Red-Shirt Leader Jatuporn Makes His Point On Cabinet Line-Up

[Siam Simon]

They deserve a few posts, just like every important fraction does. The DSI chief should not only be replaced but investigated for locking up numerous people under the computer crime law and LM offenses, Thailand does deserve a answer too on who shot on protestors so the responsible figures can become neighbors of Assad and Khadaffi in the Hague soon.

So can I be assured you will also be vocal about the paymaster being brought before proper justice processes for his role in the deaths in his 'drug war' and his involvement in the Tak Bai suffocations?

I thought the 'but he did it too' argument was considered redundant on this forum. Each issue on it's own merits, eh?

What rule, are u making rules?

nice try to avoid my retort but still waiting for your response to my specific retort. And let's remember the paymaster, and his red rabble, how make lots of noise about equal justice / no double standards, so which way do you want it?

I wasn't avoiding your 'retort', just pointing out that it's a lame debating tactic used to avoid debating issues raised, and is rightly condemned by regular posters on a regular basis on this and many other forums all over the internet. If you'd just opined about the issues raised by tragickingdom (or, better still, come up with some evidence to support or disprove said issues) you wouldn't have had to deflect discussion away from the issues s/he raised with 'yes but Thaksin did this,Thaksin did that' would you?

And another lame debating tactic (and non-sequitur to boot): "....still waiting for your response to my specific retort....". Try asking for a response before feigning indignance about not getting one. Anyway, now that I know that you want one from me, I'll provide one: I would like to see proper investigations into all human rights abuses in Thailand. But I know that I will see a flying pig before I see said investigations take place because they will implicate and incriminate people waaaay beyond Thaksin, into regions of Thai society that we're not even allowed to discuss on this forum. Btw, another atrocity that happened under Thaksin's watch, Krue Se. Want to see any of the perps who did the murdering put in prison? One of them (horror of absolute horrors) has been running the ISOC regional command in charge of the Royhingya refugee debacle under the outgoing government. Did you post on any of the pertinent threads on that debacle?

Now please go back and answer the points raised by tragickingdom instead of trying the usual lame diversions.

[ballpoint]

So can I be assured you will also be vocal about the paymaster being brought before proper justice processes for his role in the deaths in his 'drug war' and his involvement in the Tak Bai suffocations?

I thought the 'but he did it too' argument was considered redundant on this forum. Each issue on it's own merits, eh?

What rule, are u making rules?

nice try to avoid my retort but still waiting for your response to my specific retort. And let's remember the paymaster, and his red rabble, how make lots of noise about equal justice / no double standards, so which way do you want it?

I wasn't avoiding your 'retort', just pointing out that it's a lame debating tactic used to avoid debating issues raised, and is rightly condemned by regular posters on a regular basis on this and many other forums all over the internet. If you'd just opined about the issues raised by tragickingdom (or, better still, come up with some evidence to support or disprove said issues) you wouldn't have had to deflect discussion away from the issues s/he raised with 'yes but Thaksin did this,Thaksin did that' would you?

And another lame debating tactic (and non-sequitur to boot): "....still waiting for your response to my specific retort....". Try asking for a response before feigning indignance about not getting one. Anyway, now that I know that you want one from me, I'll provide one: I would like to see proper investigations into all human rights abuses in Thailand. But I know that I will see a flying pig before I see said investigations take place because they will implicate and incriminate people waaaay beyond Thaksin, into regions of Thai society that we're not even allowed to discuss on this forum. Btw, another atrocity that happened under Thaksin's watch, Krue Se. Want to see any of the perps who did the murdering put in prison? One of them (horror of absolute horrors) has been running the ISOC regional command in charge of the Royhingya refugee debacle under the outgoing government. Did you post on any of the pertinent threads on that debacle?

Now please go back and answer the points raised by tragickingdom instead of trying the usual lame diversions.

Yes, it is a lame tactic. Shame you've been forced to use it yourself by bringing the "Royhingya" (sic) up. Lame duck calling the kettle black.

