Thailand's Democrats Seek Ban On Thaksin Party

[rubl]

Misnamed Thai Democrat Party making itself look even more ruthless and even less credible

Bloody fools, 'ruthlessly' asking the Election Commission (EC) to pursue the abolition of Thaksin's Puea Thai Party, the winner of Sunday's election, on the grounds that banned politicians were involved in its campaign. How dare they ask

[noncommercial]

The Dems are doing their best to make people feel sorry for Thaksin. It is a no win situation.

If their bid to ban PT fails then the Dems look like sore losers willing to try anything to get into power. Thaksin has a license to show how un-democratic they really are and will milk it for all it is worth.

If they succeed then resentment of the Dems & their backers will grow even more and this will just lead to more trouble. Thaksin has a license to show how un-democratic they really are and will milk it for all it is worth.

Sensible Thais realise that the Dems are essentially unelectable as they can never win the north / north east.

[badmedicine]

Can they not just appoint a new electorate?

  

Brilliant.

While I'm pretty disgusted that Thaksin won, I can't see this move by the Dems doing anything other than increasing the public's dislike of them.  Not wise, it seems to me.

Edited July 8, 2011 by badmedicine

[BlueSkyCowboy]

So, here they go again? Can't win at the ballot box, let's get the winning party banned in the courts? Do they have an aversion to being in opposition?

If they're successful, what will they say to the Thai people? "We know you didn't vote for us, but we didn't like the results of the election, so we changed it?"

Democrats? In name only!

Never heard of Democratic Republic of North Korea or the Socialists who call themselves Democrats in the US

[Nisa]

The results of how people voted is a moot point if election laws were broken or a candidate or party was illegal. It would be no different in the US if somebody was elected who turned out to be under the constitutional age to run for president. The only difference is that this would have been investigated and discovered before the election ... same as should have been done in this case. My guess is the democrats never thought PT would get enough votes to form a majority and they didn't want to go on the "attack" of Thaksin's involvement for fear of it bringing up heated emotions on both sides ... so, they largely ignored his clear involvement and his being the defacto party leader..

Edited July 8, 2011 by Nisa

[wolf5370]

Why didn't the Dems contest the validity of PT or it's members before the election? It just makes the Dems look like little cry babies by running home to mummy after they don't get their way.

Could open a can of worms by finding out that both parties acted illegally, end up with the military in charge. Ahhh welcome Prime Minister General...

It's a fair question, but it's going to take months for this to go through the courts anyway, so it wouldn't have stopped the election to proceed as it did. That I think weakens your point. I also think it was rather obvious that PTP was doing this, I mean in most countries the idea of a criminal fugitive pulling the strings of a proxy candidate would raise eyebrows to put it mildly, but the voters didn't seem to care. But strictly legally they have every right to pursue this case.

Whybother...........I'm not sure what you are saying. It would be the same as big Arnie being elected President of the US and only then a complaint being made that he was illegally elected because he wasn't born in the US. Thaksin (the puppeteer) isn't elected and he is banned isn't he? I'm sure the Dems could have filed a complaint that the PT party, or certain members, were acting illegally and at least then it wouldn't be seen as sour grapes.

Jingthing, another way to look at is that the people knew the 'problems' with big brother illegally 'influencing' the election but they considered it a better alternative than to vote for the dems. It could be that the people preferred a 'criminal' to govern them.

No, not a fair comparison at all - if it suddenly became apparant during the election campaign that he was not born in America, then yes. The complaint isn't that she is related to Thaksin, but that he was active in the campaign - public video conferences etc - and he was used and sold as part of the party. If he is banned from politics and they allowed him to do this, then they (PTP) has knowingly broken the law during their campaign and that must not be allowed. Yes, it should have been reported at the time - but it does not have to be. I still think it is a silly move (it will not damage the party structurally much or in the eyes of the peple - and will be seen as sour grapes I'm sure), but that doesn't stop the legitimacy of the claim. It was a calculated risk by PTP - they needed big bruv for the populist vote - they took the chance knowing full well that this would happen if they won.

Edited July 8, 2011 by wolf5370

[Samuian]

So, here they go again? Can't win at the ballot box, let's get the winning party banned in the courts? Do they have an aversion to being in opposition?

If they're successful, what will they say to the Thai people? "We know you didn't vote for us, but we didn't like the results of the election, so we changed it?"

Democrats? In name only!

You putting your question, argument, statement the wrong way!

And with "aversion" you pointing in a direction the situation doesn't rectify, it's simple political wrestling.

You should ask: "why PTP didn't bother to close the loophole!"

Did they maybe KNOW that they will win again a landslide "election"?

