'Strong backing' for scrapping Thai coup-makers' immunity

[whybother]

" yes but first you need to establish democracy" OK here's some democracy for you...

1. In January Thaksin had a sweeping victory at the polls winning a larger popular mandate (40%) than any Thai prime minister has ever had in freely elected national assembly.

2.Thaksin won a majority in election in February 2005 giving him a second consecutive term.

3.In February 2006 Thaksin called for a snap election in April, the opposition boycotted the elections causing the constitutional court to latter nullify the results, another election was scheduled for October 2006

.

4.On 19 September with the prime minister in New York for a meeting of the United nations general assembly, Army commander-in-chief launched a coup ''d'état, the October elections were canceled the 1997 constitution was abrogated Parliament was dissolved Thaksin's diplomatic passport was cancelled.

5. General election December 2007 the People Power Party won the majority of seats parliament and democratic rule was restored...

you know the rest mate,

Like I said no coup no immunity or calls for cancellations.

3. Thaksin called a snap election only 12 months after winning a majority of seats in the 2005 election. Why did he do that? So that he could push through law changes to sell his company to Temasek. The CC nullified the results because the Election Commission set up the voting booths so that there was no privacy, not because of the boycott by the Democrats. Thaksin's diplomatic passport was cancelled in January 2007 after his supporters were linked to the New Year bombings.

4. The care-taker prime minister was in New York. There was no PM, since Thaksin stood down when calling the 2006 election.

5. The PPP didn't win a majority of seats. They needed the support of smaller parties to form government (some of which had campaigned that they wouldn't join with PPP).

[mrtoad]

This from the man who wants to absolve himself from any responsibility for the deaths, injuries and destruction caused by the red shirts riots he helped lead.

But then he doesn't accept any responsibility for his actions so why the need for absolution?

Agreed totally. The hypocrisy of Weng, and his thugs knows no bounds. Three cheers for Red Shirt Democracy.

[aussieinthailand]

Ok well I guess you could contact Wikipedia and clarify this

[whybother]

Ok well I guess you could contact Wikipedia and clarify this

Which part do you want clarity on?

[aussieinthailand]

Ok well I guess you could contact Wikipedia and clarify this

Which part do you want clarity on?

Possibly if you take a read on this subject at Wikipedia, (history of Thailand since 1973), at the of the page you are invited to clarify any part you think you have a more accurate facts on and then we can all be as informed of the facts as you plainly think you are

[h90]

At the end of the day if the military stayed out of it and let democracy take it's course then there would not be any immunity or cancellation of it in question.

The Thaksin bashers keep (forgetting) that, or maybe they do support a little coup here and there when it suits them which would be any time they loose yet another election.

I just sayin

yes but first you need to establish democracy. They coup maker tried that with the new constitution, which gives the people more rights, establish independent agencies and improves the separation of power.

Unfortunately the constitution is faulty and does nothing efficient against vote buying.

So how to get democracy first. I don't expect that the undemocratic government will do anything to establish democracy. So you need an event, a revolution, a coup...something.

Better having a coup than having the Shinawattra clan making Thailand their private property, similar to North Korea.

As far as I am aware the route to democracy does not include the right to tear up a constitution written by the citizens of that country ( a fact disregarded by the Constitutional Court when holding up the Military written constitution as a shining example of how to do it to the PTP - did they have a chance at a referendum before the Army wrote the new Constitution?) and then holding a rigged referendum (a large number of provinces under military rule and no "No" campaigning, amongst other blocks to a free vote) that upheld their new version with an inbuilt amnesty clause.

Do you honestly believe the Constitution was to help the people of Thailand?

the 1997 constitution was not written by the citizens and was never in a referendum.....and there were no indication that the referendum was rigged.

And I didn't hear that your PTP want to hold a referendum on their changes.

[h90]

At the end of the day if the military stayed out of it and let democracy take it's course then there would not be any immunity or cancellation of it in question.

The Thaksin bashers keep (forgetting) that, or maybe they do support a little coup here and there when it suits them which would be any time they loose yet another election.

I just sayin

yes but first you need to establish democracy. They coup maker tried that with the new constitution, which gives the people more rights, establish independent agencies and improves the separation of power.

Unfortunately the constitution is faulty and does nothing efficient against vote buying.

So how to get democracy first. I don't expect that the undemocratic government will do anything to establish democracy. So you need an event, a revolution, a coup...something.

