Thaksin Banned Two Pheu Thai MPs, Party Source Says

Buchholz · April 26, 2011

Our legal protector Robert Amsterdam seems to have learned some from k. Thaksin. Recently he held a one-person dialogue

"Red Shirt lawyer held a one-person dialogue in Kuala Lumpur after cancellation of an event"

http://www.prachatai3.info/english/node/2442

Red Shirt lawyer held a one-person dialogue in Kuala Lumpur after cancellation of an event to be hosted by Amnesty International Malaysia after advice from the Amnesty International Secretariat.

After the cancellation, Amsterdam held the dialogue by himself instead. :jerk:

==========================

Yet another embarrassment for the hired one.

Crushdepth · April 26, 2011

Amazing that Amnesty was prepared to entertain the representative of a human rights abuser at all. Did they not complain about the "war on drugs", Tak Bai and similar?

animatic · April 26, 2011

Our legal protector Robert Amsterdam seems to have learned some from k. Thaksin. Recently he held a one-person dialogue

"Red Shirt lawyer held a one-person dialogue in Kuala Lumpur after cancellation of an event"

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2442

Red Shirt lawyer held a one-person dialogue in Kuala Lumpur after cancellation of an event to be hosted by Amnesty International Malaysia after advice from the Amnesty International Secretariat.

After the cancellation, Amsterdam held the dialogue by himself instead. :jerk:

==========================

Yet another embarrassment for the hired one.

The Jr. Ego, took one on the chin for the old gipper.

A nice public double slap from Amnesty International Secretariat...

LOL gotta smile on this one.

Have yet to hear the real spin in it yet. Must be Abhisits fault of course.

Amnesty International is not my Father!

Isn't a one person dialog a sign of schizophrenia?

No, he's a lawyer, of sorts, so he talks out both sides of his mouth.

I talk, therefor I bill!

Edited April 26, 2011 by animatic

stepenwolf1958 · April 26, 2011

But don't you think it should be up to the members of the party to decide who runs for them?

fair enough question, but it is a practice no different than many western parliamentary parties. Political party leaders have the right to decertify candidates selected in a riding or district. The intent behind such power is to prevent unsuitable candidates from running under the party afiliation. This power acts to safeguard the party from an embarrassing candidate.

You wrong!!!

In the eyes of some very few members here it IS monstrous and non democratic, dictatorial and illegal when Mr.T(h)aksin do but when Mr.Abhisit reshuffle his cabinet and get rid of people in Cabinet who belong to other parties(satellites) then it IS ok and not worth even any comment of this very few members here.

And after that those few members here - they will say they are realistic, fair, aside of any of 2 groups or persons, and they are very close to democracy...Yeah, in their dream only.

EVERY party in this world doing same. It is normal process in life of party. OH, but it is with hidden and dirty background and intention, it is malicious if Mr. T(h)aksin do or PTP. What a joke!

whybother · April 26, 2011

yes, you are right. SHOULD to be that way as in societies where is hig level of basic democracy. But turn yourself around and tell me WHERE ARE YOU? You expect that manner in LOS? And don't tell me Democrats doing that way(as you said) as Mr.Abhisit reshuffled his Cabinet once, intentionaly get rid of some allies-ecxept Newin's party BJT who just replaced man to man.

Deciding who is in your cabinet is a bit different that deciding who can stand for election representing the party.

Abhisit isn't deciding who can stand for election in his party. He is just deciding who is in his cabinet, and that's standard in the west as well.

animatic · April 26, 2011

Amazing that Amnesty was prepared to entertain the representative of a human rights abuser at all. Did they not complain about the "war on drugs", Tak Bai and similar?

Maybe Am.Int. didn't make the connection between Thaksin and his pet shill until the announcements went out.

whybother · April 26, 2011

You wrong!!!

In the eyes of some very few members here it IS monstrous and non democratic, dictatorial and illegal when Mr.T(h)aksin do but when Mr.Abhisit reshuffle his cabinet and get rid of people in Cabinet who belong to other parties(satellites) then it IS ok and not worth even any comment of this very few members here.

