PM denies parliament dissolution plan



BANGKOK, 2 November 2013 (NNT) - Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra denies considering the dissolution of the parliament as the Opposition Democrat Party is staging a major rally against the controversial amnesty law.

Following the passing of the amnesty bill in the second and third readings by the House of Representatives, Ms Yingluck insisted that she will not dissolve the House anytime soon since the much-debated bill still needs to be deliberated by the Senate and go through many processes.

The Prime Minister expressed her concerns over deeper rift in the nation over the blanket amnesty bill. She called on every group, either pro- or anti-government, to refrain from street confrontation and using violence.

She also asked security officers on duty in the rally areas to avoid any clashes with the protesters.

The premier assured that the government will closely monitor the rally and carefully deal with the situation.

She expressed her hope that the amnesty law would be able to help Thailand mend the differences that have caused violence and turmoil in the country over the past several years.


-- NNT 2013-11-02

They will dissolve for her

"Following the passing of the amnesty bill in the second and third readings by the House of Representatives, Ms Yingluck insisted that she will not dissolve the House anytime soon since the much-debated bill still needs to be deliberated by the Senate and go through many processes"

Translation: Orders from Big Brother,no more disappearing,finish the job I gave you,and stop claiming you are an innocent bystander Clone!

She can quite honestly deny considering dissolving the House as just a little over a week ago the Chief Whip made it quite clear where the authority for making such a decision lay.

In the little fantasy world she seems to live in I wonder if she actually believes she's PM because nobody else does.

She expressed her hope that the amnesty law would be able to help Thailand mend the differences that have caused violence and turmoil in the country over the past several years.

Doesn't look there is much chance of that happening.

A bill guaranteed to DIVIDE the country, once its passed then lets get out before the and blame it all on the Democrats

She does look a tad stressed in the picture I notice . . .

The Prime Minister expressed her concerns over deeper rift in the nation over the blanket amnesty bill. She called on every group, either pro- or anti-government, to refrain from street confrontation and using violence.

Of course, the Bill doesn't cover tomorrow and beyond.

And the words aren't hers anyway, very little point in wiping out past crimes if you intend to carry on doing them, it becomes a bit of a cycle.

May be I missed it, but who said she was considering? For her now to deny it

Hoping amnesty bill will mend the differences, no the amnesty has shown everyone what the differences really are

But you have to pass the bill before you can see who gets an amnesty ! Yingluck Pelosi.

is it possible for anyone to talk such utter sh-it....anyway im off to the moon later to stock up on some cheese..for the chelsea game later..anyone want some..

She's not lying, she will be in Lop Buri or Montenegro or such when Thaksin orders a dissolution. But she's right that no dissolution will take place until the amnesty whitewash is signed and sealed. But just how much trouble will there be over those next 60 days.

Be fair she hasn't got the memo yet.

Well there could be some truth in the House dissolution rumour, consider the following.

Public opposition to the passing of bills currently before parliament mount in both size and intensity perhaps bordering on civil disorder.

The I.C.J. judgement goes against Thailand thus public feeling starts to run high.

We then have two burning fuses to ignite the powder keg of nationalism and xenophobia. Thus the P.T.P. campaign on a Thai patriotism ticket and of course emphasizing just how much the puppet master Thaksin loved the country and its peoples as well as being so homesick etc etc.

Then Thaksins name is brought into a negotiation format regarding the two countries, Cambodia and Thailand and the Temple situation. In truth we are all well aware that both Thaksin and Hun Sen have vested interests in a number of enterprises that straddle the border and the local areas.

A masterpiece of electioneering campaigning chicanery as any opposition to the policies that may be espoused by the P.T.P. and any of its allied parties will of course be described as seditious and detrimental to both Thailand and its peoples short and long term futures

Indeed a masterpiece of political campaigning deception that no doubt would return a P.T.P. puppet government to power with a majority or by yet again the P.T.P. bringing together any coalition parties to form that majority, then you have in place a dictatorship.

