Pheu Thai case against Suthep thrown out

[SICHONSTEVE]

This court should be the first thing to be reformed.

On what grounds are you basing this on?

[zydeco]

by the ammart yes, I think you'll find the rice farmers will be slapping a few faces soon too! So not just by the amart but by the people!

true they have screwed up the Rice gig but this thread is about the court case - anyway they will still win any election as the vast majority of Thais do not want the ammart elitist Dems in power - that's democracy folks!

that's funny considering it looks increasingly likely that Yingluk and company will be before the courts on charges of corruption over the rice scam!- That's democracy folks......

And then:

Baduh, baduh, that's ALL folks!

[BlueNoseCodger]

I would love to read article 68.

"Section 68. No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution. ..." Full text here.

Section 69 deals with the right to protest.

"Section 69. A person shall have the right to resist peacefully an act committed for the acquisition of the power to rule the country by a means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution."

So there we have it.

It is against TV forum rules to criticize the judgements of any Thai court of Law.

"15.You also agree not to post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings or judgements of any Thai court of law."

A foreign write-up of what just happened here.

A Thai pro democracy blog write-up here.

Actually the court is right:

The court said Suthep and his group might have committed many other violations, such as breaking criminal laws, but said it was the responsibility of agencies under the justice system to charge them under the relevant laws.

It is a matter for the criminal courts to deal with his actions.

[mikemac]

I would love to read article 68.

Don't bother, you would not understand what it says, way out of your league. Best to stick with making insensitive, heartless, one line comments about anti-government protesters who are tragically killed in road accidents. More your style.

[Imale]

So just what do you have to say and do to violate sec 68???

Propose an amendment to the Constitution replacing appointed Senators with elected Senators (which was the system under the 1997 Constitution). All MPs and Senators who voted for this amendment in all 3 readings now face prosecution under Section 68.

[moonao]

No big surprise from the post 2006 coup appointed Constitution Court, bunch of old yellow judges who don't serve the law or the people, they serve powerful interests.

[TVGerry]

How many slaps in the face can the PTP idiots take? This is too funny!

Democrats got theirs yesterday already when the courts refused to anull the election.

Big deal. Annul the election was a long shot at best.

[khunken]

No big surprise from the post 2006 coup appointed Constitution Court, bunch of old yellow judges who don't serve the law or the people, they serve powerful interests.

The powerful interests they serve are Thailand's people. Yes, the PTP acolytes would love to see them abolished along with any other independent body able to scrutinise the government.

Democracy is a bit more than buying your way into power and regarding yourselves as above the laws of the country.

[moonao]

Democracy is a bit more than buying your way into power and regarding yourselves as above the laws of the country.

I suppose that explains why you are a Suthep supporter then

[SICHONSTEVE]

No big surprise from the post 2006 coup appointed Constitution Court, bunch of old yellow judges who don't serve the law or the people, they serve powerful interests.

The powerful interests they serve are Thailand's people. Yes, the PTP acolytes would love to see them abolished along with any other independent body able to scrutinise the government.

Democracy is a bit more than buying your way into power and regarding yourselves as above the laws of the country.

If they had done everything by the book and according to parliamentary rules and laws then they wouldn't be facing so many problems....well apart from those that have sprung up on account of their (un)populist policies.

They think that they can continually kick and spit on the ref and get away with it. When he gives them a red card they throw a hissy fit and claim that the ref is clearly an elite ammart referee as his uncle lives in Bangkok and he is biased against them!!!

[rubl]

No big surprise from the post 2006 coup appointed Constitution Court, bunch of old yellow judges who don't serve the law or the people, they serve powerful interests.

but ... but ... but even Ms. Yingluck said she'd respect the ruling of the Constitutional Court, as late as a few weeks ago when they ruled the election could be postponed with a royal decree and let government / EC sit together to talk about it.

[khunken]

Democracy is a bit more than buying your way into power and regarding yourselves as above the laws of the country.

I suppose that explains why you are a Suthep supporter then

I'm not a Suthep supporter, however I do support some of his objectives.

I also don't criticise courts when they rule against what I think is right.

