Skype Address Shows Thaksin Orders, Pheu Thai Follows

[waza]

I don't see what the problem is.

Yingluck's party was voted in by the people, that's called democracy.

How she wants to run her party or let someone else run the party is a matter for that party.

Thaksin isn't PM. But why should he not be allowed to tell the Party what he wants? Is there a law against people giving their opinions or saying what they want done? Surely it is up to the Party to decide if they want to listen to him or not.

Up to them, the democratically elected government. If the Thai people don't like it I'm sure they will vote accordingly at the next election.

Until then, the Party can listen to whoever the hell they want to listen to.

Thaksin apologists rev up for action.

Let's rephrase a part of the above: 'Is there a law against convicted criminals on the run giving their opinions or saying what they want done? (ie dictating to the government)'

Well yes I would think so, otherwise government ministers wouldn't continually lie about it (deny it) would they?

Maybe the government should openly acknowledge that they are being directed by a convicted criminal and take it from there shall we?

I think the crucial point is Thaksin threatened to reduce their allowances. This indicates that they are in the paid employ of a convicted criminal and he is paying money for them to legislate his agenda.............

"Thaksin said MPs and senators should not waste time but amend some Articles such as Article 68 on party dissolution and Article 190, which requires parliamentary approval for agreement with a foreign country. "When an amendment of these laws is being deliberated, MPs must ensure they attend House meetings. Whoever is responsible for a lack of quorum in Parliament will face an allowance cut,'' he warned."

Hello,FDog, how is this democratic? But wait theres more.

The cabinet are state employees, that is they are paid by the state and employed by the people of Thailand. Whats happens when you are employed and paid by another Boss when you are employed by the people? Well, FDog, you have a conflict of interest, remember Samak?

"Samak Sundaravej is terminated upon Section 91, Section 182 Paragraph One 97) and Section 267 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (2007)."

Some of the very sections Thaksin is paying the cabinet to amend. So FDog can you see the problem?

“Thaksin thinks, Puea Thai acts”. is now “Thaksin pays, Puea Thai acts”.

OMB red democracy?

Edited March 21, 2013 by waza

[AleG]

I don't see what the problem is.

Yingluck's party was voted in by the people, that's called democracy.

How she wants to run her party or let someone else run the party is a matter for that party.

Thaksin isn't PM. But why should he not be allowed to tell the Party what he wants? Is there a law against people giving their opinions or saying what they want done? Surely it is up to the Party to decide if they want to listen to him or not.

Up to them, the democratically elected government. If the Thai people don't like it I'm sure they will vote accordingly at the next election.

Until then, the Party can listen to whoever the hell they want to listen to.

First of if you think Thaksin only advices the party that's your fundamental misconception. As an example in this last report Thaksin threatened to cut "allowances" to MPs if they didn't do as he said.

Secondly having a man (a convict on abuse of powers one at that) directing a government from abroad dismisses any semblance of accountability and transparency in the government, how can the Thai people know if the decisions made by the government are meant for the benefit of the country or for the man pulling the strings from Dubai? For example, MPs and other government officials are required to fill an asset declaration and renounce to any stake in a company that would rise a conflict of interest (for example owning a company that deals with government contracts). How can you know if Thaksin is not, for example, using the ruinous rice scheme to enrich himself and his cronies? He's out of the system, can't be audited or summoned to parliament to answer questions. In short forget about checks at all.

[FDog]

What a load of horsexxxx some of you are speaking.

It is up to the Party to decide who and when they will listen. There is absolutely nothing illegal in that.

If a 'normal' member of the public asks to address the Party then it is up to the Party to agree or not. That is their choice.

If the Thai people don't like it they can vote the Party out of office.

If they wanted to hear from Charles Manson then again, that is completely up to them. Again, nothing illegal in that.

Even in my old country, (Oz) there are repercussions for members of parliament not attending to vote. That is what a Party does. Members aren't allowed their own view, they have to tow the party line. Those that don't turn up to vote don't get their allowance for sitting that day. That is normal. That is how democracy works.

So can someone please tell me what is illegal about a Party listening to what someone has to say?

[AleG]

Fdog, you seem to be unable to grasp the difference between listening to and taking orders from a person.

Thaksin Think, Phue Thai Does, that was one of their slogans during the election in case you didn't know.

[Pimay1]

Fdog, you seem to be unable to grasp the difference between listening to and taking orders from a person.

Thaksin Think, Phue Thai Does, that was one of their slogans during the election in case you didn't know.

Quote from K. Thaksin.

