Thai Democrats resolve to boycott February 2 election

[whybother]

Why didn't the Democrats push for reforms when they were in power under Abhisit and Suthep?

Thank you for the obvious question.

'

I guess the answer is it did not suit their purpose at the time...........

Or the answer could be that they did make some reforms.

[ridkun]

Why didn't the Democrats push for reforms when they were in power under Abhisit and Suthep?

Momentum. They did not have enough momentum at the time. Also the need for reforms was not as obvious as it is right now, where the problem has shown their true colour.

[dukebowling]

The proposal to have owners own up to 49% of telecommunications company was proposed in 2001 - Thaksin just got it passed. It was time for Thailand to step up and stop this us against you idea and think of the country as part of the world. I don't get this selling off Thailand idea. It's just forward thinking typical in most countries. Foreign owners still can't own more than half so what is the big deal?

Any benefit Thaksin received was not illegal. He just then used the law change to conduct a transaction. I would also think that an expert in telecommunications would reform that industry properly and bring in outside money so the industry could boom the way it did. Thailand has cutting edge technology and competition from this now.

Thaksin did benefit from this boom as did all telecommunication companies in same proportion.

There may have been a proposal in 2001, but the current act was actually passed in November 2001 without 49% ownership (and that is when Thaksin was in government).

It's not the issue of selling of national assets, it's the issue of conflict of interest. Thaksin got the law changed which he gained a huge benefit from.

Conflict of interest law in Thailand:

Section 99. Any director or any member of an association who has in a resolution an interest in conflict with an interest of the association cannot vote in such resolution.

The 2001 Act was amended in 2006 under the supervision of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Since he did not actually vote (it was Parliament), there was no law broken.

A technicality, but correct legally. There just isn't much teeth in any of the charges.

[dukebowling]

Theoretically, what's so bad about "fascism?" In effect, that is how Singapore is governed. And even in Italy, Mussolini all but broke the power of the mafia--the reason they hated him so much. But forget Mussolini and Italy. Perhaps we need to stop seeing Asian adaptations of alternate political models through Western filters. "Democracy" in Thailand has morphed into the worst version imaginable of Gilded Age politics in America. It is one Western model that is not working here, for sure, filter or no filter. Too many Westerners hold on to "democracy" like some sort of mystery cult from the Roman Empire, a spiritual elixir that holds the solution for everything. I don't really think that's so.

Democracy is not meant to be efficient, it's meant to be fair.

So democratic regimes will be sooner or later overruned my less "fair" but more effective regimes.

the choice is equality in poverty or inequality in richness. Soviet Union, China and others gave an answer to this question already but leftist just can't accept the truth which goes against their worldview. So all of these US and West Europe college professors keep manufacturing millions and millions of leftism adepts, who do not bother to review ideas that have been embedded in them.

they just can't accept the truth that people are not equal: everybody has diffident heredity, education, IQ, physical abilities etc. Denying the truth will always lead to a society failure and chaos.

"These are realities that, if you do not accept, will lead to frustration because you will be spending money on wrong assumptions and the results cannot follow."

said Lee Quan Yew, the most ingenious politician of modern world.

All Western World rests on a foundation of false idea.

When a society installs an unfair government, revolt and revolution always follow.

[zaZa9]

"unless their is political reform first" - by which of course they mean that the party, the majority will vote for, is crippled in such a way as to make it unelectable - sure that is democracy.

A country where the highly educated minority wield power over the majority - sure that is democracy

A(nother) country where the interests of big business outweigh the good of the majority - sure that is democracy

Instead of boycotting and protesting why don't the opposition mount a campaign to gain popularity in rural areas- it may take them longer to gain power but they will have done so legitimately instead of relying on an army to put them in power. Changing government through violence and disorder is just another manifestation of corruption.

Hit the nail on the head.

I live in the south , a yellow stronghold apparently.

Everyone I know is yellow , but they dont vote for some reason or other, usually because they move around Im told.

