Democrat, Pad Call For Withdrawal Of 'Whitewash' Bills

[hellodolly]

JurgenG:

Your piece about Chamlong, Sondhi & Thaksin is a combination of half-truths & omissions.

First of all you fail to mention that Chamlong was the main individual in bringing down General Suchinda after his coup in the early 90's. He actually used peaceful means to do it too, something that has mostly pervaded the yellow shirts' actions in contrast to the red shirts.

Chamlong did indeed take Thaksin into his party but he saw what sort of crook Thaksin is & it is not clear whether Thaksin was kicked out or he left of his own accord. It is telling that both Chamlong & Sondhi became enemies of Thaksin after befriending him. The story about Sondhi falling out with Thaksin over a loan/money/whatever is nothing but a rumour, repeated by red-shirt & Thaksin supporters ad-nauseum, hoping that repetition makes it factual.

I don't agree with much of what the yellow-shirts stand for but they are 100% correct to do all they can (maybe even using red-shirt violent tactics) to prevent the so-call reconciliation (aka whitewash) bill becoming law.

Well I was really enjoying it and agreeing with you until you suggested it would be OK to sink to the level of a red shirt.

I don't know why people are so worried about him coming back.

It is not going to happen. That is the last thing in the world he wants. He knows that there is other powerful people who dislike him and are as slimmy as he is. He knows it would be like signing his own death certificate to come back here.

Lets face it he has probably sat in more cabinet meetings by phone than his clone sister has in person. All he has to do is say jump and the PT jumps. He has nothing to gain by coming back here and a heck of a lot to lose.

[hellodolly]

Until they sort out b the judicial system, it will be one step forward, two steps back for Thailand.

Anyone for a jury system? Now that would make life very interesting.

It'd make it even worse. Pay off the jury.

Or just threaten them.

[h90]

JurgenG:

Your piece about Chamlong, Sondhi & Thaksin is a combination of half-truths & omissions.

First of all you fail to mention that Chamlong was the main individual in bringing down General Suchinda after his coup in the early 90's. He actually used peaceful means to do it too, something that has mostly pervaded the yellow shirts' actions in contrast to the red shirts.

Chamlong did indeed take Thaksin into his party but he saw what sort of crook Thaksin is & it is not clear whether Thaksin was kicked out or he left of his own accord. It is telling that both Chamlong & Sondhi became enemies of Thaksin after befriending him. The story about Sondhi falling out with Thaksin over a loan/money/whatever is nothing but a rumour, repeated by red-shirt & Thaksin supporters ad-nauseum, hoping that repetition makes it factual.

I don't agree with much of what the yellow-shirts stand for but they are 100% correct to do all they can (maybe even using red-shirt violent tactics) to prevent the so-call reconciliation (aka whitewash) bill becoming law.

When you say that you don't agree with much of what the yellow-shirts stand for. Please note that it is a group that spans from extreme left to extreme right with being mostly the Bangkok middle class. Small to medium business owners.

I recall the discussion: there is so much vote buying and so much lying and blocking others to speak free in some areas. Than was the idea to fix that by a different form of democracy with every kind of society votes their representative. A system that was used several times in history. But it isn't a fix for the problem. That was discovered and the idea dropped.

What did the reds make out of it: End of Democracy. The Isaan people should not be allowed to vote etc etc etc. Things that were never told+the complete brainstorm idea was dropped.

I never found anything bad on the PAD ideas...OK sometimes in heated discussion some bad ideas but nothing that was official.

[Moruya]

Thaksin has a party, a program, something we can vote for or against. If you want him to get away, you vote against him.

To continue that line of thought, there are those who seem to think that voting for Thaksin, is voting against him having to face justice for alleged crimes. These people i think misunderstand what the power of the vote is and fundamentally misunderstand what democracy is.

So what you say is that Thai people can't, trough a popular vote, give an amnesty to Thaksin ?

Why not ? What in a democracy prevents that ? People have this power in other democracies, why wouldn't it be possible in Thailand ?

The junta asked the people to grant them amnesty from prosecution when they voted for the 2007 constitution, what is the difference ?

Is this German logic?

[Ricardo]

So what you say is that Thai people can't, trough a popular vote, give an amnesty to Thaksin ?

Why not ? What in a democracy prevents that ? People have this power in other democracies, why wouldn't it be possible in Thailand ?

The junta asked the people to grant them amnesty from prosecution when they voted for the 2007 constitution, what is the difference ?

