Yingluck To Face Impeachment Concerning The Reissue Of Thaksin's Passport

[scorecard]

The duty of the army is to defend the country and answer to the government.

It is not the duty of the army to kick out prime ministers that they don't approve of.

Simple really.

Exactly. Herein lies the problem. No progress will be experienced until this mentality is ceased. Almost childlike.

In the US the Armed forces are sworn to protect the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I say it is their duty to oust a dictator etc.

In Thailand the armed forces swear allegiance to King and Country. Again, I think it is their duty to oust anyone that threatens this. Read wikileaks if you want more details.

You seem to be perfectly happy with the concept of a military dictatorship and the idea that it's acceptable for the military wing to override the wishes of the people.

Fair enough and respect your view.

I'm not an American and we had our civil war a couple of hundred years before USA over this point ( among others ).

Looks like we would have been on opposite sides of the barricades.

Regarding Thailand, in my opinion, unless and until the army are emasculated and entirely removed from politics there is little hope for the country because they will always act if they don't like a particular development.

Imagine what would happen if a European style socialist government got elected.....

Think our little paradise would get very hot indeed.

Well I would certainly like to see a much more egalitarian society for Thais and also see that well reflected in government polices and actions through politicians who genuinely support an egalitarian approach to a civil society.

Nice fantasy. IMHO, until there is a middle class revolution generated by an educated middle class who gain ground by logical structured and credible discussion, we will continue to see the massive unfair gaps in Thai society.

The leeches, thugs and thieves who currently control everything are certainly not going to change the current situation and unfortunately they will fight very hard to block any change.

Sad.

Edited December 31, 2011 by scorecard

[tlansford]

I don't think anyone of importance in Thailand pays much attention to the bitter sentiments expressed by middle aged and elderly caucasian foreign males frustrated by events they are unable to cope with, so you might just want to chill before some of your clogged arteries blow.

Another typical GK post.

Com'on, post a picture of yourself so we can see how a successful person looks like, pretty please?

You missed out the 1st line as you edited my statement.

Some of these comments are really disturbed.

The derisive and insulting comments directed at the PM's gender, or the angry condescending statements made in respect to Thais' capability are typically not made by females or younger people. Nor would some of the quasi racist comments be typically uttered by Africans. I stand by my demographic assessment that the most warped, abrasive and abusive comments are being made by males aged 45-75, and caucasian. I'll even narrow the caucasian part down, as some Indians and Middle Easterners might be offended; the caucasians are mostly made up of western European white males. By European, I include those of European descent in North America, Australia, and NZ as well. Check out the demographics of the most virulent people on these threads and it comes down to the standard angry old white guy

I appreciate that you might have lustful fantasies about me, after all, I am a hansum man. Look harder and you will see a rendition of my nipple. Sorry, but I don't have a peen shot available for distribution. Too many dirty old men, if you know what I mean.

" standard angry old white guy"

logic does tend to funnel down to that conclusion, doesn't it...

[whybother]

The PTP won 53% of the seats and was able to form a government without forming a coalition.

From what I understand, Ministers are not allowed to vote on laws. So even with 53% of the seats, they wouldn't have had a majority to vote on any laws that they put forward. So they need something like 270-280 seats to give them a majority in the house.

[whybother]

Taskin was the first Thai politician to realise that a constituency existed outside Bangkok.Thai Rak Thai was the first government to introduce a pension scheme, a national health scheme, rice stablisation price scheme, village grants to set up community industry and other rural based schemes. So whatever you think about Taskin, I can assure you the majority of Thais will welcome Taskin back with open arms.

Absolutely right. Thaksin is the only Thai politician so far to have been able to create a national party. Before him (and also after with the Abhisit government) the government was formed by a coalition of local feudal barons, which create very weak governments.

The main reason the Abhisit government was a total failure is because Abhisit was the puppet of a collection of various, and often opposite, interests (democrats, army, PAD, BJT ..) who had only in common the fear of Thaksin return. You can't run a country like that, that's why the electors rightly gave a majority to PT.

Thaksin is the only Thai politician so far to have been able to create a national party ... formed by a coalition of local feudal barons. Because Thaksin had the money, he was able to control those local feudal barons.

It's interesting that a "national party" is unable to get a seat south of Bangkok.