[Emptyset]

So just what do you have to say and do to violate sec 68???

You have to be elected MPs and vote for a constitutional amendment which would change the Senate to be fully elected. That's a clear attempt to overthrow the democratic system and a violation of Sec 68. Whereas Suthep's protest to overthrow the government and replace it with an appointed council is perfectly constitutional. You see democratic is defined somewhat differently by these people than it usually is in the West.

Here's a quote as an example of how it's defined: 'I don’t think 6 October 1976 was violent. A handful of people

died, but it was over quickly, not even a day, only from 6 to 7am. ... It depended how people might think about this, but to me, I’m proud that we have saved Thailand’s democracy.' (Maj Gen Sudsai Thephassadin)

So you see, massacring students and staging a coup to overthrow an elected government and replace it with a cabinet of appointed good people was saving democracy in 76. Just as every coup has been justified by the need to save democracy. Suchinda was saving democracy too. And now Suthep wants his name to be remembered as one of those who saved democracy, just as his forebears Sudsai, Suchinda and Sonthi did in their day. One day Thais may look back and wonder where they would be without such great men. The Three Musketeers of Democracy they'll call them. Mothers will tell their children tales of these magnificent feats. They'll say: "Sit down and let me tell you about the time the great Kamnan arrived from the South and saved democracy. He walked every day across the city. We called it the great walk. He was on a pilgramage, like a monk collecting alms for democracy. Walking across the city, never stopping, many followed the Kamnan and eventually democracy returned. He was our Forrest Gump..."

Edited February 13, 2014 by Emptyset

[khunken]

So just what do you have to say and do to violate sec 68???

You have to be elected MPs and vote for a constitutional amendment which would change the Senate to be fully elected. That's a clear attempt to overthrow the democratic system and a violation of Sec 68. Whereas Suthep's protest to overthrow the government and replace it with an appointed council is perfectly constitutional. You see democratic is defined somewhat differently by these people than it usually is in the West.

Here's a quote as an example of how it's defined: 'I don’t think 6 October 1976 was violent. A handful of people

died, but it was over quickly, not even a day, only from 6 to 7am. ... It depended how people might think about this, but to me, I’m proud that we have saved Thailand’s democracy.' (Maj Gen Sudsai Thephassadin)

So you see, massacring students and staging a coup to overthrow an elected government and replace it with a cabinet of appointed good people was saving democracy in 76. Just as every coup has been justified by the need to save democracy. Suchinda was saving democracy too. And now Suthep wants his name to be remembered as one of those who saved democracy, just as his forebears Sudsai, Suchinda and Sonthi did in their day. One day Thais may look back and wonder where they would be without such great men. The Three Musketeers of Democracy they'll call them. Mothers will tell their children tales of these magnificent feats. They'll say: "Sit down and let me tell you about the time the great Kamnan arrived from the South and saved democracy. He walked every day across the city. We called it the great walk. He was on a pilgramage, like a monk collecting alms for democracy. Walking across the city, never stopping, many followed the Kamnan and eventually democracy returned. He was our Forrest Gump..."

Scaremongering, half truths and irrelevant crap is not what I'd expect from you, Emptyset.

First the attempt to impose another 'elected' Senate upon Thailand was neither democratic nor justified. I'm sure you are aware that a Senate is not a rubber-stamp body for the government in normal democracies. In most cases it is elected by a different method to the parliament often with groups such as independent body heads, university heads and other non-government-appointed people as the electorate.

Democracy is certainly defined differently here. 'We have an election (of dubious character) and when we win we can do what we like (because we are above the law)'.

Linking Suthep's protests to bloody coups is a cheap & nasty argument. Unlike others who peddle lies, you should know better than saying that Suthep only wants to replace the (dynastic) government without add 'temporarily'.

It's a fairly simple case of one wants a reform council, committee or whatever setup before another election while the other says it wants the reverse. Neither believes the other is credible.

So, it's pretty obvious that an arbitrator is needed and IMO having the reform council and the election happen simultaneously is the way to go.

[Emptyset]

Scaremongering, half truths and irrelevant crap is not what I'd expect from you, Emptyset.