It would be stupid of the Democrats NOT to apply the leverage provided AGAIN by the offspring of TRT, PPP not to talk about the sponsor behind the scenes - is name EVERYONE in this country knows!

AND do not forget that it is not only legitimate and a democratic right of ANY party, nope.. but on top of this the Democrats found themselves attacked with "the puket land scandal" in 2001, losing the handle at government house. Chuan Leekpai dissolved the house AND stepped down without hesitation, without calling for back up, the army, yellow shirt, the world court of justice or anything like that - all the resistance formed in the following years when some Mr.Thaksin tried to establish his very own rulez and his very own game, came up through his very own doing... ah' well don't think I need to go too far, either you know, or you don't, if you don't, you lacking the necessary background for a proper discussion it's called onesided, non-objective!

Edited July 8, 2011 by Samuian

[badmedicine]

He evokes too much hatred on both sides.

Maybe just on one side...

[GaiUan]

Why didn't the Dems contest the validity of PT or it's members before the election? It just makes the Dems look like little cry babies by running home to mummy after they don't get their way.

Could open a can of worms by finding out that both parties acted illegally, end up with the military in charge. Ahhh welcome Prime Minister General...

It's a fair question, but it's going to take months for this to go through the courts anyway, so it wouldn't have stopped the election to proceed as it did. That I think weakens your point. I also think it was rather obvious that PTP was doing this, I mean in most countries the idea of a criminal fugitive pulling the strings of a proxy candidate would raise eyebrows to put it mildly, but the voters didn't seem to care. But strictly legally they have every right to pursue this case.

Whybother...........I'm not sure what you are saying. It would be the same as big Arnie being elected President of the US and only then a complaint being made that he was illegally elected because he wasn't born in the US. Thaksin (the puppeteer) isn't elected and he is banned isn't he? I'm sure the Dems could have filed a complaint that the PT party, or certain members, were acting illegally and at least then it wouldn't be seen as sour grapes.

Jingthing, another way to look at is that the people knew the 'problems' with big brother illegally 'influencing' the election but they considered it a better alternative than to vote for the dems. It could be that the people preferred a 'criminal' to govern them.

No, not a fair comparison at all - if it suddenly became apparant duering the election campaign that he was not born in America, then yes. The complaint isn't that she is related to Thaksin, but that he was actrive in the campaign - public video conferences etc - and he was used and sold as part of the party. If he is banned from politics and they allowed him to do this, then they (PTP) has knowingly broken the law during their campaign and that must not be allowed. Yes, it should have been reported at the time - but it does not have to be. I still think it is a silly move (it will not damage the party structurally much or in the eyes of the peple - and will be seen as sour grapes I'm sure), but that doesn't stop the legitimacy of the claim. It was a calculateds risk by PTP - they needed big bruv for the populist vote - they took the chance knowing full well that this would happen if they won.

Stupid question: can't the Election Commission identify or investigate alledgedly illegal stuff by themselves, like before the election?? do they really have to be "mandated" or "urged" to take action????? It's not as if it was completely invisible during the campaign...

Amazing Thailand!! :-D

Edited July 8, 2011 by GaiUan

[OzMick]

And to think this party calls itself "Democrat." They have absolutely no grasp of the term.

They lost, Puea Thai won with a true voting mandate. Move on.

and how they got it doesn't matter? The end justifies the means?

[rubl]

Can someone please inform those North-Eastern MP's this might not be the right time to fly to Dubai to do whatever they want to do if it involves k. Thaksin

[hardy1943]

Look at the colleges they attended very far from the elite.

The colleges Thaksin and Yingluck attended were not a reflection of their family background, but rather their academic level.

Whilst studying in America, Thaksin was driving himself around in a Mercedes. Does that not tell you something? His family had the funds for him to study wherever he liked, but studying somewhere like Yale or Oxford requires something more than money.

Oh Ya? That is why George Bush graduated from Yale and Harvard because he was so bright. Give me a break

[CockneyGit]

Not as if it was not to be expected...

But this leads to -I think- an extremely interesting question:

If PTP (or any Thaksin-powered party) was running for the elections ONCE without any form of bribery and not arranging any public audio/video conference with their Dubai-based sponsor (I almost wrote 'sugar daddy'), so basically in a completely legal way (you are allowed to make populist promises), would they be elected?

If yes, then it's REALLY stupid, as they systematically give grounds to the dems to legally take action

If no, then what the dems do is really legitimate...

mock-rat and others here explain that it is obvious PTP won because everybody in the country wants them... ok, even without ฿500?

This has to be the most common sense response on this topic. Excellent points Sir.