Actually a national-referendum, on whether to waive all current convictions and give DL an amnesty, might be an interesting idea. But would it get 50% of the electorate, or even 50% of those who vote, is the question.

And also whether he would stick-around for the other cases, not yet started, to be read-out in court once he returned.

Perhaps better to wait for the statute-of-limitations to pass.

[rixalex]

Thaksin has a party, a program, something we can vote for or against. If you want him to get away, you vote against him.

To continue that line of thought, there are those who seem to think that voting for Thaksin, is voting against him having to face justice for alleged crimes. These people i think misunderstand what the power of the vote is and fundamentally misunderstand what democracy is.

So what you say is that Thai people can't, trough a popular vote, give an amnesty to Thaksin ?

If that is what you advocate, what you would need is for one, a majority vote, and for two, not a general election in which people vote in the way that they do for a wide range of differing reasons, but a referendum in which the specific issue of Thaksin's guilt is put to the people.

But why you advocate this, and why you think it has the slightest thing to do with democracy, i haven't a clue. Functioning democracies have judiciary systems in which people sit down and study facts, evidence, testimonies etc, usually over the course of weeks/months, and then come to a decision on a person's guilt. No judiciary system is of course perfect, and wrong verdicts are always possible, but there is a system in place that allows all parties concerned to put forward their cases and there is a chance for verdicts to accurately reflect where there has been wrong-doing. What you are advocating is this entire system being ignored, and having someone's guilt or innocence be decided simply by how popular they are. If you can't appreciate the stupidity and ridiculousness of this idea - all the more stupid and ridiculous when you try to suggest it is in accordance with democracy - well then i don't know what to say.

The junta asked the people to grant them amnesty from prosecution when they voted for the 2007 constitution, what is the difference ?

This sort of "argument", the "but the airport... but the PAD... but the Dems.... but the coup...." sort of "argument" we have been hearing repeatedly in these threads for however many years, unashamedly exposes the fact that there is no principle in your beliefs whatsoever, or in the beliefs or your fellow red-leaning posters. You argue the wrongs of the actions of "the other side", but the moment "your side" does the same thing, or attempts to, well that's ok because the other side did it too. This is not the mentality of someone with a political belief of any sort, this is the sort of mentality of a Justin Bieber fan.

[OzMick]

PAD delays mass rally against reconciliation bills

snip

The PAD earlier petitioned the prime minister and the speakers of Parliament that the bills claimed to create unity, reconciliation and peace in society but in fact were actually aimed at annulling court verdicts in political cases delivered after the 2006 coup, actions which contradict the rule of law and the country's constitution. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2012-08-02

And the Constitution Court ruled that this was not the case. So why are the PAD still threatening to rally against these bills when they have been found to be not against the constitution?

Could it be that as citizens of Thailand, they object to politicians proposing bills with little chance of achieving their stated aims, but with massive conflicts of interest and benefits for the proposers' party?

[phiphidon]

Could it be that as citizens of Thailand, they object to politicians proposing bills with little chance of achieving their stated aims, but with massive conflicts of interest and benefits for the proposers' party?

Or the fact that they are rabid nationalists obsessed with ridding Thailand of Thaksin and/or anything remotely associated with him? As their objectives state:

Ultimate objectives of PAD

a. PAD wants to get rid of corruptions. Thaksin, the billionaire civilian dictator, has left Thailand with extensive high level of corruptions and proxy politicians. Having cheated the country while in power, Thaksin hid his corrupt billion of dollars worth of assets overseas. When ousted, Thaksin is subjected to numerous convictions but cowardly fled jail overseas and pull strings on politicians to sabotage his homeland.

b. PAD protects the Monarchy. Thaksin wants to launder himself through amending the laws with his proxy politicians, while trying to abolish the Monoarchy and make himself a President, that is to cause turmoils and change Thailand from being a "Kingdom" to a "Republic" in stead.

c. As a permanent cure for Thailand, PAD wants to get real democracy for Thailand. At present it is a fake democracy with bad on-sale politicians.

d. To achieve all above a, b, c we have to get rid of Thaksin and his proxy politicians and punish them according to the laws.

http://www.antithaksin.com/SiteMap.php

and heres a sample of a rant from an expat published on the site - some of the "facts" are on a par with what has been posted on here at times

The demonstrations and citizen's revolt against the government since Thaksin stepped down have been because the governments since then have been former members of Thaksin's government or close to Thaksin. The PM that just stepped down was Thaksin's brother in law. I don't agree with the demonstrators shutting down the airport, but they felt they had to escalate the protests since 10 protesters had been killed by police and random attacks on them by government supporters.