Thus then the electorate will have unconsciously endorsed a mandate to actually destroy themselves and what little passes for democracy here in Thailand at the present time, much the same electioneering activities and tactics as employed by the Hitler led German National Socialist party ( Nazi's) in the mid 1930's and their resultant elevation to power..

Indeed there may well be some interesting times to come concerning this puppet government and its puppet masters activities to ensure that a totally new overt dynastic dictatorship is established at any price

She also asked security officers on duty in the rally areas to avoid any clashes with the protesters.

Why doesn't she just give the protesters a green light to burn the city down ? If amnesty for the crimes commited in during the 2010 protests is on the table, then it would only be fair to extend it to criminal protesters in 2013.

She does look a tad stressed in the picture I notice . . .

Really? No, honestly, what pointers are there that she is looking stressed? She isn't smiling, is that it?

She also asked security officers on duty in the rally areas to avoid any clashes with the protesters.

Why doesn't she just give the protesters a green light to burn the city down ? If amnesty for the crimes commited in during the 2010 protests is on the table, then it would only be fair to extend it to criminal protesters in 2013.

Why would she do that? Bit of a stupid comment if I may say so, posted purely to get a response. You know what that's known as on forums.

In case you haven't noticed the protesters are protesting about the government. She is head of the government, not the protesters so why on earth would she give them "a green light to burn the city down"

Edited November 2, 201312 yr by fab4

In case you haven't noticed the protesters are protesting about the government. She is head of the government, not the protesters so why on earth would she give them "a green light to burn the city down"

She is the head of the government

No the puppet master tells her he in reality is the headof the government and not she.

Seem to recall that the puppet master Thaksin little acolytes gave orders to burn down the city of Bangkok and it was noticeable that the puppet master Thaksin did nothing to countermand those incitements to arson by his vassals along with the removal of the government.

Mind you he ( Thaksin) did and was shown and the clips are still in the public domain of Thaksin offering 500 baht to protesters to act illegally.

Strange how the truth highlights the delusional falsehoods of your fantasies is it not?

Amnesty passed, house dissolves, new elections with newly returned square face as candidate... how convenient and utterly predictable.

There seems to be much misunderstanding about the governance of Thailand. It is the Dynastic families, about thirty in all, that run Thailand. However robust their hatred of each other the Dynastic families have a undocumented mutual understandings that none of their family members will ever be shamed, incarcerated or executed regardless of the crimes that they may have committed.

I believe that this historical fact is anchored in Thai history and has held good to this day because no member of a Dynastic family has ever broken rank in this matter. This is why the proposed Amnesty is everything Thailand does not need now nor ever will.

Everyone that has committed a crime in the pursuance of the governance of Thailand should be charged, tried and if found to be guilty, punished in full measure of Thai Law. If this is done the conspiracy of Thailand's elite will be broken allowing Thailand to go forward and flourish in the blaze of light and integrity that will at last be the infallibility of Thailand's lawmakers and Laws. Thereafter Thailand's government members will all be democratically elected. I believe that such is the objective of the 'Red Shirt shadow government' and it's Quangos.

There seems to be much misunderstanding about the governance of Thailand. It is the Dynastic families, about thirty in all, that run Thailand. However robust their hatred of each other the Dynastic families have a undocumented mutual understandings that none of their family members will ever be shamed, incarcerated or executed regardless of the crimes that they may have committed.

I believe that this historical fact is anchored in Thai history and has held good to this day because no member of a Dynastic family has ever broken rank in this matter. This is why the proposed Amnesty is everything Thailand does not need now nor ever will.

Everyone that has committed a crime in the pursuance of the governance of Thailand should be charged, tried and if found to be guilty, punished in full measure of Thai Law. If this is done the conspiracy of Thailand's elite will be broken allowing Thailand to go forward and flourish in the blaze of light and integrity that will at last be the infallibility of Thailand's lawmakers and Laws. Thereafter Thailand's government members will all be democratically elected. I believe that such is the objective of the 'Red Shirt shadow government' and it's Quangos.

