pedro01 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Abhisit has hid during the turmoil. When he was needed, and when the opportunity was there for him to show leadership, he did nothing. Abhisit is powerless and subject to powerful factions within his party. The electorate sees that, despite all the wishful plans proposed by foreigners in the TVF. Abhisit will never be elected PM of Thailand, He cannot attract, nor build the support. He does not have a personal power base, like SUthep has in the south or the PTP has in the north. Abhisit is an irrelevant man in search of relevance. If the knives do not come out for him within the party, they will after his next devastating election defeat. Agreed. He's done. Too many people hate him. He appeara to be in denial about this.The Dems need a Yingluck. Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand ... but a Yingluck who can think independently, answer questions thrown at her without the need of a script, attend parliament sessions and put forward policies with reasonable debate and conviction and someone who is willing to lead by example and follow the law... ... so the Democrats need someone like Yingluck but nothing like Yingluck Agreed. They need a pretty face instead of Abhisit. Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAG Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Still think the Dems should get a Thai guy to be their leader rather than this English toff. That Singha bird would be easy to watch He is ethnically Chinese according to Wiki... not that wiki is always a reliable source of info these days... I thought he was a Geordie, you know, that ethnic minority who come from up near Scotland? Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimamey Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I can't comment on your point about American Presidents as you don't seem to have made one. I did, you just dont seem to get it. In the USA a president cannot have dual citizenship. Abhisit is a British citizen and if Thailand had similar rules to the USA he would be barred from being PM. I'm not as stupid as you seem to think. I get things very well actually. The problem is I was replying to your post: Still think the Dems should get a Thai guy to be their leader rather than this English toff. That Singha bird would be easy to watch Which as you see doesn't mention American Presidents. I've only seen it now because I've had time to look for it. Now I've seen it I should point out that this isn't the USA. I don't know if the rule there is related to place of birth or citizenship. Doing some quick research it appears that this is a bit of a grey area and there have been questions of eligibility over several presidential candidates as well as presidents. From what I can tell if someone is born outside the US to US parents they have US citizenship and are therefore eligible. The point is what's this got to do with the US presidential requirements. Have you checked the rules in countries that actually have a prime minister or are the US rules the only ones that apply now? Thailand doesn't have a president. Abhisit is entitled to be prime minister in Thailand. He could give up his dual citizenship if needed but it isn't. At least he doesn't have to use a proxy because he doesn't even live here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimamey Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 This guy can't even control the message coming from his own party, peanut that he is. He sold his soul after the 2008 coup, and then planned the murder in the streets of his own citizens - too many Thais just flat out hate him He is better off retiring to focus on his fiction career (i.e. write a follow up to his fanciful garbage filled novel The Simple Truth). The Democrats will never again crack 10 million votes and Thaksin backed parties will most likely break 16 million in the near future. Hence the threats to boycott. As far as Thailand is concerned, the future is pure Red. Scurry off back to London, loser. Why should he go back to London? He's Thai, was born in Newcastle and educated at Eton and Oxford. None of those are in London although Eton is the closest. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to how he planned the murder in the streets of his own citizens as I've never of this and of course if he did it never happened. Hello Bob. I haven't seen your answer yet. Have I missed it or are you having trouble thinking up an answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tullynagardy Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I'm not as stupid as you seem to think. I get things very well actually. The problem is I was replying to your post: Still think the Dems should get a Thai guy to be their leader rather than this English toff. That Singha bird would be easy to watch Which as you see doesn't mention American Presidents. I've only seen it now because I've had time to look for it. Now I've seen it I should point out that this isn't the USA. I don't know if the rule there is related to place of birth or citizenship. Doing some quick research it appears that this is a bit of a grey area and there have been questions of eligibility over several presidential candidates as well as presidents. From what I can tell if someone is born outside the US to US parents they have US citizenship and are therefore eligible. The point is what's this got to do with the US presidential requirements. Have you checked the rules in countries that actually have a prime minister or are the US rules the only ones that apply now? Thailand doesn't have a president. Abhisit is entitled to be prime minister in Thailand. He could give up his dual