Act Of Parliament To Help Thaksin: Chalerm

[Buchholz]

What I really don't understand is that the PM says that she is doing nothing to help her brother come back whereas her deputy vows to keep fighting to bring him back.

What kind of leadership is that? "I'm not doing anything to bring him back but if my deputy does something, then that's up to him".

It's quite possibly smoke, mirrors, bullshit, or a combination of all three.

I'll go for the combination but add a total disregard for anyone other than themselves.

She thinks it provides

Plausible Deniability

but as she is the Prime Minister and his own self-professed "clone", it's neither plausible nor deniable.

.

[Buchholz]

Perception Management actions swinging back into the game, yet again.

Trying to create a searchable ground swell of pro-Thaksin comments to make the press think he is loved and his legend is true. Makes no matter if they are real, or some are and some aren't, it's the total count of keywords that counts. Bring along the bandwagon jumpers and in-crowd seekers, they all contribute unknowingly in many cases. Follow the leader because he appears forceful, and not a meme. This same thing happens every time Thaksin makes a big move in Thailand.

This time the attempt at 'bringing him back', while the country is looking else where, and manipulating someone who shouldn't be touched to try and do it. And so we get all sorts of barely used nicks, with short or none existent posting records, to make it look like heartfelt reality is backing the con-mans every word and deed, and coincidentally his dodgy historical distortions, as seen by 'allegedly reasonable people'. And of course a great mass of numbers are thrown around with zeal, regardless of factuality or believability.

But if you repeat the big lie long and loud enough with JUST enough details some more credulous individuals will believe it. The bigger the lie and the longer and louder the more will ignore reality and side with the meme in progress. Of course with the occasional troll, misanthropic narrow-mind and pedantic twit thrown in, to give support cover and a patina of reality to the mix.

BARF!

About the only legitimate reaction to the whole obvious charade.

Always a fascinating phenomenon to see it in action.

.

[KKK]

Hang on a minute.. Takshin was found guilty of corruption by the law of the land and has many other corruption cases pending.. What has that got to do with the troubles over he last 3 odd years?

Well done squigy...when I read the OP I came to the same conclusion as you. Reading through the forum though it seems posters are only interested in whether or not the Thai people LIKE thakshit or not. and seem to have overlooked what you and I have seen.

Plus I'd just like to add......a crook is a crook is a crook. Maybe you like him, maybe you don't, but he is still a crook.

And if that crook refuses to show remorse and/or serve any kind of punishment, (living in luxurious exile is not punishment), is liking him enough to justify an amnesty?

Especially if the general amnesty has NOTHING to do with the crimes you're convicted of committing.

[KKK]

3. 25% of the people who were eligible to vote didn't bother.

It is this figure that I'm always interested in.....while some may have been unable to vote (infirm etc) I tend to take the view that these no voters didn't because there was nobody worth voting for. Voting should NEVER be compulsory, as I understand it is here. And if it's compulsory then there should be a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" box to tick....

[whybother]

3. 25% of the people who were eligible to vote didn't bother.

It is this figure that I'm always interested in.....while some may have been unable to vote (infirm etc) I tend to take the view that these no voters didn't because there was nobody worth voting for. Voting should NEVER be compulsory, as I understand it is here. And if it's compulsory then there should be a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" box to tick....

There is a "None of the above" box to tick. 4% selected that.

edit: if you can't be bothered to vote, then you don't have the right to complain about what those that are elected do.

Edited November 23, 2011 by whybother

[Thaddeus]

Hang on a minute.. Takshin was found guilty of corruption by the law of the land and has many other corruption cases pending.. What has that got to do with the troubles over he last 3 odd years?

Well done squigy...when I read the OP I came to the same conclusion as you. Reading through the forum though it seems posters are only interested in whether or not the Thai people LIKE thakshit or not. and seem to have overlooked what you and I have seen.

Plus I'd just like to add......a crook is a crook is a crook. Maybe you like him, maybe you don't, but he is still a crook.

