Red-shirt rift shows it's time to move beyond politics of personality

[h90]

But that's the point. The people leading these demos are not doing it for your wife, or democracy, or anybody else out there. They are doing it to keep the status quo.

Whatever you may think about the bill (I support the original unadulterated version) there is something a bit wrong when you have a chance that an amnesty bill that that has been passed by a legitimate elected government could be deemed unconstitutional by a Constitutional Court that sees nothing wrong with an military junta taking power by coup and then writing themselves an amnesty into the constitution.

I don't know the answer , other than the Senate block this Bill and the PTP see sense and and put through the original unadulterated amnesty bill through, but I do know the answer isn't the democratic party in its present shape or form.

Well in my country the Constitutional Court all the time rejects some laws. That is pretty normal.

And when you think about what the Constitutional Court is doing, than it can't find anything wrong with the law when the coup happened because the first thing Sonthi did was to deactivate the constitution.

And writing themself an amnesty in the constitution can not be criticized because it is part of the constitution.

That a government is elected doesn't give it all rights. For example if they would make a law that from now on, there are no new elections anymore, than this would undemocratic even from an elected government.

And the law must be valid for everyone. If Ms Yingluck speed on the Sukhumvit road, she can't make an amnesty so she doesn't need to pay the ticket. Even if she calls it general amnesty for everyone who speed to much on the Sukhumvit on Nov 4th from 11.30 to 11.45 PM.

[hellodolly]

But that's the point. The people leading these demos are not doing it for your wife, or democracy, or anybody else out there. They are doing it to keep the status quo.

Whatever you may think about the bill (I support the original unadulterated version) there is something a bit wrong when you have a chance that an amnesty bill that that has been passed by a legitimate elected government could be deemed unconstitutional by a Constitutional Court that sees nothing wrong with an military junta taking power by coup and then writing themselves an amnesty into the constitution.

I don't know the answer , other than the Senate block this Bill and the PTP see sense and and put through the original unadulterated amnesty bill through, but I do know the answer isn't the democratic party in its present shape or form.

How could the Constitutional Court reject the amnesty given to the junta? It's written in the constitution.

Shall I put it another way for you to get past your "pedantic defense" you always descend to. ( disclaimer - "always" being a figure of speech and not to be taken literally to avoid lots of ball achingly pedantic responses) )

Despite what you think of the bill, there is something ironic in people who are demonstrating against an amnesty bill that are hoping that the Constitutional Court will find unconstitutional despite it being passed through parliament by a legitimately elected government when they took no notice whatsoever of an illegal coup resulting in the military junta ripping up the existing constitution and writing a new one with an amnesty built in specifically for for the participants of that coup.

Interesting if the 2006 military action in removing an illegal usurper of the PMs office could be considered an illegal coup. They weren't removing a PM, just the previous PM who had resigned, left, come back and was refusing to go?

I agree fair point on the irony of this bill. But, that's due to one man manipulating it to his own ends, to achieve amnesty for himself from a conviction and serious outstanding criminal charges. To further this, he stirred up charges against the opposition leaders, which he hoped to use as a bargaining chip, to remove their opposition to his plans.

I would support the original version - but not a bill that allows a convicted criminal fugitive to whitewash his criminal activities, and those of his clan, under the pretense of politics. The Dem leaders have been charged and should face the courts. It's for the courts to decide if they have been investigated and charged in accordance with the law, and if so, proceed to trial.

The thing that is ironic is the choice facing the Thai people going forward. Vote PTP and be controlled and robbed by the ruthless Shin clan or vote Dem and be continually downtrodden and exploited by the elite HiSo Thai Chinese.

Hobson's choice.

If you check back to the Democratic administration you will find that they did not have control of the government. Every thing they did had to be supported by several other parties. Among them was the 20 MPs who had been trained by Thaksin in the fine art of corruption and then abandoned him if they had stayed with him he would still have been the PM and the red shirt peaceful rally would not have been carrying guns and rocket launchers.. Now that Thaksin is back in the others have gone back to sit at his feet.

You and no one else has any idea of what a Democrat Government can do you have never seen them in control You are so used to being under Thaksin Thumb that you think any other government had the same amount of power.

[hellodolly]

^^Oh bugger, I picked the wrong number by mistake.

So, only 1,179 in a reported WOD were thought to have nothing to do with drugs.

That makes it so much better doesn't it.

An these were people shot by the police, not other homicides.

And further on we have

The police said that themselves as the BBC reported:

…only 1,329 Thais died over drugs, arguing that the other 1,300 killings had nothing to do with the illegal trade…

Police General Sant said that based on the inquiry, 72 people died as a result of extra-judicial killings.

COMMENT: If 70,000 people were arrested, is this not evidence there was not a de facto shoot to kill policy as some have claimed? If the homicide rate doubled from 400-800, the 1,329 drug-related deaths figure starts to be a more accurate number than the 2,275 figure. What about the Thai Police’s statement they were only responsible for 72 deaths? Why have those figures never found their way into all the newspapers? Ok, because it doesn’t paint Thaksin as sufficiently evil enough.

NOTE: I disagree with the BBC’s use of the word extra-judicial killing it is a translation of วิสามัญฆาตกรรม which actually equates to justifiable homicide. Now, obviously police claims of justifiable homicide/self-defence should be investigated to see if there is any substance to them, but it is not the same as extra-judicial killings which has different connotations.

