Suthep Thaugsubhan Labels Thai Amnesty Law As Time Bomb

[Pi Sek]

Suthep may be right - passing a general amnesty will cause political unrest. That, and of course his denial that he did anything wrong, is why both he and Abhisit do not want a general amnesty. They wanted to be charged - they were charged and have not been convicted, even with the DSI's careful efforts to paint them as murderers since DSI director Tharit's employers changed from Abhisit to Thaksin.

However, if there is to be an amnesty, it should be for those that have been incarcerated for violating an emergency decree, not for those that allegedly made criminal infractions such as arson, murder, treason, funding an insurgency and incitement to riot. So it would exclude quite a few of the UDD leadership, Abhisit and Thaksin.

Charge them all, let's see where the facts take us (if they're allowed to get out, as has not been the case with the 10 April 2010 killings, we heard only last week).

If a coup can be legal, an amnesty if passed through the right channels, can also presumably be legal.

So, if the yellows come out, presumably it would be legal to eventually send in the army. Problem is, we know that the army will never act against the yellows.

So Thailand slips further into the mire. If governments win elections, I really don't see how anyone can say they can't amend laws. That's the system. If anything, they missed a huge trick by not insisting that modifications to the constitution don't need a super majority, 75%, or something similar.

The coup was illegal. I can't and won't argue against this - it's a fact. They changed the Law afterwards, which is exactly what Thaksin tried to do, which is one of the main reasons the coup happened in the first place.

Personally, I think that if a group of generals decide to execute a coup, they should be making a decision to martyr themselves to some degree for the good of the country (and obviously at their own loss) - the least they should have done was go into exile after they installed Surayud as PM.

[Thai at Heart]

Suthep may be right - passing a general amnesty will cause political unrest. That, and of course his denial that he did anything wrong, is why both he and Abhisit do not want a general amnesty. They wanted to be charged - they were charged and have not been convicted, even with the DSI's careful efforts to paint them as murderers since DSI director Tharit's employers changed from Abhisit to Thaksin.

However, if there is to be an amnesty, it should be for those that have been incarcerated for violating an emergency decree, not for those that allegedly made criminal infractions such as arson, murder, treason, funding an insurgency and incitement to riot. So it would exclude quite a few of the UDD leadership, Abhisit and Thaksin.

Charge them all, let's see where the facts take us (if they're allowed to get out, as has not been the case with the 10 April 2010 killings, we heard only last week).

If a coup can be legal, an amnesty if passed through the right channels, can also presumably be legal.

So, if the yellows come out, presumably it would be legal to eventually send in the army. Problem is, we know that the army will never act against the yellows.

So Thailand slips further into the mire. If governments win elections, I really don't see how anyone can say they can't amend laws. That's the system. If anything, they missed a huge trick by not insisting that modifications to the constitution don't need a super majority, 75%, or something similar.

The coup was illegal. I can't and won't argue against this - it's a fact. They changed the Law afterwards, which is exactly what Thaksin tried to do, which is one of the main reasons the coup happened in the first place.

Personally, I think that if a group of generals decide to execute a coup, they should be making a decision to martyr themselves to some degree for the good of the country (and obviously at their own loss) - the least they should have done was go into exile after they installed Surayud as PM.

All true. It doesn't work to have the army able to intervene illegally with impunity and apparently legally elected governments constantly under the threat of a coup even though they act within the law.

The army is not the arbiter of the law. If anything, they need to get better law writers so that politician can't run through loopholes so easily.

We all know who has which ulterior motives, and it was inevitable that a politician would eventually come along to change the status quo.

Problem is they hoped it would be abhisit.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[scorecard]

s

Well that's two people who absolutely will not accept serving prison time, Thaksin and Suthep - to say nothing of Abhisit.

So something is gonna have to give.

The United States supports the legitimately elected government of Thailand, which is a clear message that another coup would be a self-inflicted catastrophe to Thailand. No Western democracy, to include Australia, will again turn a blind eye to a coup - not for any reason, rationale, justification.

And the current elected government has to start acting like the government the voters of Thailand chose to lead it to peace and prosperity.

Quote.... The United States supports the legitimately elected government of Thailand, which is a clear message that another coup would be a self-inflicted catastrophe to Thailand. No Western democracy, to include Australia, will again turn a blind eye to a coup - not for any reason, rationale, justification.....

