Prayuth declines to commit himself that he will not stage coup

[pmugghc]

Coup please.

It is the only thing to put all this nonsense to sleep. There will be a little resistance from the UDD and the reds, but that will soon be put to bed with some targeted arrests made at the higher levels, then the reds sent packing like in 2010.

Keep all UDD leaders, PTP MPs suspected of corruption including YL and all red shirt leaders locked up in a military prison to be investigated by a special branch of the NACC with swift and harsh sentencing on irrefutable evidence, to serve as a future warning to anyone else wishing to tread a similar path.

Appoint a neutral PM and cabinet, pay the farmers off via a special budget approval by the constitutional court, and suspend the rice pledging scheme.

Then we can set about imposing the new reforms to hopefully bring Thailand back down to earth.

Not the most helpful suggestion, coup's of late have been pretty bloody affairs. I know the rich element of Thai society have a difficult time understanding the democratic process but any other path would be anarchy. The point of an election is to decide on who manages the country and if the losers don't modify their policies to attract voters in the next election then they will continue in the wilderness.

The fact that Thailand is so prone to coup's is in the power general's have over politicians, a constitution that gives them impunity is bizarre! I remember swearing an oath of allegiance to the Monarch, her government and officers set over me, to break that oath is in my mind treason.

'coup's of late have been pretty bloody affairs'

What are you talking about? The only 'coup of late' was 2006 and there was not so much as a scraped knee. It could hardly be classified as a coup since the caretaker PM (Thaksin) had already resigned and had been replaced as caretaker PM by his deputy. The man the army removed from office had absolutely no legitimacy in that office. http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/07/01/thailand.timeline/index.html?iref=allsearch

The coup before that was in 1991. Hardly 'of late' and there, again, was no bloodshed.

If you are unsure of history, please don't make it up to suit your needs. The INTERNET is full of free resources; please avail yourself of some of them before posting wrong information. BTW, your credibility is damaged when the premise of your post is factually wrong.

If anyone is looking for an overview of why the political situation is the way it is now, I recommend you read this: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/SEA-01-130114.html

Excellent article. Excerpt:

"But Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai Party, even as such a beneficiary, was dismantling democracy's supporting elements as fast as it could through threats and strong-arming of the press, use of bank credit for commercial blackmail, prejudicial use of the police, and intimidation and bribery of the courts. For the Shinawatra family, ruling the state is a business, similar to running a telecom firm. Elections, blackmail and bribes are all tactics their affiliated political parties use to keep the money coming in. "

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[rametindallas]

No, the coup was bloodless. An election was held the next year and civilian government resumed without a hitch under Samak, "Thaksin's nominee".

Had the government of the day pursued reasonable policies and kept its nose out of the trough all would have been well. But no, they had to go the full retard and throw the country into another cycle of conflict.

What was Samak's major crime??? A cooking show. How ridiculous to dismiss the Prime Minister of a nation for appearing on an obscure television cooking show.

There has clearly been a chain of events aimed at removing any Thaksin backed political parties from power, by any means, beginning with the 2006 military coup through to todays current events. From September 2006 through to today over 100 people have died and god knows how many have been injured (not to mention the economic losses).

Samak could legally have been returned to the PM's chair the next day. Thaksin's puppet government was still in complete power. In fact, Thaksin's brother in law was made PM. Samak could have done his cooking shows; he broke the law by getting paid for doing them (he publicly admitted getting paid). A PM cannot have two paymasters (divided loyalty? bribes?). Don't you want politicians held to a high standard? Why do you hate Thailand so much that you want it ruled by thieves?

There has clearly been a chain of events aimed at removing any Thaksin backed political parties from power, by any means, beginning with the 2006 military coup through to todays current events.

This is provably false as Thaksin puppet governments have been in power for all but 30 months since 2000. Who, on this forum, is going to believe your lies? Who do you think you are fooling?

Yes, Samak could have been returned by the members of the Thaksin backed, duly elected government of the day - but in order to avoid escalating the confrontation with the PAD hordes amassed illegally in streets at the time, the duly elected government made the conciliatory choice to elect Somchai. Whether Samak could have been re-instated or not - the fact that he was removed for appearing on a cooking show was rightly viewed by the entire international community as a ridiculous and farcical turn of events by a biased judiciary with ulterior motives.

Beginning with the 2001 election, Thaksin backed parties have won 5 consecutive elections, each one giving them the constitutional right to form government. I'm not aware of any other entity winning an election in this period - which begs the question why were Thaksins' parties not in power for 30 months? How were the results of 4 elections (Thaksin served the entirety of his first term) overturned?

p.s. There was a military installed government from 19 Sep 2006 until 23 Dec 2007 (appx. 16 months) and the Abhisit judicial coup government from 17 Dec 2008 until 5 Aug 2011(appx. 33 months).

So, pray tell, what lies????

Why do you hate Thai people that you want them ruled by proven thieves?

The law is clearly written on receiving private funds when you hold office. Where do you draw the line? 1,000 Baht? 100,000 Baht? One million Baht? If you take money while in office, you are corrupt. A little corrupt or a lot corrupt. Why do you want corrupt people in high office in Thailand? Why do you hate Thai people so much? Samak was not banned and the wimp Somchai, who replaced him, could not get the police, who are supposed to be on his side, to enforce the law or even keep the Yellow Shirt mob out of the new airport. Failure of leadership with a capital F. You contradict yourself so many time in this post that I will give up on you. In my opinion, you are either terminally stupid or a troll pleading the criminal government's case. How many posts have you made today? How many times has each post been ripped? Give it up! Forums are not your thing. Even if you believe what you say, the way you say it hurts your cause. You are not helping your side. You are making them look bad.

[Thait Spot]

I think the point being made is that actions have consequences. The day of the coup may not have seen bloodshed - but the coup most certainly caused a great deal of bloodshed in the days, weeks and months following.

No, the coup was bloodless. An election was held the next year and civilian government resumed without a hitch under Samak, "Thaksin's nominee".

