Prayuth declines to commit himself that he will not stage coup

[binjalin]

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

exactly - and what many TVF "pundits" don't grasp is that many Thais support PTP not BECAUSE they love the Shins but because they hate the yellow Dems more

IF the Dems separated themselves from the ammart and connected with ordinary Thais they would be a credible opposition and maybe EVEN win

coup is not the answer - democracy IS

[Pimay1]

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.

Rule of law is superseded by popularity is what got this country in the mess it is in.

[rixalex]

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

The argument that if Thaksin were able to ride roughshod over the judiciary, why did he allow verdicts to go against him, can equally be applied to your own version of events. If this all powerful mysterious third hand has been controlling the outcome of all cases, why has it allowed certain cases to go in his favor, even fairly recent ones? The answer is that power and influence has shifted about over the years. In the early period, Thaksin exerted much more of it, and the result was what we saw during the assets trial. The verdict was a farce but he embraced it. Never once have I heard him complain about it. In the later years, his power base went down and the tentacles of his influence reduced, as evidenced in the land trial, which although he was guilty of, (along with guilty of attempted bribery, a matter you seem to ignore, along with the courts who simply handed the money back and charged the lawyers involved, as if the client was oblivious), the crime in the general scheme of things was not that great, and had this been back in 2001, his power would have taken care of things. It didn't. And so began the squealing, echoed even to this day by people like you. Squealing not of being innocent I hasten to add, (although having said that, you'll probably now stoop down and attempt it), but of being the poor victim of political motivation?! The horror of it!

[rixalex]

2. The justice system didn't give Thaksin anything

What are you taking about? You have already accepted that in 2001 the justice system let him off from a verdict that would have resulted in a five year ban. What was that doing if not giving him something?

[fasteddie]

It looks like the events kicked off following the refusal of a small minority to accept the TRT (PPP / PTP) 2005 landslide win (375 out of 500 seats) are finally coming to an end.

Its always interesting to see the truth twisted for some ones own ego

PTP won 265 seats not 375

...............................

Yingluck's quiet and restrained approach to dealing with Yellows has outsmarted them

The truth is she nothing but a puppet from the start and always under order to keep her mouth shut

..................................

and won the ultimate victory for truth, justice and freedom.

afraid to talk to the Thai people is truth, justice and freedom.

have you been watching too many Superman movies, total fiction

In the fullness of time, good always triumphs over evil.

well at least once you where correct

The good Thai people will triumpth of the evil PTO Party

As usual you have no clue!

Thai general election , 2005 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[rixalex]

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

Absolutely agreed. But you speak as if all verdicts are now going against the Shinawatras and as if they have become the victims. Just the fact that they have been able to continue running the country for over two years with a fugitive convicted criminal who doesn't even live in the country, shows that all the cards aren't stacked against them. If this was a Democrat government being run in the same way, you and all the reds would be saying, "see the Dems can get away with blatant law breaking" and you'd say, "if this was Thaksin's party it would have been dissolved as soon as it had been elected what with all those blatant banners boasting "convicted criminal thinks, we do". But it was Thaksin's party and they weren't dissolved. They have been allowed to run the country, in spite of clearly breaking laws from day one.

[ManofReason]

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

The argument that if Thaksin were able to ride roughshod over the judiciary, why did he allow verdicts to go against him, can equally be applied to your own version of events. If this all powerful mysterious third hand has been controlling the outcome of all cases, why has it allowed certain cases to go in his favor, even fairly recent ones? The answer is that power and influence has shifted about over the years. In the early period, Thaksin exerted much more of it, and the result was what we saw during the assets trial. The verdict was a farce but he embraced it. Never once have I heard him complain about it. In the later years, his power base went down and the tentacles of his influence reduced, as evidenced in the land trial, which although he was guilty of, (along with guilty of attempted bribery, a matter you seem to ignore, along with the courts who simply handed the money back and charged the lawyers involved, as if the client was oblivious), the crime in the general scheme of things was not that great, and had this been back in 2001, his power would have taken care of things. It didn't. And so began the squealing, echoed even to this day by people like you. Squealing not of being innocent I hasten to add, (although having said that, you'll probably now stoop down and attempt it), but of being the poor victim of political motivation?! The horror of it!

