Abhisit Lashes Out At Attempted Thaksin Pardon

[pastitche]

Referring to the annual royal pardon for the convicts to be set free Dec 5 as part of the celebrations of the king's birthday, Mr Chalerm said "some 26,000 convicts are eligible to be granted royal pardon this year"

So tell me Pro Thaksinites and Red Shirts,where does this include Thaksin,a known absconder from Justice who has never served a day in Jail,as being eligible for this Pardon?

who up to now has never been a Convict? even though he should have been,according to the Thai Judicial Sentences passed against him,

And please no more B***S*** about the sentences were Politically motivated,and don't count,just keep replies to the issues, i.e pure and simple..... THEFT! & CORRUPTION CONVICTIONS, for which he didn't have the courage to stay and face, and proved his guilt by doing a runner! as cowards are apt to do.

The fact that he has absconded in order to avoid imprisonment does not mean that he has not been convicted. He is therefore a convict but not a prisoner

[Buchholz]

How do you pardon someone who has not served any time, nor is in the country?

There is a separate legal process to appeal a conviction, but a pardon, with zero time served? I don't know the ins and outs of the Thai legal system but it seems improbable that they could do this legally.

It would be interesting to ask specifically for a list of over 60yr olds with less than 3yr convictions they had in mind when they wrote this at an emergency meeting

It was actually the Dems who introduced the over 60 yrs old with less than 3 yrs conviction in the last (or previous?) year's pardons. And they who changed the legislation to bar anyone convicted of corruption applying for pardon.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your sensationalised bunfight....

Really?

I have been told that PT change last years's condition to fit Thaksin. Hence the big cry.

Nope, all the PT are allegedly proposing is that those convicted of corruption be eligible for pardon. But it makes much better headlines to claim they are trying to change to 60yo/3yrs, even though that is the current legislation...

Edit: to add allegedly

1. Dems did not "change legislation" last year. There's no legislation involved.

2. The other "new" aspect that you didn't include in your "all that PT is proposing" is that they are asking that a fugitive be granted a pardon.

.

[Buchholz]

Why should Abhisit lash out? He gave amnesty to a bunch of human rights abusing generals?

No, he didn't.

[nong38]

its a disgrace that PT are even talking about this whilst people are still in desperate straits from the floods

there are far more important factors to consider than Thaksin....

You are spot on with your comment, it just shows you where the priorities lie. Sad Day.

I much prefered you when you were Shane Fenton and the Fentones, live amazing!

[nong38]

I like Abhisit, as a Thai politician I think he is elequent and gives credence to the country. One man cannot change things alone, he need like minded people to support him to get things done, things dont happen overnight. If Abhisit were to get those things over a parliament I think he could start things going in the right direction.

One other man with like minded people is trying to change the law to start things going in a direction that will suit him but will it suit Thailand?

To ry and change the law to achieve this so soon would be bad enough, but to hurry this through with such haste and then horror of horrors make the King sign this so it looks like it is his doing is surely not what the Thai people voted for..

[OZEMADE]

Mr Abhisit urged the government to stop pushing the amnesty move for "only one person" and said the premier still has a chance to review the case to avoid possible chaos.

I think Abhisit forgot to mention that it was his Gov when they were in power, changed the amnesty law to include persons convicted of corruption could not be granted amnesty. This was done for one man then? The pot calling the kettle black.

So you'r saying only one man in Thailand is convicted about corruption ?

Having such a law is not bad for Thailand where corruption is everywhere.

NO that is not what I am saying at all. Abhisit is the one who is saying the Government want to change the law for one person.

I quote:- .Mr Abhisit urged the government to stop pushing the amnesty move for "only one person" and said the premier still has a chance to review the case to avoid possible chaos.

What I am saying is that when he was the PM, he and his party,made it quite clear that anyone convicted of corruption, they did not want them to be released under the Amnesty.

He forgot that he Abhisit was stating this at the time for one man, Thaksin.

Yes there are millions of people in Thailand guilty of corruption.

[lannarebirth]

Mr Abhisit urged the government to stop pushing the amnesty move for "only one person" and said the premier still has a chance to review the case to avoid possible chaos.

