Thai Democrats resolve to boycott February 2 election

[Maha Sarakham Marty]

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.

you have stayed on topic without going off into a wild unrelated subject. This tends to drive the frothers batty.

Not to drive you frothy or batty, but, actually, the topic is, just to be clear:

Thai Democrats Resolve To Boycott February 2 Election

Btw, Thaksin's conviction was 1,891 days ago.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Maha Sarakham Marty

[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.

you have stayed on topic without going off into a wild unrelated subject. This tends to drive the frothers batty.

Not to drive you frothy or batty, but, actually, the topic is, just to be clear:

Thai Democrats Resolve To Boycott February 2 Election

Btw, Thaksin's conviction was 1,891 days ago.

Pay close attention, as I am neither as patient nor as tolerant of you as others are;

1. Do not quote me out of context and do not use a partial line.

2. You are the one running off on a tangent and bringing up Thaksin, not me. My comments were in respect to the person whom I quoted in full. I admired his/her acuity and succinctness: qualities which you should try to emulate, along with an upgrade on your use of the quote option.

3. I am not obsessed with former PM Thaksin, as you seem to be. As such, I could care less as to when a judgement was rendered on the charges that were brought by political opponents.

4. The topic is indeed the inability of the Democrat party to get itself organized to contest an election that it forced upon the legally elected government of Thailand.

Considering the fact that one of the Democrat's key people, the man who delivered the votes from Surat Thani, Phuket and Nahkon Si Thammarat along with the troubled southernmost region, is opposed to the election, it should be rather obvious to anyone with any understanding of the importance of the southern voting bloc, what the impact will be on the Democrat vote. If Suthep says not to vote, it is conceivable that several hundred thousand voters won't show up on election day.

Edited December 24, 2013 by geriatrickid

[Maha Sarakham Marty]

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.

you have stayed on topic without going off into a wild unrelated subject. This tends to drive the frothers batty.

Not to drive you frothy or batty, but, actually, the topic is, just to be clear:

Thai Democrats Resolve To Boycott February 2 Election

Btw, Thaksin's conviction was 1,891 days ago.

You are the one running off on a tangent and bringing up Thaksin, not me.

The topic is indeed the inability of the Democrat party to get itself organized to contest an election

I didn't bring up Thaksin if you care to check. I was responding to others, just as you were.

The difference is you praised a poster, that also was off topic as being on topic, when it wasn't.

Kudos for recognizing that in your last bit, even if it's a bit off as the Dems are not contesting the election due to not being organized.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Maha Sarakham Marty

[whybother]

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.

We'll never know because Thaksin has runaway and won't come back to face the charges.

Sent from my phone ...

[dukebowling]

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.

I was hoping to complete my quest to find some exact criminal act that everyone has been talking about in reference to Thaksin. I have not found one to my satisfaction being an objective observer.

What I have found is a small minority voice speaking louder than most, hoping that the loudness makes their view more righteous. Condescending remarks to others do not make an opinion more valid. I have also found a politician simply being a politician - manipulating the system for the gain of his supporters, himself and representative people.

If someone uses the system legally to their gain, then the solution is to change the system. You cannot complain after the fact.

Democracy is a slow crawl where societies must be allowed to make mistakes, then change, then make more mistakes, change and so on. Believe in the process, not the people.

Edited December 24, 2013 by dukebowling

[englishoak]

Democracy is a slow crawl where societies must be allowed to make mistakes, then change, then make more mistakes, change and so on. Believe in the process, not the people.

Thailand doesn't have the patience for all that long term stuff, it wants a magic wand, usually in the form of one coup or another, then another, then another, then another, ad infinitum

[whybother]

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.

I was hoping to complete my quest to find some exact criminal act that everyone has been talking about in reference to Thaksin. I have not found one to my satisfaction being an objective observer.