I lean towards believing that things went down a different way. The powers that had run the country in the preceding decades thought Thaksin was the right choice for Thailand and used their influence to nurture him into power. A proven CEO who could enrich the nation and the elite with his expertise. When they belatedly realised that Thaksin wasn't going to sit back and be their puppet, that he would in fact completely ignore them and run the show how he saw fit - even if certain decisions contradicted the elites wishes and hurt them financially. They then removed their behind the scenes support and began a campaign to do all they could to remove him completely from the Thai political system. And here we are today in the situation that we are in, Thaksin has an electoral majority and the Yellows have the institutions in their pocket.

[wolf5370]

In 60s and 70 s coup were staged by power crazy generals who control the people but nowdays if situation beyond control to stage a coup is to keep both side from fighting each other the intention not for grabbing power but to solve the country problems, there few reasons that hardly to stage a coup are the red side might fght back with more worsen the situation and international presure for a coup government. It try not to happen but is the only last final resort, so the hint do or do not still depend on the daily situation .

Nowadays it's exactly the same.

They just use a mercenary like Suthep to cause havoc and than have the perfect excuse.

Thailand hasn't changed a millimeter since the sad day of the 1932 coup.

Your supposition is the army were behind the ant-amnesty and successive ant-government protest that turned into this? Wow, all I can say is, wow! Tinfoil hat much?

[wolf5370]

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.

Last coup in Thailand was bloodless - in fact, it has been much bloodier since the military returned power to the electorate: 2010 riots and the current status!

I believe military here give an oath to the King, country and people of Thailand, and to follow the moral orders of their superiors. In that, they have not broken it - and even a coup, given the right environment, could be likewise, within the oath.

[wolf5370]

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.

Last coup in Thailand was bloodless - in fact, it has been much bloodier since the military returned power to the electorate: 2010 riots and the current status!

I believe military here give an oath to the King, country and people of Thailand, and to follow the moral orders of their superiors. In that, they have not broken it - and even a coup, given the right environment, could be likewise, within the oath.

[fasteddie]

Further coup will not end any situation. The armed forces should stand on the side of the democratically elected government with the King as the head of state to reinstate law and order and enforcing the rule of law.

where have you been for the last 2 months

There is no democratically elected government

The country is in caretaker mode because of corrupt practices

what rule of Law

any time the law is against the Taskin family

the law is no good

where do you come up with all the BS from

"The country is in caretaker mode because of corrupt practices"

Once again, you really haven't got a clue!

The PM dissolved parliament and called fresh elections to try and end the insurrection by a minority of old guard led terrorists unable to accept the will of the majority of voters. Then the terrorists forcibly blocked voters from exercising their democratic rights with the collusion of the Democratic (sic) party not fielding candidates.

That is why the country is in caretaker mode, as you put it.

[mrtoad]

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

The argument that if Thaksin were able to ride roughshod over the judiciary, why did he allow verdicts to go against him, can equally be applied to your own version of events. If this all powerful mysterious third hand has been controlling the outcome of all cases, why has it allowed certain cases to go in his favor, even fairly recent ones? The answer is that power and influence has shifted about over the years. In the early period, Thaksin exerted much more of it, and the result was what we saw during the assets trial. The verdict was a farce but he embraced it. Never once have I heard him complain about it. In the later years, his power base went down and the tentacles of his influence reduced, as evidenced in the land trial, which although he was guilty of, (along with guilty of attempted bribery, a matter you seem to ignore, along with the courts who simply handed the money back and charged the lawyers involved, as if the client was oblivious), the crime in the general scheme of things was not that great, and had this been back in 2001, his power would have taken care of things. It didn't. And so began the squealing, echoed even to this day by people like you. Squealing not of being innocent I hasten to add, (although having said that, you'll probably now stoop down and attempt it), but of being the poor victim of political motivation?! The horror of it!

I lean towards believing that things went down a different way. The powers that had run the country in the preceding decades thought Thaksin was the right choice for Thailand and used their influence to nurture him into power. A proven CEO who could enrich the nation and the elite with his expertise. When they belatedly realised that Thaksin wasn't going to sit back and be their puppet, that he would in fact completely ignore them and run the show how he saw fit - even if certain decisions contradicted the elites wishes and hurt them financially. They then removed their behind the scenes support and began a campaign to do all they could to remove him completely from the Thai political system. And here we are today in the situation that we are in, Thaksin has an electoral majority and the Yellows have the institutions in their pocket.

Countries don't get run as business , that's the problem. Countries need to have consensus. In a business poor performers, or staff that don't follow the company get fired. That's fair enough.

In politics, you have to look at the bigger picture. Thaksin has always thought that he Thailands CEO, he isn't, he is corrupt selfish individual.

P.S. there is no democracy in business.