Better having a coup than having the Shinawattra clan making Thailand their private property, similar to North Korea.

" yes but first you need to establish democracy" OK here's some democracy for you...

1. In January Thaksin had a sweeping victory at the polls winning a larger popular mandate (40%) than any Thai prime minister has ever had in freely elected national assembly.

2.Thaksin won a majority in election in February 2005 giving him a second consecutive term.

3.In February 2006 Thaksin called for a snap election in April, the opposition boycotted the elections causing the constitutional court to latter nullify the results, another election was scheduled for October 2006

.

4.On 19 September with the prime minister in New York for a meeting of the United nations general assembly, Army commander-in-chief launched a coup ''d'état, the October elections were canceled the 1997 constitution was abrogated Parliament was dissolved Thaksin's diplomatic passport was cancelled.

5. General election December 2007 the People Power Party won the majority of seats parliament and democratic rule was restored...

you know the rest mate,

Like I said no coup no immunity or calls for cancellations.

on purpose you forgot to fill in some details. Like that that there were so many "no votes" that the parliament didn't had enough people. His cronies in the EC broke the constitution.

He was caretaker PM and the caretaker time was expired.

there are hundreds of court cases against Thaksin for abuse of power, for corruption, etc etc.. And he run from it when on bail even his PPP was in power at this time (and not the army).

The coup was triggered by strong rumors that he ordered the border police to shoot at demonstrators while he is out of the country (if it is true or not, no one can say).

The coup maker called for general elections as the promised and did not rig the elections to their favor.

[whybother]

Ok well I guess you could contact Wikipedia and clarify this

Which part do you want clarity on?

Possibly if you take a read on this subject at Wikipedia, (history of Thailand since 1973), at the of the page you are invited to clarify any part you think you have a more accurate facts on and then we can all be as informed of the facts as you plainly think you are

I just highlighted a couple of corrections to your post. If you think one of my points is incorrect, let me know which one, and I will provide more information, even wiki links if you want.

But seeing as you believe Wikipedia so much.

- The elections were finally declared invalid by Thailand's Constitutional Court, which found that the positioning of the voting booths violated voter privacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2006#Disputing_the_election_result

- Thaksin wasn't the Prime Minister when the coup occurred. He stood down when he called the 2006 election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2006#Background. He was never elected PM after that.

- PPP didn't win a majority of seats in the 2007 election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2007

[h90]

Ok well I guess you could contact Wikipedia and clarify this

Which part do you want clarity on?

Possibly if you take a read on this subject at Wikipedia, (history of Thailand since 1973), at the of the page you are invited to clarify any part you think you have a more accurate facts on and then we can all be as informed of the facts as you plainly think you are

I just highlighted a couple of corrections to your post. If you think one of my points is incorrect, let me know which one, and I will provide more information, even wiki links if you want.

But seeing as you believe Wikipedia so much.

- The elections were finally declared invalid by Thailand's Constitutional Court, which found that the positioning of the voting booths violated voter privacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2006#Disputing_the_election_result

- Thaksin wasn't the Prime Minister when the coup occurred. He stood down when he called the 2006 election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2006#Background. He was never elected PM after that.

- PPP didn't win a majority of seats in the 2007 election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2007

Just to add: ASTV showed what Thaksins wife voted as proof how bad the voting booths are.

only rubber stamped votes were legal, which many thought is for easier rigging the election.

The boxes were not counted at the place, instead TAXIs (which are mostly Thaksin supporters) were to bring it to the counting places.

In total very strange regulations.....

[aussieinthailand]

Ummm Whybother,

you should have another read of just what I did & DID NOT write, then you could have saved 5 mins of your life inaccurately replying to my comment...

1.I didn't say Thaksin was prime minister at the time of the coup,

2.and yu'p I did say the cc did nullify the results, I didn't say why,

3.and my fine friend I did not say Thaksin was elected in the 2007

and yu'p I don't think that Wikipedia is the be all and end all, but I would suggest that they have printed the facts as best known at the time WITHOUT bias

that's why I said at the top of the Wikipedia page there is the invitation to clarify any parts of the information given.

cheers mate

[whybother]

Ummm Whybother,

you should have another read of just what I did & DID NOT write, then you could have saved 5 mins of your life inaccurately replying to my comment...

