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

[Local Drunk]

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

Agreed... no one want's to see another coup or another flood like 2011. On the other hand, no one wants to see business a usual with the government. The people of Thailand are weary of all three.

[indyuk]

It would be better for Thailand if everybody that broke the law during the Red revolution be prosecuted and if convicted punished in accordance with the Laws of Thailand. That should

apply to the demonstrators right now too, follow the instructions of the police or spend a day or so in the cooler.

As we can see the Truth and Reconciliation process can never work in Thailand

because the Thai people that commit these kinds of hooligan attacks on public building and

those that try to control them seem to have no respect for anyone or their property.

What a hot headed Thai does at times like this is to abuse the very freedoms that they claim

to be protecting. A few months in prison may reform them from thuggery and disregard for the

safety of the people.

[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.

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.

OK so now finally do you accept that you MISS QUOTED me,, that I did NOT say Thaksin was PM at the time of the coup??? NOR did I sat he was care-taker PM...

SO sunshine If you want to quote people then get your fact's right first because now, like I said it's now your credibility that's now blown out of the water.

cheers mate

[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.

OK so now finally do you accept that you MISS QUOTED me,, that I did NOT say Thaksin was PM at the time of the coup??? NOR did I sat he was care-taker PM...

SO sunshine If you want to quote people then get your fact's right first because now, like I said it's now your credibility that's now blown out of the water.

cheers mate

Just tell me which "PM" you were talking about when you said "the PM was in New York". You don't seem to be able to answer that, and, given "Thaksin" was in the same sentence, it implies were referring to Thaksin being the "PM".

All you have to do is say "Thaksin wasn't PM when the coup occurred, regardless of what Wikipedia says".

[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.

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.

OK so now finally do you accept that you MISS QUOTED me,, that I did NOT say Thaksin was PM at the time of the coup??? NOR did I sat he was care-taker PM...

SO sunshine If you want to quote people then get your fact's right first because now, like I said it's now your credibility that's now blown out of the water.

cheers mate

Just tell me which "PM" you were talking about when you said "the PM was in New York". You don't seem to be able to answer that, and, given "Thaksin" was in the same sentence, it implies were referring to Thaksin being the "PM".

All you have to do is say "Thaksin wasn't PM when the coup occurred, regardless of what Wikipedia says".

WOW!!! i'm gonna say this one last time VERY SLOWLY,,,

NO where did I say Thaksin was the PM at the time of the coup, FACT!

now, you say I was (implying) he was PM at this time, so YES you miss quoted me, FACT!!! you are now saying I (implied) it,

ok up to you to see as you like, so now i'll Quote you Thaksin was the ("care-taker)" PM at this time,

next sunshine, the issue is about the immunity for the coup leaders,,, for me retro legislation is sometimes a good thing and sometimes bad, ie cancelling of the immunity,

Just tell me,,, do you accept the democratic vote of the people of Thailand, They voted for Thaksin and that the democrats could not fight their way out of a political paper bag...

you don't have to like it sunshine but if you support democracy then you need to work on your, ohh bugga the dem's lost again and Mr T won issues,

it's the Thai peoples choice not your unless you are a Thai citizen, get over it...

[whybother]

WOW!!! i'm gonna say this one last time VERY SLOWLY,,,

NO where did I say Thaksin was the PM at the time of the coup, FACT!

now, you say I was (implying) he was PM at this time, so YES you miss quoted me, FACT!!! you are now saying I (implied) it,

ok up to you to see as you like, so now i'll Quote you Thaksin was the ("care-taker)" PM at this time,

next sunshine, the issue is about the immunity for the coup leaders,,, for me retro legislation is sometimes a good thing and sometimes bad, ie cancelling of the immunity,

Just tell me which PM you were talking about when you said "the PM was in New York" and "Thaksin's diplomatic passport was cancelled" in the same sentence.

Just tell me,,, do you accept the democratic vote of the people of Thailand, They voted for Thaksin and that the democrats could not fight their way out of a political paper bag...

you don't have to like it sunshine but if you support democracy then you need to work on your, ohh bugga the dem's lost again and Mr T won issues,

it's the Thai peoples choice not your unless you are a Thai citizen, get over it...

I accept that Yingluck is the elected PM, just as Abhisit was the elected PM.

[jayboy]

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.