[hammered]

After Kasit of airport fame became a minister, it is pretty hard to say a red shirt leader shouldnt although admittedly Kasit did dodge being charged like loads of yellow shirt leaders.

Nattawut in command of the airwaves and media. Now that would be interesting considering he knows how to use it to maximum advantage

Jatuporn as minister of justice could be good for a giggle, or Madame Thida at ministry of education after her red school experiences. Seriously I wouldnt be surprised if a red leader of some description didnt get a deputy education minister post as after all what the curriculum says about recent events is going to be another hot topic

[rixalex]

After Kasit of airport fame became a minister, it is pretty hard to say a red shirt leader shouldnt although admittedly Kasit did dodge being charged like loads of yellow shirt leaders.

It's only hard if you supported Kasit being a minister.

[hammered]

After Kasit of airport fame became a minister, it is pretty hard to say a red shirt leader shouldnt although admittedly Kasit did dodge being charged like loads of yellow shirt leaders.

It's only hard if you supported Kasit being a minister.

It is hard for the Democrats, BJT, CTP, PPP etc etc and their extra-parliamentary allies or nay who support those groups to criticize it then. I guess that leaves Chuwit and Gen Sonthi and the Palang Chon boys and their supporters none of whom were in the last government voting Kasit into place who could if they want be critical of it, or of course any PTP MP or supporter, none of whom backed Kasit. So it really comes down to whether PTP want to use the same standard as the last government in terms of what is acceptable or not

[rixalex]

It is hard for the Democrats, BJT, CTP, PPP etc etc and their extra-parliamentary allies or nay who support those groups to criticize it then.

Well yes, but hard and contradictory as it may be, isn't it kind of their job? I mean since when has been corrupt themselves stopped any political party from criticizing another for that same crime?

So it really comes down to whether PTP want to use the same standard as the last government in terms of what is acceptable or not

To a degree yes, although some might disagree that the roles played by the individuals in question were exactly the same and were equally severe.

[hammered]

It is hard for the Democrats, BJT, CTP, PPP etc etc and their extra-parliamentary allies or nay who support those groups to criticize it then.

Well yes, but hard and contradictory as it may be, isn't it kind of their job? I mean since when has been corrupt themselves stopped any political party from criticizing another for that same crime?

So it really comes down to whether PTP want to use the same standard as the last government in terms of what is acceptable or not

To a degree yes, although some might disagree that the roles played by the individuals in question were exactly the same and were equally severe.

Of course what individuals did differed. All we can really look at is, is it right that someone who was at a demo that broke the law acceptable to be a cabinet minister or it just gets into subjectivity of what individuals did. In fact even making the general should someone who was at a law breaking demo be a minister judgement is subjective evn if mor generalized out. Certainly Kasit sets the precedent. Maybe anyone should be able to be a minister unless found guilty by final judgement, which seems to be the constitutional standard is ultimately the best one.

The other question of course falls around reconcilliation. You can chose people you know will wind your opponents up or you can not chose them, but even then that also works the other way where opponents can chose to let people have a chance rather than just be wound up by them. The problem isnt so much about the individuals as about the divide linked to the fact there has just been an election and one side has "won" and the other "lost". That creates its own dynamic of feeling euphoric or down depending on winning or losing. Personally I would like to see movement to find common ground, but I think there will be some on the winning side anxious to rub it in and give no ground and some on the losing side planning their next move to undermine or get even

All imho of course

[rixalex]

Of course what individuals did differed. All we can really look at is, is it right that someone who was at a demo that broke the law acceptable to be a cabinet minister or it just gets into subjectivity of what individuals did. In fact even making the general should someone who was at a law breaking demo be a minister judgement is subjective evn if mor generalized out. Certainly Kasit sets the precedent. Maybe anyone should be able to be a minister unless found guilty by final judgement, which seems to be the constitutional standard is ultimately the best one.

I don't think it is only about breaking the law, it is about the circumstances and the details.

