Thaksin Banned Two Pheu Thai MPs, Party Source Says

[Buchholz]

Don’t forget they also disassociate themselves from theRED SHIRT too

That might have had a higher degree of credibility if it hadn't come from indicted Red Shirter Apiwan:

Red Shirt Leader and Pheu Thai Party MP and Deputy House Speaker currently under impeachment proceedings Apiwan Wiriyachai

Apiwan: Pheu Thai-UDD roles separated

BANGKOK, 19 April 2011 (NNT) – Deputy House Speaker and Pheu Thai Party Deputy Leader Colonel Apiwan Wiriyachai has voiced his agreement to the proposed separation of the roles of the opposition Pheu Thai Party and the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD).

or if Pheu Thai Party MP's and Red Shirters like Jatuporn and Karun disassociated themselves from the Red Shirts entirely

Pheu Thai Party MP's Jatuporn and Karun

Jatuporn: Pheu Thai wouldn’t survive without UDD

BANGKOK, 27 April 2011 (NNT) – Pheu Thai MP and core leader of the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) Jatuporn Prompan has criticized his own party for the idea to separate itself from the UDD, saying the party should be grateful to the group.

Although the next general election is approaching, Mr Jatuporn confirmed that the UDD would carry on with its movements.

However, the core leader vowed that the group would hold activities as allowed by the election rules and he, as an MP candidate of Pheu Thai, would rather not participate.

In response to the opinion of some Pheu Thai members that a fine line should be drawn between the party and the UDD to avoid losing votes during the poll, Mr Jatuporn called for Pheu Thai to stop thinking of the red shirts as troublemakers.

He claimed that all UDD members knew what was appropriate and what was not, adding that the group had played a major role in winning support for the party.

He stressed that Pheu Thai would have been long gone without the UDD and would not be able to last in Thai politics.

-- NNT 2011-04-27

[rubl]

K. Jatuporn claimed that all UDD members knew what was appropriate and what was not, adding that the group had played a major role in winning support for the party.

words fail me

[animatic]

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

Wait a second.

The party doesn't like them any more, and axed them as members, fine.

BUT, the PEOPLE voted for them, and they are seated Ministers Of Parliament,

Why should the votes of the people be overridden by the Executive Board of a party?

Only the rules committee and membership of the body they sit in can remove them for cause from that body.

So they are out of the party and can't run again, that should NOT affect their status as elected MPs.

Just as those other MPS in TRT and PPP lost their party, but not their MP status.

If this IS the case, than that explains the mindless block voting along party lines,

don't vote with the bosses and you can INSTANTLY lose you MP seat.

What total B.S.

[animatic]

K. Jatuporn claimed that all UDD members knew what was appropriate and what was not, adding that the group had played a major role in winning support for the party.

words fail me

They never fail him, I wish they would.

[jdinasia]

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

Wait a second.

The party doesn't like them any more, and axed them as members, fine.

BUT, the PEOPLE voted for them, and they are seated Ministers Of Parliament,

Why should the votes of the people be overridden by the Executive Board of a party?

Only the rules committee and membership of the body they sit in can remove them for cause from that body.

So they are out of the party and can't run again, that should NOT affect their status as elected MPs.

Just as those other MPS in TRT and PPP lost their party, but not their MP status.

If this IS the case, than that explains the mindless block voting along party lines,

don't vote with the bosses and you can INSTANTLY lose you MP seat.

What total B.S.

I'd need to go back and check ... were they "party list" or constituency MP's?

[TAWP]

Shouldn't matter, one shouldn't lose the lose the seat no-matter if one quits the party etc. That is atleast the case in other countries. So here surely?

[Buchholz]

Constitutional Court Backs Pheu Thai's Decision to Sack 2 Disloyal MPs

The Constitutional Court has ruled in favor of the Pheu Thai Party over the party's decision to disqualify two of its MPs for their obvious involvement in political activities of the Bhumjaithai Party.

The Constitutional Court has ruled in favor of the Pheu Thai Party in its decision to terminate the status of both Jumpot Boonyai and Porapol Adireksarn for joining another political party.

The verdict states that the two men's memberships in both parties, as well as their MP status, must be terminated, effective immediately.

The pair earlier lodged a lawsuit with the Constitutional Court, saying the party's stance barred them from performing their MP duties as stated in the Constitution.

The court was of the view that the two MPs should be punished for political behavior in breach of the Pheu Thai Party's rules and obligations.

In addition, the court declared the MP status of the two terminated immediately.

After the ruling, Porapol Adireksarn said he accepts the verdict and he will apply to become a member of the Bhumjaithai Party.

Praphan Naikowit, an Election Commissioner, said he is not sure the ruling will allow the two to become members of another party.