[tlansford]

Well I would certainly like to see a much more egalitarian society for Thais and also see that well reflected in government polices and actions through politicians who genuinely support an egalitarian approach to a civil society.

Nice fantasy. IMHO, until there is a middle class revolution generated by an educated middle class who gain ground by logical structured and credible discussion, we will continue to see the massive unfair gaps in Thai society.

The leeches, thugs and thieves who currently control everything are certainly not going to change the current situation and unfortunately they will fight very hard to block any change.

Sad.

just an observation, but I am of the opinion that the last election changed the government, but it did not change the "leeches, thugs and thieves who currently control everything"...

[tlansford]

The PTP won 53% of the seats and was able to form a government without forming a coalition.

From what I understand, Ministers are not allowed to vote on laws. So even with 53% of the seats, they wouldn't have had a majority to vote on any laws that they put forward. So they need something like 270-280 seats to give them a majority in the house.

whybother, what the heck? Correct me if I am wrong, but 53% allows them to select the PM and form a gov't.

As for passing laws, I guess if all the MPs are just robots and vote party-lines 100% of the time, and if all the other parties always voted against the majority party, then your comment would have some relevance.

[whybother]

The PTP won 53% of the seats and was able to form a government without forming a coalition.

From what I understand, Ministers are not allowed to vote on laws. So even with 53% of the seats, they wouldn't have had a majority to vote on any laws that they put forward. So they need something like 270-280 seats to give them a majority in the house.

whybother, what the heck? Correct me if I am wrong, but 53% allows them to select the PM and form a gov't.

As for passing laws, I guess if all the MPs are just robots and vote party-lines 100% of the time, and if all the other parties always voted against the majority party, then your comment would have some relevance.

I didn't say anything about selecting the PM or forming government. I just mentioned that it is my understanding that Ministers can't vote on law changes. That means that the governing party (or coalition) needs quite a few seats more than 251 to get any laws passed.

The PTP could have formed government without a coalition, but they probably wouldn't have got much done without a majority (you know, the greater than 50% thing) to pass laws.

[wxyz]

The PTP won 53% of the seats and was able to form a government without forming a coalition.

From what I understand, Ministers are not allowed to vote on laws. So even with 53% of the seats, they wouldn't have had a majority to vote on any laws that they put forward. So they need something like 270-280 seats to give them a majority in the house.

whybother, what the heck? Correct me if I am wrong, but 53% allows them to select the PM and form a gov't.

As for passing laws, I guess if all the MPs are just robots and vote party-lines 100% of the time, and if all the other parties always voted against the majority party, then your comment would have some relevance.

"vote party-lines 100% of the time"

that is the Parliamentary system, as practiced in most of the countries that use it

"In parliamentary democracies, there is another factor at play. Party politics and party discipline are incredibly powerful forces in countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and to a lesser extent, the UK, much stronger factors than they are in the US, for example, where the parties don’t campaign on single national manifestos. While an MP is elected to represent their constituents, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that, the vast majority of the time, how an MP votes on various issues will be determined by their party’s whip and not by what their constituents want. The reality is that an MP who regularly (or sometimes, even only once) votes against their party’s official position on a given issue will soon find themselves ostracized by the party, if not ejected from caucus completely."

from the web thoughtundermined

[hearditallbefore]

What a load of pure CRAP. She is not facing anything, and she knows, as anyone who has more than 3 braincells, that he was was ousted by an illegal coup and the trumped up charges and silly, stupid, false "conviction" is invalid.

WELCOME HOME TAKSIN.

[whybother]

What a load of pure CRAP. She is not facing anything, and she knows, as anyone who has more than 3 braincells, that he was was ousted by an illegal coup and the trumped up charges and silly, stupid, false "conviction" is invalid.

WELCOME HOME TAKSIN.

Yes, the non-care-taker PM was ousted by an illegal coup (is there such a thing as a legal coup?), but did he or did he not sign for his wife to purchase land owned by the FIDF, which is controlled by the government (as shown by them trying to palm off the FIDF debt to the BOT), while he was PM? That sounds like a bit of conflict of interest to me, and is something that is against the law in the 1997 constitution.

[tlansford]

The PTP won 53% of the seats and was able to form a government without forming a coalition.

