Deputy PM Suthep Denied He Would Shine Thaksin's Shoes

[stepenwolf1958]

In all of this, what Mr. Suthep made 2009, as "well done job" for his own pockets-i don't understand only one thing.

In all of that muddy water business, is it just about "violating Constitution" or is it about the conflict of interest or is it simply said, just and only the crime?

In case that he was prosecuted, if he wasn't escape the responsibility by trick-resigning his MP position in return to stay Deputy of PM, how the charge would be?

Probably some law "expert" here could answer. Of course, if could swallow this ugly and dirty game of keep seizing the power-by Mr. Suthep.

[termad]

Suthep Thaugsuban = a dangerous, two faced liar of the highest order..

Nah, there are people of a much higher order that are far more dangerous and two-faced. Like the man Suthep would escort to jail

When you say escort to gaol you mean side by side as in handcuffed together and both facing Crimes Against Humanity and posibly party to murder charges? Is that what you meant to say?

I've been meaning to ask you; you spend so much time on this forum defending the Abhisit/MilitaryElite coalition government what will you do when Abhisit and his cohorts are kicked out?

[jdinasia]

In all of this, what Mr. Suthep made 2009, as "well done job" for his own pockets-i don't understand only one thing.

In all of that muddy water business, is it just about "violating Constitution" or is it about the conflict of interest or is it simply said, just and only the crime?

In case that he was prosecuted, if he wasn't escape the responsibility by trick-resigning his MP position in return to stay Deputy of PM, how the charge would be?

Probably some law "expert" here could answer. Of course, if could swallow this ugly and dirty game of keep seizing the power-by Mr. Suthep.

Was there a crime? He wasn't charged. He probably did own shares in a company that did business with the state. If true he would have been knocked out of his MP slot and had to run again in the by-elections which he clearly would have won (he recently ran for MP in the Surat By-election and won soundly. He chose to relinquish his MP status so as to not affect his position in the cabinet (only one position, that of PM requires you to be an MP), In the other recent by-elections for similar reasons BJT (remember the ones that the reds labeled as traitors) all won their constituencies cleanly

[termad]

Dep PM Denies Offering to Shine Thaksin's Shoes

A deputy prime minister says he has never pledged to give shoeshining for ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra if the latter returns.

Deputy Prime Minister in charge of national security Suthep Thaugsuban stated his discussion with Democrat Party members on his plan for fugitive former premier Thaksin Shinawatra if he returns was about turning him in to law-enforcement officers.

Suthep said the rumor that he would shine Thaksin's shoes as a welcoming treat when the latter disembarks from the plane should be from a misunderstanding over his talks in southern dialect with Democrat MPs that he would wear a full business suit to receive the latter at the airport.

He then stated the Election Commission's suggested scrapping of advance voting to solve poll frauds should not be the best way out since such offenses could occur on the election day anyway.

Suthep said advance voting should be still necessary for those who cannot cast their ballots on the election day.

He assured that the election will certainly take place and said he believed the House will be dissolved in early May

The deputy premier remarked he was not aware of the planned resignation of the election commissioner in charge of political party affairs, Sodsri Sattayatham, while the rumor on a military coup is groundless.

Suthep stated the army has no wish to meddle in politics as it wants the country to carry on under democratic rule.

-- Tan Network 2011-04-04

With this Southern dialect business are we sure that he said Democratic rule or Democrat rule?

[termad]

In all of this, what Mr. Suthep made 2009, as "well done job" for his own pockets-i don't understand only one thing.

In all of that muddy water business, is it just about "violating Constitution" or is it about the conflict of interest or is it simply said, just and only the crime?

In case that he was prosecuted, if he wasn't escape the responsibility by trick-resigning his MP position in return to stay Deputy of PM, how the charge would be?

Probably some law "expert" here could answer. Of course, if could swallow this ugly and dirty game of keep seizing the power-by Mr. Suthep.