Had the government of the day pursued reasonable policies and kept its nose out of the trough all would have been well. But no, they had to go the full retard and throw the country into another cycle of conflict.

What was Samak's major crime??? A cooking show. How ridiculous to dismiss the Prime Minister of a nation for appearing on an obscure television cooking show.

There has clearly been a chain of events aimed at removing any Thaksin backed political parties from power, by any means, beginning with the 2006 military coup through to todays current events. From September 2006 through to today over 100 people have died and god knows how many have been injured (not to mention the economic losses).

Wrong! It was not appearing on a cooking show. It was that he accepted money for it. Can you imagine Obama, Cameron or Merkel appearing on a TV show while getting paid for it???

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

A token amount of money (to buy ingredients and pay for transport - Samaks' explanation). Are you seriously going to defend this silliness. If Martha Stewart handed over some petty cash to Obama to buy some flour and cocoa to bake a cake on her show not even the Tea Party nutters would attempt to remove him from office for fear of appearing as raving lunatics who could never be taken seriously again forever after . Most countries have difficulties related to their politicians and their expense accounts. Usually where the amount is minimal the money is paid / given back and the voters get their revenge at the next election. Uh-oh I said the scary word.......elections

He told bare faced lies to the panel.

However if he had cooked a newborn baby in coca cola live on TV I'm sure you would be here saying "Ah, but it was only one baby."

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

"If he had cooked a newborn baby in coca cola". <deleted>? Bizarre!

The law should be blind and impartial and treat all people equally. So had Samak actually cooked a baby in coca cola I would be saying that he should tried in a court of law and if convicted suffer the appropriate punishment issued by the judge.

I'm not sure how a thread about Thai politics ended up discussing cooking babies in coca cola, probably something to do with one side of the discussion trying to avoid factual debate. A tacit admission of the weakness of the arguement.

Before finishing I just want to say "cooking babies in coca cola" one more time, when else will I or anyone else ever type those words again?

???

You obviously know nothing of Samak's repertoire.

Note that I said "baby" and you said "babies"

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[ManofReason]

I think the point being made is that actions have consequences. The day of the coup may not have seen bloodshed - but the coup most certainly caused a great deal of bloodshed in the days, weeks and months following.

No, the coup was bloodless. An election was held the next year and civilian government resumed without a hitch under Samak, "Thaksin's nominee".

Had the government of the day pursued reasonable policies and kept its nose out of the trough all would have been well. But no, they had to go the full retard and throw the country into another cycle of conflict.

What was Samak's major crime??? A cooking show. How ridiculous to dismiss the Prime Minister of a nation for appearing on an obscure television cooking show.

There has clearly been a chain of events aimed at removing any Thaksin backed political parties from power, by any means, beginning with the 2006 military coup through to todays current events. From September 2006 through to today over 100 people have died and god knows how many have been injured (not to mention the economic losses).

Wrong! It was not appearing on a cooking show. It was that he accepted money for it. Can you imagine Obama, Cameron or Merkel appearing on a TV show while getting paid for it???

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

A token amount of money (to buy ingredients and pay for transport - Samaks' explanation). Are you seriously going to defend this silliness. If Martha Stewart handed over some petty cash to Obama to buy some flour and cocoa to bake a cake on her show not even the Tea Party nutters would attempt to remove him from office for fear of appearing as raving lunatics who could never be taken seriously again forever after . Most countries have difficulties related to their politicians and their expense accounts. Usually where the amount is minimal the money is paid / given back and the voters get their revenge at the next election. Uh-oh I said the scary word.......elections

He told bare faced lies to the panel.

However if he had cooked a newborn baby in coca cola live on TV I'm sure you would be here saying "Ah, but it was only one baby."

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

"If he had cooked a newborn baby in coca cola". <deleted>? Bizarre!

The law should be blind and impartial and treat all people equally. So had Samak actually cooked a baby in coca cola I would be saying that he should tried in a court of law and if convicted suffer the appropriate punishment issued by the judge.

I'm not sure how a thread about Thai politics ended up discussing cooking babies in coca cola, probably something to do with one side of the discussion trying to avoid factual debate. A tacit admission of the weakness of the arguement.

Before finishing I just want to say "cooking babies in coca cola" one more time, when else will I or anyone else ever type those words again?

???

You obviously know nothing of Samak's repertoire.

Note that I said "baby" and you said "babies"

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

What are you saying - did Samak actually cook a baby in coca cola? Because if cooking a baby in coca cola was in Samaks' repertoire then yes I know nothing about it.

[Ricardo]

Why should Yingluck meet on equal terms with Suthep.

One is the leader of the elected government of the nation and the other a mouthpiece for an illegal rabble.

Besides any worthwhile negotiations will have to take place with those above Suthep and I don't think they would want the television exposure.

"the leader of the elected government"

Just to point out that Yingluck is currently only unelected-caretaker-PM, until the incomplete Feb-2nd election is either completed & a new government elected in Parliament, or the E.C./courts declare that election invalid.

There is no "elected government of the nation" currently !

However a handful of PTP-Rouge posters seem unable to accept this fact, they appear to hark back to the July-2011 election, but ignore then-elected-PM Yingluck's resignation to call an election last December.

Up to them ... but please don't think other posters, or casual visitors to TV, will fall for it.

I agree that negotiations are probably underway, between Thaksin & the power-that-be here, which is why Prayuth is careful not to completely rule out one possible outcome.

[ManofReason]

Rametindallas could you do this simple "terminally stupid" kwai a favour and point out the contradictions in my posts for me? I think you'll struggle to do so. While you're at it could you also please enlighten me has to how the results of the last 4 elections have been overturned (last attempt is still in progress) - you seem to have overlooked that in you reply. Also, was your math on the 30 months correct? It seems when someone throws a little bit of fact and logic in your direction you hyperventilate and resort to name calling.

Corruption, like all crimes exists on a gradient of seriousness, from minor to major, which is why we also have a gradient of punishments for crime from the proverbial slap on the wrist through to capital punishment. In Samaks' case the courts executed a man for jay walking - ridiculous.