And after that those few members here - they will say they are realistic, fair, aside of any of 2 groups or persons, and they are very close to democracy...Yeah, in their dream only.

EVERY party in this world doing same. It is normal process in life of party. OH, but it is with hidden and dirty background and intention, it is malicious if Mr. T(h)aksin do or PTP. What a joke!

Where in the western world does the leader decide who can be in the party?

(excluding Thaksin, of course)

Edited April 26, 2011 by whybother

animatic · April 26, 2011

But don't you think it should be up to the members of the party to decide who runs for them?

fair enough question, but it is a practice no different than many western parliamentary parties. Political party leaders have the right to decertify candidates selected in a riding or district. The intent behind such power is to prevent unsuitable candidates from running under the party afiliation. This power acts to safeguard the party from an embarrassing candidate.

You wrong!!!

In the eyes of some very few members here it IS monstrous and non democratic, dictatorial and illegal when Mr.T(h)aksin do but when Mr.Abhisit reshuffle his cabinet and get rid of people in Cabinet who belong to other parties(satellites) then it IS ok and not worth even any comment of this very few members here.

And after that those few members here - they will say they are realistic, fair, aside of any of 2 groups or persons, and they are very close to democracy...Yeah, in their dream only.

EVERY party in this world doing same. It is normal process in life of party. OH, but it is with hidden and dirty background and intention, it is malicious if Mr. T(h)aksin do or PTP. What a joke!

That is not the same. Nor is it even slightly monstrous.

Cabinet reshuffles are part of a Prime Ministers purview in the job.

A cabinet ministers seats is at the sufferance of the PM and HRM.

There is no elected or appointed expectation beyond serving at their pleasure.

Any PM in any parliamentary government can throw out the whole cabinet, or a few seats, and vet and install new ones.

It has nothing to do with elected rights, nor removes any constituency rights.

It would seem, that you really should understand the points you are wanting to argue completely...through a bit more prior research, prior to throwing them out.

Edited April 26, 2011 by animatic

animatic · April 26, 2011

You wrong!!!

In the eyes of some very few members here it IS monstrous and non democratic, dictatorial and illegal when Mr.T(h)aksin do but when Mr.Abhisit reshuffle his cabinet and get rid of people in Cabinet who belong to other parties(satellites) then it IS ok and not worth even any comment of this very few members here.

And after that those few members here - they will say they are realistic, fair, aside of any of 2 groups or persons, and they are very close to democracy...Yeah, in their dream only.

EVERY party in this world doing same. It is normal process in life of party. OH, but it is with hidden and dirty background and intention, it is malicious if Mr. T(h)aksin do or PTP. What a joke!

Where in the western world does the leader decide who can be in the party?

(excluding Thaksin, of course)

He is talking about the cabinet here, and ALL Prime Ministers pick their won cabinets.

And has sod all to do with banning party MP's from running with out any one voting, besides the Distant Leader.

animatic · April 26, 2011

You wrong!!!

In the eyes of some very few members here it IS monstrous and non democratic, dictatorial and illegal when Mr.T(h)aksin do but when Mr.Abhisit reshuffle his cabinet and get rid of people in Cabinet who belong to other parties(satellites) then it IS ok and not worth even any comment of this very few members here.

And after that those few members here - they will say they are realistic, fair, aside of any of 2 groups or persons, and they are very close to democracy...Yeah, in their dream only.

EVERY party in this world doing same. It is normal process in life of party. OH, but it is with hidden and dirty background and intention, it is malicious if Mr. T(h)aksin do or PTP. What a joke!

Where in the western world does the leader decide who can be in the party?

(excluding Thaksin, of course)

He is talking about the cabinet here, and ALL Prime Ministers pick their won cabinets.

And has sod all to do with banning party MP's from running with out any one voting, besides the Distant Leader.

animatic · April 26, 2011

You wrong!!!

