Thaksin Threatens To Use The People's Force Against The Constitutional Court If It Interferes

[metisdead]

Off topic posts of trolling nature have been removed as well as the replies to those posts. Please don't feed the troll.

[Tatsujin]

Wow, I'd never thought of myself as seeing Thailand through "rose-tinted glasses". I see the country as heading towards the same situation as Burma (except that maybe things are actually getting better over there), ruled by a corrupt elite that cannot win elections, instead relying on coup-happy generals and bent judges to stay in power, holding the masses in contempt to the point where they believe that "democracy cannot work in Thailand, because most Thai people are too stupid to vote for the right leader" (I hear this sentiment all the time from Yellow Shirt supporters).

"I hear this sentiment all the time from Yellow Shirt supporters"

All 10 of them?

What do you mean? I meant that I've been told, on multiple occasions, by multiple Yellow Shirt supporters, things along the lines of "democracy cannot work in Thailand, because most Thai people are too stupid to vote for the right leader".

I don't know what page of the red book that came from but it's a half truth at best.

Democracy will have a chance in Thailand when the following occurs:

* No vote buying

* Corruption amongst the leadership is forcefully tackled

* Nepotism is stopped

* The courts are allowed to work free of interference

* Rich criminals are treated the same as the poor

* Intimidation is stopped, especially at election time

* Parliament is used to pass bills - not decrees

* Appointed high-ranking officials are not told what to do by the government

The list is not comprehensive but would help to move the country in a democratic direction.

Big thumbs up to all you suggest

[Mudcrab]

aksin said there are three branches of power - the executive, the legislative and the judiciary..oh and I forgot one other ...the dictatorocracy

[bigbamboo]

Of course if it wasn 't for those 'bent judges' ThailandNoob refers to then Mr Thaksin would never have made it past his assets concealment case to become PM in the first place.

[Theoutsider]

Threatening a government body with "force" in the USA would constitute potential anarchy and place the individuals making such comments on a federal detainment for questioning.

But here we must add one critical factor - the individual making the statements owns the government.

Or it nor the USA.

[yoshiwara]

I bet if they had an election any time soon, Thaksin (his sister) would win hands down again. I do not like him one bit but that is the bitter truth

The bitter truth is that it is his sister and not him.

[MILT]

Thaksin said there are three branches of power - the executive, the legislative and the judiciary and the three branches should be separate. There should also be checks and balances among the three branches.

However, he said the judiciary was violating the power of the executive and legislative branches, and thus damaging the country's credibility and the people's confidence in the system.

he is totally right about that.

the peoples force is the electorate. those who vote for the parliament that put the legislative in power. part of their job is it to pass, amend, and repeal laws.

Well not totally. Yes part of their job is to pass, amend and repeal laws. Where this goes awry is that this is to be done for the country as a whole for everyone. Not for one exPM or is minions.

[bigbamboo]

Surely the court off law ranks higher than a here today, gone tomorrow politiician?

[Thait Spot]

It wouldn't surprise me if Thaksin had shaved his head and bought himself one of those bald cats.

[Sayonarax]

Go find a rock to hide under and die.

[ThailandNoob]

Wow, I'd never thought of myself as seeing Thailand through "rose-tinted glasses". I see the country as heading towards the same situation as Burma (except that maybe things are actually getting better over there), ruled by a corrupt elite that cannot win elections, instead relying on coup-happy generals and bent judges to stay in power, holding the masses in contempt to the point where they believe that "democracy cannot work in Thailand, because most Thai people are too stupid to vote for the right leader" (I hear this sentiment all the time from Yellow Shirt supporters).

"I hear this sentiment all the time from Yellow Shirt supporters"

All 10 of them?

What do you mean? I meant that I've been told, on multiple occasions, by multiple Yellow Shirt supporters, things along the lines of "democracy cannot work in Thailand, because most Thai people are too stupid to vote for the right leader".

I don't know what page of the red book that came from but it's a half truth at best.