But it can be said that Yingluck is my clone... Another important thing is that Ms Yingluck is my sister and she can make decisions for me. She can say 'yes' or 'no' on my behalf," Thaksin noted in an interview.^[22]

[Melyn]

What a load of horsexxxx some of you are speaking.

It is up to the Party to decide who and when they will listen. There is absolutely nothing illegal in that.

If a 'normal' member of the public asks to address the Party then it is up to the Party to agree or not. That is their choice.

If the Thai people don't like it they can vote the Party out of office.

If they wanted to hear from Charles Manson then again, that is completely up to them. Again, nothing illegal in that.

Even in my old country, (Oz) there are repercussions for members of parliament not attending to vote. That is what a Party does. Members aren't allowed their own view, they have to tow the party line. Those that don't turn up to vote don't get their allowance for sitting that day. That is normal. That is how democracy works.

So can someone please tell me what is illegal about a Party listening to what someone has to say?

I'm listening to what you have to say and you are twisting things.

How democratic is it to have an ousted criminal select the ministers?

How democratic is it for him to dictate policy?

[rubl]

^ #153 FDog

Unlike some I don't like to repeat myself. I think my reply
http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/625420-skype-address-shows-thaksin-orders-pheu-thai-follows/page-6#entry6227309

still fits, even on the repeat

[yoshiwara]

What a load of horsexxxx some of you are speaking.

It is up to the Party to decide who and when they will listen. There is absolutely nothing illegal in that.

If a 'normal' member of the public asks to address the Party then it is up to the Party to agree or not. That is their choice.

If the Thai people don't like it they can vote the Party out of office.

If they wanted to hear from Charles Manson then again, that is completely up to them. Again, nothing illegal in that.

Even in my old country, (Oz) there are repercussions for members of parliament not attending to vote. That is what a Party does. Members aren't allowed their own view, they have to tow the party line. Those that don't turn up to vote don't get their allowance for sitting that day. That is normal. That is how democracy works.

So can someone please tell me what is illegal about a Party listening to what someone has to say?

No doubt about it, if one can think of Charles Manson is a normal person, then Thaksin probably is too.

[justathought]

face it the people voted for Thaksin not for Yinluck.

Yinluck would never have won the election without the Thaksin ticket

Whether the ruling elite that is against Thaksin like it or not, Thaksin is the democratically elected leader of Thailand

[waza]

face it the people voted for Thaksin not for Yinluck.

Yinluck would never have won the election without the Thaksin ticket

Whether the ruling elite that is against Thaksin like it or not, Thaksin is the democratically elected leader of Thailand

The big question is would Thaksin have won without the Redshirts?

[muttley]

face it the people voted for Thaksin not for Yinluck.

Yinluck would never have won the election without the Thaksin ticket

Whether the ruling elite that is against Thaksin like it or not, Thaksin is the democratically elected leader of Thailand

The big question is would Thaksin have won without the Redshirts?

The PTP won around 15.75 million votes - as I guess the majority of those votes would not be UDD votes so the answer would probably be Yes

Edited March 23, 2013 by muttley

[rubl]

Please someone explain to me how 'Thaksin is the democratically elected leader of Thailand' came into being.
I always thought that leaders who were democratically elected participated in elections in person. Rumour has it that Thaksin hasn't been in the country since leaving for the Beijing Olympic Games in 2008. He jumped bail, in a democratic fashion of course as he gave his word to a Thai court he didn't like anyway. He skypes in to tell his cabinet his orders to run his country. Also in a democratical way of course.

In a way it's just like a few Western countries, like the UK, Sweden, Germany. some countries would love to have a democratical system as Thailand has.

[FDog]

What a load of horsexxxx some of you are speaking.

It is up to the Party to decide who and when they will listen. There is absolutely nothing illegal in that.

If a 'normal' member of the public asks to address the Party then it is up to the Party to agree or not. That is their choice.

If the Thai people don't like it they can vote the Party out of office.

If they wanted to hear from Charles Manson then again, that is completely up to them. Again, nothing illegal in that.

Even in my old country, (Oz) there are repercussions for members of parliament not attending to vote. That is what a Party does. Members aren't allowed their own view, they have to tow the party line. Those that don't turn up to vote don't get their allowance for sitting that day. That is normal. That is how democracy works.

So can someone please tell me what is illegal about a Party listening to what someone has to say?

No doubt about it, if one can think of Charles Manson is a normal person, then Thaksin probably is too.

Who said Manson was normal? What would it matter anyway? The govt was elected, they can listen to whoever they want and not listen to whoever they want. If the people don't like it they will be voted out. That is democracy.