And if that crook refuses to show remorse and/or serve any kind of punishment, (living in luxurious exile is not punishment), is liking him enough to justify an amnesty?

Especially if the general amnesty has NOTHING to do with the crimes you're convicted of committing.

I agree completely.

But, when his defenders last bastion is 'it's what most people want' some of us get the urge to point out that they are wrong about that too.

[scorecard]

I actually think that's a great idea! A national referendum, simple yes or no, pardon Thaksin yes or no, binding for life. In other words, if NO, it's over. I don't believe PTP has the Thai-jones to try that. It would be extraordinary and probably not strictly constitutional, but the Thaksin problem is very extraordinary, and it could be a cathartic, final, democrat way to resolve this once and for all.

So you suggest a yes / no referendum. And do you not think that the reds, UDD, pt etc., will go all out (big big money changing hands)to ensure the yes (yes=pardon) vote will win.

Always possible of course that there will also be sweeteners from others to influence the No vote.

In other words it's very doubtful there would be a genuine unflavoured (unpaid) result.

No real details have even been revealed by the various bodies and individuals who have tried to herald the idea of 'reconciliation', and that includes both the paymaster and his clone. Reconciliation is nothing more than a smokescreen to get back to laws which make vote buying etc., easy.

The bottom line is very simple - Thailand will move forward when there is complete respect for the law, and not before. And personally If I had the opportunity I would propose that the current laws on vote buying / corruption / unusual wealth etc., be made much harsher with long-term compulsory jail sentences, lifetime bar from any form of political activity or comment, and public shaming.

Edited November 23, 2011 by scorecard

[KKK]

3. 25% of the people who were eligible to vote didn't bother.

It is this figure that I'm always interested in.....while some may have been unable to vote (infirm etc) I tend to take the view that these no voters didn't because there was nobody worth voting for. Voting should NEVER be compulsory, as I understand it is here. And if it's compulsory then there should be a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" box to tick....

There is a "None of the above" box to tick. 4% selected that.

edit: if you can't be bothered to vote, then you don't have the right to complain about what those that are elected do.

Your post is the first time I have ever seen/heard any mention of a "none of the above" box on a ballot paper here. Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia....ne_of_the_above lists very few countries (with no mention of Thailand) using it. Could you provide some more info, links etc. If there is such a box then your edit about compaining would seem valid.

Edited November 23, 2011 by KKK

[Buchholz]

a previous reply I made.

No vote AKA none of the above

Wikipedia gives this example of the ballot paper for the 2007 elections:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thai_general_election_2007_11.jpg

the box in the lower right hand corner of these sample ballots is the "no vote" box

Edited November 23, 2011 by Buchholz

[KKK]

a previous reply I made.

No vote AKA none of the above

Wikipedia gives this example of the ballot paper for the 2007 elections:

Source: http://en.wikipedia....ion_2007_11.jpg

the box in the lower right hand corner of these sample ballots is the "no vote" box

My congratulations go out to Thailand on having a "NO VOTE", "NONE OF THE ABOVE", "NOT INTERESTED" box on their ballot paper. All countries with compulsory voting should follow suit athough I'd rather not see voting as compulsory.

[dominique355]

I actually think that's a great idea! A national referendum, simple yes or no, pardon Thaksin yes or no, binding for life. In other words, if NO, it's over. I don't believe PTP has the Thai-jones to try that. It would be extraordinary and probably not strictly constitutional, but the Thaksin problem is very extraordinary, and it could be a cathartic, final, democrat way to resolve this once and for all.

The problem I see in this proposition is facts. Based on which facts will the people make a decision, make a vote? We know how much the recent history of Thailand has been (and is) distorted, covered up, white-washed and lied about. So how can a simple Thai make a decision about Thaksin, when even in an "educated" forum such as this, we cannot agree on facts?