Was there a crime? He wasn't charged. He probably did own shares in a company that did business with the state. If true he would have been knocked out of his MP slot and had to run again in the by-elections which he clearly would have won (he recently ran for MP in the Surat By-election and won soundly. He chose to relinquish his MP status so as to not affect his position in the cabinet (only one position, that of PM requires you to be an MP), In the other recent by-elections for similar reasons BJT (remember the ones that the reds labeled as traitors) all won their constituencies cleanly

I'm confused. "He probably did own shares in a company that did business with the state"? But a charge against Thaksin was that his wife tried to buy a property from a state agency and that charge got him a sentence of two years in gaol - even thought the Police investigation said that they had checked the bids and that there was no collusion and Thaksins wife ( a very successful business lady in her own right) was refunded all of the money that she had paid for the property. Where's the difference?

[stepenwolf1958]

In all of this, what Mr. Suthep made 2009, as "well done job" for his own pockets-i don't understand only one thing.

In all of that muddy water business, is it just about "violating Constitution" or is it about the conflict of interest or is it simply said, just and only the crime?

In case that he was prosecuted, if he wasn't escape the responsibility by trick-resigning his MP position in return to stay Deputy of PM, how the charge would be?

Probably some law "expert" here could answer. Of course, if could swallow this ugly and dirty game of keep seizing the power-by Mr. Suthep.

Was there a crime? He wasn't charged. He probably did own shares in a company that did business with the state. If true he would have been knocked out of his MP slot and had to run again in the by-elections which he clearly would have won (he recently ran for MP in the Surat By-election and won soundly. He chose to relinquish his MP status so as to not affect his position in the cabinet (only one position, that of PM requires you to be an MP), In the other recent by-elections for similar reasons BJT (remember the ones that the reds labeled as traitors) all won their constituencies cleanly

I don't know-you tell me JD.

All i know is there was violating of the Constitution in way that look alike the conflict of interest-abusing his position to gain benefit from the Government for his business.which is the crime. That is what i know.

JD, don't pretend naive or uninformed about the life. Don't say nonsense like there was no crime if he was not charged. You know very well, in life, that depend on many circumstances and for sure there was a deal to exchange withdrawing charges for to keep seize the power. You are not so childish to don't be pretty sure there was a DEAL.

If he were prosecuted-you just can imagine what would be with all Government and all(your?) beloved Democrats including their Chieftain.

Don't mind me this but seem you are so stubbornly on their side that you are loosing healthy sense and logic, reality. No hard feelings.

[stepenwolf1958]

JD, to understand each other better, i must to say about your words.

He probably did own shares in a company that did business with the state.

Firstly, it is not for PROBABLY, it is truth.

Next, it was NOT doing business with state. Words "concessions from the Government" are very clear and precise. It is conflict of interest, it is a crime. In any country in this world, it would be not matter of discussion if you get caught with the fingers in jar of jam.

So, if you want to accept the truth about how much democrats(especially Mr. Suthep) are wrongdoers, it would be nice of you. If you don't want to, keep going on in your way. It's your right.

BTW, do you remember what for was charged Mr. Samak? Can you compare this 2 situations at all? I don't think so.

[stepenwolf1958]

In all of this, what Mr. Suthep made 2009, as "well done job" for his own pockets-i don't understand only one thing.

In all of that muddy water business, is it just about "violating Constitution" or is it about the conflict of interest or is it simply said, just and only the crime?

In case that he was prosecuted, if he wasn't escape the responsibility by trick-resigning his MP position in return to stay Deputy of PM, how the charge would be?

Probably some law "expert" here could answer. Of course, if could swallow this ugly and dirty game of keep seizing the power-by Mr. Suthep.

