It's Time For Thaksin To Respect The Rule Of Law: Senior Democrats

[bigbamboo]

It's time for Abhisit and Suthep to be HONEST and stand up for there's murder charges and wrongdoings!! Don't try to hide this behind Khun Thaksin.What he have done is "Peanuts" compare to Democratic party, PAD and coup maker's!!!

I doubt the families of the Kru Se victims, the Tak Bai victims, the innocent war on drugs victims or the 'dissappeared' whistle blowing muslim lawyer would agree with you.

Edited May 21, 2013 by bigbamboo

[ogb]

There are no cleanskins in Thai politics, but the major difference is Thaksin gets his power from the people whilst Abhisit got his from the military++

Someone who gets power from the people can be removed by the people when they are sick of him, but how do you remove the military++ ?

[Sing_Sling]

No. And?

And you can't see the inference? Odd, it's quite obvious

>

Yeah, right. So you believe all the PTP BS for one then.

Presumably you'd like Thaksin to stand up for all the other outstanding criminal charges he's facing. And maybe someone (not the DSI) should start an investigagtion into all those "judicial" executions and disapperances whilst your hero was in charge.

We don't want any double standards now

do we?

His 'hero'? How old are you? Why the need to be so overly aggressive when the poster ha a valid point . . . and I have yet to see him state that Thaksin shouldn't be held accountable for his crimes . . .

Infantile much?

1) No, it's not really obvious. The Democrats didn't support the coup... they just didn't go any further in their condemnation of it than saying "it was undemocratic". You are buying into the Thaksin-sponsored belief that the coup-makers, the Democrats and PAD are the same people.

2) Yes, it is infantile, as is the nature of the Thai political divide. Right and wrong are no longer of relevance and have been replaced by colour-coding, much as a devoted fan of Michael Jackson won't give credence to any kiddie-fiddling accusations and a devoted bunch of football hooligans don't see anything wrong with tearing up a public train.

1) Yes, it is obvious what the poster meant.

2) Yes, again. The post was infantile

Same language, two meanings I guess

[jaidam]

It's time for Abhisit and Suthep to be HONEST and stand up for there's murder charges and wrongdoings!! Don't try to hide this behind Khun Thaksin.What he have done is "Peanuts" compare to Democratic party, PAD and coup maker's!!!

I doubt the families of the Kru Se victims, the Tak Bai victims, the innocent war on drugs victims or the 'dissappeared' whistle blowing muslim lawyer would agree with you.

or the family of the "shipping moo" who was murdered as he was about to give evidence in Thaksin's tax evasion case. Or the old lady who had to cower behind her fridge as her house was shot up by machine gun during the period of extra-judicial killings dubbed the war on drugs.

Most crimes have a "victim". I would suggest that having the wrong date on some national service paperwork from nearly 3 decades ago as being a fairly victimless crime(at least in comparison with TS's rap sheet.

[pedro01]

It's time for Abhisit and Suthep to be HONEST and stand up for there's murder charges and wrongdoings!! Don't try to hide this behind Khun Thaksin.What he have done is "Peanuts" compare to Democratic party, PAD and coup maker's!!!

They are - you don't see them running away to Dubai do you?

Nope - they are staying to go through the justice system.

[rijb]

Democrats don't seem to be concerned about the 'rule of law' during a crisis. Especially, when a crisis is the only way they get to run the country. That's why Abhisit refers to the coup as a 'military intervention'. It sounds so legal!

[Sing_Sling]

It's time for Abhisit and Suthep to be HONEST and stand up for there's murder charges and wrongdoings!! Don't try to hide this behind Khun Thaksin.What he have done is "Peanuts" compare to Democratic party, PAD and coup maker's!!!

I doubt the families of the Kru Se victims, the Tak Bai victims, the innocent war on drugs victims or the 'dissappeared' whistle blowing muslim lawyer would agree with you.

or the family of the "shipping moo" who was murdered as he was about to give evidence in Thaksin's tax evasion case. Or the old lady who had to cower behind her fridge as her house was shot up by machine gun during the period of extra-judicial killings dubbed the war on drugs.