First the attempt to impose another 'elected' Senate upon Thailand was neither democratic nor justified. I'm sure you are aware that a Senate is not a rubber-stamp body for the government in normal democracies. In most cases it is elected by a different method to the parliament often with groups such as independent body heads, university heads and other non-government-appointed people as the electorate.

Democracy is certainly defined differently here. 'We have an election (of dubious character) and when we win we can do what we like (because we are above the law)'.

Linking Suthep's protests to bloody coups is a cheap & nasty argument. Unlike others who peddle lies, you should know better than saying that Suthep only wants to replace the (dynastic) government without add 'temporarily'.

It's a fairly simple case of one wants a reform council, committee or whatever setup before another election while the other says it wants the reverse. Neither believes the other is credible.

So, it's pretty obvious that an arbitrator is needed and IMO having the reform council and the election happen simultaneously is the way to go.

Whether you support Suthep, PT or not, it just seems totally obvious to me that having an elected senate (and I agree there are some issues with it, but there are also issues with an appointed senate) isn't an attempt to overthrow democracy whereas Suthep's protest... I mean, how could it not be? Even if you take them at face value and think they'll restore a better version of democracy, it still requires at least the temporary suspension and overthrow of the parliamentary system mandated by the constitution...

Anyway, scaremongering wasn't my intention. I literally just read that Sudsai quote moments before I read this thread and thought it was interesting how 'saving democracy' can actually apparently justify its violent overthrow and brutal repression. I'm not directly comparing Suthep to Sudsai or his actions. I don't see Suthep as particularly ideologically driven. If the People's Council comes to pass, he probably won't even be part of it. However, it's obvious that repression will be required if the red shirts react. Which they surely will. Unless Thaksin gets a deal that he feels acceptable. I don't know what that would involve. An appointed PM acceptable to both sides, his money back and dropping of any corruption charges probably. But even in the unlikely event that comes to pass, some red shirt groups might move independently - though without Thaksin's funding, they'll surely be easier to deal with (on the other hand, they might be less controllable).

There could also be a compromise of the sort you mention, which is probably a good idea. Yingluck could probably set a reform body up now, elected by people in each province, or selected by bodies of professionals, or a combination of that. Then they could sign an agreement with the PDRC that the winner of the next election is obliged to follow the recommendations of the reform council and dissolve house afterwards. And she did actually offer something similar to that back in December. The problem is, under the constitution, there's no way that this council could have legal or executive powers. They can only make suggestions and then the PDRC would have to trust the parliament to carry out and implement these suggestions.

But that's not what they want. In fact they're saying they want 'reform before election', not just a reform body to be set up. And obviously reform is going to take years realistically. Basically, I don't see PDRC backing down on this. And their backers haven't spent all this money for nothing. So it's going to come down to whether Thaksin will accept a 'neutral' PM (if there can be such a person) and a reform council over which they have some input. And then if that does happen, will the red shirts accept it? I actually hope there is some shady deal along these lines and that the red shirts don't accept and they never forgive Thaksin for putting himself and his money first. It'd open some eyes perhaps.

However, I don't see Thaksin making that deal at the moment. So it's still intractable. Neither side is going to back down enough for the other to accept. It's going to come down to who can outlast the other. The one that is in danger of collapsing totally would be more likely to do a deal, but both sides seem to be able to keep on doing what they're doing now for a while yet. Deal or not, it's unlikely to be over before Songkran.

[rubl]

Scaremongering, half truths and irrelevant crap is not what I'd expect from you, Emptyset.

First the attempt to impose another 'elected' Senate upon Thailand was neither democratic nor justified. I'm sure you are aware that a Senate is not a rubber-stamp body for the government in normal democracies. In most cases it is elected by a different method to the parliament often with groups such as independent body heads, university heads and other non-government-appointed people as the electorate.

Democracy is certainly defined differently here. 'We have an election (of dubious character) and when we win we can do what we like (because we are above the law)'.

Linking Suthep's protests to bloody coups is a cheap & nasty argument. Unlike others who peddle lies, you should know better than saying that Suthep only wants to replace the (dynastic) government without add 'temporarily'.

