Thailand's Democrats Seek Ban On Thaksin Party

[animatic]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.....

Our discussions are not the Thai courts, so, for the purpose of our discussions in trying to get to the bottom of things we can be honest with each other. There is no need for prevarication (within the law, of course )

There is overwhelming evidence of Newin's personal associations with the last government's officials. The press reported on them frequently, and there is that hilarious video of Suthep and Newin organising Blue Shirt thugs during the ASEAN conference in Pattaya. I expect that the new government will want to have a look at what went wrong with the judicial process in this and other cases at some point.

There is overwhelming evidence of k. Thaksin's personal association with the Pheu Thai party. The press reported on them frequently. Thanks to PTV and frequent phone/video-ins, twitters, the whole world can see and hear all the contradictions and even lies (assuming the whole world cares that is). BTW there was also overwhelming evidence of k. Thaksin's involvement in the two PPP led governments with proxy PM's. He's a bit of a recidivist, now isn't he

And a chronic tergiversator.

[Wallaby]

Thaksin and Pheu Thai were completely forthright and honest about their allegiance, and the electorate gave them a parliamentary majority.

Does the fact that they got a parliamentary majority mean that it's OK if they broke the law to get it?

If his involvement wasn't known then it is not ok to break the law. If his involvement wasn't hidden (which I believe it wasn't) and the people knew (which I believe they did) and they still voted for him then my answer would be a resounding YES it is ok. The people have voted with that knowledge so that should be the end of it.

Reason for edit: Quotes didn't come through properly.

Edited July 10, 2011 by soundman
Tried to fix quote tags.

[whybother]

I may have missed something in the 35 pages here but I don't think that anyone has defined what the alleged infringement of the law is. "Involved in politics when banned" is a very vague term. There must be a clearer definition in the legislation as to what the phrase being used here means. I thought that the law meant that while banned, a person could not be a party leader or party executive. I assume that someone out there can tell me why I am wrong in thinking that Thaksin is not either of these

It's not just not being allowed to be a party leader or executive.

It's basically, not allowed to be involved in politics. That would generally include not being allowed to campaign.

[whybother]

Thaksin and Pheu Thai were completely forthright and honest about their allegiance, and the electorate gave them a parliamentary majority.

Does the fact that they got a parliamentary majority mean that it's OK if they broke the law to get it?

If his involvement wasn't known then it is not ok to break the law. If his involvement wasn't hidden (which I believe it wasn't) and the people knew (which I believe they did) and they still voted for him then my answer would be a resounding YES it is ok. The people have voted with that knowledge so that should be the end of it.

So, if I tell a few people that I'm going to rob a bank, and they all say, "sure go ahead", then it's OK if I rob the bank.

What about, if I pay everyone 10,000 baht to vote for me, and they all vote for me, then that's not breaking the law.

[dmcguire70]

The Illuminate in here will never accept the Thai peoples decision,no matter what u say.

So in your eyes, following the law = not accepting Thai people's decision.

Following the law and looking for a scapegoat are two completely different things!

[Wallaby]

Thaksin and Pheu Thai were completely forthright and honest about their allegiance, and the electorate gave them a parliamentary majority.

Does the fact that they got a parliamentary majority mean that it's OK if they broke the law to get it?

If his involvement wasn't known then it is not ok to break the law. If his involvement wasn't hidden (which I believe it wasn't) and the people knew (which I believe they did) and they still voted for him then my answer would be a resounding YES it is ok. The people have voted with that knowledge so that should be the end of it.

So, if I tell a few people that I'm going to rob a bank, and they all say, "sure go ahead", then it's OK if I rob the bank.

What about, if I pay everyone 10,000 baht to vote for me, and they all vote for me, then that's not breaking the law.

Well if the bank knows you are going to do it then doesn't lay a complaint, in fact thanks you for doing it, then yes that is ok. It isn't actually robbing if it is wanted.