The figure of deaths over the years has been inflated and wrongly quoted by the Human Rights Groups (which have never been Thaksin supporters) and others, including posters on here, and definitely with only one thing in mind - to further blacken Thaksins name.

The 2,500 killed were done so by the police in their crackdown on drugs ordered by Thaksin Shinawatra. The normal murder rate was not included in that figure.

Thaksin has already blackened his name and the fact that he continues to deny it and every thing else he did and still act as PM with a dummy mouthpiece leaves no room to do any thing but darken it.

You seem to be on fairly good terms with him. Can you ask him to give us a break?

[fab4]

But that's the point. The people leading these demos are not doing it for your wife, or democracy, or anybody else out there. They are doing it to keep the status quo.

Whatever you may think about the bill (I support the original unadulterated version) there is something a bit wrong when you have a chance that an amnesty bill that that has been passed by a legitimate elected government could be deemed unconstitutional by a Constitutional Court that sees nothing wrong with an military junta taking power by coup and then writing themselves an amnesty into the constitution.

I don't know the answer , other than the Senate block this Bill and the PTP see sense and and put through the original unadulterated amnesty bill through, but I do know the answer isn't the democratic party in its present shape or form.

Back pedaling are you.

You don't know the answer and are unwilling to change the present government.

In other words you still back them and all there doings. Back peddle all you want but we know you now and what you stand for.

What am I back pedalling from? I wish you would read posts properly before knee jerk posting. At the beginning of my post I stated which version of amnesty bill I supported. At the end of my post I made the statement "I don't know the answer , other than" - in the English language that is a phrase that means another option is coming which I then spell out. That's another English phrase that means "explain"

If the Senate make the right decision and push the bill back to parliament and if the PTP resubmit the amnesty bill in its original unadulterated form than I would support that action. I do not support the reasoning that several thousand bluerinses standing on the street blowing whistles do anything towards reconciliation and has more to do with fluffing the ego's of the organisers. And talking of fluffing.......

(as an aside, glib fashion advice from the "other"side for a change, Korn, that image of white shirt, thin black tie and white cap is a no no, you look like a gay hooker from the Gatsby Era - checkout the picture in the Bangkok Post, it's hilarious)

[rubl]

But that's the point. The people leading these demos are not doing it for your wife, or democracy, or anybody else out there. They are doing it to keep the status quo.

Whatever you may think about the bill (I support the original unadulterated version) there is something a bit wrong when you have a chance that an amnesty bill that that has been passed by a legitimate elected government could be deemed unconstitutional by a Constitutional Court that sees nothing wrong with an military junta taking power by coup and then writing themselves an amnesty into the constitution.

I don't know the answer , other than the Senate block this Bill and the PTP see sense and and put through the original unadulterated amnesty bill through, but I do know the answer isn't the democratic party in its present shape or form.

Back pedaling are you.

You don't know the answer and are unwilling to change the present government.

In other words you still back them and all there doings. Back peddle all you want but we know you now and what you stand for.

What am I back pedalling from? I wish you would read posts properly before knee jerk posting. At the beginning of my post I stated which version of amnesty bill I supported. At the end of my post I made the statement "I don't know the answer , other than" - in the English language that is a phrase that means another option is coming which I then spell out. That's another English phrase that means "explain"

If the Senate make the right decision and push the bill back to parliament and if the PTP resubmit the amnesty bill in its original unadulterated form than I would support that action. I do not support the reasoning that several thousand bluerinses standing on the street blowing whistles do anything towards reconciliation and has more to do with fluffing the ego's of the organisers. And talking of fluffing.......

(as an aside, glib fashion advice from the "other"side for a change, Korn, that image of white shirt, thin black tie and white cap is a no no, you look like a gay hooker from the Gatsby Era - checkout the picture in the Bangkok Post, it's hilarious)

If you were in Bangkok at the moment, my dear fabby, you would have noticed that since the passing of the Supreme Patriarch lots of people wear black/white as if to symbolise that the colours have left their life in the passing.

That has nothing to do with the ongoing protests.

Now of course with your not so humorous remark I'm wondering how the red-shirts will be dressed on Saturday

[rubl]

Just read that the red-shirt rift might be widening. The other newspaper has our esteemed abstaining Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD leader Nattawut saying that the UDD stands by the government and is ready to come out to protect it. He said a few UDD leaders had aleady told their stance and he would do again to prevent the opposition from trying to create further rifts.

[phantomfiddler]

My take on it is that the poor rural farmers definitely do have a legitimate gripe about their place in society, but they chose the worst possible avenue of escape to further their cause. If they could see past the dangled 20 Bht note, they could have furthered their cause much more effectively had they not fallen prey to Thailand,s most obvious megalomaniac.

Maybe at last, at least some of the Red Shirts have realized that they have

just been used to benefit one person,now that it seems that his problems

are over and that he will be able to return and once again be PM.he does

not need them.

regards Worgeordie

[fab4]

Interesting if the 2006 military action in removing an illegal usurper of the PMs office could be considered an illegal coup. They weren't removing a PM, just the previous PM who had resigned, left, come back and was refusing to go?

