POLITICS
Thaksin 'urges Yingluck to stay' as Prayuth demurs
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Caretaker PM Yingluck Shinawatra almost gave in to resignation demands by the anti-government protesters on Sunday - but changed her mind at the last minute as her brother, former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, called to ask her to stay on and push for the February 2 election, sources said.

In a phone conversation with Army chief Prayuth Chan-ocha a day before the protesters' Bangkok shutdown began, Yingluck told the commander she was tired of the political tension and asked for his recommendation.

Prayuth declined to offer suggestions and said it was her call to make any decision. If anything untoward happened, it would be the prime minister's responsibility, he said.

Yingluck told Prayuth she would give an answer by 4pm Sunday. Many expected she would announce her resignation, the source said.

Yingluck later called a meeting with Pheu Thai Party executives and talked via Skype with Thaksin, who said the Constitution did not allow her to resign, according to the sources.

If she did resign, the protesters would ask the court to rule that she had violated the Penal Code's Article 157, which punishes officials who abandon their duty. She would face a jail term, he warned.

Separately, Army chief Prayuth told his subordinates to prevent violence during the anti-government protest.

To protect themselves from being attacked by unknown parties, soldiers should dress in plain clothes while guarding the many buildings of government agencies and their command posts, according to a source.

The military has deployed troops to act as security guards to many government agency buildings such as the Prime Minister's Office and the Government Complex, as well as protest sites.


-- The Nation 2014-01-14

What a caring brother he is, protecting her from a gaol term.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

What authority does this man have from a legal standpoint on this situation?

Could this article (if taken from statements directly from her and also possibly from the brawler himself) be an admission of associating with and acting on behalf for the benefit of a known fugitive?

If Thai law does not cover this kind of activity then perhaps it is time Thai law was modernised into the digital era to reflect this type of crime. This goes not only for dialogue between PTP and Thaksin but all other fugitives of the Kingdom - he is not the first and will not be the last unless the law is changed.

Dance little puppet, dance to the puppet master. You had the correct thought process for the betterment of Thailand but again logic is over ridden by one convicted criminal's greed. Grow a pair Yingluck for once in your life.

What authority does this man have from a legal standpoint on this situation?

Could this article (if taken from statements directly from her and also possibly from the brawler himself) be an admission of associating with and acting on behalf for the benefit of a known fugitive?

If Thai law does not cover this kind of activity then perhaps it is time Thai law was modernised into the digital era to reflect this type of crime. This goes not only for dialogue between PTP and Thaksin but all other fugitives of the Kingdom - he is not the first and will not be the last unless the law is changed.

He is the current Thai government. And people think democracy is having an election so a convicted criminal can carry on creaming a country for his own benefit.

I find it very difficult to believe that the rest of the world would accept Yingluck being held accountable if "something happens". What kind of rubbish is this? Thailand would become (even more of) an international laughing stock in the event that an elected PM is held responsible for the actions of anti-democratic street thugs. That would lead to sanctions, trade embargoes, investors fleeing the country, ASEAN intervention. It's complete rubbish. Classics case of blaming the victim.

... "and talked via Skype with Thaksin, who said the Constitution did not allow her to resign"... "She would face a jail term, he warned."

This is hilarious. A fugitive criminal instructing the caretaker PM not to step down. Not even Monty Python could come up with comedy like this.

Should it not read Thaksin called her and TOLD her to stay on and probably in no uncertain terms.

Funny how Thaksin is such an expert on legal and constitutional matters yet didn't see a problem hiding his assets in his maid and gardners name, bribing a court official with 2 million stuffed in a pastry box, selling Thai national communication satellites to another country and trousering the proceeds, and having countless thousands of innocents slaughtered after catching a family member dusting his nose. A legal expert when it suits him?

<< the source said..................according to the sources.>>

laughable excuse for journalism

I find it very difficult to believe that the rest of the world would accept Yingluck being held accountable if "something happens". What kind of rubbish is this? Thailand would become (even more of) an international laughing stock in the event that an elected PM is held responsible for the actions of anti-democratic street thugs. That would lead to sanctions, trade embargoes, investors fleeing the country, ASEAN intervention. It's complete rubbish. Classics case of blaming the victim.

It really is audacious of the general to tell the elected leader that she would be held responsible.

<< the source said..................according to the sources.>>

laughable excuse for journalism

and if the sources actually exist.

What authority does this man have from a legal standpoint on this situation?

Could this article (if taken from statements directly from her and also possibly from the brawler himself) be an admission of associating with and acting on behalf for the benefit of a known fugitive?

If Thai law does not cover this kind of activity then perhaps it is time Thai law was modernised into the digital era to reflect this type of crime. This goes not only for dialogue between PTP and Thaksin but all other fugitives of the Kingdom - he is not the first and will not be the last unless the law is changed.