How can you ensure the people you give money to are actually going to vote for the party? My gf took 200 baht off the PTP and voted for Abihist. The dems also gave out money so a bit rich for them to go screaming about things like that.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Wallaby

[whybother]

Well if the bank knows you are going to do it then doesn't lay a complaint, in fact thanks you for doing it, then yes that is ok. It isn't actually robbing if it is wanted.

So, in this case, the Democrats were the ones affected, so it's OK that the Democrats have laid a complaint then. Thanks.

How can you ensure the people you give money to are actually going to vote for the party? My gf took 200 bath off the PTP and voted for Abihist. The dems also gave out money so a bit rich for them to go screaming about things like that.

You can't know. It's not the result that is against the law, it's the intent.

How does the police know that your speeding is going to cause and accident and kill people? They don't, but they charge you with speeding anyway, because it's the law.

[animatic]

Thaksin and Pheu Thai were completely forthright and honest about their allegiance, and the electorate gave them a parliamentary majority.

Does the fact that they got a parliamentary majority mean that it's OK if they broke the law to get it?

If his involvement wasn't known then it is not ok to break the law. If his involvement wasn't hidden (which I believe it wasn't) and the people knew (which I believe they did) and they still voted for him then my answer would be a resounding YES it is ok. The people have voted with that knowledge so that should be the end of it.

quotes fixed

[tlansford]

regarding corruption in gov't & elections, perhaps we as westerners should remember that :

4 of the last 7 governors of Illinois have been convicted of crimes.

Most all of the US States (47 of 50) allow redistricting of their election districts to ensure re-election.

Jacques Chirac was to be indited for crimes committed while mayor of Paris and benefited from immunity because he was then the President of the republic.

DSK - the former head of the IMF and French presidential hopeful is now under house arrest in the US for allegedly sexually assaulting hotel staff.

Multinational corporations in the US can now spend unlimited amounts of money on elections because they have been granted the same free-speech rights as individuals.

etc, etc, etc, ...

Before we all pile on the Thai people for their elections and corruption, we should remember that where ever we live and come from, there are always problems to solve and that there, too, money & graft rules the world.

Good luck to the Thai people and their new government. They have much work to do.

Actually DSK is released on bail, and free to travel anywhere if he doesn't leave USA.

Never said the USA house is an icon of perfection.

But we DO nail are bad eggs when we can.

Like Balgovich up for 10 real of a possible 300 years in jail,

Yes, gerrymandering is done in USA for political advantage.

None of which is an excuse to let Thaksins baltant crimes get a free pass.

Hi Animatic - sometimes on TVF it seems like more than nailing a bad egg. Just an observation.

I don't watch TV or take the newspaper, so I missed DSK being on bail - last time I heard, he was in a NYC apartment with a $50,000/month rent. Nice house-arrest, eh?

People who care about Thailand and Thai people should worry about what happens in Thailand. Normal. But so many throw stones in glass houses on TVF.

[jdinasia]

OK ... the argument for Thaksin being allowed to do ANYTHING seems to follow a predictable pattern. There need be no checks and balances if a large number of people approve of whatever is being done. Sorry gang but that isn't "democracy". Thaksin trashed the checks and balances needed for a democracy to function while he was in office and now this appeal to mob rule offered by many participants on the board looks like exactly the same thing.

Argument by parable or analogy doesn't work. One of the pillars of democracy is the "rule of law".

Let's look at Wallaby's continuation of the bank robbery analogy. A large number of depositors in the bank know that insurance will cover them AND that the thief will give them a bonus a'la Jesse James. That the rest of the depositors who may not be covered by insurance and won't get that bonus from Jesse doesn't matter ??

Back to reality. Break the law and suffer the consequences. That is the rule of law ... Can there be mitigating factors for violating a law? Yes. Is popularity one of those factors? No.