My girlfriend used to like Thaksin, but now hates him since she knew one of the women killed in a protest. The beloved Queen even attended the funeral of one of the women killed which I am sure galvanized the protesters. Grenades have been thrown at protesters which killed several people - the perps have never been caught. The police killed a couple of people by using Chinese made non-lethal tear gas, which are more dangerous than US made tear gas and wound up killing people. After that, the police have become unwilling to confront the protesters.

http://www.antithaksin.com/BlankForm.php?Aid=0205003

Edited August 4, 2012 by phiphidon

[JurgenG]

So what you say is that Thai people can't, trough a popular vote, give an amnesty to Thaksin ?

If that is what you advocate, what you would need is for one, a majority vote, and for two, not a general election in which people vote in the way that they do for a wide range of differing reasons, but a referendum in which the specific issue of Thaksin's guilt is put to the people.

But why you advocate this, and why you think it has the slightest thing to do with democracy, i haven't a clue. Functioning democracies have judiciary systems in which people sit down and study facts, evidence, testimonies etc, usually over the course of weeks/months, and then come to a decision on a person's guilt. No judiciary system is of course perfect, and wrong verdicts are always possible, but there is a system in place that allows all parties concerned to put forward their cases and there is a chance for verdicts to accurately reflect where there has been wrong-doing. What you are advocating is this entire system being ignored, and having someone's guilt or innocence be decided simply by how popular they are. If you can't appreciate the stupidity and ridiculousness of this idea - all the more stupid and ridiculous when you try to suggest it is in accordance with democracy - well then i don't know what to say.

The junta asked the people to grant them amnesty from prosecution when they voted for the 2007 constitution, what is the difference ?

This sort of "argument", the "but the airport... but the PAD... but the Dems.... but the coup...." sort of "argument" we have been hearing repeatedly in these threads for however many years, unashamedly exposes the fact that there is no principle in your beliefs whatsoever, or in the beliefs or your fellow red-leaning posters. You argue the wrongs of the actions of "the other side", but the moment "your side" does the same thing, or attempts to, well that's ok because the other side did it too. This is not the mentality of someone with a political belief of any sort, this is the sort of mentality of a Justin Bieber fan.

When you answer a post, could you be less emotive and more to the point ? But if you have no point at all, then it's a good technique.

Regarding your first "point", do you believe the USA are a functioning democracy ? Because there an elected official, the president or a governor, has the power to amnesty convicted people if they believe for reason that belong to them that it's the right thing to do. It's even in the constitution. So there is no contradiction between democracy and amnesty to convicted people.

Regarding the second point about the amnesty for the junta, you say that it's not because one side do something wrong that it gives the other side the right to do the same. It was not my point but I agree with that. I also note that you acknowledge the action of the junta, the coup and some action of the PAD as "wrong" and I agree with that too.

For the other things you said, I understand you're very emotional about it but can't really get your point, if you like to clarify .... especially the part about Justin Bieber

[OzMick]

Could it be that as citizens of Thailand, they object to politicians proposing bills with little chance of achieving their stated aims, but with massive conflicts of interest and benefits for the proposers' party?

Or the fact that they are rabid nationalists obsessed with ridding Thailand of Thaksin and/or anything remotely associated with him? As their objectives state:

Why should that exclude them from wanting corruption free government?

[rixalex]

When you answer a post, could you be less emotive and more to the point ? But if you have no point at all, then it's a good technique.

How about you worry about how you express yourself, and i'll worry about how i express myself.

Regarding your first "point", do you believe the USA are a functioning democracy ? Because there an elected official, the president or a governor, has the power to amnesty convicted people if they believe for reason that belong to them that it's the right thing to do. It's even in the constitution. So there is no contradiction between democracy and amnesty to convicted people.

I don't know, but i would be surprised if America has a practice whereby convicted criminals who have fled from their sentence are given amnesties (reduced sentences for good behaviour sounds much more likely and justifiable in that there has been both punishment and repent), but whether or not it be true, i personally don't care. We are back to your all too common reasoning of: well if they do it, or if it has happened before, then that makes it ok, that must mean it is democratic.

Is it not possible for you to think independently? To decide on what you agree with and what you disagree with based on your principles (assuming you have them), and actually stick to that. I disagree that popularity should have any bearing on deciding the guilt or innocence of anyone. Period. I don't care how many examples you care to throw at me of it having happened before. It should not happen. That is not what i call justice. That is not what i would describe as being a part of a healthy democratic system. If it does occur, i oppose it. Simple.