None, just like you

With the history of brother telling this government weret/when to jump, the legal problems they find themselves in, I think it may behove the PM to find another legal advice colomnist.

The Feb. 2 target, by many accounts/even recomendations is not going to happen, aministy propests appear slim to none. Maybe Thaksin may best look for a new line of work, aong with rest of those facing legal proceedings currently and not a what if/ maybe situation.

Forgot to say in my earlier post that if the story is true it's interesting she asked the army commander for advice. Of course she probably knew how family and the party grandees would respond or was it a question of asking Prayuth if resignation was a good idea before he and his merry men removed her from office.

'sources said' 'the source said' ... Why not name the sources if they are credible? If not, this article is a joke and will no doubt be discredited by Yingluck and all others present.

Many people would say that what The Nation offers as fact would be veiwed by more crdible media sources as rumour, gossip, innuendo....offering one-sided, juvenile 'analysis' and presenting simplistic answers to complex questions.I no longer buy it.

What I find more interesting in this Yellow Nation story is the source

or sources.

If this story is factual, then YL is acknowledging that Thaksin is calling the shots. So he would be illegally advising and functioning. However, it's good to see Thaksin in the news, and Skyping in as before. Thailand was peaceful, the baht was much stronger, tourism was booming , trade and commerce was stable when Thaksin was in the news everyday. We can partially thank the press for that for giving Thaksin so much undeserved visibility in multiple stories per day.

The article also states that she "called" the general. This one is hard to believe, but you never know in Thailand. Even more hard to believe is that they left the conversation with him cautioning that if anything "untoward" happens that it's her responsibility. No where in the story does the general say - don't worry PM we are here to serve you as PM and Defense Secretary. We will do our duty to control lawbreakers.

555... 3 almost identical POVs within a minute - you old cynics, you!

I find it very difficult to believe that the rest of the world would accept Yingluck being held accountable if "something happens". What kind of rubbish is this? Thailand would become (even more of) an international laughing stock in the event that an elected PM is held responsible for the actions of anti-democratic street thugs. That would lead to sanctions, trade embargoes, investors fleeing the country, ASEAN intervention. It's complete rubbish. Classics case of blaming the victim.

Great stuff, then you agree that Abhisit and Suthep can not be held accountable for the deaths and injuries in 2010.

However back on topic.

Absolute proof, if it was ever it was needed that Thaksin is in complete control of not only Yingluck but the whole of the PT Govt.

What a prize prick, he cares nothing for his sister and what he is putting her through, nor for the country or the people.

With her out and some of the worst offenders with her, a non partisan PM in place, a serious reform process started and a new date set for elections things can really start to move forward.

Tell him to go and get stuffed Yingluck, walk away now for the good of the country and your own peace mind, then you will know you have done the right thing.

I find it very difficult to believe that the rest of the world would accept Yingluck being held accountable if "something happens". What kind of rubbish is this? Thailand would become (even more of) an international laughing stock in the event that an elected PM is held responsible for the actions of anti-democratic street thugs. That would lead to sanctions, trade embargoes, investors fleeing the country, ASEAN intervention. It's complete rubbish. Classics case of blaming the victim.

Why is it so difficult to believe? The reds pushed for Suthep and Abhisit to accept responsibility for the results of the 2010 riots when they were in charge, so why wouldn't the current PM be held accountable for any results of actions taken now?

I find it very difficult to believe that the rest of the world would accept Yingluck being held accountable if "something happens". What kind of rubbish is this? Thailand would become (even more of) an international laughing stock in the event that an elected PM is held responsible for the actions of anti-democratic street thugs. That would lead to sanctions, trade embargoes, investors fleeing the country, ASEAN intervention. It's complete rubbish. Classics case of blaming the victim.

Why is it so difficult to believe? The reds pushed for Suthep and Abhisit to accept responsibility for the results of the 2010 riots when they were in charge, so why wouldn't the current PM be held accountable for any results of actions taken now?

There is a big difference between the situations. In one case, someone bending over backwards to avoid confrontation, in the other a direct order to use force. In any case, I do not support pursuit of those responsible in 2010, preferring amnesty as a pathway to reconciliation

What is Thaksin saying?

"Thaksin, who said the Constitution did not allow her to resign, according to the sources."

Well this is imply not true. Yingluck has the right to resign at anytime and would face no penalties for doing so.

"If she did resign, the protesters would ask the court to rule that she had violated the Penal Code's Article 157, which punishes officials who abandon their duty. She would face a jail term, he warned."

Again this is simply untrue, article 157 is a subsection of the Penakl code that deals with corruption..........

"The provisions of the Penal Code incriminating acts of corruption are contained in Articles 147 to 157 and those that aggravate the punishment for specific officers are stipulated in Articles 200 to 202.