[rixalex]

Yes, Samak could have been returned by the members of the Thaksin backed, duly elected government of the day - but in order to avoid escalating the confrontation with the PAD hordes amassed illegally in streets at the time, the duly elected government made the conciliatory choice to elect Somchai. Whether Samak could have been re-instated or not - the fact that he was removed for appearing on a cooking show was rightly viewed by the entire international community as a ridiculous and farcical turn of events by a biased judiciary with ulterior motives.

Beginning with the 2001 election, Thaksin backed parties have won 5 consecutive elections, each one giving them the constitutional right to form government. I'm not aware of any other entity winning an election in this period - which begs the question why were Thaksins' parties not in power for 30 months? How were the results of 4 elections (Thaksin served the entirety of his first term) overturned?

p.s. There was a military installed government from 19 Sep 2006 until 23 Dec 2007 (appx. 16 months) and the Abhisit judicial coup government from 17 Dec 2008 until 5 Aug 2011(appx. 33 months).

So, pray tell, what lies????

Funny that you should be arguing that over the last thirteen years, Thaksin backed parties have been denied more time at the trough than they deserved, when considering the assets concealment case right back at the beginning of it all, that should have led to a five year ban, but miraculously didn't.

Begs the question, what right does someone have to moan about court cases not being favorable to them, when they themselves have coerced certain court cases in their direction, and even had the audacity one time to turn up to court with boxes full of cash in an attempt to buy a verdict? "Not much" is the answer.

[ManofReason]

Why should Yingluck meet on equal terms with Suthep.

One is the leader of the elected government of the nation and the other a mouthpiece for an illegal rabble.

Besides any worthwhile negotiations will have to take place with those above Suthep and I don't think they would want the television exposure.

"the leader of the elected government"

Just to point out that Yingluck is currently only unelected-caretaker-PM, until the incomplete Feb-2nd election is either completed & a new government elected in Parliament, or the E.C./courts declare that election invalid.

There is no "elected government of the nation" currently !

However a handful of PTP-Rouge posters seem unable to accept this fact, they appear to hark back to the July-2011 election, but ignore then-elected-PM Yingluck's resignation to call an election last December.

Up to them ... but please don't think other posters, or casual visitors to TV, will fall for it.

I agree that negotiations are probably underway, between Thaksin & the power-that-be here, which is why Prayuth is careful not to completely rule out one possible outcome.

How did Yingluck get the position of Caretaker Prime Minister? Why is someone else not Caretaker Prime Minister (say Suthep or Abhisit)? Yingluck is in the position as a consequence of winning the 2011 election. PTP is the Caretaker government as a consequence of winning the 2011 election.

When the Caretaker status expires (which may only happen because of the sabotaging of the Feb 2 election) - thats when Thailand will no longer have an elected government.

[ManofReason]

Yes, Samak could have been returned by the members of the Thaksin backed, duly elected government of the day - but in order to avoid escalating the confrontation with the PAD hordes amassed illegally in streets at the time, the duly elected government made the conciliatory choice to elect Somchai. Whether Samak could have been re-instated or not - the fact that he was removed for appearing on a cooking show was rightly viewed by the entire international community as a ridiculous and farcical turn of events by a biased judiciary with ulterior motives.

Beginning with the 2001 election, Thaksin backed parties have won 5 consecutive elections, each one giving them the constitutional right to form government. I'm not aware of any other entity winning an election in this period - which begs the question why were Thaksins' parties not in power for 30 months? How were the results of 4 elections (Thaksin served the entirety of his first term) overturned?

p.s. There was a military installed government from 19 Sep 2006 until 23 Dec 2007 (appx. 16 months) and the Abhisit judicial coup government from 17 Dec 2008 until 5 Aug 2011(appx. 33 months).

So, pray tell, what lies????

Funny that you should be arguing that over the last thirteen years, Thaksin backed parties have been denied more time at the trough than they deserved, when considering the assets concealment case right back at the beginning of it all, that should have led to a five year ban, but miraculously didn't.

Begs the question, what right does someone have to moan about court cases not being favorable to them, when they themselves have coerced certain court cases in their direction, and even had the audacity one time to turn up to court with boxes full of cash in an attempt to buy a verdict? "Not much" is the answer.

Absolutely! How the powers behind the scenes must truly regret forcing the judges to change their verdicts and acquit Thaksin of what he was clearly guilty of. Remember, Thaksin himself did not have the authority to change the verdict himself - that came from elsewhere. As for the moaning - 2 wrongs don't make a right. What is the argument here? Because the courts handed down a corrupt verdict in 2001 all verdicts can now be corrupted?

[Ricardo]

Why should Yingluck meet on equal terms with Suthep.

One is the leader of the elected government of the nation and the other a mouthpiece for an illegal rabble.

Besides any worthwhile negotiations will have to take place with those above Suthep and I don't think they would want the television exposure.

"the leader of the elected government"

Just to point out that Yingluck is currently only unelected-caretaker-PM, until the incomplete Feb-2nd election is either completed & a new government elected in Parliament, or the E.C./courts declare that election invalid.

There is no "elected government of the nation" currently !

However a handful of PTP-Rouge posters seem unable to accept this fact, they appear to hark back to the July-2011 election, but ignore then-elected-PM Yingluck's resignation to call an election last December.

Up to them ... but please don't think other posters, or casual visitors to TV, will fall for it.

I agree that negotiations are probably underway, between Thaksin & the power-that-be here, which is why Prayuth is careful not to completely rule out one possible outcome.

How did Yingluck get the position of Caretaker Prime Minister? Why is someone else not Caretaker Prime Minister (say Suthep or Abhisit)? Yingluck is in the position as a consequence of winning the 2011 election. PTP is the Caretaker government as a consequence of winning the 2011 election.

When the Caretaker status expires (which may only happen because of the sabotaging of the Feb 2 election) - thats when Thailand will no longer have an elected government.

I admire your attempt to defend your POV, are/were you ever a lawyer or a Public-Relations professional, perhaps ?

