Thai Charter Reform Process Starts To Look Sinister

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Charter reform process starts to look sinister

The Nation

Call to neuter respected courts raises questions on ruling party's real intent

BANGKOK: -- When the yet-to-be-elected Constitution Drafting Assembly goes into action and ponders what Thailand's highest law should look like, it will face two major challenges. The first one is inevitable. The CDA will have to decide whether to keep the current constitutional protection for the legal consequences of the 2006 coup. Without addressing this coup issue, there would be not much left to change in the present charter, and that would mock the very existence of the CDA itself.

The second challenge is not so inevitable. At least it seems that way at the moment. The question whether the current checks and balances system is relevant and thus should be reformed has never featured much in political debate. Until last week, of course, when a government MP strongly suggested that the likes of the Constitution Court and the Administrative Court should be dissolved and come under the normal court of justice. In other words, Watana Muangsook was seeking to overhaul a system prescribed under the 1997 Constitution that his party's ultimate patriarch, Thaksin Shinawatra, advocates, at least publicly.

So, what is happening? The ruling Pheu Thai Party is not paying much public attention to what a newspaper called a "charter blueprint" proposed by Watana. But despite our political naivety, we have learned enough to know that what is said in public can be the opposite of what takes place behind the scenes. Is Watana inadvertently letting the cat out of the bag on the ruling camp's "secret agenda"? This question, according to Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung, smacks of contempt for the CDA whose most members will be directly elected by the people. There's a clear line, however, between contempt and scepticism.

Should we be sceptical, as Watana's "blueprint" came hot on the heels of Thaksin singing his praises during a call via Skype to the red shirts? Maybe Thaksin's remark that Watana made a very strong argument during the first reading of the charter amendment bills matters less than the fact that the two courts have been far from famous with their assessment of the political conflict. Although the Constitution Court let Thaksin off the hook in a murky verdict in 2001 on the share concealment case, rulings following the 2006 coup hampered his attempts at political return. The Administrative Court, meanwhile, kept in check ambitious and controversial business policies of pro-Thaksin administrations, although a Democrat-led government was also rattled by a verdict that froze parts of the Map Ta Phut industrial estate for months.

Make no mistake. The two courts have caused political turbulence, big and small. But they came into existence for good reasons and once were essential parts of a formidable mechanism that struck fears into corrupt politicians who could not tell national interests from their own. A senior Democrat, who was an influential power broker in the 1990s, was banned from politics for failing to explain a small "debt" in his asset declaration report. Big-name election runners were disqualified left and right for vote-buying.

The weakening of the independent anti-corruption mechanisms coincided with Thaksin's rise to power. Yet after he was ousted in the 2006 coup, that was followed by years of political turmoil, and Thaksin somehow became the most vocal mouthpiece for the 1997 "People's Constitution", whose anti-corruption principles survived the military's takeover and were included in the present charter. On various occasions, Thaksin expressed proclaimed wishes to see the 1997 Constitution re-installed in its totality.

Watana's "blueprint" and Thaksin praises of his constitutional views, has thus raised many eyebrows. To add to the intrigue, Watana belongs to the ruling camp, which always told the public it would stay away from the charter reform process. The planned setting up of the CDA was in fact intended to create an impression that the ruling camp would not have its hands on any controversial change to the charter.

If "hands-off" is an image that the ruling camp is trying to project, it's a shaky image at best. Watana and his criticism of an independent checks-and-balances mechanism are further reason to question what the ruling party's real intentions are. Whether 'shaky' will turn into 'fragile' will depend largely on how the drafting assembly goes about its unenviable job.

-- The Nation 2012-03-05

[TheGhostWithin]

Before we start, I am neither pro-Thaksin nor pro-Yellow, I believe neither share my interests, this is the name of the game in a political world.

How can Thaksin be allowed to publicly have a voice, when he is officially a fugitive, and has been convicted on serious charges?

If he were serious about being innocent (I'm unsure if he has denied them or not), he has the right (and the financial and political willpower) to ensure a fair trial in Thailand. Perhaps the oversight of some sort of international body to ensure a fair and even trial? Criminals do not have voices in most countries, let alone political voices. It is the constant publishing of the newspaper that give this situation life. Ignoring him will not remove the problem, but it certainly will stop public interest and the growth of a very dangerous adversarial movement. The movement has political intentions, but as with many political movements in Asia,has strong para-military and anarchist ties. Drop the guns, bombs, grenades, stop inspiring people to threaten to blow up petrol tankers outside major population centers, and use your heart to win the heart of your people.

Why do Thai people continue to negotiate with someone who has been convicted of crimes, and fails to return and fight the charges or serve the time?