This is despite the yellow candidates offering them 500 baht 'help' in moving their electorate listing. So much for Red Shirts vote buying.

Yellow elites from Bangkok sigh and say that 'they' are just uneducated , and that anyone well educated would see the evil of Thaksins ways. But these 'educated' elite do nothing to educate these country folk.

The way I see it , the Yellows are between a rock and a hard place of their own making.

They need to educate "the rest" in order to gain the votes to get power , but if they educate the rest , well then they wont be so elite any more.

Anyone who talks like Suthep should be watched closely .

He doesnt care if he has the numbers or not.

Thats a dictator in the making in my books.

[zaZa9]

Theoretically, what's so bad about "fascism?" In effect, that is how Singapore is governed. And even in Italy, Mussolini all but broke the power of the mafia--the reason they hated him so much. But forget Mussolini and Italy. Perhaps we need to stop seeing Asian adaptations of alternate political models through Western filters. "Democracy" in Thailand has morphed into the worst version imaginable of Gilded Age politics in America. It is one Western model that is not working here, for sure, filter or no filter. Too many Westerners hold on to "democracy" like some sort of mystery cult from the Roman Empire, a spiritual elixir that holds the solution for everything. I don't really think that's so.

Democracy is not meant to be efficient, it's meant to be fair.

So democratic regimes will be sooner or later overruned my less "fair" but more effective regimes.

the choice is equality in poverty or inequality in richness. Soviet Union, China and others gave an answer to this question already but leftist just can't accept the truth which goes against their worldview. So all of these US and West Europe college professors keep manufacturing millions and millions of leftism adepts, who do not bother to review ideas that have been embedded in them.

they just can't accept the truth that people are not equal: everybody has diffident heredity, education, IQ, physical abilities etc. Denying the truth will always lead to a society failure and chaos.

"These are realities that, if you do not accept, will lead to frustration because you will be spending money on wrong assumptions and the results cannot follow."

said Lee Quan Yew, the most ingenious politician of modern world.

All Western World rests on a foundation of false idea.

When a society installs an unfair government, revolt and revolution always follow.

By whom?

The overwhelming majority who installed it?

[Maha Sarakham Marty]

@ Maha Sarakham Marty:

What evidence would you like to see?

All of it. Any of it, even.

Lots of factual reports, as opposed to "gossip and hearsay", out there about Kornthep.

Provide the links, at least.

www.google.com

Search of:

Thaksin Kornthep

Reveals 230 links. Hope that gives you a good start to learning about the Thaksin years.

Yeah, I'll do that and apologise if you're PROVED correct (don't hold your breath).

Up to you, one can only lead a horse to water.

[blaze]

"unless their is political reform first" - by which of course they mean that the party, the majority will vote for, is crippled in such a way as to make it unelectable - sure that is democracy.

A country where the highly educated minority wield power over the majority - sure that is democracy

A(nother) country where the interests of big business outweigh the good of the majority - sure that is democracy

Instead of boycotting and protesting why don't the opposition mount a campaign to gain popularity in rural areas- it may take them longer to gain power but they will have done so legitimately instead of relying on an army to put them in power. Changing government through violence and disorder is just another manifestation of corruption.

Hit the nail on the head.

I live in the south , a yellow stronghold apparently.

Everyone I know is yellow , but they dont vote for some reason or other, usually because they move around Im told.

This is despite the yellow candidates offering them 500 baht 'help' in moving their electorate listing. So much for Red Shirts vote buying.

Yellow elites from Bangkok sigh and say that 'they' are just uneducated , and that anyone well educated would see the evil of Thaksins ways. But these 'educated' elite do nothing to educate these country folk.

The way I see it , the Yellows are between a rock and a hard place of their own making.

They need to educate "the rest" in order to gain the votes to get power , but if they educate the rest , well then they wont be so elite any more.

Anyone who talks like Suthep should be watched closely .

He doesnt care if he has the numbers or not.