That's your opinion and nothing more, I disagree.

Examples:

- 'Legitimately elected' - Is that your Songkran joke?

- Are you suggesting that if there was another coup, then all Western democracies including Australia would intervene or ostracize Thailand in some way?

- Please explain how "The United States supports the legitimately elected government of Thailand" is specifically / directly a ... "clear message that another coup would be a self-inflicted catastrophe to Thailand. No Western democracy, to include Australia, will again turn a blind eye to a coup - not for any reason, rationale, justification "

Please share.

______________________________________________________________My response to the post immediately above is as follows:

Sharing is good.

Thailand is a sovereign state that has its own style of a democratic election. Yes, elections in Thailand are always a joke, Songkran or at any time.

Singapore was mentioned above, to which I would add is a family autocracy that runs and rigs elections in their own ways .India is a democracy with a million political parties that runs its elections in phases, groups of states regionally with little complaint.

In Taiwan and Pakistan the loser never accepts being the loser - similar to the Republican party in the U.S. - and raises holy hell for as long as they are out of office .Pheu Thai is similar to the U.S. Republicans - out of office they never stop shouting; in office they have to pried out regardless of the outcome of the vote.

Given the imperfections inherent to democracy, Pheu Thai is the legitimately elected government of the sovereign state of Thailand no matter how much we might shake our heads or laff. Prez Obama decided that long before he visited Thailand and reiterated it while he was here.

Another coup would mark Thailand as a potential Burma, yes - the Burma of course that was until very recently. Obama went there too after their own peculiar brand of elections .At least Myanmar has the Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi in parliament and the talk she has eyes for the office of president.

Certainly Thailand's image and standing in the world of nations would take a serious hit if there were another coup. How would tourists, for example, feel about coming to a country that is run by generals who shoot their own citizens? If your corporate employer assigns you to work and live in Thailand, then you'd not have much choice. However, how many English teachers would come to teach in a military society run by guys in brass hats who know only about shooting their own citizenry? I still laugh when I think of how Thailand has more generals than all 26 Nato countries combined.

Actually I think that, as indignant and self-righteous as the Europeans can often be, they might be more vocal than other governments elsewhere. European self-appointed supremacy has taken quite a hit lately, but I doubt that would stop them making superior sounding noises about Thai generals in charge here.

Quote: ........Given the imperfections inherent to democracy, Pheu Thai is the legitimately elected government of the sovereign state of Thailand....

You can say it a million times, it doesn't change the fact the Thai populace were / are grossly manipulated by over the top populist giveaways (rice scheme scam as just one example) which risk Thailand being financially bankrupt, and lots more.

You simply cannot, if you have any values and morals, use the term 'legitimately elected'.

The paymaster and his mob preached about 'democracy and equal justice, etc', in reality they continue to step by planned step to deliberately destroy both.

I add to my post above, additions in blue colour::

"You can say it a million times, it doesn't change the fact the Thai populace (with all respect to them, and recognizing that for a very large percentage of the population the gap in income and quality of life is way too big and unacceptable) were / are grossly manipulated by over the top populist giveaways (rice scheme scam as just one example) which risk Thailand being financially bankrupt, (and do nothing whatever to gain progress towards a different and acceptable situation) and lots more.

[Thai at Heart]

s

Well that's two people who absolutely will not accept serving prison time, Thaksin and Suthep - to say nothing of Abhisit.

So something is gonna have to give.

The United States supports the legitimately elected government of Thailand, which is a clear message that another coup would be a self-inflicted catastrophe to Thailand. No Western democracy, to include Australia, will again turn a blind eye to a coup - not for any reason, rationale, justification.

And the current elected government has to start acting like the government the voters of Thailand chose to lead it to peace and prosperity.

Quote.... The United States supports the legitimately elected government of Thailand, which is a clear message that another coup would be a self-inflicted catastrophe to Thailand. No Western democracy, to include Australia, will again turn a blind eye to a coup - not for any reason, rationale, justification.....

That's your opinion and nothing more, I disagree.

Examples:

- 'Legitimately elected' - Is that your Songkran joke?

- Are you suggesting that if there was another coup, then all Western democracies including Australia would intervene or ostracize Thailand in some way?