[wolf5370]

A coup just before the government and the UN can officially call for reconcilliation talks.

Convenient, eh?

sent from my hippo phone

I thought I read that Yinluck said no to talks with Suthep. I'm not on either side, but Suthep is willing to have talks from what I read. Yinluck said no. A TV debate would allow all Thais see what's being said on both sides.

One reason why YL has refused as there would be nothing coming from her side.

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.

...and yet Thaksin met with the leaders of the Red Shirts during the 2010 debacle - and even agreed to their demands (which of course the Reds turned around later and broke by changing those very demands). Not on TV though of course.

[ManofReason]

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

Absolutely agreed. But you speak as if all verdicts are now going against the Shinawatras and as if they have become the victims. Just the fact that they have been able to continue running the country for over two years with a fugitive convicted criminal who doesn't even live in the country, shows that all the cards aren't stacked against them. If this was a Democrat government being run in the same way, you and all the reds would be saying, "see the Dems can get away with blatant law breaking" and you'd say, "if this was Thaksin's party it would have been dissolved as soon as it had been elected what with all those blatant banners boasting "convicted criminal thinks, we do". But it was Thaksin's party and they weren't dissolved. They have been allowed to run the country, in spite of clearly breaking laws from day one.

I don't believe the courts have ever disbanded or removed from office a Democrat government. Is this because they are all angels? A quick look at Suthep's biography answers that question. The problem for the courts is that once you lose your reputation it is very hard to regain it. I don't think anyone can have too much faith in any of the upcoming verdicts (even if they are actually the correct verdicts) because of the past shenanigans. By having a half appointed senate that is responsible for appointing judges (which in turn appoint unelected senators) doesn't help the situation - this needs to change and when it does the judiciary will be on the way to becoming truly independent. PTP actually tried to reform the judiciary in this exact manner and look what it got them. For the record, prior to the 2007 constitution being "voted" in Abhisit himself voiced his disapproval of the unelected senate, though he was comforted by the (false) assertions from the coup government that it could easily be altered, via parliament at a later date.

[metisdead]

Troll posts have been removed as well as the replies.

[rixalex]

[by having a half appointed senate that is responsible for appointing judges (which in turn appoint unelected senators) doesn't help the situation - this needs to change and when it does the judiciary will be on the way to becoming truly independent. PTP actually tried to reform the judiciary in this exact manner and look what it got them.

Perhaps that is because contrary to your suggestion, the reforms that PTP were proposing, wouldn't have in fact led to a more independent judiciary, but rather a judiciary PTP could better control. Why else do you think they were pursuing it? For the good of the country?! For democracy?! Please...

Sent from my i-mobile IQ XA using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[ManofReason]

[by having a half appointed senate that is responsible for appointing judges (which in turn appoint unelected senators) doesn't help the situation - this needs to change and when it does the judiciary will be on the way to becoming truly independent. PTP actually tried to reform the judiciary in this exact manner and look what it got them.

Perhaps that is because contrary to your suggestion, the reforms that PTP were proposing, wouldn't have in fact led to a more independent judiciary, but rather a judiciary PTP could better control. Why else do you think they were pursuing it? For the good of the country?! For democracy?! Please...

Sent from my i-mobile IQ XA using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

It is currently a system where permanent institutions of state a never accountable to the general population. The senate should be fully elected so that the political appointments it makes are reflective of the will of the electorate. What possible argument is there to deny the people the right to choose who shall govern them?

[Crushdepth]

Further coup will not end any situation. The armed forces should stand on the side of the democratically elected government with the King as the head of state to reinstate law and order and enforcing the rule of law.

where have you been for the last 2 months

There is no democratically elected government

The country is in caretaker mode because of corrupt practices

what rule of Law

any time the law is against the Taskin family

the law is no good

where do you come up with all the BS from

"The country is in caretaker mode because of corrupt practices"

Once again, you really haven't got a clue!

The PM dissolved parliament and called fresh elections to try and end the insurrection by a minority of old guard led terrorists unable to accept the will of the majority of voters. Then the terrorists forcibly blocked voters from exercising their democratic rights with the collusion of the Democratic (sic) party not fielding candidates.

That is why the country is in caretaker mode, as you put it.

Don't be bloody ridiculous. The terrorists are the people throwing bombs.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Theoutsider]

Further coup will not end any situation. The armed forces should stand on the side of the democratically elected government with the King as the head of state to reinstate law and order and enforcing the rule of law.

where have you been for the last 2 months

There is no democratically elected government

The country is in caretaker mode because of corrupt practices

what rule of Law

any time the law is against the Taskin family

the law is no good

where do you come up with all the BS from

"The country is in caretaker mode because of corrupt practices"

Once again, you really haven't got a clue!