Democracy will have a chance in Thailand when the following occurs:

* No vote buying

* Corruption amongst the leadership is forcefully tackled

* Nepotism is stopped

* The courts are allowed to work free of interference

* Rich criminals are treated the same as the poor

* Intimidation is stopped, especially at election time

* Parliament is used to pass bills - not decrees

* Appointed high-ranking officials are not told what to do by the government

The list is not comprehensive but would help to move the country in a democratic direction.

How is it a half truth? Quotes like this come directly from the horses mouth. These are things that "hi so" Thai supporters of the Yellow Shirts have said to me. Even if you don't want to take me word for it, look at public statements by the Yellow Shirt leadership. Chamlong Srimueang's (a key figure in the Yellow Shirts) proposal to have a parliament where only 30% of the MPs are elected, with the remaining 70% appointed, springs to mind here.

You talk about vote buying, and I agree with you that it is not an ideal situation, but isn't a democracy with vote buying better than no democracy at all?

And I put it to you that corruption and nepotism are just as bad if not worse under the Democrats than Pheu Thai.

You talk about the need for an independent judiciary, yet I would hardly call the Constitutional Court of Thailand independent. Look at their decision in 2008 that brought Abhisit to power. Leaving aside the question of whether or not it was justified to ban the MPs from power, given that doing so caused the ruling government to no longer have a majority, the court should have also dissolved parliament and triggered fresh elections. By doing otherwise they lost all of their moral authority, and proved themselves to be nothing more than a tool of the Yellow Shirts.

I totally agree with you that rich criminals should receive the same treatment as the poor. When are the coup makers going to go on trial? What about the thugs that took over the airport in 2008? Why has no-one in the army been convicted over the atrocities that took place in April and May 2010?

I also totally agree with you that intimidation should be stopped. Topping the list of cases of intimidation over the past 7 years would be the 2006 military coup. How about we begin by trying and convicting everyone that was behind that?

Even in Western countries, it tends to be the norm that appointed high-ranking officials are told what to do by the government that appoints them. That's why it's so important that governments are chosen by people voting in elections rather than generals launching coups or judges issuing decrees.

[ThailandNoob]

So do you red-shirt supporters (all 3 of you) on this thread actually support Thaksin's threat and believe what he is saying?

It wouldn't be the first time that he had his military-wing threatening

the CC judges. That brings up another point: Thaksin seems to think he's

running a country in his normal dictatorial way. The PTP will say 'how

high' when he says 'jump' (or their allowances are threatened), the red shirts are the Thaksinland military & the police have long been infiltrated by his relatives & cronies.

Reading the OP just shows a long tissue of lies, with the omission of the one

truth that hurts. That is his party was given the option to hold a

referendum on whether any changes to the constitution is necessary. He

concluded that his party wouldn't gain the necessary majority

(displaying a rather cowardly approach to real people power).

Opportunity lost but he blames the CC for his failure.

Yes I support Thaksin's "threat". Let's face it, the reason the Thai people voted a "clone" of Thaksin in as PM is because they want her to bring him back. If the Constitutional Court (which has hardly shown itself to be a neutral, impartial umpire in the past) ties the government's hands in red tape to prevent it from doing what the people elected it to do, then it is only fair for there to be mass rallies.

I see no reason why the amendment would not easily win a referendum here. Even if it has been unspoken, it has always been the aim of the Pheu Thai party to bring Thaksin back to Thailand. The Thai electorate knows this, and yet still voted them in. Forcing a referendum on the issue is nothing more than a delaying tactic by the Constitutional Court, for the benefit of the Yellow Shirts.

[whybother]

ThailandNoob, on 13 Apr 2013 - 11:20, said:

How is it a half truth? Quotes like this come directly from the horses mouth. These are things that "hi so" Thai supporters of the Yellow Shirts have said to me. Even if you don't want to take me word for it, look at public statements by the Yellow Shirt leadership. Chamlong Srimueang's (a key figure in the Yellow Shirts) proposal to have a parliament where only 30% of the MPs are elected, with the remaining 70% appointed, springs to mind here.