Again ---- PTP tried this very same tactic in the past (but foolishly went for the wrong people.) Then again since they had so many banned politicians in their own ranks pulling the strings they couldn't go after Newin directly -- so they tried to hit the Dems with it. They forgot that Newin isn't a Democrat.

[animatic]

Thaksin and Pheu Thai were completely forthright and honest about their allegiance, and the electorate gave them a parliamentary majority.

Does the fact that they got a parliamentary majority mean that it's OK if they broke the law to get it?

If his involvement wasn't known then it is not ok to break the law. If his involvement wasn't hidden (which I believe it wasn't) and the people knew (which I believe they did) and they still voted for him then my answer would be a resounding YES it is ok. The people have voted with that knowledge so that should be the end of it.

So, if I tell a few people that I'm going to rob a bank, and they all say, "sure go ahead", then it's OK if I rob the bank.

What about, if I pay everyone 10,000 baht to vote for me, and they all vote for me, then that's not breaking the law.

What if you rob the bank and then pay everyone in town a small share so they won't tell the sherrif to arrest you, and then ask them to vote you mayor and sherrif so you can rob the bank again, and give them a bigger share, and then hire your engineering company to do town works, for extra large fees?

Should this be ok because all in the town want their piece of the pie, and don't care, or make the connection about properly done road building and traffic lights being installed and your graft between them and progress?

Edited July 10, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

regarding corruption in gov't & elections, perhaps we as westerners should remember that :

4 of the last 7 governors of Illinois have been convicted of crimes.

Most all of the US States (47 of 50) allow redistricting of their election districts to ensure re-election.

Jacques Chirac was to be indited for crimes committed while mayor of Paris and benefited from immunity because he was then the President of the republic.

DSK - the former head of the IMF and French presidential hopeful is now under house arrest in the US for allegedly sexually assaulting hotel staff.

Multinational corporations in the US can now spend unlimited amounts of money on elections because they have been granted the same free-speech rights as individuals.

etc, etc, etc, ...

Before we all pile on the Thai people for their elections and corruption, we should remember that where ever we live and come from, there are always problems to solve and that there, too, money & graft rules the world.

Good luck to the Thai people and their new government. They have much work to do.

Actually DSK is released on bail, and free to travel anywhere if he doesn't leave USA.

Never said the USA house is an icon of perfection.

But we DO nail our bad eggs when we can.

Like Balgovich up for 10 real of a possible 300 years in jail,

Yes, gerrymandering is done in USA for political advantage.

None of which is an excuse to let Thaksins baltant crimes get a free pass.

Hi Animatic - sometimes on TVF it seems like more than nailing a bad egg. Just an observation.

I don't watch TV or take the newspaper, so I missed DSK being on bail - last time I heard, he was in a NYC apartment with a $50,000/month rent. Nice house-arrest, eh?

People who care about Thailand and Thai people should worry about what happens in Thailand. Normal. But so many throw stones in glass houses on TVF.

Sometimes on TVF it seems like many are just farting out 100 year old eggs, and crushing them with a large hammer, because they have nothing better to do and they like the stink.

Edited July 10, 2011 by animatic

[pastitche]

I may have missed something in the 35 pages here but I don't think that anyone has defined what the alleged infringement of the law is. "Involved in politics when banned" is a very vague term. There must be a clearer definition in the legislation as to what the phrase being used here means. I thought that the law meant that while banned, a person could not be a party leader or party executive. I assume that someone out there can tell me why I am wrong in thinking that Thaksin is not either of these

It's not just not being allowed to be a party leader or executive.

It's basically, not allowed to be involved in politics. That would generally include not being allowed to campaign.

I would respectfully suggest that this is no more than your opinion; as I said before "involved in politics" is vague and is too all-encompassing to be acceptable in any legislation as an offence. What I asked was whether there is a clearer definition of what the offender has to be shown to have done for an offence to have been committed. This thread has been going for a very long time with many posters claiming that they are supporting the rule of law but apparently none can say how that law has been broken

[YellowFeverCAD]

The Illuminate in here will never accept the Thai peoples decision,no matter what u say.