In the eyes of some very few members here it IS monstrous and non democratic, dictatorial and illegal when Mr.T(h)aksin do but when Mr.Abhisit reshuffle his cabinet and get rid of people in Cabinet who belong to other parties(satellites) then it IS ok and not worth even any comment of this very few members here.

And after that those few members here - they will say they are realistic, fair, aside of any of 2 groups or persons, and they are very close to democracy...Yeah, in their dream only.

EVERY party in this world doing same. It is normal process in life of party. OH, but it is with hidden and dirty background and intention, it is malicious if Mr. T(h)aksin do or PTP. What a joke!

Where in the western world does the leader decide who can be in the party?

(excluding Thaksin, of course)

He is talking about the cabinet here, and ALL Prime Ministers pick their won cabinets.

And has sod all to do with banning party MP's from running without any one voting, besides the Distant Leader.

whybother · April 26, 2011

He is talking about the cabinet here, and ALL Prime Ministers pick their won cabinets.

And has sod all to do with banning party MP's from running with out any one voting, besides the Distant Leader.

Yep.

Deciding who is in your cabinet is a bit different that deciding who can stand for election representing the party.

Abhisit isn't deciding who can stand for election in his party. He is just deciding who is in his cabinet, and that's standard in the west as well.

jdinasia · April 26, 2011

You wrong!!!

In the eyes of some very few members here it IS monstrous and non democratic, dictatorial and illegal when Mr.T(h)aksin do but when Mr.Abhisit reshuffle his cabinet and get rid of people in Cabinet who belong to other parties(satellites) then it IS ok and not worth even any comment of this very few members here.

And after that those few members here - they will say they are realistic, fair, aside of any of 2 groups or persons, and they are very close to democracy...Yeah, in their dream only.

EVERY party in this world doing same. It is normal process in life of party. OH, but it is with hidden and dirty background and intention, it is malicious if Mr. T(h)aksin do or PTP. What a joke!

Where in the western world does the leader decide who can be in the party?

(excluding Thaksin, of course)

He is talking about the cabinet here, and ALL Prime Ministers pick their won cabinets.

And has sod all to do with banning party MP's from running without any one voting, besides the Distant Leader.

LOL

Let's see ... Cabinet reshuffles are the privilege of the PM/government. If the coalition doesn't accept the reshuffle, they bail and the government falls. Whereas, Thaksin (note his name is not "T(h)aksin" and we are supposed to us the correct names of politicians here) is a banned political figure who is NOT allowed to interfere with local politics. Thaksin has exposed himself to new legal issues with his speeches etc AND I would assume that if the Exec. board of a party allows Thaksin to call the shots publicly that they do, in fact, risk the party being disbanded.

One might think that Thaksin has realized that PTP will not get enough votes to form the coalition next time, and is paving the way for the party being disbanded to claim persecution (again). This might explain the fact that the senior party execs have been resigning, so as to not take the 5 year fall alongside the rest!

Crushdepth · April 26, 2011

A guy banned from politics is banning members of his own party. Oh the irony.

Moonrakers · April 26, 2011

Nah

This can't be right because Thaksin said he doesn't want to be involved in politics.

Must be a fake Thaksin

animatic · April 26, 2011

quote name='stepenwolf1958 timestamp='1303807468' post='4382448'

You wrong!!!....

Where in the western world does the leader decide who can be in the party?

(excluding Thaksin, of course)

He is talking about the cabinet here, and ALL Prime Ministers pick their won cabinets.

And has sod all to do with banning party MP's from running without any one voting, besides the Distant Leader.

LOL

Let's see ... Cabinet reshuffles are the privilege of the PM/government. If the coalition doesn't accept the reshuffle, they bail and the government falls. Whereas, Thaksin (note his name is not "T(h)aksin" and we are supposed to us the correct names of politicians here) is a banned political figure who is NOT allowed to interfere with local politics. Thaksin has exposed himself to new legal issues with his speeches etc AND I would assume that if the Exec. board of a party allows Thaksin to call the shots publicly that they do, in fact, risk the party being disbanded.