- Please explain how "The United States supports the legitimately elected government of Thailand" is specifically / directly a ... "clear message that another coup would be a self-inflicted catastrophe to Thailand. No Western democracy, to include Australia, will again turn a blind eye to a coup - not for any reason, rationale, justification "

Please share.

______________________________________________________________My response to the post immediately above is as follows:

Sharing is good.

Thailand is a sovereign state that has its own style of a democratic election. Yes, elections in Thailand are always a joke, Songkran or at any time.

Singapore was mentioned above, to which I would add is a family autocracy that runs and rigs elections in their own ways .India is a democracy with a million political parties that runs its elections in phases, groups of states regionally with little complaint.

In Taiwan and Pakistan the loser never accepts being the loser - similar to the Republican party in the U.S. - and raises holy hell for as long as they are out of office .Pheu Thai is similar to the U.S. Republicans - out of office they never stop shouting; in office they have to pried out regardless of the outcome of the vote.

Given the imperfections inherent to democracy, Pheu Thai is the legitimately elected government of the sovereign state of Thailand no matter how much we might shake our heads or laff. Prez Obama decided that long before he visited Thailand and reiterated it while he was here.

Another coup would mark Thailand as a potential Burma, yes - the Burma of course that was until very recently. Obama went there too after their own peculiar brand of elections .At least Myanmar has the Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi in parliament and the talk she has eyes for the office of president.

Certainly Thailand's image and standing in the world of nations would take a serious hit if there were another coup. How would tourists, for example, feel about coming to a country that is run by generals who shoot their own citizens? If your corporate employer assigns you to work and live in Thailand, then you'd not have much choice. However, how many English teachers would come to teach in a military society run by guys in brass hats who know only about shooting their own citizenry? I still laugh when I think of how Thailand has more generals than all 26 Nato countries combined.

Actually I think that, as indignant and self-righteous as the Europeans can often be, they might be more vocal than other governments elsewhere. European self-appointed supremacy has taken quite a hit lately, but I doubt that would stop them making superior sounding noises about Thai generals in charge here.

Quote: ........Given the imperfections inherent to democracy, Pheu Thai is the legitimately elected government of the sovereign state of Thailand....

You can say it a million times, it doesn't change the fact the Thai populace were / are grossly manipulated by over the top populist giveaways (rice scheme scam as just one example) which risk Thailand being financially bankrupt, and lots more.

You simply cannot, if you have any values and morals, use the term 'legitimately elected'.

The paymaster and his mob preached about 'democracy and equal justice, etc', in reality they continue to step by planned step to deliberately destroy both.

I add to my post above, additions in blue colour::

"You can say it a million times, it doesn't change the fact the Thai populace (with all respect to them, and recognizing that for a very large percentage of the population the gap in income and quality of life is way too big and unacceptable) were / are grossly manipulated by over the top populist giveaways (rice scheme scam as just one example) which risk Thailand being financially bankrupt, (and do nothing whatever to gain progress towards a different and acceptable situation) and lots more.

Having been in the market before, one could equally state that the poor have been oppressed by oligopoly pricing enabled by successive governments who have be in the thrall of Thai Chinese exporters.

[reiltin]

Coups are a way of life here on average every 7 years.Thais by nature have trouble with obeying common law this attitute stretches to the highest law(the constitution)I can't see this attitude changing.As for Thaksin like the carnival magician it's all about distraction amnestys a smokescreen the trick is the 2 trillion baht he wants with no parliamentary oversight.It's all about the money...this carnival doesn't have to move from place to place.

[scorecard]

s

Well that's two people who absolutely will not accept serving prison time, Thaksin and Suthep - to say nothing of Abhisit.

So something is gonna have to give.

The United States supports the legitimately elected government of Thailand, which is a clear message that another coup would be a self-inflicted catastrophe to Thailand. No Western democracy, to include Australia, will again turn a blind eye to a coup - not for any reason, rationale, justification.

And the current elected government has to start acting like the government the voters of Thailand chose to lead it to peace and prosperity.

Quote.... The United States supports the legitimately elected government of Thailand, which is a clear message that another coup would be a self-inflicted catastrophe to Thailand. No Western democracy, to include Australia, will again turn a blind eye to a coup - not for any reason, rationale, justification.....