citizenship if needed but it isn't. At least he doesn't have to use a proxy because he doesn't even live here. Wow you`ve got it for Abishit (Mark as hes known) real bad My opinion is someone born and bred in Thailand, and not from a hi so family, is best placed to lead the country. Someone brought up socialising with the aristocracy of England is the exact opposite of this. That doesnt even consider the mess his previous tenure in charge was. ps Im no fan of Thaskin pre-empting your crap "man in Dubai" banter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baerboxer Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 He is ethnically Chinese according to Wiki... not that wiki is always a reliable source of info these days... Not quite sure what his ethenticity has to do with it!? (which is Vietnamese actually i remember reading.) Born in England, educated in England, talk like hes English, British citizen..... The guys English. Not anything wrong with that per se, just think a local would be best placed. If this was the US he wouldn`t be able to be president. Your understanding of nationality is as sharp as you understanding of politics. Lucky for the US then that Barry has an American birth certificate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baerboxer Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I'm not as stupid as you seem to think. I get things very well actually. The problem is I was replying to your post: Still think the Dems should get a Thai guy to be their leader rather than this English toff. That Singha bird would be easy to watch Which as you see doesn't mention American Presidents. I've only seen it now because I've had time to look for it. Now I've seen it I should point out that this isn't the USA. I don't know if the rule there is related to place of birth or citizenship. Doing some quick research it appears that this is a bit of a grey area and there have been questions of eligibility over several presidential candidates as well as presidents. From what I can tell if someone is born outside the US to US parents they have US citizenship and are therefore eligible. The point is what's this got to do with the US presidential requirements. Have you checked the rules in countries that actually have a prime minister or are the US rules the only ones that apply now? Thailand doesn't have a president. Abhisit is entitled to be prime minister in Thailand. He could give up his dual citizenship if needed but it isn't. At least he doesn't have to use a proxy because he doesn't even live here. Wow you`ve got it for Abishit (Mark as hes known) real bad My opinion is someone born and bred in Thailand, and not from a hi so family, is best placed to lead the country. Someone brought up socialising with the aristocracy of England is the exact opposite of this. That doesnt even consider the mess his previous tenure in charge was. ps Im no fan of Thaskin pre-empting your crap "man in Dubai" banter Thaksin, Yingluck, the cousin FM, older big sister and her husband and his clan - all HiSo. Check out the family backgrounds of Britain's political parties, of all persuasions and you'll be a little surprised, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baerboxer Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 About time he's stepped up to the plate, I like this guy, and I'd love to see the Democrats take over from the PTP, right now is the time to strike while the Iron is hot and capitalise on the waning support of the PTP I know this is maybe in breach of forum rules here but "Carpe Diem" Abhisit..start making your moves now Yes, I think probable he is the only decent politician Thailand has, that is the problem, the corrupt politicians see him as a threat to their way of life and they have and will continue to use every underhand means to kick him down every time he stands up. The problem is he's not able to order sausages for a weekend bbq. A politician without a decent economic policy! Let's see. Abhisit was educated at the most expensive and prestigious private school in the UK. (They are called public because anyone can go there - as long as they pass the entrance exam, oh and pay and pay and pay). He also went to Oxford one of the top universities in the world. His party may be controlled by a bunch of numbnut numpties who can't, or don't want, to put a manifesto together. But, I don't believe your allegation that he is uneducated or not intelligent. On the other hand, PTP have the wonderful Yingluck who has demonstrated the level of her intellect on numerous occasions. PTP have asked to borrow 2.2 trillion baht, off budget with no transparency or accountability on how its spent, whilst granting themselves an Amnesty for any crimes whatsoever. An interesting economic policy. The adjective "decent" doesn't somehow seem appropriate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tilac2 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 What a devious, lying little snake this Abhisit is! He's now trying to present himself as some kind of honest broker between PT and PDRC when we all know that he is joined at the hip with his corrupt crony, Suthep and the PDRC! Sorry Mr Abhisit, but you share full responsibility for all Suthep's criminal activities in blocking the democratic process over the past couple of months, just as you share his responsibility for (allegedly) murdering demonstraters in 2010. You can't wiggle free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil B Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 About time he's stepped up to the plate, I like this guy, and I'd love to see the Democrats take over from the PTP, right now is the time to strike while the Iron is