Thats a dictator in the making in my books.

Finally a post that suggests that the warlord/kamnan system is more deeply entrenched in the Democrat strongholds than in the North and North East.

My experience in the South (Pattalung, NST) is that nobody thinks about politics- only about allegience. Unless it has changed, it is a different world down there-

They expect nothing from Bangkok but a lot from their Big Men.

a strange kind of mafia emerged after the defeat of communism= in Sadao- in NST- where the old fighters with their networks became like godfathers.

We have heard so much about the North East and so little about the South-

Thank you for posting (and if I'm wrong in my appraisals of the situation down there, correct me).

thanks for posting.

Edited December 22, 2013 by blaze

[Emptyset]

Finally a post that suggests that the warlord/kamnan system is more deeply entrenched in the Democrat strongholds than in the North and North East.

My experience in the South (Pattalung, NST) is that nobody thinks about politics- only about allegience. Unless it has changed, it is a different world down there-

They expect nothing from Bangkok but a lot from their Big Men.

a strange kind of mafia emerged after the defeat of communism= in Sadao- in NST- where the old fighters with their networks became like godfathers.

We have heard so much about the North East and so little about the South-

Thank you for posting (and if I'm wrong in my appraisals of the situation down there, correct me).

thanks for posting.

Interesting. Have read stuff by academics which has suggested the same: 'Many of my informants used the term “Pak-Puak (our friends)” to describe the relationship between the party and Southern people. One rural farmer said; “Southern people see the Democrats as a member of their group, and they are willing to get anyone from their group to be the Prime Minister”. Moreover, a few people said that voting for the Democrats is something that “the elders have requested”. One of them explained further that voting for the Democrats has become something like a “family tradition”. Overall, it seems that there is a connection of identities that is built upon dimensions of “personal relationship”, such as friendship or family-ties, between being “Southern” and “supporting the Democrats”.'

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/06/02/report-from-the-south-from-the-day-of-prong-dong-harmony-to-the-day-of-prab-pram-suppression/

Someone actually wrote a book about this which I've been meaning to read for a while:

'The book narrates and analyses election contests during this period at municipal, provincial and national levels, highlighting the character of political rhetoric and performance at election rallies, political alliances among political phuak groupings (among Democrat-affiliated groups and their opponents), the role of political families, patronage and vote-buying. In 2005, the southern Democrats were able to rebuff the TRT onslaught in the south, a striking contrast with their comprehensive defeat elsewhere in the country, through effectively mobilizing phuak networks and potent symbols of political virtue, together with the judicious use of money in certain tough constituency contests.'

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2008/04/29/party-and-phuak-in-the-democrat-south/

[Smokemachine]

Anyone saw today BangkokPost news?

It reported Jatuporn warned the millitary not to stage a coup as promised earlier.

"Maybe they think they can defeat the Thaksin regime by not competing in the election," he added.

Finally he admitted it's all about the Thaksin regime=TS dictatorship.

[Bluespunk]

Theoretically, what's so bad about "fascism?" In effect, that is how Singapore is governed. And even in Italy, Mussolini all but broke the power of the mafia--the reason they hated him so much. But forget Mussolini and Italy. Perhaps we need to stop seeing Asian adaptations of alternate political models through Western filters. "Democracy" in Thailand has morphed into the worst version imaginable of Gilded Age politics in America. It is one Western model that is not working here, for sure, filter or no filter. Too many Westerners hold on to "democracy" like some sort of mystery cult from the Roman Empire, a spiritual elixir that holds the solution for everything. I don't really think that's so.

Democracy is not meant to be efficient, it's meant to be fair.

So democratic regimes will be sooner or later overruned my less "fair" but more effective regimes.

the choice is equality in poverty or inequality in richness. Soviet Union, China and others gave an answer to this question already but leftist just can't accept the truth which goes against their worldview. So all of these US and West Europe college professors keep manufacturing millions and millions of leftism adepts, who do not bother to review ideas that have been embedded in them.

they just can't accept the truth that people are not equal: everybody has diffident heredity, education, IQ, physical abilities etc. Denying the truth will always lead to a society failure and chaos.