Most crimes have a "victim". I would suggest that having the wrong date on some national service paperwork from nearly 3 decades ago as being a fairly victimless crime(at least in comparison with TS's rap sheet.

Whew, luckily that's all Abisith has to answer for . . . I appreciate your even-handedness and clear impartiality in seeing through this whole tawdry affair - it makes for much better discussions instead of sounding like a bunch of boozy council flat legends at the local

Edited May 21, 2013 by Sing_Sling

[GeckosDiving]

you would get more of the truth talking to a horse's ass than you could talking to the red shirts !! oh wait but they do listen to a horse's ass and believe the <deleted> that comes out of it :p

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Globeman]

It's time for Abhisit and Suthep to be HONEST and stand up for there's murder charges and wrongdoings!! Don't try to hide this behind Khun Thaksin.What he have done is "Peanuts" compare to Democratic party, PAD and coup maker's!!!

"Peanuts" like ordering the cold-blooded murders of 3,000 alleged drug dealers without charge or trial? I'd say there is far more blood on Thaksin's hands, wouldn't you?

Besides which, the trumped-up charges against Abhisit and Suthep are progressing as fast as the Pheu Thai can make them go, and they are still here (ie: not running away like egocentric little kids) - and have visited to DSI several times now to acknowledge the nonsensical charges. In the meantime, being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (yes, it's called due process), they are entitled to hold their elected positions of office. One of the duties of that office is to challenge the government's policies and actions, and this is what they are doing.

[Hyponeros]

It's time for the "Democrats" to respect the rule of law.

It's time for the army to respect the rule of law.

It's time for the police to respect the rule of law.

It's time for the judges to respect the rule of law.

It's time for the rich and Hi-So to respect the rule of law.

It's time for Prem to respect the rule of law

It's time for the Thais to respect the rule of law.

Maybe those who are living in Thailand could start to respect the rule of law before trying to force soemone who is far away to do it!

What a bunch of hypocits. Everybody needs to respect the rule of law but they don't do!

[Globeman]

Democrats don't seem to be concerned about the 'rule of law' during a crisis. Especially, when a crisis is the only way they get to run the country. That's why Abhisit refers to the coup as a 'military intervention'. It sounds so legal!

The Red Shirts had brought the capital to a standstill for weeks... grenades had been fired from within their area, the protesters on the outer edges of the protest had become increasingly violent and provocative. Red Shirt leaders were advocating burning down the capital - in no uncertain terms. It was madness, if you recall. The protesters made it clear that they they weren't leaving until the government stepped down (alongside a load of other ridiculous demands). A mob that in no way represented the majority (most of them fueled to a large degree by disinformation), was holding the whole country to ransom to demand "democracy" (their own unique form of it). Meanwhile, the pusillanimous egomaniac in Dubai was ranting like he was the keynote speaker at Nuremberg.

So my question is: If you were Prime minister in this situation, what exactly would you have done about it?

[rijb]

Democrats don't seem to be concerned about the 'rule of law' during a crisis. Especially, when a crisis is the only way they get to run the country. That's why Abhisit refers to the coup as a 'military intervention'. It sounds so legal!

The Red Shirts had brought the capital to a standstill for weeks... grenades had been fired from within their area, the protesters on the outer edges of the protest had become increasingly violent and provocative. Red Shirt leaders were advocating burning down the capital - in no uncertain terms. It was madness, if you recall. The protesters made it clear that they they weren't leaving until the government stepped down (alongside a load of other ridiculous demands). A mob that in no way represented the majority (most of them fueled to a large degree by disinformation), was holding the whole country to ransom to demand "democracy" (their own unique form of it). Meanwhile, the pusillanimous egomaniac in Dubai was ranting like he was the keynote speaker at Nuremberg.

So my question is: If you were Prime minister in this situation, what exactly would you have done about it?

I didn't know there was going to be test. Ask for a coup military intervention?

[apetley]

What is the difference between fighting DSI murder charges in Thailand and jumping bail after being convicted by a Thai court?

I know which one I would choose as an example of respect for the law.

Sent from my GT-I9003 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Pi Sek]

What is the difference between fighting DSI murder charges in Thailand and jumping bail after being convicted by a Thai court?

I know which one I would choose as an example of respect for the law.