What I have found is a small minority voice speaking louder than most, hoping that the loudness makes their view more righteous. Condescending remarks to others do not make an opinion more valid. I have also found a politician simply being a politician - manipulating the system for the gain of his supporters, himself and representative people.

If someone uses the system legally to their gain, then the solution is to change the system. You cannot complain after the fact.

Democracy is a slow crawl where societies must be allowed to make mistakes, then change, then make more mistakes, change and so on. Believe in the process, not the people.

What Thaksin did while he was in power was to change laws and use government money to specifically help his companies (including increasing loans to Myanmar so they could buy equipment from his company).

Many of the things that he did haven't been found to be illegal because he ran away from the charges, so they couldn't go through the courts.

People complain about how corrupt Suthep is, but then they support Thaksin????

I don't get it. Why can't they move forward without him? They have their voice. They have their party in power. The only time they get major opposition is when they involve Thaksin.

Sent from my phone ...

[brit1984]

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.

I was hoping to complete my quest to find some exact criminal act that everyone has been talking about in reference to Thaksin. I have not found one to my satisfaction being an objective observer.

What I have found is a small minority voice speaking louder than most, hoping that the loudness makes their view more righteous. Condescending remarks to others do not make an opinion more valid. I have also found a politician simply being a politician - manipulating the system for the gain of his supporters, himself and representative people.

If someone uses the system legally to their gain, then the solution is to change the system. You cannot complain after the fact.

Democracy is a slow crawl where societies must be allowed to make mistakes, then change, then make more mistakes, change and so on. Believe in the process, not the people.

What Thaksin did while he was in power was to change laws and use government money to specifically help his companies (including increasing loans to Myanmar so they could buy equipment from his company).

Many of the things that he did haven't been found to be illegal because he ran away from the charges, so they couldn't go through the courts.

People complain about how corrupt Suthep is, but then they support Thaksin????

I don't get it. Why can't they move forward without him? They have their voice. They have their party in power. The only time they get major opposition is when they involve Thaksin.

Sent from my phone ...

nobody sensible is saying suthep is corrupt but thaksin is not - all sensible people can see they are both the same

this obviously goes some way to discrediting suthep's justification to take power by force but the real point is not whether suthep is better than thaksin

what matters is whether suthep's plan will contribute to peace and political stability in thailand

and its clear to everyone with a memory of recent history and/or logical perspective on the future that suthep's plan will do the opposite

[whybother]

nobody sensible is saying suthep is corrupt but thaksin is not - all sensible people can see they are both the same

this obviously goes some way to discrediting suthep's justification to take power by force but the real point is not whether suthep is better than thaksin

what matters is whether suthep's plan will contribute to peace and political stability in thailand

and its clear to everyone with a memory of recent history and/or logical perspective on the future that suthep's plan will do the opposite

Yingluck's plan hasn't been very well accepted either.

The problem at the moment is that there only seems to be a choice of one or the other.

If anyone is against corruption, they should be against allowing Thaksin to come back with his crimes white washed.

They also shouldn't be backing Suthep to lead a "people's government".

But it's very difficult to be anywhere in between the two. Is there anyone out there that could stand up and be trusted by both sides to sort out this mess?

[Bpuumike]

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.

I don't think he spent enough time in any one Western country.

But raises the question of why he is holed up in Dubai of all places?

[Maha Sarakham Marty]

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.

I don't think he spent enough time in any one Western country.

But raises the question of why he is holed up in Dubai of all places?

No flooding and solid Skype connections.

Edited December 25, 2013 by Maha Sarakham Marty

[brit1984]

nobody sensible is saying suthep is corrupt but thaksin is not - all sensible people can see they are both the same

this obviously goes some way to discrediting suthep's justification to take power by force but the real point is not whether suthep is better than thaksin

what matters is whether suthep's plan will contribute to peace and political stability in thailand

and its clear to everyone with a memory of recent history and/or logical perspective on the future that suthep's plan will do the opposite

Yingluck's plan hasn't been very well accepted either.

