Abhisit won't cast his vote in 'unconstitutional election' today

[Mentors]

!I saw a pic in another Forum - Abhisit has voted today!

[kimamey]

he is a big wining cry baby who always gets his own way so cant stand to lose .

anyways he is a Brit masquerading as a Thai bloke ,unlikely he had ever set foot in isaan so doesn't give a hoot about poor disadvantaged fellow countrymen <he went to Eton y'know >

so who cares if he wont stand

He's Thai by birth. He was born in the UK as his parents were there at the time. It doesn't make him not Thai. a lot of people are born in other countries because their parents are out of the country for various reasons such as government and military postings. Before you start accusing people of not being Thai because they weren't born here or educated here try checking on HM the king.

his UK upbringing means s he is a Brit thru and thru ,right to his soul and has little connections with Thai mentality after schooling at Eton with a privileged background he knows nothing about thai society and mores .

think more before you post pathetic claptrap rubbish about the old Etonian masquerading as a Thai

http://www.etoncollege.com/Registration.aspx

Why have you cut my post? I'll add the rest here as you seem to have avoided answering the points I made.

In my view not being born or educated here seems to be not so bad based on that.

If he's a Brit then who are the countryman he doesn't give a hoot about?

He went to Eton. That will be why his English is better than yours then. Why exactly does that make a difference?

If he always gets his own way that must mean he doesn't want to be PM then.

I just checked and he's been to Khon Kaen, Udon Thani, and Buriram that I've been told about so it's possible there are others.

A bit of advice try thinking a bit more before you post.

I see you've avoided the last sentence of the quote you have included for obvious reasons.

He was born and grew up in Newcastle. I did see the area he lived in some time ago and I don't think it was particularly affluent.

Have you looked at Thaksin and Yingluck's upbringing? Not really used to being with the poor either.

I simply replied to your post correcting some inaccuracies and pointed out some discrepancies.

You cut my post to avoid the questions you couldn't answer.

I don't think it's me that's talking pathetic claptrap rubbish.

[Gweiloman]

Saying that something is unconstitutional does not make it so.

Quite right. Such judgements are usually left to an independent authority like the Constitutional Court, that will of course be attacked for making the 'wrong' decision if they decide that this election is unconstitutional.

Abhisit's statement is his own personal opinion, something that is normally permitted in a democracy, but obviously not in the kind of democracy that some posters here seem to want.

The case for postponement of the current elections was brought before the CC who "ruled" that it was constitutional to postpone if both the EC and Govt agreed to its postponement.

Granted, they were not asked to rule IF the elections themselves were constitutional. However, could it not be surmised as a dereliction of duty if they were now to rule that the elections were unconstitutional? Would any rational thinking person conclude that this is anything other than a politically motivated judicial coup?

To answer your question GM, no, they world not.

The judicial coup is now a certainty, Yingluck and PTP will be removed and the downhill spiral will continue.

It will then become a sodding great mess and as they say in HK, "Hodiewok" ( a big mess, put it all in the wok and see what happens.........)

"The judicial coup is now a certainty"

I certainly hope not. The only way forward for Thailand (IMO) is to have some semblance of a democratically elected govt with a strong opposition to bring about necessary changes. This will at least ensure peace whilst painful reform measures are put into place. Rome was not built in a day (even God could not build the world in a day). Most important is that for every step backwards, there should have been two forwards.

[whybother]

Saying that something is unconstitutional does not make it so.

Quite right. Such judgements are usually left to an independent authority like the Constitutional Court, that will of course be attacked for making the 'wrong' decision if they decide that this election is unconstitutional.

Abhisit's statement is his own personal opinion, something that is normally permitted in a democracy, but obviously not in the kind of democracy that some posters here seem to want.

The case for postponement of the current elections was brought before the CC who "ruled" that it was constitutional to postpone if both the EC and Govt agreed to its postponement.

Granted, they were not asked to rule IF the elections themselves were constitutional. However, could it not be surmised as a dereliction of duty if they were now to rule that the elections were unconstitutional? Would any rational thinking person conclude that this is anything other than a politically motivated judicial coup?

It would be suspect after the CC has ruled the election was able to be postponed and constitutional if an agreement was reached .

To simply turn around after that and rule the election unconstitutional because it had gone ahead after the court had rules it was fine to postpone it but refused to comment if it should be would be a pretty clear signal the CC were attempting to engineer a judicial coup.

I dont think they will find it so easy this time. everyones expecting something like this so the excuses and evidence had better be pretty rock solid... I think they are going to have a real hard time doing it via that route.

The court ruled that the EC and government could postpone it, but it wasn't postponed.

What is being suggested now is not postponement but additional voting days which is completely different.