[AleG]

Before we start, I am neither pro-Thaksin nor pro-Yellow, I believe neither share my interests, this is the name of the game in a political world.

How can Thaksin be allowed to publicly have a voice, when he is officially a fugitive, and has been convicted on serious charges?

If he were serious about being innocent (I'm unsure if he has denied them or not), he has the right (and the financial and political willpower) to ensure a fair trial in Thailand. Perhaps the oversight of some sort of international body to ensure a fair and even trial? Criminals do not have voices in most countries, let alone political voices. It is the constant publishing of the newspaper that give this situation life. Ignoring him will not remove the problem, but it certainly will stop public interest and the growth of a very dangerous adversarial movement. The movement has political intentions, but as with many political movements in Asia,has strong para-military and anarchist ties. Drop the guns, bombs, grenades, stop inspiring people to threaten to blow up petrol tankers outside major population centers, and use your heart to win the heart of your people.

Why do Thai people continue to negotiate with someone who has been convicted of crimes, and fails to return and fight the charges or serve the time?

The thing is Thaksin has several PR firms working for him as a concerted effort in perception management, he is not a hermit living in a cave seeking isolation from the world.

It's not just that news sources go after him, he pays people to remain in the spotlight. See for example R. Amsterdam's antics at the Hague.

Edited March 5, 2012 by AleG

[phiphidon]

Let's just have a look at the following "throwaway" lines in this "editorial"

A senior Democrat, who was an influential power broker in the 1990s, was banned from politics for failing to explain a small "debt" in his asset declaration report

The Senior Democrat involved was one Chumpol Kanchana, formerly MP for Surat Thani. He was actually convicted of failing to declare a debt of 191 million Baht.

By The Nations standards this is a small debt, is it?

This was not on just one occasion either. He had falsely declared his assets, a total of Thirteen Times since his election in 1997!

And what was his penalty for this? 2 months in jail suspended, a 4000 baht fine and a 5 year ban from politics...................

And this was a verdict handed down by the Supreme Court - hardly the best example to use when arguing against the reform of "venerable" institutions. No mention of the democrat party dissolution trials when the integrity of the courts were questioned after the democrat defence team member was caught on video "allegedly" discussing the case with the secretary of the Constitution Court President, oh no.

Edited March 5, 2012 by phiphidon

[sparebox2]

Before we start, I am neither pro-Thaksin nor pro-Yellow, I believe neither share my interests, this is the name of the game in a political world.

How can Thaksin be allowed to publicly have a voice, when he is officially a fugitive, and has been convicted on serious charges?

If he were serious about being innocent (I'm unsure if he has denied them or not), he has the right (and the financial and political willpower) to ensure a fair trial in Thailand. Perhaps the oversight of some sort of international body to ensure a fair and even trial? Criminals do not have voices in most countries, let alone political voices. It is the constant publishing of the newspaper that give this situation life. Ignoring him will not remove the problem, but it certainly will stop public interest and the growth of a very dangerous adversarial movement. The movement has political intentions, but as with many political movements in Asia,has strong para-military and anarchist ties. Drop the guns, bombs, grenades, stop inspiring people to threaten to blow up petrol tankers outside major population centers, and use your heart to win the heart of your people.

Why do Thai people continue to negotiate with someone who has been convicted of crimes, and fails to return and fight the charges or serve the time?

Same same as how can a coup master have a voice, and now a MP.

Isn't coup an act of treson punished by death acording to the law?

[phiphidon]

Before we start, I am neither pro-Thaksin nor pro-Yellow, I believe neither share my interests, this is the name of the game in a political world.

How can Thaksin be allowed to publicly have a voice, when he is officially a fugitive, and has been convicted on serious charges?

If he were serious about being innocent (I'm unsure if he has denied them or not), he has the right (and the financial and political willpower) to ensure a fair trial in Thailand. Perhaps the oversight of some sort of international body to ensure a fair and even trial? Criminals do not have voices in most countries, let alone political voices. It is the constant publishing of the newspaper that give this situation life. Ignoring him will not remove the problem, but it certainly will stop public interest and the growth of a very dangerous adversarial movement. The movement has political intentions, but as with many political movements in Asia,has strong para-military and anarchist ties. Drop the guns, bombs, grenades, stop inspiring people to threaten to blow up petrol tankers outside major population centers, and use your heart to win the heart of your people.

Why do Thai people continue to negotiate with someone who has been convicted of crimes, and fails to return and fight the charges or serve the time?

Same same as how can a coup master have a voice, and now a MP.

Isn't coup an act of treson punished by death acording to the law?