Has Thaskin been treated fairly? in all the cases he was involved? (Asset concealment, land deal, tax evasion etc)? Are the Courts objective and fair? Were the investigating agencies unbiased?

And look at the Reconciliation Committee for the Rajaprasong incident. What came out of this? Nothing.

In my view, the rule of law should be upheld, Thaksin is in a self-imposed exile (nice words for being a fugitive criminal). He can come back to Thailand any time he wants (this has been said before here) and serve his term. No new laws or bending existing laws necessary.

As tempting as such a proposal seems, I am afraid it would not bring a solution to the Thaksin problem.

[whybother]

I actually think that's a great idea! A national referendum, simple yes or no, pardon Thaksin yes or no, binding for life. In other words, if NO, it's over. I don't believe PTP has the Thai-jones to try that. It would be extraordinary and probably not strictly constitutional, but the Thaksin problem is very extraordinary, and it could be a cathartic, final, democrat way to resolve this once and for all.

The problem I see in this proposition is facts. Based on which facts will the people make a decision, make a vote? We know how much the recent history of Thailand has been (and is) distorted, covered up, white-washed and lied about. So how can a simple Thai make a decision about Thaksin, when even in an "educated" forum such as this, we cannot agree on facts?

Has Thaskin been treated fairly? in all the cases he was involved? (Asset concealment, land deal, tax evasion etc)? Are the Courts objective and fair? Were the investigating agencies unbiased?

And look at the Reconciliation Committee for the Rajaprasong incident. What came out of this? Nothing.

In my view, the rule of law should be upheld, Thaksin is in a self-imposed exile (nice words for being a fugitive criminal). He can come back to Thailand any time he wants (this has been said before here) and serve his term. No new laws or bending existing laws necessary.

As tempting as such a proposal seems, I am afraid it would not bring a solution to the Thaksin problem.

Most people have already made up their minds, one way or the other. There would just need to be a vote on it.

I'm sure the issues you mentioned would be brought out to try to convince people one way or the other, but then people just need to make a decision - Yes or No.

But you're probably right. Either result would still leave the extremists on the losing side pushing for the result to be reversed or ignored.

Edited November 23, 2011 by whybother

[KKK]

The problem I see in this proposition is facts. Based on which facts will the people make a decision, make a vote? We know how much the recent history of Thailand has been (and is) distorted, covered up, white-washed and lied about. So how can a simple Thai make a decision about Thaksin, when even in an "educated" forum such as this, we cannot agree on facts?

The same could be said for a general election. With so many lies how can a simple Thai make a decision on which party would be best for them.

But that is not reason enough to do away with elections as it is not reason enough to do away with a possible referendum. Democracy must be allowed to go ahead even if it is ill informed

Edited November 23, 2011 by KKK

[sparebox2]

Pardon should be given for all criminals, and not just for fugitives.

[hanuman1]

Pardon should be given for all criminals, and not just for fugitives.

Your posts are a great reminder of why we should all be proud to have freedom of expression. Not because it is easy to tolerate, but because it is difficult.

[jimbeam1]

Pardon should be given for all criminals, and not just for fugitives.

Come along now, time for your medication.

jb1

[Buchholz]

Thai Leaders Hold Out for Thaksin's Return

Thailand's leaders aren't giving up on finding a way to bring back fugitive former leader Thaksin Shinawatra as a free man. After backing off apparent plans to include Thaksin in a royal pardon next month, government leaders are looking at new ways to allow the controversial former premier to return so he doesn't have to serve jail time on a 2008 corruption conviction.

Cabinet discussions on whether to include Thaksin on a list of prisoners to be pardoned fell apart when opposition leaders and newspapers caught wind of the plans. Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubumrung said he still plans to help Thaksin return to Thailand a free man, eventually. "We just have to wait for the right time," Mr. Chalerm said. Then,Chalerm said, the government could draft legislation exonerating Thaksin and other convicts from both sides of the country's political divide, as long as their alleged crimes can be linked to the country's political struggles.