I think the EC will go to the court for a ruling. If the court rules that the election can't ve held over multiple days, by-elections will probably need to be held for all constituencies that had disruptions in either advanced or normal voting.

Sent from my phone ...

[whybother]

!I saw a pic in another Forum - Abhisit has voted today!

He can't have voted. His polling booth didn't open.

Sent from my phone ...

[whybother]

Doesn't the fact that the CC ruled that the elections could be postponed proof positive that the elections are legal and constitutional to begin with?

The elections weren't postponed, so I don't see how that is relevant.

I still haven't seen why he says they're unconstitutional.

Sent from my phone ...

[whybother]

In reaction to the Democrat leader's statement that the election was unconstitutional, caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said she discounted Abhisit's remarks as the 2007 Constitution was not written by her government but by the coup-maker-sponsored government.

So if WE didn't make the law...then WE don't need to follow it? Interesting times ahead.

FAIL..

What she is saying is the election was organised totally under the terms of the constitution which he and his friends wrote.

The EC were by law required to do this, and all the dates and proceedures were there's to follow.

Government just going along with Abhisit the Hypocrits laws. She didn't write the law, he did!!!

Thailand must get this goon, the Dems and Suthep out of the system or they are ruined. We are now promised more blackading of Bangkok by the 200 marchers that are left.

Army really do seem to be staying out and no sign of a coup. Good review in stasiatimes today. They think the Army know the games up for coups and is letting the people sort it out. Maybe hoping for the Thai electorate on both sides to mature.

What difference does it make who wrote the law?

What matters is whether it was broken or not?

Sent from my phone ...

[tx22cb]

!I saw a pic in another Forum - Abhisit has voted today!

He can't have voted. His polling booth didn't open.

Sent from my phone ...

So that's how he did it - Saturday, he announces to the world in advance that he won't vote - perhaps because someone guaranteed to him that his polling station "will not open".

And indeed, on Sunday his polling station did not open - 1 of the 10 officials did not turn up, thereby dipping below the minimum number of officials for a polling station to open. And the Chief of this polling station does not bother to draft in a replacement from the central Election Committee, who have spares on standby - including hundreds from the several polling stations (including some just down the road in Bangkapi) which were closed by the PDRC. Or maybe the Chief did ask, but the EC refused to send just 1 of these 100s? Just 1 more person was required to open this polling station.

Anyway, whatever the case, Abhisit did not vote (indeed, could not vote), and gets to keep his MP eligibility. How "lucky" can one get?

Even if it was the "Reds" who kidnapped this official, the EC could have arranged a replacement, even at short notice.

Edited February 3, 2014 by tx22cb

[NCFC]

!I saw a pic in another Forum - Abhisit has voted today!

He can't have voted. His polling booth didn't open.

Sent from my phone ...

So that's how he did it - Saturday, he announces to the world in advance that he won't vote - perhaps because someone guaranteed to him that his polling station "will not open".

And indeed, on Sunday his polling station did not open - 1 of the 10 officials did not turn up, thereby dipping below the minimum number of officials for a polling station to open. And the Chief of this polling station does not bother to draft in a replacement from the central Election Committee, who have spares on standby - including hundreds from the several polling stations (including some just down the road in Bangkapi) which were closed by the PDRC. Or maybe the Chief did ask, but the EC refused to send just 1 of these 100s? Just 1 more person was required to open this polling station.

Anyway, whatever the case, Abhisit did not vote (indeed, could not vote), and gets to keep his MP eligibility. How "lucky" can one get?

Even if it was the "Reds" who kidnapped this official, the EC could have arranged a replacement, even at short notice.

Let's hope that these corrupt officials are investigated and subjected to the full weight of the law. Some high-profile jail sentencing may just serve as a warning to others that the law is not to be messed with and applies to all people equally.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[OJAS]

Abhisit Vejajiva and David Cameron: 2 of Eton's "finest" old boys promoting elitist agendas in their respective countries.

[prvtdetdave]

In reaction to the Democrat leader's statement that the election was unconstitutional, caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said she discounted Abhisit's remarks as the 2007 Constitution was not written by her government

Not recognize the Constitution because it was not written by her government? Ignore rulings from the courts because the didn't write the law, or because it didn't go their way. That is definitely democracy, i wonder what else they plan to ignore, the debt they owe the farmers, or the people who didn't like the amnesty bill. If you think that by winning an election it gives you the right to do what ever you like, you have a very distorted idea of democracy.

Considering the article is from the Nation a known elitist propaganda rag, how much of it is actual truth?