But as the court ruled to end their MP status, an election must be held within 45 days to fill the vacancies.

However, if Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva dissolves the House on May 6 and a royal decree on a General Election is announced in time, an election to fill the vacancies will not be necessary.

-- Tan Network 2011-04-28

[animatic]

The above points to the obvious fact;

that no matter what Jatuporn does, including being in jail for terrorism charges related to calling for violence from the stages last spring, the PTP has NOT decided to remove him and end his MP status, and they could as easily as these tWo above.

So:

PTP backs all of Jatuporns actions and speeches, because he remains loyal to Shinawatra clan goals. So the opposition party has no qualms about using street violence to win office again. In fact they tacitly support it by not removing Jatuporn.

Edited April 28, 2011 by animatic

[Robby nz]

Where does that leave Sae Deang's daughter then?

She is the leader of one party and is talking about standing for another,PTP.

[jdinasia]

Shouldn't matter, one shouldn't lose the lose the seat no-matter if one quits the party etc. That is atleast the case in other countries. So here surely?

A case can be clearly made that Party-list people were not voted in individually. That seat belongs to a party, if a party list MP leaves the party they vacate the seat that was won, not by them, but by the party itself.

[animatic]

Shouldn't matter, one shouldn't lose the lose the seat no-matter if one quits the party etc. That is atleast the case in other countries. So here surely?

A case can be clearly made that Party-list people were not voted in individually. That seat belongs to a party, if a party list MP leaves the party they vacate the seat that was won, not by them, but by the party itself.

Which puts another nail in the lack of democratic credentials for the manipulatable after the fact Party List System.....

Edited April 28, 2011 by animatic

[TAWP]

Shouldn't matter, one shouldn't lose the lose the seat no-matter if one quits the party etc. That is atleast the case in other countries. So here surely?

A case can be clearly made that Party-list people were not voted in individually. That seat belongs to a party, if a party list MP leaves the party they vacate the seat that was won, not by them, but by the party itself.

Again, such is not the case of nations with higher democracy index and full usage of party list [only] MPs.

[jdinasia]

Shouldn't matter, one shouldn't lose the lose the seat no-matter if one quits the party etc. That is atleast the case in other countries. So here surely?

A case can be clearly made that Party-list people were not voted in individually. That seat belongs to a party, if a party list MP leaves the party they vacate the seat that was won, not by them, but by the party itself.

Which puts another nail in the lack of democratic credentials for the manipulatable after the fact Party List System.....

I agree.

That being said, however, it does make sense in light of the ability for all party-list players to be banned if the party breaks the rules.

Tawp --- I don't know about other countries but if people voted for "the party" then those seats sensibly belong to "the party". If the people voted for a person then the seat should belong to a person. In other words, a constituency MP that quits a party and joins another party was actually voted for. A party-list MP never got any votes.

[rogerdee123]

There is an interesting article in the 26 April AWSJ by Michael Montesano ... which brings a little different twist to the current situation ....

those interested can read it here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703956904576286563271905744.html?KEYWORDS=THailand

[bristolgeoff]

if he is the leader should.nt he be in thailand,pulling strings from far away

[whybother]

That being said, however, it does make sense in light of the ability for all party-list players to be banned if the party breaks the rules.

All Party list MPs are not banned if the party breaks the rules. Only party executives are, whether they are party list or constituency.

The main difference is banned constituency MPs are replaced in a by-election (not necessarily by the same party of course), but banned party list MPs are not replaced.

[jdinasia]

True, I stand corrected!

(see how easy it is to admit a mistake!?!)

*the above is not aimed at whybother, just a comment for people that seem to never be able to say "oooooops!"

[Buchholz]

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.

The other paper this morning has more specifics that led to the cancellation of Amsterdam's speech in Malaysia. Apparently Amnesty International's Bangkok-based Benjamin Zawacki reminded his Malaysian AI partners that AI goal is to remain politically neutral, which is something that would obviously be betrayed should they host the likes of Amsterdam on their stage.

[animatic]

There is an interesting article in the 26 April AWSJ by Michael Montesano ... which brings a little different twist to the current situation ....

those interested can read it here:

http://online.wsj.co...YWORDS=THailand

A good take on somethings, but he ignores the fact it was obviously Thaksin pulling PTP strings all along.

[phiphidon]

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 other paper this morning has more specifics that led to the cancellation of Amsterdam's speech in Malaysia. Apparently Amnesty International's Bangkok-based Benjamin Zawacki reminded his Malaysian AI partners that AI goal is to remain politically neutral, which is something that would obviously be betrayed should they host the likes of Amsterdam on their stage.