One might think that Thaksin has realized that PTP will not get enough votes to form the coalition next time, and is paving the way for the party being disbanded to claim persecution (again). This might explain the fact that the senior party execs have been resigning, so as to not take the 5 year fall alongside the rest!

Yes it has that appearance. The only shot to win a bigger minority is to cheat big time. So ditch the executive board before hand, and those few remaining functional PTP guys are still available for later.

Thaksin has exposed himself more than por stars John Holmes or Jannine, but he seems to not really think this matters. He seems to believe he will have more power than laws can regulate. It is pretty scary to think he might be able to buy his way back to power, with this mindset, if it's true he could care less if PTP is dead, but he still controls the MPs with an iron fist in a titanium glove.

Edited April 26, 2011 by animatic

geriatrickid · April 26, 2011

Where in the western world does the leader decide who can be in the party?

(excluding Thaksin, of course)

Almost every major parliamentary political party in the west has the right to decide who may be a member of the party and quite rightly so. If you were a UK Tory would you want the embarrassment of a National Front type running under the party banner? If you were in the New Labour, would you want an anarchist running under the party banner?

Canada is currently undergoing an election. The Liberal party leader rescinded the local constituency's nomination of a candidate in one riding and this was right in the middle of the election. In previous elections leaders of the Canadian political parties have refused to sign the nomination papers for candidates. According to the Elections Canada, a party leader has the right to do this.

It seems that some people have allowed their hatred of Thaksin to blind them. Thaksin has not banned anyone from running for office. The candidates can run for office if they want. All that was done is that a newspaper has repeated an unsubstantiated allegation that two individuals may not be able to run as members of the PT. Big deal.

If some MPs that had indicated opposition to the Democrats do you think Abhisit would allow them to run as Democrats.?

It is not an unusual occurrence for members to get booted from a caucus because of their political acts. The Democrats in the USA booted Senator Lieberman after his failed run as a VP candidate and it was only after some very painful protracted negotiations that he was allowed to vote and associate with the Democrats in the Senate again. The Canadian conservatives booted a cabinet minister from caucus 2 years ago.

Freedom of speech and political rights have neither been curtailed nor abrogated as the MPs in question can run, but the Nation has speculated that they may not be affiliated with PT. If you were a political party, would you want prospective deserters representing the party? I think not. Let the MPS run under their potential parties and not run as candidates for a party that some people would vote for. Is it fair for the party supporters to see their votes betrayed by people with no intention of representing those voters as part of the affiliated party. If omeone is casting a vote for the PT, then the person should be represented by a PT affiliated member. If the candidates are that secure in their views, the voters will vote for them if they are with a new political party.

Basically, what the argument of some people here is that prospective MPs should be allowed to affiliate with a party for the purpose of getting elected and then should be able to betray their electors by switching parties. Is that ethical? Let the candidtes run for the party they intend to be members of.

Edited April 26, 2011 by geriatrickid

whybother · April 26, 2011

Where in the western world does the leader decide who can be in the party?

(excluding Thaksin, of course)

Almost every major parliamentary political party in the west has the right to decide who may be a member of the party and quite rightly so. If you were a UK Tory would you want the embarrassment of a National Front type running under the party banner? If you were in the New Labour, would you want an anarchist running under the party banner?

Canada is currently undergoing an election. The Liberal party leader rescinded the local constituency's nomination of a candidate in one riding and this was right in the middle of the election. In previous elections leaders of the Canadian political parties have refused to sign the nomination papers for candidates. According to the Elections Canada, a party leader has the right to do this.

It seems that some people have allowed their hatred of Thaksin to blind them. Thaksin has not banned anyone from running for office. The candidates can run for office if they want. All that was done is that a newspaper has repeated an unsubstantiated allegation that two individuals may not be able to run as members of the PT. Big deal.