Edited February 3, 2014 by prvtdetdave

[prvtdetdave]

These garbage Democrats and their leader is the cause of the social divide and problems in Thailand today. They have never done anything positive in their tenures when they were in power (not thru being elected but by planned default) and are the ones who first initaited mob rule in thailand (ie their affliate PAD then), and they too have been involved in not stop corruption practices supporting only their croynies, the thai hisos and the rich thai chinese. They never reformed themselves to serve the masses and to be ethical and now they have created this whole mess in Thailand. Its becuase of them, another terrorists group, the Re Shorts came into being.

Its time to really eradicate this lot (the Democrats) and thier core supporters as they are not democarst but terrorists thugs who are going agaisnt constituitional rights and democracy. (I am not a red shirt fam nor do I like the corrupted PTP, Thaksin and his sister but the oppostion then, failed to do anything constructive, only plaguing thailand to go downhill. Its time to eradicate the Democrats first including Suthep and then let the people concebtrate on putting pressure on the PTP to reform thru democratic means not terrorist means.

The Democrats used to be my fabs but now they only deserve my spit.

Thailand needs a better educated and democratic inclined oppostion political party that is not corrupted or controlled by the elites.

Total drivel from you as ever, I have come to expect nothing more from you.

The Dems were trying very hard to govern the country for the good of everyone, they were kind of interrupted by a load of rioters wearing red shirts. They were trying to unravel the mess left by the previous Taksin cronies and work out how to make it all work properly when the reds came to town and started making a mess..

Taksin and cronies on the other hand started stupid populist policies that were doomed from the start to fail. They were trying to make it appear they were helping the farmers but really it was all just to get their votes and look where it has led ? The greed of Taksin and his criminal cronies combined with the greed of the farmers has brought the country economically to its knees.

If the government guaranteed they would buy all the rice at the market prices so the farmers had no extra laying about, that would have been awesome and is sustainable provided it is corruption free and the sales are made at the standard prices. Why did they have to pay 40% more than it was worth ? For votes and graft opportunities, plain and simple...

I have noticed how quick you are to ridicule, but never have I read any solutions. Was it truly 40% over market value?

I did read an article that said up to 40%.

http://www.thairiceexporters.or.th/daily%20rice%20news.htm

[fleeing]

Saying that something is unconstitutional does not make it so.

Quite right. Such judgements are usually left to an independent authority like the Constitutional Court, that will of course be attacked for making the 'wrong' decision if they decide that this election is unconstitutional.

Abhisit's statement is his own personal opinion, something that is normally permitted in a democracy, but obviously not in the kind of democracy that some posters here seem to want.

The case for postponement of the current elections was brought before the CC who "ruled" that it was constitutional to postpone if both the EC and Govt agreed to its postponement.

Granted, they were not asked to rule IF the elections themselves were constitutional. However, could it not be surmised as a dereliction of duty if they were now to rule that the elections were unconstitutional? Would any rational thinking person conclude that this is anything other than a politically motivated judicial coup?

The Constitutional Court was petitioned to answer the question of postponing the poll date.

It is normal legal practice to judge the questions posed to a court and not bring an opinion on other matters, possibly related or not.

Before you start shouting about 'judicial coups' and 'dereliction of duty' perhaps you should acquaint yourself with judicial practice.

[Gweiloman]

Saying that something is unconstitutional does not make it so.

Quite right. Such judgements are usually left to an independent authority like the Constitutional Court, that will of course be attacked for making the 'wrong' decision if they decide that this election is unconstitutional.

Abhisit's statement is his own personal opinion, something that is normally permitted in a democracy, but obviously not in the kind of democracy that some posters here seem to want.

The case for postponement of the current elections was brought before the CC who "ruled" that it was constitutional to postpone if both the EC and Govt agreed to its postponement.

Granted, they were not asked to rule IF the elections themselves were constitutional. However, could it not be surmised as a dereliction of duty if they were now to rule that the elections were unconstitutional? Would any rational thinking person conclude that this is anything other than a politically motivated judicial coup?

The Constitutional Court was petitioned to answer the question of postponing the poll date.

It is normal legal practice to judge the questions posed to a court and not bring an opinion on other matters, possibly related or not.

Before you start shouting about 'judicial coups' and 'dereliction of duty' perhaps you should acquaint yourself with judicial practice.

I don't recall SHOUTING about anything. I am not an expert on judicial law nor did I claim to be. That is why I merely asked a few questions in the hope that more educated posters may be able to answer as I am interested to know the answer. I didn't realise that one is not allowed to ask questions of other posters anymore on TVF.

So what you are saying, as a legal expert, is that the CC may yet rule the elections as unconstitutional (in spite of their earlier ruling that they can be postponed) and still adhere to the adage of "Justice should not only be done; it must also be seen to be done"?