Sent from my GT-I9003 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

He jumped bail before he was convicted - his trial was pending. He wouldn't have be en able to jump bail afterwards as he was to be tried by the Supreme Court, which is the third and highest court in Thailand (Supreme Court > Court of Appeals > Provincial Courts).

His point of view is that, to respect the Law, he had to completely disrespect it first, because he says the courts are corrupt. The very-carefully explained 6-hour verdict was pure fabrication, and that's why no one has been able bothered to refute any of it.

[Nickymaster]

The Democrats should be calling on Abhisit to admit to his wrong doings. Why worry about someone who is not in power, they have enough to worry about in their own camp. It's a bit like the Pot calling the Kettle Black.

Well, some might argue he IS in pwer and that PT is only working for him and his family and NOT for the country...

[MILT]

It's time for Abhisit and Suthep to be HONEST and stand up for there's murder charges and wrongdoings!! Don't try to hide this behind Khun Thaksin.What he have done is "Peanuts" compare to Democratic party, PAD and coup maker's!!!

Abhisit and Suthep are still here in Thailand, not hiding in a desert sheikdom.

Stand by for the torrent of replies to your laughable statement.

Khun Thaksin............my rrrrrrs

Honesty? Murder charges? It seems that the Pardon Thaskin party (PTP) propaganda does get through to some, but not to all.

Thaskin is in this situation because he created it, Thinking he was above the law. Eliminating all independent agencies that were in place to have checks and balances. Disolving parliment and by the way he was acting PM not the PM. People forget the facts so easily but wind themselves around propoganda like a snake on a tree branch.

It is so easy to blame the dems for Thaskin and this Governments malfunctions. Thank God there are people like Abhisit in place to fight for justice and the rule of law. I don't see abhisit nor Suthep hiding like a scared rat in another country making trouble for this country. They are here to go through the the steps of justice.

I would have far more greater respect for Thaskin if he would simply come back to thailand and face his accusers. That is what the justice system is in place to do.

[fxe1200]

It's time for Abhisit and Suthep to be HONEST and stand up for there's murder charges and wrongdoings!! Don't try to hide this behind Khun Thaksin.What he have done is "Peanuts" compare to Democratic party, PAD and coup maker's!!!

And no charge for Thaksin for his role in the "War against drugs" with more than 2500 people killed without a fair trial. How about charges against the military for murder in Tak Bai 2004? Are these cases also peanuts?

[ogb]

Democrats don't seem to be concerned about the 'rule of law' during a crisis. Especially, when a crisis is the only way they get to run the country. That's why Abhisit refers to the coup as a 'military intervention'. It sounds so legal!

The Red Shirts had brought the capital to a standstill for weeks... grenades had been fired from within their area, the protesters on the outer edges of the protest had become increasingly violent and provocative. Red Shirt leaders were advocating burning down the capital - in no uncertain terms. It was madness, if you recall. The protesters made it clear that they they weren't leaving until the government stepped down (alongside a load of other ridiculous demands). A mob that in no way represented the majority (most of them fueled to a large degree by disinformation), was holding the whole country to ransom to demand "democracy" (their own unique form of it). Meanwhile, the pusillanimous egomaniac in Dubai was ranting like he was the keynote speaker at Nuremberg.

So my question is: If you were Prime minister in this situation, what exactly would you have done about it?

That's the point - he shouldn't have been PM - he was only there because of the coup process (military then judicial coups)

Both Abhisit & the redshirts knew that.

If Abhisit really believed in democracy he wouldn't have taken the position that was handed to him, or at the very least he should have gone to the electorate immediately to prove his legitimacy.

Redshirts were protesting about the injustice of how Abhisit was installed as PM, and the Thai people eventually proved that Abhisit was an illegitimate PM, as evidenced by the overwhelming result once the election was finally held.

[kannot]

you could rename the thread simply inserting " all of Thailand" and removing Thaksin.

[joy16]

Democrats don't seem to be concerned about the 'rule of law' during a crisis. Especially, when a crisis is the only way they get to run the country. That's why Abhisit refers to the coup as a 'military intervention'. It sounds so legal!