Well yes, in theory, but all you have to do is re write the constitution to exonerate yourself from all charges.

[whybother]

<snip>

And this was a verdict handed down by the Supreme Court - hardly the best example to use when arguing against the reform of "venerable" institutions. No mention of the democrat party dissolution trials when the integrity of the courts were questioned after the democrat defence team member was caught on video "allegedly" discussing the case with the secretary of the Constitution Court President, oh no.

Yes ... allegedly.

The secretary who organised the meeting, asked leading questions, taped the conversation, handed the tape over to the PTP, and then disappeared. He then returned from hiding in Hong Kong to be given a PTP government position.

Edited March 5, 2012 by whybother

[sparebox2]

Before we start, I am neither pro-Thaksin nor pro-Yellow, I believe neither share my interests, this is the name of the game in a political world.

How can Thaksin be allowed to publicly have a voice, when he is officially a fugitive, and has been convicted on serious charges?

If he were serious about being innocent (I'm unsure if he has denied them or not), he has the right (and the financial and political willpower) to ensure a fair trial in Thailand. Perhaps the oversight of some sort of international body to ensure a fair and even trial? Criminals do not have voices in most countries, let alone political voices. It is the constant publishing of the newspaper that give this situation life. Ignoring him will not remove the problem, but it certainly will stop public interest and the growth of a very dangerous adversarial movement. The movement has political intentions, but as with many political movements in Asia,has strong para-military and anarchist ties. Drop the guns, bombs, grenades, stop inspiring people to threaten to blow up petrol tankers outside major population centers, and use your heart to win the heart of your people.

Why do Thai people continue to negotiate with someone who has been convicted of crimes, and fails to return and fight the charges or serve the time?

Same same as how can a coup master have a voice, and now a MP.

Isn't coup an act of treson punished by death acording to the law?

Well yes, in theory, but all you have to do is re write the constitution to exonerate yourself from all charges.

Exactly. If the coup master can, why not Thaksin, or someone equal or more important in Thailand? This is my question.

[phiphidon]

<snip>

And this was a verdict handed down by the Supreme Court - hardly the best example to use when arguing against the reform of "venerable" institutions. No mention of the democrat party dissolution trials when the integrity of the courts were questioned after the democrat defence team member was caught on video "allegedly" discussing the case with the secretary of the Constitution Court President, oh no.

Yes ... allegedly.

The secretary who organised the meeting, asked leading questions, taped the conversation, handed the tape over to the PTP, and then disappeared. He then returned from hiding in Hong Kong to be given a PTP government position.

Despite being hounded and threatened with charges as a whistleblower the charges were never pursued. Why do you think that is? And don't tell me the judges are in the PTP's pocket.

[whybother]

<snip>

And this was a verdict handed down by the Supreme Court - hardly the best example to use when arguing against the reform of "venerable" institutions. No mention of the democrat party dissolution trials when the integrity of the courts were questioned after the democrat defence team member was caught on video "allegedly" discussing the case with the secretary of the Constitution Court President, oh no.

Yes ... allegedly.

The secretary who organised the meeting, asked leading questions, taped the conversation, handed the tape over to the PTP, and then disappeared. He then returned from hiding in Hong Kong to be given a PTP government position.

Despite being hounded and threatened with charges as a whistleblower the charges were never pursued. Why do you think that is? And don't tell me the judges are in the PTP's pocket.

Not being in the country might have something to do with it. Coming back and getting a government job might have something to do with it too.

Pasit was charged on his return and is out on bail.

The tapes have nothing to do with whistle blowing. They were recorded by the "whistle blower" as an attempt to discredit the Democrats. When that failed, the PTP tried to discredit the judges.

[Unkomoncents]

Before we start, I am neither pro-Thaksin nor pro-Yellow, I believe neither share my interests, this is the name of the game in a political world.

How can Thaksin be allowed to publicly have a voice, when he is officially a fugitive, and has been convicted on serious charges?

If he were serious about being innocent (I'm unsure if he has denied them or not), he has the right (and the financial and political willpower) to ensure a fair trial in Thailand. Perhaps the oversight of some sort of international body to ensure a fair and even trial? Criminals do not have voices in most countries, let alone political voices. It is the constant publishing of the newspaper that give this situation life. Ignoring him will not remove the problem, but it certainly will stop public interest and the growth of a very dangerous adversarial movement. The movement has political intentions, but as with many political movements in Asia,has strong para-military and anarchist ties. Drop the guns, bombs, grenades, stop inspiring people to threaten to blow up petrol tankers outside major population centers, and use your heart to win the heart of your people.

Why do Thai people continue to negotiate with someone who has been convicted of crimes, and fails to return and fight the charges or serve the time?