Much like how say for example in the UK, having smoked cannabis would not stop you becoming PM, but snorting coke might. One is deemed by many as being within the limits of reasonable human behaviour, one isn't. No, you won't get everyone agreeing exactly where the line is, but there will be a general consensus.

[hammered]

Of course what individuals did differed. All we can really look at is, is it right that someone who was at a demo that broke the law acceptable to be a cabinet minister or it just gets into subjectivity of what individuals did. In fact even making the general should someone who was at a law breaking demo be a minister judgement is subjective evn if mor generalized out. Certainly Kasit sets the precedent. Maybe anyone should be able to be a minister unless found guilty by final judgement, which seems to be the constitutional standard is ultimately the best one.

I don't think it is only about breaking the law, it is about the circumstances and the details.

Much like how say for example in the UK, having smoked cannabis would not stop you becoming PM, but snorting coke might. One is deemed by many as being within the limits of reasonable human behaviour, one isn't. No, you won't get everyone agreeing exactly where the line is, but there will be a general consensus.

Id put money on Cameron having had something up his nose if I were a gambling man. Blair too.

[rixalex]

Of course what individuals did differed. All we can really look at is, is it right that someone who was at a demo that broke the law acceptable to be a cabinet minister or it just gets into subjectivity of what individuals did. In fact even making the general should someone who was at a law breaking demo be a minister judgement is subjective evn if mor generalized out. Certainly Kasit sets the precedent. Maybe anyone should be able to be a minister unless found guilty by final judgement, which seems to be the constitutional standard is ultimately the best one.

I don't think it is only about breaking the law, it is about the circumstances and the details.

Much like how say for example in the UK, having smoked cannabis would not stop you becoming PM, but snorting coke might. One is deemed by many as being within the limits of reasonable human behaviour, one isn't. No, you won't get everyone agreeing exactly where the line is, but there will be a general consensus.

Id put money on Cameron having had something up his nose if I were a gambling man. Blair too.

The point is, where would your bets lie on them being elected on the back of a front page spread of them snorting up in the toilet?

Anyway, just as well you are not a gambling man, otherwise you'd be breaking the law and the Hammered for PM dream would all be for nought.

[hammered]

Of course what individuals did differed. All we can really look at is, is it right that someone who was at a demo that broke the law acceptable to be a cabinet minister or it just gets into subjectivity of what individuals did. In fact even making the general should someone who was at a law breaking demo be a minister judgement is subjective evn if mor generalized out. Certainly Kasit sets the precedent. Maybe anyone should be able to be a minister unless found guilty by final judgement, which seems to be the constitutional standard is ultimately the best one.

I don't think it is only about breaking the law, it is about the circumstances and the details.

Much like how say for example in the UK, having smoked cannabis would not stop you becoming PM, but snorting coke might. One is deemed by many as being within the limits of reasonable human behaviour, one isn't. No, you won't get everyone agreeing exactly where the line is, but there will be a general consensus.

Id put money on Cameron having had something up his nose if I were a gambling man. Blair too.

The point is, where would your bets lie on them being elected on the back of a front page spread of them snorting up in the toilet?

Anyway, just as well you are not a gambling man, otherwise you'd be breaking the law and the Hammered for PM dream would all be for nought.

Itd never end up on the front of a newspaper. Murdoch would be using it to coerce a deal where he ended up having complete monopolistic control over the entire media of the UK in exchange for...

PM. Now there's a job I wouldnt want. I never enjoyed the limelight.

[Siam Simon]

Yes, it is a lame tactic. Shame you've been forced to use it yourself by bringing the "Royhingya" (sic) up. Lame duck calling the kettle black.

That's why I put it at the end, as a 'btw' .

Is it spelling awareness day today?

[newtronbom]

They deserve a few posts, just like every important fraction does. The DSI chief should not only be replaced but investigated for locking up numerous people under the computer crime law and LM offenses, Thailand does deserve a answer too on who shot on protestors so the responsible figures can become neighbors of Assad and Khadaffi in the Hague soon.