I think Abhisit forgot to mention that it was his Gov when they were in power, changed the amnesty law to include persons convicted of corruption could not be granted amnesty. This was done for one man then? The pot calling the kettle black.

So you'r saying only one man in Thailand is convicted about corruption ?

Having such a law is not bad for Thailand where corruption is everywhere.

NO that is not what I am saying at all. Abhisit is the one who is saying the Government want to change the law for one person.

I quote:- .Mr Abhisit urged the government to stop pushing the amnesty move for "only one person" and said the premier still has a chance to review the case to avoid possible chaos.

What I am saying is that when he was the PM, he and his party,made it quite clear that anyone convicted of corruption, they did not want them to be released under the Amnesty.

He forgot that he Abhisit was stating this at the time for one man, Thaksin.

Yes there are millions of people in Thailand guilty of corruption.

So are you saying Thaksin's the only Thai ever convicted of corruption who is either serving a jail sentence or has one hanging over his head? He's the only on? Are you sure about that?

[tlansford]

I think both of you are right.

The return of Thaksin will probably be a disaster for the country but all we can do is watch from the wings, as a totally selfish agenda unwinds.

The problem is the selfish blindness is on all sides.

Who knows how this will all end, let's just hope commen sense and moderation will win out.

Another coup and some sort of Government of national unity is now an increasing possibility but will not be good for the country and could tip us down an even dirtier road.

If it happens, i think it will be fast.

I don't think there are any winners in the current politics and the loser, sadly, is the ordinary Thai people.

Hope calm heads prevail.

A coup will not be good for the country, and a government of national unity actually needs at least a little bit of unity.

I don't think Thaksin or his supporters will accept anything except having Thaksin or his proxy in power. His opposition might accept a proxy if Thaksin is out of the lime light, but they won't accept him up front.

The majority of Thais want Thaksin back.They call that Democracy.The most of you guys never hear about that word.

I have a thought experiment for you. Assume we live on an island that is nominally democratic. I want to rape your daughter, but naturally you and she are opposed to it. But I promise everyone else on the island 1000 baht if they promise to follow me. Then I go ahead and rape your daughter against her will. A court tries me and convicts me, but I ignore that and a popular vote is taken on my guilt. I win a majority and am declared innocent.

You honestly think that is democracy do you? You have a lot to learn. Red democracy is something this country can do without. Thaksin is a criminal. It doesn't matter how many people want him back nor how he managed to hoodwink many into liking him. And pardoning him is just making a mockery of what little justice Thailand has ever had. Reds don't understand things like equality, justice and fairness though. They only understand greed and handouts.

A coup is completely justified if the reds continue to insist on this subversion of justice.

thought experiment for you.

Does democracy = justice?

[OZEMADE]

Mr Abhisit urged the government to stop pushing the amnesty move for "only one person" and said the premier still has a chance to review the case to avoid possible chaos.

I think Abhisit forgot to mention that it was his Gov when they were in power, changed the amnesty law to include persons convicted of corruption could not be granted amnesty. This was done for one man then? The pot calling the kettle black.

So you'r saying only one man in Thailand is convicted about corruption ?

Having such a law is not bad for Thailand where corruption is everywhere.

NO that is not what I am saying at all. Abhisit is the one who is saying the Government want to change the law for one person.

I quote:- .Mr Abhisit urged the government to stop pushing the amnesty move for "only one person" and said the premier still has a chance to review the case to avoid possible chaos.

What I am saying is that when he was the PM, he and his party,made it quite clear that anyone convicted of corruption, they did not want them to be released under the Amnesty.

He forgot that he Abhisit was stating this at the time for one man, Thaksin.

Yes there are millions of people in Thailand guilty of corruption.

So are you saying Thaksin's the only Thai ever convicted of corruption who is either serving a jail sentence or has one hanging over his head? He's the only on? Are you sure about that?

Have you lost the plot. I have not personally said that any where and I answered your question earlier in this thread, look up and read what I said.

Edited November 17, 2011 by OZEMADE

[TAWP]

thought experiment for you.

Does democracy = justice?

Type of govern says nothing about the legal system.

[Banzai99]

Have ou lost the plot. I have not personally said that any where and I answered your question earlier in this thread, look up and read what I said.