The moment that Yingluck resigned, she ceased to be 'elected PM' (by the MPs in Parliament, not the voters in 2011), similarly the elected-Cabinet became caretaker-Ministers, with limits on their former-powers.

So it was elected-PM Yingluck herself who, with her decision to dissolve the House & petition the Head of State to hold a new election, decided to become 'caretaker PM'. Suthep and Abhisit were not even MPs by then, they had resigned shortly before then, along with all the other Democrat-Party MPs.

It's perfectly possible for an elected PM to not have followed directly after a public election, as shown by former-PM Somchai, for example.

All it takes is an election in Parliament, by MPs who were elected by the voters, PM-Abhisit in December-2008 is another example. All the MPs who voted for him had, with the exception of any by-elections during the year, been elected by the public in the December-2007 elections.

[smutcakes]

Prediction . . . within 10 days the elections will be declared invalid . . . the coup (judicial or otherwise) will then follow this.

I suppose the only thing to come out of the whole thing would be for a nice precedent to be set on how to invalidate an election.

This being Thailand I am sure it will be taken up on every opportunity,

Thanks to the 'educated' Thai people for that,

[khunkeith]

yesterday, I drove from Pattaya to my home in Phetchabun. I passed an Army convoy headed north about halfway between Rayong and BKK. when I got on highway one, just south of Saraburi, I saw a convoy made up of 7 tanks on flatbed trucks headed south. Between Saraburi and Phetchabun, I saw a half dozen convoys (trucks filled with men, trucks with generators, water/fuel tankers and fully enclosed trucks) headed south as I was headed north. .

[Tatsujin]

Prediction . . . within 10 days the elections will be declared invalid . . . the coup (judicial or otherwise) will then follow this.

I suppose the only thing to come out of the whole thing would be for a nice precedent to be set on how to invalidate an election.

This being Thailand I am sure it will be taken up on every opportunity,

Thanks to the 'educated' Thai people for that,

Protests and shutdowns as a precedent was already set prior to this.

It highlights the need for a complete rewrite of the law and the constitution, increasing the effectiveness of checks and balances, and removing grey areas and areas open to "interpretation".

Would be good if the "public" had a little more input next time tho.

[smutcakes]

Prediction . . . within 10 days the elections will be declared invalid . . . the coup (judicial or otherwise) will then follow this.

I suppose the only thing to come out of the whole thing would be for a nice precedent to be set on how to invalidate an election.

This being Thailand I am sure it will be taken up on every opportunity,

Thanks to the 'educated' Thai people for that,

Protests and shutdowns as a precedent was already set prior to this.

It highlights the need for a complete rewrite of the law and the constitution, increasing the effectiveness of checks and balances, and removing grey areas and areas open to "interpretation".

Would be good if the "public" had a little more input next time tho.

I think everyone agrees changes need to be made, but as yet we are yet to hear them............... or who will make them.....................It is a repeatedly asked and ignored question. But Thaksin Thaksin....

[Tatsujin]

Prediction . . . within 10 days the elections will be declared invalid . . . the coup (judicial or otherwise) will then follow this.

I suppose the only thing to come out of the whole thing would be for a nice precedent to be set on how to invalidate an election.

This being Thailand I am sure it will be taken up on every opportunity,

Thanks to the 'educated' Thai people for that,

Protests and shutdowns as a precedent was already set prior to this.

It highlights the need for a complete rewrite of the law and the constitution, increasing the effectiveness of checks and balances, and removing grey areas and areas open to "interpretation".

Would be good if the "public" had a little more input next time tho.

I think everyone agrees changes need to be made, but as yet we are yet to hear them............... or who will make them.....................It is a repeatedly asked and ignored question. But Thaksin Thaksin....

I agree, both sides have agreed reforms should be made and both sides have neglected to complete a clear roadmap as to how that should be achieved.

However, reforms are a small part of the bigger picture and there will be some surprising developments to come over the next couple of weeks.

[catmac]

Prediction . . . within 10 days the elections will be declared invalid . . . the coup (judicial or otherwise) will then follow this.

When PTP lose the following election, I'm sure we will hear about an "electoral coup" from UDD, with the normal calls to mass uprising to fight for (red) democracy. The blame of course will be put on the RTArmy for having undue influence on voters by not declaring they would rule out a coup.

Nice one, RSoul. The only fault with your reasoning is that PTP simply have not lost an election for some decades. It's your pathetic load of (un)Democrats that are masters of losing elections. Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see crowds of happy souls cheering Mr. Abhisit on. Indeed, where is he? Why has the leader of the opposition hid himself away?

[bigbamboo]

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the most powerful man in Thailand is Prayuth.

Thaksin would give him a run for his money (OK, your money) but as he'd rather hide behind his sister's skirts than fight for his version of democracy most eyes at home and abroad will be on Prayuth.

Let's hope whatever happens it's for the best.

[ManofReason]

Why should Yingluck meet on equal terms with Suthep.

One is the leader of the elected government of the nation and the other a mouthpiece for an illegal rabble.

Besides any worthwhile negotiations will have to take place with those above Suthep and I don't think they would want the television exposure.

"the leader of the elected government"

Just to point out that Yingluck is currently only unelected-caretaker-PM, until the incomplete Feb-2nd election is either completed & a new government elected in Parliament, or the E.C./courts declare that election invalid.

There is no "elected government of the nation" currently !

However a handful of PTP-Rouge posters seem unable to accept this fact, they appear to hark back to the July-2011 election, but ignore then-elected-PM Yingluck's resignation to call an election last December.

Up to them ... but please don't think other posters, or casual visitors to TV, will fall for it.

I agree that negotiations are probably underway, between Thaksin & the power-that-be here, which is why Prayuth is careful not to completely rule out one possible outcome.

How did Yingluck get the position of Caretaker Prime Minister? Why is someone else not Caretaker Prime Minister (say Suthep or Abhisit)? Yingluck is in the position as a consequence of winning the 2011 election. PTP is the Caretaker government as a consequence of winning the 2011 election.

When the Caretaker status expires (which may only happen because of the sabotaging of the Feb 2 election) - thats when Thailand will no longer have an elected government.