I agree fair point on the irony of this bill. But, that's due to one man manipulating it to his own ends, to achieve amnesty for himself from a conviction and serious outstanding criminal charges. To further this, he stirred up charges against the opposition leaders, which he hoped to use as a bargaining chip, to remove their opposition to his plans.

I would support the original version - but not a bill that allows a convicted criminal fugitive to whitewash his criminal activities, and those of his clan, under the pretense of politics. The Dem leaders have been charged and should face the courts. It's for the courts to decide if they have been investigated and charged in accordance with the law, and if so, proceed to trial.

The thing that is ironic is the choice facing the Thai people going forward. Vote PTP and be controlled and robbed by the ruthless Shin clan or vote Dem and be continually downtrodden and exploited by the elite HiSo Thai Chinese.

Hobson's choice.

An election in April 2006 is declared null and void. Another election is royally endorsed and due to be held on October 15th of that same year . The ex PM, Thaksin says he will not contest the next election (the one in October). Yet you classify that in your mind as refusing to go and that he was an illegal usurper and question whether the coup was illegal.

Disregarding who was in power at the time and whatever you think his status was, the reality was an election had been endorsed by the King of Thailand and was scheduled to go ahead. The Military Coup took this right of the people away. Of course it was illegal.

[Thaddeus]

There are gaps in your knowledge that even Isambard Kingdom Brunel would be challenged to build a bridge over them.

Sorry, forgive me, leaving out some things and changing some others is not a lack of knowledge is it, it's more like intentional.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Thaddeus

[kimamey]

But that's the point. The people leading these demos are not doing it for your wife, or democracy, or anybody else out there. They are doing it to keep the status quo.

Whatever you may think about the bill (I support the original unadulterated version) there is something a bit wrong when you have a chance that an amnesty bill that that has been passed by a legitimate elected government could be deemed unconstitutional by a Constitutional Court that sees nothing wrong with an military junta taking power by coup and then writing themselves an amnesty into the constitution.

I don't know the answer , other than the Senate block this Bill and the PTP see sense and and put through the original unadulterated amnesty bill through, but I do know the answer isn't the democratic party in its present shape or form.

Didn't someone in government say that the amnesty had to be changed so it covered everyone or it would be unconstitutional as it would discriminate against those who weren't covered. Since it doesn't cover those whose offence was lese-majeste it must therefore according to this view be unconstitutional anyway without going to the court. Unfortunately I can't find the thread regarding this at the moment.

You may well be right about the Constitutional Court and the coup. I don't know what the legal position of the court was under those circumstances and what powers it had.

I've just had a quick look and it appears the CC was abolished under the coup.

Edited November 5, 2013 by kimamey

[whybother]

 

 

 

Interesting if the 2006 military action in removing an illegal usurper of the PMs office could be considered an illegal coup. They weren't removing a PM, just the previous PM who had resigned, left, come back and was refusing to go? 

 

I agree fair point on the irony of this bill. But, that's due to one man manipulating it to his own ends, to achieve amnesty for himself from a conviction and serious outstanding criminal charges. To further this, he stirred up charges against the opposition leaders, which he hoped to use as a bargaining chip, to remove their opposition to his plans.

 

I would support the original version - but not a bill that allows a convicted criminal fugitive to whitewash his criminal activities, and those of his clan, under the pretense of politics. The Dem leaders have been charged and should face the courts. It's for the courts to decide if they have been investigated and charged in accordance with the law, and if so, proceed to trial. 

 

The thing that is ironic is the choice facing the Thai people going forward. Vote PTP and be controlled and robbed by the ruthless Shin clan or vote Dem and be continually downtrodden and exploited by the elite HiSo Thai Chinese. 

 

Hobson's choice.

 

 

An election in April 2006 is declared null and void. Another election is royally endorsed and due to be held on October 15th of that same year . The ex PM, Thaksin says he will not contest the next election (the one in October). Yet you classify that in your mind as refusing to go and that he was an illegal usurper and question whether the coup was illegal.

 

Disregarding who was in power at the time and whatever you think his status was, the reality was an election had been endorsed by the King of Thailand and was scheduled to go ahead. The Military Coup took this right of the people away. Of course it was illegal.

An election had been scheduled, except there was still a problem with the newly appointed (if they had been appointed at that stage) Election Commission.

And how many times, before and since, has Thaksin said he was finished with politics? Totally believable. Not.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[whybother]

An election in April 2006 is declared null and void. Another election is royally endorsed and due to be held on October 15th of that same year . The ex PM, Thaksin says he will not contest the next election (the one in October). Yet you classify that in your mind as refusing to go and that he was an illegal usurper and question whether the coup was illegal.

Disregarding who was in power at the time and whatever you think his status was, the reality was an election had been endorsed by the King of Thailand and was scheduled to go ahead. The Military Coup took this right of the people away. Of course it was illegal.

An election had been scheduled, except there was still a problem with the newly appointed (if they had been appointed at that stage) Election Commission.