"These are realities that, if you do not accept, will lead to frustration because you will be spending money on wrong assumptions and the results cannot follow."

said Lee Quan Yew, the most ingenious politician of modern world.

All Western World rests on a foundation of false idea.

When a society installs an unfair government, revolt and revolution always follow.

By whom?

The overwhelming majority who installed it?

While PT clearly won the election, they were no means voted in by an overwhelming majority if the people, not even the majority of voters in fact.

[diceq]

Enough of these fascists already. So sick of them.

[whybother]

The proposal to have owners own up to 49% of telecommunications company was proposed in 2001 - Thaksin just got it passed. It was time for Thailand to step up and stop this us against you idea and think of the country as part of the world. I don't get this selling off Thailand idea. It's just forward thinking typical in most countries. Foreign owners still can't own more than half so what is the big deal?

Any benefit Thaksin received was not illegal. He just then used the law change to conduct a transaction. I would also think that an expert in telecommunications would reform that industry properly and bring in outside money so the industry could boom the way it did. Thailand has cutting edge technology and competition from this now.

Thaksin did benefit from this boom as did all telecommunication companies in same proportion.

There may have been a proposal in 2001, but the current act was actually passed in November 2001 without 49% ownership (and that is when Thaksin was in government).

It's not the issue of selling of national assets, it's the issue of conflict of interest. Thaksin got the law changed which he gained a huge benefit from.

Conflict of interest law in Thailand:

Section 99. Any director or any member of an association who has in a resolution an interest in conflict with an interest of the association cannot vote in such resolution.

The 2001 Act was amended in 2006 under the supervision of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Since he did not actually vote (it was Parliament), there was no law broken.

A technicality, but correct legally. There just isn't much teeth in any of the charges.

I am not saying Thaksin broke the law in changing the Telecoms law and selling his company. But that doesn't make it right.

Sent from my phone ...

[toybits]

The Thai Democrat Party has a right to Boycott the Election. They have the right to complain. But do they have the right to impede, or coerce other parties to do as they want? Do they and the group of Suthep have the right to impede others from becoming a candidate for an election they are boycotting? If this is the flavor of things to come - I would be very scared to have Abhisit, the Democrat Party and Suthep's group come into power.

[Bluespunk]

The Thai Democrat Party has a right to Boycott the Election. They have the right to complain. But do they have the right to impede, or coerce other parties to do as they want? Do they and the group of Suthep have the right to impede others from becoming a candidate for an election they are boycotting? If this is the flavor of things to come - I would be very scared to have Abhisit, the Democrat Party and Suthep's group come into power.

Can you post me some links to reports saying the Dems are coercing other parties to do as they say? Likewise links to where they are preventing the registration of candidates. I know that fascist loon Suthep is doing this but not heard of the Dems doing so.

I know Suthep was, was, a Dem but he has not only left the party but also lost all sense of reality since then. This fascist does not represent the Democrat party. I cannot agree with the dems boycotting the election, it only helps sutheps authoritarian, elitist plans, but this fruitcake's ideas and bullying tactics are not those of the dems.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Bluespunk

[dukebowling]

When a society installs an unfair government, revolt and revolution always follow.

By whom?

The overwhelming majority who installed it?

Unfair governments are usually installed by a minority populous. Revolt comes from the repressed people.

[Jay Sata]

It will be interesting to see where Thaksin goes from here.

And it was all going so well with his little sister never having to face a problem just smiling and delegating.

[Spare]

When a society installs an unfair government, revolt and revolution always follow.

By whom?

The overwhelming majority who installed it?

Unfair governments are usually installed by a minority populous. Revolt comes from the repressed people.

Reform reform reform.

Who in Sept 2006 wrote this Constitution that so badly need a reform?

I guess it must be the big bad wolf Thaksin.