[FDog]

What a load of horsexxxx some of you are speaking.

It is up to the Party to decide who and when they will listen. There is absolutely nothing illegal in that.

If a 'normal' member of the public asks to address the Party then it is up to the Party to agree or not. That is their choice.

If the Thai people don't like it they can vote the Party out of office.

If they wanted to hear from Charles Manson then again, that is completely up to them. Again, nothing illegal in that.

Even in my old country, (Oz) there are repercussions for members of parliament not attending to vote. That is what a Party does. Members aren't allowed their own view, they have to tow the party line. Those that don't turn up to vote don't get their allowance for sitting that day. That is normal. That is how democracy works.

So can someone please tell me what is illegal about a Party listening to what someone has to say?

I'm listening to what you have to say and you are twisting things.

How democratic is it to have an ousted criminal select the ministers?

How democratic is it for him to dictate policy?

He isn't electing them. He isn't dictating policy. He is telling them what he wants. It's up to the party to agree or not. If they agree then they do it.

If the people don't like how a party works they will vote them out.

This happens all over the world. Some of you just refuse to acknowledge it.

Edited March 23, 2013 by FDog

[rubl]

St. Thaksin the Just skypes in to tell his cabinet his orders to run his country. It's not necessary for his party to agree, that's not in the regulations. It's just plain and simple "Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts"

Very democratically of course, just like countries in the West are run.

[muttley]

St. Thaksin the Just skypes in to tell his cabinet his orders to run his country. It's not necessary for his party to agree, that's not in the regulations. It's just plain and simple "Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts"

Very democratically of course, just like countries in the West are run.

I think you're being a bit naive if you believe that western countries are run democratically. What do you think all those National arms dealers, bankers etc do to get their way? Maybe a bit of influencing goes on here and there, you think?

[philw]

St. Thaksin the Just skypes in to tell his cabinet his orders to run his country. It's not necessary for his party to agree, that's not in the regulations. It's just plain and simple "Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts"

Very democratically of course, just like countries in the West are run.

I think you're being a bit naive if you believe that western countries are run democratically. What do you think all those National arms dealers, bankers etc do to get their way? Maybe a bit of influencing goes on here and there, you think?

Oh no, shock, gasp horror.

Tell me it isn't so.

Western politics have intrigue comparable to or ( probably ) much worse than Thailand ???

Sadly, surely so.

Bush and Blair make Thaksin look like a VERY minor player in the crookedness, murderous, intellectual dishonesty stakes.

He's pure white compared to B & B.............

It will be interesting to see how and when Yingluck asserts her position as elected ( and now increasingly popular ) PM.

I think she might.

if she wins the next election, Thailand may have turned a significant corner.

[otherstuff1957]

FDog, you are being refreshingly honest about your opinions. If I hear "I don't like Thaksin, but...." one more time I think I'll

So, how about the "cutting allowance" remark? And yes, we all know that Bush was getting an allowance from Haliburton, but let's try to talk about current Thai politics here.

[rubl]

St. Thaksin the Just skypes in to tell his cabinet his orders to run his country. It's not necessary for his party to agree, that's not in the regulations. It's just plain and simple "Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts"

Very democratically of course, just like countries in the West are run.

I think you're being a bit naive if you believe that western countries are run democratically. What do you think all those National arms dealers, bankers etc do to get their way? Maybe a bit of influencing goes on here and there, you think?

Oh no, shock, gasp horror.

Tell me it isn't so.

Western politics have intrigue comparable to or ( probably ) much worse than Thailand ???

Sadly, surely so.

Bush and Blair make Thaksin look like a VERY minor player in the crookedness, murderous, intellectual dishonesty stakes.

He's pure white compared to B & B.............

It will be interesting to see how and when Yingluck asserts her position as elected ( and now increasingly popular ) PM.

I think she might.

if she wins the next election, Thailand may have turned a significant corner.

You two are really unbelievable. Here we have a situation where a criminal fugitive skypes in to tell his cabinet his orders on how he want his country to be run, and you better do it are else...

Following you two suggest that "yes, but in the Western World some things are also not so and dear old Thaksin is not as bad as ...". Who cares! He's also not as bad as Hun Sen (allegedly that is) and even Hitler was worse. Totally irrelevant. We're talking about an unelected elite billionair who rules from afar without any checks and balances. No question time in parliament to a skyping in criminal, pure democracy as some have it.

As for PM Yingluck, no comment. There are enough other topics to discuss our real PM, her popularity, her 'well deserved' Doctor certificate and the desolate MPs who'd like to have her in parliament occasionally.