hot and capitalise on the waning support of the PTP I know this is maybe in breach of forum rules here but "Carpe Diem" Abhisit..start making your moves now Yes, I think probable he is the only decent politician Thailand has, that is the problem, the corrupt politicians see him as a threat to their way of life and they have and will continue to use every underhand means to kick him down every time he stands up. Decent? Give me a break. He is a Hakka Chinese like Thaksin, but unlike Thaksin, Abhisit and his party cannot come up with any ideas to appeal the large rural Thai electorate. If their were records back to when man first stood up right and stopped swinging from tree to tree we all could then trace our ancestors back to deepest Africa, that includes the Thais as well, unfortunately that means somewhere in the past me and you are related. The thing is you have just questioned Abhisit's ethnicity, probably as many if not all his ancestors of a least 4 generations have been Thai citizens and if you were to research his parents you would realize just what a fine family he comes from, just wounder how many Thai can claim not to have any Chinese ancestors? The only criticism I have of Abhisit is his chose of friends, spending a gap year with Boris... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tullynagardy Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I'm not as stupid as you seem to think. I get things very well actually. The problem is I was replying to your post: Still think the Dems should get a Thai guy to be their leader rather than this English toff. That Singha bird would be easy to watch Which as you see doesn't mention American Presidents. I've only seen it now because I've had time to look for it. Now I've seen it I should point out that this isn't the USA. I don't know if the rule there is related to place of birth or citizenship. Doing some quick research it appears that this is a bit of a grey area and there have been questions of eligibility over several presidential candidates as well as presidents. From what I can tell if someone is born outside the US to US parents they have US citizenship and are therefore eligible. The point is what's this got to do with the US presidential requirements. Have you checked the rules in countries that actually have a prime minister or are the US rules the only ones that apply now? Thailand doesn't have a president. Abhisit is entitled to be prime minister in Thailand. He could give up his dual citizenship if needed but it isn't. At least he doesn't have to use a proxy because he doesn't even live here. Wow you`ve got it for Abishit (Mark as hes known) real bad My opinion is someone born and bred in Thailand, and not from a hi so family, is best placed to lead the country. Someone brought up socialising with the aristocracy of England is the exact opposite of this. That doesnt even consider the mess his previous tenure in charge was. ps Im no fan of Thaskin pre-empting your crap "man in Dubai" banter Thaksin, Yingluck, the cousin FM, older big sister and her husband and his clan - all HiSo. Check out the family backgrounds of Britain's political parties, of all persuasions and you'll be a little surprised, You clearly didn`t read the last line of my post, Try this time - "ps Im no fan of Thaskin pre-empting your crap "man in Dubai" banter" The idea that some politically aware people dont have to be either "red" or "yellow" is clearly far beyond your limited intellect. Any insult to the yellow crew is rebuffed with Thaskin banter, which doesnt really work when addressing someone who has little time for Thaskin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
than Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 If he want talk, Abhisit must pressure Suthep to go to negotiation table...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
commie Joe Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 What a devious, lying little snake this Abhisit is! He's now trying to present himself as some kind of honest broker between PT and PDRC when we all know that he is joined at the hip with his corrupt crony, Suthep and the PDRC! Sorry Mr Abhisit, but you share full responsibility for all Suthep's criminal activities in blocking the democratic process over the past couple of months, just as you share his responsibility for (allegedly) murdering demonstraters in 2010. You can't wiggle free. The snake is one of the Oxbridge mob , That says it all really dosn't it. They are schooled to do murder . Serial killers of the highest order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dru2 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 He is ethnically Chinese according to Wiki... not that wiki is always a reliable source of info these days... Not quite sure what his ethenticity has to do with it!? (which is Vietnamese actually i remember reading.) Born in England, educated in England, talk like hes English, British citizen..... The guys English. Not anything wrong with that per se, just think a local would be best placed. If this was the US he wouldn`t be able to be president. But I thought Obama - if that's his real name - was an Indonesian-born, Kenyan-fathered Muslim interloper? Wha'ts wrong with electing some interbred Apalachian Ozark white trash? You could have a White Trailer instead of a White House! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
