Abhisit may now be in hot water if the new video shows him absent during voting.

Abhisit has been accused of having someone vote on his behalf during a meeting last march.

He was allegedly absent when the house voted on an amendment to the Land Transport Act.

If this is true then he would have a case to answer and it would make him no better than what a lot of other people have accused Yingluck of doing.

Not being present during meetings?

No wonder Mark is so quiet about this.

No, he hasn't.

He's challenged his accuser to show the evidence.

To date, his accuser has not.

No evidence, no hot water.

.

Outside the chamber, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said Parliament should check out the claims of improprieties and that her Pheu Thai Party had measures to punish offenders.

Wonder how they'll be punished...

Inactive post (is there such a thing as an MP?) ?

Back of the queue for a ministerial post?

6 month ban from Dubai / Hong Kong?

Survey local markets to establish the price of eggs?

1 month ban from drinking at work?

The possibilities are endless...

Outside the chamber, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said Parliament should check out the claims of improprieties and that her Pheu Thai Party had measures to punish offenders.

A secret meeting at the Four Seasons Hotel with the PM?

Abhisit may now be in hot water if the new video shows him absent during voting.

Abhisit has been accused of having someone vote on his behalf during a meeting last march.

He was allegedly absent when the house voted on an amendment to the Land Transport Act.

If this is true then he would have a case to answer and it would make him no better than what a lot of other people have

accused Yingluck of doing.

Not being present during meetings?

"...........accused Yingluck of doing."

I'm a little confused. Abhisit is accused of having someone vote for him while absent, the offense being having someone vote for him. It is not unusual or an offense for an MP to miss a vote, or be absent on occasion.

No-one has accused Yingluk of having someone vote for her because it would be so glaringly obvious. She is both prominent and conspicuous by her almost total absence.

The PM of Thailand is also an MP. Her presence is parliament is not compulsory, but is a lot more than just desirable.

Edited May 14, 201214 yr by OzMick

Outside the chamber, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said Parliament should check out the claims of improprieties and that her Pheu Thai Party had measures to punish offenders.

Wonder how they'll be punished...

Inactive post (is there such a thing as an MP?) ?

Back of the queue for a ministerial post?

6 month ban from Dubai / Hong Kong?

Survey local markets to establish the price of eggs?

1 month ban from drinking at work?

The possibilities are endless...

A severe tongue lashing by Yingluck might be enjoyable?

Abhisit may now be in hot water if the new video shows him absent during voting.

Abhisit has been accused of having someone vote on his behalf during a meeting last march.

He was allegedly absent when the house voted on an amendment to the Land Transport Act.

If this is true then he would have a case to answer and it would make him no better than what a lot of other people have accused Yingluck of doing.

Not being present during meetings?

No wonder Mark is so quiet about this.

No, he hasn't.

He's challenged his accuser to show the evidence.

To date, his accuser has not.

No evidence, no hot water.

.

It's more likely to do with the fact that Chuwit (who has the video evidence) will not show them until the constitution amendment debate is over

Chuwit Kamolvisit, an outspoken MP and leader of the opposition Rak Prathet Thai party, said yesterday that he had collected six videos of MPs voting on behalf of absent colleagues that he would submit as evidence to the Constitution Court.

He will seek the court's ruling on both voting in the name of others during the parliamentary debate on charter amendments and the constitutionality of the amendment bill.

However, he will wait until the amendment bill is passed before petitioning the court.

"After voting in the final reading, I will submit all the clips to the Constitution Court. I have no intention of killing the constitutional amendment," he said.

Lets face it we're still waiting for abhisits evidence that thaksin met insurgent rebels which he said he had a month ago....................

Edited May 14, 201214 yr by phiphidon

Abhisit may now be in hot water if the new video shows him absent during voting.

Abhisit has been accused of having someone vote on his behalf during a meeting last march.

He was allegedly absent when the house voted on an amendment to the Land Transport Act.

If this is true then he would have a case to answer and it would make him no better than what a lot of other people have

accused Yingluck of doing.

Not being present during meetings?

"...........accused Yingluck of doing."

I'm a little confused. Abhisit is accused of having someone vote for him while absent, the offense being having someone vote for him. It is not unusual or an offense for an MP to miss a vote, or be absent on occasion.

No-one has accused Yingluk of having someone vote for her because it would be so glaringly obvious. She is both prominent and conspicuous by her almost total absence.

The PM of Thailand is also an MP. Her presence is parliament is not compulsory, but is a lot more than just desirable.

Don't you find it a little bit suspect if your vote is recorded when you're not physically present to vote.................................

Lets face it we're still waiting for abhisits evidence that thaksin met insurgent rebels which he said he had a month ago....................

We have k. Thaksin's non-denial "who am I to do such a thing" and really surprising k. noppadon hasn't even bothered to file a defamation case, neither any of the Pheu Thai "it's not about Thaksin'" gang.