Was there a crime? He wasn't charged. He probably did own shares in a company that did business with the state. If true he would have been knocked out of his MP slot and had to run again in the by-elections which he clearly would have won (he recently ran for MP in the Surat By-election and won soundly. He chose to relinquish his MP status so as to not affect his position in the cabinet (only one position, that of PM requires you to be an MP), In the other recent by-elections for similar reasons BJT (remember the ones that the reds labeled as traitors) all won their constituencies cleanly

I'm confused. "He probably did own shares in a company that did business with the state"? But a charge against Thaksin was that his wife tried to buy a property from a state agency and that charge got him a sentence of two years in gaol - even thought the Police investigation said that they had checked the bids and that there was no collusion and Thaksins wife ( a very successful business lady in her own right) was refunded all of the money that she had paid for the property. Where's the difference?

Ah, probably JD has some solution for your confusion "termad".

[animatic]

A crime remains a crime if it is an open ended situation that keeps it a crime, if a change of status also changes the crime to non-crime then it stop being a crime IF that is how the law is written.

For instance Murder has no statute of limitations.

But Sanoh's Alpine purchases were subject to statute

of limitations after the fact. He had it stalled till too late.

It seems the conflict of interest laws for MPs are only good WHILE the conflict exists and the MP is still an MP.

In the Suthep Media company case,

the punishment is to be forced to resign and be fined IF at the time you are charged you are an MP.

If the charges are not filed, before you resign as an MP, then the substance of the charges ceases to exist.

Suthep resigned, and so as the law is written, there was no charges to be filed, since he was no longer an MP.

He then, divested the media shares that became an issue, handily drubbed the Red Shirt PTP candidate, with a history of dropsy, and returned as a MP.

Hey, I don't write these laws.

Thaksin was caught for signing papers to allow Potjamin to buy the land, those documents still existed,

and the facts of the case still existed at the time of his being charged and later conviction, only LATER did the land deal get thrown out and later still did Potjamin get the money back.

Again I didn't write the laws, but the facts remain Thaksin could not withdraw his signature from the deal, or if he could he did NOT do so, and that is the basis of his conviction. He was no longer PM, but it seems this is not the same law as Suthep was 'not formally charged' under.

Suthep read the law and resigned as MP, knowing full well he would be re-elected and exited the actual state of his being an MP with state concession conflict of intertest. Once that was done, they could not press charges on something that no longer existed.

in short. Thaksin's illegal state remained till he was charged.

Suthep's legal state changed before he could be charges.

Edited April 4, 2011 by animatic

[jdinasia]

JD, to understand each other better, i must to say about your words.

He probably did own shares in a company that did business with the state.

Firstly, it is not for PROBABLY, it is truth.

Next, it was NOT doing business with state. Words "concessions from the Government" are very clear and precise. It is conflict of interest, it is a crime. In any country in this world, it would be not matter of discussion if you get caught with the fingers in jar of jam.

So, if you want to accept the truth about how much democrats(especially Mr. Suthep) are wrongdoers, it would be nice of you. If you don't want to, keep going on in your way. It's your right.

BTW, do you remember what for was charged Mr. Samak? Can you compare this 2 situations at all? I don't think so.

Wrong --- in many countries politicians are allowed to build a "Chinese Wall" and not have to divest themselves of all of their business assets to remain in government. They are forced to put all the assets into a blind trust that they cannot under any circumstances know the details about. The trustee then has absolute power to buy/ sell/ divest/ invest etc. As for my statement that he probably did own shares, that is based upon the reality that I don't know if he did or did not. The case never went to court. Make whatever claim you want to but .... "concessions from the government" do not indicate ANY conflict of interest, instead it indicates a POTENTIAL for conflict of interest. If the business that he probably had shares in did not acquire any NEW contracts after he gained his position then there is only the potential. PM Samak accepted money from a job and then lied about it to investigators. PM Samak could have been re-elected PM the very day he was forced out. Can I compare the two cases? Sure. Suthep saw a threat to his position as DPM and rather than lie to anyone he voluntarily and without admitting guilt resigned him MP status thus allowing him to remain as DPM. Suthep was later overwhelmingly re-elected in his constituency in Surat. Samak when faced with facts about payments for his cooking show chose to lie about it and was removed from his position as PM (not as MP) and could have stepped right back in but the TRT/PPP/PTP paymaster decided that he wanted his bro-in-law instead (perhaps in an attempt to stave off further defections from PPP that were disenchanted by Samak being in that position. Samak died of liver cancer so never had a chance to prove himself before an electorate again. Comparison enough?