Good try but you fail to address the point at issue - namely the bizarre suggestion that the coup's purpose was not to dispose of Thaksin once and for all.Can't you get it into your head that we all know the constitutional position of Thaksin at the time of the coup, and that he was caretaker PM is not actually the key salient fact.

[jayboy]

WOW!!! i'm gonna say this one last time VERY SLOWLY,,,

NO where did I say Thaksin was the PM at the time of the coup, FACT!

now, you say I was (implying) he was PM at this time, so YES you miss quoted me, FACT!!! you are now saying I (implied) it,

ok up to you to see as you like, so now i'll Quote you Thaksin was the ("care-taker)" PM at this time,

next sunshine, the issue is about the immunity for the coup leaders,,, for me retro legislation is sometimes a good thing and sometimes bad, ie cancelling of the immunity,

Just tell me which PM you were talking about when you said "the PM was in New York" and "Thaksin's diplomatic passport was cancelled" in the same sentence.

Just tell me,,, do you accept the democratic vote of the people of Thailand, They voted for Thaksin and that the democrats could not fight their way out of a political paper bag...

you don't have to like it sunshine but if you support democracy then you need to work on your, ohh bugga the dem's lost again and Mr T won issues,

it's the Thai peoples choice not your unless you are a Thai citizen, get over it...

I accept that Yingluck is the elected PM, just as Abhisit was the elected PM.

But with a crucial distinction that Abhisit became PM through corrupt back room deals.He was unlike Yingluck never given a mandate by the people of Thailand in a general election.

[aussieinthailand]

WOW!!! i'm gonna say this one last time VERY SLOWLY,,,

NO where did I say Thaksin was the PM at the time of the coup, FACT!

now, you say I was (implying) he was PM at this time, so YES you miss quoted me, FACT!!! you are now saying I (implied) it,

ok up to you to see as you like, so now i'll Quote you Thaksin was the ("care-taker)" PM at this time,

next sunshine, the issue is about the immunity for the coup leaders,,, for me retro legislation is sometimes a good thing and sometimes bad, ie cancelling of the immunity,

Just tell me which PM you were talking about when you said "the PM was in New York" and "Thaksin's diplomatic passport was cancelled" in the same sentence.

Just tell me,,, do you accept the democratic vote of the people of Thailand, They voted for Thaksin and that the democrats could not fight their way out of a political paper bag...

you don't have to like it sunshine but if you support democracy then you need to work on your, ohh bugga the dem's lost again and Mr T won issues,

it's the Thai peoples choice not your unless you are a Thai citizen, get over it...

I accept that Yingluck is the elected PM, just as Abhisit was the elected PM.

HAhahehehaha, I'm getting more hit's from you than fishing for snapper in W.A.

It's ez sunshine, don't miss quote people and you wont get your delicate disposition bruised

YOUR WRONG GET OVER IT.

[whybother]

HAhahehehaha, I'm getting more hit's from you than fishing for snapper in W.A.

It's ez sunshine, don't miss quote people and you wont get your delicate disposition bruised

YOUR WRONG GET OVER IT.

If I'm wrong, it shouldn't be too hard for you to tell me which PM you were talking about. It seems that you can't.

[mrtoad]

Isn't the current government a coalition to?? Neither Yingluck or Abhasit got to being PM without doing deals

[FarangTalk]

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.

They have made several "hideous errors" if history is anything to go by.

They've never made good on any of them, ever.

Edited October 10, 2013 by FarangTalk

[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.

Good try but you fail to address the point at issue - namely the bizarre suggestion that the coup's purpose was not to dispose of Thaksin once and for all.Can't you get it into your head that we all know the constitutional position of Thaksin at the time of the coup, and that he was caretaker PM is not actually the key salient fact.

It wasn't my suggestion that the coup's purpose was not to dispose of Thaksin. I clearly addressed that I have never suggested that.

It seems that some people do not know Thaksin's position at the time of the coup. If they did, I wouldn't need to point out that they are wrong.

[FarangTalk]

WOW!!! i'm gonna say this one last time VERY SLOWLY,,,

NO where did I say Thaksin was the PM at the time of the coup, FACT!

now, you say I was (implying) he was PM at this time, so YES you miss quoted me, FACT!!! you are now saying I (implied) it,

ok up to you to see as you like, so now i'll Quote you Thaksin was the ("care-taker)" PM at this time,

next sunshine, the issue is about the immunity for the coup leaders,,, for me retro legislation is sometimes a good thing and sometimes bad, ie cancelling of the immunity,

Just tell me which PM you were talking about when you said "the PM was in New York" and "Thaksin's diplomatic passport was cancelled" in the same sentence.