Curious and curiouser, like looking through the mirror

Abhisit may now be in hot water if the new video shows him absent during voting.

Abhisit has been accused of having someone vote on his behalf during a meeting last march.

He was allegedly absent when the house voted on an amendment to the Land Transport Act.

If this is true then he would have a case to answer and it would make him no better than what a lot of other people have accused Yingluck of doing.

Not being present during meetings?

No wonder Mark is so quiet about this.

No, he hasn't.

He's challenged his accuser to show the evidence.

To date, his accuser has not.

No evidence, no hot water.

It's more likely to do with the fact that Chuwit (who has the video evidence) will not show them until the constitution amendment debate is over

I was referring to Pheu Thai Party MP for Samut Prakan Pracha Prasopdee who on April 26th made the accusation specifically at Abhisit and who said he had video evidence to back up his accusation.

Abhisit challenged his accuser to show the evidence.

To date, his accuser has not.

.

Don't you find it a little bit suspect if your vote is recorded when you're not physically present to vote.................................

Alleged, under investigation, to be proven, etc., etc. We'll see

Lets face it we're still waiting for abhisits evidence that thaksin met insurgent rebels which he said he had a month ago....................

We have k. Thaksin's non-denial "who am I to do such a thing" and really surprising k. noppadon hasn't even bothered to file a defamation case, neither any of the Pheu Thai "it's not about Thaksin'" gang.

Curious and curiouser, like looking through the mirror

Abhisit was adamant he had proof and would produce it. He hasn't. Why bother go through the hassle of another court case just to prove he's just "good for talking".

It's more likely to do with the fact that Chuwit (who has the video evidence) will not show them until the constitution amendment debate is over

I was referring to Pheu Thai Party MP for Samut Prakan Pracha Prasopdee who on April 26th made the accusation specifically at Abhisit and who said he had video evidence to back up his accusation.

Abhisit challenged his accuser to show the evidence.

To date, his accuser has not.

.

Did you not read my post, it's likely Pracha will be relying on Chuwits video evidence. We shall see.

Lets face it we're still waiting for abhisits evidence that thaksin met insurgent rebels which he said he had a month ago....................

We have k. Thaksin's non-denial "who am I to do such a thing" and really surprising k. noppadon hasn't even bothered to file a defamation case, neither any of the Pheu Thai "it's not about Thaksin'" gang.

Curious and curiouser, like looking through the mirror

Abhisit was adamant he had proof and would produce it. He hasn't. Why bother go through the hassle of another court case just to prove he's just "good for talking".

Abhisit said "he could prove it on request", no-one seems to have bothered to. Sorry to say, you as farang don't count of course

It's more likely to do with the fact that Chuwit (who has the video evidence) will not show them until the constitution amendment debate is over

I was referring to Pheu Thai Party MP for Samut Prakan Pracha Prasopdee who on April 26th made the accusation specifically at Abhisit and who said he had video evidence to back up his accusation.

Abhisit challenged his accuser to show the evidence.

To date, his accuser has not.

Did you not read my post, it's likely Pracha will be relying on Chuwits video evidence.

Pracha claimed he had evidence against Abhisit.

Pracha claimed he had obtained his video evidence from Parliament’s audio-visual control room.

Pracha claimed he had all sorts of other evidence besides video evidence.

Prahca claimed he would file a petition against Abhisit.

Pracha never mentioned Chuwit's video in his accusation.

.

Edited May 14, 201214 yr by Buchholz

Abhisit may now be in hot water if the new video shows him absent during voting.

Abhisit has been accused of having someone vote on his behalf during a meeting last march.

He was allegedly absent when the house voted on an amendment to the Land Transport Act.

If this is true then he would have a case to answer and it would make him no better than what a lot of other people have

accused Yingluck of doing.

Not being present during meetings?

"...........accused Yingluck of doing."

I'm a little confused. Abhisit is accused of having someone vote for him while absent, the offense being having someone vote for him. It is not unusual or an offense for an MP to miss a vote, or be absent on occasion.

No-one has accused Yingluk of having someone vote for her because it would be so glaringly obvious. She is both prominent and conspicuous by her almost total absence.

The PM of Thailand is also an MP. Her presence is parliament is not compulsory, but is a lot more than just desirable.

Don't you find it a little bit suspect if your vote is recorded when you're not physically present to vote.................................

I'm not an MP. Are you presenting evidence that this has happened?

I know it's normal in some countries for MP's voting records to be available to the public so that they can judge the MP's degree of "liberality/conservatism." In short, how they think. Yingluk's would indicate that she doesn't.

Lets face it we're still waiting for abhisits evidence that thaksin met insurgent rebels which he said he had a month ago....................

We have k. Thaksin's non-denial "who am I to do such a thing" and really surprising k. noppadon hasn't even bothered to file a defamation case, neither any of the Pheu Thai "it's not about Thaksin'" gang.