It is so sad that so many people like yourself have such a terrible opinion of Thai people. I guess they really could be that stupid but I prefer to not believe it.

The decision you speak of was a slight majority in the actual popular vote so it means there is a huge number of Thai's that do not approve of the winning party I wonder if their opinion suddenly does not count?

I know or accept it's possible that a large majority of people that supported PTP/Reds don't fully grasp that they will not get rich from having them in power and in many cases will be worse off. I also see some value in letting PTP hang themselves with trying to implement their policies, but that would do a lot of long term harm to the financial health of an already shaky house of cards.

I can keep the faith that once enough people of those that voted for PTP and their exiled leader see them for their true colors and come to understand that real change takes time a long time.. they will in time NOT vote for them again or for the quick fix they think is coming but in reality never can.

If step one is filing charges against ALL parties that broke election day rules that is where we start.

The tired old we won so forget how we won is such an insulting elitist POV that far too many Farang seem to put forth.

For the record my wife and her family voted for neither 1 or 10 so no axe to grind here.

It would just be nice to something that resembles actual progress happen in this country however far fetched that appears at the moment.

[musiclover]

regarding corruption in gov't & elections, perhaps we as westerners should remember that :

4 of the last 7 governors of Illinois have been convicted of crimes.

Most all of the US States (47 of 50) allow redistricting of their election districts to ensure re-election.

Jacques Chirac was to be indited for crimes committed while mayor of Paris and benefited from immunity because he was then the President of the republic.

DSK - the former head of the IMF and French presidential hopeful is now under house arrest in the US for allegedly sexually assaulting hotel staff.

Multinational corporations in the US can now spend unlimited amounts of money on elections because they have been granted the same free-speech rights as individuals.

etc, etc, etc, ...

Before we all pile on the Thai people for their elections and corruption, we should remember that where ever we live and come from, there are always problems to solve and that there, too, money & graft rules the world.

Good luck to the Thai people and their new government. They have much work to do.

Actually DSK is released on bail, and free to travel anywhere if he doesn't leave USA.

Never said the USA house is an icon of perfection.

But we DO nail our bad eggs when we can.

Like Balgovich up for 10 real of a possible 300 years in jail,

Yes, gerrymandering is done in USA for political advantage.

None of which is an excuse to let Thaksins baltant crimes get a free pass.

Hi Animatic - sometimes on TVF it seems like more than nailing a bad egg. Just an observation.

I don't watch TV or take the newspaper, so I missed DSK being on bail - last time I heard, he was in a NYC apartment with a $50,000/month rent. Nice house-arrest, eh?

People who care about Thailand and Thai people should worry about what happens in Thailand. Normal. But so many throw stones in glass houses on TVF.

Sometimes on TVF it seems like many are just farting out 100 year old eggs, and crushing them with a large hammer, because they have nothing better to do and they like the stink.

And this post from a poster with 12000 posts in 5 years(!!!) qualifies for just such a description!

Irrelevant and a non sequitur to boot ...........

[whybother]

quotes fixed

Not fixed correctly though.

See

[rixalex]

This thread has been going for a very long time with many posters claiming that they are supporting the rule of law but apparently none can say how that law has been broken

Because supporting the rule of law doesn't mean saying how or even whether a law has been broken. That is for the people with the expertise and with the job of investigating the matter. The investigation is what is being supported here... by some.... not by others.

[whybother]

More evidence for the EC from the mouth of Thaksin.

"I already discussed with Pheu Thai's executives and we agree that the government should talk to all sides to restore the national reconciliation".

[Wallaby]

Well if the bank knows you are going to do it then doesn't lay a complaint, in fact thanks you for doing it, then yes that is ok. It isn't actually robbing if it is wanted.