The problem at the moment is that there only seems to be a choice of one or the other.

If anyone is against corruption, they should be against allowing Thaksin to come back with his crimes white washed.

They also shouldn't be backing Suthep to lead a "people's government".

But it's very difficult to be anywhere in between the two. Is there anyone out there that could stand up and be trusted by both sides to sort out this mess?

agreed - suthep and thaksin are both tainted (actually completely discredited) by histories of corruption / cheating

time for someone properly educated (and mentally balanced) to step forward and stop all this petty squabbling

i believe abhisit and/or korn could (and should) do this, but they have been pushed into the background

with suthep taking center stage, the democrats are becoming even more un-electable (and hope for peace in thailand is fading fast)

i really hope someone from the democrats has the bravery to get him under control asap

[jackrich]

Well, I guess we won't see the Democrats again until 2018 then, which wll be the next election after this one.

[brit1984]

Well, I guess we won't see the Democrats again until 2018 then, which wll be the next election after this one.

obviously we will see them but probably not in any form that bears any semblance to their "democrat" name, nor in any form that is likely to achieve political stability, or contribute to peace in thailand

if they had just waited another year they would have been well placed... the required swing based on the last election wasn't that great, especially in the context that the current government is so weak and the electorate are (according to the democrats at least) so cheap

with suthep running the show, the outlook for the democrats (and thai politics in general) doesn't look good

[philw]

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

Slightly, but they don't really count, it's just unwashed hordes pretending they have an education and are enfranchised........

If they were true Democratics, they would not even think of contesting an election...

Edited December 25, 2013 by philw

[toybits]

Well, in case you didn't know, That's the way democracy works. In my book, coercion does not count as part of the democratic process. You obviously are reading another book...

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

Slightly, but they don't really count, it's just unwashed hordes pretending they have an education and are enfranchised........

If they were true Democratics, they would not even think of contesting an election...

[philw]

Well, in case you didn't know, That's the way democracy works. In my book, coercion does not count as part of the democratic process. You obviously are reading another book...

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

Slightly, but they don't really count, it's just unwashed hordes pretending they have an education and are enfranchised........

If they were true Democratics, they would not even think of contesting an election...

Where is the coercion in the highly active Thai participatory electoral process ???

34 different parties want to contest an election and one person and one badly named party is trying to thwart that.

What coercion do you refer to ???

[Thaddeus]

Well, in case you didn't know, That's the way democracy works. In my book, coercion does not count as part of the democratic process. You obviously are reading another book...

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

Slightly, but they don't really count, it's just unwashed hordes pretending they have an education and are enfranchised........

If they were true Democratics, they would not even think of contesting an election...

Where is the coercion in the highly active Thai participatory electoral process ???

34 different parties want to contest an election and one person and one badly named party is trying to thwart that.

What coercion do you refer to ???

Those 34 parties have roughly the same amount of interest in the whole you as the pools of fish that eat the dead skin off your feet.

They care little for what may be above the water, because they will never get to eat it, therefore they are just being used by the man that owns the pool.

[rebelplatoon]

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?

Let's throw in some historical names to make us look intelligent. Ooo Hitler! Ahh Musolini!

Well Thaksin reminds me off Mugabe and Marcos!

Can anyone tell me? You are joking right? Read Roo Tan Thaksin (Stay one step ahead of Thaksin) and you will know. This is an academic best-seller, which is odd for an academic book. Besides we can enlighten you with the official conviction, the killing at the Krue Se Mosque of 106 people (mostly shot in the head) the killing fields of his "campaign against drugs" in which police officers got rid of their own drug contacts, the repression of all opposition during his reign, all the projects that were skimmed immensely (think of the airport project). In the book one step ahead of Thaksin it is clearly put and all quite clear. In all countries politics are dirty. That's why I refer to it as politricks. Read this again please:

TRT changed the Political landscape by changing constituencies:

Very large constituencies with large numbers of voters would give one party only one seat (These they changed and were Democratic strongholds) much smaller constituencies, with much fewer people were divided up in several constituencies with one seat each. This means that even when people did not vote a 100% for the TRT they would still have a "glorious victory" over the Democrats. It was all made to match the TRT.