I admire your attempt to defend your POV, are/were you ever a lawyer or a Public-Relations professional, perhaps ?

The moment that Yingluck resigned, she ceased to be 'elected PM' (by the MPs in Parliament, not the voters in 2011), similarly the elected-Cabinet became caretaker-Ministers, with limits on their former-powers.

So it was elected-PM Yingluck herself who, with her decision to dissolve the House & petition the Head of State to hold a new election, decided to become 'caretaker PM'. Suthep and Abhisit were not even MPs by then, they had resigned shortly before then, along with all the other Democrat-Party MPs.

It's perfectly possible for an elected PM to not have followed directly after a public election, as shown by former-PM Somchai, for example.

All it takes is an election in Parliament, by MPs who were elected by the voters, PM-Abhisit in December-2008 is another example. All the MPs who voted for him had, with the exception of any by-elections during the year, been elected by the public in the December-2007 elections.

Somchai was elected Prime Minister. Members of parliament are direct representatives of the people. As it would be impractical for every citizen to vote on every bill before parliament, MP's are elected to represent and cast votes on behalf of their constituents. Somchai was elected Prime Minister, by the people, through their parliamentary representatives.

Comparing Abhisits' and Somchas' rise to the Prime Ministership is a little false as you have omitted that fact that the political party that represented the majority of the electorate was disbanded, on trumped up charges, by the courts and other political parties were strong-armed into backing Abhisit. If this weren't a coup, the proper thing to do would have been for Abhisit to immediately call for new elections returning the power to decide who shall govern back to the people - he did not do this. Here is a question for you, having usurped power and denied the people why did Abhisit not enact the reforms the Democrats are now demanding? I would suggest that reforms and Red Shirt corruption aren't their primary concern - they just want to hold indefinite power by any means.

As for caretaker status, it is simply a convention that prevents the sitting government from abusing its position for advantage during an election or committing future governments to policies or actions whilst the electorate decides who shall run the country. All else remains the same. You seem to think that a caretaker government is somehow an illegitimate form of government - it's not, it's perfectally constitutional.

[Ricardo]

Somchai was elected Prime Minister. Members of parliament are direct representatives of the people. As it would be impractical for every citizen to vote on every bill before parliament, MP's are elected to represent and cast votes on behalf of their constituents. Somchai was elected Prime Minister, by the people, through their parliamentary representatives.

Comparing Abhisits' and Somchas' rise to the Prime Ministership is a little false as you have omitted that fact that the political party that represented the majority of the electorate was disbanded, on trumped up charges, by the courts and other political parties were strong-armed into backing Abhisit. If this weren't a coup, the proper thing to do would have been for Abhisit to immediately call for new elections returning the power to decide who shall govern back to the people - he did not do this. Here is a question for you, having usurped power and denied the people why did Abhisit not enact the reforms the Democrats are now demanding? I would suggest that reforms and Red Shirt corruption aren't their primary concern - they just want to hold indefinite power by any means.

As for caretaker status, it is simply a convention that prevents the sitting government from abusing its position for advantage during an election or committing future governments to policies or actions whilst the electorate decides who shall run the country. All else remains the same. You seem to think that a caretaker government is somehow an illegitimate form of government - it's not, it's perfectally constitutional.

The same MPs elected Samak & then Somchai & then Abhisit, so not false at all. Parties are not elected, MPs are, by the voters.

I agree that Abhisit might have called new elections in December-2008, but then again, so might Somchai in the weeks prior to that. He chose not to, up to him, and later up to Abhisit.

I would note that Abhisit's weak coalition-government were busy coping with the unfolding global economic crisis, and it's effects on Thailand, and later with street-riots in 2009 & 2010.

And to correct your final point, a bit of a strawman-argument there by you, I don't "think that a caretaker government is somehow an illegitimate form of government", nor did I ever say so, but I don't think a caretaker-government is elected, which was my original point.

This is wandering off-topic now, there are perhaps more interesting things to debate, what's your view of the likely-results of any behind-the-scenes negotiations between Thaksin & whoever ? Clearly Prayuth's stance is putting pressure on Thaksin, as is some UDD-leaders' stance on separatism & a republic-of-lanna in return, does the rhetoric suggest that negotiations may not be proceeding smoothly, would you say ?

[rametindallas]

Yes, Samak could have been returned by the members of the Thaksin backed, duly elected government of the day - but in order to avoid escalating the confrontation with the PAD hordes amassed illegally in streets at the time, the duly elected government made the conciliatory choice to elect Somchai. Whether Samak could have been re-instated or not - the fact that he was removed for appearing on a cooking show was rightly viewed by the entire international community as a ridiculous and farcical turn of events by a biased judiciary with ulterior motives.

Beginning with the 2001 election, Thaksin backed parties have won 5 consecutive elections, each one giving them the constitutional right to form government. I'm not aware of any other entity winning an election in this period - which begs the question why were Thaksins' parties not in power for 30 months? How were the results of 4 elections (Thaksin served the entirety of his first term) overturned?

p.s. There was a military installed government from 19 Sep 2006 until 23 Dec 2007 (appx. 16 months) and the Abhisit judicial coup government from 17 Dec 2008 until 5 Aug 2011(appx. 33 months).

So, pray tell, what lies????

Funny that you should be arguing that over the last thirteen years, Thaksin backed parties have been denied more time at the trough than they deserved, when considering the assets concealment case right back at the beginning of it all, that should have led to a five year ban, but miraculously didn't.

Begs the question, what right does someone have to moan about court cases not being favorable to them, when they themselves have coerced certain court cases in their direction, and even had the audacity one time to turn up to court with boxes full of cash in an attempt to buy a verdict? "Not much" is the answer.

Absolutely! How the powers behind the scenes must truly regret forcing the judges to change their verdicts and acquit Thaksin of what he was clearly guilty of. Remember, Thaksin himself did not have the authority to change the verdict himself - that came from elsewhere. As for the moaning - 2 wrongs don't make a right. What is the argument here? Because the courts handed down a corrupt verdict in 2001 all verdicts can now be corrupted?