So, in this case, the Democrats were the ones affected, so it's OK that the Democrats have laid a complaint then. Thanks.

How can you ensure the people you give money to are actually going to vote for the party? My gf took 200 bath off the PTP and voted for Abihist. The dems also gave out money so a bit rich for them to go screaming about things like that.

You can't know. It's not the result that is against the law, it's the intent.

How does the police know that your speeding is going to cause and accident and kill people? They don't, but they charge you with speeding anyway, because it's the law.

How are the Dems affected? Who is to say the PTP voters would have voted for the Dems?

'Intent'? So if I intend to speed but I don't then I'm breaking the law?

Sometimes when people speed they don't get a ticket even though they have broken the law. Discretion is used having consideration to the public wishes.

Since you started using anecdotes I will say that I was instructing a prosection barrister in drug trafficking case. Person in jail gets a small vial of heroine in between 2 slices of bread delivered to his cell. He didn't want it and thought it was for the guy in the next cell so gave the bread back to the guard and asked him to give it to the next guy. Guard found the heroin and police charged the guy with trafficking.

If that trial had been before a judge alone then he would have been found guilty as he had technically been trafficking the heroin. The case was before a jury who used common sense and logic and found him not guilty. We could have appealed that because it was an unsafe verdict in relation to the facts of the case but it just wasn't worth the expense to do so having regard to the seriousness of the crime and it was also not really in the public interest to go through it all again.

Sometimes the law is the law and sometimes it isn't when discretion is used after consideration given to the interests of the people. Happens all the time.

[473geo]

This thread has been going for a very long time with many posters claiming that they are supporting the rule of law but apparently none can say how that law has been broken

Because supporting the rule of law doesn't mean saying how or even whether a law has been broken. That is for the people with the expertise and with the job of investigating the matter. The investigation is what is being supported here... by some.... not by others.

Rather interesting that the same posters are not fully supporting, being so dogmatic, vociferous,and insisting the law be upheld, regarding the investigation request by his sister into the shooting of an Italian journalist.

[dmcguire70]

More evidence for the EC from the mouth of Thaksin.

"I already discussed with Pheu Thai's executives and we agree that the government should talk to all sides to restore the national reconciliation".

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4548824

Sounds good to me.If all parties are willing to start dialogue on this issue, I say that's a promising start.

Isn't this what the whole country( Apart from the rich and powerful) wants-reconciliation?

[whybother]

Rather interesting that the same posters are not fully supporting, being so dogmatic, vociferous,and insisting the law be upheld, regarding the investigation request by his sister into the shooting of an Italian journalist.

Is anyone saying that the shooting *shouldn't* be investigated?

If you apply the same thinking as most pro-red shirt/PTP/Thaksin posters in this thread, the army shouldn't be investigated for anything during the April/May protests "because the army won."

[Puccini]

From todays news:

Thaksin said in an interview:

I already discussed with Pheu Thai's executives and we agree that the government should talk to all sides to restore the national reconciliation.

Source: The Nation, quoting from the Manager website

Clearly, this not an involvement in politics by a person banned from politics. Am I seeing this correctly?

[473geo]

More evidence for the EC from the mouth of Thaksin.

"I already discussed with Pheu Thai's executives and we agree that the government should talk to all sides to restore the national reconciliation".

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4548824

Perhaps he was only trying to 'educate' the executives, have a discussion, offer his opinion, ............I believe this is not seen as interfering in Thai politics by many Tvisa posters......after all the final decision will be made by the party executive....without Thaksin.

[whybother]

More evidence for the EC from the mouth of Thaksin.

"I already discussed with Pheu Thai's executives and we agree that the government should talk to all sides to restore the national reconciliation".

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4548824

Sounds good to me.If all parties are willing to start dialogue on this issue, I say that's a promising start.

Isn't this what the whole country( Apart from the rich and powerful) wants-reconciliation?

My point was related to Thaksin being involved in PTP's policies.