And how many times, before and since, has Thaksin said he was finished with politics? Totally believable. Not.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

On 15 August, the Senate established a special committee to scrutinizethe shortlist of candidates sent to it by the Supreme Court. The committee wasgiven 20 days to fulfill its task. Consequently, the new ECT would not be in placeon 24 August, the day when the amended Royal Decree ordering the election tobe held on 15 October would come into effect. It is therefore probable that theelection day will have to be postponed.

http://www.academia.edu/2089166/Political_Turmoil_in_Thailand_Thaksin_Protests_Elections_and_the_King

In addition to that, Thaksin said in April 2006 immediately following the election that he will not accept the post of Prime Minister when parliament reconvenes, which never happened because there weren't enough MPs and then the election was invalidated. This wasn't anything to do with the October election.

[hellodolly]

But that's the point. The people leading these demos are not doing it for your wife, or democracy, or anybody else out there. They are doing it to keep the status quo.

Whatever you may think about the bill (I support the original unadulterated version) there is something a bit wrong when you have a chance that an amnesty bill that that has been passed by a legitimate elected government could be deemed unconstitutional by a Constitutional Court that sees nothing wrong with an military junta taking power by coup and then writing themselves an amnesty into the constitution.

I don't know the answer , other than the Senate block this Bill and the PTP see sense and and put through the original unadulterated amnesty bill through, but I do know the answer isn't the democratic party in its present shape or form.

Well in my country the Constitutional Court all the time rejects some laws. That is pretty normal.

And when you think about what the Constitutional Court is doing, than it can't find anything wrong with the law when the coup happened because the first thing Sonthi did was to deactivate the constitution.

And writing themself an amnesty in the constitution can not be criticized because it is part of the constitution.

That a government is elected doesn't give it all rights. For example if they would make a law that from now on, there are no new elections anymore, than this would undemocratic even from an elected government.

And the law must be valid for everyone. If Ms Yingluck speed on the Sukhumvit road, she can't make an amnesty so she doesn't need to pay the ticket. Even if she calls it general amnesty for everyone who speed to much on the Sukhumvit on Nov 4th from 11.30 to 11.45 PM.

She would try it. Such is the ego of a Shinawatra.

[hellodolly]

But that's the point. The people leading these demos are not doing it for your wife, or democracy, or anybody else out there. They are doing it to keep the status quo.

Whatever you may think about the bill (I support the original unadulterated version) there is something a bit wrong when you have a chance that an amnesty bill that that has been passed by a legitimate elected government could be deemed unconstitutional by a Constitutional Court that sees nothing wrong with an military junta taking power by coup and then writing themselves an amnesty into the constitution.

I don't know the answer , other than the Senate block this Bill and the PTP see sense and and put through the original unadulterated amnesty bill through, but I do know the answer isn't the democratic party in its present shape or form.

Back pedaling are you.

You don't know the answer and are unwilling to change the present government.

In other words you still back them and all there doings. Back peddle all you want but we know you now and what you stand for.

What am I back pedalling from? I wish you would read posts properly before knee jerk posting. At the beginning of my post I stated which version of amnesty bill I supported. At the end of my post I made the statement "I don't know the answer , other than" - in the English language that is a phrase that means another option is coming which I then spell out. That's another English phrase that means "explain"

If the Senate make the right decision and push the bill back to parliament and if the PTP resubmit the amnesty bill in its original unadulterated form than I would support that action. I do not support the reasoning that several thousand bluerinses standing on the street blowing whistles do anything towards reconciliation and has more to do with fluffing the ego's of the organisers. And talking of fluffing.......

(as an aside, glib fashion advice from the "other"side for a change, Korn, that image of white shirt, thin black tie and white cap is a no no, you look like a gay hooker from the Gatsby Era - checkout the picture in the Bangkok Post, it's hilarious)

You are back pedaling in the fact that you still insist that it is the PTP who have the answers and the Democrats are still wrong. If you thought they were was no chance for the Senate to not pass the bill you would have backed it completely.

[rubl]

the ex-Pm, ex_caretaker, ex-whatever was very busy to move his family and associated people in positions of judicial, legislative and political control. It would seem he was trying to ensure he didn't need to be voted in as PM as he'd be in control anyway.

Fastforward to 2011, we have his clone 'elected' (as far as party list MP are elected that is). Now we see a bill which is about Thaksin, the golf caddy of the PM.

So, pray tell, who's moving past politics of personality?

Interesting if the 2006 military action in removing an illegal usurper of the PMs office could be considered an illegal coup. They weren't removing a PM, just the previous PM who had resigned, left, come back and was refusing to go?

I agree fair point on the irony of this bill. But, that's due to one man manipulating it to his own ends, to achieve amnesty for himself from a conviction and serious outstanding criminal charges. To further this, he stirred up charges against the opposition leaders, which he hoped to use as a bargaining chip, to remove their opposition to his plans.

I would support the original version - but not a bill that allows a convicted criminal fugitive to whitewash his criminal activities, and those of his clan, under the pretense of politics. The Dem leaders have been charged and should face the courts. It's for the courts to decide if they have been investigated and charged in accordance with the law, and if so, proceed to trial.

The thing that is ironic is the choice facing the Thai people going forward. Vote PTP and be controlled and robbed by the ruthless Shin clan or vote Dem and be continually downtrodden and exploited by the elite HiSo Thai Chinese.

Hobson's choice.