It's a fairly simple case of one wants a reform council, committee or whatever setup before another election while the other says it wants the reverse. Neither believes the other is credible.

So, it's pretty obvious that an arbitrator is needed and IMO having the reform council and the election happen simultaneously is the way to go.

Whether you support Suthep, PT or not, it just seems totally obvious to me that having an elected senate (and I agree there are some issues with it, but there are also issues with an appointed senate) isn't an attempt to overthrow democracy whereas Suthep's protest... I mean, how could it not be? Even if you take them at face value and think they'll restore a better version of democracy, it still requires at least the temporary suspension and overthrow of the parliamentary system mandated by the constitution...

Anyway, scaremongering wasn't my intention. I literally just read that Sudsai quote moments before I read this thread and thought it was interesting how 'saving democracy' can actually apparently justify its violent overthrow and brutal repression. I'm not directly comparing Suthep to Sudsai or his actions. I don't see Suthep as particularly ideologically driven. If the People's Council comes to pass, he probably won't even be part of it. However, it's obvious that repression will be required if the red shirts react. Which they surely will. Unless Thaksin gets a deal that he feels acceptable. I don't know what that would involve. An appointed PM acceptable to both sides, his money back and dropping of any corruption charges probably. But even in the unlikely event that comes to pass, some red shirt groups might move independently - though without Thaksin's funding, they'll surely be easier to deal with (on the other hand, they might be less controllable).

There could also be a compromise of the sort you mention, which is probably a good idea. Yingluck could probably set a reform body up now, elected by people in each province, or selected by bodies of professionals, or a combination of that. Then they could sign an agreement with the PDRC that the winner of the next election is obliged to follow the recommendations of the reform council and dissolve house afterwards. And she did actually offer something similar to that back in December. The problem is, under the constitution, there's no way that this council could have legal or executive powers. They can only make suggestions and then the PDRC would have to trust the parliament to carry out and implement these suggestions.

But that's not what they want. In fact they're saying they want 'reform before election', not just a reform body to be set up. And obviously reform is going to take years realistically. Basically, I don't see PDRC backing down on this. And their backers haven't spent all this money for nothing. So it's going to come down to whether Thaksin will accept a 'neutral' PM (if there can be such a person) and a reform council over which they have some input. And then if that does happen, will the red shirts accept it? I actually hope there is some shady deal along these lines and that the red shirts don't accept and they never forgive Thaksin for putting himself and his money first. It'd open some eyes perhaps.

However, I don't see Thaksin making that deal at the moment. So it's still intractable. Neither side is going to back down enough for the other to accept. It's going to come down to who can outlast the other. The one that is in danger of collapsing totally would be more likely to do a deal, but both sides seem to be able to keep on doing what they're doing now for a while yet. Deal or not, it's unlikely to be over before Songkran.

The problem I have with your posts is that they sound soo reasonable without actually being so.

first paragraph

"Whether you support Suthep, PT or not, it just seems totally obvious to me that having an elected senate (and I agree there are some issues with it, but there are also issues with an appointed senate) isn't an attempt to overthrow democracy whereas Suthep's protest... I mean, how could it not be? Even if you take them at face value and think they'll restore a better version of democracy, it still requires at least the temporary suspension and overthrow of the parliamentary system mandated by the constitution..."

The elected senate had issues, but so the appointed one. Well for one it's the 74 out of 150 seats appointed senate. furthermore the Pheu Thai wanted a better control over all of the senate with their candidates of MP families elected by their voters. Same as Thaksin was trying to get control over all in the last months before he was 'ejected' by a coup.

You suggest Suthep's protest is an overthrow of democracy whereas it's a ejection of an undemocratic government and the setup of a broad people forum which is to extend checks and balances aimed at ALL undemocratic movements.

Then you start with your own doubts and somehow manage to suggest you have to be out of your mind to think they'll restore a better system. Also it may mean a temporary suspension of the current parliamentary system, but not an overthrow.

I hope you excuse me for not bothering with the rest.