That's your opinion and nothing more, I disagree.

Examples:

- 'Legitimately elected' - Is that your Songkran joke?

- Are you suggesting that if there was another coup, then all Western democracies including Australia would intervene or ostracize Thailand in some way?

- Please explain how "The United States supports the legitimately elected government of Thailand" is specifically / directly a ... "clear message that another coup would be a self-inflicted catastrophe to Thailand. No Western democracy, to include Australia, will again turn a blind eye to a coup - not for any reason, rationale, justification "

Please share.

______________________________________________________________My response to the post immediately above is as follows:

Sharing is good.

Thailand is a sovereign state that has its own style of a democratic election. Yes, elections in Thailand are always a joke, Songkran or at any time.

Singapore was mentioned above, to which I would add is a family autocracy that runs and rigs elections in their own ways .India is a democracy with a million political parties that runs its elections in phases, groups of states regionally with little complaint.

In Taiwan and Pakistan the loser never accepts being the loser - similar to the Republican party in the U.S. - and raises holy hell for as long as they are out of office .Pheu Thai is similar to the U.S. Republicans - out of office they never stop shouting; in office they have to pried out regardless of the outcome of the vote.

Given the imperfections inherent to democracy, Pheu Thai is the legitimately elected government of the sovereign state of Thailand no matter how much we might shake our heads or laff. Prez Obama decided that long before he visited Thailand and reiterated it while he was here.

Another coup would mark Thailand as a potential Burma, yes - the Burma of course that was until very recently. Obama went there too after their own peculiar brand of elections .At least Myanmar has the Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi in parliament and the talk she has eyes for the office of president.

Certainly Thailand's image and standing in the world of nations would take a serious hit if there were another coup. How would tourists, for example, feel about coming to a country that is run by generals who shoot their own citizens? If your corporate employer assigns you to work and live in Thailand, then you'd not have much choice. However, how many English teachers would come to teach in a military society run by guys in brass hats who know only about shooting their own citizenry? I still laugh when I think of how Thailand has more generals than all 26 Nato countries combined.

Actually I think that, as indignant and self-righteous as the Europeans can often be, they might be more vocal than other governments elsewhere. European self-appointed supremacy has taken quite a hit lately, but I doubt that would stop them making superior sounding noises about Thai generals in charge here.

Quote: ........Given the imperfections inherent to democracy, Pheu Thai is the legitimately elected government of the sovereign state of Thailand....

You can say it a million times, it doesn't change the fact the Thai populace were / are grossly manipulated by over the top populist giveaways (rice scheme scam as just one example) which risk Thailand being financially bankrupt, and lots more.

You simply cannot, if you have any values and morals, use the term 'legitimately elected'.

The paymaster and his mob preached about 'democracy and equal justice, etc', in reality they continue to step by planned step to deliberately destroy both.

I think that, in the last general election, you actually can (and should) use the term "legitimately elected".

OK, the election pledges may have been poorly-conceived, economically destructive, and whatever else, but they were what the people wanted to hear... i.e. more money. Just because they lied when they were preaching about "justice", and that their policies were based on the good of the country and not for the benefit of anyone particular, this doesn't affect the legitimacy of their election win.

If you're going to blame anything on the decision to elect Peua Thai based on these pledges, blame democracy. I do (not that I have a better suggestion!).

So ".....Just because they lied when they were preaching about "justice".... is all OK? You must be joking!

So" ..... Just because they lied when they were preaching about "justice", and that their policies were based on the good of the country and not for the benefit of anyone particular"..... is all OK in your view?

So you seem to be saying that numbers, no matter how they are gained brings 'legitimate elected'; regardless of morals, regardless of values, regardless of blatant lies, regardless of gross manipulation, and regardless that the paymaster and his ilk played on the lack of knowledge and awareness of the populace in regard to the need for long-term polices which would take a large percentage of Thais into a situation whereby they could have a much better quality of life through their own productivity.

Edited April 15, 2013 by scorecard

[scorecard]

Quote from Thai at Heart:

".....Having been in the market before, one could equally state that the poor have been oppressed by oligopoly pricing enabled by successive governments who have be in the thrall of Thai Chinese exporters. ....."

I'm not, and I doubt anybody is suggesting that any previous Thai government was honest and/or totally sincere, or not to some degree corrupt.