[FDog]

St. Thaksin the Just skypes in to tell his cabinet his orders to run his country. It's not necessary for his party to agree, that's not in the regulations. It's just plain and simple "Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts"

Very democratically of course, just like countries in the West are run.

I think you're being a bit naive if you believe that western countries are run democratically. What do you think all those National arms dealers, bankers etc do to get their way? Maybe a bit of influencing goes on here and there, you think?

Oh no, shock, gasp horror.

Tell me it isn't so.

Western politics have intrigue comparable to or ( probably ) much worse than Thailand ???

Sadly, surely so.

Bush and Blair make Thaksin look like a VERY minor player in the crookedness, murderous, intellectual dishonesty stakes.

He's pure white compared to B & B.............

It will be interesting to see how and when Yingluck asserts her position as elected ( and now increasingly popular ) PM.

I think she might.

if she wins the next election, Thailand may have turned a significant corner.

You two are really unbelievable. Here we have a situation where a criminal fugitive skypes in to tell his cabinet his orders on how he want his country to be run, and you better do it are else...

Following you two suggest that "yes, but in the Western World some things are also not so and dear old Thaksin is not as bad as ...". Who cares! He's also not as bad as Hun Sen (allegedly that is) and even Hitler was worse. Totally irrelevant. We're talking about an unelected elite billionair who rules from afar without any checks and balances. No question time in parliament to a skyping in criminal, pure democracy as some have it.

As for PM Yingluck, no comment. There are enough other topics to discuss our real PM, her popularity, her 'well deserved' Doctor certificate and the desolate MPs who'd like to have her in parliament occasionally.

It's quite simple really. If you don't like it then come election time don't vote for them.

[rubl]

I think you're being a bit naive if you believe that western countries are run democratically. What do you think all those National arms dealers, bankers etc do to get their way? Maybe a bit of influencing goes on here and there, you think?

Oh no, shock, gasp horror.

Tell me it isn't so.

Western politics have intrigue comparable to or ( probably ) much worse than Thailand ???

Sadly, surely so.

Bush and Blair make Thaksin look like a VERY minor player in the crookedness, murderous, intellectual dishonesty stakes.

He's pure white compared to B & B.............

It will be interesting to see how and when Yingluck asserts her position as elected ( and now increasingly popular ) PM.

I think she might.

if she wins the next election, Thailand may have turned a significant corner.

You two are really unbelievable. Here we have a situation where a criminal fugitive skypes in to tell his cabinet his orders on how he want his country to be run, and you better do it are else...

Following you two suggest that "yes, but in the Western World some things are also not so and dear old Thaksin is not as bad as ...". Who cares! He's also not as bad as Hun Sen (allegedly that is) and even Hitler was worse. Totally irrelevant. We're talking about an unelected elite billionair who rules from afar without any checks and balances. No question time in parliament to a skyping in criminal, pure democracy as some have it.

As for PM Yingluck, no comment. There are enough other topics to discuss our real PM, her popularity, her 'well deserved' Doctor certificate and the desolate MPs who'd like to have her in parliament occasionally.

It's quite simple really. If you don't like it then come election time don't vote for them.

This may surprise you, but I didn't vote for either muttley or philw

[AleG]

What a load of horsexxxx some of you are speaking.

It is up to the Party to decide who and when they will listen. There is absolutely nothing illegal in that.

If a 'normal' member of the public asks to address the Party then it is up to the Party to agree or not. That is their choice.

If the Thai people don't like it they can vote the Party out of office.

If they wanted to hear from Charles Manson then again, that is completely up to them. Again, nothing illegal in that.

Even in my old country, (Oz) there are repercussions for members of parliament not attending to vote. That is what a Party does. Members aren't allowed their own view, they have to tow the party line. Those that don't turn up to vote don't get their allowance for sitting that day. That is normal. That is how democracy works.

So can someone please tell me what is illegal about a Party listening to what someone has to say?

I'm listening to what you have to say and you are twisting things.

How democratic is it to have an ousted criminal select the ministers?

How democratic is it for him to dictate policy?

He isn't electing them. He isn't dictating policy. He is telling them what he wants. It's up to the party to agree or not. If they agree then they do it.

If the people don't like how a party works they will vote them out.

This happens all over the world. Some of you just refuse to acknowledge it.

Go on FDog, show us where in the world a fugitive, running away from an actual sentence and several other charges of using his public office for his own personal benefit, call in a ministers meeting and dictates the major policies for a government.

You say it happens all over the world so it shouldn't be difficult for you to cite a few examples, no?