You talk about vote buying, and I agree with you that it is not an ideal situation, but isn't a democracy with vote buying better than no democracy at all?

And I put it to you that corruption and nepotism are just as bad if not worse under the Democrats than Pheu Thai.

You talk about the need for an independent judiciary, yet I would hardly call the Constitutional Court of Thailand independent. Look at their decision in 2008 that brought Abhisit to power. Leaving aside the question of whether or not it was justified to ban the MPs from power, given that doing so caused the ruling government to no longer have a majority, the court should have also dissolved parliament and triggered fresh elections. By doing otherwise they lost all of their moral authority, and proved themselves to be nothing more than a tool of the Yellow Shirts.

I totally agree with you that rich criminals should receive the same treatment as the poor. When are the coup makers going to go on trial? What about the thugs that took over the airport in 2008? Why has no-one in the army been convicted over the atrocities that took place in April and May 2010?

I also totally agree with you that intimidation should be stopped. Topping the list of cases of intimidation over the past 7 years would be the 2006 military coup. How about we begin by trying and convicting everyone that was behind that?

Even in Western countries, it tends to be the norm that appointed high-ranking officials are told what to do by the government that appoints them. That's why it's so important that governments are chosen by people voting in elections rather than generals launching coups or judges issuing decrees.

The 2008 court decision wasn't the thing that lost the then coalition government their majority. It was the defection of a large faction of their MPs that cost them their majority.

The remaining PPP MPs that became the PTP where in power after the PPP were disbanded and their executives banned. A new PM need to be elected and the PTP chose to go to a parliamentary vote instead of calling a new election.

Don't you read the news? Yellows shirts have been charged with taking over the airports.

Why should the army be convicted for trying to keep law and order? Do police get charged when armed bank robbers shoot at them and people are killed?

[whybother]

ThailandNoob, on 13 Apr 2013 - 11:34, said:

Yes I support Thaksin's "threat". Let's face it, the reason the Thai people voted a "clone" of Thaksin in as PM is because they want her to bring him back. If the Constitutional Court (which has hardly shown itself to be a neutral, impartial umpire in the past) ties the government's hands in red tape to prevent it from doing what the people elected it to do, then it is only fair for there to be mass rallies.

I see no reason why the amendment would not easily win a referendum here. Even if it has been unspoken, it has always been the aim of the Pheu Thai party to bring Thaksin back to Thailand. The Thai electorate knows this, and yet still voted them in. Forcing a referendum on the issue is nothing more than a delaying tactic by the Constitutional Court, for the benefit of the Yellow Shirts.

The PTP couldn't even get a majority of the vote in the election. What makes you think they could get a majority of the vote in a referendum? People voted for PTP for a number of reasons, not just to get Thaksin back. Some who voted for them don't want Thaksin back, but preferred PTP for other reasons.

[puck2]

OP

He said the Constitutional Court should not play games on matters that important for the country.
...................
Thaksin said there are three ranches of power - the executive, the legislative and the judiciary and the three

branches should be separate. There should also be checks and balances among the three branches.

However, he said the judiciary was violating the power of the executive and legislative branches, and thus

damaging the country's credibility and the people's confidence in the system.

T. never will and never doesn't want to understand the checks and balances system in a democracy, if against his interests

and intentions. This here is only one example, but there are hundreds.

In that regard, I translate the Red Shirt's UDD as "United Front for Dictatorship and against Democracy".
They don't fight against T's dictatorship they will follow him against the Constitutional Court. In a normal democray

this court has the final say, but that idea will never arrive in his brain. PT is not different.