commie Joe Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 If he want talk, Abhisit must pressure Suthep to go to negotiation table...... Abisit is pulling the strings & he knows that his UNDEMOCRATIC PARTY has made a right Co*kup of all this & now have lost the backing of what few people that used to vote for them. Yes even the Dem voters hate Suthep & his kiddnapping mafia so called guards. The Lump-em -in - the - river Park mob. As to talks , what about ? That movie that Suthep seen THE 300 which are the FB friends that Suthep has mentioned . Yes a 400 committee where the Fruitcake gets 300 seats . Even though he has no support.so why talk to him he is nobody & a criminal ,yes criminal that word that gets chucked about here every day to the bordom of the majority. Anyway its about time he turned up to face the new charges against him isn't it. While the party that the people want stay in power for ever at this rate . The yellows ball's up last time when they was plotting with the military to hold on to power forever once they was put in power. They gave people just one opyion on a new constitution & that was their way or no way. The people voted for it because they didn't want to be oppressed by the serial killers in the army . Hand picked for all the committees Judges to maintain Yellow power but the people didn't forget did they & they wont forgive the UNDEMOCRATIC Party for their murderous crimes against them. Im not very good at predictions but my money is that there is going to be civil war here & it will seem like the insurrections in the south will be nothing when compared with what will happen North vs South Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfmanjack Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Still think the Dems should get a Thai guy to be their leader rather than this English toff. That Singha bird would be easy to watch Easy to watch but too radical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I'm not as stupid as you seem to think. I get things very well actually. The problem is I was replying to your post: Still think the Dems should get a Thai guy to be their leader rather than this English toff. That Singha bird would be easy to watch Which as you see doesn't mention American Presidents. I've only seen it now because I've had time to look for it. Now I've seen it I should point out that this isn't the USA. I don't know if the rule there is related to place of birth or citizenship. Doing some quick research it appears that this is a bit of a grey area and there have been questions of eligibility over several presidential candidates as well as presidents. From what I can tell if someone is born outside the US to US parents they have US citizenship and are therefore eligible. The point is what's this got to do with the US presidential requirements. Have you checked the rules in countries that actually have a prime minister or are the US rules the only ones that apply now? Thailand doesn't have a president. Abhisit is entitled to be prime minister in Thailand. He could give up his dual citizenship if needed but it isn't. At least he doesn't have to use a proxy because he doesn't even live here. Wow you`ve got it for Abishit (Mark as hes known) real bad My opinion is someone born and bred in Thailand, and not from a hi so family, is best placed to lead the country. Someone brought up socialising with the aristocracy of England is the exact opposite of this. That doesnt even consider the mess his previous tenure in charge was. ps Im no fan of Thaskin pre-empting your crap "man in Dubai" banter Thaksin, Yingluck, the cousin FM, older big sister and her husband and his clan - all HiSo. Check out the family backgrounds of Britain's political parties, of all persuasions and you'll be a little surprised, U don't understand the class system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianf Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 If he want talk, Abhisit must pressure Suthep to go to negotiation table...... Abisit is pulling the strings & he knows that his UNDEMOCRATIC PARTY has made a right Co*kup of all this & now have lost the backing of what few people that used to vote for them. Yes even the Dem voters hate Suthep & his kiddnapping mafia so called guards. The Lump-em -in - the - river Park mob. As to talks , what about ? That movie that Suthep seen THE 300 which are the FB friends that Suthep has mentioned . Yes a 400 committee where the Fruitcake gets 300 seats . Even though he has no support.so why talk to him he is nobody & a criminal ,yes criminal that word that gets chucked about here every day to the bordom of the majority. Anyway its about time he turned up to face the new charges against him isn't it. While the party that the people want stay in power for ever at this rate . The yellows ball's up last time when they was plotting with the military to hold on to power forever once they was put in power. They gave people just one opyion on a new constitution & that was their way or no way. The people voted for it because they didn't want to be oppressed by the serial killers in the army . Hand picked for all the committees Judges to maintain Yellow power but the people didn't forget did they & they wont forgive the UNDEMOCRATIC Party for their murderous crimes against them. Im not very good at predictions but my money is that there is going to be civil war here & it will seem like the insurrections in the south will be nothing when compared with what will happen North vs South What an incredible ill-written rant. There is nothing more undemocratic than Communism, Joe. You appear to know nothing about Abhisit (note spelling) or what he has tried to achieve. Farcanal3 hours ago Ignore them, guys. They are just sad, useless no hopers sitting at home looking for a diversion. Don't the psychologists have a word for it? Something like 'transference'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtFarmer Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) It is