1.I didn't say Thaksin was prime minister at the time of the coup,

2.and yu'p I did say the cc did nullify the results, I didn't say why,

3.and my fine friend I did not say Thaksin was elected in the 2007

and yu'p I don't think that Wikipedia is the be all and end all, but I would suggest that they have printed the facts as best known at the time WITHOUT bias

that's why I said at the top of the Wikipedia page there is the invitation to clarify any parts of the information given.

cheers mate

Maybe you should have a read of just what you DID say.

You said:

"On 19 September with the prime minister in New York for a meeting of the United nations". When did the coup occur? Thaksin wasn't PM then.

"the opposition boycotted the elections causing the constitutional court to latter nullify the results". Causing ... that looks like "why" to me.

Neither of us said anything about Thaksin being elected in 2007! You said PPP got a majority, which they didn't.

If you're going to cut and paste from Wiki, you should make sure it's correct first. What you originally posted wasn't correct.

[khunken]

Ummm Whybother,

you should have another read of just what I did & DID NOT write, then you could have saved 5 mins of your life inaccurately replying to my comment...

1.I didn't say Thaksin was prime minister at the time of the coup,

2.and yu'p I did say the cc did nullify the results, I didn't say why,

3.and my fine friend I did not say Thaksin was elected in the 2007

and yu'p I don't think that Wikipedia is the be all and end all, but I would suggest that they have printed the facts as best known at the time WITHOUT bias

that's why I said at the top of the Wikipedia page there is the invitation to clarify any parts of the information given.

cheers mate

From your post No 28:

4.On 19 September with the prime minister in New York for a meeting of the United nations general assembly...............

But you did say Thaksin was PM at the time of the coup. I think that rather blows your credibility out of the water & doesn't really deserve the self applause.

Weng is a maverick red shirt leader, just like his wife - the reluctant leader. What he has proposed hasn't a snowball's chance of success as Thaksin's rather more important acolyte - Tarit - has made it clear that the military would not be accountable for any incidents where they shot at innocents or guilty parties. Only Abhisit & Suthep are targeted in a so far failed attempt to get them to approve an amnesty for the DL.

Of course there have been other attempts by PTP & red shirts to completely abrogate the results of the coup. This had nothing to do with the military but everything to do with getting Mr T's conviction and the raft of other cases pending - cancelled.

Strong backing my arse. They were afraid to put a constitution rewrite to a referendum because of a fear of a loss.

[aussieinthailand]

Just where did I say in my post (28# as you claim) did I say Thaksin was the PM at the time of the coup,

now it's you credibility that's blown out of the water...

have another crack sunshine

[whybother]

Just where did I say in my post (28# as you claim) did I say Thaksin was the PM at the time of the coup,

now it's you credibility that's blown out of the water...

have another crack sunshine

"4.On 19 September with the prime minister in New York for a meeting of the United nations general assembly, Army commander-in-chief launched a coup ''d'état, the October elections were canceled the 1997 constitution was abrogated Parliament was dissolved Thaksin's diplomatic passport was cancelled."

On 19 September (ie when the coup happened) Thaksin was in New York for a meeting with the UN. Were you talking about some other "prime minister"?

Keep digging.

[jayboy]

Ok well I guess you could contact Wikipedia and clarify this

Which part do you want clarity on?

Possibly if you take a read on this subject at Wikipedia, (history of Thailand since 1973), at the of the page you are invited to clarify any part you think you have a more accurate facts on and then we can all be as informed of the facts as you plainly think you are

I just highlighted a couple of corrections to your post. If you think one of my points is incorrect, let me know which one, and I will provide more information, even wiki links if you want.

But seeing as you believe Wikipedia so much.

- The elections were finally declared invalid by Thailand's Constitutional Court, which found that the positioning of the voting booths violated voter privacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2006#Disputing_the_election_result

- Thaksin wasn't the Prime Minister when the coup occurred. He stood down when he called the 2006 election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2006#Background. He was never elected PM after that.

- PPP didn't win a majority of seats in the 2007 election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2007

Unbelievable that some of the usual suspects are still peddling the tired old line that Thaksin wasn't PM at the time of the coup.Difficult to get behind this kind of muddled thought process.Are they saying that because of the constitutional procedures involved (ie Thaksin standing down before the election) the coup somehow was ok and Thaksin has nothing to complain about? Does anybody but a few old expats still think this is significant and that the coup was not designed to overthrow Thaksin? Nobody else does.Certainly the people involved in the planning and execution of the coup don't for a moment deny the object was to eject Thaksin).Are these usual suspects entirely balanced on this matter?