If some MPs that had indicated opposition to the Democrats do you think Abhisit would allow them to run as Democrats.?

It is not an unusual occurrence for members to get booted from a caucus because of their views. The Democrats in the USA booted Senator Lieberman after his failed run as a VP candidate and it was only after some very painful protracted negotiations that he was allowed to sit as a Democrat in the Senate again. The Canadian conservatives booted a cabinet minister 2 years ago.

Freedom of speech and political rights have neither been curtailed nor abrogated as the MPs in question can run, but the Nation has speculated that they may not be affiliated with PT. If you were a political party, would you want prospective deserters representing the party? I think not. Let the MPS run under their potential parties and not run as candidates for a party that some people would vote for. Is it fair for the party supporters to see tehir votes stolen by people with no intention of representing those voters as part of the affiliated party.

Basically, what the argument of some people here is that prospective MPs should be allowed to affiliate with a party for the purpose of getting elected and then should be able to betray their electors by switching parties. Is that ethical? Let the candidtes run for the party they intend to be members of.

BUT, how many places does THE LEADER choose? It's usually done by executive or members ... ie groups of people in a democratic way. Not an autocratic way.

animatic · April 26, 2011

The American Democrats did NOT "boot out Joe Leiberman".

There was a lot of talk of booting him from the Democratic Caucus, which is not the party, when he backed John McCain, but it came to nothing. He had been a independent for some time at that point, but aligned with the Democrats more often.

Or more precisely he was a middle of road person hated and reviled by BOTH parties left and right sides.

Lieberman, 68, bolted the Democratic party to become an independent five years ago but still often sides with his old party. He plans to declare his political intentions for 2012 at a news conference in his home state of Connecticut.

His history is also confused because he is an extremely orthodox jew, and his religious convictions were quite clearly involved in many of his dissenting positions vs political party orthodoxy.

TAWP · April 26, 2011

But don't you think it should be up to the members of the party to decide who runs for them?

fair enough question, but it is a practice no different than many western parliamentary parties. Political party leaders have the right to decertify candidates selected in a riding or district. The intent behind such power is to prevent unsuitable candidates from running under the party afiliation. This power acts to safeguard the party from an embarrassing candidate.

Not at all, even parties have rules guiding how candidates are selected and a party leader (or in this case, donor of money...) cannot decide anything on their own. But then again, I am from a country with a very high democracy index...

KRS1 · April 26, 2011

In a truly democratic fashion our esteemed Lord and Master k. Thaksin has banned two incumbent MPs. They have been found guilty of suspected of planning to defect from the party in the upcoming general election. They may count their blessings, our Lord and Master is benevolent as ever and not out for revenge, they will not loose their lives.

Hail all.

lose not loose.

rubl · April 26, 2011

In a truly democratic fashion our esteemed Lord and Master k. Thaksin has banned two incumbent MPs. They have been found guilty of suspected of planning to defect from the party in the upcoming general election. They may count their blessings, our Lord and Master is benevolent as ever and not out for revenge, they will not loose their lives.

Hail all.

lose not loose.

I stand corrected, did a quick check in my OCD as well. My only excuse is that English is a damned difficult language. Give me Dutch any day

From your local Dutch uncle

rubl · April 26, 2011

MPs may be banned from standing as PTP candidates, MPs and other members may have left, but good ideas will still be pursued.

"The opposition Pheu Thai Party will maintain its plan to establish a Pattani City to allow more power for residents in the deep South - although the man behind the idea has left, one of its local MPs said yesterday.

Creating a Pattani City is a policy of Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, a former prime minister and ex-Army chief who resigned recently as Pheu Thai chairman and left the party."

and of course the link to red-shirts, as if we don't have enough problems down South

"Pichet Sathirachawal, who heads Pheu Thai's campaign team covering the Andaman coastal provinces, said the party would rely on the red shirts to help with election campaigns in the South.

