Complaint accuses 2 Democrats of tarnishing Thailand's image

[ginjag]

This complaint, has to be the biggest joke in history on TVF. in fact it WILL be embarrassing to some Government coalition members

Keep these stupid statements going and your days will be numbered, not if you rich fat cats care though

[khunken]

Ironic that they complained to the Ombudsman. This is the organisation that issues repeated naughty naughty letters to the government about Surapong's delivery of Thaksin's passport.

How many times? I've lost count.

I don't think the two accused Democrats will be losing any sleep.

[MikeOboe57]

The PTP speaker was at fault.

If he was indeed feeling threatened, he should have closed the proceedings and left the house.

By calling in the police to form a human shield around him he expressly tried to intimidate the opposition.

Also he wanted the police to remove soma MP's from the house, clearly meant to silence the protests from the opposition

The most stupid thing, he degraded the law-giving body of the country to being under the control of a law enforcing body.

And what is more, he showed the world that the Thai parliament is treated by the coalition majority as a body to enforce rules and laws only meant to be profitable for their own sake.

And not for all the people.

Very shamefull.

No. The Speaker should not give in to intimidation, which is what the MPs were trying to do. The Speaker was not seeking to indtimidate anyone, but was taking the appropriate measures to ensure that he could carry on in his duty despite the behaviour of the aggressive parties.

How can you argue that the Speaker "degraded (sic) the country by being under the control of a law enforcing body"? Do you not understand that the police did precisely what the law says, and that is to enforce the existing civil laws and to PROTECT law abiding officials. Who would you expect to be responsible for law enforcement? Abhisit's courtiers? The police officers acted in a lawful manner to protect the institution of government from a violent assault. This is what they do in all parliamentary democracies.

What is shameful is your view of expecting a legislative body to shut down operations because a small number of deputies become abusive and violent. Run and hide if you want, but the government must continue to function. It cannot suspend operations every time a dissenting MP has a tantrum for show.

The hack lawyer at work. Riot police in the Parliament, prepared before the event by the House Speaker. Fascist style , Nazi model.

And you blame the MPs for defending their right of free speech, cut by the House Speaker, against Thai SA?

I guess we have to revise our opinion that the Thais know nothing about Adolf Hitler and the 3rd Reich. It seems that at least some do.

[tingtongteesood]

After the crap the red shirts pulled a few years back, I would say there is very very VERY little good image left to be tarnished which when combined with the crimes against foreigners of late mean that the good image is like most things here - FAKE ! But as long as there is cheap booze and easy sex I am sure the 'quality tourists' will continue to take their chances and risk coming here.

[kimamey]

I suppose they have every right to make a complaint if they feel they should. What will be interesting is whether the Ombudsman get as quick a result as he has when asking about a certain persons passport which I believe is in the middle of another 30 days limit to answer questions.

[Thai at Heart]

Why do Thais find it so easy to be hypocrites.

By merely making the accusation you could be tarnishing Thailand's image

Is it illegal to tarnish Thailand's image?

[johnnie20110]

I suppose they have every right to make a complaint if they feel they should. What will be interesting is whether the Ombudsman get as quick a result as he has when asking about a certain persons passport which I believe is in the middle of another 30 days limit to answer questions.

We're at Day 359 from when Yingluck was told to revoke the illegally issued passport to her brother.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Democrats-urge-PM-to-take-Ombudsmans-advice-on-Tha-30190484.html

[geriatrickid]

Oh yes and we always seem to forget that the red shirts do the very same thing too when there's something that doesn't go their way.

I am unaware of any "redshirt" MP attempting to do bodily harm upon a speaker of the House, such that police officers protecting the Speaker were assaulted.

However, if such an event were to occur, the MPs should be subject to a similar disciplinary investigation as the MPs in this current incident.

It is rather pathetic that the only excuse some people in TVF can offer is to say, but the Redshirts did it. That isn't how civil society works, nor how laws are enforced and maintained. If a "redshirt" commits a criminal act or assaults a government official then the appropriate legal remedies should be applied. However, the alleged misbehaviours of other groups and parties isn't an excuse for ongoing inappropriate activity.