" I believe that such is the objective of the 'Red Shirt shadow government' and it's Quangos."

Would they be the ones that didn't vote against the amnesty?

She denies considering the plan to dissolve parliament. That's probably true - she knows its not her decision or one she will be allowed to make.

The amnesty bill must be signed into law before the next move becomes apparent.

Give the poor woman a break. She probably knows as much as the media do.

If they want answers they should ask the man with the plan not his sister.

is it possible for anyone to talk such utter sh-it....anyway im off to the moon later to stock up on some cheese..for the chelsea game later..anyone want some..

Love some cheese...what's a chelsea game? Deer maybe? yum

Edited November 2, 201312 yr by Mudcrab

She also asked security officers on duty in the rally areas to avoid any clashes with the protesters.

Why doesn't she just give the protesters a green light to burn the city down ? If amnesty for the crimes commited in during the 2010 protests is on the table, then it would only be fair to extend it to criminal protesters in 2013.

Why would she do that? Bit of a stupid comment if I may say so, posted purely to get a response. You know what that's known as on forums.

In case you haven't noticed the protesters are protesting about the government. She is head of the government, not the protesters so why on earth would she give them "a green light to burn the city down"

Read between the lines. There is your " response".

I'm surprised she actually was aware that there is a Parliament in Thailand, as I doubt she has ever been inside.

is it possible for anyone to talk such utter sh-it....anyway im off to the moon later to stock up on some cheese..for the chelsea game later..anyone want some..

I'd love some cheese thanks but you can keep the Chelsea game.

It does seem that there can be little doubt that this amnesty is for the benefit of Thaksin. If they wanted to help the average red shirt who is in jail or likely to end up there after the demonstrations in 2010 then they could do that with little trouble as the Democrats don't seem to have any problem with that in principle. If they wanted to keep their promise of bringing the members of the last government they see as responsible for the deaths in 2010 before the courts there's no problem there either as both Abhisit and Suthep have expressed their wish to do just that.

They seem to have some reason for taking a route that will cause them problems with demonstrations by anti government groups and many of their own red shirt supporters. Even Robert Amsterdam is against them on this although he may have financial and publicity interests in that could be damaged by this amnesty. I suppose he could fight for the unhappy red shirts against the government but I doubt the money is there for that.

The amnesty for Thaksin is one obvious reason. They may also have considered that Abhisit and Suthep's case might well not end up in the guilty verdict that many of their supporters want and they feel that getting Thaksin back and red shirts out of trouble will keep enough of them onside to make all this worthwhile.

As soon as the amnesty law is passed and signed, she will dissolve the house - Thaksin will be the PM candidate, and will be back in office within 6 months. Mark it down...

is it possible for anyone to talk such utter sh-it....anyway im off to the moon later to stock up on some cheese..for the chelsea game later..anyone want some..

I'd love some cheese thanks but you can keep the Chelsea game.

It does seem that there can be little doubt that this amnesty is for the benefit of Thaksin. If they wanted to help the average red shirt who is in jail or likely to end up there after the demonstrations in 2010 then they could do that with little trouble as the Democrats don't seem to have any problem with that in principle. If they wanted to keep their promise of bringing the members of the last government they see as responsible for the deaths in 2010 before the courts there's no problem there either as both Abhisit and Suthep have expressed their wish to do just that.

They seem to have some reason for taking a route that will cause them problems with demonstrations by anti government groups and many of their own red shirt supporters. Even Robert Amsterdam is against them on this although he may have financial and publicity interests in that could be damaged by this amnesty. I suppose he could fight for the unhappy red shirts against the government but I doubt the money is there for that.

The amnesty for Thaksin is one obvious reason. They may also have considered that Abhisit and Suthep's case might well not end up in the guilty verdict that many of their supporters want and they feel that getting Thaksin back and red shirts out of trouble will keep enough of them onside to make all this worthwhile.

One possible motivation for forcing Abhisit and Suthep into the amnesty would be so that no damaging facts to Thaksin surface during the course of the trials.