Curious and curiouser, like looking through the mirror

Abhisit was adamant he had proof and would produce it. He hasn't. Why bother go through the hassle of another court case just to prove he's just "good for talking".

Abhisit said "he could prove it on request", no-one seems to have bothered to. Sorry to say, you as farang don't count of course

Oh come on rubl, if abhisit had proof that thaksin had been talking with the insurgents you wouldn't see him for dust on his way to the tv studios..................

It's more likely to do with the fact that Chuwit (who has the video evidence) will not show them until the constitution amendment debate is over

I was referring to Pheu Thai Party MP for Samut Prakan Pracha Prasopdee who on April 26th made the accusation specifically at Abhisit and who said he had video evidence to back up his accusation.

Abhisit challenged his accuser to show the evidence.

To date, his accuser has not.

Did you not read my post, it's likely Pracha will be relying on Chuwits video evidence.

Pracha claimed he had evidence against Abhisit.

Pracha claimed he had obtained his video evidence from Parliament’s audio-visual control room.

Pracha claimed he had all sorts of other evidence besides video evidence.

Prahca claimed he would file a petition against Abhisit.

Pracha never mentioned Chuwit's video in his accusation.

.

We shall see, whether it will be before abhisit presenting his evidence of thaksin talking to insurgents or after, who knows? BS on both sides I suspect..............

I was referring to Pheu Thai Party MP for Samut Prakan Pracha Prasopdee who on April 26th made the accusation specifically at Abhisit and who said he had video evidence to back up his accusation.

Abhisit challenged his accuser to show the evidence.

To date, his accuser has not.

Did you not read my post, it's likely Pracha will be relying on Chuwits video evidence.

Pracha claimed he had evidence against Abhisit.

Pracha claimed he had obtained his video evidence from Parliament’s audio-visual control room.

Pracha claimed he had all sorts of other evidence besides video evidence.

Prahca claimed he would file a petition against Abhisit.

Pracha never mentioned Chuwit's video in his accusation.

We shall see

Doesn't look promising for Pracha accusations as he already missed his claim to file a petition against Abhisit on April 26th.

At least you are now aware that Pracha's accusations and claims are completely separate from Chuwit's accusations and claims.

I removed your other comments on a different topic already covered in a different thread.

.

What someone voting for someone else???? You mean like proxy vote?

But hold on! This is legal in most civilized countries! Is it not the case in Thailand or is someone trying to make more noise than the porn watching MP case will do?

Where is it legal for politicians to have proxy votes?

I don't know about elsewhere but the UK parliament has a system whereby if are going to be unavailable to vote and you can find someone on the opposing side in the same situation your non votes can cancel each other out. So you're not using the vote of someone on your side but coming to an arangement not to vote with an opponent so it tends to police itself. I belive the Labour government lost a confidence vote in 1979 due to an absent Labour MP who didn]t have an arangement in place. This lead to an election and defeat and Margaret Thatcher coming to power.

As for members being temporarily unavailable there is what is know as a division bell in parliament that rings when a vote is due and many eating establishments nearby have them as well so an MP can rush back to vote. I'm not sure how long they're given. Some who look as if they are more likely than others to be eating nearby would need longer to get back.

Seems strange an absentee proxy PM of a criminal fugitive having issues with a vote that may or may not have been cast during session. Shouldn't she show up once in a while to make the claim?

Whether they have pairing of votes or not, this is just basic fraud isn't it?

Lets face it we're still waiting for abhisits evidence that thaksin met insurgent rebels which he said he had a month ago....................

We have k. Thaksin's non-denial "who am I to do such a thing" and really surprising k. noppadon hasn't even bothered to file a defamation case, neither any of the Pheu Thai "it's not about Thaksin'" gang.

Curious and curiouser, like looking through the mirror

Abhisit was adamant he had proof and would produce it. He hasn't. Why bother go through the hassle of another court case just to prove he's just "good for talking".

The thing is that to be "good for talking" you have to be "good for thinking".....

Yingluck, on the other hand, has demonstrated that she's "good for nothing"

Lets face it we're still waiting for abhisits evidence that thaksin met insurgent rebels which he said he had a month ago....................

We have k. Thaksin's non-denial "who am I to do such a thing" and really surprising k. noppadon hasn't even bothered to file a defamation case, neither any of the Pheu Thai "it's not about Thaksin'" gang.

Curious and curiouser, like looking through the mirror

Abhisit was adamant he had proof and would produce it. He hasn't. Why bother go through the hassle of another court case just to prove he's just "good for talking".

The thing is that to be "good for talking" you have to be "good for thinking".....

Yingluck, on the other hand, has demonstrated that she's "good for nothing"

This isn't about Yingluck or your personal opinion of her is it?

Phiphidon,

far be it for me to urinate on your bonfire.

Please feel free to list the most memorable acheivements of the Yingluck administration. I promise to look at them fairly and it really won't take you very long.