The PM dissolved parliament and called fresh elections to try and end the insurrection by a minority of old guard led terrorists unable to accept the will of the majority of voters. Then the terrorists forcibly blocked voters from exercising their democratic rights with the collusion of the Democratic (sic) party not fielding candidates.

That is why the country is in caretaker mode, as you put it.

Don't be bloody ridiculous. The terrorists are the people throwing bombs.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

not only;

you, maybe me.

[fasteddie]

Further coup will not end any situation. The armed forces should stand on the side of the democratically elected government with the King as the head of state to reinstate law and order and enforcing the rule of law.

where have you been for the last 2 months

There is no democratically elected government

The country is in caretaker mode because of corrupt practices

what rule of Law

any time the law is against the Taskin family

the law is no good

where do you come up with all the BS from

"The country is in caretaker mode because of corrupt practices"

Once again, you really haven't got a clue!

The PM dissolved parliament and called fresh elections to try and end the insurrection by a minority of old guard led terrorists unable to accept the will of the majority of voters. Then the terrorists forcibly blocked voters from exercising their democratic rights with the collusion of the Democratic (sic) party not fielding candidates.

That is why the country is in caretaker mode, as you put it.

Don't be bloody ridiculous. The terrorists are the people throwing bombs.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Don't be bloody ridiculous! The terrorists are those that want to destroy democracy!

[neverdie]

It looks like the events kicked off following the refusal of a small minority to accept the TRT (PPP / PTP) 2005 landslide win (375 out of 500 seats) are finally coming to an end.

Its always interesting to see the truth twisted for some ones own ego

PTP won 265 seats not 375

...............................

Yingluck's quiet and restrained approach to dealing with Yellows has outsmarted them

The truth is she nothing but a puppet from the start and always under order to keep her mouth shut

..................................

and won the ultimate victory for truth, justice and freedom.

afraid to talk to the Thai people is truth, justice and freedom.

have you been watching too many Superman movies, total fiction

In the fullness of time, good always triumphs over evil.

well at least once you where correct

The good Thai people will triumpth of the evil PTO Party

As usual you have no clue!

Thai general election , 2005 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look in the mirror fateddie.

Oh dear! isn't that just the way of the right? No argument, just silly attempts at insults by changing my user name, mature!

Fasteedie,

MtRoad is dyslexic he also has trouble with his fingers because he was born in Tasmania (but at least he didn't get two heads) I don't think it was an intentional misspell. He has years of posting history at TV and you don't get there by intentionally mis spelling peoples nicknames and intentionally trying to cause problems. In any such case, normally the people that are merely worried about spelling problems lack substance in the counter argument.

Also, don't forget that everyone here is entitled to an opinion and u know 'opinions' are like bum holes, many of them stink and everyone's got one.

My only thought is that It must be hard for so many farang experts, most of which can't even read or understand Thai fluently, to have such a firm grip on what is actually going on here. Relying on the media and the papers doesn't always tell the correct, surely you know what I. saying.

So relax and don't worry about who agrees with you, it's only the internet.

regards

nevercry

[Ricardo]

...and yet Thaksin met with the leaders of the Red Shirts during the 2010 debacle - and even agreed to their demands (which of course the Reds turned around later and broke by changing those very demands). Not on TV though of course.

Wasn't it then-PM Abhisit, not Thaksin, who met with the UDD-leaders in-2010 live on television, and agreed a deal which they then backed-out-of ?

Although Thaksin does seem to have met regularly with all sorts of loyal-followers, in Hong Kong & Cambodia & Dubai, over the years. Part of his face-gaining strategy, when they have to come to him, to ask for Cabinet-positions or other favours.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Ricardo

[mrtoad]

It looks like the events kicked off following the refusal of a small minority to accept the TRT (PPP / PTP) 2005 landslide win (375 out of 500 seats) are finally coming to an end.

Its always interesting to see the truth twisted for some ones own ego

PTP won 265 seats not 375

...............................

Yingluck's quiet and restrained approach to dealing with Yellows has outsmarted them

The truth is she nothing but a puppet from the start and always under order to keep her mouth shut

..................................

and won the ultimate victory for truth, justice and freedom.

afraid to talk to the Thai people is truth, justice and freedom.

have you been watching too many Superman movies, total fiction

In the fullness of time, good always triumphs over evil.

well at least once you where correct

The good Thai people will triumpth of the evil PTO Party

As usual you have no clue!