From what I understand, Ministers are not allowed to vote on laws. So even with 53% of the seats, they wouldn't have had a majority to vote on any laws that they put forward. So they need something like 270-280 seats to give them a majority in the house.

whybother, what the heck? Correct me if I am wrong, but 53% allows them to select the PM and form a gov't.

As for passing laws, I guess if all the MPs are just robots and vote party-lines 100% of the time, and if all the other parties always voted against the majority party, then your comment would have some relevance.

I didn't say anything about selecting the PM or forming government. I just mentioned that it is my understanding that Ministers can't vote on law changes. That means that the governing party (or coalition) needs quite a few seats more than 251 to get any laws passed.

The PTP could have formed government without a coalition, but they probably wouldn't have got much done without a majority (you know, the greater than 50% thing) to pass laws.

And I was only talking about forming a gov't.

But a ruling party with or without an (absolute) majority is a different issue and passing legislation requires not only keeping your own MPs in line, but also working with MPs in other parties - it is called cooperation. As already noted, other parties have formed gov'ts and passed laws without the ruling party having an absolute majority in parliament, so the PTP with an absolute majority in parliament should be able to do so as well.

[whybother]

But a ruling party with or without an (absolute) majority is a different issue and passing legislation requires not only keeping your own MPs in line, but also working with MPs in other parties - it is called cooperation. As already noted, other parties have formed gov'ts and passed laws without the ruling party having an absolute majority in parliament, so the PTP with an absolute majority in parliament should be able to do so as well.

You're missing the point. Government ministers can not vote on laws, so it's possible that the PTP don't actually have a majority for voting purposes. Therefore, even though they have a majority of MPs, they still need to form a coalition to ensure (given that they control the way their MPs vote) that they can pass laws.

Edited December 31, 2011 by whybother

[Moruya]

Obviously JAG was not in Thailand at the moment. The coup was welcomed by most people.

Don't compare a Thai coup with one in south America or Africa.

It was the duty of the army to step in. There is no argument against that.

There was an election in 4 weeks.

Please describe again the duty of the army to step in...

Oh dear me. Pray tell what arrangements miffed, lapsed, caretaker pm Thaksin had taken to arrange such an election?

are you saying he was against the planned election?

why would he have been, when he would have won it...

i'm sure you're intelligent enough to see the crystal clear obviousness of the timing of the coup.

No mate. Thaksin was supposed to plan for the elections - this was mandated to him. He did nothing.

With 4 weeks left it was obviously too late so the boys in green jumped in.

[tlansford]

The PTP won 53% of the seats and was able to form a government without forming a coalition.

From what I understand, Ministers are not allowed to vote on laws. So even with 53% of the seats, they wouldn't have had a majority to vote on any laws that they put forward. So they need something like 270-280 seats to give them a majority in the house.

whybother, what the heck? Correct me if I am wrong, but 53% allows them to select the PM and form a gov't.

As for passing laws, I guess if all the MPs are just robots and vote party-lines 100% of the time, and if all the other parties always voted against the majority party, then your comment would have some relevance.

"vote party-lines 100% of the time"

that is the Parliamentary system, as practiced in most of the countries that use it

"In parliamentary democracies, there is another factor at play. Party politics and party discipline are incredibly powerful forces in countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and to a lesser extent, the UK, much stronger factors than they are in the US, for example, where the parties don’t campaign on single national manifestos. While an MP is elected to represent their constituents, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that, the vast majority of the time, how an MP votes on various issues will be determined by their party’s whip and not by what their constituents want. The reality is that an MP who regularly (or sometimes, even only once) votes against their party’s official position on a given issue will soon find themselves ostracized by the party, if not ejected from caucus completely."

from the web thoughtundermined

I am familiar with the US, Germany, and France. Politicians naturally vote in normal circumstances along party lines which is understandable since parties are aligned along certain political principles and their legislation tends to reflect those principles. So "most of the time" is perfectly normal.

But legislators are not robots voting 100% the party line.

And since there are, in Thailand, more parties than just the ruling party and the opposition, there is ample room for passing legislation.

Anyway, ... 53% of the seats - formed a gov't, also formed a coalition, and finally, according to every article I read, reuters, bbc, gardian, France24, AFP, Bangkok Post, Aljazeera, NY Times, The Telegraph - yes, even TANN used the word - Yingluck and the PTP's win on July 3rd was called - and I quote a "landslide".

See ya later ...