Analysts questioned that logic, however. Thaksin is still a deeply divisive figure in Thailand, despite living in Dubai to avoid imprisonment on his corruption conviction.

Continues:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204531404577053741628883310.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Wall Street Journal - Nov. 22, 2011

[jimbeam1]

The problem I see in this proposition is facts. Based on which facts will the people make a decision, make a vote? We know how much the recent history of Thailand has been (and is) distorted, covered up, white-washed and lied about. So how can a simple Thai make a decision about Thaksin, when even in an "educated" forum such as this, we cannot agree on facts?

The same could be said for a general election. With so many lies how can a simple Thai make a decision on which party would be best for them.

But that is not reason enough to do away with elections as it is not reason enough to do away with a possible referendum. Democracy must be allowed to go ahead even if it is ill informed

Yes referendum, what a great Idea. With lies and vote buying. I feel the result would be overwhelming.

jb1

[buzz]

I actually think that's a great idea! A national referendum, simple yes or no, pardon Thaksin yes or no, binding for life. In other words, if NO, it's over. I don't believe PTP has the Thai-jones to try that. It would be extraordinary and probably not strictly constitutional, but the Thaksin problem is very extraordinary, and it could be a cathartic, final, democrat way to resolve this once and for all.

So you suggest a yes / no referendum. And do you not think that the reds, UDD, pt etc., will go all out (big big money changing hands)to ensure the yes (yes=pardon) vote will win.

Always possible of course that there will also be sweeteners from others to influence the No vote.

In other words it's very doubtful there would be a genuine unflavoured (unpaid) result.

No real details have even been revealed by the various bodies and individuals who have tried to herald the idea of 'reconciliation', and that includes both the paymaster and his clone. Reconciliation is nothing more than a smokescreen to get back to laws which make vote buying etc., easy.

The bottom line is very simple - Thailand will move forward when there is complete respect for the law, and not before. And personally If I had the opportunity I would propose that the current laws on vote buying / corruption / unusual wealth etc., be made much harsher with long-term compulsory jail sentences, lifetime bar from any form of political activity or comment, and public shaming.

Totally agree with you here ... was thinking the same - they will pay for 'yes' or 'no' votes ... and we know who will pay more.

[sparebox2]

I actually think that's a great idea! A national referendum, simple yes or no, pardon Thaksin yes or no, binding for life. In other words, if NO, it's over. I don't believe PTP has the Thai-jones to try that. It would be extraordinary and probably not strictly constitutional, but the Thaksin problem is very extraordinary, and it could be a cathartic, final, democrat way to resolve this once and for all.

So you suggest a yes / no referendum. And do you not think that the reds, UDD, pt etc., will go all out (big big money changing hands)to ensure the yes (yes=pardon) vote will win.

Always possible of course that there will also be sweeteners from others to influence the No vote.

In other words it's very doubtful there would be a genuine unflavoured (unpaid) result.

No real details have even been revealed by the various bodies and individuals who have tried to herald the idea of 'reconciliation', and that includes both the paymaster and his clone. Reconciliation is nothing more than a smokescreen to get back to laws which make vote buying etc., easy.

The bottom line is very simple - Thailand will move forward when there is complete respect for the law, and not before. And personally If I had the opportunity I would propose that the current laws on vote buying / corruption / unusual wealth etc., be made much harsher with long-term compulsory jail sentences, lifetime bar from any form of political activity or comment, and public shaming.

Totally agree with you here ... was thinking the same - they will pay for 'yes' or 'no' votes ... and we know who will pay more.

It is not that simple.

Pardon in Thailand is given by 1 man, and that man only.

Pardon is not given by the majority, the majority have no say in such thing.

[noni99]

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung on Tuesday confirmed the government would enact a legislation to restore justice for "everyone", including former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

"He said he believed the legislation to grant amnesty to all parties involved in the political conflict would not be opposed".

How pathetic. First of all he and everyone else know he is lying. Secondly he is insulting the intelligence of every Thai person in this country.

