Thai Army strongly slams Thaksin’s lawyer, Robert Amsterdam

[animatic]

The conviction of Thaksin was a farce, ramrodded through by a non-democratically installed, biased government. There is no evidence of any illegal action when this conviction came down. Interesting how the conviction was handed down by the former president of the Constitutional Court. This court is the biggest cancer, feeding Thailand's corruption.

Really the only evidence against Thaksin of any illegality, he was acquitted of. He learned pretty quickly to stay above board after that close call.

And then he absconded never to return again.

He also never bothered to file a final appeal which was open to him,

he left Thailand and has been bent on revenge every since.

But that is not the REAL reason he hasn't returned.

There are a handful or more of OTHER CASES, all with substantially large prison terms and consequences,

and they can NOT proceed in court until he shows in court once to 'acknowledge the charges'.

If he was doing his cakewalk in jail for the 1st conviction, he would still be trucked to all the other courts,

and forced to appear, thus starting a snowball effect that would see him end his days in a Thai prison.

This gave rise to the failed attempts at retro-active amnesties that benefit him, and now after the last attempt,

has caused the large street action to remove his power over the government we are witnessing today.

But his first conviction was presided over by his own puppet government under Samak,

and then later Somchai his brother in law his window of final appeal closed.

Samak took money from TV production companies, that is conflict of interest under the law,

since they get their income from broadcast on government regulated airwaves.

He is not allowed to derive income from a commercial entity regulated by government control while PM.

And he lied about it under oath.

TV stations are under control of government agencies

and thus giving him free air time can be seen as bribing the biggest boss to curry favor.

As well as them letting him talk his politics on air while cooking.

So free political advertising, building up his ego and paying him for that.

It was a series of arrogant mis-steps from Samak that caused his downfall.

But they just happened to be connected with a "cooking show".

Edited January 13, 2014 by animatic

[Sheryl]

Posters are reminded that there is to be absolutely NO reference to the monarchy in a political context.

[Ricardo]

Abhisit was never elected by democratic elected MPs, they where the MPs that where put in place after the coup in 2006, Abhisit was NEVER elected, and will never be, if you like it or not.

OMG. You REALLY need to do some BASIC research.

The coup was in September 2006. There was an election in December 2007. PPP formed a coalition government. PPP were disbanded, and their replacement party (PTP) were then in power with an acting PM. The acting PM went to parliament to elect a new PM, as they had done a month or so before after Samak was forced to step down for having two jobs. Abhisit was elected PM by a majority of MPs in parliament.

Research is helped when presenting the facts in a more accurate fashion. Samak was booted because it was the only way the Dems could hope to take control of the House. It was widely described as a judicial coup because the ruling was dubious. Samak hosted a cooking show! That was grounds for removing him from office. So how did the Dems then take control: begging the army to pay the criminals in Burriram to join with them.

You and Ikke really need to get your facts right, IMO.

The Dems did not "take control of the House" after PM-Samak, the PPP-executive decided to take the opportunity to replace Samak after he lost a court-case, so decided to put in Thaksin's then brother-in-law, PM-Somchai instead. Why this was done would be a matter for speculation, but Samak had been showing increasing signs of independence, once in-power.

The Democrat-led coalition-government of PM-Abhisit only followed the PPP-led coalition-government of PM-Somchai in December-2008, once PPP had been dissolved and the 'Friends of Newin' then broke away from Thaksin's coalition-of-factions party, which morphed into PTP at that point.

[waza]

Abhisit was never elected by democratic elected MPs, they where the MPs that where put in place after the coup in 2006, Abhisit was NEVER elected, and will never be, if you like it or not.

OMG. You REALLY need to do some BASIC research.

The coup was in September 2006. There was an election in December 2007. PPP formed a coalition government. PPP were disbanded, and their replacement party (PTP) were then in power with an acting PM. The acting PM went to parliament to elect a new PM, as they had done a month or so before after Samak was forced to step down for having two jobs. Abhisit was elected PM by a majority of MPs in parliament.

Research is helped when presenting the facts in a more accurate fashion. Samak was booted because it was the only way the Dems could hope to take control of the House. It was widely described as a judicial coup because the ruling was dubious. Samak hosted a cooking show! That was grounds for removing him from office. So how did the Dems then take control: begging the army to pay the criminals in Burriram to join with them.