If you want to discuss reconciliation, go to the linked thread.

[pastitche]

This thread has been going for a very long time with many posters claiming that they are supporting the rule of law but apparently none can say how that law has been broken

Because supporting the rule of law doesn't mean saying how or even whether a law has been broken. That is for the people with the expertise and with the job of investigating the matter. The investigation is what is being supported here... by some.... not by others.

By quoting only the final sentence of my post you have ignored the question I asked and implicitly aligned me with those who do not support an investigation. That is not the case

I asked what the legal definition of "involved in politics while banned" because it must be rather more than this vague phrase which could be interpreted in so many ways that it is meaningless; I thought that one of you protagonists might know; it appears that you certainly don't so why did you bother to respond?

[Wallaby]

What if you rob the bank and then pay everyone in town a small share so they won't tell the sherrif to arrest you, and then ask them to vote you mayor and sherrif so you can rob the bank again, and give them a bigger share, and then hire your engineering company to do town works, for extra large fees?

Should this be ok because all in the town want their piece of the pie, and don't care, or make the connection about properly done road building and traffic lights being installed and your graft between them and progress?

What is it with bank robberies, are you asking legal advice on how to get away with it? Only joking. .

From what I see on here the main point of contention is that Thaksin is banned from entering politics etc but he was quite blatant in being active in the election. Yet knowing this the people still voted as they did.

Of course my view would be completely different if Thaksin had been more clandestine and worked behind the scenes. The fact that he was quite openly involved and the people still voted the way they did would indicate the public interest should take precedence.

But that's just my opinion on it. I doubt I'll change yours and I doubt you'll change mine. So I'll go and have a few ales and hope the future outcome, whatever it is, doesn't escalate to violence.

[whybother]

From what I see on here the main point of contention is that Thaksin is banned from entering politics etc but he was quite blatant in being active in the election. Yet knowing this the people still voted as they did.

Of course my view would be completely different if Thaksin had been more clandestine and worked behind the scenes. The fact that he was quite openly involved and the people still voted the way they did would indicate the public interest should take precedence.

But that's just my opinion on it. I doubt I'll change yours and I doubt you'll change mine. So I'll go and have a few ales and hope the future outcome, whatever it is, doesn't escalate to violence.

Maybe (some of) the people would have voted differently had Thaksin not been involved.

Of course, we don't know that, but it's irrelevant how the people voted. The fact is, it is against the law for Thaksin to be involved, and if he was involved with PTP knowledge (which no one is really denying) then that should be investigated, and if found guilty, they should be banned.

[Wallaby]

Rather interesting that the same posters are not fully supporting, being so dogmatic, vociferous,and insisting the law be upheld, regarding the investigation request by his sister into the shooting of an Italian journalist.

Is anyone saying that the shooting *shouldn't* be investigated?

If you apply the same thinking as most pro-red shirt/PTP/Thaksin posters in this thread, the army shouldn't be investigated for anything during the April/May protests "because the army won."

Did the people vote for the army in the knowledge that they 'may' have committed attrocities?

[Wallaby]

From what I see on here the main point of contention is that Thaksin is banned from entering politics etc but he was quite blatant in being active in the election. Yet knowing this the people still voted as they did.

Of course my view would be completely different if Thaksin had been more clandestine and worked behind the scenes. The fact that he was quite openly involved and the people still voted the way they did would indicate the public interest should take precedence.

But that's just my opinion on it. I doubt I'll change yours and I doubt you'll change mine. So I'll go and have a few ales and hope the future outcome, whatever it is, doesn't escalate to violence.

Maybe (some of) the people would have voted differently had Thaksin not been involved.

Of course, we don't know that, but it's irrelevant how the people voted. The fact is, it is against the law for Thaksin to be involved, and if he was involved with PTP knowledge (which no one is really denying) then that should be investigated, and if found guilty, they should be banned.

So you are happy to disregard the will of the people.