The Red Shirts had brought the capital to a standstill for weeks... grenades had been fired from within their area, the protesters on the outer edges of the protest had become increasingly violent and provocative. Red Shirt leaders were advocating burning down the capital - in no uncertain terms. It was madness, if you recall. The protesters made it clear that they they weren't leaving until the government stepped down (alongside a load of other ridiculous demands). A mob that in no way represented the majority (most of them fueled to a large degree by disinformation), was holding the whole country to ransom to demand "democracy" (their own unique form of it). Meanwhile, the pusillanimous egomaniac in Dubai was ranting like he was the keynote speaker at Nuremberg.

So my question is: If you were Prime minister in this situation, what exactly would you have done about it?

That's the point - he shouldn't have been PM - he was only there because of the coup process (military then judicial coups)

Both Abhisit & the redshirts knew that.

If Abhisit really believed in democracy he wouldn't have taken the position that was handed to him, or at the very least he should have gone to the electorate immediately to prove his legitimacy.

Redshirts were protesting about the injustice of how Abhisit was installed as PM, and the Thai people eventually proved that Abhisit was an illegitimate PM, as evidenced by the overwhelming result once the election was finally held.

Where did the information about Abhisit to be PM you get from?

The fact that he was elected to be a PM by a majority of members of the House of Representative (he won against Pracha Promnok) same as Somchai, Samak and the current PM. And this is the way to be the PM in Thailand.

[Pi Sek]

Democrats don't seem to be concerned about the 'rule of law' during a crisis. Especially, when a crisis is the only way they get to run the country. That's why Abhisit refers to the coup as a 'military intervention'. It sounds so legal!

The Red Shirts had brought the capital to a standstill for weeks... grenades had been fired from within their area, the protesters on the outer edges of the protest had become increasingly violent and provocative. Red Shirt leaders were advocating burning down the capital - in no uncertain terms. It was madness, if you recall. The protesters made it clear that they they weren't leaving until the government stepped down (alongside a load of other ridiculous demands). A mob that in no way represented the majority (most of them fueled to a large degree by disinformation), was holding the whole country to ransom to demand "democracy" (their own unique form of it). Meanwhile, the pusillanimous egomaniac in Dubai was ranting like he was the keynote speaker at Nuremberg.

So my question is: If you were Prime minister in this situation, what exactly would you have done about it?

That's the point - he shouldn't have been PM - he was only there because of the coup process (military then judicial coups)

Both Abhisit & the redshirts knew that.

If Abhisit really believed in democracy he wouldn't have taken the position that was handed to him, or at the very least he should have gone to the electorate immediately to prove his legitimacy.

Redshirts were protesting about the injustice of how Abhisit was installed as PM, and the Thai people eventually proved that Abhisit was an illegitimate PM, as evidenced by the overwhelming result once the election was finally held.

You do know that Abhisit was elected by those who elect Prime Ministers (i.e. the electorate, which is made up of Members of Parliament), right? So, after the electorate voted him in, why should he have gone to the electorate immediately to prove his legitimacy?

Can you explain how the "judicial coup" that ousted Somchai for electoral fraud (under rules from both the 1997 and the 2007 constitutions) had anything to do with why MPs elected Abhisit after PPP was dissolved?

If you can give decent answers to these questions, you will be doing your own argument a great service.

The Thai people in 2011 proved that they wanted a PTP-led government in 2011. It says nothing about whether Abhisit was a legitimate Prime Minister, all it says is that PTP won the election. There are many possible reasons for PTP winning the election, including the promise to make all Thais rich within 6 months and their promises that their actions will be for the country (not for one man). Their dwindling support over the last year or so suggests the public are not as impressed with their performance in 2013 as they were with their potential in 2011.

[waza]

Thaksin burned through two elected and one caretaker governments trying to railroad through his constitutional change so there wont be judicial system independent enough to challenge his interpretation of the rule of law. Looks like he may sacrifice the Yingluck puppet administration as well. So I doubt that he would take heed of the Dems.