[khunken]

Scaremongering, half truths and irrelevant crap is not what I'd expect from you, Emptyset.

First the attempt to impose another 'elected' Senate upon Thailand was neither democratic nor justified. I'm sure you are aware that a Senate is not a rubber-stamp body for the government in normal democracies. In most cases it is elected by a different method to the parliament often with groups such as independent body heads, university heads and other non-government-appointed people as the electorate.

Democracy is certainly defined differently here. 'We have an election (of dubious character) and when we win we can do what we like (because we are above the law)'.

Linking Suthep's protests to bloody coups is a cheap & nasty argument. Unlike others who peddle lies, you should know better than saying that Suthep only wants to replace the (dynastic) government without add 'temporarily'.

It's a fairly simple case of one wants a reform council, committee or whatever setup before another election while the other says it wants the reverse. Neither believes the other is credible.

So, it's pretty obvious that an arbitrator is needed and IMO having the reform council and the election happen simultaneously is the way to go.

Whether you support Suthep, PT or not, it just seems totally obvious to me that having an elected senate (and I agree there are some issues with it, but there are also issues with an appointed senate) isn't an attempt to overthrow democracy whereas Suthep's protest... I mean, how could it not be? Even if you take them at face value and think they'll restore a better version of democracy, it still requires at least the temporary suspension and overthrow of the parliamentary system mandated by the constitution...

Anyway, scaremongering wasn't my intention. I literally just read that Sudsai quote moments before I read this thread and thought it was interesting how 'saving democracy' can actually apparently justify its violent overthrow and brutal repression. I'm not directly comparing Suthep to Sudsai or his actions. I don't see Suthep as particularly ideologically driven. If the People's Council comes to pass, he probably won't even be part of it. However, it's obvious that repression will be required if the red shirts react. Which they surely will. Unless Thaksin gets a deal that he feels acceptable. I don't know what that would involve. An appointed PM acceptable to both sides, his money back and dropping of any corruption charges probably. But even in the unlikely event that comes to pass, some red shirt groups might move independently - though without Thaksin's funding, they'll surely be easier to deal with (on the other hand, they might be less controllable).

There could also be a compromise of the sort you mention, which is probably a good idea. Yingluck could probably set a reform body up now, elected by people in each province, or selected by bodies of professionals, or a combination of that. Then they could sign an agreement with the PDRC that the winner of the next election is obliged to follow the recommendations of the reform council and dissolve house afterwards. And she did actually offer something similar to that back in December. The problem is, under the constitution, there's no way that this council could have legal or executive powers. They can only make suggestions and then the PDRC would have to trust the parliament to carry out and implement these suggestions.

But that's not what they want. In fact they're saying they want 'reform before election', not just a reform body to be set up. And obviously reform is going to take years realistically. Basically, I don't see PDRC backing down on this. And their backers haven't spent all this money for nothing. So it's going to come down to whether Thaksin will accept a 'neutral' PM (if there can be such a person) and a reform council over which they have some input. And then if that does happen, will the red shirts accept it? I actually hope there is some shady deal along these lines and that the red shirts don't accept and they never forgive Thaksin for putting himself and his money first. It'd open some eyes perhaps.

However, I don't see Thaksin making that deal at the moment. So it's still intractable. Neither side is going to back down enough for the other to accept. It's going to come down to who can outlast the other. The one that is in danger of collapsing totally would be more likely to do a deal, but both sides seem to be able to keep on doing what they're doing now for a while yet. Deal or not, it's unlikely to be over before Songkran.

Well that's far more balanced than your previous post.

Personally I don't think that the 'elected' senate or Suthep's protests are overthrowing democracy. The first is purely undemocratic both in the way it was attempted and was designed to be purely an extension of parliament. The second is undemocratic but only temporarily - the most undemocratic part being blocking voters.

I agree that Suthep is not ideologically driven but there is no party in the country that fits that term. It is something that Thailand needs but that's for another day.

There is no reason that a council cannot be set up. It has been done for the last two constitutions. Yes, their findings are not constitutionally binding unless a referendum is held. If both the PDRC & the PTP sign a written guarantee to hold a referendum on their findings withing a set period from the council's findings being issued - the protests would peter out.