An election in April 2006 is declared null and void. Another election is royally endorsed and due to be held on October 15th of that same year . The ex PM, Thaksin says he will not contest the next election (the one in October). Yet you classify that in your mind as refusing to go and that he was an illegal usurper and question whether the coup was illegal.

Disregarding who was in power at the time and whatever you think his status was, the reality was an election had been endorsed by the King of Thailand and was scheduled to go ahead. The Military Coup took this right of the people away. Of course it was illegal.

An election had been scheduled, except there was still a problem with the newly appointed (if they had been appointed at that stage) Election Commission.

And how many times, before and since, has Thaksin said he was finished with politics? Totally believable. Not.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[fab4]

If you were in Bangkok at the moment, my dear fabby, you would have noticed that since the passing of the Supreme Patriarch lots of people wear black/white as if to symbolise that the colours have left their life in the passing.

That has nothing to do with the ongoing protests.

Now of course with your not so humorous remark I'm wondering how the red-shirts will be dressed on Saturday

Funeral Chic?

Edited November 6, 2013 by fab4

[rubl]

Can't see the picture, probably due to too active filter.

I suspect I don't miss much. Knowing you it's probably somewhat disrespectful.

If you were in Bangkok at the moment, my dear fabby, you would have noticed that since the passing of the Supreme Patriarch lots of people wear black/white as if to symbolise that the colours have left their life in the passing.

That has nothing to do with the ongoing protests.

Now of course with your not so humorous remark I'm wondering how the red-shirts will be dressed on Saturday

Funeral Chic?

[fab4]

^^Oh bugger, I picked the wrong number by mistake.

So, only 1,179 in a reported WOD were thought to have nothing to do with drugs.

That makes it so much better doesn't it.

An these were people shot by the police, not other homicides.

And further on we have

The police said that themselves as the BBC reported:

…only 1,329 Thais died over drugs, arguing that the other 1,300 killings had nothing to do with the illegal trade…

Police General Sant said that based on the inquiry, 72 people died as a result of extra-judicial killings.

COMMENT: If 70,000 people were arrested, is this not evidence there was not a de facto shoot to kill policy as some have claimed? If the homicide rate doubled from 400-800, the 1,329 drug-related deaths figure starts to be a more accurate number than the 2,275 figure. What about the Thai Police’s statement they were only responsible for 72 deaths? Why have those figures never found their way into all the newspapers? Ok, because it doesn’t paint Thaksin as sufficiently evil enough.

NOTE: I disagree with the BBC’s use of the word extra-judicial killing it is a translation of วิสามัญฆาตกรรม which actually equates to justifiable homicide. Now, obviously police claims of justifiable homicide/self-defence should be investigated to see if there is any substance to them, but it is not the same as extra-judicial killings which has different connotations.

The figure of deaths over the years has been inflated and wrongly quoted by the Human Rights Groups (which have never been Thaksin supporters) and others, including posters on here, and definitely with only one thing in mind - to further blacken Thaksins name.

The 2,500 killed were done so by the police in their crackdown on drugs ordered by Thaksin Shinawatra. The normal murder rate was not included in that figure.

Thaksin has already blackened his name and the fact that he continues to deny it and every thing else he did and still act as PM with a dummy mouthpiece leaves no room to do any thing but darken it.

You seem to be on fairly good terms with him. Can you ask him to give us a break?

If you had bother to read the information and did a bit of digging yourself you would have found why your statement about 2500 is flawed. If you have read it and don't understand it try again. I really don't care if you want to take on new information or not. Fairly typical approach for a lot of posters on here. It doesn't fit in with what you want to hear so you ignore it. I won't even dignify your last sentence with a response.

[rubl]

Doing some reading I've come to the conclusion that the topic is on red-shirt rifts. That's not the same as 2400++ killed in the war on drugs with 1300 or so not having had any relation with drugs.

Anyway even our Thaksin the Innocent accused political opponents of distorting his amnesty bill.

The 2,500 killed were done so by the police in their crackdown on drugs ordered by Thaksin Shinawatra. The normal murder rate was not included in that figure.

Thaksin has already blackened his name and the fact that he continues to deny it and every thing else he did and still act as PM with a dummy mouthpiece leaves no room to do any thing but darken it.

You seem to be on fairly good terms with him. Can you ask him to give us a break?

If you had bother to read the information and did a bit of digging yourself you would have found why your statement about 2500 is flawed. If you have read it and don't understand it try again. I really don't care if you want to take on new information or not. Fairly typical approach for a lot of posters on here. It doesn't fit in with what you want to hear so you ignore it. I won't even dignify your last sentence with a response.

[thaicbr]

Interesting if the 2006 military action in removing an illegal usurper of the PMs office could be considered an illegal coup. They weren't removing a PM, just the previous PM who had resigned, left, come back and was refusing to go?

I agree fair point on the irony of this bill. But, that's due to one man manipulating it to his own ends, to achieve amnesty for himself from a conviction and serious outstanding criminal charges. To further this, he stirred up charges against the opposition leaders, which he hoped to use as a bargaining chip, to remove their opposition to his plans.

I would support the original version - but not a bill that allows a convicted criminal fugitive to whitewash his criminal activities, and those of his clan, under the pretense of politics. The Dem leaders have been charged and should face the courts. It's for the courts to decide if they have been investigated and charged in accordance with the law, and if so, proceed to trial.