Edited April 13, 2013 by puck2

[whybother]

"comments by Chartthaipattana leader Chumpol Silpa-archa about the role of an "irresistible power" in the formation of the present government has placed the military once more in the spotlight. Mr Chumpol has said his party actually did not want to join the Democrat Party in forming the present coalition, but it was forced to by this "irresistible power". " (OP)

<snip>

"irresistible power" - Money? Edited April 13, 2013 by whybother

[longway]

Wow, I'd never thought of myself as seeing Thailand through "rose-tinted glasses". I see the country as heading towards the same situation as Burma (except that maybe things are actually getting better over there), ruled by a corrupt elite that cannot win elections, instead relying on coup-happy generals and bent judges to stay in power, holding the masses in contempt to the point where they believe that "democracy cannot work in Thailand, because most Thai people are too stupid to vote for the right leader" (I hear this sentiment all the time from Yellow Shirt supporters).

"I hear this sentiment all the time from Yellow Shirt supporters"

All 10 of them?

What do you mean? I meant that I've been told, on multiple occasions, by multiple Yellow Shirt supporters, things along the lines of "democracy cannot work in Thailand, because most Thai people are too stupid to vote for the right leader".

I don't know what page of the red book that came from but it's a half truth at best.

Democracy will have a chance in Thailand when the following occurs:

* No vote buying

* Corruption amongst the leadership is forcefully tackled

* Nepotism is stopped

* The courts are allowed to work free of interference

* Rich criminals are treated the same as the poor

* Intimidation is stopped, especially at election time

* Parliament is used to pass bills - not decrees

* Appointed high-ranking officials are not told what to do by the government

The list is not comprehensive but would help to move the country in a democratic direction.

How is it a half truth? Quotes like this come directly from the horses mouth. These are things that "hi so" Thai supporters of the Yellow Shirts have said to me. Even if you don't want to take me word for it, look at public statements by the Yellow Shirt leadership. Chamlong Srimueang's (a key figure in the Yellow Shirts) proposal to have a parliament where only 30% of the MPs are elected, with the remaining 70% appointed, springs to mind here.

You talk about vote buying, and I agree with you that it is not an ideal situation, but isn't a democracy with vote buying better than no democracy at all?

And I put it to you that corruption and nepotism are just as bad if not worse under the Democrats than Pheu Thai.

You talk about the need for an independent judiciary, yet I would hardly call the Constitutional Court of Thailand independent. Look at their decision in 2008 that brought Abhisit to power. Leaving aside the question of whether or not it was justified to ban the MPs from power, given that doing so caused the ruling government to no longer have a majority, the court should have also dissolved parliament and triggered fresh elections. By doing otherwise they lost all of their moral authority, and proved themselves to be nothing more than a tool of the Yellow Shirts.

I totally agree with you that rich criminals should receive the same treatment as the poor. When are the coup makers going to go on trial? What about the thugs that took over the airport in 2008? Why has no-one in the army been convicted over the atrocities that took place in April and May 2010?

I also totally agree with you that intimidation should be stopped. Topping the list of cases of intimidation over the past 7 years would be the 2006 military coup. How about we begin by trying and convicting everyone that was behind that?

Even in Western countries, it tends to be the norm that appointed high-ranking officials are told what to do by the government that appoints them. That's why it's so important that governments are chosen by people voting in elections rather than generals launching coups or judges issuing decrees.

Whatever the hi-so think, they are not relevant. Since PAD came out with their solution to political corruption, by getting rid of politicians, their support has evaporated.

Now the reds solution to get rid of double standards in courts is to get rid of the courts. It's the same self serving cynical drivel as PAD's 'solution', and deserves the same level of support.

Edited April 13, 2013 by longway

[Thait Spot]

"comments by Chartthaipattana leader Chumpol Silpa-archa about the role of an "irresistible power" in the formation of the present government has placed the military once more in the spotlight. Mr Chumpol has said his party actually did not want to join the Democrat Party in forming the present coalition, but it was forced to by this "irresistible power". " (OP)<snip>"irresistible power" - Money?

Amulets?

Som tum?

Lao khao?

Black magic?