Edited October 10, 2013 by jayboy

[monkeycountry]

This may deter future coups. However, if it doesn't, and there is a future coup afterall, it may just as well deter those behind a future coup from giving power back to the people, knowing that there is no guarantee they will not be punished for the coup.

In other words, it is a gamble. It reduces the risk/chance of future coups, but if there is indeed a future coup, it also reduces the chance that those behind it will ever step down.

[animatic]

Ehhh, it was the yellow shirt backed military that is responsible for the coup, the murders, injuries, and destruction, because they had the bullets from sniper rifles and tanks,

and that is why they want to keep the immunity!!! no big surprise there huh.

I wonder just when people will stop trying to re-write history

And Weng tried the same with AK47 armed red shirts but failed.....Causing a lot deaths.

While no one died on the Army coup.

OOHHH really you think??? try a little history lesson, October 6th 1976,

I doubt he meant this coup....

He clearly meant the Thaksin coup in 2006 and not the '76 one. While there were a few deaths in street fights leading up to that coup, and from night grenading the PAD encampment at Gov House, likely set in motion by Sae Daeng, there were surprisingly few at the actual time of the 2006 coup, at most a handful. Not to minimise any death of course.

[aussieinthailand]

Just where did I say in my post (28# as you claim) did I say Thaksin was the PM at the time of the coup,

now it's you credibility that's blown out of the water...

have another crack sunshine

"4.On 19 September with the prime minister in New York for a meeting of the United nations general assembly, Army commander-in-chief launched a coup ''d'état, the October elections were canceled the 1997 constitution was abrogated Parliament was dissolved Thaksin's diplomatic passport was cancelled."

On 19 September (ie when the coup happened) Thaksin was in New York for a meeting with the UN. Were you talking about some other "prime minister"?

Keep digging.

Yet again my friend you have NOT shown that I said Thaksin was PM at the time of the coup, but ok we'll try for the third time,

Q. Where did I say that Thaksin was the PM at the time of the coup??? I DID NOT,,, I said that the PM, was New York,,, so it seems to me that you are reading some other thing into my post 28# aren't you. if you want to quote me or say that I said something then get the words right, cause so far you haven't.

you ready for third time lucky???

[aussieinthailand]

the thing is that it is said here by many people that Thaksin stood down as PM, so that being said, just what position do you now contend that Thaksin had or was in at the time of the coup? if as you say he was in NY for the meeting then where oh where is the real PM, please stand up, please stand up, please stand up.

[rubl]

the thing is that it is said here by many people that Thaksin stood down as PM, so that being said, just what position do you now contend that Thaksin had or was in at the time of the coup? if as you say he was in NY for the meeting then where oh where is the real PM, please stand up, please stand up, please stand up.

The 'real' PM is in Bali, Brunei according to a topic here. Mind you that has nothing to do with the topic of 'strong backing' for scrapping Thai coup-makers' immunity. Interesting is the fact that the head coup maker who with his party joined the Pheu Thai led government in 2011 is also a strong proponent for the Pheu Thai proposed 'amnesty' for all deserving.

[Robby nz]

The great defender jboy is back again although the insults arent up to the usual standard.

Unbelievable that some of the usual suspects are still peddling the tired old line that Thaksin wasn't PM at the time of the coup.Difficult to get behind this kind of muddled thought process.Are they saying that because of the constitutional procedures involved (ie Thaksin standing down before the election) the coup somehow was ok and Thaksin has nothing to complain about? Does anybody but a few old expats still think this is significant and that the coup was not designed to overthrow Thaksin? Nobody else does.Certainly the people involved in the planning and execution of the coup don't for a moment deny the object was to eject Thaksin).Are these usual suspects entirely balanced on this matter?

It is true that Thaksin was not PM at the time of the coup only a stand in for the job and as the term as stand in had expired he was not even that.

Sure the coup was to get rid of Thaksin but it was more to restore some sort of democracy to the country which, you should note, happened when the army held elections.

You should also note that the army accepted the result of those elections even though they were won by a Thaksin proxy party.

If the coup had been solely to get rid of Thaksin, as you claim, then why would the army accept a result which brought him back into power, if not in person then as controller?

Whether any coup can be justified is a matter of contention and that would, in this case, be up to the Thai people and not me to say.