In numbers: The TRT and Dems had respectively: 15,744,190 and 11,433,762 people vote for them. A difference in % of the population of resp. (TRT, Dems) 48.41% and 35.15%. (say 13%) This was NOT reflected in the seats in Parliament by the self dividing rule of the TRT who changed the constituencies. (TRT/ Dems) 265 seats against 159 seats or in seats 106 (!!). If this had been in the range of anything like 225 to 196 this would have been a fair and acceptable result. (the difference being about 13%) or in seats 29. Read that again: The difference in what would have been an acceptable and fair divide in seats was 29 but it became 106 !!! This would have allowed (just an example) the Democrats to team up with some other parties and still form a Government. Besides in the opposition it would have given them lots more control.

[Bpuumike]

"Democrats resolve to boycott election"

Oh <deleted>, what is going on? The dems cannot be buying into suthep's fascist BS. What choice does the country now have? A criminal PT who will continue to drive the country into bankruptcy through greed and idiotic schemes or the nationalistic, fascist BS Suthep is pushing. The poisoned chalace or the hangman's noose. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

There is an increasingly likely third choice.

[Bpuumike]

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?

Let's throw in some historical names to make us look intelligent. Ooo Hitler! Ahh Musolini!

Well Thaksin reminds me off Mugabe and Marcos!

Can anyone tell me? You are joking right? Read Roo Tan Thaksin (Stay one step ahead of Thaksin) and you will know. This is an academic best-seller, which is odd for an academic book. Besides we can enlighten you with the official conviction, the killing at the Krue Se Mosque of 106 people (mostly shot in the head) the killing fields of his "campaign against drugs" in which police officers got rid of their own drug contacts, the repression of all opposition during his reign, all the projects that were skimmed immensely (think of the airport project). In the book one step ahead of Thaksin it is clearly put and all quite clear. In all countries politics are dirty. That's why I refer to it as politricks. Read this again please:

TRT changed the Political landscape by changing constituencies:

Very large constituencies with large numbers of voters would give one party only one seat (These they changed and were Democratic strongholds) much smaller constituencies, with much fewer people were divided up in several constituencies with one seat each. This means that even when people did not vote a 100% for the TRT they would still have a "glorious victory" over the Democrats. It was all made to match the TRT.

In numbers: The TRT and Dems had respectively: 15,744,190 and 11,433,762 people vote for them. A difference in % of the population of resp. (TRT, Dems) 48.41% and 35.15%. (say 13%) This was NOT reflected in the seats in Parliament by the self dividing rule of the TRT who changed the constituencies. (TRT/ Dems) 265 seats against 159 seats or in seats 106 (!!). If this had been in the range of anything like 225 to 196 this would have been a fair and acceptable result. (the difference being about 13%) or in seats 29. Read that again: The difference in what would have been an acceptable and fair divide in seats was 29 but it became 106 !!! This would have allowed (just an example) the Democrats to team up with some other parties and still form a Government. Besides in the opposition it would have given them lots more control.

Good post. Reminds me of a parallel situation... in the UK

[Bpuumike]

Well, in case you didn't know, That's the way democracy works. In my book, coercion does not count as part of the democratic process. You obviously are reading another book...

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

Slightly, but they don't really count, it's just unwashed hordes pretending they have an education and are enfranchised........

If they were true Democratics, they would not even think of contesting an election...

Where is the coercion in the highly active Thai participatory electoral process ???

34 different parties want to contest an election and one person and one badly named party is trying to thwart that.

What coercion do you refer to ???

It's not coercion, it's incentive.

We give you cash in hand and you vote for us.

This is not anecdotal, I have seen it in action.