[Jingthing]

Is there any blatant violation of the law that the reds/Thaksinistas would accept as reasonable grounds for impeachment proceedings against their puppetress? Of course not. That's blind loyalty for you.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Jingthing

[animatic]

What a load of pure CRAP. She is not facing anything, and she knows, as anyone who has more than 3 braincells, that he was was ousted by an illegal coup and the trumped up charges and silly, stupid, false "conviction" is invalid.

WELCOME HOME TAKSIN.

Of course he has to be legally the Prime Minister under ALL constitutionally legal points for him to be ousted illegally. Was he? Or does he just say he was over and over?

So please state at what point:

a ) After he was NOT renewed as Acting PM,

as constitutionally required to be PM,

at which point he legally was NOT Acting caretaker anymore.

b ) AND his official resignation as PM,

which was publicly made and delivered, seen by all on TV and in the papers of record of the day.

c ) AND his Deputy PM being made acting PM, as seen publicly being installed in the job, in the papers of record and TV announcements,

did he miraculously become The Prime Minister again?

I really want to know why removing 'someone'

who just usurped the role as PM totally on his own say so,

is suddenly legally the PM again,

and so removing him is suddenly so ilegal?

I've asked this question many times.

Never once has an accurate answer been forthcoming from his suporters.

Edited December 31, 2011 by animatic

[TAWP]

The duty of the army is to defend the country and answer to the government.

It is not the duty of the army to kick out prime ministers that they don't approve of.

Simple really.

Exactly. Herein lies the problem. No progress will be experienced until this mentality is ceased. Almost childlike.

In the US the Armed forces are sworn to protect the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I say it is their duty to oust a dictator etc.

In Thailand the armed forces swear allegiance to King and Country. Again, I think it is their duty to oust anyone that threatens this. Read wikileaks if you want more details.

You seem to be perfectly happy with the concept of a military dictatorship and the idea that it's acceptable for the military wing to override the wishes of the people.

Fair enough and respect your view.

I'm not an American and we had our civil war a couple of hundred years before USA over this point ( among others ).

Looks like we would have been on opposite sides of the barricades.

Regarding Thailand, in my opinion, unless and until the army are emasculated and entirely removed from politics there is little hope for the country because they will always act if they don't like a particular development.

Imagine what would happen if a European style socialist government got elected.....

Think our little paradise would get very hot indeed.

You confuse the idea of the military as the last resort to remove a national threat, internal or external, with being pro-dictatorship. You are clearly highly confused.

I protested highly against the military interim government and was pleased to see them not being in power longer than a year. So atleast I would, now afterwards, give them that in credit: they had the power and gave it back just as they promised.

Unlike another Authoritarian that multiple times has promised to stop his pursue for absolute power only to backtrack on his statement again and again.

Now, if Thailand had a proper Constitution this issue would be much less of an issue. But since no-one involved seem interested in having one [good], apart from trying to stack the deck of cards in their favour, I don't see this problem being resolved anytime soon.

Edited to add: If your idea of going forward would be to have a socialist government installed, then yes, we would indeed be on different sides of the barricades.

Edited December 31, 2011 by TAWP

[animatic]

To be fair the TRT and Thaksin blew the 1st snap election, and got caught cheating.

There was a tit for tat attempt to level the playing field by alleging the Dems got caught similarly,

that was not proved and the TRT's charges were. Hell they had the dam_n meeting waiting room

on video, red handed and white face, like a deer in the headlights was TRT.

BUT the apparently insurmountable trouble began when the suborned Election Commission was wiped out completely, and eventually JAILED, for some of their actions in that 1st 2006 election attempt.

Thaksin's greatest mistake of all,

was not moving heaven and earth to replace the disgraced and jail bound Election Commision

and run an election within his mandated time as caretaker.

Maybe he assumed he would just automatically be renewed to try again.

But between the Temasek uproar, TRT cheating uproar,

Election Commission malfeasence uproar, and not making his deadline,

he had the look of severely damaged goods. Visibly a stress case on TV.

And no doubt that show of incompetence at not running a timely election,

had much to do with his POTENTIAL 2nd term as caretaker PM

not being signed off on.

He also seems to have assumed he had a right to it regardless of who might think differently.

But that was constitutionally under 1997 constitution, not his call to make.