You and Ikke really need to get your facts right, IMO.

The Dems did not "take control of the House" after PM-Samak, the PPP-executive decided to take the opportunity to replace Samak after he lost a court-case, so decided to put in Thaksin's then brother-in-law, PM-Somchai instead. Why this was done would be a matter for speculation, but Samak had been showing increasing signs of independence, once in-power.

The Democrat-led coalition-government of PM-Abhisit only followed the PPP-led coalition-government of PM-Somchai in December-2008, once PPP had been dissolved and the 'Friends of Newin' then broke away from Thaksin's coalition-of-factions party, which morphed into PTP at that point.

Samak Sundaravej's 5-month-old government was in great trouble on 10 July 2008 after Pattama the third top official in the ruling People Power Party (PPP) resigned from this post, effective Monday. The deputy leader of the party Yongyut Tiyapairat, was banned from politics for 5 years, after the Supreme Court affirmed vote buying charges against him. Then, Chiya Sasomsub was removed from office by another supreme court, for illegally concealing his wife's assets. The Constitutional Court ruled on 8 July that Noppadon and the entire cabinet violated the charter by failing to ask parliamentary approval for a Cambodia deal. Noppadon signed the agreement on June, to support Cambodia's bid to seek World Heritage status for the 900-year-old Preah Vihear temple [This is alleged deal where Thaksin sold the temple for oil concessions] .....On 12 September 2008, however, the Isan faction of People Power Party (PPP) and the coalition parties boycotted the vote on a new Prime Minister, resulting in a lack of quorum and subsequent postponement of the vote.^[44] The boycott was a sign of the depth of ill-feeling towards Samak from both his own party's members and coalition parties. Finally Samak gave up his re-election bid, allowing his party to choose new a nominee. The majority of his party and the coalition partners eventually voted for Somchai Wongsawat, Deputy Prime Minister, to be the new premier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samak_Sundaravej

Edited January 13, 2014 by waza

[animatic]

Abhisit was never elected by democratic elected MPs, they where the MPs that where put in place after the coup in 2006, Abhisit was NEVER elected, and will never be, if you like it or not.

OMG. You REALLY need to do some BASIC research.

The coup was in September 2006. There was an election in December 2007. PPP formed a coalition government. PPP were disbanded, and their replacement party (PTP) were then in power with an acting PM. The acting PM went to parliament to elect a new PM, as they had done a month or so before after Samak was forced to step down for having two jobs. Abhisit was elected PM by a majority of MPs in parliament.

Research is helped when presenting the facts in a more accurate fashion. Samak was booted because it was the only way the Dems could hope to take control of the House. It was widely described as a judicial coup because the ruling was dubious. Samak hosted a cooking show! That was grounds for removing him from office. So how did the Dems then take control: begging the army to pay the criminals in Burriram to join with them.

You and Ikke really need to get your facts right, IMO.

The Dems did not "take control of the House" after PM-Samak, the PPP-executive decided to take the opportunity to replace Samak after he lost a court-case, so decided to put in Thaksin's then brother-in-law, PM-Somchai instead. Why this was done would be a matter for speculation, but Samak had been showing increasing signs of independence, once in-power.

The Democrat-led coalition-government of PM-Abhisit only followed the PPP-led coalition-government of PM-Somchai in December-2008, once PPP had been dissolved and the 'Friends of Newin' then broke away from Thaksin's coalition-of-factions party, which morphed into PTP at that point.

And the primary reason this follow on to Somchai was because either he or Thaksin dithered

about dissolving the house and moving on to the next PTP party till it was too late for them to keep control,

a tactical error, that the Dems took advantage of when the next PM vote took place. If Somchai had dissolved

parliament before PPP was dissolved and banned they could have gone to another election and likely bought

a new government. But they delayed, maybe imagining that it wouldn't happen.

After PPP was dissolved Somchai no longer had power to control things.

It was a grave strategic and tactical error on his part, which allowed a new collation to be formed FASTER,

by Abhisit et al. And of course it was formed in the classic thai manner, money politics.

Edited January 13, 2014 by animatic

[dukebowling]

The conviction of Thaksin was a farce, ramrodded through by a non-democratically installed, biased government. There is no evidence of any illegal action when this conviction came down. Interesting how the conviction was handed down by the former president of the Constitutional Court. This court is the biggest cancer, feeding Thailand's corruption.