The thing that is ironic is the choice facing the Thai people going forward. Vote PTP and be controlled and robbed by the ruthless Shin clan or vote Dem and be continually downtrodden and exploited by the elite HiSo Thai Chinese.

Hobson's choice.

An election in April 2006 is declared null and void. Another election is royally endorsed and due to be held on October 15th of that same year . The ex PM, Thaksin says he will not contest the next election (the one in October). Yet you classify that in your mind as refusing to go and that he was an illegal usurper and question whether the coup was illegal.

Disregarding who was in power at the time and whatever you think his status was, the reality was an election had been endorsed by the King of Thailand and was scheduled to go ahead. The Military Coup took this right of the people away. Of course it was illegal.

So Thaksin said he WOULDN'T contest the election... Link please.. also is this the same Thaksin that says his sister is his clone, he is her caddy or in fact he has nothing to do with PTP decision making etc etc (depending on the time of day)

oh and i agree the COUP was illegal. But you never seem to agree that Thaksin is a convicted criminal on the run, Banned from politics but yet still in control of the government.. strange.

[whybother]

So Thaksin said he WOULDN'T contest the election... Link please.. also is this the same Thaksin that says his sister is his clone, he is her caddy or in fact he has nothing to do with PTP decision making etc etc (depending on the time of day)

oh and i agree the COUP was illegal. But you never seem to agree that Thaksin is a convicted criminal on the run, Banned from politics but yet still in control of the government.. strange.

Thaksin has done his 5 year ban. I'm not sure whether a convicted criminal can be involved in politics though. They can't be MPs.

[ratcatcher]

So Thaksin said he WOULDN'T contest the election... Link please.. also is this the same Thaksin that says his sister is his clone, he is her caddy or in fact he has nothing to do with PTP decision making etc etc (depending on the time of day)

oh and i agree the COUP was illegal. But you never seem to agree that Thaksin is a convicted criminal on the run, Banned from politics but yet still in control of the government.. strange.

Thaksin has done his 5 year ban. I'm not sure whether a convicted criminal can be involved in politics though. They can't be MPs.

"I'm not sure whether a convicted criminal can be involved in politics though.'

These days it would seem as if that might be an important requirement for election. It certainly seems to help even if you haven't been convicted..

[h90]

So Thaksin said he WOULDN'T contest the election... Link please.. also is this the same Thaksin that says his sister is his clone, he is her caddy or in fact he has nothing to do with PTP decision making etc etc (depending on the time of day)

oh and i agree the COUP was illegal. But you never seem to agree that Thaksin is a convicted criminal on the run, Banned from politics but yet still in control of the government.. strange.

Thaksin has done his 5 year ban. I'm not sure whether a convicted criminal can be involved in politics though. They can't be MPs.

Maybe not the others but when you own the Election Commission and bring enough pastry boxes and/or have the red mob ready it might turn out that the conviction was just a mistake and is not valid.

[Emptyset]

^^Oh bugger, I picked the wrong number by mistake.

So, only 1,179 in a reported WOD were thought to have nothing to do with drugs.

That makes it so much better doesn't it.

An these were people shot by the police, not other homicides.

And further on we have

The police said that themselves as the BBC reported:

…only 1,329 Thais died over drugs, arguing that the other 1,300 killings had nothing to do with the illegal trade…

Police General Sant said that based on the inquiry, 72 people died as a result of extra-judicial killings.

COMMENT: If 70,000 people were arrested, is this not evidence there was not a de facto shoot to kill policy as some have claimed? If the homicide rate doubled from 400-800, the 1,329 drug-related deaths figure starts to be a more accurate number than the 2,275 figure. What about the Thai Police’s statement they were only responsible for 72 deaths? Why have those figures never found their way into all the newspapers? Ok, because it doesn’t paint Thaksin as sufficiently evil enough.

NOTE: I disagree with the BBC’s use of the word extra-judicial killing it is a translation of วิสามัญฆาตกรรม which actually equates to justifiable homicide. Now, obviously police claims of justifiable homicide/self-defence should be investigated to see if there is any substance to them, but it is not the same as extra-judicial killings which has different connotations.

The figure of deaths over the years has been inflated and wrongly quoted by the Human Rights Groups (which have never been Thaksin supporters) and others, including posters on here, and definitely with only one thing in mind - to further blacken Thaksins name.

You're right about the numbers and they have become politicized. I've posted on this topic at least once before and I recall sharing the post you're quoting from: http://asiancorrespondent.com/20405/2275-where-did-this-number-come-from/

So apologies if I'm repeating myself here, but I still wonder why these numbers have become politicized. Does having 2,275 deaths instead of 1,329 bodies on the street really make it *that* much worse? After all - as Fab4 has pointed out in a previous post - if you look at the numbers objectively, you'll see that the number of deaths accorded to the WOD can't possibly be 2,275 unless no one else had been murdered for any other reason during that period. That's the total number of murders for the period, and they're all due to the WOD? Pretty implausible.

And beneath the original BKK Pundit article, back in 2007, Azwar Thi (the pseudonym of a human rights worker in Thailand, had a great blog called Rule of Lords), cautioned against 'playing the numbers game'. Each of those killed were individuals and were killed unjustly, that's the important thing to remember. Sometimes we risk obscuring the severity of a crime by debating numbers, even though I believe it's important to get the facts right.