Edited December 31, 2011 by animatic

[TAWP]

" standard angry old white guy"

logic does tend to funnel down to that conclusion, doesn't it...

Perhaps you look just badly preserved in your photos, but you look older than me and some other posters here. So I would be kinda careful in throwing around allegations that there is a lot of old grumpy men here...doing a count, you might end up being one of them.

[TAWP]

In the US the Armed forces are sworn to protect the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I say it is their duty to oust a dictator etc.

In Thailand the armed forces swear allegiance to King and Country. Again, I think it is their duty to oust anyone that threatens this. Read wikileaks if you want more details.

you, sir, are not an American, are you?

The US armed forces serve the commander in chief, which is the president. The armed forces are NOT used for domestic / internal protection.

The US armed forces, if ever they were to depose a President, their own commander, they would be committing an act of treason. (And if they were to be successful in such an attempt, then they would need to give themselves amnesty after the fact... sound familiar??).

In the US, the armed forces serve the commander in chief, the president, and the president serves the people.

No comment on Thailand. It is a different configuration.

So let us go to the fact: http://www.history.a.../faq/oaths.html

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

The Constitution is first priority, following orders is second, as long as those orders don't conflict with the Constitution.

And clearly the oath is to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. (But I would say that the armed forces in the US have been somewhat sloppy with this.)

[tlansford]

In the US the Armed forces are sworn to protect the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I say it is their duty to oust a dictator etc.

In Thailand the armed forces swear allegiance to King and Country. Again, I think it is their duty to oust anyone that threatens this. Read wikileaks if you want more details.

you, sir, are not an American, are you?

The US armed forces serve the commander in chief, which is the president. The armed forces are NOT used for domestic / internal protection.

The US armed forces, if ever they were to depose a President, their own commander, they would be committing an act of treason. (And if they were to be successful in such an attempt, then they would need to give themselves amnesty after the fact... sound familiar??).

In the US, the armed forces serve the commander in chief, the president, and the president serves the people.

No comment on Thailand. It is a different configuration.

So let us go to the fact: http://www.history.a.../faq/oaths.html

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

The Constitution is first priority, following orders is second, as long as those orders don't conflict with the Constitution.

And clearly the oath is to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. (But I would say that the armed forces in the US have been somewhat sloppy with this.)

so the oath has been changed. In this case, I don't see when it happened, but probably since 9/11. It had said "enemies whatsoever".

As your point was to find a way to claim that the military in the USA should oust a dictator, you are still, excuse me, completely off base. The military is under the command of the president (in the constitution). Also, America has a very long and steadfast tradition that the military does not get deployed domestically. This happens only on very rare and exceptional conditions, and the American people are very suspicious of any use of the military internally. 9/11 has been used to justify some rare internal deployments, and that is a relatively new development.

No, the American military will not be used to oust a president. For that we have other mechanisms to use. Which is exactly the point. As long as Thailand has a "military shortcut" in their politics, then the political process will not be allowed to deal with abuses of the system / politicians.

[valerian]

What a load of pure CRAP. She is not facing anything, and she knows, as anyone who has more than 3 braincells, that he was was ousted by an illegal coup and the trumped up charges and silly, stupid, false "conviction" is invalid.

WELCOME HOME TAKSIN.

Yes, the non-care-taker PM was ousted by an illegal coup (is there such a thing as a legal coup?), but did he or did he not sign for his wife to purchase land owned by the FIDF, which is controlled by the government (as shown by them trying to palm off the FIDF debt to the BOT), while he was PM? That sounds like a bit of conflict of interest to me, and is something that is against the law in the 1997 constitution.

Please.. that was a wee bit hard to understand for me. You see I have 4 brain cells, just like the original poster, and they are all occupied trying to hold back my CaPS lOcK abuses.

[geriatrickid]

But a ruling party with or without an (absolute) majority is a different issue and passing legislation requires not only keeping your own MPs in line, but also working with MPs in other parties - it is called cooperation. As already noted, other parties have formed gov'ts and passed laws without the ruling party having an absolute majority in parliament, so the PTP with an absolute majority in parliament should be able to do so as well.

You're missing the point. Government ministers can not vote on laws, so it's possible that the PTP don't actually have a majority for voting purposes. Therefore, even though they have a majority of MPs, they still need to form a coalition to ensure (given that they control the way their MPs vote) that they can pass laws.