However I was here at the time and saw how well the army was received by the people and how little military presence there was where I lived. (Hua hin)

Incidentally without all the deaths, injuries and destruction claimed by the aussie poster on the first page.

[whybother]

Unbelievable that some of the usual suspects are still peddling the tired old line that Thaksin wasn't PM at the time of the coup.Difficult to get behind this kind of muddled thought process.Are they saying that because of the constitutional procedures involved (ie Thaksin standing down before the election) the coup somehow was ok and Thaksin has nothing to complain about? Does anybody but a few old expats still think this is significant and that the coup was not designed to overthrow Thaksin? Nobody else does.Certainly the people involved in the planning and execution of the coup don't for a moment deny the object was to eject Thaksin).Are these usual suspects entirely balanced on this matter?

<deleted> are you going on about? How do you go from Thaksin not being PM to the coup being OK? You're the one with the muddled thoughts.

I have never said that the coup was OK or that it wasn't to get Thaksin out. I would just like some people to actually get their "facts" right.

[hammered]

Anyone who believes in democracy will support this. It is a good test of those who do and do not. Whatever your poltical differences, a coup is never the answer among democratically aligned political parties. Period. It is also another chance for the Democrats to actually make good on a hideous error they made before. Interesting.

[whybother]

Just where did I say in my post (28# as you claim) did I say Thaksin was the PM at the time of the coup,

now it's you credibility that's blown out of the water...

have another crack sunshine

"4.On 19 September with the prime minister in New York for a meeting of the United nations general assembly, Army commander-in-chief launched a coup ''d'état, the October elections were canceled the 1997 constitution was abrogated Parliament was dissolved Thaksin's diplomatic passport was cancelled."

On 19 September (ie when the coup happened) Thaksin was in New York for a meeting with the UN. Were you talking about some other "prime minister"?

Keep digging.

Yet again my friend you have NOT shown that I said Thaksin was PM at the time of the coup, but ok we'll try for the third time,

Q. Where did I say that Thaksin was the PM at the time of the coup??? I DID NOT,,, I said that the PM, was New York,,, so it seems to me that you are reading some other thing into my post 28# aren't you. if you want to quote me or say that I said something then get the words right, cause so far you haven't.

you ready for third time lucky???

Right. You said "the PM was in New York" for a meeting with the UN, which just by coincidence was where Thaksin happened to be also meeting with the UN.

Which "PM" were you talking about if not Thaksin? Were there two "PM"s of Thailand at the time?

Dig some more.

[whybother]

This may deter future coups. However, if it doesn't, and there is a future coup afterall, it may just as well deter those behind a future coup from giving power back to the people, knowing that there is no guarantee they will not be punished for the coup.

In other words, it is a gamble. It reduces the risk/chance of future coups, but if there is indeed a future coup, it also reduces the chance that those behind it will ever step down.

How will it deter future coups? It's not like there were laws that allowed coups when the last coup happened, or that there is a law there now that will allow future coups.

If (when?) there is a coup in the future, don't you think they will just add a clause to their new constitution giving them immunity, just as they did in 2006/7?

But, besides that, I wonder if the removal of this clause will lead to the coup makers of 2006 to actually be prosecuted?

[ballpoint]

I wonder if the coup leader, General Sonthi, will use his parliamentary immunity, as a member of the PTP's governing coalition, when this bill is passed and the DSI seek his arrest?

[Spare]

I smell another coup already

[Local Drunk]

No one has been brought to justice here even before or since the Oct 6th massacre of 1976. Why should things change now?

Edited October 10, 2013 by Local Drunk

[whybother]

the thing is that it is said here by many people that Thaksin stood down as PM, so that being said, just what position do you now contend that Thaksin had or was in at the time of the coup? if as you say he was in NY for the meeting then where oh where is the real PM, please stand up, please stand up, please stand up.

Thaksin was care-taker PM, and there was a lot of complaints with him going to New York since he was only care-taker PM.

There was no PM because after the election, which Thaksin had won comfortably, there weren't enough MPs elected for parliament to elect a new PM. Because the Democrats and some smaller parties had boycotted the election, there were some electorates where the TRT candidate was the only one standing, and to be elected in that case, they need to get more that 20% of the vote ... which they failed to do.

[hammered]

I smell another coup already

Mmmm. Who apart from some extreme authoritarians with virtually no support wants to see a coup? It could be an abject disaster. The last one has now been written off as a failure. I doubt any general would fancy leading another one