[stepenwolf1958]

JD, to understand each other better, i must to say about your words.

He probably did own shares in a company that did business with the state.

Firstly, it is not for PROBABLY, it is truth.

Next, it was NOT doing business with state. Words "concessions from the Government" are very clear and precise. It is conflict of interest, it is a crime. In any country in this world, it would be not matter of discussion if you get caught with the fingers in jar of jam.

So, if you want to accept the truth about how much democrats(especially Mr. Suthep) are wrongdoers, it would be nice of you. If you don't want to, keep going on in your way. It's your right.

BTW, do you remember what for was charged Mr. Samak? Can you compare this 2 situations at all? I don't think so.

Wrong --- in many countries politicians are allowed to build a "Chinese Wall" and not have to divest themselves of all of their business assets to remain in government. They are forced to put all the assets into a blind trust that they cannot under any circumstances know the details about. The trustee then has absolute power to buy/ sell/ divest/ invest etc. As for my statement that he probably did own shares, that is based upon the reality that I don't know if he did or did not. The case never went to court. Make whatever claim you want to but .... "concessions from the government" do not indicate ANY conflict of interest, instead it indicates a POTENTIAL for conflict of interest. If the business that he probably had shares in did not acquire any NEW contracts after he gained his position then there is only the potential. PM Samak accepted money from a job and then lied about it to investigators. PM Samak could have been re-elected PM the very day he was forced out. Can I compare the two cases? Sure. Suthep saw a threat to his position as DPM and rather than lie to anyone he voluntarily and without admitting guilt resigned him MP status thus allowing him to remain as DPM. Suthep was later overwhelmingly re-elected in his constituency in Surat. Samak when faced with facts about payments for his cooking show chose to lie about it and was removed from his position as PM (not as MP) and could have stepped right back in but the TRT/PPP/PTP paymaster decided that he wanted his bro-in-law instead (perhaps in an attempt to stave off further defections from PPP that were disenchanted by Samak being in that position. Samak died of liver cancer so never had a chance to prove himself before an electorate again. Comparison enough?

Yes, this is a good observation but this way is impossible to you or any one to defend democrats (Suthep) or to show them as honest people, good willing and dedicated to democracy or as real reformists, as they are FAR away from any of that.

We can say politicians as politicians, crook as anywhere in the world and i might agree with that way of thinking.

But to try to deny the fact this Government, ruling Party is dirty, corrupted and careless as any other before - would be out of mind.

Democrats, as politicians, should to adhere to a very different code of conduct, ethic code, morality than previous ruling party. It is what they promised in their campaign, it is what this country and people really need. But for real. So any lie of Democrats, any similar or same acting as previous Government made, will be taken more hard than to any one else. That is what makes difficulties to Democrats and Mr Abhisit, as they are doing the same as previous government.

Country is in even worse situation, mess, disorder now, more than ever before and it is the fact.

In my opinion,

[Buchholz]

Thaksins wife ( a very successful business lady in her own right)

that's easy to do when your "old man" is PM.

What great businesses has she succeeded in without him?

.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Buchholz

[Payboy]

Suthep

Dick Cheney of Thailand.

[animatic]

Thaksins wife ( a very successful business lady in her own right)

that's easy to do when your "old man" is PM.

What great businesses has she succeeded in without him?

.

And daddy is a big wig general too. Thaksin married up.

[ChiangMaiFun]

In all of this, what Mr. Suthep made 2009, as "well done job" for his own pockets-i don't understand only one thing.

In all of that muddy water business, is it just about "violating Constitution" or is it about the conflict of interest or is it simply said, just and only the crime?