Edited August 29, 2013 by geriatrickid

[geriatrickid]

I suppose they have every right to make a complaint if they feel they should. What will be interesting is whether the Ombudsman get as quick a result as he has when asking about a certain persons passport which I believe is in the middle of another 30 days limit to answer questions.

We're at Day 359 from when Yingluck was told to revoke the illegally issued passport to her brother.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Democrats-urge-PM-to-take-Ombudsmans-advice-on-Tha-30190484.html

No we are not.

There was NO order given.

The ombudsman's office gave a non binding recommendation worded as a SUGGESTION. If there had been an order, the Democrats and military junta sympathizers would have brought legal action to enforce the order.

The post is another example of the misleading statements which speak to the character of the foreigners who constantly criticize the government.

.

Edited August 29, 2013 by geriatrickid

[Pimay1]

I suppose they have every right to make a complaint if they feel they should. What will be interesting is whether the Ombudsman get as quick a result as he has when asking about a certain persons passport which I believe is in the middle of another 30 days limit to answer questions.

We're at Day 359 from when Yingluck was told to revoke the illegally issued passport to her brother.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Democrats-urge-PM-to-take-Ombudsmans-advice-on-Tha-30190484.html

No we are not.

There was NO order given.

The ombudsman's office gave a non binding recommendation worded as a SUGGESTION. If there had been an order, the Democrats and military junta sympathizers would have brought legal action to enforce the order.

The post is another example of the misleading statements which speak to the character of the foreigners who constantly criticize the government.

.

the Ombudsman's Office submitted a recommendation on September 13 last year that the Foreign Ministry review Thaksin's passport status, as issuance to a convicted felon was illegal.

I wouldn't call this recommendation a suggestion. I think that might be a bit if a stretch.

[Nickymaster]

I suppose they have every right to make a complaint if they feel they should. What will be interesting is whether the Ombudsman get as quick a result as he has when asking about a certain persons passport which I believe is in the middle of another 30 days limit to answer questions.

We're at Day 359 from when Yingluck was told to revoke the illegally issued passport to her brother.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Democrats-urge-PM-to-take-Ombudsmans-advice-on-Tha-30190484.html

No we are not.

There was NO order given.

The ombudsman's office gave a non binding recommendation worded as a SUGGESTION. If there had been an order, the Democrats and military junta sympathizers would have brought legal action to enforce the order.

The post is another example of the misleading statements which speak to the character of the foreigners who constantly criticize the government.

.

Returning a passport to a criminal fugitive who has sponsored and ordered his followers to commit acts of terrorism which resulted in the loss of many lifes is wrong. Since the foreign minister is Thaksin's cousin it's understandable that they will employ every trick in the world not to revoke it.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Nickymaster

[bigbamboo]

I suppose they have every right to make a complaint if they feel they should. What will be interesting is whether the Ombudsman get as quick a result as he has when asking about a certain persons passport which I believe is in the middle of another 30 days limit to answer questions.

We're at Day 359 from when Yingluck was told to revoke the illegally issued passport to her brother.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Democrats-urge-PM-to-take-Ombudsmans-advice-on-Tha-30190484.html

No we are not.

There was NO order given.

The ombudsman's office gave a non binding recommendation worded as a SUGGESTION. If there had been an order, the Democrats and military junta sympathizers would have brought legal action to enforce the order.

The post is another example of the misleading statements which speak to the character of the foreigners who constantly criticize the government.

.

the Ombudsman's Office submitted a recommendation on September 13 last year that the Foreign Ministry review Thaksin's passport status, as issuance to a convicted felon was illegal.

I wouldn't call this recommendation a suggestion. I think that might be a bit if a stretch.

One person's order is another's suggestion........ like obeying the law or just stopping at red traffic lights.

[CUNJU]

They're a little late, the Image has been tarnished for years!

[indyuk]

God save Thailand from these hateful politicians that engage in hyper chloritic banter in the parliament, in the press and on the streets.

Please re educate them that they understand that the place for their childish banter is during parliamentary sessions on the issues at hand, where extremes of behavior may be moderated.