- And I apologize for removing the previous posts in the thread because I can't get past the 'maximum quotes' rule.

Edited April 15, 2013 by scorecard

[Thai at Heart]

Quote from Thai at Heart:

".....Having been in the market before, one could equally state that the poor have been oppressed by oligopoly pricing enabled by successive governments who have be in the thrall of Thai Chinese exporters. ....."

I'm not, and I doubt anybody is suggesting that any previous Thai government was honest and/or totally sincere, or not to some degree corrupt.

- And I apologize for removing the previous posts in the thread because I can't get past the 'maximum quotes' rule.

So, someone was always going to exploit this issue for political gain.

[rubl]

Ah, the sweet smell of reconciliation and amnesty for all ... ... except Abhisit & Suthep off course.

Both Ms. Yingluck and our most popular criminal fugitive are said to be for the tabling of 'the' amnesty bill before the 20th (some Pheu Thai MPs allegedly know this to the point to say so).

Now we only need to wait which of the six or seven amnesty bills we've heard about is the one to be tabled and what the current wording in the bill is. This may surprise, but the wording of a bill may be of interest :-)

[metisdead]

A post using a pejorative reference to the government has been removed.

[Locationthailand]

A time bomb? More like a fart in a phone box - hard to get rid of...

[scorecard]

Quote from Thai at Heart:

".....Having been in the market before, one could equally state that the poor have been oppressed by oligopoly pricing enabled by successive governments who have be in the thrall of Thai Chinese exporters. ....."

I'm not, and I doubt anybody is suggesting that any previous Thai government was honest and/or totally sincere, or not to some degree corrupt.

- And I apologize for removing the previous posts in the thread because I can't get past the 'maximum quotes' rule.

So, someone was always going to exploit this issue for political gain.

Not necessarily true, there's always the possibility that a leader will go in the opposite direction and show values, morals, honesty and espouse (and follow) policies which do genuinely take the country forward and start to take more and more Thai upwards from the poverty level.

And hopefully soon

Edited April 15, 2013 by scorecard

[OzMick]

Not necessarily true, there's always the possibility that a leader will go in the opposite direction and show values, morals, honesty and espouse (and follow) policies which do genuinely take the country forward and start to take more and more Thai upwards from the poverty level.

And hopefully soon

Not likely when the party in government is owned by a criminal.

[Thai at Heart]

Quote from Thai at Heart:

".....Having been in the market before, one could equally state that the poor have been oppressed by oligopoly pricing enabled by successive governments who have be in the thrall of Thai Chinese exporters. ....."

I'm not, and I doubt anybody is suggesting that any previous Thai government was honest and/or totally sincere, or not to some degree corrupt.

- And I apologize for removing the previous posts in the thread because I can't get past the 'maximum quotes' rule.

So, someone was always going to exploit this issue for political gain.

Not necessarily true, there's always the possibility that a leader will go in the opposite direction and show values, morals, honesty and espouse (and follow) policies which do genuinely take the country forward and start to take more and more Thai upwards from the poverty level.

And hopefully soon

Well he isn't likely to be a democrat, so where is this person, acceptable to the poor and the rich going to come from.

Somchai Blair? Please no....

Abhisit is such a let down after all that effort.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[Publicus]

scorecard said: the Thai populace (with all respect to them, and recognizing that for a very large percentage of the population the gap in income and quality of life is way too big and unacceptable) were / are grossly manipulated by over the top populist giveaways (rice scheme scam as just one example) which risk Thailand being financially bankrupt, (and do nothing whatever to gain progress towards a different and acceptable situation) and lots more

Let me be absolutely clear that I couldn't agree with you more. For a moment there I thought I had written the above paragraph myself even though I'd stepped out for a brief while. I among many objected strongly to Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai from their inception. I among many watched Thaksin tear up the 1997 constitution while promising cash in the hands of the poor, the forgotten, the dismissed untermenschen of Thai society, i.e., those north of Bangkok in particular.

I shocked myself when I welcomed the coup of September 2006.I was so relieved to see Thaksin the megalomaniac deposed. However, I since have suffered buyer's remorse concerning the coup. No more coups. Nothing good has come of the coup; another coup would make matters worse.