PDRC's guarantee would be to respect the referendum result and PTP's guarantee would be to hold and respect the referendum result. Now I doubt - like you said - that this would be acceptable to Thaksin but would be acceptable to at least some within PTP. I suspect that some of the less Thaksin-dependent red shirt groups would allow this but there is always the more violence-prone groups to deal with.

No matter what way one looks for a way out it always seems to come down to Thaksin. I won't repeat my opinion of him here but only when a way is found to bypass him will the country get back on the rails as the longer this goes on the more it's going to affect the country's development.

[fasteddie]

This court should be the first thing to be reformed.

On what grounds are you basing this on?

On the.grounds it was set up to veto democratic decisions using a constitution written to keep power with the elites.

Sent from my LG-P880 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[SICHONSTEVE]

This court should be the first thing to be reformed.

On what grounds are you basing this on?

On the.grounds it was set up to veto democratic decisions using a constitution written to keep power with the elites.

Sent from my LG-P880 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

What, so trying to remove transparency to make it easier to get away with corruption and avoiding parliamentary scrutiny are democratic????

Attempting to pass an amnesty bill by ram rodding it through in the early hours of the morning (very early actually) and which benefits one person in particular is democratic?

Your idea as to what democracy is and stands for is highly peculiar to say the least!!

Why do you think that it was put there in the first place? to stop abuse of so called democratic power by a corrupt government perhaps!!!

Good to see that it is providing the necessary checks and balances to maintain democracy.

[khunken]

This court should be the first thing to be reformed.

On what grounds are you basing this on?

On the.grounds it was set up to veto democratic decisions using a constitution written to keep power with the elites.

Sent from my LG-P880 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

What, so trying to remove transparency to make it easier to get away with corruption and avoiding parliamentary scrutiny are democratic????

Attempting to pass an amnesty bill by ram rodding it through in the early hours of the morning (very early actually) and which benefits one person in particular is democratic?

Your idea as to what democracy is and stands for is highly peculiar to say the least!!

Why do you think that it was put there in the first place? to stop abuse of so called democratic power by a corrupt government perhaps!!!

Good to see that it is providing the necessary checks and balances to maintain democracy.

He obviously doesn't know when it was set up, why it was set up and the history of the last 2 constitutions. A short summary:

The Constitutional Court was set up in 1998 following the promulgation of the 1997 constitution. It's name surely describes it's function.

In 2007 a new constitution was issued and voted on in a referendum, and accepted by the Thai people. The Court was temporarily replaced by a Council in 2006 but returned to a Court following the acceptance of the 2007 constitution. BTW there are very few differences between the 1997 and 2007 constitutions, mainly the make-up of the Senate which proved to be a rubber-stamp body when 'elected'. The SEnate is now partly appointed as well as elected. Those who understand democracy know that a Senate should be part of the checks & balances that curtail anti-democratic actions by government.

[HD 205]

There were no grounds to rule that the protesters violated Article 68 of the Constitution by attempting to overthrow the democratic system of government or acquire the power to rule the country through unconstitutional means, the court said.

Isn't that precisely what they were doing?

And people on here appluad this just because it suits their 'team'? Those same people, who go on about the corruption of Thaksin.

It's beyond belief really.

[fasteddie]

This court should be the first thing to be reformed.

On what grounds are you basing this on?

On the.grounds it was set up to veto democratic decisions using a constitution written to keep power with the elites.

Sent from my LG-P880 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

What, so trying to remove transparency to make it easier to get away with corruption and avoiding parliamentary scrutiny are democratic????

Attempting to pass an amnesty bill by ram rodding it through in the early hours of the morning (very early actually) and which benefits one person in particular is democratic?

Your idea as to what democracy is and stands for is highly peculiar to say the least!!

Why do you think that it was put there in the first place? to stop abuse of so called democratic power by a corrupt government perhaps!!!

Good to see that it is providing the necessary checks and balances to maintain democracy.

" What, so trying to remove transparency to make it easier to get away with corruption and avoiding parliamentary scrutiny are democratic????"