Really the only evidence against Thaksin of any illegality, he was acquitted of. He learned pretty quickly to stay above board after that close call.

Thaksin was convicted under one of his proxy governments.

The president of the Supreme Court who convicted him (former recent president of the Constitutional Court) was not influenced by the government or PM who was voted in a month before the bogus ruling against Thaksin. The process started well before these elections and as usual, the courts maintain power above the law.

[whybother]

The conviction of Thaksin was a farce, ramrodded through by a non-democratically installed, biased government. There is no evidence of any illegal action when this conviction came down. Interesting how the conviction was handed down by the former president of the Constitutional Court. This court is the biggest cancer, feeding Thailand's corruption.

Really the only evidence against Thaksin of any illegality, he was acquitted of. He learned pretty quickly to stay above board after that close call.

Thaksin was convicted under one of his proxy governments.

The president of the Supreme Court who convicted him (former recent president of the Constitutional Court) was not influenced by the government or PM who was voted in a month before the bogus ruling against Thaksin. The process started well before these elections and as usual, the courts maintain power above the law.

The PPP government were elected in December 2007. The conviction was in October 2008. A bit more than a month.

I'm not sure how you can say it was "ramrodded through by a non-democratically installed, biased government".

[SjaakNL2013]

Bring in the King of Thailand make this discussion a "no go area".

Sad to say but was not elected by the people of Thailand and as so not a legal MP. The Army backed him up for his concessions to them.

PM Yingluck was chosen by the Thai people in the last open elections hold here. If you have the vote counts that say other i like to see your proof.

To keep the memories clean of [email protected] wiki

A general election for 24th House of Representatives[1] took place throughout Thailand on Sunday, 3 July 2011, by virtue of the Royal Decree Dissolving the House of Representatives, 2554 BE (2011), which caused the House of Representatives to be dissolved on 10 May 2011.

With a turnout of 75.03%,. populist Pheu Thai Party won a majority with 265 seats. Its leader Yingluck Shinawatra became the first female prime minister in the history of Thailand. The Democrat Party therefore became the main opposition party with a total of 159 seats..

Are you really saying that Abhisit wasn't an elected MP?

Maybe you meant PM. In which case, you should know that Yingluck was elected PM in the same way that Abihisit was - in parliament by other elected MPs.

There was NO election hold prior to the installation of PM Abhisit. He was appointed by the Army, who kept a big power in parliament.

[whybother]

There was NO election hold prior to the installation of PM Abhisit. He was appointed by the Army, who kept a big power in parliament.

There doesn't need to be an election. There only needs to be an election every 4 years.

How did Somchai become PM? When Samak was forced to step down, a new PM had to be elected. There was no general election. The MPs go into parliament and a majority of elected MPs elect a new PM. When Somchai was banned, a new PM had to be elected. In both cases, an election could have been called, but it didn't have to be at that stage. In both cases, the PPP (and PTP) chose to go back to parliament to elect a new PM. They just lost the second time around and Abhisit was elected PM.

That is how PMs get elected in parliamentary systems. That happens directly after an election or it can happen if for some reason the PM is no longer PM.

Once Abhisit was elected PM, he didn't need to call an election until the end of 2011. He chose to call an election early, in July 2011.

[Rich teacher]

There was NO election hold prior to the installation of PM Abhisit. He was appointed by the Army, who kept a big power in parliament.

There doesn't need to be an election. There only needs to be an election every 4 years.

How did Somchai become PM? When Samak was forced to step down, a new PM had to be elected. There was no general election. The MPs go into parliament and a majority of elected MPs elect a new PM. When Somchai was banned, a new PM had to be elected. In both cases, an election could have been called, but it didn't have to be at that stage. In both cases, the PPP (and PTP) chose to go back to parliament to elect a new PM. They just lost the second time around and Abhisit was elected PM.

That is how PMs get elected in parliamentary systems. That happens directly after an election or it can happen if for some reason the PM is no longer PM.

Once Abhisit was elected PM, he didn't need to call an election until the end of 2011. He chose to call an election early, in July 2011.

It's what happened outside of parliament, in the barracks, that was the problem, as you well know, but prefer to ignore.