Just tell me,,, do you accept the democratic vote of the people of Thailand, They voted for Thaksin and that the democrats could not fight their way out of a political paper bag...

you don't have to like it sunshine but if you support democracy then you need to work on your, ohh bugga the dem's lost again and Mr T won issues,

it's the Thai peoples choice not your unless you are a Thai citizen, get over it...

I accept that Yingluck is the elected PM, just as Abhisit was the elected PM.

But with a crucial distinction that Abhisit became PM through corrupt back room deals.He was unlike Yingluck never given a mandate by the people of Thailand in a general election.

That's the point they just can't seem to get their heads round.

[fab4]

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.

I'm sure the members of the 1997 Constitution Drafting Assembly would like to regard themselves as citizens of Thailand

With the passage of the new Constitution, widely called “the People’s Charter,” on October 10, 1997, Thailand is now set to embark upon a major reform course which will embrace not only political reform but also the long anticipated overhaul of the criminal justice system.

However, this Constitution is the first one that was draft by members of the Constitutional Drafting Assembly, who come to power by direct election and stringent selection process. In addition, it was drafted from the perspective of the common people, through highly participatory process.

This pro-rights, pro-reform Constitution would not have passed the Parliament, had it not been that Thailand was hard hit by economic crisis during that same year. The economic crisis has waken the Thai society and forced them to question the past administration perceived to be corrupt, inefficient, non-transparent and indifferent to the plight of the marginal and the underprivileged sectors. Such dissatisfaction, together with the campaign for political reform supported by the businessmen and the growing middle class, are combining factors which led to the endorsement of the progressive, revolutionary Constitution of 1997.

http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/PDF_rms/no60/ch06.pdf

The above quote is from Kittipong Kittayarak, Director General of the Ministry of Justice at the time.

You miss the point about referendums by a wide margin.

The present day Constitutional Court stated that if the PTP wanted to change the constitution using the rewrite by CDA (constitutional drafting assembly) method they would have to have a referendum first, then write the constitution, then have another referendum. I was pointing out that the present day military written constitution did not come about in that fashion.

The previous constitution was abrogated (legalese for ripped up) and a new one rewritten. Then and only then was a referendum held. There are many ways to rig the result of a referendum. If you do not believe that this happened you might want to go and dig a bit deeper.

"They" are not my PTP - Just because I offer up an alternative viewpoint of an event does not mean I am a supporter of the party, well not in my reality anyway. The PTP are following the advice of the Constitutional Court as has been evidenced by the various recent court cases against their constitutional ammendments either collapsing or not being taken up by the Courts.

[whybother]

WOW!!! i'm gonna say this one last time VERY SLOWLY,,,

NO where did I say Thaksin was the PM at the time of the coup, FACT!

now, you say I was (implying) he was PM at this time, so YES you miss quoted me, FACT!!! you are now saying I (implied) it,

ok up to you to see as you like, so now i'll Quote you Thaksin was the ("care-taker)" PM at this time,

next sunshine, the issue is about the immunity for the coup leaders,,, for me retro legislation is sometimes a good thing and sometimes bad, ie cancelling of the immunity,

Just tell me which PM you were talking about when you said "the PM was in New York" and "Thaksin's diplomatic passport was cancelled" in the same sentence.

Just tell me,,, do you accept the democratic vote of the people of Thailand, They voted for Thaksin and that the democrats could not fight their way out of a political paper bag...

you don't have to like it sunshine but if you support democracy then you need to work on your, ohh bugga the dem's lost again and Mr T won issues,

it's the Thai peoples choice not your unless you are a Thai citizen, get over it...

I accept that Yingluck is the elected PM, just as Abhisit was the elected PM.

But with a crucial distinction that Abhisit became PM through corrupt back room deals.He was unlike Yingluck never given a mandate by the people of Thailand in a general election.

How do you think Samak, or Thaksin, got to be PM? You don't think there weren't corrupt back room deals in how Thaksin bought smaller parties under the TRT prior to the 2005 election, or for Samak to form a coalition government in 2007?