Others have answered this question, because it's a good one, and I just wanted to add that we are talking about (what, before the euphemisms, was a; i.e. 'emerging countries') is a third-world country with few of its priorities in order. Enforcement of its own decrees (and I say decrees because there really are no laws in Thailand in the way that most people coming out developed countries understand the word 'law') is a massive problem that gets a lot of discussion in Thailand and throughout the world (about Thailand and other developing countries). I find that this answer helps to explain away a lot of life's incongruencies with logic in the Kingdom.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Unkomoncents

[OzMick]

Let's just have a look at the following "throwaway" lines in this "editorial"

A senior Democrat, who was an influential power broker in the 1990s, was banned from politics for failing to explain a small "debt" in his asset declaration report

The Senior Democrat involved was one Chumpol Kanchana, formerly MP for Surat Thani. He was actually convicted of failing to declare a debt of 191 million Baht.

By The Nations standards this is a small debt, is it?

This was not on just one occasion either. He had falsely declared his assets, a total of Thirteen Times since his election in 1997!

And what was his penalty for this? 2 months in jail suspended, a 4000 baht fine and a 5 year ban from politics...................

And this was a verdict handed down by the Supreme Court - hardly the best example to use when arguing against the reform of "venerable" institutions. No mention of the democrat party dissolution trials when the integrity of the courts were questioned after the democrat defence team member was caught on video "allegedly" discussing the case with the secretary of the Constitution Court President, oh no.

I'm surprised that you want to raise the issue of asset declarations. Wasn't somebody exonerated only because 2 judges believed the case was in the wrong court?

[animatic]

Before we start, I am neither pro-Thaksin nor pro-Yellow, I believe neither share my interests, this is the name of the game in a political world.

How can Thaksin be allowed to publicly have a voice, when he is officially a fugitive, and has been convicted on serious charges?

If he were serious about being innocent (I'm unsure if he has denied them or not), he has the right (and the financial and political willpower) to ensure a fair trial in Thailand. Perhaps the oversight of some sort of international body to ensure a fair and even trial? Criminals do not have voices in most countries, let alone political voices. It is the constant publishing of the newspaper that give this situation life. Ignoring him will not remove the problem, but it certainly will stop public interest and the growth of a very dangerous adversarial movement. The movement has political intentions, but as with many political movements in Asia,has strong para-military and anarchist ties. Drop the guns, bombs, grenades, stop inspiring people to threaten to blow up petrol tankers outside major population centers, and use your heart to win the heart of your people.

Why do Thai people continue to negotiate with someone who has been convicted of crimes, and fails to return and fight the charges or serve the time?

Same same as how can a coup master have a voice, and now a MP.

Isn't coup an act of treson punished by death acording to the law?

Well yes, in theory, but all you have to do is re write the constitution to exonerate yourself from all charges.

Exactly. If the coup master can, why not Thaksin, or someone equal or more important in Thailand? This is my question.

The people voted that Sonthi could be an MP he was voted into office.

And was forgiven the coup actions. If the latter actual was a national issue of

great enough import, ( to other than Thaksin suporters) that constitution

would have been voted down. Seems there weren't enough objectors

The people have not voted Thaksin into office.

Nor voted a compensation into the constitution for Thaksin.

Regardless of the "Thaksin thinks PTP does" slogan,

that is neither of the 2 cases above.

[CalgaryII]

TheGhostWithin, #2^

"Before we start, I am neither pro-Thaksin nor pro-Yellow, I believe neither share my interests, this is the name of the game in a political world".

You are pro-yellow PAD, or sympathise with them and the Opposition, to the point I call people such as that "PADites".

Never mind TGW Post, I have seen a strange hugely consistent approach from PADites generally, first claiming their nuetrality, and then proceeding to dump on their political opposites.

I see it as an attempt to elevate their opinions. Implying that nuetrality carries more weight.

[CalgaryII]

Before we start, I am neither pro-Thaksin nor pro-Yellow, I believe neither share my interests, this is the name of the game in a political world.

How can Thaksin be allowed to publicly have a voice, when he is officially a fugitive, and has been convicted on serious charges?

If he were serious about being innocent (I'm unsure if he has denied them or not), he has the right (and the financial and political willpower) to ensure a fair trial in Thailand. Perhaps the oversight of some sort of international body to ensure a fair and even trial? Criminals do not have voices in most countries, let alone political voices. It is the constant publishing of the newspaper that give this situation life. Ignoring him will not remove the problem, but it certainly will stop public interest and the growth of a very dangerous adversarial movement. The movement has political intentions, but as with many political movements in Asia,has strong para-military and anarchist ties. Drop the guns, bombs, grenades, stop inspiring people to threaten to blow up petrol tankers outside major population centers, and use your heart to win the heart of your people.