[dukebowling]

The proposal to have owners own up to 49% of telecommunications company was proposed in 2001 - Thaksin just got it passed. It was time for Thailand to step up and stop this us against you idea and think of the country as part of the world. I don't get this selling off Thailand idea. It's just forward thinking typical in most countries. Foreign owners still can't own more than half so what is the big deal?

Any benefit Thaksin received was not illegal. He just then used the law change to conduct a transaction. I would also think that an expert in telecommunications would reform that industry properly and bring in outside money so the industry could boom the way it did. Thailand has cutting edge technology and competition from this now.

Thaksin did benefit from this boom as did all telecommunication companies in same proportion.

There may have been a proposal in 2001, but the current act was actually passed in November 2001 without 49% ownership (and that is when Thaksin was in government).

It's not the issue of selling of national assets, it's the issue of conflict of interest. Thaksin got the law changed which he gained a huge benefit from.

Conflict of interest law in Thailand:

Section 99. Any director or any member of an association who has in a resolution an interest in conflict with an interest of the association cannot vote in such resolution.

The 2001 Act was amended in 2006 under the supervision of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Since he did not actually vote (it was Parliament), there was no law broken.

A technicality, but correct legally. There just isn't much teeth in any of the charges.

I am not saying Thaksin broke the law in changing the Telecoms law and selling his company. But that doesn't make it right.

Sent from my phone ...

I agree, it wasn't right. It was immoral. Thaksin as is most politicians are immoral. You just can't legislate morality.

[dukebowling]

The general hate rally cry against Thaksin reminds me of another in history - Hitler and his rally for the country to hate the Jews. Point to a scapegoat for all the country's problems and create a mob. Hate is the heart of a mob's mentality. Truly sad.

I still can't find any solid evidence of what Thaksin did wrong. Can anyone tell me?

I would commend you to invest in an education. The first step for you would be to learn how to search on the internet.

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia.

"...He was convicted by the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions of abusing his power to help his wife buy public land at an auction, and was sentenced to two years in jail. Various criminal charges await him if he returns to Thailand..."[/size]

He also evaded tax by fraudulent share transactions for the sale of Shincorp to another bunch of politicians in Singapore.[/size]

Thaksin was convicted without a trial or defense from a government destined to find fault.

Again, anyone have anything?

It might be good to begin with the truth, even if it is uncomfortable for you.

Thaksin had a trial.

Thaksin had defense attorneys representing him.

The government was his brother-in-law's.

Thanks for your concern about my comfort.

Actually Thaksin's defense attorneys were thrown in jail for trying to bribe the judge officials. While this was a heinous act, it was still not an objective or real "trial".

The government was a military installed government, not set up by his Brother in Law. His brother in Law was voted in September 17, 2008. Thaksin was found guilty about a month later on October 21, 2008 by a special nine-member bench of the Supreme Court known as the Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions set up well before his brother on law came into office. By the way, it was a close 5-4 vote against Thaksin.

Edited December 23, 2013 by dukebowling

[Maha Sarakham Marty]

The general hate rally cry against Thaksin reminds me of another in history - Hitler and his rally for the country to hate the Jews. Point to a scapegoat for all the country's problems and create a mob. Hate is the heart of a mob's mentality. Truly sad.

I still can't find any solid evidence of what Thaksin did wrong. Can anyone tell me?

I would commend you to invest in an education. The first step for you would be to learn how to search on the internet.

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia.

"...He was convicted by the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions of abusing his power to help his wife buy public land at an auction, and was sentenced to two years in jail. Various criminal charges await him if he returns to Thailand..."[/size]

He also evaded tax by fraudulent share transactions for the sale of Shincorp to another bunch of politicians in Singapore.[/size]

Thaksin was convicted without a trial or defense from a government destined to find fault.

Again, anyone have anything?

It might be good to begin with the truth, even if it is uncomfortable for you.

Thaksin had a trial.

Thaksin had defense attorneys representing him.