None of which will make one iota of difference to anyone other than yourself.

[metisdead]

An off topic inflammatory post has been removed.

[OZEMADE]

Have ou lost the plot. I have not personally said that any where and I answered your question earlier in this thread, look up and read what I said.

None of which will make one iota of difference to anyone other than yourself.

Well apparently it does make a difference to Abhisit and yourself. If not then why comment.

[tlansford]

thought experiment for you.

Does democracy = justice?

Type of govern says nothing about the legal system.

right - a system of representation does not deliver justice, only representation.

If there is a problem with justice, then don't attack the democracy (with, eg: a coup) in order to get justice. Fix the problem of justice.

Which in this case will or will not be decided with a pardon, this year or not this year, ... (btw, IMO the Thaksin question was never about justice - his conviction was not about justice, and his pardon, should it ever materialize, will not be about justice either)

Personally, I agree with many that the question needs to be resolved for Thai politics to progress. It is one of several problems, but certainly the most poignant, publicly discussed issue.

Greg's example on justice in an island democracy misses the point for me - Thaksin's return/exile it is not about red democracy, and it is not about justice. It is about politics, and for some, it is about how to pull out the thorn with the minimum of suffering. Does Thailand let Thaksin come back or does Thailand make him live out his life in exile?

[whatsupdoc]

thought experiment for you.

Does democracy = justice?

Type of govern says nothing about the legal system.

right - a system of representation does not deliver justice, only representation.

If there is a problem with justice, then don't attack the democracy (with, eg: a coup) in order to get justice. Fix the problem of justice.

Which in this case will or will not be decided with a pardon, this year or not this year, ... (btw, IMO the Thaksin question was never about justice - his conviction was not about justice, and his pardon, should it ever materialize, will not be about justice either)

Personally, I agree with many that the question needs to be resolved for Thai politics to progress. It is one of several problems, but certainly the most poignant, publicly discussed issue.

Greg's example on justice in an island democracy misses the point for me - Thaksin's return/exile it is not about red democracy, and it is not about justice. It is about politics, and for some, it is about how to pull out the thorn with the minimum of suffering. Does Thailand let Thaksin come back or does Thailand make him live out his life in exile?

Thaksin can come back any time he wishes to do so but even with a pardon there would still be a lot of other court cases waiting for him. Thailand does not decide whether he stays abroad or not, it is up to himself.

[hammered]

thought experiment for you.

Does democracy = justice?

Type of govern says nothing about the legal system.

right - a system of representation does not deliver justice, only representation.

If there is a problem with justice, then don't attack the democracy (with, eg: a coup) in order to get justice. Fix the problem of justice.

Which in this case will or will not be decided with a pardon, this year or not this year, ... (btw, IMO the Thaksin question was never about justice - his conviction was not about justice, and his pardon, should it ever materialize, will not be about justice either)

Personally, I agree with many that the question needs to be resolved for Thai politics to progress. It is one of several problems, but certainly the most poignant, publicly discussed issue.

Greg's example on justice in an island democracy misses the point for me - Thaksin's return/exile it is not about red democracy, and it is not about justice. It is about politics, and for some, it is about how to pull out the thorn with the minimum of suffering. Does Thailand let Thaksin come back or does Thailand make him live out his life in exile?

You have to define what is meant by Thailand to answer that and right now there are different answers to it. The old elite definition is pretty much laughed at these days. Even the anti-Thaklsinistas seem to have moved beyond it. As much as the eltie try to define and judge Thaksin so the masses now judge the elite. Difficult but it is happening and as mcu as Thaksin is an exploitative so and so he has poltically positioned himself on the side with all the people while the elite have screwed everything up an dfailed to recognise changes

[Banzai99]

Have ou lost the plot. I have not personally said that any where and I answered your question earlier in this thread, look up and read what I said.

None of which will make one iota of difference to anyone other than yourself.

Well apparently it does make a difference to Abhisit and yourself. If not then why comment.

To stress the point that it makes no difference to anyone but yourself, is that so hard to understand ?

[nurofiend]

Tomayto tomahto

If the side effect of Abhisit's change is that ALL government officials now have to fear the rule of law without chance of reprieve - where is the problem??