[whybother]

There was NO election hold prior to the installation of PM Abhisit. He was appointed by the Army, who kept a big power in parliament.

There doesn't need to be an election. There only needs to be an election every 4 years.

How did Somchai become PM? When Samak was forced to step down, a new PM had to be elected. There was no general election. The MPs go into parliament and a majority of elected MPs elect a new PM. When Somchai was banned, a new PM had to be elected. In both cases, an election could have been called, but it didn't have to be at that stage. In both cases, the PPP (and PTP) chose to go back to parliament to elect a new PM. They just lost the second time around and Abhisit was elected PM.

That is how PMs get elected in parliamentary systems. That happens directly after an election or it can happen if for some reason the PM is no longer PM.

Once Abhisit was elected PM, he didn't need to call an election until the end of 2011. He chose to call an election early, in July 2011.

It's what happened outside of parliament, in the barracks, that was the problem, as you well know, but prefer to ignore.

It's the same sort of things that happen in Hong Kong or Dubai. Deals are done. Coalitions are made.

Edited January 13, 2014 by whybother

[fab4]

Abhisit was never elected by democratic elected MPs, they where the MPs that where put in place after the coup in 2006, Abhisit was NEVER elected, and will never be, if you like it or not.

OMG. You REALLY need to do some BASIC research.

The coup was in September 2006. There was an election in December 2007. PPP formed a coalition government. PPP were disbanded, and their replacement party (PTP) were then in power with an acting PM. The acting PM went to parliament to elect a new PM, as they had done a month or so before after Samak was forced to step down for having two jobs. Abhisit was elected PM by a majority of MPs in parliament.

OMG. Did we forget the little details like a royally decreed election on Oct 15th 2006. Well it would have been (poss delayed to November) had it not been for the coup overthrowing a caretaker government. And you forgot the little detail of the Army brokering a deal to enable the defection of the Friends of Newin.

When the PPP was dissolved the 22 MP's of the Friends of Newin (FON) Group had 60 days to either form a new political party or join a new one. Gen Anupong and others arranged a deal between the dems and the FON where the FON would join the dems as coalition partners (in exchange for a lot of money and lucrative ministries like the Interior Ministry, think Dust Free Roads corruption etc.) enabling the dems to get enough votes to form a government and make abhisit PM.

A little detail most abhisit fanboyz are prone to omit

So the oft repeated BS that abhisit was elected PM in the same way as Yingluck, is just that, BS.

What relevance does the scheduled Oct 2006 election have with "Abhisit being elected by MPs put in place by the coup"?

Yes. Dodgy deals were done to form a coalition, just as they were done by Thaksin in 2001, and before the 2005 election when he bought smaller parties into the TRT fold, and in 2007 when the PPP formed a coalition with parties that had campaigned that they wouldn't join with Thaksin's party.

Abhisit WAS elected PM in the same way as Thaksin, Samak, Somchai, and Yingluck - in parliament by a majority of elected MPs.

I didn't say the scheduled October 2006 Election was anything to do with (your phrase, not mine) "Abhisit being elected by MPs put in place by the coup". I was filling in the gaps of your selective memory of the events of your basic research.

I don't recall abhisit being a position to be voted in as PM until after the Army had brokered a deal to have the Friends of Newin defect and provide abhisit with enough coalition partners to be able to form a government.

If the FON hadn't defected with the aid of the army, millions of baht and lucrative ministries, there wouldn't have been a dem coalition and without a dem coalition abhisit wouldn't have been in a position to be made PM. So he wasn't elected in the same way as Thaksin, Samak, Somchai and Yingluck. As I said, oft repeated BS.

But you stick to your blinkered abhisit fanboyz fantasy if it makes you happy.

[fab4]

There was NO election hold prior to the installation of PM Abhisit. He was appointed by the Army, who kept a big power in parliament.

There doesn't need to be an election. There only needs to be an election every 4 years.

How did Somchai become PM? When Samak was forced to step down, a new PM had to be elected. There was no general election. The MPs go into parliament and a majority of elected MPs elect a new PM. When Somchai was banned, a new PM had to be elected. In both cases, an election could have been called, but it didn't have to be at that stage. In both cases, the PPP (and PTP) chose to go back to parliament to elect a new PM. They just lost the second time around and Abhisit was elected PM.