The government was his brother-in-law's.

Thanks for your concern about my comfort.

Actually Thaksin's defense attorneys were thrown in jail for trying to bribe the judge officials. While this was a heinous act, it was still not an objective or real "trial".

The government was a military installed government, not set up by his Brother in Law. His brother in Law was voted in September 17, 2008. Thaksin was found guilty about a month later on October 21, 2008 by a special nine-member bench of the Supreme Court known as the Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions set up well before his brother on law came into office. By the way, it was a close 5-4 vote against Thaksin.

Oh dear, sorry to bring you more uncomfortable truths.

Thaksin has a battalion of lawyers, of which those those attorneys involved in the bribery were just a part of.

At no time did he ever not have highly qualified (and highly paid) legal representation during any of the proceedings. That includes battalion-member lawyer Kamnuan Chalopatham who told the court his client would not appeal the conviction.

The division of the supreme court that decided the case was created long before Thaksin's case and is a permanent section that continues to this day.

The votes in court proceedings are often close. Thaksin's asset concealment case is a good example of such a verdict. It doesn't, however, change guilt or innocence.

It would seem that rather than your asking if "anyone have anything" in such a disingenuous manner, that you stick to long-established truths that have been there all along.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Maha Sarakham Marty

[jackrich]

If Abhisit and the Democrats are not supporting Suthep and his ideals, I think they should come out and state that publicly, otherwise people might get confused. I've looked hard but I haven't seen Abhisit do that, on the contrary he has even joined the protests and has himself said that he would become the leader if Suthep was arrested:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Abhisit-could-take-Sutheps-place-if-protest-leader-30220931.html

[dukebowling]

Thanks for your concern about my comfort.

Actually Thaksin's defense attorneys were thrown in jail for trying to bribe the judge officials. While this was a heinous act, it was still not an objective or real "trial".

The government was a military installed government, not set up by his Brother in Law. His brother in Law was voted in September 17, 2008. Thaksin was found guilty about a month later on October 21, 2008 by a special nine-member bench of the Supreme Court known as the Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions set up well before his brother on law came into office. By the way, it was a close 5-4 vote against Thaksin.

Oh dear, sorry to bring you more uncomfortable truths.

Thaksin has a battalion of lawyers, of which those those attorneys involved in the bribery were just a part of.

At no time did he ever not have highly qualified (and highly paid) legal representation during any of the proceedings. That includes battalion-member lawyer Kamnuan Chalopatham who told the court his client would not appeal the conviction.

The division of the supreme court that decided the case was created long before Thaksin's case and is a permanent section that continues to this day.

The votes in court proceedings are often close. Thaksin's asset concealment case is a good example of such a verdict. It doesn't, however, change guilt or innocence.

It would seem that rather than your asking if "anyone have anything" in such a disingenuous manner, that you stick to long-established truths that have been there all along.

Thaksin did not commit a crime here. What is the crime? Conflict of interest only applies if he votes. Morality should not be confused with legality. The trial was a sham but will pass the statute of limitations in a few more years and the charges will expire so he can return, continuing to upset the hate driven opposition.

[whybother]

Thaksin did not commit a crime here. What is the crime? Conflict of interest only applies if he votes. Morality should not be confused with legality. The trial was a sham but will pass the statute of limitations in a few more years and the charges will expire so he can return, continuing to upset the hate driven opposition.

Since when is there a statute of limitations on skipping jail?

[Maha Sarakham Marty]

Thanks for your concern about my comfort.

Actually Thaksin's defense attorneys were thrown in jail for trying to bribe the judge officials. While this was a heinous act, it was still not an objective or real "trial".

The government was a military installed government, not set up by his Brother in Law. His brother in Law was voted in September 17, 2008. Thaksin was found guilty about a month later on October 21, 2008 by a special nine-member bench of the Supreme Court known as the Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions set up well before his brother on law came into office. By the way, it was a close 5-4 vote against Thaksin.