Three years after the verdict, Thaksin paid the foreign tuition of one of those judges. Thaksin has a long history of bribing judges. The 'powers behind the scenes' did not do this so they have no regrets. Thaksin is a master manipulator and he has easily manipulated you to be his apologist. Why do you hate Thai people that you want thieves to govern them?

[rametindallas]

"the leader of the elected government"

Just to point out that Yingluck is currently only unelected-caretaker-PM, until the incomplete Feb-2nd election is either completed & a new government elected in Parliament, or the E.C./courts declare that election invalid.

There is no "elected government of the nation" currently !

However a handful of PTP-Rouge posters seem unable to accept this fact, they appear to hark back to the July-2011 election, but ignore then-elected-PM Yingluck's resignation to call an election last December.

Up to them ... but please don't think other posters, or casual visitors to TV, will fall for it.

I agree that negotiations are probably underway, between Thaksin & the power-that-be here, which is why Prayuth is careful not to completely rule out one possible outcome.

How did Yingluck get the position of Caretaker Prime Minister? Why is someone else not Caretaker Prime Minister (say Suthep or Abhisit)? Yingluck is in the position as a consequence of winning the 2011 election. PTP is the Caretaker government as a consequence of winning the 2011 election.

When the Caretaker status expires (which may only happen because of the sabotaging of the Feb 2 election) - thats when Thailand will no longer have an elected government.

I admire your attempt to defend your POV, are/were you ever a lawyer or a Public-Relations professional, perhaps ?

The moment that Yingluck resigned, she ceased to be 'elected PM' (by the MPs in Parliament, not the voters in 2011), similarly the elected-Cabinet became caretaker-Ministers, with limits on their former-powers.

So it was elected-PM Yingluck herself who, with her decision to dissolve the House & petition the Head of State to hold a new election, decided to become 'caretaker PM'. Suthep and Abhisit were not even MPs by then, they had resigned shortly before then, along with all the other Democrat-Party MPs.

It's perfectly possible for an elected PM to not have followed directly after a public election, as shown by former-PM Somchai, for example.

All it takes is an election in Parliament, by MPs who were elected by the voters, PM-Abhisit in December-2008 is another example. All the MPs who voted for him had, with the exception of any by-elections during the year, been elected by the public in the December-2007 elections.

Somchai was elected Prime Minister. Members of parliament are direct representatives of the people. As it would be impractical for every citizen to vote on every bill before parliament, MP's are elected to represent and cast votes on behalf of their constituents. Somchai was elected Prime Minister, by the people, through their parliamentary representatives.

Comparing Abhisits' and Somchas' rise to the Prime Ministership is a little false as you have omitted that fact that the political party that represented the majority of the electorate was disbanded, on trumped up charges, by the courts and other political parties were strong-armed into backing Abhisit. If this weren't a coup, the proper thing to do would have been for Abhisit to immediately call for new elections returning the power to decide who shall govern back to the people - he did not do this. Here is a question for you, having usurped power and denied the people why did Abhisit not enact the reforms the Democrats are now demanding? I would suggest that reforms and Red Shirt corruption aren't their primary concern - they just want to hold indefinite power by any means.

As for caretaker status, it is simply a convention that prevents the sitting government from abusing its position for advantage during an election or committing future governments to policies or actions whilst the electorate decides who shall run the country. All else remains the same. You seem to think that a caretaker government is somehow an illegitimate form of government - it's not, it's perfectally constitutional.

Why do you hate Thai people so much that your slur their courts in favor of a convicted felon who 'self-exiled' himself instead of fighting the charges against him?

[Cricketnut]

Prediction . . . within 10 days the elections will be declared invalid . . . the coup (judicial or otherwise) will then follow this.

When PTP lose the following election, I'm sure we will hear about an "electoral coup" from UDD, with the normal calls to mass uprising to fight for (red) democracy. The blame of course will be put on the RTArmy for having undue influence on voters by not declaring they would rule out a coup.

Should the PTP lose a free and fair election then the worst thing that they could possibly do would be to emulate the other sides actions of the the last decade. They would lose their moral authority which is why I imagine that they would never do so. For mine, I find it hard to see a viable alternative to PTP for a rural voter in the short to medium term so I would expect to continue to see large PTP electoral victories making your concerns about the future, in all practicality, irrelevant.

Parties led by criminal fugitives do not have moral authority.

Unless voted in by the Thai majority.. Next

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[ManofReason]

Somchai was elected Prime Minister. Members of parliament are direct representatives of the people. As it would be impractical for every citizen to vote on every bill before parliament, MP's are elected to represent and cast votes on behalf of their constituents. Somchai was elected Prime Minister, by the people, through their parliamentary representatives.

Comparing Abhisits' and Somchas' rise to the Prime Ministership is a little false as you have omitted that fact that the political party that represented the majority of the electorate was disbanded, on trumped up charges, by the courts and other political parties were strong-armed into backing Abhisit. If this weren't a coup, the proper thing to do would have been for Abhisit to immediately call for new elections returning the power to decide who shall govern back to the people - he did not do this. Here is a question for you, having usurped power and denied the people why did Abhisit not enact the reforms the Democrats are now demanding? I would suggest that reforms and Red Shirt corruption aren't their primary concern - they just want to hold indefinite power by any means.

As for caretaker status, it is simply a convention that prevents the sitting government from abusing its position for advantage during an election or committing future governments to policies or actions whilst the electorate decides who shall run the country. All else remains the same. You seem to think that a caretaker government is somehow an illegitimate form of government - it's not, it's perfectally constitutional.

Why do you hate Thai people so much that your slur their courts in favor of a convicted felon who 'self-exiled' himself instead of fighting the charges against him?

An independent judicial system is critical to having a functioning modern nation state.

To give an example palatable to your political leanings, Thaksins' 2001 acquittal is proof enough that things aren't working quite as they should be in the courts.