When?

"Attempting to pass an amnesty bill by ram rodding it through in the early hours of the morning (very early actually) and which benefits one person in particular is democratic?"

Yes! if the dems(sic) choose to go to beddy boes whilst a bill is being debated, that's their problem, (not that they could have stopped it). Incidentally, why is everyone scared of square face coming home? Let's face it, he would be painted with laser sights the moment he steps off the plane.

My idea of democracy is one man one vote and the government gets to govern without constant veto's by unelected courts.

I don't always agree with the outcome of elections, some times they stink but that's the way the cookie crumbles. I come from the UK where at the moment, an unelected government with no mandate is tearing the heart out of our great social services to pay the rich and you don't see my leftie comrades spitting their dummies and blockading half of london, killing policemen and beating up anyone who disagrees with them. We just have to suck it up and wait for the next election when hopefully the filthy uncaring right wing scum will get their comeuppance

Long live democracy! Down with the fascist Suthep and his ilk..

[Skywalker69]

You all should read Article 70, 71, and 72. They are very interesting.

"Section 70. Every person shall have a duty to uphold the nation, religions, the King and the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution.

Section 71. Every person shall have a duty to defend the country, to protect benefits of the nation and to obey the law.

Section 72. Every person shall have a duty to exercise his right to vote at an election." Full text here.

too bad the government is not a person...

If you put their brains together the government is one person.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[SICHONSTEVE]

When they tried to change the make up of the senate so that they could fill it with PTP supporters and Thaksin sympathisers, be it their brothers, his police buddies, cousins, sister-in-laws etc: so that any bill passing through the senate is rubber stamped with only a cursory look at the contents of what the bill holds. They also tried to make the terms limitless so that this could continue in perpetuity and they could pass anything they liked (how very democratic that would have been) .

They also attempted to pass a law that made fewer contracts and projects bypassing parliamentary scrutiny so that they could pass them as they wish without checks and balances (for that, read rampant corruption).

Finally, they tried, through undemocratic means to pass a law that attempted to absolve Thaksin of his crimes and allow him to return to Thailand, this is despite general opposition to this bill from all parties (including the red shirts). This was Yingluck's greatest achievement (even though it was not her doing as she was not involved) - yeh right!!! She irked too many people with this appalling abuse of democracy and it is this primarily that initiated the protests and started the ball rolling that will eventually lead to her downfall!!

As for democracy, it is to have a responsible government that doesn't constantly abuse power and ignore rules and laws that were put in place to protect democracy (the courts and bodies such as the NACC are the checks and balances here). It is their remit to punish wrongdoers who disrespect and profit from these abuses - this is why this government despises them as they prevent them from getting away with their scams and corrupt practices. Do you imagine that thieves and murderers are big fans of the courts? I wonder why not?

I too come from the UK and agree with the rest of your posting (apart from the nonsense in the last sentence which I have chosen to ignore).

Now the UK government IS democracy in it's purest form (well as close as you can get I imagine) - I am fervently Labour and come from a working class background. I was a member of the Labour party and tireless canvasser come election time.

I am a natural PTP voter in reality but I could never support this absolute filth!!! Compare their appalling behaviour to that of Abhisit's short but commendable term and now tell me why you support the party of a corrupt fugitive billionaire that has made the lives of the poor so abject and without hope for the future in order to enrich himself at their expense, only to desert them when their usefulness has run its course and he has got what he wanted!!

I am interested to see what your retort is going to be as to why you think this corrupt thief (who has raped Thailand to the severe detriment of it's people) when you claim to be a champion of the poor!!!

I think that you are digging in the same hole as Yingluck only that she is a lot further down in trying to get away from her rice farmer (ex)friends now that the going has got a tad hot!!

[soalbundy]

You all should read Article 70, 71, and 72. They are very interesting.

"Section 70. Every person shall have a duty to uphold the nation, religions, the King and the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution.

Section 71. Every person shall have a duty to defend the country, to protect benefits of the nation and to obey the law.

Section 72. Every person shall have a duty to exercise his right to vote at an election." Full text here.

Every person..........so not just Thais ?