Who are you to speak for the people of Thailand.

Most people still love him.

Most of the Many Very Very Very Very Very Thails that I known and the few poor ones also love him.

I think the only people who do not love him are Farang bar owners and their Customers

And who are you to speak for the people of Thailand???

That's one of the dumbest comments I ever red here - and I saw a lot of them.

Your greedy idols party got less then half ot the votes in the last election (which still is too much by far), so more then 50% of the voters were "Farang bar owners and their Customers" ?

By the way: Not every one who voted for Pheu Thai, wants Mr. T. to return ...

[bigbamboo]

a previous reply I made.

No vote AKA none of the above

Wikipedia gives this example of the ballot paper for the 2007 elections:

Source: http://en.wikipedia....ion_2007_11.jpg

the box in the lower right hand corner of these sample ballots is the "no vote" box

My congratulations go out to Thailand on having a "NO VOTE", "NONE OF THE ABOVE", "NOT INTERESTED" box on their ballot paper. All countries with compulsory voting should follow suit athough I'd rather not see voting as compulsory.

They should try those dodgy punchcard machines that worked so well for George Dubya.

[Buchholz]

3. 25% of the people who were eligible to vote didn't bother.

It is this figure that I'm always interested in.....while some may have been unable to vote (infirm etc) I tend to take the view that these no voters didn't because there was nobody worth voting for. Voting should NEVER be compulsory, as I understand it is here. And if it's compulsory then there should be a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" box to tick....

There is a "None of the above" box to tick. 4% selected that.

edit: if you can't be bothered to vote, then you don't have the right to complain about what those that are elected do.

The other ramifications of not voting (as opposed to voting no AKA none of the above):

The Constitution stipulates the following:-

“Every person shall have a duty to exercise his or her right to vote in an election. The person who fails to vote on an election day without notifying the reasonable cause for such failure shall lose his or her right to vote as prescribed by the law.

The notification of the cause for failure to vote on an election day and the provision of facilities for attendance thereat shall be in accordance with the provision of the law”.

The person who fails to vote without notifying the reasonable cause for such failure will have his or her political rights curtailed until his or her next vote casting in an election as follows:

The National Elections

1. The right to object the results of both the national and local elections

2. The right to be a candidate for any election

3. The right to initiate a bill for the National Assembly’s consideration

4. The right to initiate an ordinance for the local assembly’s consideration

5. The right to petition to the Senate for the resolution of removal of a high ranking person

6. The right to recall a member of the local assembly or a local administrator

The Local Elections

1. The right to object a result of any local election

2. The right to be a candidate for any local election

3. The right to initiate an ordinance for the local assembly’s consideration

4. The right to recall a member of the local assembly or a local administrator

http://www.ect.go.th/newweb/en/election/PersonsInvolving.php

The Election Commission

[hammered]

I actually think that's a great idea! A national referendum, simple yes or no, pardon Thaksin yes or no, binding for life. In other words, if NO, it's over. I don't believe PTP has the Thai-jones to try that. It would be extraordinary and probably not strictly constitutional, but the Thaksin problem is very extraordinary, and it could be a cathartic, final, democrat way to resolve this once and for all.

Th ereferendum is probably the best idea. In a parlaimentary system if the legilature OKs it then it would be constitutional as the legislature is the supreme body in a parlaimentary system and can overturn anyting a government or court decide. I would think though it is more unlikley the elite side would want to see this. That tough is the beauty of a referendum as the people ultimately decide

[hammered]

I actually think that's a great idea! A national referendum, simple yes or no, pardon Thaksin yes or no, binding for life. In other words, if NO, it's over. I don't believe PTP has the Thai-jones to try that. It would be extraordinary and probably not strictly constitutional, but the Thaksin problem is very extraordinary, and it could be a cathartic, final, democrat way to resolve this once and for all.