Oh dear, sorry to bring you more uncomfortable truths.

Thaksin has a battalion of lawyers, of which those those attorneys involved in the bribery were just a part of.

At no time did he ever not have highly qualified (and highly paid) legal representation during any of the proceedings. That includes battalion-member lawyer Kamnuan Chalopatham who told the court his client would not appeal the conviction.

The division of the supreme court that decided the case was created long before Thaksin's case and is a permanent section that continues to this day.

The votes in court proceedings are often close. Thaksin's asset concealment case is a good example of such a verdict. It doesn't, however, change guilt or innocence.

It would seem that rather than your asking if "anyone have anything" in such a disingenuous manner, that you stick to long-established truths that have been there all along.

Thaksin did not commit a crime here. What is the crime? Conflict of interest only applies if he votes. Morality should not be confused with legality. The trial was a sham but will pass the statute of limitations in a few more years and the charges will expire so he can return, continuing to upset the hate driven opposition.

You're getting more and more confused.

The trial was no sham. The judges took hours explaining the verdict, including your long-ago-disproven contentions regarding it.

That verdict does not involve any statute of limitations. It has long been finalized, when no appeal was raised by Thaksin.

Additionally, the current still pending charges on other offenses also do not involve a statute of limitations as they have already been initiated and are just on hold until he returns to answer for them.

[toybits]

Thirty-four political parties registered for the 2nd February 2014 election. Isn't that a defiance of Suthep and Abhisits position?

[Spare]

Thirty-four political parties registered for the 2nd February 2014 election. Isn't that a defiance of Suthep and Abhisits position?

These 34 should be charged by the People's Council.

[dukebowling]

Thanks for your concern about my comfort.

Actually Thaksin's defense attorneys were thrown in jail for trying to bribe the judge officials. While this was a heinous act, it was still not an objective or real "trial".

The government was a military installed government, not set up by his Brother in Law. His brother in Law was voted in September 17, 2008. Thaksin was found guilty about a month later on October 21, 2008 by a special nine-member bench of the Supreme Court known as the Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions set up well before his brother on law came into office. By the way, it was a close 5-4 vote against Thaksin.

Oh dear, sorry to bring you more uncomfortable truths.

Thaksin has a battalion of lawyers, of which those those attorneys involved in the bribery were just a part of.

At no time did he ever not have highly qualified (and highly paid) legal representation during any of the proceedings. That includes battalion-member lawyer Kamnuan Chalopatham who told the court his client would not appeal the conviction.

The division of the supreme court that decided the case was created long before Thaksin's case and is a permanent section that continues to this day.

The votes in court proceedings are often close. Thaksin's asset concealment case is a good example of such a verdict. It doesn't, however, change guilt or innocence.

It would seem that rather than your asking if "anyone have anything" in such a disingenuous manner, that you stick to long-established truths that have been there all along.

Thaksin did not commit a crime here. What is the crime? Conflict of interest only applies if he votes. Morality should not be confused with legality. The trial was a sham but will pass the statute of limitations in a few more years and the charges will expire so he can return, continuing to upset the hate driven opposition.

You're getting more and more confused.

The trial was no sham. The judges took hours explaining the verdict, including your long-ago-disproven contentions regarding it.

That verdict does not involve any statute of limitations. It has long been finalized, when no appeal was raised by Thaksin.

Additionally, the current still pending charges on other offenses also do not involve a statute of limitations as they have already been initiated and are just on hold until he returns to answer for them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/world/asia/22thai.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

"Prosecutors said Tuesday that Mr. Thaksin’s conviction would “expire” within 10 years"

Conflict of interest law is clear:

Section 99. Any director or any member of an association who has in a resolution an interest in conflict with an interest of the association cannot vote in such resolution.

Since Thaksin did not vote on this, he was not committing a crime. Why did his wife get to keep the land? Because the charge had no teeth.