refreshing to see Abhisit. What he is saying is appropriate. It is sad that his clear intelligence still gets under the skin of some people, who clearly can't stand that. They doubt his ethnicity, doubt his loyally to his country, and cast aspersions on his nationhood. And then they turn around and throw their full support to a man who lives in a Dubai hotel room ! Yes, that's their man - Citizen Kane on steroids. But for those not quite beyond the reach of thought, Abhisit strikes the right tone, and it's refreshing to see someone who can keep his composure and doesn't start all his sentences with " I ". In terms of his suggestion, one's guess is that he is not holding his breath regarding any meeting of the minds between Pheu Thai and the PDRC. But what is happening are a string of constitutional rulings and investigations. As long as they are allowed to go forward, the system works. But Pheu Thai's rejection of the Constitutional Court's ruling today is a very bad turn of events, and does nothing to appease apprehension regarding the UDD, and what they have been signalling in recent weeks. As always..everyone is entitled to their "take" on all of this for that is all that we have...if we are farang...but here is another take on it Scamper ..from some well educated Thais.. "Council of University Presidents of Thailand (CUPT) issued their fourth statement, accompanied by a proposal from the group of demonstrators who use the name “The People’s Democratic Reform of Council,” or PDRC, and one group of academics, which called on the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers to take unconstitutional and undemocratic action. In response, and in order to mitigate against the causing of confusion among the people which may lead the political crisis to grow in severity and violence, and to protect against the destruction of the democratic system, we – academics, intellectuals, writers, students, civil servants, and ordinary people – have joined together as the Assembly for the Defense of Democracy (AFDD). We are compelled to dispute the aforementioned proposal on the following points. -- 1 -- The Establishment of a “People’s Council” by virtue of Article 3 of the Constitution 1. The group of demonstrators who use the name “The People’s Democratic Reform Council,” or PDRC and one group of academics claimed that the Parliament and the Government lack legitimacy and are invalid as a result of not accepting the authority of the Constitutional Court. Therefore, in line with Article 69 of the Constitution, the people have the right to oppose the government. This claim is incorrect and is an untenable stretch of imagination. In other words, the claim that the Parliament or the Government announced that they denied the authority of the Constitutional Court is not backed up by facts. Only the Pheu Thai Party and some Members of Parliament announced that they did not accept the “ruling” of the Constitutional Court regarding the constitutional amendment on the matter of the members of the Senate. As for the matter of those who refer to paragraph 5, Article 216 of the Constitution, which stipulates that, “The decision of the Constitutional Court shall be deemed final and binding on the National Assembly, Council of Ministers, Courts and other state organs,” and note that therefore, when the Parliament or the Government does not accept the ruling of the Constitutional Court it then violates the Constitution, and causes the Parliament and Government to lack legitimacy and to be invalid, we think that rulings of the Constitutional Court that are to be held as absolute and binding for state organs must be lawfully decided and in line with Article 197 of the Constitution. These rulings must be a use of authority that is constitutionally-determined, not an unconstitutional or arbitrary use of authority. In this case, it is apparent that the Constitutional Court accepted and ruled on the petition without the Constitutional basis to do so. Therefore, the Constitutional Court ruling in this case is unconstitutional and cannot be held to be a ruling in the meaning specified in paragraph five, Article 216 of the Constitution. The ruling is meaningless and does not have binding legal consequence on the Parliament, Council of Ministers, Court, or state organs. The claim that this is an instance of the Parliament and the Government not accepting a ruling of the Constitutional Court, and deploying this as a reason to use one’s right to protest, should be disregarded. 2. In addition, the group of demonstrators who use the name “The People’s Democratic Reform Council,” or PDRC, and one group of academics claim further still that once the Government and the Parliament are invalid, the sovereign power must be returned to the people in line with Article 3 of the Constitution. Therefore, the people are then able to use their sovereign power directly in order to establish a People’s Council. If we examine the present-day Constitution, the ways in which the people as the holders of sovereign power can express it directly is by voting in referendums and in elections for Members of Parliament and Senators, as well as accessing power through state organs that connect with the people. Upon examination of Article 3 of the Constitution, it can be seen that the King as the head of state exercises the sovereign power of the people through the Parliament, the Council of Ministers, and the Court in line with the provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, there are no circumstances in which Article 3 can be used for the people to exercise their sovereign power to establish a People’s Council. Also, when the entire Constitution is examined, nowhere is there