EC votes to give 'yellow card' to Sukhumbhand for Bangkok governor election

[almafudd]

In a democracy one has to accept the rule of law lest it not be considered a democracy anymore. As much as I do not like this decision it must be respected. That is what people do in democracies, they respect the decisions no matter how much they disagree with them.

I wonder if we will see DEM's say "We will create hell on earth" now this decision has gone against us. I wonder if Abhisit will state "there will be chaos in Thailand now this judgement has gone against us" Of course not. They are democratic and understand the rule of law has to be adhered too lest democracy fail.

However I will behead myself if the DEM's or Abhisit say that. Don't be offended that I said "behead". Apparently it is acceptable for a PTP deputy PM to say it in public so surely it is an acceptable term to use on this forum and in the wider Thai community.

Words are hollow and that is all the PTP have. Actions speak volumes and are a true judge of the person or party. AGAIN through the DEM's actions they have taught the PTP how to act in a democracy when an unfavorable judgement is made against them.

I pity the PTP. I mainly pity there supporters that fight for a democracy yet cannot state what the principles of democracy are.

oh suddenly you are a defender of democracy? but support the attempted overthrow of democratic elections? and an unelected 'Peoples Council'? hypocrite

In a democracy one has to accept the OUTCOME and not block elections lest one not be considered a democracy anymore chai mai

You just don't get it mate ... you haven't got a clue

[englishoak]

Just a tad slow off the mark id say .....

[AleG]

One thing is certain, if the telephone pole had won and this would had happened to him we would have the Red Brigade bleating about "judicial coups" until they'd be blue in the face.

[rubl]

rubl, on 11 Mar 2014 - 20:00, said:

... has found cause to suspect. I'm not complaining, but I assume that they spelled out their reasoning a wee bit more than this?

Anyway, it would seem the telephone pole will get a second chance

Is that it?

With limited data what more is there to say?

BTW the Dem's are really a lot of amateurs. At least when we had those doctored photo's with celebrities seemingly endorsing the darling Pol. Gen. Pongsapat it was an student prank obviously which had nothing to do with the Pheu Thai. Still wondering where jayboy was at the time

[SICHONSTEVE]

Could it be hitting a few of the Dems/yellows/PDRC first to give an impression of impartiality before hitting the reds with a big red card? It can then be used as an argument for neutrality of the courts/independent bodies ad nauseam. Conspiracy theorists on both sides of the divide could spin this one so many ways.

Precisely that of my thinking - nothing like taking the fire power away from them!!!

[Jonmarleesco]

'The EC reasoned that there was suspicion that he violated the election laws but there was no strong evidence so the EC decline to give him a red card or disqualify him right away.' The article first said the EC voted to disqualify Sukhumbhand. Then they claimed no strong evidence for disqualifying him 'right away', instead voting to ask the Court of Appeal to order a new election. Which was it?

And a year to come to a conclusion? That makes government ministers' oft hasty declarations of completion of enquiries into anything and everything to be completed in a matter of weeks - often days - all the more amazing ... or suspicious.

[Bangmod]

Becasue the EC are Pro-Yellow/Anti-Red... or so the PTP lot tell us...

true... if a red he would have a red card LOL

So why are you still on this forum than?????

You by this time could have a whole deck of red cards

[binjalin]

Becasue the EC are Pro-Yellow/Anti-Red... or so the PTP lot tell us...

true... if a red he would have a red card LOL

So why are you still on this forum than?????

You by this time could have a whole deck of red cards

haha well let's add up the 'likes' on this thread alone?

hmmm here we go...

me 12 you 0 ready for your 87th post?

[tx22cb]

If re-run, would Sukhumbhand want to stand again? He's been there/done that twice already.

I wonder whether he's eyeing Abhisit's chair, thinking "it's about time someone with true blue blood give it a go" ....