I personally believe the PTP would still win, but probably not an outright majority

[Jingthing]

People are missing the larger picture here about what this is all about. It is still mostly about Thaksin and what he does, what he is allowed to do. This will determine whether there will be more coups, more street anarchy, or total civil war. He has already gone well beyond normal actions. His role in Black Songkran, the Burning of Bangkok, and now the most blatant proxy campaign (while being banned, while being a criminal fugitive) any fiction writer could even construct. Very strong forces, not only the demo party, seriously (and rationally from their point of view) don't want him running the country as a puppet master, and even more so don't want him to come back to take power directly.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Jingthing

[Northman061]

The Dems should simply get on with reforming, reaching out and trying to understand WHY they lost the election. Within a week its back to using the courts and playing to the Military instead of sitting down and planning how to be an effective opposition in offering constructive and new ideas to the Thai people.

One would hope that some new and modern forward thinking Dem MP would grasp the nettle and step forward to lead the party and start the long process of working for the people and not just for the few and the Military.

[bigbamboo]

Thai politics!

[Jingthing]

Oh Ya? That is why George Bush graduated from Yale and Harvard because he was so bright. Give me a break

Legacy admission. His Big Rich Powerful Daddy went there. Thaksin isn't American and had no family legacy at elite American schools, so your point is totally irrelevant.

[whybother]

Stupid question: can't the Election Commission identify or investigate alledgedly illegal stuff by themselves, like before the election?? do they really have to be "mandated" or "urged" to take action????? It's not as if it was completely invisible during the campaign...

Amazing Thailand!! :-D

Actually, I think in a lot of cases in Thailand, it takes an individual to lay a complaint. Without the complaint, the police (or whoever is policing the relevant area) can't investigate.

[rubl]

The Dems should simply get on with reforming, reaching out and trying to understand WHY they lost the election. Within a week its back to using the courts and playing to the Military instead of sitting down and planning how to be an effective opposition in offering constructive and new ideas to the Thai people.

One would hope that some new and modern forward thinking Dem MP would grasp the nettle and step forward to lead the party and start the long process of working for the people and not just for the few and the Military.

I may have missed something with the multitude of posts, but as far as I know the Democrats are not playing to the military. Using the courts seems a good, democratic way. Pheu Thai really liked it when they were in opposition

[whybother]

The Dems should simply get on with reforming, reaching out and trying to understand WHY they lost the election. Within a week its back to using the courts and playing to the Military instead of sitting down and planning how to be an effective opposition in offering constructive and new ideas to the Thai people.

One would hope that some new and modern forward thinking Dem MP would grasp the nettle and step forward to lead the party and start the long process of working for the people and not just for the few and the Military.

Where are they "playing to the military"?

[EnhancePlus]

People are missing the larger picture here about what this is all about. It is still mostly about Thaksin and what he does, what he is allowed to do. This will determine whether there will be more coups, more street anarchy, or total civil war. He has already gone well beyond normal actions. His role in Black Songkran, the Burning of Bangkok, and now the most blatant proxy campaign (while being banned, while being a criminal fugitive) any fiction writer could even construct. Very strong forces, not only the demo party, seriously (and rationally from their point of view) don't want him running the country as a puppet master, and even more so don't want him to come back to take power directly.

Didn't he also spout off," We'll bring a Revolution," in one of his video conferences back in 2009? Troublemaker should be forgotten and let the people move on. 'Thaksinitus' is the cancer of Thailand.

[Samuian]

The Dems should simply get on with reforming, reaching out and trying to understand WHY they lost the election. Within a week its back to using the courts and playing to the Military instead of sitting down and planning how to be an effective opposition in offering constructive and new ideas to the Thai people.

One would hope that some new and modern forward thinking Dem MP would grasp the nettle and step forward to lead the party and start the long process of working for the people and not just for the few and the Military.

Well in the first place they couldn't match the war chest provided!

And second they tried to play by certain rules.

3rd they did refrain making wild, wild, wild and very costly promises.

but still still they managed to get almost a 3rd of all the seats.

4th it's a wee bit fishy that someone mentioned BEFORE the results, BEFORE the election.. that he might be back BEFORE end of this year...and BANG his "little toy" got the absolute majority with one go, because everyone loves Bagkok in flames? ... he leaves nothing to chance, cause he may have only this one and it may have been quite costly and ah' well.. you know, because you allow yourself to see or you don't, then keep on "making things better from your sofa"!

Edited July 8, 2011 by Samuian

[Nisa]

Now I truly understand the saying ... Same Same but different.

Is this really a shock to anybody? It is simply history repeating itself and will continue to do so until they take action against Thaksin and any Thai citizen in Thailand (even family) who speaks to him because they are technically aiding and abetting a wanted terrorist and fugitive.