And please stop playing dumb with the "oh they can hear but then it's up to them what to do", face reality FDog, his sister is PM, do you think that happened because of Yingluck's track record in politics?

[FDog]

What a load of horsexxxx some of you are speaking.

It is up to the Party to decide who and when they will listen. There is absolutely nothing illegal in that.

If a 'normal' member of the public asks to address the Party then it is up to the Party to agree or not. That is their choice.

If the Thai people don't like it they can vote the Party out of office.

If they wanted to hear from Charles Manson then again, that is completely up to them. Again, nothing illegal in that.

Even in my old country, (Oz) there are repercussions for members of parliament not attending to vote. That is what a Party does. Members aren't allowed their own view, they have to tow the party line. Those that don't turn up to vote don't get their allowance for sitting that day. That is normal. That is how democracy works.

So can someone please tell me what is illegal about a Party listening to what someone has to say?

I'm listening to what you have to say and you are twisting things.

How democratic is it to have an ousted criminal select the ministers?

How democratic is it for him to dictate policy?

He isn't electing them. He isn't dictating policy. He is telling them what he wants. It's up to the party to agree or not. If they agree then they do it.

If the people don't like how a party works they will vote them out.

This happens all over the world. Some of you just refuse to acknowledge it.

Go on FDog, show us where in the world a fugitive, running away from an actual sentence and several other charges of using his public office for his own personal benefit, call in a ministers meeting and dictates the major policies for a government.

You say it happens all over the world so it shouldn't be difficult for you to cite a few examples, no?

And please stop playing dumb with the "oh they can hear but then it's up to them what to do", face reality FDog, his sister is PM, do you think that happened because of Yingluck's track record in politics?

What drugs are you on.

It happens all over the world where people address a Party. Doesn't matter if criminal or not. The Party can decide who they want and don't want to listen to.

Please tell me if it against the law for the a political party to listen to what someone has to say.

If it isn't against the law then stop bleating about it.

I know that in Australia it isn't against the law for a convicted criminal to actually be a member of federal parliament. Jack Van Tongeren ran for a federal seat in parliament as a convicted criminal.

But Thaksin isn't in office or running for election. He is merely addressing a Party. Nothing wrong with that.

Edited March 24, 2013 by FDog

[AleG]

What drugs are you on.

It happens all over the world where people address a Party. Doesn't matter if criminal or not. The Party can decide who they want and don't want to listen to.

Please tell me if it against the law for the a political party to listen to what someone has to say.

If it isn't against the law then stop bleating about it.

Give us an equivalent example, fugitive calling in a ministers meeting to "discuss" politics.

"It happens all over the world", should be easy to produce a few.

[FDog]

What drugs are you on.

It happens all over the world where people address a Party. Doesn't matter if criminal or not. The Party can decide who they want and don't want to listen to.

Please tell me if it against the law for the a political party to listen to what someone has to say.

If it isn't against the law then stop bleating about it.

Give us an equivalent example, fugitive calling in a ministers meeting to "discuss" politics.

"It happens all over the world", should be easy to produce a few.

Jack van Tongeren in Australia. Not a fugitive, a convicted criminal ran for federal parliament. It is not against the law in Australia.

People, not members of parliament address political parties all over the world. What is it about that don't you understand? Doesn't matter if they are criminals or not. There is no restriction.

So come on, tell me if it is against the law for ANY person to address a Party.

[FDog]

Here is a convicted killer running for parliament in oz.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-10/convicted-killer-peter-rudge-stands-in-nt-election/4190460

[AleG]

So the answer is no, no fugitives calling a ministers meeting to dictate policy. And I thought it happened all over the world.

[FDog]

So the answer is no, no fugitives calling a ministers meeting to dictate policy. And I thought it happened all over the world.

Who said he is dictating policy?

He is addressing them and telling them what he thinks should be done. That happens all over the world. It is up to the Party to listen or not.

He is not a member of parliament, he is giving his view. Nothing illegal in that at all so stop bellyaching about it.

Though if you show me that it is illegal for a member of the public to adress a political party I will stand corrected.

[FDog]

If you don't like how the Party are operating then just don't vote for them next time.

[somtampet]

face it the people voted for Thaksin not for Yinluck.

Yinluck would never have won the election without the Thaksin ticket

Whether the ruling elite that is against Thaksin like it or not, Thaksin is the democratically elected leader of Thailand

Agree.

Whoever is in power will not affect me aND I cannot vote so why worry.If Thaksin does one thing,and that is getting rid of the ruling racist elite from Bangkok,then Thailand will be a better place