Nope. The government has 265 seats, a majority of 15 seats. There are 39 cabinet level positions. Whether or not there was a coalition, several of the smaller parties have typically shared the government's policies and had similar platforms and would vote with the government. The Democrats only have 156 seats. Although the BJT might vote with the Democrats the BJT 34 representatives would not provide sufficient numbers to defeat a bill brought forward by the PTP. All the PTP would need is to have support of 1 or 2 of the small parties for insurance purposes which is easily achieved.

For all intents and purposes, the coalition merely formalized the understandings between the PTP and some of the smaller parties and ensured an overwhelming majority that can crush the Democrats and the BJT.

Edited December 31, 2011 by geriatrickid

[wxyz]

I am familiar with the US, Germany, and France. Politicians naturally vote in normal circumstances along party lines which is understandable since parties are aligned along certain political principles and their legislation tends to reflect those principles. So "most of the time" is perfectly normal.

But legislators are not robots voting 100% the party line.

And since there are, in Thailand, more parties than just the ruling party and the opposition, there is ample room for passing legislation.

Anyway, ... 53% of the seats - formed a gov't, also formed a coalition, and finally, according to every article I read, reuters, bbc, gardian, France24, AFP, Bangkok Post, Aljazeera, NY Times, The Telegraph - yes, even TANN used the word - Yingluck and the PTP's win on July 3rd was called - and I quote a "landslide".

See ya later ...

under the Parliamentary system it is expected and enforce by the party, people vote for the party, not the member per se and are expected to vote the party line. the usa is not a Parliamentary system.

i suspect you would call one vote over 50% a landslide for that particular party, it is doubtful you would call it a landslide had the other party won by such a margin, that is not most peoples definition of a landslide.

[TAWP]

So let us go to the fact: http://www.history.a.../faq/oaths.html

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

The Constitution is first priority, following orders is second, as long as those orders don't conflict with the Constitution.

And clearly the oath is to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. (But I would say that the armed forces in the US have been somewhat sloppy with this.)

so the oath has been changed. In this case, I don't see when it happened, but probably since 9/11. It had said "enemies whatsoever".

/../

It clearly says since 1962 in the posting above (effective, adopted 1960). How old are you saying that you are, if that is 'recent'?

Edited December 31, 2011 by TAWP

[whybother]

But a ruling party with or without an (absolute) majority is a different issue and passing legislation requires not only keeping your own MPs in line, but also working with MPs in other parties - it is called cooperation. As already noted, other parties have formed gov'ts and passed laws without the ruling party having an absolute majority in parliament, so the PTP with an absolute majority in parliament should be able to do so as well.

You're missing the point. Government ministers can not vote on laws, so it's possible that the PTP don't actually have a majority for voting purposes. Therefore, even though they have a majority of MPs, they still need to form a coalition to ensure (given that they control the way their MPs vote) that they can pass laws.

Nope. The government has 265 seats, a majority of 15 seats. There are 39 cabinet level positions. Whether or not there was a coalition, several of the smaller parties have typically shared the government's policies and had similar platforms and would vote with the government. The Democrats only have 156 seats. Although the BJT might vote with the Democrats the BJT 34 representatives would not provide sufficient numbers to defeat a bill brought forward by the PTP. All the PTP would need is to have support of 1 or 2 of the small parties for insurance purposes which is easily achieved.

For all intents and purposes, the coalition merely formalized the understandings between the PTP and some of the smaller parties and ensured an overwhelming majority that can crush the Democrats and the BJT.

Yes. So with 39 Cabinet positions, that means the PTP have 226 votes in parliament (for laws) compared to the rest being 235. So the PTP needed to form a coalition to have an "effective" government. And one other thing that they did to get more votes in parliament was for ministers that were party list MPs to resign, giving them extra votes.

[OzMick]

So let us go to the fact: http://www.history.a.../faq/oaths.html

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

The Constitution is first priority, following orders is second, as long as those orders don't conflict with the Constitution.

And clearly the oath is to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. (But I would say that the armed forces in the US have been somewhat sloppy with this.)

so the oath has been changed. In this case, I don't see when it happened, but probably since 9/11. It had said "enemies whatsoever".