Abhisit had as much a mandate as Samak or Somchai, after a majority of MPs elected him PM.

Does Yingluck have a mandate of the Thai people with only 48% of the vote?

[gerry1011]

You have to give PTP one thing, they are always consistent " we re always right and everybody else always wrong ".

Oh by the way we do want openness, transparency and reconcilliation so just do everything we say and all will be just fine.

Does that mean that you agree with coups and the fact that the perpetrators can absolve themselves from all responsibility?

Strangely enough, I think that most on this thread do...

Except if there was a coup against a Democrats' led government, of course.

[philw]

Isn't the current government a coalition to?? Neither Yingluck or Abhasit got to being PM without doing deals

Err, One of them represents a party that won an election.

The other does not.

Care to guess why this is important ??

[NongKhaiKid]

You have to give PTP one thing, they are always consistent " we re always right and everybody else always wrong ".

Oh by the way we do want openness, transparency and reconcilliation so just do everything we say and all will be just fine.

Does that mean that you agree with coups and the fact that the perpetrators can absolve themselves from all responsibility?

Strangely enough, I think that most on this thread do...

Except if there was a coup against a Democrats' led government, of course.

No I don't agree with coups or the leaders being absolved of blame.

Neither do i agree with anyone gettting into power and interpreting the law to their own adavantage, that is if they even bother with the actual law.

The coup was wrong and so is the current attitude running through PTP and the reds including the " we won so we can do was we like " that hopefully ony aminority subscribe to.

[MAJIC]

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

What Democracy?

[MaiChai]

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.

Statistically there will be another coup in the future. Thailand doesn't have a democracy and until it does, the military remain the final bastion of protecting the state, and that includes upholding the monarchy and protecting the basic rights of the people. Should the government step over the line, then i am sure they duty bound to do something.

Weng can dream about making the coup instigators accountable, but it won't happen. Its way to dangerous for the government to do this.

[jayboy]

But with a crucial distinction that Abhisit became PM through corrupt back room deals.He was unlike Yingluck never given a mandate by the people of Thailand in a general election.

Does Yingluck have a mandate of the Thai people with only 48% of the vote?

Here we go again.The usual suspects question Yingluck's mandate, as though in every democracy the electoral vote isn't split.

You can be sure that if the Democrats had done as well as as PTP in the last general election, one would not hear this kind of hypocrisy and cant about questioning their mandate.

[whybother]

But with a crucial distinction that Abhisit became PM through corrupt back room deals.He was unlike Yingluck never given a mandate by the people of Thailand in a general election.

Does Yingluck have a mandate of the Thai people with only 48% of the vote?

Here we go again.The usual suspects question Yingluck's mandate, as though in every democracy the electoral vote isn't split.

You can be sure that if the Democrats had done as well as as PTP in the last general election, one would not hear this kind of hypocrisy and cant about questioning their mandate.

I am questioning your definition of a mandate.

Surely being elected PM by a majority of elected MPs gives you a mandate. The MPs are representatives of the people after all.

If that doesn't give you a mandate, is it just some arbitrary percentage of the peoples vote?

[h90]

But with a crucial distinction that Abhisit became PM through corrupt back room deals.He was unlike Yingluck never given a mandate by the people of Thailand in a general election.

How do you think Samak, or Thaksin, got to be PM? You don't think there weren't corrupt back room deals in how Thaksin bought smaller parties under the TRT prior to the 2005 election, or for Samak to form a coalition government in 2007?

Abhisit had as much a mandate as Samak or Somchai, after a majority of MPs elected him PM.

Does Yingluck have a mandate of the Thai people with only 48% of the vote?

Which is right, but not important. Because every election in Thailand is full of massive vote buying. So the results don't mean anything. So if it is Abhisit or Yingluck, both are not democratic elected, as the election was not democratic. No one can really predict what would happen if there would be no vote buying at all. I guess many people wouldn't vote at all.

On the next level is party buying, MP buying which makes it even worse.

Nothing will change as long as there is no serious punishment. At minimum for vote buying both sides should loose the right to vote and to be elected for lifetime and pay a huge amount of money or jail term.

[jayboy]

But with a crucial distinction that Abhisit became PM through corrupt back room deals.He was unlike Yingluck never given a mandate by the people of Thailand in a general election.