In case that he was prosecuted, if he wasn't escape the responsibility by trick-resigning his MP position in return to stay Deputy of PM, how the charge would be?

Probably some law "expert" here could answer. Of course, if could swallow this ugly and dirty game of keep seizing the power-by Mr. Suthep.

Was there a crime? He wasn't charged. He probably did own shares in a company that did business with the state. If true he would have been knocked out of his MP slot and had to run again in the by-elections which he clearly would have won (he recently ran for MP in the Surat By-election and won soundly. He chose to relinquish his MP status so as to not affect his position in the cabinet (only one position, that of PM requires you to be an MP), In the other recent by-elections for similar reasons BJT (remember the ones that the reds labeled as traitors) all won their constituencies cleanly

don't you think it's absurd that you don't have to be an elected MP to be DPM?

[ChiangMaiFun]

A crime remains a crime if it is an open ended situation that keeps it a crime, if a change of status also changes the crime to non-crime then it stop being a crime IF that is how the law is written.

For instance Murder has no statute of limitations.

But Sanoh's Alpine purchases were subject to statute

of limitations after the fact. He had it stalled till too late.

It seems the conflict of interest laws for MPs are only good WHILE the conflict exists and the MP is still an MP.

In the Suthep Media company case,

the punishment is to be forced to resign and be fined IF at the time you are charged you are an MP.

If the charges are not filed, before you resign as an MP, then the substance of the charges ceases to exist.

Suthep resigned, and so as the law is written, there was no charges to be filed, since he was no longer an MP.

He then, divested the media shares that became an issue, handily drubbed the Red Shirt PTP candidate, with a history of dropsy, and returned as a MP.

Hey, I don't write these laws.

Thaksin was caught for signing papers to allow Potjamin to buy the land, those documents still existed,

and the facts of the case still existed at the time of his being charged and later conviction, only LATER did the land deal get thrown out and later still did Potjamin get the money back.

Again I didn't write the laws, but the facts remain Thaksin could not withdraw his signature from the deal, or if he could he did NOT do so, and that is the basis of his conviction. He was no longer PM, but it seems this is not the same law as Suthep was 'not formally charged' under.

Suthep read the law and resigned as MP, knowing full well he would be re-elected and exited the actual state of his being an MP with state concession conflict of intertest. Once that was done, they could not press charges on something that no longer existed.

in short. Thaksin's illegal state remained till he was charged.

Suthep's legal state changed before he could be charges.

did the charges 'run out'? is that why he can't be charged when becoming an MP again? if this is so Abhisit further goes down in my opinion as a man supporting tricks so that his mate can avoid charges - this may be within the law but it is against the spirit of the law and Abhisit should be ashamed.

[whybother]

did the charges 'run out'? is that why he can't be charged when becoming an MP again? if this is so Abhisit further goes down in my opinion as a man supporting tricks so that his mate can avoid charges - this may be within the law but it is against the spirit of the law and Abhisit should be ashamed.

From what I understand, he removed the conflict of interest so he could contest the election again.

[jdinasia]

don't you think it's absurd that you don't have to be an elected MP to be DPM?

I think many things are absurd but do I think that a cabinet member doesn't have to be elected to be DPM is absurd? No. In fact I think that in many situations you could make a case for cabinet members not being elected is a good thing. Resigning his MP status, clearing up any potential conflict, and then running for MP status again (note --- he is a constituency MP and not subject to banning should any party exec do something stupid) and winning his constituency soundly wasn't a trick at all. It was simply good politics.

[whybother]

... (note --- he is a constituency MP and not subject to banning should any party exec do something stupid) ...

I think a constituency MP could still be on the party executive. It's just that, from an election point of view, to make it safe for the party leaders/executives, they get put on the party list.

[ChiangMaiFun]

did the charges 'run out'? is that why he can't be charged when becoming an MP again? if this is so Abhisit further goes down in my opinion as a man supporting tricks so that his mate can avoid charges - this may be within the law but it is against the spirit of the law and Abhisit should be ashamed.