[winstonc]

i need someone to tell me,if ts is innocent why doesnt he come back and fight the charges,,,,,,ANYONE,,because if i was innocent id want my 46billion back,wouldnt you,,,or am just being silly

Edited May 21, 2013 by winstonc

[hellodolly]

It's time for Abhisit and Suthep to be HONEST and stand up for there's murder charges and wrongdoings!! Don't try to hide this behind Khun Thaksin.What he have done is "Peanuts" compare to Democratic party, PAD and coup maker's!!!

Until red shirts can admit their mistakes they will always be losers. for ever running around carrying on about the world being against them and the unfairness of it all. Ad nauseam

It wouldn't be so bad if they had 10% truth and facts.

But that would not serve their ends.

I bet they just ate this one up

"The remarks came in response to the fugitive ex-leader's claims that

accusations made during the post-coup Assets Examination Committee

(AEC)'s investigation against him were unfair."

Note that he did not say they were illegal.

My money says that would be to complicated for them to understand.

[AleG]

There are no cleanskins in Thai politics, but the major difference is Thaksin gets his power from the people whilst Abhisit got his from the military++

Someone who gets power from the people can be removed by the people when they are sick of him, but how do you remove the military++ ?

Even by your own "logic" you fail, "Abhisit got his (power) from the military++", then you say only people voted in can be removed by the electorate.

Thaksin was removed by the military after most people were sick of him but he refused to let go of the premiership (as he had promised) by reinstating himself as PM after dissolving parliament and calling sham elections riddled with electoral frauds. Obviously the people had no power to vote him out at that stage.

Abhisit on the other hand stepped down graciously after the last election.

I suggest you readjust your perception of reality and historical facts.

[khunken]

Meanwhile, in his speech to the red shirts, Thaksin claimed that a
member of the National Anti-Corruption Commission had sought bribes from
him in 1999 in relation to the share-concealment case, but he refused
to pay.

This is a very good example of his distortion of the truth & probably an outright lie.

How much were the judges paid to get him out of his lie about his assets? The 'honest mistake' which, under the 1997 constitution should have barred him from politics.

Never a mention of his lawyers' attempt to bribe the judges in his criminal case of conflict of interest. The one he did a runner from. Whose money was being used? Really hard to tell.

Yes the rule of law is disrespected, ignored & abused in Thailand. The first place to start in changing the mind-set is politicians in power. The ordinary Thai in the street is not going to respect the law when his/her 'elected' MP is on the take. Mr T has taken more than anyone else.

[rijb]

There are no cleanskins in Thai politics, but the major difference is Thaksin gets his power from the people whilst Abhisit got his from the military++

Someone who gets power from the people can be removed by the people when they are sick of him, but how do you remove the military++ ?

Even by your own "logic" you fail, "Abhisit got his (power) from the military++", then you say only people voted in can be removed by the electorate.

Thaksin was removed by the military after most people were sick of him but he refused to let go of the premiership (as he had promised) by reinstating himself as PM after dissolving parliament and calling sham elections riddled with electoral frauds. Obviously the people had no power to vote him out at that stage.

Abhisit on the other hand stepped down graciously after the last election.

I suggest you readjust your perception of reality and historical facts.

"most people" = rich Bangkok Thais and some very influential friends...

[khunken]

There are no cleanskins in Thai politics, but the major difference is Thaksin gets his power from the people whilst Abhisit got his from the military++

Someone who gets power from the people can be removed by the people when they are sick of him, but how do you remove the military++ ?

Even by your own "logic" you fail, "Abhisit got his (power) from the military++", then you say only people voted in can be removed by the electorate.

Thaksin was removed by the military after most people were sick of him but he refused to let go of the premiership (as he had promised) by reinstating himself as PM after dissolving parliament and calling sham elections riddled with electoral frauds. Obviously the people had no power to vote him out at that stage.

Abhisit on the other hand stepped down graciously after the last election.

I suggest you readjust your perception of reality and historical facts.

"most people" = rich Bangkok Thais and some very influential friends...

No, most Thais. There were virtually no protests (unlike previous coups) until Thaksin organised his red employees to create mayhem in 2009 & 2010.

[Robby nz]

rich Bangkok Thais and some very influential friends...

You mean like Yingluck and a fair bit of her unelected cabinet?

[rijb]

No suicidal protests against a deployed army does not equal a country-wide quorum.