And no more Thaksin. Yingluck is a lot better to look at than Thaksin but she should go back where she came from, meaning the Thaksin family business. But then I'm afraid one could argue the family business is Thailand Inc.

Your paragraph does not change the fact a national general election was held and was certified by the proper authorities, and that a majority coalition was formed in the parliament. That is a legitimate election and you can say a million times it isn't so. Between you and I that would be two million of yes it was and no it wasn't.

Who are the judges to wave a wand and thus dismiss a whole government? Yet even the judges cited reasons other than the cheap political and populist policies of the cynical Thaksin gang.

Why was Abhisit such a bust as PM that he got run out of office and looks even smaller in opposition? There's no Aung San Suu Khi in Thailand, nor is there a Nelson Mandella who did 25 hard years of prison time.

Cometh the hour cometh the man does not apply in Thailand. Thais have condemned themselves to be, well, Thai. There's just nothing any of us can do about that except to watch it all. I'd rather a stroll on a beach in Phuket.

[waza]

scorecard said: the Thai populace (with all respect to them, and recognizing that for a very large percentage of the population the gap in income and quality of life is way too big and unacceptable) were / are grossly manipulated by over the top populist giveaways (rice scheme scam as just one example) which risk Thailand being financially bankrupt, (and do nothing whatever to gain progress towards a different and acceptable situation) and lots more

Let me be absolutely clear that I couldn't agree with you more. For a moment there I thought I had written the above paragraph myself even though I'd stepped out for a brief while. I among many objected strongly to Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai from their inception. I among many watched Thaksin tear up the 1997 constitution while promising cash in the hands of the poor, the forgotten, the dismissed untermenschen of Thai society, i.e., those north of Bangkok in particular.

I shocked myself when I welcomed the coup of September 2006.I was so relieved to see Thaksin the megalomaniac deposed. However, I since have suffered buyer's remorse concerning the coup. No more coups. Nothing good has come of the coup; another coup would make matters worse.

And no more Thaksin. Yingluck is a lot better to look at than Thaksin but she should go back where she came from, meaning the Thaksin family business. But then I'm afraid one could argue the family business is Thailand Inc.

Your paragraph does not change the fact a national general election was held and was certified by the proper authorities, and that a majority coalition was formed in the parliament. That is a legitimate election and you can say a million times it isn't so. Between you and I that would be two million of yes it was and no it wasn't.

Who are the judges to wave a wand and thus dismiss a whole government? Yet even the judges cited reasons other than the cheap political and populist policies of the cynical Thaksin gang.

Why was Abhisit such a bust as PM that he got run out of office and looks even smaller in opposition? There's no Aung San Suu Khi in Thailand, nor is there a Nelson Mandella who did 25 hard years of prison time.

Cometh the hour cometh the man does not apply in Thailand. Thais have condemned themselves to be, well, Thai. There's just nothing any of us can do about that except to watch it all. I'd rather a stroll on a beach in Phuket.

I agree, what Thaksin is doing to Thailand and the Thai people as he guts the treasury and loads 50 years of debt on to the backs of the Thai children and polarises Thai society into friend or foe. Is like watching a slow train wreck happening before your eyes, but with a crowd of mindless minions cheering it on. It incomprehensible to me that any group of people could be so misled that they could believe that Thaksin wants democracy and that all the deaths, destruction, riots and disunity is justified by that false cause.

"Democracy is not my goal........Democracy is a vehicle," Thaksin said. "We can't drive a Rolls-Royce to a rural village and solve people's problems. A pickup truck or good off-road car will do. We just need to think carefully and make the right choices."

[rametindallas]

The quicker Thaksin gets back into Thailand the better this country will be....

I for one believe that Thaksin can bring Thailand up to present day attitudes globally and bring reform to Thailand.

-sic-

55555555555555!

[Noistar]

Well that's two people who absolutely will not accept serving prison time, Thaksin and Suthep - to say nothing of Abhisit.

So something is gonna have to give.

The United States supports the legitimately elected government of Thailand, which is a clear message that another coup would be a self-inflicted catastrophe to Thailand. No Western democracy, to include Australia, will again turn a blind eye to a coup - not for any reason, rationale, justification.

And the current elected government has to start acting like the government the voters of Thailand chose to lead it to peace and prosperity.