That is how PMs get elected in parliamentary systems. That happens directly after an election or it can happen if for some reason the PM is no longer PM.

Once Abhisit was elected PM, he didn't need to call an election until the end of 2011. He chose to call an election early, in July 2011.

It's what happened outside of parliament, in the barracks, that was the problem, as you well know, but prefer to ignore.

It's the same sort of things that happen in Hong Kong or Dubai. Deals are done. Coalitions are made.

With the full backing of, and under the guidance of the Army? Yes, of course they are...............

[whybother]

What relevance does the scheduled Oct 2006 election have with "Abhisit being elected by MPs put in place by the coup"?

Yes. Dodgy deals were done to form a coalition, just as they were done by Thaksin in 2001, and before the 2005 election when he bought smaller parties into the TRT fold, and in 2007 when the PPP formed a coalition with parties that had campaigned that they wouldn't join with Thaksin's party.

Abhisit WAS elected PM in the same way as Thaksin, Samak, Somchai, and Yingluck - in parliament by a majority of elected MPs.

I didn't say the scheduled October 2006 Election was anything to do with (your phrase, not mine) "Abhisit being elected by MPs put in place by the coup". I was filling in the gaps of your selective memory of the events of your basic research.

I don't recall abhisit being a position to be voted in as PM until after the Army had brokered a deal to have the Friends of Newin defect and provide abhisit with enough coalition partners to be able to form a government.

If the FON hadn't defected with the aid of the army, millions of baht and lucrative ministries, there wouldn't have been a dem coalition and without a dem coalition abhisit wouldn't have been in a position to be made PM. So he wasn't elected in the same way as Thaksin, Samak, Somchai and Yingluck. As I said, oft repeated BS.

But you stick to your blinkered abhisit fanboyz fantasy if it makes you happy.

Selective memory? Why would I mention the scheduled election if it isn't relevant? Tell me why you think it is relevant.

Was Abhisit elected by MPs put in place by the coup? Yes or No? (I know you won't be able to answer with just a Yes or a No.)

Dodgy deals were done to form coalitions. Abhisit was elected in parliament by a majority of elected MPs.

Are you trying to tell me that dodgy deals weren't done in forming the PPP coalition government? You don't think dodgy deals were done in bringing smaller parties into TRT before the 2005 election?

[whybother]

It's the same sort of things that happen in Hong Kong or Dubai. Deals are done. Coalitions are made.

With the full backing of, and under the guidance of the Army? Yes, of course they are...............

No. With the full backing of a criminal, fugitive and, at the time, banned politician.

[Thait Spot]

Seems to me it was the Army that ousted Thaksin in a coup. Like him or not, Thaksin was elected.

Not really. Thanksin wasn't actually elected when he was ousted. The elections were declared invalid per the law. A small detail most seem to miss.

Quite.

One can't expect all the red shirt huggers on here to grasp complicated notions such as that. They can just about use a hammer

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[fab4]

The conviction of Thaksin was a farce, ramrodded through by a non-democratically installed, biased government. There is no evidence of any illegal action when this conviction came down. Interesting how the conviction was handed down by the former president of the Constitutional Court. This court is the biggest cancer, feeding Thailand's corruption.

Really the only evidence against Thaksin of any illegality, he was acquitted of. He learned pretty quickly to stay above board after that close call.

Thaksin was convicted under one of his proxy governments.

The president of the Supreme Court who convicted him (former recent president of the Constitutional Court) was not influenced by the government or PM who was voted in a month before the bogus ruling against Thaksin. The process started well before these elections and as usual, the courts maintain power above the law.

The PPP government were elected in December 2007. The conviction was in October 2008. A bit more than a month.

I'm not sure how you can say it was "ramrodded through by a non-democratically installed, biased government".

I suggest you read this and realise why it took so long.http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com/ - you probably won't but others may and see for themselves what a farce the Land "Scandal" was.

The Assets Examination Committee were railroading the FIDF (who sold the land to Thaksins wife) to press charges against Thaksin which they refused to do as they could see no "criminal" action had taken place. Eventually the AEC met with the officials from the Office of the AG and the OAG filed charges after requesting extra evidence from the AEC about the FIDF being a government entity (it wasn't, even the head of the Bank of Thailand said so).

[metisdead]

A post with messed up quotes has been removed.