From what I understand, he removed the conflict of interest so he could contest the election again.

so that's ok? find out your are guilty... resign... sell the shares... jump back in? that's the state of democracy here? and then give him the DPM role? and you support this?

[jdinasia]

Yes, this is a good observation but this way is impossible to you or any one to defend democrats (Suthep) or to show them as honest people, good willing and dedicated to democracy or as real reformists, as they are FAR away from any of that.

We can say politicians as politicians, crook as anywhere in the world and i might agree with that way of thinking.

But to try to deny the fact this Government, ruling Party is dirty, corrupted and careless as any other before - would be out of mind.

Democrats, as politicians, should to adhere to a very different code of conduct, ethic code, morality than previous ruling party. It is what they promised in their campaign, it is what this country and people really need. But for real. So any lie of Democrats, any similar or same acting as previous Government made, will be taken more hard than to any one else. That is what makes difficulties to Democrats and Mr Abhisit, as they are doing the same as previous government.

Country is in even worse situation, mess, disorder now, more than ever before and it is the fact.

In my opinion,

"and it is the fact. In my opinion."

It is your opinion and not a fact. The Dems are working on real sustainable reform in the real world of Thai politics and not in a fantasy world. That means they are stuck with using some of the regional power families/political machines just as everyone else is. When the days of the Sanoh's, Newin's, Barnharn's, Suthep's, Thaksin's etc are gone Thai politics will be in a better place. Until then, Thai politics will have to muddle through.

The fact is, that Suthep, whether guilty or not (he probably was guilty of being a shareholder, but the point is moot) took a legitimate legal remedy to deal with a potential problem. What should worry people more is that now he is a duly elected MP and thus eligible to become PM. When he was JUST DPM, he could not have been made PM under the constitution.

The fact that the Dems have actually done some things to directly remove the taint of corruption at times is a HUGE step forward for Thai politics. Take, for example, the firetruck scandal that was sitting on top of both Samak and the Dem. mayor of BKK. Samak not only didn't step down he stepped up to the PM position. The Dem stepped down as mayor and called new elections in BKK.

[ChiangMaiFun]

don't you think it's absurd that you don't have to be an elected MP to be DPM?

I think many things are absurd but do I think that a cabinet member doesn't have to be elected to be DPM is absurd? No. In fact I think that in many situations you could make a case for cabinet members not being elected is a good thing. Resigning his MP status, clearing up any potential conflict, and then running for MP status again (note --- he is a constituency MP and not subject to banning should any party exec do something stupid) and winning his constituency soundly wasn't a trick at all. It was simply good politics.

wow! you don 't believe in the deputy leader of a country (any country) should be elected? now I've heard it all and can see why we disagree so intently - I'm a democrat and you appear not.

[jdinasia]

I think many things are absurd but do I think that a cabinet member doesn't have to be elected to be DPM is absurd? No. In fact I think that in many situations you could make a case for cabinet members not being elected is a good thing. Resigning his MP status, clearing up any potential conflict, and then running for MP status again (note --- he is a constituency MP and not subject to banning should any party exec do something stupid) and winning his constituency soundly wasn't a trick at all. It was simply good politics.

wow! you don 't believe in the deputy leader of a country (any country) should be elected? now I've heard it all and can see why we disagree so intently - I'm a democrat and you appear not.

I am glad that you have changed your political affiliation I am actually more of a Libertarian philosophically

The cabinet in the parliamentary system in Thailand is appointed, not elected. Whilst Suthep was not an MP and was DPM he could not have been elected PM.

[Oberkommando]

The Dems are working on real sustainable reform in the real world of Thai politics

They are merely trying to stack the odds in their favour. Your post seems to convey the message that they are doing it for the good of the people which of course is nonsense.

The fact that the Dems have actually done some things to directly remove the taint of corruption at times

Oh please, the party itself should have been stuck off for funding irregularities as you are well aware.