Are you saying that they shouldn't have shot the red shirt with the "RPG" that was about to fire it on innocent bystanders? Or the "Red Shirts >>Black Shirt<< team" who were scuttling around with loaded "M16s", incindaries and hand grenades??? Well that makes a LOT OF SENSE!! But it does make sense, arresting many who could have been shot instead of getting a chance of a fair hearing in court of law, even if the police/army would have felt like shooting them at the time - and possibly got away with it......I think that if anything, the armed forces showed a lot (even too much) of restraint during a time of "high stress" and lots of violence where many innocent people were actually dying and shops and high-rises were being torched. I think that the police response would have been a lot harsher where most of us come from, don't you?

[newtronbom]

I think people critising the Red Shirt leaders comments miss the point. The Movement was instrumental in mobilising the rural vote that put the party into power. AND as such they had better be included in the cabinet otherwise there will be an instant disconnected between the new Government and the electorate. Think of Obama appointing no blacks to his cabinet or senior Government posts. Think of a Labour Goverment appointing no one from the Labour Movement. Think of the Lib-DEMs (who have sacrifiued some of theiir principles) accepting that they don't get key cabinet posts because of the support to Cameron. Some of you guys just have to get over the fact that the majority of the people in this country support the winners of this election and for the vast majority of the rural population in the North and North-East of this country (plus millions of low paid workers in agriculture, commerce and industry) the Red Shirts represent their thinkinbg and their resistance to the rich elite of this country. This is Politics 101.

None of the "wealthy people" in our Moo Barn voted for this party anyway and have never said anything good about them, but all the locals(common people) around here are waking up from what seemed like a pleasant dream, to the actual reality of what has happened. They all feel uncertain. Insecure. Not at all sure of what is going to happen now. Spending in the local markets has dropped quite a bit and the "stall owners" are feeling it. The ones that were shouting "Victory" - things will get better now - life will improve for all us poorer people at last - finally we will get justice from this election. They are all very quite now and refuse to discuss it at all. Many stall owners that I regularly talk to and who I often joke with, have "clammed up" and not just to me. Where there used to be a constant banter and "leg pulling" amongst themselves around the markets, there is now pretty much silence! Before the election, every Taxi around here and elsewhere, was pro Red Shirt. I got tired of hearing it every time I caught a cab. Now they either change the subject or say it will sort itself out when Taksin comes back. None of this gives me much confidence in the least.

Edited August 7, 2011 by newtronbom

[geriatrickid]

Jatuporn said the red-shirt group will have no problem if its elements are not brought into the Cabinet

Of course,parlementary immunity was all that was needed.To hell with the cabinet ,saving our a*se for the crimes commited and which will be commited inn the future is the only goal.

There is no paliamentary immunity for past acts. If any of the MPs are found guilty of their respective charges, they will not have immunity.

[janverbeem]

Jatuporn said the red-shirt group will have no problem if its elements are not brought into the Cabinet

Of course,parlementary immunity was all that was needed.To hell with the cabinet ,saving our a*se for the crimes commited and which will be commited inn the future is the only goal.

There is no paliamentary immunity for past acts. If any of the MPs are found guilty of their respective charges, they will not have immunity.

I think an acting Thai MP can not be tried in a Thai court,either for past or current crimes.

[Crushdepth]

Jatuporn said the red-shirt group will have no problem if its elements are not brought into the Cabinet

Of course,parlementary immunity was all that was needed.To hell with the cabinet ,saving our a*se for the crimes commited and which will be commited inn the future is the only goal.

There is no paliamentary immunity for past acts. If any of the MPs are found guilty of their respective charges, they will not have immunity.

But he can enjoy immunity while Parliament is underway - and vote himself an amnesty.

[ToffeEFCpower]

After Kasit of airport fame became a minister, it is pretty hard to say a red shirt leader shouldnt although admittedly Kasit did dodge being charged like loads of yellow shirt leaders.