[Thait Spot]

Seems to me it was the Army that ousted Thaksin in a coup. Like him or not, Thaksin was elected.

Not really. Thanksin wasn't actually elected when he was ousted. The elections were declared invalid per the law. A small detail most seem to miss.

No no body missed this, the Army did a coup, changed the law , and declared the elections invalid.... not such a small detail, but a huge one most anti anti Taksins seem to miss.

Your timeline is all buggered up.

Courts declared fraudulent elections invalid

Thaksin declared caretaker and asked to call elections

Thaksin hands his resignation in and goes on holiday

Thaksin returns and unilaterally declares himself PM

Thaksin does nothing about elections

Tanks roll

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[fab4]

Seems to me it was the Army that ousted Thaksin in a coup. Like him or not, Thaksin was elected.

Not really. Thanksin wasn't actually elected when he was ousted. The elections were declared invalid per the law. A small detail most seem to miss.

Quite.

One can't expect all the red shirt huggers on here to grasp complicated notions such as that. They can just about use a hammer

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

What is it with you people? Thaksin was in a caretaker PM position awaiting a new Royally decreed election on October 15th.

[Thait Spot]

Abhisit was never elected by democratic elected MPs, they where the MPs that where put in place after the coup in 2006, Abhisit was NEVER elected, and will never be, if you like it or not.

Abhisit was elected the same exact way as Yingluck. As a party list MP. Google can be your friend, I suggest you take advantage of it and then come back and post.

Who are you talking to with your post?

Certainly you are not expecting the people who live in Thailand to have forgotten the coups and the Captain and the court put in by the coup then throwing out a PM for doing a talk show and then and then and then.

Man up and admit you do not want a democracy where the Reds can win.

Endless games make this stuff comical.

BUT honestly, if the Reds ever were to get full control of the nation including the army, then posting such nonsense could land one in deep trouble as a government propagandist.

What nation would you move to?

Maybe you're ignorant of the fact but the reds aren't a political party and therefore can't win much more than a game of skittles

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Thait Spot]

By the way, the hold on Thailand is weaker by the ruling class than it was in the past.

Before, there were no links and no media on the internet for the Reds.

24 hour red station is streaming world wide and they are asking for help.

That's why they are all joining the anti government protests and why red shirt boss Thida could only get 100 to protest today in Ayuthaya

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[englishoak]

Abhisit was never elected by democratic elected MPs, they where the MPs that where put in place after the coup in 2006, Abhisit was NEVER elected, and will never be, if you like it or not.

Abhisit was elected the same exact way as Yingluck. As a party list MP. Google can be your friend, I suggest you take advantage of it and then come back and post.

Who are you talking to with your post?

Certainly you are not expecting the people who live in Thailand to have forgotten the coups and the Captain and the court put in by the coup then throwing out a PM for doing a talk show and then and then and then.

Man up and admit you do not want a democracy where the Reds can win.

Endless games make this stuff comical.

BUT honestly, if the Reds ever were to get full control of the nation including the army, then posting such nonsense could land one in deep trouble as a government propagandist.

What nation would you move to?

Maybe you're ignorant of the fact but the reds aren't a political party and therefore can't win much more than a game of skittles

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I note you are posting insults, rather grumpy today for some reason ?

ps in case you hadnt noticed this red faction you clearly hate so much has won every single election in the past decade or so. Kinda funny to get beaten every time by the common working class but very very poetic

[Thait Spot]

Seems to me it was the Army that ousted Thaksin in a coup. Like him or not, Thaksin was elected.

Not really. Thanksin wasn't actually elected when he was ousted. The elections were declared invalid per the law. A small detail most seem to miss.

Not again! Elections were held in April 2006. Thaksin was caretaker PM. The dems boycotted those elections. The elections were declared invalid. New elections were royally decreed to be held on October 15th 2006. Thaksin was caretaker PM awaiting these elections.

A "small" detail you and others seem to overlook in your haste to "prove" that Thaksin was not elected (He was, much in the same way that Yingluck is an elected PM in a caretaker role) is that the Army staged a coup and took away every eligible Thai's right to vote for the party of their choice.

In other words they overthrew a government, be it caretaker or otherwise doesn't matter, they trampled on democracy, much the same as suthep aims to. However, as the army rewrote the constitution while they were at it, they were covered by an amnesty clause that they wrote in.