[whybother]

This action, IF it is successful, won't get the Democrats into government.

It's NOT 2008.

The PTP have a majority of seats and don't have large factions that are going to change sides.

Only the executives will be banned. Some by-elections will need to take place, which new-PTP will no doubt win.

Yingluck will still be PM. The new-PTP will still have a majority and will still have the support of their coalition partners.

Nothing will change.

Edited July 8, 2011 by whybother

[jdinasia]

Look at the colleges they attended very far from the elite.

The colleges Thaksin and Yingluck attended were not a reflection of their family background, but rather their academic level.

Whilst studying in America, Thaksin was driving himself around in a Mercedes. Does that not tell you something? His family had the funds for him to study wherever he liked, but studying somewhere like Yale or Oxford requires something more than money.

Oh Ya? That is why George Bush graduated from Yale and Harvard because he was so bright. Give me a break

Bush was a "C" student at Yale

Bush was a "legacy" student ( former alumnus in the family -- ). So yes it in fact DOES take more than just money, Having a father and a grandfather that are prominent alumnus of the college goes a long way ..... Money on its own just isn't enough (in most cases)

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0207-05.htm

Published on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 in the Chicago Tribune

The Affirmative-Action President's Dilemma

by David B. Wilkins

It is common knowledge that President Bush was not much of a student. Although the facts of his lack of academic distinction--at Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass., Yale University and Harvard Business School--are well known, few people have stopped to ask a seemingly obvious question: How did someone with mediocre grades get admitted to two of this nation's most prestigious universities? With respect to Yale, the answer is plain. George W. Bush was admitted to Yale because his father, George Herbert Walker Bush, and his grandfather, Prescott Bush, were prominent alumni.

Giving preferential treatment to the children of alumni is standard practice at most elite institutions of higher learning. University officials claim these "legacy admittees" strengthen their schools by creating continuity across the generations and building a loyal alumni base. This justification parallels the most commonly articulated defense for affirmative action in minority admissions. But Bush and many of his supporters have expressed skepticism--and in the case of U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, outright hostility--for affirmative-action policies for minority students while saying virtually nothing about the affirmative help routinely given to alumni children.

and http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/timep.affirm.action.tm/

Edited July 8, 2011 by jdinasia

[inquisitive]

I apologize if this has already been stated by someone else, but after a few pages of reading I've run out of time and must go out. Still, I can't agree with those that say we should throw out the rule book just because the mood of the moment says it would be nicer to live without certain rules. All the talk about how many votes PT received are completely off the point. I thin we'd all agree that if Charles Manson received 99% of the vote he would still not be eligible for the post (not the least because he is not Thai). That would be an admission that getting a lot of votes is only part of the equasion. The bottom line is that either the party acted within the rules or it didn't. The question is not whether they acted effectively in getting votes, the question is whether they acted LEGALLY.

And all this ink about how the vast majority of Thais want PT in power? Not true. The math is simple: take the total number of Thais that voted for PT and divide it bythe total number of Thais and you'll see it is far less than 50%. LESS than half. How else can I say that? They did not get approval from even half the country. The fact is that a very large group - as in VERY large group - voted to tell PT to bugger off.

I do agree that PT is still the victor, and I also agree that if they won fair and square they should be allowed to govern. The Dems are just saying that they think PT cheated and would not have won if it weren't for the cheating. The system - the same system that allowed Thaksin to take power the first time even though he was technically and clearly NOT allowed to do so - is now being used to test whether PT had a legitimate win or stole the election through dirty tactics. So who has a problem with that? Who could possibly call that anti-democratic?

[Jingthing]

Didn't Abhisit say in a campaign speech something like Thaksin is poison for Thailand? I estimate at least 40 percent of Thais would support that feeling, to varying degrees. Some of those 40 percent are more powerful than Thaksin. Now, that is. They don't want to ever allow Thaksin to get more powerful than them. See the problem?

Edited July 8, 2011 by Jingthing

[JohnAllan]

Ah, here we go again.

And as an aside, it seems a little late to talk about the Lese Majeste law being abused.

[EnhancePlus]

Didn't Abhisit say in a campaign speech something like Thaksin is poison for Thailand? I estimate at least 40 percent of Thais would support that feeling, to varying degrees. Some of those 40 percent are more powerful than Thaksin. Now, that is. They don't want to ever to allow Thaksin to get more powerful than them. See the problem?

and the hot potato is tossed back and forth. The thai people being the hot potato

Edited July 8, 2011 by EnhancePlus

[92302]

Hub of indecisiveness