IIRC, Azwar Thi drew on Agamden's concept of the Homo Sacer: the man so scorned by society, he may be killed by anyone, to elucidate how something like the WOD could be allowed to take place. Drug dealers were so demonized that society become irrational, and anything could be justified so long as the scourge was extirpated. During the WOD you had prominent monks saying it was fine to kill drug dealers etc. Similarly, if you look at what was going on before the Thammasat Massacre in 76, you'll find senior monks justifying killing communists. And I think there were also elements of this in 2010: the fabricated lom chao plot, for instance. Hence, though we don't know for sure what happened, it wouldn't be *that* surprising, if in the case of, say, the temple shootings, soldiers had acted irrationally and out of hatred of people they considered enemies of society, not fellow citizens. I think that's why if we care about human rights, we should be wary of rhetoric that seeks to exclude and demonize others.

There's a lot more to say about this, but since it seems somewhat OT, I'll leave it at that. This invaluable piece by academic Michael Connors goes into more details on the numbers, and more crucially, discusses how the WOD came about: http://sovereignmyth.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/war-on-drugs.html

I agree with Connors when he writes: 'I still consider the human rights abuses carried out during the War on Drugs to be the worst committed during the tenure of an elected government since Thailand liberalised in the 1980s.'

Edited November 7, 2013 by Emptyset

[fab4]

There are gaps in your knowledge that even Isambard Kingdom Brunel would be challenged to build a bridge over them.

Sorry, forgive me, leaving out some things and changing some others is not a lack of knowledge is it, it's more like intentional.

Well you don't seem ready to part with them, so instead of making comments about people all the time you might try and contribute to the debate. Here's your chance, tell me where my Isambard Brunel Bridge size gaps are in my knowledge. You must have them on the tip of your tongue being so confident in your knowledge of contemporary Thai history?

[fab4]

^^Oh bugger, I picked the wrong number by mistake.

So, only 1,179 in a reported WOD were thought to have nothing to do with drugs.

That makes it so much better doesn't it.

An these were people shot by the police, not other homicides.

And further on we have

The police said that themselves as the BBC reported:

…only 1,329 Thais died over drugs, arguing that the other 1,300 killings had nothing to do with the illegal trade…

Police General Sant said that based on the inquiry, 72 people died as a result of extra-judicial killings.

COMMENT: If 70,000 people were arrested, is this not evidence there was not a de facto shoot to kill policy as some have claimed? If the homicide rate doubled from 400-800, the 1,329 drug-related deaths figure starts to be a more accurate number than the 2,275 figure. What about the Thai Police’s statement they were only responsible for 72 deaths? Why have those figures never found their way into all the newspapers? Ok, because it doesn’t paint Thaksin as sufficiently evil enough.

NOTE: I disagree with the BBC’s use of the word extra-judicial killing it is a translation of วิสามัญฆาตกรรม which actually equates to justifiable homicide. Now, obviously police claims of justifiable homicide/self-defence should be investigated to see if there is any substance to them, but it is not the same as extra-judicial killings which has different connotations.

The figure of deaths over the years has been inflated and wrongly quoted by the Human Rights Groups (which have never been Thaksin supporters) and others, including posters on here, and definitely with only one thing in mind - to further blacken Thaksins name.

You're right about the numbers and they have become politicized. I've posted on this topic at least once before and I recall sharing the post you're quoting from: http://asiancorrespondent.com/20405/2275-where-did-this-number-come-from/

So apologies if I'm repeating myself here, but I still wonder why these numbers have become politicized. Does having 2,275 deaths instead of 1,329 bodies on the street really make it *that* much worse? After all - as Fab4 has pointed out in a previous post - if you look at the numbers objectively, you'll see that the number of deaths accorded to the WOD can't possibly be 2,275 unless no one else had been murdered for any other reason during that period. That's the total number of murders for the period, and they're all due to the WOD? Pretty implausible.

And beneath the original BKK Pundit article, back in 2007, Azwar Thi (the pseudonym of a human rights worker in Thailand, had a great blog called Rule of Lords), cautioned against 'playing the numbers game'. Each of those killed were individuals and were killed unjustly, that's the important thing to remember. Sometimes we risk obscuring the severity of a crime by debating numbers, even though I believe it's important to get the facts right.

IIRC, Azwar Thi drew on Agamden's concept of the Homo Sacer: the man so scorned by society, he may be killed by anyone, to elucidate how something like the WOD could be allowed to take place. Drug dealers were so demonized that society become irrational, and anything could be justified so long as the scourge was extirpated. During the WOD you had prominent monks saying it was fine to kill drug dealers etc. Similarly, if you look at what was going on before the Thammasat Massacre in 76, you'll find senior monks justifying killing communists. And I think there were also elements of this in 2010: the fabricated lom chao plot, for instance. Hence, though we don't know for sure what happened, it wouldn't be *that* surprising, if in the case of, say, the temple shootings, soldiers had acted irrationally and out of hatred of people they considered enemies of society, not fellow citizens. I think that's why if we care about human rights, we should be wary of rhetoric that seeks to exclude and demonize others.