Why do Thai people continue to negotiate with someone who has been convicted of crimes, and fails to return and fight the charges or serve the time?

The thing is Thaksin has several PR firms working for him as a concerted effort in perception management, he is not a hermit living in a cave seeking isolation from the world.

It's not just that news sources go after him, he pays people to remain in the spotlight. See for example R. Amsterdam's antics at the Hague.

Perception management is political theatre as old as Methusaleh.

Amsterdam's so-called 'antics' at The Hague are focussed on bringing to justice, those who are avoiding accountability for the R'song deaths of anti-coup taxpayers at the hands of pro-coup forces.

I don't expect anything to come of it, but it is also part of 'perception Management".

Projecting the correct perception of certain people who ordered an attack by their political brethren on those who opposed them politically.

This unnecesary resort to force to extend a non-electoral coupist Governing mandate for a relatively short time, was starkly revealed by last years election.

[CalgaryII]

Let's just have a look at the following "throwaway" lines in this "editorial"

A senior Democrat, who was an influential power broker in the 1990s, was banned from politics for failing to explain a small "debt" in his asset declaration report

The Senior Democrat involved was one Chumpol Kanchana, formerly MP for Surat Thani. He was actually convicted of failing to declare a debt of 191 million Baht.

By The Nations standards this is a small debt, is it?

This was not on just one occasion either. He had falsely declared his assets, a total of Thirteen Times since his election in 1997!

And what was his penalty for this? 2 months in jail suspended, a 4000 baht fine and a 5 year ban from politics...................

And this was a verdict handed down by the Supreme Court - hardly the best example to use when arguing against the reform of "venerable" institutions. No mention of the democrat party dissolution trials when the integrity of the courts were questioned after the democrat defence team member was caught on video "allegedly" discussing the case with the secretary of the Constitution Court President, oh no.

Bingo.

And that is why one sees the rationale for constitutional reform being what it is.

[thaicbr]

Before we start, I am neither pro-Thaksin nor pro-Yellow, I believe neither share my interests, this is the name of the game in a political world.

How can Thaksin be allowed to publicly have a voice, when he is officially a fugitive, and has been convicted on serious charges?

If he were serious about being innocent (I'm unsure if he has denied them or not), he has the right (and the financial and political willpower) to ensure a fair trial in Thailand. Perhaps the oversight of some sort of international body to ensure a fair and even trial? Criminals do not have voices in most countries, let alone political voices. It is the constant publishing of the newspaper that give this situation life. Ignoring him will not remove the problem, but it certainly will stop public interest and the growth of a very dangerous adversarial movement. The movement has political intentions, but as with many political movements in Asia,has strong para-military and anarchist ties. Drop the guns, bombs, grenades, stop inspiring people to threaten to blow up petrol tankers outside major population centers, and use your heart to win the heart of your people.

Why do Thai people continue to negotiate with someone who has been convicted of crimes, and fails to return and fight the charges or serve the time?

The thing is Thaksin has several PR firms working for him as a concerted effort in perception management, he is not a hermit living in a cave seeking isolation from the world.

It's not just that news sources go after him, he pays people to remain in the spotlight. See for example R. Amsterdam's antics at the Hague.

Perception management is political theatre as old as Methusaleh.

Amsterdam's so-called 'antics' at The Hague are focussed on bringing to justice, those who are avoiding accountability for the R'song deaths of anti-coup taxpayers at the hands of pro-coup forces.

I don't expect anything to come of it, but it is also part of 'perception Management".

Projecting the correct perception of certain people who ordered an attack by their political brethren on those who opposed them politically.

This unnecesary resort to force to extend a non-electoral coupist Governing mandate for a relatively short time, was starkly revealed by last years election.

they were asked to leave repeatedly. they refused. so the government used force. it happens all over the world and strangely called the rule of law.

what about thaksins reign of terror against drug dealers. 2500 dead in 9 months.

[sparebox2]

Let's just have a look at the following "throwaway" lines in this "editorial"

A senior Democrat, who was an influential power broker in the 1990s, was banned from politics for failing to explain a small "debt" in his asset declaration report

The Senior Democrat involved was one Chumpol Kanchana, formerly MP for Surat Thani. He was actually convicted of failing to declare a debt of 191 million Baht.

By The Nations standards this is a small debt, is it?

This was not on just one occasion either. He had falsely declared his assets, a total of Thirteen Times since his election in 1997!

And what was his penalty for this? 2 months in jail suspended, a 4000 baht fine and a 5 year ban from politics...................