[JurgenG]

Is it not possible for you to think independently? To decide on what you agree with and what you disagree with based on your principles (assuming you have them), and actually stick to that. I disagree that popularity should have any bearing on deciding the guilt or innocence of anyone. Period. I don't care how many examples you care to throw at me of it having happened before. It should not happen. That is not what i call justice. That is not what i would describe as being a part of a healthy democratic system. If it does occur, i oppose it. Simple.

You disagree, you oppose it. But Thailand being a democracy, if a majority of people have an other opinion, you have to accept it.

[Thai at Heart]

When you answer a post, could you be less emotive and more to the point ? But if you have no point at all, then it's a good technique.

How about you worry about how you express yourself, and i'll worry about how i express myself.

Regarding your first "point", do you believe the USA are a functioning democracy ? Because there an elected official, the president or a governor, has the power to amnesty convicted people if they believe for reason that belong to them that it's the right thing to do. It's even in the constitution. So there is no contradiction between democracy and amnesty to convicted people.

I don't know, but i would be surprised if America has a practice whereby convicted criminals who have fled from their sentence are given amnesties (reduced sentences for good behaviour sounds much more likely and justifiable in that there has been both punishment and repent), but whether or not it be true, i personally don't care. We are back to your all too common reasoning of: well if they do it, or if it has happened before, then that makes it ok, that must mean it is democratic.

Is it not possible for you to think independently? To decide on what you agree with and what you disagree with based on your principles (assuming you have them), and actually stick to that. I disagree that popularity should have any bearing on deciding the guilt or innocence of anyone. Period. I don't care how many examples you care to throw at me of it having happened before. It should not happen. That is not what i call justice. That is not what i would describe as being a part of a healthy democratic system. If it does occur, i oppose it. Simple.

major difference is that the US doesn't ordinarily let convicted criminals out to visit the Olympics

Once again the Thai legal system covering itself in glory.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[rixalex]

Is it not possible for you to think independently? To decide on what you agree with and what you disagree with based on your principles (assuming you have them), and actually stick to that. I disagree that popularity should have any bearing on deciding the guilt or innocence of anyone. Period. I don't care how many examples you care to throw at me of it having happened before. It should not happen. That is not what i call justice. That is not what i would describe as being a part of a healthy democratic system. If it does occur, i oppose it. Simple.

You disagree, you oppose it. But Thailand being a democracy, if a majority of people have an other opinion, you have to accept it.

Accepting and agreeing are two totally different things. There are many things in life we must accept. Doesn't mean we have to agree with them. Millions of people bought the Teletubbies single and made it the most popular song at the time. I accepted that, but it didn't make me think that my opinion of it being crap music must all of a sudden be wrong. And if tomorrow 100% of the Thai population agree that they love Thaksin so much that he shouldn't have to face justice, i'll accept that but i won't suddenly think that my opinion that popularity should have no bearing on guilt, must all of a sudden be wrong.

[whybother]

Is it not possible for you to think independently? To decide on what you agree with and what you disagree with based on your principles (assuming you have them), and actually stick to that. I disagree that popularity should have any bearing on deciding the guilt or innocence of anyone. Period. I don't care how many examples you care to throw at me of it having happened before. It should not happen. That is not what i call justice. That is not what i would describe as being a part of a healthy democratic system. If it does occur, i oppose it. Simple.

You disagree, you oppose it. But Thailand being a democracy, if a majority of people have an other opinion, you have to accept it.

I would accept it if a majority of the Thai people wanted to white wash Thaksin's crimes. Since I have seen NO evidence of that, I don't accept it.

I certainly wouldn't agree with it in either case.

[ThaiOats]

Is it not possible for you to think independently? To decide on what you agree with and what you disagree with based on your principles (assuming you have them), and actually stick to that. I disagree that popularity should have any bearing on deciding the guilt or innocence of anyone. Period. I don't care how many examples you care to throw at me of it having happened before. It should not happen. That is not what i call justice. That is not what i would describe as being a part of a healthy democratic system. If it does occur, i oppose it. Simple.

You disagree, you oppose it. But Thailand being a democracy, if a majority of people have an other opinion, you have to accept it.

I would accept it if a majority of the Thai people wanted to white wash Thaksin's crimes. Since I have seen NO evidence of that, I don't accept it.

I certainly wouldn't agree with it in either case.

Careful.. Someone is gonna bring up democratically elected and how the majority won.