The results of the election are supported, but NOT subsequent events which may make military intervention a necessity.

Believe it or not, the 1st world knows that Thailand, the 2nd world country, is on its way to dictatorship. Thaksin's '1 party democracy'.

In my humblest opinion

[Pi Sek]

I think that, in the last general election, you actually can (and should) use the term "legitimately elected".

OK, the election pledges may have been poorly-conceived, economically destructive, and whatever else, but they were what the people wanted to hear... i.e. more money. Just because they lied when they were preaching about "justice", and that their policies were based on the good of the country and not for the benefit of anyone particular, this doesn't affect the legitimacy of their election win.

If you're going to blame anything on the decision to elect Peua Thai based on these pledges, blame democracy. I do (not that I have a better suggestion!).

So ".....Just because they lied when they were preaching about "justice".... is all OK? You must be joking!

So" ..... Just because they lied when they were preaching about "justice", and that their policies were based on the good of the country and not for the benefit of anyone particular"..... is all OK in your view?

So you seem to be saying that numbers, no matter how they are gained brings 'legitimate elected'; regardless of morals, regardless of values, regardless of blatant lies, regardless of gross manipulation, and regardless that the paymaster and his ilk played on the lack of knowledge and awareness of the populace in regard to the need for long-term polices which would take a large percentage of Thais into a situation whereby they could have a much better quality of life through their own productivity.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying - it is perfectly legitimate for a government to go back on their election promises.

Governments everywhere do it all the time. The theory within democracy is that the electorate will vote out a government who doesn't perform, or who doesn't fulfill their election pledges.

Of course, politicians are the worst kind of scum - cunning, manipulative, opportunistic - and so they are able to come up with reasons that they were unable to deliver, and their more devout followers will swear blind that their reasons are true. Add to that a polarised society like Thailand, with comparatively more devout followers than moderate ones, and it becomes little more than a football-mentality popularity contest.

Your last paragraph - as long as a government acts within the framework of the Law, then it is legitimate. Morals don't come into it. Neither do ethics. Neither does manipulating the masses, All of these are known problems with democracy, and Thailand's particular scenario just makes it harder. But, hey, trying to install western democratic values has had much, much worse results in many parts of the world.

[Huayrat]

Well that's two people who absolutely will not accept serving prison time, Thaksin and Suthep - to say nothing of Abhisit.

So something is gonna have to give.

The United States supports the legitimately elected government of Thailand, which is a clear message that another coup would be a self-inflicted catastrophe to Thailand. No Western democracy, to include Australia, will again turn a blind eye to a coup - not for any reason, rationale, justification.

And the current elected government has to start acting like the government the voters of Thailand chose to lead it to peace and prosperity.

western countries couldnt care less if there was to be another coup..

[Bellweather]

Amnesty or the rule of Law, anarchy or democracy, you cant have it both way. The truth is Thaksin want to remove the rule of law through a judicial coup and use anarchy to destroy any semblance of democracy to pave the way for his dictatorship.

His puppets will try to push this through irrespective of the consequences because it's always about him and always will be no matter how it's tarted up

[Publicus]

@Publicus.

The US supports the current openly corrupt governement because it believes they were legally elected; and allows its criminal fugitive leader a visa to enter the US. Hhmmm - shades of Noriega thinking. Anyone will do if they support US interests - dictator, so called democrat, criminal. I don't believe all US politicians are this naieve. And is Obama really dumb enough to believe Thaksin will favour the US above China ?? Thaksin knows where the future prosperity lies and it ain't in the West.

Australia - who gives a fig what they think. Your remarks about Europe only help surface your pc democrat credentials.

The danger is Obama supports the legally elected government (his he really that dumb?) and a coup forces out dictator Thaksin (the reality). China then backs the coup government. Whoops!

Suthep is right - a time bomb but maybe worse than he thinks.

You present your scenario concerning Thaksin, Obama, Yingluck, Pheu Thai, Suthep, Norieiga, Beijing, the Thai military and then some. Your story starts with the United States' real recognition of the current legitimately elected government of Thailand, brings back Thaksin who becomes PM but is deposed again in a second coup against him, and concludes with the ruling Thai military cozying up to Beijing, presuming Beijing is interested in such an arrangement.