And this was a verdict handed down by the Supreme Court - hardly the best example to use when arguing against the reform of "venerable" institutions. No mention of the democrat party dissolution trials when the integrity of the courts were questioned after the democrat defence team member was caught on video "allegedly" discussing the case with the secretary of the Constitution Court President, oh no.

Bingo.

And that is why one sees the rationale for constitutional reform being what it is.

To dems 191 million Baht is small change.

I am sorry for you if you, if it appears to you that such amount is significant.

[whybother]

TheGhostWithin, #2^

"Before we start, I am neither pro-Thaksin nor pro-Yellow, I believe neither share my interests, this is the name of the game in a political world".

You are pro-yellow PAD, or sympathise with them and the Opposition, to the point I call people such as that "PADites".

Never mind TGW Post, I have seen a strange hugely consistent approach from PADites generally, first claiming their nuetrality, and then proceeding to dump on their political opposites.

I see it as an attempt to elevate their opinions. Implying that nuetrality carries more weight.

"If you're not with us, you're against us"?

If you can't accept that there are people out there that don't accept either side, or support certain aspects of both sides, then the brain washing is complete.

[CalgaryII]

thaicbr, #17

"....they were asked to leave repeatedly. they refused. so the government used force. it happens all over the world and strangely called the rule of law."

They were there to put an end to a minority, unelected, coup-based Government. They were the electoral majority, knew it and were validated last year.

For the coupists to ask them to leave is silly. And attempting to ignore them out of existence was particularly cynical, considering the massive nature of the protest.

The coupists needed to negotiate an end to their illegal rule with this electoral majority. The 'rule of law' needed to apply to them first and foremost.

Their 'mafia offer' followed by an armed attack showed their weakness. They were too electorally weak to consider an election, so they resorted to force.

[whybother]

thaicbr, #17

"....they were asked to leave repeatedly. they refused. so the government used force. it happens all over the world and strangely called the rule of law."

They were there to put an end to a minority, unelected, coup-based Government. They were the electoral majority, knew it and were validated last year.

For the coupists to ask them to leave is silly. And attempting to ignore them out of existence was particularly cynical, considering the massive nature of the protest.

The coupists needed to negotiate an end to their illegal rule with this electoral majority. The 'rule of law' needed to apply to them first and foremost.

Their 'mafia offer' followed by an armed attack showed their weakness. They were too electorally weak to consider an election, so they resorted to force.

They were a majority government, as shown by getting a majority of MPs to vote for the PM.

The red shirts weren't (and aren't) an electoral majority. They are a (large) minority political movement and make up a large portion of PTP supporters.

It seems the (newly formed) PTP showed their weakness by not going to the polls to get a new mandate after the PPP disbanding. Instead they tried to elect a new PM in parliament, and failed to get the support of the majority of MPs (ie the representatives of the people).

[phiphidon]

<snip>

And this was a verdict handed down by the Supreme Court - hardly the best example to use when arguing against the reform of "venerable" institutions. No mention of the democrat party dissolution trials when the integrity of the courts were questioned after the democrat defence team member was caught on video "allegedly" discussing the case with the secretary of the Constitution Court President, oh no.

Yes ... allegedly.

The secretary who organised the meeting, asked leading questions, taped the conversation, handed the tape over to the PTP, and then disappeared. He then returned from hiding in Hong Kong to be given a PTP government position.

Despite being hounded and threatened with charges as a whistleblower the charges were never pursued. Why do you think that is? And don't tell me the judges are in the PTP's pocket.

Not being in the country might have something to do with it. Coming back and getting a government job might have something to do with it too.

Pasit was charged on his return and is out on bail.

The tapes have nothing to do with whistle blowing. They were recorded by the "whistle blower" as an attempt to discredit the Democrats. When that failed, the PTP tried to discredit the judges.

I don't think the judges needed any help.

[phiphidon]

Let's just have a look at the following "throwaway" lines in this "editorial"

A senior Democrat, who was an influential power broker in the 1990s, was banned from politics for failing to explain a small "debt" in his asset declaration report

The Senior Democrat involved was one Chumpol Kanchana, formerly MP for Surat Thani. He was actually convicted of failing to declare a debt of 191 million Baht.

By The Nations standards this is a small debt, is it?

This was not on just one occasion either. He had falsely declared his assets, a total of Thirteen Times since his election in 1997!

And what was his penalty for this? 2 months in jail suspended, a 4000 baht fine and a 5 year ban from politics...................