[GarryP]

Since when has suspicion been sufficient. I always thought the passing of judgements should be on the basis of evidence. That is, proof of wrongdoing. In this case the EC goes so far as saying they do not have evidence/proof, only suspicion. That reneders their decision highly suspect. But then again, because Sukhumbhand is probably a shoe-in for the re-run of the gubernatorial elections, no harm done. BTW will Suthep get up on the stage, start banging his drums and exhort democrat supporters not to vote in the election? Somehow I doubt it. Machiavellian plots are the name of the game. But who is pulling the strings?

[kimamey]

There's nothing undemocratic in not standing in an election. Whether it was the right decision or not is another matter but it was their choice to make. At first sight I agree the attempts to stop the election would seem wrong and in many ways I would say they were but then I'd also say that a government seemingly largely controlled by a criminal who didn't stand in the election so didn't get voted for and can't even come into the country isn't quite what I'd call democratic either.

There needs to be reform not just in the election rules and processes but in the judiciary as well, if it's as biased as is claimed.

I do wonder how many decisions have to go against those other than the PTP for them to be not called biased.

i do not disagree at all with an overhaul of the judiciary and I am against bias EITHER WAY

the Dems did not stand for election as they would be beaten and their Ex Dep PM sought to BLOCK peoples right to vote. They were 3 years in power and where were the reforms???

whether we like it or not the people must be won over through debate and policies not by saying

"i'm going to lose and so will not play anymore"

The Dems only lose because of their ties to the elite ammart. They breakaway into a REAL opposition and reach out to every-day Thais they would stand a chance but they are viewed by just about everyone I know as the 'Monarchist Party' of the rich elite

The feudal state must and will change over time - this is 2014 not 1714

and THAT is why they lose and lose and lose - not because Thai's love PTP or the Shins but just they hate the BKK rich elite MORE

I was only visiting when the Dems were in power so I didn't really follow Thai politics at the time so I'm not sure about all that the Dems did. I did hear mentioned that they changed the constitution slightly but it was claimed it was in their favour. I'll have to leave it to others to confirm that. The 2007 constitution that the PTP are trying to alter was only agreed to by people like Abhisit and Suthep because there wasn't much option but AV did say he wanted to change it with cooperation. ow that went I don't know. I don't think the PTP have done too much of use either on that front.

It would be nice for moderate Dems to break away but it would take years to make a difference because whatever they did would still be seen as the old Dems and the PTP would push that idea.

The Dems did have a rice subsidy which whilst not perfect didn't cause the damage of the PTP and was probably more sustainable. The problem is that they weren't offering the big numbers on that or the minimum wage either.

This business with the governor election is a prime example of the rather cheap and unhelpful tactics used here although it's not perfect elsewhere either. There were also accusations against Yingluck as well for some of her statements.

[winstonc]

Could it be hitting a few of the Dems/yellows/PDRC first to give an impression of impartiality before hitting the reds with a big red card? It can then be used as an argument for neutrality of the courts/independent bodies ad nauseam. Conspiracy theorists on both sides of the divide could spin this one so many ways.

or maybe its just the evidence they are looking at..

[GarryP]

Could it be hitting a few of the Dems/yellows/PDRC first to give an impression of impartiality before hitting the reds with a big red card? It can then be used as an argument for neutrality of the courts/independent bodies ad nauseam. Conspiracy theorists on both sides of the divide could spin this one so many ways.

or maybe its just the evidence they are looking at..

According to the press this morning, they have no evidence against Sukhumbhand. He is being yellow carded because some of his supporters slandered or made "incriminating remarks" against the PT candidate. They have no proof he supported those posts/comments by his supporters, as far as I am aware. Now it may be a slap on the wrists to candidates and their supporters to behave themselves in the future, but what is to stop a third hand trying to get their "candidate " disqualified by slandering the other side. Are they now going to hold MPs, senators, Provincial Managment Organization candidates (Or Bor Jor, or whatever it is called), etc. responsible for the comments/actions of their supporters at election time. It seems to be getting rather silly.

Why not simply sue the slanderers for defamation and lock them up if proven guilty. That would have a better deterrent effect. Very few people would take the risk and perhaps we could have more "refined" elections.