How do you think Samak, or Thaksin, got to be PM? You don't think there weren't corrupt back room deals in how Thaksin bought smaller parties under the TRT prior to the 2005 election, or for Samak to form a coalition government in 2007?

Abhisit had as much a mandate as Samak or Somchai, after a majority of MPs elected him PM.

Does Yingluck have a mandate of the Thai people with only 48% of the vote?

Which is right, but not important. Because every election in Thailand is full of massive vote buying. So the results don't mean anything. So if it is Abhisit or Yingluck, both are not democratic elected, as the election was not democratic. No one can really predict what would happen if there would be no vote buying at all. I guess many people wouldn't vote at all.

On the next level is party buying, MP buying which makes it even worse.

Nothing will change as long as there is no serious punishment. At minimum for vote buying both sides should loose the right to vote and to be elected for lifetime and pay a huge amount of money or jail term.

Actually you are completely wrong.It is very clear that in recent Thai elections (which have been scrutinised internationally) that if vote buying was stripped out there would have been no impact on the overall result.You would be on safer ground if you had argued that PTP was in thrall to Thaksin or the Democrats in thrall to the army and old elites.But if I am not mistaken from your previous posts you were a strong supporter of PAD, and its philosophy (as is your right).But to be truthful those in that position have a problem with democracy itself.That is a legitimate position and is gaining support intedrnationally as the democracies in the West look more troubled.But a more honest position on your part would be to attack the weaknesses of democracy, rather than rely on drivel about vote buying.

[jayboy]

But with a crucial distinction that Abhisit became PM through corrupt back room deals.He was unlike Yingluck never given a mandate by the people of Thailand in a general election.

Does Yingluck have a mandate of the Thai people with only 48% of the vote?

Here we go again.The usual suspects question Yingluck's mandate, as though in every democracy the electoral vote isn't split.

You can be sure that if the Democrats had done as well as as PTP in the last general election, one would not hear this kind of hypocrisy and cant about questioning their mandate.

I am questioning your definition of a mandate.

Surely being elected PM by a majority of elected MPs gives you a mandate. The MPs are representatives of the people after all.

If that doesn't give you a mandate, is it just some arbitrary percentage of the peoples vote?

You are apparently very concerned to demonstate that Abhisit had as much a valid mandate as Yingluck.Unfortunately that will be a losing battle.

Nobody with knowledge of a parliamentary system is suggesting Abhisit's tenure as PM was illegitimate.Nevertheless he secured the position in a grubby and convoluted way.

When he finally presented himself to the Thai electorate, they kicked the bum out.

Yingluck in the same election was given a clear mandate.

The difference between a technical and moral mandate would be clear to most people.A similar situation in the UK occurred with Gordon Brown (without of course the coups and rigged constitutions) who became PM without presenting himself to the electorate.He was certainly legally PM but on the first available occasion the British turfed the bum out.Incidentally Cameron only got 36% of the vote, much less than Yingluck and nobody queries his mandate.

[Stradavarius37]

But with a crucial distinction that Abhisit became PM through corrupt back room deals.He was unlike Yingluck never given a mandate by the people of Thailand in a general election.

Does Yingluck have a mandate of the Thai people with only 48% of the vote?

Here we go again.The usual suspects question Yingluck's mandate, as though in every democracy the electoral vote isn't split.

You can be sure that if the Democrats had done as well as as PTP in the last general election, one would not hear this kind of hypocrisy and cant about questioning their mandate.

Wonder if it has ever dawned in Jayboy that he himself is a "usual suspect" on these type of threads....lol

[gerry1011]

But with a crucial distinction that Abhisit became PM through corrupt back room deals.He was unlike Yingluck never given a mandate by the people of Thailand in a general election.

Does Yingluck have a mandate of the Thai people with only 48% of the vote?

Here we go again.The usual suspects question Yingluck's mandate, as though in every democracy the electoral vote isn't split.

You can be sure that if the Democrats had done as well as as PTP in the last general election, one would not hear this kind of hypocrisy and cant about questioning their mandate.

Wonder if it has ever dawned in Jayboy that he himself is a "usual suspect" on these type of threads....lol

Can I join Jayboy as a "usual suspect"?

I agree totally with what he writes but today I have no time to argue...

Thanks a lot guys

Sent from my HTC One using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app