Thai general election , 2005 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look in the mirror fateddie.

Oh dear! isn't that just the way of the right? No argument, just silly attempts at insults by changing my user name, mature!

Oh dear, a spelling mistake and he gets upset. Sorry fasteddie, these predict texts on iPads are a real problem. It changed it to fasteddie again, so I made sure I checked, wouldn't want you getting upset over your Jok this morning.

Now, please come up with something better than Wikipedia. Yes, 2005 election Thaksins party won, by 2006 there were mass protests on the streets regarding a number of dubious Thaksin deals. He resigned, and then reinstated himself, I can't be bothered to post all the details, googles your friend. When the Army actually moved in, there really was no functional government, and Thaksin was not the actual PM. But maybe you've only got here recently, so will let you off.

[neverdie]

yes, I have trouble on so many fronts mr t.

first I never did school. second I can't use a keyboard. third. if you leave auto correct on, you end up all over the place because it won't accept things like pipkins (can u blame it), so I turn it off and I direct u back to the 1st and 2nd point of this post.

I'm caught in an infinite loop.

......and such is life.

[rixalex]

[by having a half appointed senate that is responsible for appointing judges (which in turn appoint unelected senators) doesn't help the situation - this needs to change and when it does the judiciary will be on the way to becoming truly independent. PTP actually tried to reform the judiciary in this exact manner and look what it got them.

Perhaps that is because contrary to your suggestion, the reforms that PTP were proposing, wouldn't have in fact led to a more independent judiciary, but rather a judiciary PTP could better control. Why else do you think they were pursuing it? For the good of the country?! For democracy?! Please...

Sent from my i-mobile IQ XA using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

What possible argument is there to deny the people the right to choose who shall govern them?

The answer to that would have been revealed, had you honestly answered my question about why the PTP were pursuing this reform.

[ManofReason]

[by having a half appointed senate that is responsible for appointing judges (which in turn appoint unelected senators) doesn't help the situation - this needs to change and when it does the judiciary will be on the way to becoming truly independent. PTP actually tried to reform the judiciary in this exact manner and look what it got them.

Perhaps that is because contrary to your suggestion, the reforms that PTP were proposing, wouldn't have in fact led to a more independent judiciary, but rather a judiciary PTP could better control. Why else do you think they were pursuing it? For the good of the country?! For democracy?! Please...

Sent from my i-mobile IQ XA using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

What possible argument is there to deny the people the right to choose who shall govern them?

The answer to that would have been revealed, had you honestly answered my question about why the PTP were pursuing this reform.

The PTP were pursuing a fully elected senate. The senate is the body that approves the appointment of individuals to government roles such as judges.

Currently 1/2 the senate is unelected - those senators that are unelected are not beholden to anybody except the people who appointed them. The only way for the PTP to have more control over the independent institutions with a fully elected senate is to win elections. Elections are how the population decide who they want to make decisions on their behalf. So if the PTP have greater control over judicial appointments it is because a majority of the citizens want it that way and if the PTP make bad or corrupt decisions the people will take away the power they gave at the next election - it's called accountability. It's how things work in "grown-up land".

[rixalex]

The PTP were pursuing a fully elected senate. The senate is the body that approves the appointment of individuals to government roles such as judges.

Currently 1/2 the senate is unelected - those senators that are unelected are not beholden to anybody except the people who appointed them. The only way for the PTP to have more control over the independent institutions with a fully elected senate is to win elections. Elections are how the population decide who they want to make decisions on their behalf. So if the PTP have greater control over judicial appointments it is because a majority of the citizens want it that way and if the PTP make bad or corrupt decisions the people will take away the power they gave at the next election - it's called accountability. It's how things work in "grown-up land".

This line of discussion began with an agreed need between us for the judiciary to be more independent. The PTP backed reforms you support would do nothing to achieve that. Your post above tacitly accepts that, but reasons that the lack of independence, and the risk of the senate simply becoming a yes-man for the government, thereby becoming pretty much a redundant body, would be made up for by increased accountability. I don't think it would.

[ManofReason]

The PTP were pursuing a fully elected senate. The senate is the body that approves the appointment of individuals to government roles such as judges.