There's a lot more to say about this, but since it seems somewhat OT, I'll leave it at that. This invaluable piece by academic Michael Connors goes into more details on the numbers, and more crucially, discusses how the WOD came about: http://sovereignmyth.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/war-on-drugs.html

I agree with Connors when he writes: 'I still consider the human rights abuses carried out during the War on Drugs to be the worst committed during the tenure of an elected government since Thailand liberalised in the 1980s.'

Can't fault any of the above except to add that the politicalisation of it has quite deliberately been taken one step further to personalise / demonise one person of having been responsible for every single death that occurred during that period - there are still supposedly educated posters on here convinced of that "fact".

[fab4]

An election in April 2006 is declared null and void. Another election is royally endorsed and due to be held on October 15th of that same year . The ex PM, Thaksin says he will not contest the next election (the one in October). Yet you classify that in your mind as refusing to go and that he was an illegal usurper and question whether the coup was illegal.

Disregarding who was in power at the time and whatever you think his status was, the reality was an election had been endorsed by the King of Thailand and was scheduled to go ahead. The Military Coup took this right of the people away. Of course it was illegal.

An election had been scheduled, except there was still a problem with the newly appointed (if they had been appointed at that stage) Election Commission.

And how many times, before and since, has Thaksin said he was finished with politics? Totally believable. Not.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Be as pedantic / diverting as you like, the King had ordered the Administrative and Constitutional Courts to sort out the political crisis which they did by calling for an election on (initially) October 15th and this election was royally endorsed. It doesn't matter whether Thaksin was going to contest the election as PM or not (he had already said that he would remain an MP) the facts remain the same. The Military Coup stopped the Thai Electorate from their right to vote in the Election.

Political Turmoil in Thailand:

Thaksin, Protests, Elections, and the King

by Michael H. Nelson

.....................prompted Thaksin, on 4 April 2006, to go on TV and declare that he would

not be a candidate for prime minister in the next government. However, he would

remain at the helm of TRT and fulfill his duty as an elected MP.

http://www.academia.edu/2089166/Political_Turmoil_in_Thailand_Thaksin_Protests_Elections_and_the_King

Southeast Asia— Formation of a Community and the Challenges

On April 4, 2006, after an audience with the king, Prime Minister Thaksin announced that he would not assume office as the next prime minister, in part, because he wanted to avert prolonging political confusion in the run-up to the 60th anniversary of the king’s accession to the throne.

In the following weeks, a confrontation persisted between the ruling party, which claimed that the election was valid and called for an early opening of Parliament, and the opposition parties, which declared the election invalid and called upon the king to nominate a new prime minister.

Although the king remained silent during the political confusion, he summoned on April 25 representatives of the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court to his palace and ordered them to seek a path to resolve the political crisis, saying that under constitutional provisions, he could not appoint a prime minister, and that it was their responsibility to protect democracy from single-party control of the country.

Pursuant to the king’s order, representatives of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, and the Constitutional Court met on April 28 to work out an effective solution. On May 8, the Constitutional Court declared the election invalid. They ordered the government to hold a reelection. At the end of May, the government accepted the court’s decision and decided to hold a reelection on October 15.

http://www.nids.go.jp/english/publication/east-asian/pdf/2007/east-asian_e2007_05.pdf

[fab4]

There are gaps in your knowledge that even Isambard Kingdom Brunel would be challenged to build a bridge over them.

Sorry, forgive me, leaving out some things and changing some others is not a lack of knowledge is it, it's more like intentional.

Well you don't seem ready to part with them, so instead of making comments about people all the time you might try and contribute to the debate. Here's your chance, tell me where my Isambard Brunel Bridge size gaps are in my knowledge. You must have them on the tip of your tongue being so confident in your knowledge of contemporary Thai history?

I'm still waiting, Thaddeus...............

[fab4]

In addition to that, Thaksin said in April 2006 immediately following the election that he will not accept the post of Prime Minister when parliament reconvenes, which never happened because there weren't enough MPs and then the election was invalidated. This wasn't anything to do with the October election.

Political Turmoil in Thailand:

Thaksin, Protests, Elections, and the King

by Michael H. Nelson

.....................prompted Thaksin, on 4 April 2006, to go on TV and declare that he would

not be a candidate for prime minister in the next government.

However, he would remain at the helm of TRT and fulfill his duty as an elected MP.

http://www.academia.edu/2089166/Political_Turmoil_in_Thailand_Thaksin_Protests_Elections_and_the_King

[whybother]

In addition to that, Thaksin said in April 2006 immediately following the election that he will not accept the post of Prime Minister when parliament reconvenes, which never happened because there weren't enough MPs and then the election was invalidated. This wasn't anything to do with the October election.

Political Turmoil in Thailand:

Thaksin, Protests, Elections, and the King

by Michael H. Nelson

.....................prompted Thaksin, on 4 April 2006, to go on TV and declare that he would

not be a candidate for prime minister in the next government.

However, he would remain at the helm of TRT and fulfill his duty as an elected MP.

http://www.academia.edu/2089166/Political_Turmoil_in_Thailand_Thaksin_Protests_Elections_and_the_King

Thank you for confirming that it wasn't anything to do with the October election.