[Rich teacher]

"comments by Chartthaipattana leader Chumpol Silpa-archa about the role of an "irresistible power" in the formation of the present government has placed the military once more in the spotlight. Mr Chumpol has said his party actually did not want to join the Democrat Party in forming the present coalition, but it was forced to by this "irresistible power". " (OP)

<snip>

"irresistible power" - Money?

The "irresistible power" is blatantly obvious, but it doesn't suit your lots' argument so you cover your ears and just keep repeating the same old line even louder.

[ThailandNoob]

"comments by Chartthaipattana leader Chumpol Silpa-archa about the role of an "irresistible power" in the formation of the present government has placed the military once more in the spotlight. Mr Chumpol has said his party actually did not want to join the Democrat Party in forming the present coalition, but it was forced to by this "irresistible power". " (OP)

<snip>

"irresistible power" - Money?

I highly doubt it was money, which is hardly an irresistible power, since someone else can always offer more. If you follow Thai politics though, it should be easy to hazard a guess as to at least which direction this "irresistible power" is emanating from. However, it would be hazardous to write about this on Thaivisa, and pretty pointless too, since the post would get deleted.

EDIT what a coincidence that this is the 112th reply to this topic.

Edited April 13, 2013 by ThailandNoob

[Thait Spot]

"comments by Chartthaipattana leader Chumpol Silpa-archa about the role of an "irresistible power" in the formation of the present government has placed the military once more in the spotlight. Mr Chumpol has said his party actually did not want to join the Democrat Party in forming the present coalition, but it was forced to by this "irresistible power". " (OP)

<snip>

"irresistible power" - Money?

The "irresistible power" is blatantly obvious, but it doesn't suit your lots' argument so you cover your ears and just keep repeating the same old line even louder.

Whereas the irresistible force of the Shinawatra/Damapong dynasty is what? The ability to racketeer!

[ThailandNoob]

Whatever the hi-so think, they are not relevant. Since PAD came out with their solution to political corruption, by getting rid of politicians, their support has evaporated.

Now the reds solution to get rid of double standards in courts is to get rid of the courts. It's the same self serving cynical drivel as PAD's 'solution', and deserves the same level of support.

I could only wish that the hi-so were no longer relevant in Thai politics, or at least had their influence limited to be proportionate with the fraction of the Thai population that they comprise. I'll wager that they'll start launching demonstrations and moving towards another coup as soon as Thaksin returns to the country.

I strongly support the reds' criticism of the courts. The Constitutional Court judges have shown themselves to be biased in the past (towards the vested interests that got them there in the first place), and should be replaced with a more impartial judiciary.

[Scott]

A rather long post has been deleted because it does not follow fair use policy. You must limit the length of a quote and you must cite the source.

Other inflammatory, off-topic and baiting posts and replies have been deleted.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Scott

[scorecard]

Whatever the hi-so think, they are not relevant. Since PAD came out with their solution to political corruption, by getting rid of politicians, their support has evaporated.

Now the reds solution to get rid of double standards in courts is to get rid of the courts. It's the same self serving cynical drivel as PAD's 'solution', and deserves the same level of support.

I could only wish that the hi-so were no longer relevant in Thai politics, or at least had their influence limited to be proportionate with the fraction of the Thai population that they comprise. I'll wager that they'll start launching demonstrations and moving towards another coup as soon as Thaksin returns to the country.

I strongly support the reds' criticism of the courts. The Constitutional Court judges have shown themselves to be biased in the past (towards the vested interests that got them there in the first place), and should be replaced with a more impartial judiciary.

And you fail to mention that the courts have given a number of decisions which go in both directions, and often questionable.

The decision which got the paymaster 'off', on his trip on the court merry go round, is a very obvious case in point. The judge in question said something like 'how could I find him guilty when he just won an election'. (A bit further down the road of course comes lots of stuff about votebuying.)

[scorecard]

Whatever the hi-so think, they are not relevant. Since PAD came out with their solution to political corruption, by getting rid of politicians, their support has evaporated.