Currently 1/2 the senate is unelected - those senators that are unelected are not beholden to anybody except the people who appointed them. The only way for the PTP to have more control over the independent institutions with a fully elected senate is to win elections. Elections are how the population decide who they want to make decisions on their behalf. So if the PTP have greater control over judicial appointments it is because a majority of the citizens want it that way and if the PTP make bad or corrupt decisions the people will take away the power they gave at the next election - it's called accountability. It's how things work in "grown-up land".

This line of discussion began with an agreed need between us for the judiciary to be more independent. The PTP backed reforms you support would do nothing to achieve that. Your post above tacitly accepts that, but reasons that the lack of independence, and the risk of the senate simply becoming a yes-man for the government, thereby becoming pretty much a redundant body, would be made up for by increased accountability. I don't think it would.

What can be learnt from modern day functioning democracies with independent judiciaries, for example how does a country such as the US approve candidates for judicial positions who are nominated by the government of the day? A fully elected senate holds a hearing and then votes to accept or deny the appointment. Opposition to such a system in Thailand appears to be rooted in the belief that the local electorate is not sophisticated enough to be trusted with choosing who should govern them and that things would be much better for all if they would just but out and let the elites run the show as they see fit. Unfortunately for those who think that way the times are a changing.

[rixalex]

What can be learnt from modern day functioning democracies with independent judiciaries, for example how does a country such as the US approve candidates for judicial positions who are nominated by the government of the day? A fully elected senate holds a hearing and then votes to accept or deny the appointment. Opposition to such a system in Thailand appears to be rooted in the belief that the local electorate is not sophisticated enough to be trusted with choosing who should govern them and that things would be much better for all if they would just but out and let the elites run the show as they see fit. Unfortunately for those who think that way the times are a changing.

As per usual, you are making a strawman argument. The opposition isn't to the system as employed in the US, the opposition is to the system as it would work in Thailand. There would be a world of difference between the two, to suggest otherwise is naive beyond belief, and to reiterate, the outcome of this reform would not be a more independent judiciary, a fact you have already tacitly accepted with your attempted justification paraphrased along the lines of: well yes, it wouldn't be more independent, and yes, it may end up in the pocket of the government, but at least it would be more accountable.

I think the real "at least" from people like you, making this argument, is that the PTP will have a more complete control and one less body to check what they are doing. Something you seem to think they deserve the right to on the basis of an ability to win elections.

How things work in grown up land isn't that winning an election raises you above being questioned or challenged. You seem to think it does. Hun Sen's model of democracy is what you are aspiring to, not the US's.

[ManofReason]

What can be learnt from modern day functioning democracies with independent judiciaries, for example how does a country such as the US approve candidates for judicial positions who are nominated by the government of the day? A fully elected senate holds a hearing and then votes to accept or deny the appointment. Opposition to such a system in Thailand appears to be rooted in the belief that the local electorate is not sophisticated enough to be trusted with choosing who should govern them and that things would be much better for all if they would just but out and let the elites run the show as they see fit. Unfortunately for those who think that way the times are a changing.

As per usual, you are making a strawman argument. The opposition isn't to the system as employed in the US, the opposition is to the system as it would work in Thailand. There would be a world of difference between the two, to suggest otherwise is naive beyond belief, and to reiterate, the outcome of this reform would not be a more independent judiciary, a fact you have already tacitly accepted with your attempted justification paraphrased along the lines of: well yes, it wouldn't be more independent, and yes, it may end up in the pocket of the government, but at least it would be more accountable.

I think the real "at least" from people like you, making this argument, is that the PTP will have a more complete control and one less body to check what they are doing. Something you seem to think they deserve the right to on the basis of an ability to win elections.

How things work in grown up land isn't that winning an election raises you above being questioned or challenged. You seem to think it does. Hun Sen's model of democracy is what you are aspiring to, not the US's.

So it works in the US but wont work in Thailand because....? Thai voters are too dumb?

I've never stated that changing the senate to a fully elected body would result in a loss of independence for the judiciary - I believe exactly the opposite is true - a fully elected senate will lead to a more independent, less corruptible judiciary.

The biggest problem facing Thailand is that the Democrats are so woeful and inept that it can't win enough votes to be a strong parliamentary force against the PTP. Instead of trying to change the system to allow the minority to exert control over institutions without a popular mandate the PDRC rabble should focus their efforts on developing policies and finding suitable candidates that will allow them to actually win some votes. But that seems like too much hard work when you can just head to the streets with tanks or 6 wheelchair grannies and steal power.

As for your concerns about the PTP having a more complete control over the senate just on the basis of winning elections???? Surely the basis of winning elections should be the only basis for controlling the senate - any other basis is simply anti democratic.