[ChiangMaiFun]

I think many things are absurd but do I think that a cabinet member doesn't have to be elected to be DPM is absurd? No. In fact I think that in many situations you could make a case for cabinet members not being elected is a good thing. Resigning his MP status, clearing up any potential conflict, and then running for MP status again (note --- he is a constituency MP and not subject to banning should any party exec do something stupid) and winning his constituency soundly wasn't a trick at all. It was simply good politics.

wow! you don 't believe in the deputy leader of a country (any country) should be elected? now I've heard it all and can see why we disagree so intently - I'm a democrat and you appear not.

I am glad that you have changed your political affiliation I am actually more of a Libertarian philosophically

The cabinet in the parliamentary system in Thailand is appointed, not elected. Whilst Suthep was not an MP and was DPM he could not have been elected PM.

[jdinasia]

The Dems are working on real sustainable reform in the real world of Thai politics

They are merely trying to stack the odds in their favour. Your post seems to convey the message that they are doing it for the good of the people which of course is nonsense.

The fact that the Dems have actually done some things to directly remove the taint of corruption at times

Oh please, the party itself should have been stuck off for funding irregularities as you are well aware.

Please do not modify the context of my posts

I did not say WHY the Dems are doing anything, though I think some probably do firmly believe in the necessity of social reform while others only want to do enough to get by. I did give one clear cut example of the Dems pro-actively dealing with the 'taint' of corruption' though not many would ever find fault with the Dem mayor of BKK finishing off Samak's purchase of the firetrucks. Your claim to funding irregularities is your opinion.

[ChiangMaiFun]

The Dems are working on real sustainable reform in the real world of Thai politics

They are merely trying to stack the odds in their favour. Your post seems to convey the message that they are doing it for the good of the people which of course is nonsense.

The fact that the Dems have actually done some things to directly remove the taint of corruption at times

Oh please, the party itself should have been stuck off for funding irregularities as you are well aware.

and added to that sensible post the Dems appoint that great intellect Suthep who 'doesn't respect farangs' - Abhisit would gain sooooo mush more credibility if he got rid of his DPM who has been embroiled with so many scandals and (I must admit) has skillfully avoided court but only because TIT

[whybother]

did the charges 'run out'? is that why he can't be charged when becoming an MP again? if this is so Abhisit further goes down in my opinion as a man supporting tricks so that his mate can avoid charges - this may be within the law but it is against the spirit of the law and Abhisit should be ashamed.

From what I understand, he removed the conflict of interest so he could contest the election again.

so that's ok? find out your are guilty... resign... sell the shares... jump back in? that's the state of democracy here? and then give him the DPM role? and you support this?

If you find out you have a conflict of interest, you fix the conflict. Then you don't have conflict of interest.

[jdinasia]

Excellent rebuttal!

The fact is that parliamentary systems are not the same as other democratic systems. In the US, the VP is an elected position but other positions are not. The difference being that the VP is first in line to be Prez should the president die or be removed from office, In Thailand, should the PM die or be removed from office Parliament would then vote for a new PM and the DPM would not automatically get the position -- and as I pointed out -- when Suthep was not an MP he could not have been PM. Now that he is an elected MP again, he is eligible for the PM slot.

[ChiangMaiFun]

did the charges 'run out'? is that why he can't be charged when becoming an MP again? if this is so Abhisit further goes down in my opinion as a man supporting tricks so that his mate can avoid charges - this may be within the law but it is against the spirit of the law and Abhisit should be ashamed.

From what I understand, he removed the conflict of interest so he could contest the election again.

so that's ok? find out your are guilty... resign... sell the shares... jump back in? that's the state of democracy here? and then give him the DPM role? and you support this?

If you find out you have a conflict of interest, you fix the conflict. Then you don't have conflict of interest.

you mean he couldn't figure it out before he became an MP? before he was caught? hmmm interesting perspective