Nattawut in command of the airwaves and media. Now that would be interesting considering he knows how to use it to maximum advantage

Jatuporn as minister of justice could be good for a giggle, or Madame Thida at ministry of education after her red school experiences. Seriously I wouldnt be surprised if a red leader of some description didnt get a deputy education minister post as after all what the curriculum says about recent events is going to be another hot topic

[ToffeEFCpower]

After Kasit of airport fame became a minister, it is pretty hard to say a red shirt leader shouldnt although admittedly Kasit did dodge being charged like loads of yellow shirt leaders.

Nattawut in command of the airwaves and media. Now that would be interesting considering he knows how to use it to maximum advantage

Jatuporn as minister of justice could be good for a giggle, or Madame Thida at ministry of education after her red school experiences. Seriously I wouldnt be surprised if a red leader of some description didnt get a deputy education minister post as after all what the curriculum says about recent events is going to be another hot topic

[ToffeEFCpower]

Yes perfect role for Madame Thida and her "Pol Pot" ideology

[geriatrickid]

[i think an acting Thai MP can not be tried in a Thai court,either for past or current crimes.

No.

Parliamentary Immunity Explained

There appears to be general confusion on the subject of "Parliamentary Immunity". One of the primary reasons may be that the newspapers commenting on the subject are not reporting accurately. This is not a "political" issue, but is one of law. There are several forms of parliamentary immunity throughout the world. I believe that Mr. Jatuporn would not benefit from parliamentary immunity for some of his past activity. The prosecutors in his case are emphasizing the acts that are excluded under Thailand's parliamentary immunity law. I rely on several published legal options for my view. As well, the paper, The Parliamentary Mandate, A Comparative Study, authored by Marc Van der Hulst ofthe Inter Parliamentary Union, in Geneva lays out the situation nicely.

Ratione temporis

In some countries, members of parliament enjoy protection from the time oftheir election, on condition that the election is not subsequently declared invalid.(This is why there is an attempt to invalidate Mr. Jatuporn's status as an MP as this will impact his parliamentary immunity going forward.) Thai Parliamentarians are deprived of parliamentary privilege when parliament is in recess (other examples are Philippines, Republic of Korea, Switzerland). Comments made by Mr. Jatuporn while the house was in recess would not be protected by parliamentary immunity.

Ratione loci

In most countries, the enjoyment of parliamentary non-accountability is related to the exercise of a parliamentary mandate rather than to the place in which the contested statements were made. The privilege of freedom of speech is therefore not limited in space, since it exists both within and outside parliament. This is the position taken by some of Mr. Jatuporn's supporters. However, acts that are unrelated to the exercise of a parliamentary mandate are often excluded from non-accountability, even if they occur within the precincts of parliament. Examples are Finland, Germany, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Namibia, Norway,Philippines, United Kingdom, Zambia), In other countries freedom of speech applies only within the parliament buildings and all other locations are excluded The restriction in terms of location is sometimes even stricter in Malaysia and Thailand, the non-accountability privilege is restricted to the floor of the assembly. This is the most specific reason as to why Mr. Jatuporn should not benefit from parliamentary immunity

Ratione materiae

Words spoken from the floor of the house or elsewhere,such as statements from the floor of the house or in committee, bills or proposed resolutions, votes, written or oral questions are universally viewed as being eligible for protection under the heading of parliamentary non-accountability. In most countries, the same applies to suspensions of sittings, but there are some exceptions (Australia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Egypt, Gabon, Germany, Ireland, Kenya,Malaysia, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, Thailand). The actions Mr. Jatuporn is being prosecuted for did not occur in the House. Rather, they were at the political rallies.

While words spoken in the course of activities by political groups also enjoy the protection of parliamentary non-accountability in quite a few countries, this privilege is not recognised in Thailand. (This is why the emphasis is upon the Redshirt activities rather than theRedshirt MPs. As a political group, there is no immunity.)

In consideration of the above, this is why, I believe that Mr. Jatuporn will not have parliamentary immunity for some of charges he faces.