this but it's only part of the explanation.Driving all is a greedy ruling elite's greed and fear, abetted by an equally fearful middle class.Of course there are businessmen, intellectuals, military people and students on the Red side.Since it's quite possible the Reds command a majority of the Thai people it's hardly surprising.And yes of course there are some cynical opportunist from Thaksin downward who also support the Reds.

I note you simply ignore Professor McCargo's point.The trouble is that too many people seize on peripheral detail to provide a general explanation of events in Thailand.It requires knowledge, wide reading and an analytical capability.Otherwise it's just tribal stuff or in the case of some foreigner "businessmen" a horror they can't always prance around Siam Paragon or Central World at their pleasure.

The water IS muddy. I am not doing anything extra to muddy it.

One referring to the ruling elite, particularly "greedy ruling elite" is just a emotive tool used by the red shirts. The fact is the reds are made up of rich elite businessmen and military people as well as poorer Thais. It's quite possible (actually very likely) that a majority of Thai people do NOT support the reds. There are also a lot of poorer Thais that don't support the red shirts.

The reality is that most reds support the cynical opportunists that you mention. That's how these cynical opportunists get into power. And then they do nothing to improve the lives of the poor people.

I didn't comment on McCargo's points, because no party has won an election since 1986 except for 2005 when TRT won after buying in all the smaller parties that were previously in their coalition. The Democrats have usually only been just behind the leading party, with no one getting a majority. Then it's just the standard wheeling and dealing to cobble together a coalition government.

[jayboy]

Yes there is an argument that the current struggle is between competing elites, but your attempts to muddy the water doesn't help understanding.If one refers to the ruling elite I think all but the most obtuse will understand what is meant.

I'm not sure the Sino-Thai dimension is particularly relevant, except that the PAD oriented Bangkok middle class, who have been the ruling elite's useful idiots, are mostly Sino-Thai.I don't by the way regard Sino-Thai as a term of abuse.

Of course there's a rich/poor dimension to this but it's only part of the explanation.Driving all is a greedy ruling elite's greed and fear, abetted by an equally fearful middle class.Of course there are businessmen, intellectuals, military people and students on the Red side.Since it's quite possible the Reds command a majority of the Thai people it's hardly surprising.And yes of course there are some cynical opportunist from Thaksin downward who also support the Reds.

I note you simply ignore Professor McCargo's point.The trouble is that too many people seize on peripheral detail to provide a general explanation of events in Thailand.It requires knowledge, wide reading and an analytical capability.Otherwise it's just tribal stuff or in the case of some foreigner "businessmen" a horror they can't always prance around Siam Paragon or Central World at their pleasure.

The water IS muddy. I am not doing anything extra to muddy it.

One referring to the ruling elite, particularly "greedy ruling elite" is just a emotive tool used by the red shirts. The fact is the reds are made up of rich elite businessmen and military people as well as poorer Thais. It's quite possible (actually very likely) that a majority of Thai people do NOT support the reds. There are also a lot of poorer Thais that don't support the red shirts.

The reality is that most reds support the cynical opportunists that you mention. That's how these cynical opportunists get into power. And then they do nothing to improve the lives of the poor people.

I didn't comment on McCargo's points, because no party has won an election since 1986 except for 2005 when TRT won after buying in all the smaller parties that were previously in their coalition. The Democrats have usually only been just behind the leading party, with no one getting a majority. Then it's just the standard wheeling and dealing to cobble together a coalition government.

Well at least that's a coherent response, even though I think you are completely wrong in various aspects.

[whybother]

Well at least that's a coherent response, even though I think you are completely wrong in various aspects.

Which ones?

[webfact]

DeputyPM Suthep affirms MP Panich's parliamentary status after his release from Cambodia;lab test in medical checkup finds malaria infection /MCOT

[jayboy]

Well at least that's a coherent response, even though I think you are completely wrong in various aspects.

Which ones?

I don't think the concept of a dominant elite is simply an emotive tool invented by the Reds.This really requires some knowledge and understanding (many hours with the books), and I am only now beginning to understand how rare this is on this forum.

I think the Red movement is transcending its Thaksinite origins, a slow process to be sure but definitely discernible

I think the Abhisit/Korn populist platform is in direct response to the challenges posed by earlier measures taken by the TRT administration.Nothing wrong with that by the way.It's called politics.

[whybother]

I don't think the concept of a dominant elite is simply an emotive tool invented by the Reds.This really requires some knowledge and understanding (many hours with the books), and I am only now beginning to understand how rare this is on this forum.

I think the Red movement is transcending its Thaksinite origins, a slow process to be sure but definitely discernible

I think the Abhisit/Korn populist platform is in direct response to the challenges posed by earlier measures taken by the TRT administration.Nothing wrong with that by the way.It's called politics.

I didn't actually say they invented it. They use it as an emotive tool to make it sound like they are all for the poor. When it is actually the rich red businessmen and politicians in the North and North East that are abusing the poor as much as anyone.

There may currently be a small move away from Thaksin, but generally there is plenty of evidence of many different red factions still supporting him.

[Buchholz]

There may currently be a small move away from Thaksin, but generally there is plenty of evidence of many different red factions still supporting him.

Like yesterday, for example...

Meanwhile, a Shinawatra is opening ceremonies for the Red Shirts...

Followed by a Pheu Thai Party MP...

PTP = Red Shirts = Thaksin...

Northeastern red shirts meet leaders in Khon Kaen

Red shirts from Northeastern provinces gathered in Khon Kaen yesterday for a function to introduce all leaders of the movement in the region.

Khon Kaen was chosen by the red-shirt leadership in Bangkok because it was viewed as the heart of the movement in the Northeast, said Noppadon Sidathan, coordinator of the Democracy Lovers from 40 Districts of Six Northeastern Provinces. The function began at about 3pm and was scheduled to end at midnight.

The opening ceremony was presided over by former Army Chief General Chaisit Shinawatra, a cousin of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Jatuporn Prompan, a red-shirt leader and MP from the opposition Pheu Thai Party, was to address the gathering.