We should thank Taksin (aaakk - sound of me choking) for being such a megalomaniac that the other megalomaniacs have to put in a firewal to neutralise him - even though they would doubtless have preffered to have another potential legal loophole available for their own benefit.

There should be no crying over the impact on Taksin or anyone else who abuses power in office, they should be convicted as criminals. It is not even a question of degree. A little bit of corruption or a lot gets the same response, because they are not fit to look after the interests of the electorate or to set the height of the 'ethical 'bar'.

The concept of having a 'duty of care' is light years away from Thai politics. Few politicians have any time to fight for the people anymore as they are fighting either for survival or to line their own pockets or both.

The only viable deterrent to those at the top of the power pyramid who are tempted to circumvent the law is, if found out, they MUST pay the price. No backdoor to escape routes allowed.

Be happy that one small but significant step has been taken on the road to a workable democracy and that all those representing the people are ALL effected by it, on ALL sides of the political spectrum.

again......... i'm not arguing for the pro's of government corruption and suggesting it should be ignored!

I'm not saying a policy towards stomping out corruption is bad

i've already made clear the point i was making about this, read back if you need clarification because i agree with what you are saying...

tho i'm not sure how the Tomayto tomato analogy fits in this instance

And I am not suggesting you are pro-corruption.

Simply saying the net result of the law as it stands, whether caused by tomayto (desire to nail Taksin) or tomahto (desire to nail everyone), is a net positive addition to the system of control required to minimise abuse of power, Thailand's tacitly condoned bette noir.

oh i know, i agree with you again...it is a net positive

the whole point was the hypocrisy of abhisits' high and mighty stance here on policies that revolve around one person, when clearly (to the outside observer) he was involved in that very thing...

[tlansford]

thought experiment for you.

Does democracy = justice?

Type of govern says nothing about the legal system.

right - a system of representation does not deliver justice, only representation.

If there is a problem with justice, then don't attack the democracy (with, eg: a coup) in order to get justice. Fix the problem of justice.

Which in this case will or will not be decided with a pardon, this year or not this year, ... (btw, IMO the Thaksin question was never about justice - his conviction was not about justice, and his pardon, should it ever materialize, will not be about justice either)

Personally, I agree with many that the question needs to be resolved for Thai politics to progress. It is one of several problems, but certainly the most poignant, publicly discussed issue.

Greg's example on justice in an island democracy misses the point for me - Thaksin's return/exile it is not about red democracy, and it is not about justice. It is about politics, and for some, it is about how to pull out the thorn with the minimum of suffering. Does Thailand let Thaksin come back or does Thailand make him live out his life in exile?

Thaksin can come back any time he wishes to do so but even with a pardon there would still be a lot of other court cases waiting for him. Thailand does not decide whether he stays abroad or not, it is up to himself.

"Thaksin can come back any time he wishes to do so "

Technically true, but unless you feel that Thaksin will come back and serve his time for the corruption conviction, then I think it is irrelevant - don't you?

[scotbeve]

How do you pardon someone who has not served any time, nor is in the country?

There is a separate legal process to appeal a conviction, but a pardon, with zero time served? I don't know the ins and outs of the Thai legal system but it seems improbable that they could do this legally.

It would be interesting to ask specifically for a list of over 60yr olds with less than 3yr convictions they had in mind when they wrote this at an emergency meeting

It was actually the Dems who introduced the over 60 yrs old with less than 3 yrs conviction in the last (or previous?) year's pardons. And they who changed the legislation to bar anyone convicted of corruption applying for pardon.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your sensationalised bunfight....

Hmmmmm.... How old is Suthep???

[wayned]

If he turns himself in on the 4th and is arrested and sent to prison "four star hotel" then he can be "pardoned" on the 5th.

How do you pardon someone who has not served any time, nor is in the country?

There is a separate legal process to appeal a conviction, but a pardon, with zero time served? I don't know the ins and outs of the Thai legal system but it seems improbable that they could do this legally.

It would be interesting to ask specifically for a list of over 60yr olds with less than 3yr convictions they had in mind when they wrote this at an emergency meeting

It was actually the Dems who introduced the over 60 yrs old with less than 3 yrs conviction in the last (or previous?) year's pardons. And they who changed the legislation to bar anyone convicted of corruption applying for pardon.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your sensationalised bunfight....