Thaksin wasn't even caretaker PM

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Thait Spot]

Abhisit was never elected by democratic elected MPs, they where the MPs that where put in place after the coup in 2006, Abhisit was NEVER elected, and will never be, if you like it or not.

OMG. You REALLY need to do some BASIC research.

The coup was in September 2006. There was an election in December 2007. PPP formed a coalition government. PPP were disbanded, and their replacement party (PTP) were then in power with an acting PM. The acting PM went to parliament to elect a new PM, as they had done a month or so before after Samak was forced to step down for having two jobs. Abhisit was elected PM by a majority of MPs in parliament.

OMG. Did we forget the little details like a royally decreed election on Oct 15th 2006. Well it would have been (poss delayed to November) had it not been for the coup overthrowing a caretaker government. And you forgot the little detail of the Army brokering a deal to enable the defection of the Friends of Newin.

When the PPP was dissolved the 22 MP's of the Friends of Newin (FON) Group had 60 days to either form a new political party or join a new one. Gen Anupong and others arranged a deal between the dems and the FON where the FON would join the dems as coalition partners (in exchange for a lot of money and lucrative ministries like the Interior Ministry, think Dust Free Roads corruption etc.) enabling the dems to get enough votes to form a government and make abhisit PM.

A little detail most abhisit fanboyz are prone to omit

So the oft repeated BS that abhisit was elected PM in the same way as Yingluck, is just that, BS.

Do you have any links to these bribes?

Or is it yet more invention?

Heard it down the pub?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Thait Spot]

Abhisit was never elected by democratic elected MPs, they where the MPs that where put in place after the coup in 2006, Abhisit was NEVER elected, and will never be, if you like it or not.

OMG. You REALLY need to do some BASIC research.

The coup was in September 2006. There was an election in December 2007. PPP formed a coalition government. PPP were disbanded, and their replacement party (PTP) were then in power with an acting PM. The acting PM went to parliament to elect a new PM, as they had done a month or so before after Samak was forced to step down for having two jobs. Abhisit was elected PM by a majority of MPs in parliament.

Research is helped when presenting the facts in a more accurate fashion. Samak was booted because it was the only way the Dems could hope to take control of the House. It was widely described as a judicial coup because the ruling was dubious. Samak hosted a cooking show! That was grounds for removing him from office. So how did the Dems then take control: begging the army to pay the criminals in Burriram to join with them.

The PPP was able to vote Samak back in as leader immediately but chose to replace Thaksin's mate with Thaksin's brother in law.

Do pay attention to the facts

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[dukebowling]

The conviction of Thaksin was a farce, ramrodded through by a non-democratically installed, biased government. There is no evidence of any illegal action when this conviction came down. Interesting how the conviction was handed down by the former president of the Constitutional Court. This court is the biggest cancer, feeding Thailand's corruption.

Really the only evidence against Thaksin of any illegality, he was acquitted of. He learned pretty quickly to stay above board after that close call.

Thaksin was convicted under one of his proxy governments.

The president of the Supreme Court who convicted him (former recent president of the Constitutional Court) was not influenced by the government or PM who was voted in a month before the bogus ruling against Thaksin. The process started well before these elections and as usual, the courts maintain power above the law.

The PPP government were elected in December 2007. The conviction was in October 2008. A bit more than a month.

I'm not sure how you can say it was "ramrodded through by a non-democratically installed, biased government".

I was referring to when his brother in law became PM. Proxy government is not a validated term without proof.

It is clear the agenda of the Thai court justices follows no government or constitution in place. They were after Thaksin no matter what.

[michaeljordan]

Truth

You want Truth?

You can't handle the TRUTH.

The T man has his lawyer tell the truth and you cry like little babies.

Man up and say yeah--we did all that and we do not care what you say.

Crying like a little baby is hardly fitting for a big bad general is it.

What? You are afraid of trade sanctions?

Well maybe you should have thought abut that before you did this latest yellow coup move.

[michaeljordan]

Great job by the moderator.

I am serious.

Well done and a great topic.

[fifthcolumn]

Ironically, much of this can be stated about Taksin himself. Let us not forget the 2500 extra judical undertakings directly by his authority.

One thing clear by the (over) reaction, there is no freedom of speech in the nation. That is a problem.