As your point was to find a way to claim that the military in the USA should oust a dictator, you are still, excuse me, completely off base. The military is under the command of the president (in the constitution). Also, America has a very long and steadfast tradition that the military does not get deployed domestically. This happens only on very rare and exceptional conditions, and the American people are very suspicious of any use of the military internally. 9/11 has been used to justify some rare internal deployments, and that is a relatively new development.

No, the American military will not be used to oust a president. For that we have other mechanisms to use. Which is exactly the point. As long as Thailand has a "military shortcut" in their politics, then the political process will not be allowed to deal with abuses of the system / politicians.

US National Guard seem to be called out quite regularly - my memory stretches back as far as Kent State. Are you claiming that they are not part of the military?

FYI information under the Westminster system, MPs are expected to vote the party line unless a conscience vote is declared. failure to do so will inevitably lead to loss of party endorsement, and in most cases loss of seat at the next election. Independants rarely fare well and have little chance of having their bills passed unless they hold the balance of power and do sweetheart deals.

BTW in a prior post you claim to be familiar with the German political system, yet a few days back you were claiming the chancellor was the head of state.

[OzMick]

But a ruling party with or without an (absolute) majority is a different issue and passing legislation requires not only keeping your own MPs in line, but also working with MPs in other parties - it is called cooperation. As already noted, other parties have formed gov'ts and passed laws without the ruling party having an absolute majority in parliament, so the PTP with an absolute majority in parliament should be able to do so as well.

You're missing the point. Government ministers can not vote on laws, so it's possible that the PTP don't actually have a majority for voting purposes. Therefore, even though they have a majority of MPs, they still need to form a coalition to ensure (given that they control the way their MPs vote) that they can pass laws.

Nope. The government has 265 seats, a majority of 15 seats. There are 39 cabinet level positions. Whether or not there was a coalition, several of the smaller parties have typically shared the government's policies and had similar platforms and would vote with the government. The Democrats only have 156 seats. Although the BJT might vote with the Democrats the BJT 34 representatives would not provide sufficient numbers to defeat a bill brought forward by the PTP. All the PTP would need is to have support of 1 or 2 of the small parties for insurance purposes which is easily achieved.

For all intents and purposes, the coalition merely formalized the understandings between the PTP and some of the smaller parties and ensured an overwhelming majority that can crush the Democrats and the BJT.

Yes. So with 39 Cabinet positions, that means the PTP have 226 votes in parliament (for laws) compared to the rest being 235. So the PTP needed to form a coalition to have an "effective" government. And one other thing that they did to get more votes in parliament was for ministers that were party list MPs to resign, giving them extra votes.

Some of the Ministers appointed were NOT MPs.

[tukkytuktuk]

The underlining point to all this reissuing a Thai passport to Thaksin is quite simple. Thaksin is wanted for corruption and was given a 2 year jail sentence. A pardon for this crime was asked for and deemed inappropriate, so the newly elected government with 2 thirds of the population voting for them reissued a Thai passport for Thaksin. The Pueau Thai party is Thaksins party so the question is how can the democrat party headed by Abhasit regain power? By stopping Thaksin returning to Thailand any way they can. The sad truth is why do Puea Thai need Thaksin? Surely there are other leaders who can inspire the nation. Also didn't the democrats say during their goverment that they would be more respectful of the opposition party if they could distance themselves away from the Thaksin clan.

[animatic]

The underlining point to all this reissuing a Thai passport to Thaksin is quite simple. Thaksin is wanted for corruption and was given a 2 year jail sentence. A pardon for this crime was asked for and deemed inappropriate, so the newly elected government with 2 thirds of the population voting for them reissued a Thai passport for Thaksin. The Pueau Thai party is Thaksins party so the question is how can the democrat party headed by Abhasit regain power? By stopping Thaksin returning to Thailand any way they can. The sad truth is why do Puea Thai need Thaksin? Surely there are other leaders who can inspire the nation. Also didn't the democrats say during their goverment that they would be more respectful of the opposition party if they could distance themselves away from the Thaksin clan.

2/3 of the population did NOT vote for them.

1 / 9.75th of the population voted for them.

1/ 5.25 of their voting electorate voted for them.

By quirks of the electoral system, that the manipulated well, they had a large party list. And so they have 15 more seats. But if all malfeasance's and legal charges were were fairly brought to FAIR impeachment and trial, their margin would evaporate like mist.