And this was a verdict handed down by the Supreme Court - hardly the best example to use when arguing against the reform of "venerable" institutions. No mention of the democrat party dissolution trials when the integrity of the courts were questioned after the democrat defence team member was caught on video "allegedly" discussing the case with the secretary of the Constitution Court President, oh no.

I'm surprised that you want to raise the issue of asset declarations. Wasn't somebody exonerated only because 2 judges believed the case was in the wrong court?

I don't know. I was referring to the OP - What are you on about?

[lannarebirth]

Before we start, I am neither pro-Thaksin nor pro-Yellow, I believe neither share my interests, this is the name of the game in a political world.

How can Thaksin be allowed to publicly have a voice, when he is officially a fugitive, and has been convicted on serious charges?

If he were serious about being innocent (I'm unsure if he has denied them or not), he has the right (and the financial and political willpower) to ensure a fair trial in Thailand. Perhaps the oversight of some sort of international body to ensure a fair and even trial? Criminals do not have voices in most countries, let alone political voices. It is the constant publishing of the newspaper that give this situation life. Ignoring him will not remove the problem, but it certainly will stop public interest and the growth of a very dangerous adversarial movement. The movement has political intentions, but as with many political movements in Asia,has strong para-military and anarchist ties. Drop the guns, bombs, grenades, stop inspiring people to threaten to blow up petrol tankers outside major population centers, and use your heart to win the heart of your people.

Why do Thai people continue to negotiate with someone who has been convicted of crimes, and fails to return and fight the charges or serve the time?

Same same as how can a coup master have a voice, and now a MP.

Isn't coup an act of treson punished by death acording to the law?

Well yes, in theory, but all you have to do is re write the constitution to exonerate yourself from all charges.

Exactly. If the coup master can, why not Thaksin, or someone equal or more important in Thailand? This is my question.

Or, why not kill them both?

[h90]

Before we start, I am neither pro-Thaksin nor pro-Yellow, I believe neither share my interests, this is the name of the game in a political world.

How can Thaksin be allowed to publicly have a voice, when he is officially a fugitive, and has been convicted on serious charges?

If he were serious about being innocent (I'm unsure if he has denied them or not), he has the right (and the financial and political willpower) to ensure a fair trial in Thailand. Perhaps the oversight of some sort of international body to ensure a fair and even trial? Criminals do not have voices in most countries, let alone political voices. It is the constant publishing of the newspaper that give this situation life. Ignoring him will not remove the problem, but it certainly will stop public interest and the growth of a very dangerous adversarial movement. The movement has political intentions, but as with many political movements in Asia,has strong para-military and anarchist ties. Drop the guns, bombs, grenades, stop inspiring people to threaten to blow up petrol tankers outside major population centers, and use your heart to win the heart of your people.

Why do Thai people continue to negotiate with someone who has been convicted of crimes, and fails to return and fight the charges or serve the time?

Same same as how can a coup master have a voice, and now a MP.

Isn't coup an act of treson punished by death acording to the law?

No read the constitution, it says that this coup was legal.

[h90]

thaicbr, #17

"....they were asked to leave repeatedly. they refused. so the government used force. it happens all over the world and strangely called the rule of law."

They were there to put an end to a minority, unelected, coup-based Government. They were the electoral majority, knew it and were validated last year.

For the coupists to ask them to leave is silly. And attempting to ignore them out of existence was particularly cynical, considering the massive nature of the protest.

The coupists needed to negotiate an end to their illegal rule with this electoral majority. The 'rule of law' needed to apply to them first and foremost.

Their 'mafia offer' followed by an armed attack showed their weakness. They were too electorally weak to consider an election, so they resorted to force.

Your "elected majority" didn't won the election.....that is simply a fact.

[waza]

thaicbr, #17

"....they were asked to leave repeatedly. they refused. so the government used force. it happens all over the world and strangely called the rule of law."

They were there to put an end to a minority, unelected, coup-based Government. They were the electoral majority, knew it and were validated last year.

For the coupists to ask them to leave is silly. And attempting to ignore them out of existence was particularly cynical, considering the massive nature of the protest.

The coupists needed to negotiate an end to their illegal rule with this electoral majority. The 'rule of law' needed to apply to them first and foremost.

Their 'mafia offer' followed by an armed attack showed their weakness. They were too electorally weak to consider an election, so they resorted to force.

Here we go again, the Amsterdamite and his shotgun of lies approach to posting. This strategy does nothing for your credibility.

1, the coup removed a self appionted care taker govrnment that over stayed its mandate and was attempting to retrospectively change the rules to suit itself.

2. The democrates werent coup appionted but lawfully elected by a majority of MPs.

3. Redshirts werent protesting against the coup but against the consification of Thaksins ilegally gained frozen assests.