Pichet said Pheu Thai needed support of red-shirt rallies in southern provinces as campaigns alone would be unable to draw large crowds in a region where the rival Democrat Party is very popular."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/04/27/national/Pheu-Thai-to-retain-Pattani-City-plan-30154032.html

Buchholz · April 27, 2011

In a truly democratic fashion our esteemed Lord and Master k. Thaksin has banned two incumbent MPs. They have been found guilty of suspected of planning to defect from the party in the upcoming general election. They may count their blessings, our Lord and Master is benevolent as ever and not out for revenge, they will not loose their lives.

Hail all.

lose not loose.

I stand corrected, did a quick check in my OCD as well. My only excuse is that English is a damned difficult language. Give me Dutch any day

From your local Dutch uncle

Just don't lose sight that your loose interpretation of English is not lost for most of us understand the loosening of the finite guidelines that you use.

and yes, Engish is crazy, but most of us would be losing out if you used only Dutch.

Buchholz · April 27, 2011

"Pichet Sathirachawal, who heads Pheu Thai's campaign team covering the Andaman coastal provinces, said the party would rely on the red shirts to help with election campaigns in the South.

Pichet said Pheu Thai needed support of red-shirt rallies in southern provinces as campaigns alone would be unable to draw large crowds in a region where the rival Democrat Party is very popular."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/04/27/national/Pheu-Thai-to-retain-Pattani-City-plan-30154032.html

This all coming AFTER Pheu Thai Party Deputy Leader (and indicted Red Shirt Leader) Apiwan promised a separation of Pheu Thai Party from the Red Shirts.

The separation sounds like it lasted only for the duration of Apiwan's press conference.

Ricardo · April 27, 2011

This all coming AFTER Pheu Thai Party Deputy Leader (and indicted Red Shirt Leader) Apiwan promised a separation of Pheu Thai Party from the Red Shirts.

The separation sounds like it lasted only for the duration of Apiwan's press conference.

Perhaps he had his fingers crossed, when he said that, so it doesn't count ?

webfact · April 27, 2011

Constitution Court endorses Pheu Thai's expulsion of 2 MPs

The Constitution Court Wednesday ruled in favor of the Pheu Thai Party in its decision to expel two of its MPs for having taken part in political activities of the Bhum Jai Thai Party.

The court endorsed the expulsion of Jumpot Boonyai and Porapol Adireksarn.

The Pheu Thai expelled the two MPs on ground that they had behaved improperly by joining activities of the Bhum Jai Thai.

The two filed a complaint with the Constitution Court, arguing that the expulsion order prohibited them from carrying their MP duty.

But the court ruled that the two were expelled because of their personal behaviors, not related to their MP status.

The court ruled that the MP status of the two was terminated immediately following the ruling.

-- The Nation 2011-04-27

metisdead · April 27, 2011

Just a reminder that posts using derogatory nicknames for people will be deleted.

rubl · April 27, 2011

The court ruled that the MP status of the two was terminated immediately following the ruling.

If the EC hurries up we can have by-elections before the next general election

Buchholz · April 27, 2011

Constitution Court endorses Pheu Thai's expulsion of 2 MPs

The Constitution Court Wednesday ruled in favor of the Pheu Thai Party in its decision to expel two of its MPs for having taken part in political activities of the Bhum Jai Thai Party.

The court endorsed the expulsion of Jumpot Boonyai and Porapol Adireksarn.

It's worth noting these two banned PTP MP's are different and in addition to the two banned PTP MP's of the OP :

Thaksin Shinawatra, de-facto leader of the opposition Pheu Thai Party, has banned at least two incumbent MPs suspected of planning to defect from the party in the upcoming general election, a party source said yesterday.

Pheu Thai former Secretary-General Supol Fong-ngam and MP Chavalit Vichayasut have been punished as a warning

The PTP numbers continue to dwindle...

.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Buchholz

Sign In

Thaksin Banned Two Pheu Thai MPs, Party Source Says

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US