Now the reds solution to get rid of double standards in courts is to get rid of the courts. It's the same self serving cynical drivel as PAD's 'solution', and deserves the same level of support.

I could only wish that the hi-so were no longer relevant in Thai politics, or at least had their influence limited to be proportionate with the fraction of the Thai population that they comprise. I'll wager that they'll start launching demonstrations and moving towards another coup as soon as Thaksin returns to the country.

I strongly support the reds' criticism of the courts. The Constitutional Court judges have shown themselves to be biased in the past (towards the vested interests that got them there in the first place), and should be replaced with a more impartial judiciary.

And what's your comment on the current DSI antics?

[Pi Sek]

ThailandNoob, on 13 Apr 2013 - 11:34, said:

Yes I support Thaksin's "threat". Let's face it, the reason the Thai people voted a "clone" of Thaksin in as PM is because they want her to bring him back. If the Constitutional Court (which has hardly shown itself to be a neutral, impartial umpire in the past) ties the government's hands in red tape to prevent it from doing what the people elected it to do, then it is only fair for there to be mass rallies.

I see no reason why the amendment would not easily win a referendum here. Even if it has been unspoken, it has always been the aim of the Pheu Thai party to bring Thaksin back to Thailand. The Thai electorate knows this, and yet still voted them in. Forcing a referendum on the issue is nothing more than a delaying tactic by the Constitutional Court, for the benefit of the Yellow Shirts.

The PTP couldn't even get a majority of the vote in the election. What makes you think they could get a majority of the vote in a referendum? People voted for PTP for a number of reasons, not just to get Thaksin back. Some who voted for them don't want Thaksin back, but preferred PTP for other reasons.

Your post is flawed on all three counts.

The last election was won outright by a landslide. A very good source who writes political commentary for the CIA and is drinking buddy of mine, who does not support the Red Shirts, tells me that this means Peua Thai won more than 50% of the popular vote, and that translated into 53% of the seats in parliament.

The referendum route has not been taken; not because they are concerned about losing, but because the people's will does not have to be measured. After all, Peua Thai won more than 50% of the vote - they are the Will of the People.

And you say people did not vote in Peua Thai to get Thaksin back? That's ridiculous. I have heard some of the elite, of which there are none who support Peua Thai, question this at Starbuck's. They remind me that Peua Thai promised a bunch of election pledges like subsidies for 1st cars and houses, minimum wages, justice for all and, above all, that they would be putting the interests of the country and its people ahead of any particular person... but Peua Thai told us within a month of winning that election promises might not be implemented, so this was obviously a "white lie" (which is acceptable). After all, one particular person does own Peua Thai - Thaksin. Moreover, as Peua Thai are the Will of the People, surely it is not unreasonable to allow them the choice of ignoring the Law (as long as they aren't seen and heard to be actively breaking it)?

I suggest you attend a political school where you can learn something about political theory and recent Thai political history. I've heard there are some good ones being set up around the country by a reformed communist lady, I've heard she's very nice.

[Robby nz]

ThailandNoob, on 13 Apr 2013 - 14:49, said:

<Off topic comments removed>

<Off topic comments removed>

This all is so far off topic so to get back:

How come a convicted crim on the run has any right to make any threats, and yes it is a threat, against any court?

Edited April 13, 2013 by metisdead

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed, another post has been edited to remove the off topic posts/comments.

Back on topic please.

[ThailandNoob]

Edited to remove reply to a deleted post.

Edited April 13, 2013 by ThailandNoob

[ThailandNoob]

ThailandNoob, on 13 Apr 2013 - 14:49, said:

<Off topic comments removed>

<Off topic comments removed>

This all is so far off topic so to get back:

How come a convicted crim on the run has any right to make any threats, and yes it is a threat, against any court?

How about when the court has long since lost any moral authority it might have had, by making dodgy decisions that favour the judge's political backers?