So you suggest a yes / no referendum. And do you not think that the reds, UDD, pt etc., will go all out (big big money changing hands)to ensure the yes (yes=pardon) vote will win.

Always possible of course that there will also be sweeteners from others to influence the No vote.

In other words it's very doubtful there would be a genuine unflavoured (unpaid) result.

No real details have even been revealed by the various bodies and individuals who have tried to herald the idea of 'reconciliation', and that includes both the paymaster and his clone. Reconciliation is nothing more than a smokescreen to get back to laws which make vote buying etc., easy.

The bottom line is very simple - Thailand will move forward when there is complete respect for the law, and not before. And personally If I had the opportunity I would propose that the current laws on vote buying / corruption / unusual wealth etc., be made much harsher with long-term compulsory jail sentences, lifetime bar from any form of political activity or comment, and public shaming.

Totally agree with you here ... was thinking the same - they will pay for 'yes' or 'no' votes ... and we know who will pay more.

It is not that simple.

Pardon in Thailand is given by 1 man, and that man only.

Pardon is not given by the majority, the majority have no say in such thing.

There is a differnece between pardon and legislative amnesty although both legally can do the same

[phiphidon]

3. 25% of the people who were eligible to vote didn't bother.

It is this figure that I'm always interested in.....while some may have been unable to vote (infirm etc) I tend to take the view that these no voters didn't because there was nobody worth voting for. Voting should NEVER be compulsory, as I understand it is here. And if it's compulsory then there should be a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" box to tick....

There is a "None of the above" box to tick. 4% selected that.

edit: if you can't be bothered to vote, then you don't have the right to complain about what those that are elected do.

And if you're not eligible to vote (at all) you especially don't have the right to complain about what those that are elected do........................

[Thaddeus]

3. 25% of the people who were eligible to vote didn't bother.

It is this figure that I'm always interested in.....while some may have been unable to vote (infirm etc) I tend to take the view that these no voters didn't because there was nobody worth voting for. Voting should NEVER be compulsory, as I understand it is here. And if it's compulsory then there should be a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" box to tick....

There is a "None of the above" box to tick. 4% selected that.

edit: if you can't be bothered to vote, then you don't have the right to complain about what those that are elected do.

And if you're not eligible to vote (at all) you especially don't have the right to complain about what those that are elected do........................

Typical..... you, as a farang, don't have the right to vote, but you have the right to speak yes?

But anyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't have the right to speak?

Yay for red farang democracy.

[whybother]

And if you're not eligible to vote (at all) you especially don't have the right to complain about what those that are elected do........................

Very different scenarios. In one, you are given a choice to participate and you choose not to, then you come back later and say "Oh, I want participate now". In the other case, you aren't given the opportunity to choose.

Are you suggesting that we don't have a right to complain about visas and work permits, or education, or driving skills, or anything else about life in Thailand?

[TAWP]

And if you're not eligible to vote (at all) you especially don't have the right to complain about what those that are elected do........................

Very different scenarios. In one, you are given a choice to participate and you choose not to, then you come back later and say "Oh, I want participate now". In the other case, you aren't given the opportunity to choose.

Are you suggesting that we don't have a right to complain about visas and work permits, or education, or driving skills, or anything else about life in Thailand?

And maybe he means that those that doesn't pay taxes have no right in saying how the tax-money gets used...

[phiphidon]

There is a "None of the above" box to tick. 4% selected that.

edit: if you can't be bothered to vote, then you don't have the right to complain about what those that are elected do.

And if you're not eligible to vote (at all) you especially don't have the right to complain about what those that are elected do........................

Typical..... you, as a farang, don't have the right to vote, but you have the right to speak yes?

But anyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't have the right to speak?

Yay for red farang democracy.

Did I say that anyone who doesn't agree with me doesn't have the right to speak - No. Did I say that non Thai's without a vote have no say on what a Thai elected Governent can or cannot do - Yes. They can chatter away all they want (and they do, they do) but it will not and can not make a difference to Thai governance. Any problem with that?