I could ask of you, why do you hate the Thai people so much as to support a movement that disenfranchises them of their democratic rights and denies them an impartial judicial system. Or, why do you hate the Thai people so much that you are actively trying to destroy the political organisation that the majority of the population have repeatedly chosen (read elected) to lead the country and implement policies that will improve their standard of living?

For the record I don't hate the Thai people, in reality my feelings are quite the opposite, I want to see the best for them, their children and their future

generations.

[rametindallas]

Somchai was elected Prime Minister. Members of parliament are direct representatives of the people. As it would be impractical for every citizen to vote on every bill before parliament, MP's are elected to represent and cast votes on behalf of their constituents. Somchai was elected Prime Minister, by the people, through their parliamentary representatives.

Comparing Abhisits' and Somchas' rise to the Prime Ministership is a little false as you have omitted that fact that the political party that represented the majority of the electorate was disbanded, on trumped up charges, by the courts and other political parties were strong-armed into backing Abhisit. If this weren't a coup, the proper thing to do would have been for Abhisit to immediately call for new elections returning the power to decide who shall govern back to the people - he did not do this. Here is a question for you, having usurped power and denied the people why did Abhisit not enact the reforms the Democrats are now demanding? I would suggest that reforms and Red Shirt corruption aren't their primary concern - they just want to hold indefinite power by any means.

As for caretaker status, it is simply a convention that prevents the sitting government from abusing its position for advantage during an election or committing future governments to policies or actions whilst the electorate decides who shall run the country. All else remains the same. You seem to think that a caretaker government is somehow an illegitimate form of government - it's not, it's perfectally constitutional.

Why do you hate Thai people so much that your slur their courts in favor of a convicted felon who 'self-exiled' himself instead of fighting the charges against him?

An independent judicial system is critical to having a functioning modern nation state.

To give an example palatable to your political leanings, Thaksins' 2001 acquittal is proof enough that things aren't working quite as they should be in the courts.

I could ask of you, why do you hate the Thai people so much as to support a movement that disenfranchises them of their democratic rights and denies them an impartial judicial system. Or, why do you hate the Thai people so much that you are actively trying to destroy the political organisation that the majority of the population have repeatedly chosen (read elected) to lead the country and implement policies that will improve their standard of living?

For the record I don't hate the Thai people, in reality my feelings are quite the opposite, I want to see the best for them, their children and their future

generations.

How is it good for the Thai people to be governed by a fugitive, convicted felon, guilty of corruption in office, who governs Thailand through his unqualified clone, from Dubai? How is it good for Thai people to be governed by a government that enriches itself at the cost of the future of millions of rice farmers? This government has spent itself into deep debt and nothing to show for it. They haven't fixed the most important thing when the came to power which is flooding, They haven't improved people's lives but raised prices on the poor through inflation. The majority may have to change their minds about this government when most of its MPs are banned for forging legal documents to send to the Senate for approval and cabinet members sent to prison or 'self-exiled' on corruption convictions. Less than 48% of the voters in the areas that voted even bothered to show up and the current government got less than half the votes they got in 2011 so you are talking out of your a......

[ManofReason]

Somchai was elected Prime Minister. Members of parliament are direct representatives of the people. As it would be impractical for every citizen to vote on every bill before parliament, MP's are elected to represent and cast votes on behalf of their constituents. Somchai was elected Prime Minister, by the people, through their parliamentary representatives.

Comparing Abhisits' and Somchas' rise to the Prime Ministership is a little false as you have omitted that fact that the political party that represented the majority of the electorate was disbanded, on trumped up charges, by the courts and other political parties were strong-armed into backing Abhisit. If this weren't a coup, the proper thing to do would have been for Abhisit to immediately call for new elections returning the power to decide who shall govern back to the people - he did not do this. Here is a question for you, having usurped power and denied the people why did Abhisit not enact the reforms the Democrats are now demanding? I would suggest that reforms and Red Shirt corruption aren't their primary concern - they just want to hold indefinite power by any means.

As for caretaker status, it is simply a convention that prevents the sitting government from abusing its position for advantage during an election or committing future governments to policies or actions whilst the electorate decides who shall run the country. All else remains the same. You seem to think that a caretaker government is somehow an illegitimate form of government - it's not, it's perfectally constitutional.

Why do you hate Thai people so much that your slur their courts in favor of a convicted felon who 'self-exiled' himself instead of fighting the charges against him?

An independent judicial system is critical to having a functioning modern nation state.

To give an example palatable to your political leanings, Thaksins' 2001 acquittal is proof enough that things aren't working quite as they should be in the courts.

I could ask of you, why do you hate the Thai people so much as to support a movement that disenfranchises them of their democratic rights and denies them an impartial judicial system. Or, why do you hate the Thai people so much that you are actively trying to destroy the political organisation that the majority of the population have repeatedly chosen (read elected) to lead the country and implement policies that will improve their standard of living?

For the record I don't hate the Thai people, in reality my feelings are quite the opposite, I want to see the best for them, their children and their future

generations.

How is it good for the Thai people to be governed by a fugitive, convicted felon, guilty of corruption in office, who governs Thailand through his unqualified clone, from Dubai? How is it good for Thai people to be governed by a government that enriches itself at the cost of the future of millions of rice farmers? This government has spent itself into deep debt and nothing to show for it. They haven't fixed the most important thing when the came to power which is flooding, They haven't improved people's lives but raised prices on the poor through inflation. The majority may have to change their minds about this government when most of its MPs are banned for forging legal documents to send to the Senate for approval and cabinet members sent to prison or 'self-exiled' on corruption convictions. Less than 48% of the voters in the areas that voted even bothered to show up and the current government got less than half the votes they got in 2011 so you are talking out of your a......

Interesting that you mention elections. Although you and me may both obnoxiously think we each know what is good for the Thai people, the truth is that they and they alone know what's best for them and the way they express their desires is through voting in elections. Why try to deny them the opportunity to speak for themselves, why not trust them to make their own decisions as to who can run the country to improve their daily lot in life. Any who does anything to actively disenfranchise any individual Thai voter can not be said to love the Thai nation or its people.