Edited December 24, 2013 by dukebowling

[geriatrickid]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/world/asia/22thai.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

"Prosecutors said Tuesday that Mr. Thaksin’s conviction would “expire” within 10 years"

Conflict of interest law is clear:

Section 99. Any director or any member of an association who has in a resolution an interest in conflict with an interest of the association cannot vote in such resolution.

Since Thaksin did not vote on this, he was not committing a crime. Why did his wife get to keep the land? Because the charge had no teeth.

LOL, you have provided succinct accurate answers to every argument raised. Do you honestly think that those who disagree with you are able to comprehend, let alone consider the arguments you have made?

Making matters worse, you have replied in a calm and respectful manner, and you have stayed on topic without going off into a wild unrelated subject. This tends to drive the frothers batty. The reality that the proceedings against Thaksin were tainted by politics will never be accepted by these people.

Maybe the charges were legitimate, and maybe Thaksin was guilty of far more serious crimes. We'll never know because there wasn't what could be called a transparent and unbiased proceeding. Based upon the world's response to date, there wasn't one country that considered the court proceeding and resulting verdict as worth respecting since the former PM was never detained nor subject to an exclusionary order. Often, western governments will consider convictions on corruption related offences as serious and act accordingly. None of them did in respect to Thaksin.

[Maha Sarakham Marty]

Thanks for your concern about my comfort.

Actually Thaksin's defense attorneys were thrown in jail for trying to bribe the judge officials. While this was a heinous act, it was still not an objective or real "trial".

The government was a military installed government, not set up by his Brother in Law. His brother in Law was voted in September 17, 2008. Thaksin was found guilty about a month later on October 21, 2008 by a special nine-member bench of the Supreme Court known as the Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions set up well before his brother on law came into office. By the way, it was a close 5-4 vote against Thaksin.

Oh dear, sorry to bring you more uncomfortable truths.

Thaksin has a battalion of lawyers, of which those those attorneys involved in the bribery were just a part of.

At no time did he ever not have highly qualified (and highly paid) legal representation during any of the proceedings. That includes battalion-member lawyer Kamnuan Chalopatham who told the court his client would not appeal the conviction.

The division of the supreme court that decided the case was created long before Thaksin's case and is a permanent section that continues to this day.

The votes in court proceedings are often close. Thaksin's asset concealment case is a good example of such a verdict. It doesn't, however, change guilt or innocence.

It would seem that rather than your asking if "anyone have anything" in such a disingenuous manner, that you stick to long-established truths that have been there all along.

Thaksin did not commit a crime here. What is the crime? Conflict of interest only applies if he votes. Morality should not be confused with legality. The trial was a sham but will pass the statute of limitations in a few more years and the charges will expire so he can return, continuing to upset the hate driven opposition.

You're getting more and more confused.

The trial was no sham. The judges took hours explaining the verdict, including your long-ago-disproven contentions regarding it.

That verdict does not involve any statute of limitations. It has long been finalized, when no appeal was raised by Thaksin.

Additionally, the current still pending charges on other offenses also do not involve a statute of limitations as they have already been initiated and are just on hold until he returns to answer for them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/world/asia/22thai.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

"Prosecutors said Tuesday that Mr. Thaksin’s conviction would “expire” within 10 years"

Conflict of interest law is clear:

Section 99. Any director or any member of an association who has in a resolution an interest in conflict with an interest of the association cannot vote in such resolution.

Since Thaksin did not vote on this, he was not committing a crime. Why did his wife get to keep the land? Because the charge had no teeth.

There's no direct mention of statute of limitations in the article that results in the suspension of his prison sentence.

Do you know of any corroboration of Fuller's statement regarding what exactly the conviction expiring actually means? I would think that if it it was really what you propose that there would be lots of other references to it over the past 5 years.

But outside of Fuller, who has gotten lots of other issues wrong, I have honestly never heard of any other reports that this is the situation.

As for your contentions on the specifics of his guilt, it's been done to death already and as said was already addressed countless times.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Maha Sarakham Marty