It appears that Mr Zawacki has raised the ire of several members of the AI Asia-Pacific team as this open letter demonstrates;

Open Letter:

Calling for Investigation into the Intervention of the work of Amnesty International (AI) Malaysia by Members of the AI Asia-Pacific team

29 April 2011

Mr. Salil Shetty

Secretary-General

Amnesty International (AI)

International Secretariat

1 Easton Street

London

WC1X 0DW, UK

Dear Mr. Shetty, We, the members of Amnesty International (AI), human rights activists, and individuals, are writing to you to raise our serious concerns regarding the intervention by International Secretariat specifically by Mr. Benjamin Zawacki, AI Southeast Asia Researcher and Ms. Donna Guest, the Asia-Pacific Deputy Director to block the dialogue that was planned to be held by AI Malaysia on the issue of human rights violations and the case in the International Criminal Court (ICC) on Thailand.............

more at http://asiapacific.a...al-in-thailand/

Mr Zawacki's political "impartiality" has been raised before.

More of a case of embarrassment to the AI team in Thailand, I suspect, than to Amsterdam.

[Crushdepth]

more at http://asiapacific.a...al-in-thailand/

Mr Zawacki's political "impartiality" has been raised before.

More of a case of embarrassment to the AI team in Thailand, I suspect, than to Amsterdam.

This 'New Mandala' website is not a credible source for anything. They are basically a pro-red propaganda site publishing a continuous stream of paranoid drivel. It's full of stuff about "popular uprisings" and "Lanna succeeding from Thailand". I read it for amusement sometimes.

It's basically run by political scientists at ANU who are deprived of local news, ignorant about Thai culture and think everything is a palace-led conspiracy.

[jdinasia]

more at http://asiapacific.a...al-in-thailand/

Mr Zawacki's political "impartiality" has been raised before.

More of a case of embarrassment to the AI team in Thailand, I suspect, than to Amsterdam.

This 'New Mandala' website is not a credible source for anything. They are basically a pro-red propaganda site publishing a continuous stream of paranoid drivel. It's full of stuff about "popular uprisings" and "Lanna succeeding from Thailand". I read it for amusement sometimes.

It's basically run by political scientists at ANU who are deprived of local news, ignorant about Thai culture and think everything is a palace-led conspiracy.

NewMandala's reporting isn't credible, nor is their editorial slant. On this case however, the posting by them of a letter seems fair. BUT they did post (with only a little editorial slant in the introduction) the reasons why the event was cancelled. The source is NewMandala, but I believe them when they say who it came from. http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/04/27/amnesty-international-and-robert-amsterdam/

1. Amnesty International globally has avoided partisan entanglement in the Thai political crisis. Despite allegations from both sides that the organization supports the Yellow or Red positions and groups, Amnesty has limited itself to the human rights issues and has avoided politics. Amnesty has been in touch with Mr. Amsterdam over the past year and is aware of the substance of his claims, as well as his political strategy, for which he is compensated. In this context, Mr. Amsterdam is a paid advocate of former Thai PM Thaksin, and is thus very clearly a partisan of one side of the political crisis. This is not a value judgment on Mr. Amsterdam’s position, it is simply a factual observation that implicates a rule that Amnesty applies in its work everywhere: remain neutral, objective, and impartial. Sharing a platform with Mr. Amsterdam would place Amnesty in breach of that rule.

2. Moreover, the substance of Mr. Amsterdam’s talk would have been particularly ill-advised for an Amnesty platform. Amnesty International understands that Mr. Amsterdam has presented a petition to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on the alleged commission of crimes against humanity by Thai authorities in April and May 2010. Thailand, however, has not acceded to the Rome Statute establising the ICC, meaning that the only possible way a case based on events involving Thai citizens in Thailand could reach the ICC would be through a referral by the UN Security Council. It is true that following the referral of Libya’s Colonel Qaddafi by the UN Security Council to the ICC, this avenue of seeking accountability has new life. That the international community struggles, however, to get the Security Council to respond to the massacres in the Sri Lankan civil war–in which 20,000 to 40,000 civilians were killed over a few months–is a sobering counterpoint. Thus, while Amnesty would not totally rule out the possibility of international accountability for various events in Thailand, the organization would clearly refrain from publicly taking a position that suggests that referral to the ICC is a feasible, or even desirable, method of seeking accountability in Thailand.

3. Finally, in addressing any situation that involves accountability in Thailand, Amnesty again must maintain its neutrality and avoid political partisanship. Thus, alongside discussion of the allegations raised by Mr. Amsterdam, considerable reference would also need to be made, among other events, to the thousands of extrajudicial executions as part of Mr. Taksin’s “war on drugs” and during counter-insurgency operations in southern Thailand. Mr. Thaksin strenuously combated Amnesty’s efforts to seek accountability for these serious violations. While these infractions of international human rights law do not in any way justify the present Thai government’s unlawful use of lethal force against demonstrators who may be generally labelled pro-Thaksin, they are crucial elements of any discussion of the Yellow-Red dynamic in Thailand, and in particular, of any discussion of justice and accountability in the country. Amnesty was not confident that a talk by Mr. Amsterdam, on an Amnesty platform, would refer to this context adequately.