[Tatsujin]

Prediction . . . within 10 days the elections will be declared invalid . . . the coup (judicial or otherwise) will then follow this.

When PTP lose the following election, I'm sure we will hear about an "electoral coup" from UDD, with the normal calls to mass uprising to fight for (red) democracy. The blame of course will be put on the RTArmy for having undue influence on voters by not declaring they would rule out a coup.

Should the PTP lose a free and fair election then the worst thing that they could possibly do would be to emulate the other sides actions of the the last decade. They would lose their moral authority which is why I imagine that they would never do so. For mine, I find it hard to see a viable alternative to PTP for a rural voter in the short to medium term so I would expect to continue to see large PTP electoral victories making your concerns about the future, in all practicality, irrelevant.

Using the words "PTP" and "moral" in the same sentence is simply hilarious lol

[rixalex]

Absolutely! How the powers behind the scenes must truly regret forcing the judges to change their verdicts and acquit Thaksin of what he was clearly guilty of. Remember, Thaksin himself did not have the authority to change the verdict himself - that came from elsewhere. As for the moaning - 2 wrongs don't make a right. What is the argument here? Because the courts handed down a corrupt verdict in 2001 all verdicts can now be corrupted?

Remember, Thaksin himself did not have the authority to change the verdict himself

What are you talking about? Didn't have authority? What has authority got to do with it? When people in positions of power, such as Thaksin, apply pressure or exert influence on the justice system, it has nothing to do with them having authority. It has everything to do with them abusing power. And that is exactly what he did in 2001. Denying this and blaming it all on some third hand is absurd. What next? Was it some third hand that made him stuff lunch boxes with money and attempt to bribe judges?

As for the moaning - 2 wrongs don't make a right. What is the argument here?

The argument here is that you bemoaning the fact that the justice system has in the past 13 years denied Thaksin of 30 more months at the trough that he was in fact entitled to, is nonsense because the justice system gave him five extra years at the beginning of his political career that he never should have had. Also, from the time in which he was found guilty and convicted of two years in prison, he should not have had anything to do with politics or the running of this country. And yet he has. And even if you disagree with what he was found guilty of, and of course you do, the punishment alone for a former PM attempting to bribe judges in such a brazen fashion, would in any properly functioning justice system, be much greater than a 2 year sentence and would also include a life time ban from politics.

[ManofReason]

Absolutely! How the powers behind the scenes must truly regret forcing the judges to change their verdicts and acquit Thaksin of what he was clearly guilty of. Remember, Thaksin himself did not have the authority to change the verdict himself - that came from elsewhere. As for the moaning - 2 wrongs don't make a right. What is the argument here? Because the courts handed down a corrupt verdict in 2001 all verdicts can now be corrupted?

Remember, Thaksin himself did not have the authority to change the verdict himself

What are you talking about? Didn't have authority? What has authority got to do with it? When people in positions of power, such as Thaksin, apply pressure or exert influence on the justice system, it has nothing to do with them having authority. It has everything to do with them abusing power. And that is exactly what he did in 2001. Denying this and blaming it all on some third hand is absurd. What next? Was it some third hand that made him stuff lunch boxes with money and attempt to bribe judges?

As for the moaning - 2 wrongs don't make a right. What is the argument here?

The argument here is that you bemoaning the fact that the justice system has in the past 13 years denied Thaksin of 30 more months at the trough that he was in fact entitled to, is nonsense because the justice system gave him five extra years at the beginning of his political career that he never should have had. Also, from the time in which he was found guilty and convicted of two years in prison, he should not have had anything to do with politics or the running of this country. And yet he has. And even if you disagree with what he was found guilty of, and of course you do, the punishment alone for a former PM attempting to bribe judges in such a brazen fashion, would in any properly functioning justice system, be much greater than a 2 year sentence and would also include a life time ban from politics.

1. For anyone who truly wants to know the truth, it doesn't take much effort to find out who orchestrated the dodgy verdict in Thaksin's favour in 2001. I freely admit if Thaksin could have done his own dirty work he would have - that is obvious to all - but he couldn't so he didn't. It was a Yellow own goal. There are numerous internet sources, you can even find quotes from some of the judges in the case explicitly stating who the behind the scenes player was that pulled the strings in favour of Thaksin. If the Thaksin regime could actually ride roughshod over the judiciary as you are claiming why on earth did they allow so many verdicts to go against them in future cases? 1 - 0

2. The justice system didn't give Thaksin anything - the voters of Thailand gave Thaksin the authority to rule and they did so 3 times with Thaksin in charge and twice more as the puppet master. But this is beside the point, I repeat, should the fact that corrupt verdicts have been handed down in the past justify the continuation of corrupt verdicts? I would of thought this was a no brainer question for you as I thought the whole (disingenuous) purpose for the PDRC existing was to fight all forms of corruption. Thailand needs impartial institutions just as much as it needs honest politicians! 2 - 0

Edited March 1, 2014 by ManofReason

[JRSoul]

He told bare faced lies to the panel.

However if he had cooked a newborn baby in coca cola live on TV I'm sure you would be here saying "Ah, but it was only one baby."

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

"If he had cooked a newborn baby in coca cola". <deleted>? Bizarre!

The law should be blind and impartial and treat all people equally. So had Samak actually cooked a baby in coca cola I would be saying that he should tried in a court of law and if convicted suffer the appropriate punishment issued by the judge.

I'm not sure how a thread about Thai politics ended up discussing cooking babies in coca cola, probably something to do with one side of the discussion trying to avoid factual debate. A tacit admission of the weakness of the arguement.

Before finishing I just want to say "cooking babies in coca cola" one more time, when else will I or anyone else ever type those words again?

???

"...I would be saying that he should tried in a court of law and if convicted suffer the appropriate punishment issued by the judge."

But that is exactly what happened, yet you seem to find a problem with it because you don't like the outcome. To create credibility, try being consistent.

[JRSoul]

Parties led by criminal fugitives do not have moral authority.

Unless voted in by the Thai majority.. Next

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Amazing! You actually believe that rule of law is superseded by popularity.