Hmmmmm.... How old is Suthep???

[whybother]

It was actually the Dems who introduced the over 60 yrs old with less than 3 yrs conviction in the last (or previous?) year's pardons. And they who changed the legislation to bar anyone convicted of corruption applying for pardon.

...

Hmmmmm.... How old is Suthep???

62.

Given that the Dems had the "corruption" clause in there, the pardon wouldn't have applied to Suthep anyway.

The PTP wouldn't mind if Suthep was pardoned though.

[udonguy]

the end point is that the people voted - end of

[whybother]

the end point is that the people voted - end of

People voting doesn't give a government carte blanche to do what they want.

[lannarebirth]

the end point is that the people voted - end of

Do you come from a democratic nation? Maybe you don't know what a democracy entails? Here's a nice overview, well worth reading, on the subject. After reading it, ask yourself if Thailand is a democratic nation.

http://www.cipe.org/publications/fs/pdf/081508.pdf

[ThaiOats]

the end point is that the people voted - end of

Do you come from a democratic nation? Maybe you don't know what a democracy entails? Here's a nice overview, well worth reading, on the subject. After reading it, ask yourself if Thailand is a democratic nation.

http://www.cipe.org/.../pdf/081508.pdf

I thought Thailand is still a constitutional monarchy and the people want d-d-d-uh.. d--uhhh... d uh... true democracy.

[gregb]

the end point is that the people voted - end of

People voting doesn't give a government carte blanche to do what they want.

There is even a term for people who believe it does. Recognized by the early Greeks, "Tyranny of the majority" was the term coined by Alex de Tocqueville when discussing democracy in America. So anyone who thinks they can simply "vote" Thaksin into innocence is supporting tyranny and injustice. More importantly they are supporting a system of ochlocracy, better known as mob rule. (Wikipedia is great sometimes, isn't it?) In any case, they aren't exactly taking the moral high road.

If you want democracy, rule of law is the foundation. If you can't accept rule of law, then you don't have democracy and at that point the one with the biggest gun wins.

If the reds continue to subvert the rule of law through a vote, then they by definition have said they no longer want democracy, and the tanks need to roll and the bullets need to start flying.

[lannarebirth]

the end point is that the people voted - end of

Do you come from a democratic nation? Maybe you don't know what a democracy entails? Here's a nice overview, well worth reading, on the subject. After reading it, ask yourself if Thailand is a democratic nation.

http://www.cipe.org/.../pdf/081508.pdf

I thought Thailand is still a constitutional monarchy and the people want d-d-d-uh.. d--uhhh... d uh... true democracy.

Well, a true democracy is the tyranny of the majority. That's why democracy is dependent on so many more things than just elections.

[QED]

It was actually the Dems who introduced the over 60 yrs old with less than 3 yrs conviction in the last (or previous?) year's pardons. And they who changed the legislation to bar anyone convicted of corruption applying for pardon.

...

Hmmmmm.... How old is Suthep???

62.

Given that the Dems had the "corruption" clause in there, the pardon wouldn't have applied to Suthep anyway.

The PTP wouldn't mind if Suthep was pardoned though.

AFAIK he was disqualified by the EC in 2009, but never actually convicted of anything.

Must have been set up for somebody else

[whybother]

It was actually the Dems who introduced the over 60 yrs old with less than 3 yrs conviction in the last (or previous?) year's pardons. And they who changed the legislation to bar anyone convicted of corruption applying for pardon.

...

Hmmmmm.... How old is Suthep???

62.

Given that the Dems had the "corruption" clause in there, the pardon wouldn't have applied to Suthep anyway.

The PTP wouldn't mind if Suthep was pardoned though.

AFAIK he was disqualified by the EC in 2009, but never actually convicted of anything.

Must have been set up for somebody else

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Suthep-resigns-as-MP-30107774.html

He resigned before he was disqualified. The other paper ("Suthep Resigns as MP") says he held shares in IRPC (a media company??) which he had bought prior to the constitution making it illegal for him to have them, and sold prior to the EC asking the Constitution court to disqualify him.