I think we shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves at this point. In fact I think we shouldn't get way far out ahead of ourselves at this time.

Thailand and the United States are both signatories of the 1954 Manila Pact of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). The Manila Pact remains in force (despite the dissolution of SEATO in 1977).

The Thanat-Rusk Communique of 1962 also serves as the basis of the two nations’ ongoing close military-to-military ties. In 2003 Thailand was designated a Major Non-NATO ally.

Thailand is a participant in the International Military Education and Training program and receives heaps of defense material from the United States at low cost.

Thailand played a key role during the United States involvement in the conflict in Vietnam. During the war as many as 50,000 American troops were stationed in Thailand.

The United States and Thailand hold numerous combined military-naval and air exercises each year, including Cobra Gold, which has been expanded from a bilateral exercise to what is now the third largest U.S. combined military exercise in Asia (after S Korea and Indonesia).

I think Beijing has a steep hill in front of it to climb to make even minor inroads against the strategic partnership Thailand and the U.S. have and have had for a long time.

Thailand is increasing its trade relationship with the PRChina, the same as many countries of the region are doing. However, after Thaksin first fled Thai justice, he tried unsuccessfully to set up shop close to home, in Hong Kong. Thaksin went to Dubai only after Beijing told him his stay in Hong Kong would be temporary and a brief one. In other words, Beijing kicked Thaksin out of Hong Kong. Taksin while PM already had concluded that his fantasized road to greatness did not pass through Beijing.

The Thai military isn't too warm towards Beijing either.

These are the realities on the ground. Let's try not to have our imaginations run away to get beyond that which is realistically foreseeable, while we also take into account the realities of the recent past.

[Publicus]

Well that's two people who absolutely will not accept serving prison time, Thaksin and Suthep - to say nothing of Abhisit.

So something is gonna have to give.

The United States supports the legitimately elected government of Thailand, which is a clear message that another coup would be a self-inflicted catastrophe to Thailand. No Western democracy, to include Australia, will again turn a blind eye to a coup - not for any reason, rationale, justification.

And the current elected government has to start acting like the government the voters of Thailand chose to lead it to peace and prosperity.

The results of the election are supported, but NOT subsequent events which may make military intervention a necessity.

Believe it or not, the 1st world knows that Thailand, the 2nd world country, is on its way to dictatorship. Thaksin's '1 party democracy'.

In my humblest opinion

Military intervention, as you choose to call it, against an elected civilian government is never justified or justifiable, much less a necessity.

[rubl]

Military intervention against a no longer legal civilian government is still illegal. Nevertheless the topic is on k. Suthep labelling 'the' Thai Amnesty Law as a time bomb. Now if only we knew which of the six or seven Amnesty proposals and what the heck is described in them, we might meaningfully comment on k. Suthep's worries

[backtonormal]

Yes as a former CREST Director , he have experience how to bomb and killing !!

Yes indeed he would certainly have experience in combating those who would bomb, kill and set fires in trying to destroy the country for the selfish ends of a convicted crim on the run.

I doubt a coup was what he had in mind rather the probable trouble that would eventuate if all the reds were pardoned, given amnesty or whatever you want to call it.

After all it is only the reds and in particular their leaders who want to get away with their crimes, the yellow shirt leaders, if I understand correctly, have said they don't want amnesty but are willing to stand up and be counted for their actions.

Stand up to be counted for their actions!!!! Its easy to say that when the judiciary is urinating in the same pot. Example if needed. Sondhi has been sentenced to 23 years in jail and the nasty little man is doing tv programmes, while he should be inprison. Further proof is the only recent charge he got away with was LM, simply because you cannot appeal LM.

[OzMick]

Stand up to be counted for their actions!!!! Its easy to say that when the judiciary is urinating in the same pot. Example if needed. Sondhi has been sentenced to 23 years in jail and the nasty little man is doing tv programmes, while he should be inprison. Further proof is the only recent charge he got away with was LM, simply because you cannot appeal LM.

I must agree that bail after conviction should take into account the nature of the crime, but at least he puts up his own bail which is more than can be said for the convicted red arsonists now free while waiting for appeals to be heard. That event should happen some time soon after their sponsors get voted/thrown from office, and not a minute sooner.

They may be criminals but they're Thaksin's criminals.

BTW criticising court decisions is risky.