I see no difference in the behavior of any of the political parties in Thailand.

Edited August 29, 2013 by indyuk

[johnnie20110]

I suppose they have every right to make a complaint if they feel they should. What will be interesting is whether the Ombudsman get as quick a result as he has when asking about a certain persons passport which I believe is in the middle of another 30 days limit to answer questions.

We're at Day 359 from when Yingluck was told to revoke the illegally issued passport to her brother.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Democrats-urge-PM-to-take-Ombudsmans-advice-on-Tha-30190484.html

No we are not.

There was NO order given.

The ombudsman's office gave a non binding recommendation worded as a SUGGESTION.

The post is another example of the misleading statements which speak to the character of the foreigners who constantly criticize the government.

Yes, we are. Stop trying to deceive people.

No one said it was an "order".

As anyone familiar with the Ombudsman Office would know (presumably that excludes you), they don't give orders.

It was a recommendation based upon reasonable thought processes and the Foreign Ministry's own regulations.

To wit, new passports are not issued to convicted fugitives.

Anyone with common sense (presumably that excludes you) would never attempt to dispute the simple, clear-cut, straight-forward regulation.

As for time frames, it began in September 2012 and was followed up in February 2013 with:

Ombudsman hands Foreign Ministry ultimatum over Thaksin's passport

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Ombudsman-hands-Foreign-Ministry-ultimatum-over-Th-30200067.html

with multiple similar subsequent follow-ups.

Through out all 359 days of this ordeal, the government has refused to even respond to the directive, despite many deadlines being established by the Ombudsman which have all been subsequently ignored by Yingluck's administration.

They don't respond because they know they don't have a leg to stand on.

Even they know it's senseless to try and defend the indefensible.

.

Edited August 29, 2013 by johnnie20110

[Robby nz]

I see Gerry has twisted this into the red version so it will probably be of value if we look at what did actually happen.

Before the debate began there was a list drawn up of MP's who wanted to speak to the debate.

On that list were, I understand 57 Dem MP's as well as Govt MP's, it was agreed that all those on the list would be given a chance to speak.

The speaker apparently changed the order of speakers on the list and let all the Govt supporting MP"s speak first.

Then after, I think the number was reported as 6, opposition MP's had spoken the speaker decided there should be no more debate.

In other words he denied the opposition MP's their right to speak.

The reason he gave for this was that he was bored.

He then put it to a vote that all debate should stop, this of course was passed as PT have a big majority.

That was when the Dem MP"s got angry for not being allowed their democratic right to speak on the motion and stood up complained bitterly in no uncertain terms to the speaker.

Note none of them tried to attack the speaker with anything but words.

The speaker then told the police to evict the Dems who were making a fuss about not being allowed to speak.

The police at first did nothing but when the speaker threatened them ( that's right the speaker threatened the police) they approached the Dems and attempted to throw them out 'physically'.

The Dem MP"s resisted and a scuffle broke out,

Note; the MP's did not approach and attack the police, it was the police who approached the Dems and started to manhandle them.

The speaker was then accused of calling in riot police who had arrived outside parliament building.

The speaker then lied, note lied, that there were no riot police only traffic police.

So if any reputation has been tarnished it would be that of the speaker who first refused to let the opposition speak in a debate.

He did not have the ability to control the house without the use of force from the police.

He also threatened the police, then lied about riot police being called.

Childish behavior has been mentioned, if you don't get your way you threaten then when caught out lie.

Tell us what were the opposition MP's supposed to do when they had been denied their previously arranged right to speak?

[ableguy]

What a nest of clowns we have bleeding the country dry,

[ableguy]

God save Thailand from these hateful politicians that engage in hyper chloritic banter in the parliament, in the press and on the streets.

Please re educate them that they understand that the place for their childish banter is during parliamentary sessions on the issues at hand, where extremes of behavior may be moderated.

I see no difference in the behavior of any of the political parties in Thailand.

Is hyper chloritic banter a sex offence ??????

[ridkun]

...and finally they will blame the judge for not agreeing with their absurd accusation.