4. despite achieving their stated goals of an early election the redshirts continued to riot in the center of Bangkok

5, thaicbr, #17 is completely correct

Edited March 5, 2012 by waza

[animatic]

thaicbr, #17

"....they were asked to leave repeatedly. they refused. so the government used force. it happens all over the world and strangely called the rule of law."

They were there to put an end to a minority, unelected, coup-based Government. They were the electoral majority, knew it and were validated last year.

For the coupists to ask them to leave is silly. And attempting to ignore them out of existence was particularly cynical, considering the massive nature of the protest.

The coupists needed to negotiate an end to their illegal rule with this electoral majority. The 'rule of law' needed to apply to them first and foremost.

Their 'mafia offer' followed by an armed attack showed their weakness. They were too electorally weak to consider an election, so they resorted to force.

Here we go again, the Amsterdamite and his shotgun of lies approach to posting. This strategy does nothing for your credibility.

1, the coup removed a self appionted care taker govrnment that over stayed its mandate and was attempting to retrospectively change the rules to suit itself.

2. The democrates werent coup appionted but lawfully elected by a majority of MPs.

3. Redshirts werent protesting against the coup but against the consification of Thaksins ilegally gained frozen assests.

4. despite achieving their stated goals of an early election the redshirts continued to riot in the center of Bangkok

Götzen-AmsterDämmerung?

Twilight of the Idols, (demigods and Leige lords)

or,

How to Philosophize with a Hammer (and sickle)

in a Nietzsche Market.

(original German title

Götzen-Dämmerung, oder, Wie man mit dem Hammer philosophiert)

Edited March 5, 2012 by animatic

[whybother]

Despite being hounded and threatened with charges as a whistleblower the charges were never pursued. Why do you think that is? And don't tell me the judges are in the PTP's pocket.

Not being in the country might have something to do with it. Coming back and getting a government job might have something to do with it too.

Pasit was charged on his return and is out on bail.

The tapes have nothing to do with whistle blowing. They were recorded by the "whistle blower" as an attempt to discredit the Democrats. When that failed, the PTP tried to discredit the judges.

I don't think the judges needed any help.

Yes, but the charges ARE being pursued, and Pasit being called a whistle blower is a crock.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

[letitbe]

Before we start, I am neither pro-Thaksin nor pro-Yellow, I believe neither share my interests, this is the name of the game in a political world.

How can Thaksin be allowed to publicly have a voice, when he is officially a fugitive, and has been convicted on serious charges?

If he were serious about being innocent (I'm unsure if he has denied them or not), he has the right (and the financial and political willpower) to ensure a fair trial in Thailand. Perhaps the oversight of some sort of international body to ensure a fair and even trial? Criminals do not have voices in most countries, let alone political voices. It is the constant publishing of the newspaper that give this situation life. Ignoring him will not remove the problem, but it certainly will stop public interest and the growth of a very dangerous adversarial movement. The movement has political intentions, but as with many political movements in Asia,has strong para-military and anarchist ties. Drop the guns, bombs, grenades, stop inspiring people to threaten to blow up petrol tankers outside major population centers, and use your heart to win the heart of your people.

Why do Thai people continue to negotiate with someone who has been convicted of crimes, and fails to return and fight the charges or serve the time?

Same same as how can a coup master have a voice, and now a MP.

Isn't coup an act of treson punished by death acording to the law?

Before we start, I am neither pro-Thaksin nor pro-Yellow, I believe neither share my interests, this is the name of the game in a political world.

How can Thaksin be allowed to publicly have a voice, when he is officially a fugitive, and has been convicted on serious charges?

If he were serious about being innocent (I'm unsure if he has denied them or not), he has the right (and the financial and political willpower) to ensure a fair trial in Thailand. Perhaps the oversight of some sort of international body to ensure a fair and even trial? Criminals do not have voices in most countries, let alone political voices. It is the constant publishing of the newspaper that give this situation life. Ignoring him will not remove the problem, but it certainly will stop public interest and the growth of a very dangerous adversarial movement. The movement has political intentions, but as with many political movements in Asia,has strong para-military and anarchist ties. Drop the guns, bombs, grenades, stop inspiring people to threaten to blow up petrol tankers outside major population centers, and use your heart to win the heart of your people.

Why do Thai people continue to negotiate with someone who has been convicted of crimes, and fails to return and fight the charges or serve the time?

Same same as how can a coup master have a voice, and now a MP.

Isn't coup an act of treson punished by death acording to the law?

no when it saves Thailand from a would be mugabwie and like that is Taksin the coup masters deserve a medal and its only brian washed people like you who cant see what is clearly before your eyes.