As you can read from this AI is still taking a position that the crackdown by the security forces in Apr/May2010 were "unlawful", which is certainly arguable, but they don't think it is appropriate to give Thaksin's paid mouthpiece a sounding board due to the politics involved as opposed to any HR issues. ((It seems AI is saying Thaksin personally cannot have it both ways))

[animatic]

They were also saying that over Amsterdams obvious objections that would have been raising Thaksins Human Right VIolations as a quid pro quo to raising his against the Dems. And obviously Amstertdamned would sputter and bloviate endlessly and loudly if that were to happen. Better to just prevent the "paid mouthpiece" from trying to use AI for his own partisan purposes.

[Crushdepth]

Can you imagine the uproar if Amnesty *had* entertained a talk by the PR guy of someone they have accused of mass human rights abuse? It's amazing that anyone with common sense would criticise Amnesty for dropping the talk. I mean who has the credibility problem here - Amnesty International or Robert Amsterdam?

It's classic New Mandala to try and use it as pro-red propaganda though. You should see the 'research' some of these guys publish, its hysterical

[jdinasia]

Can you imagine the uproar if Amnesty *had* entertained a talk by the PR guy of someone they have accused of mass human rights abuse? It's amazing that anyone with common sense would criticise Amnesty for dropping the talk. I mean who has the credibility problem here - Amnesty International or Robert Amsterdam?

It's classic New Mandala to try and use it as pro-red propaganda though. You should see the 'research' some of these guys publish, its hysterical

The simple fact that Amsterdam had his "speech of one" anyways certainly shows that his freedom of expression was in no way trampled on What he wasn't given was a platform of a supposedly non-political organization to use to present a totally politically biased propaganda campaign.

[phiphidon]

They were also saying that over Amsterdams obvious objections that would have been raising Thaksins Human Right VIolations as a quid pro quo to raising his against the Dems. And obviously Amstertdamned would sputter and bloviate endlessly and loudly if that were to happen. Better to just prevent the "paid mouthpiece" from trying to use AI for his own partisan purposes.

Regardless of whether you agree or not with Amsterdams views, do you not find it somewhat strange that some representatives of AI are blocking freedom of speech? He was invited by the Malaysian AI to speak on human rights violation in Thailand.

[jdinasia]

They were also saying that over Amsterdams obvious objections that would have been raising Thaksins Human Right VIolations as a quid pro quo to raising his against the Dems. And obviously Amstertdamned would sputter and bloviate endlessly and loudly if that were to happen. Better to just prevent the "paid mouthpiece" from trying to use AI for his own partisan purposes.

Regardless of whether you agree or not with Amsterdams views, do you not find it somewhat strange that some representatives of AI are blocking freedom of speech? He was invited by the Malaysian AI to speak on human rights violation in Thailand.

They are NOT blocking freedom of speech. They are blocking the use of AI as a political tool of Thaksin. The proof that Amsterdam;s "freedom of speech" has not been infringed upon is that he still held his talk (all by himself.)

[whybother]

Regardless of whether you agree or not with Amsterdams views, do you not find it somewhat strange that some representatives of AI are blocking freedom of speech? He was invited by the Malaysian AI to speak on human rights violation in Thailand.

Did they stop him from speaking? No.

AI are not blocking freedom of speech. They are just stopping politicization of AI.

[whybother]

They are NOT blocking freedom of speech. They are blocking the use of AI as a political tool of Thaksin. The proof that Amsterdam;s "freedom of speech" has not been infringed upon is that he still held his talk (all by himself.)

I'm sure he could have invited a few people. But there was more publicity to do it on his own. And maybe, no one wanted to listen.

[Crushdepth]

...do you not find it somewhat strange that some representatives of AI are blocking freedom of speech? He was invited by the Malaysian AI to speak on human rights violation in Thailand.

They *aren't* blocking freedom of speech. Robert Amsterdam can say and do as he likes.

Amnesty International distanced themselves from the event to preserve their reputation as a neutral body, which was the only credible thing they could do. The real issue is why was Robert Amsterdam ever invited to speak in the first place? That was completely inappropriate.

If I had to guess, I'd say that in pursuing the Abhisit government over the 2010 riot deaths, someone forgot that Amnesty was also pursuing the Thaksin government over the massacre of muslims at Tak Bai and the "war on drugs". Oops...