In addition, Articles 153 to 156 impose criminal sanctions, up to imprisonment for life, on corrupted of officers whose duties concern ccountancy functions. A general offence is prescribed in Article 157 as misconduct in office punished with a maximum imprisonment of 10 years." http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No83/No83_22PA_Pinthip.pdf

So that means Thaksin is manipulating his sister with unsubstantiated threats of imprisonment if she doesn't do what he says and remains in the caretaker PM position, even though it is against her will. What a great and thoughtful brother he is.

The reality is Thaksin doesn't want Yingluck to resign because he will loose control of the government and that leaves them open to a uncontrolled investigation of their corrupt practices. This would obviously lead to charges for most of the PTP members and maybe prison sentences. No wonder the blanket amnesty bill is so important for this administration, Yingluck must stay in her role, win the election and push through the blanket amnesty bill then she is free to resign.

I find it very difficult to believe that the rest of the world would accept Yingluck being held accountable if "something happens". What kind of rubbish is this? Thailand would become (even more of) an international laughing stock in the event that an elected PM is held responsible for the actions of anti-democratic street thugs. That would lead to sanctions, trade embargoes, investors fleeing the country, ASEAN intervention. It's complete rubbish. Classics case of blaming the victim.

Why is it so difficult to believe? The reds pushed for Suthep and Abhisit to accept responsibility for the results of the 2010 riots when they were in charge, so why wouldn't the current PM be held accountable for any results of actions taken now?

There is a big difference between the situations. In one case, someone bending over backwards to avoid confrontation, in the other a direct order to use force. In any case, I do not support pursuit of those responsible in 2010, preferring amnesty as a pathway to reconciliation

Direct order?

Provide proof if you can.

I'm sure you can't because it didn't happen

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The crazy thing is, if YS did resign as requested by the protesters, the Democrats probably would have the cheek to try and charge her for abandoning her duty!

Much in the same way they said the elections had to be postponed as parties could not register, it was there bloody protesters stopping people from registering.

I think the only feasible way out of this is for YS to resign with assurances that she would not be charged for AOD, and some relatively neutral person like Khun Anand to take charge for a period of time, perhaps 4-6 months until a new election can be called. Her resigning and handing over to a People's Council partially elected by the PDRC is simply unworkable and would never be accepted anywhere.

The fact that this is Suthep's one and only goal and has made it clear he won't negotiation leaves me with little doubt that the true reason for the protest from Suthep's perspective has little to do with corruption, vote buying etc

I find it very difficult to believe that the rest of the world would accept Yingluck being held accountable if "something happens". What kind of rubbish is this? Thailand would become (even more of) an international laughing stock in the event that an elected PM is held responsible for the actions of anti-democratic street thugs. That would lead to sanctions, trade embargoes, investors fleeing the country, ASEAN intervention. It's complete rubbish. Classics case of blaming the victim.

Why is it so difficult to believe? The reds pushed for Suthep and Abhisit to accept responsibility for the results of the 2010 riots when they were in charge, so why wouldn't the current PM be held accountable for any results of actions taken now?

There is a big difference between the situations. In one case, someone bending over backwards to avoid confrontation, in the other a direct order to use force. In any case, I do not support pursuit of those responsible in 2010, preferring amnesty as a pathway to reconciliation

Direct order?

Provide proof if you can.

I'm sure you can't because it didn't happen

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

That is not even a matter in dispute. Mr Abhisit has very publicly acknowledged the ordering of force in 2010. Just look at the BBC interview on the matter. It is not in dispute. My personal view is that it is time to move on from those events, tragic though they were, in the national interests. In the same way, I wish people would stop the obsession with Thaksin and get on with rebuliding the economy.

Yingluck later called a meeting with Pheu Thai Party executives and talked via Skype with Thaksin, who said the Constitution did not allow her to resign, according to the sources.

Thaksin does not run the country, I do, says Yingluck, after getting her daily orders from Dubai.

Should it not read Thaksin called her and TOLD her to stay on and probably in no uncertain terms.

But in reality it isn't that simple. Thaksin does not influence every decision the govt makes. lol. He makes decisions his sister doesn't know about (or agree with). And his sister makes decisions he doesn't know about (or agree with). Thaksin is also influenced by his coterie of advisors and during his term as PM he was often goaded into taking deliberately adversarial positions by his key aides, particularly Pansak. It's like in 2010, everyone thinks Thaksin alone was the one responsible for scuppering the 'deal'... yeah, well, part of it. But remember all the people on his side that stood to benefit too.

Who has power in terms of making executive decisions right now? Yingluck and Prayuth.

'sources said' 'the source said' ... Why not name the sources if they are credible? If not, this article is a joke and will no doubt be discredited by Yingluck and all others present.

Or perhaps the Nation doesn't want to name its sources so it can continue to milk them, pretty poor show if they named their inside source, as you can fairly certain that source wouldn't be an inside source for much longer, would it?