a measure that provides the people with the power to set up a People’s Council. The aforementioned proposal is therefore a case in which one group of people has seized upon and falsely claimed to be “the people,” in order to themselves establish a People’s Council. This is proposal is without a constitutional basis and is an unconstitutional action. If they wish to establish a “People’s Council,” there is only one way it can be done. This is the amendment of the Constitution to provide for a People’s Council. The attempt to establish a People’s Council by using means other than the amendment of the Constitution is therefore an action in order to create administrative power in the country by a method that is not stipulated in the Constitution, or, a coup. 3. In terms of the basic elements of the establishment of the People’s Council and its members, even though the aforementioned proposal has not been finalized, the central point is that the Council will not come from elections but from the appointment of individuals from different fields. The proposal for a People’s Council is therefore not in line with democratic principles. On the contrary, upon the examination of the facts of contemporary history and politics, we discover that a people’s council comprised of people from different professions is an idea inherited from fascist corporatism, as it appeared in Italy during the period of the fascist dictatorship of Benito Mussolini. He amended the electoral law in 1928 for the Assembly to be comprised of people from the names proposed by different fields. This Assembly was an important mechanism that ultimately led Italy into a totalitarian dictatorship. -- 2 -- The Proposal for an “Intermediary” Prime Minister after the Dissolution of Parliament by virtue of Article 7 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand or by virtue of a Peculiar Interpretation of the Constitution 1. Article 7 of the Constitution provides that, “Whenever no provision of the Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the Constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State.” A legal provision of this type appeared for the first time in Thai law in the Administrative Charter of the Kingdom of Thailand of 1959. The Charter was a temporary constitution and was comprised of only 20 articles. A provision of this type was therefore used in order to solve problems that were not addressed by any existing provisions in the Charter. As for the present-day Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, Article 7 is a legal provision that constitutional organs are able to use in order to safeguard the written Constitution. In other words, if a Constitutional problem arises, and it is not addressed in the written Constitution, the involved organs are able to use the conventions of democratic rule with the King as the head of state, which in law refers to Constitutional conventions, to rule on problems that arise. The legal conventions of the Constitution are established through actions being carried out over and over again until state organs and ordinary people see that these practices have Constitutional force. The legal conventions of the Constitution that are adopted in line with Article 7 must not be inconsistent with democratic rule with the King as the head of state. 2. Even though Article 7 of the Constitution has the meaning that has been outlined in (1) above, there has been an attempt to have the King appoint the Prime Minister by virtue of the aforementioned article. This attempt has consisted of the proposal to dissolve Parliament in order to terminate the terms of the Members of Parliament and the Council of Ministers. Those who wish to replace the regulatory system with a vacuum have then proposed that the caretaker Council of Ministers should cease to perform its duties. But when there is no longer a Parliament, it means that it not possible to appoint a Prime Minister from among the Members of Parliament. These individuals then think that the King naturally has the power to appoint a Prime Minister by virtue of Article 7 of the Constitution. Some individuals have proposed that the Senate meet and select an appropriate individual to propose to the King that he appoint to fulfil the duties of the Prime Minister and that the President of the Senate countersign the royal decree. 3. We think that the above proposal is unconstitutional and contravenes many principles of democratic rule as Article 108 of the Constitution stipulates that the dissolution of Parliament must be done via royal decree and that the election day must within no less than 45 days and no more than 60 days from the date of dissolution. Therefore, either dissolution of Parliament without stipulating a date for election or the dissolution of Parliament for a purpose other than having a general election cannot be done. This is an unconstitutional action and will result in the destruction of the Constitution. 4. Article 181 of the Constitution stipulates that after the dissolution of Parliament, the members of the Council of Ministers who have been relieved of their positions due to the dissolution must continue to carry out their duties until a new Council of Ministers assumes office following the elections. The call for the caretaker Council of Ministers to stop carrying out its duties after the dissolution of Parliament is thus a call for the Constitutional organs, in this case, the caretaker Council of Ministers, to violate their Constitutionally-prescribed duties. This is equivalent to calling on other individuals to act illegally and in contravention to the Constitution. 5. The proposal for the King to appoint the Prime Minister by virtue of Article 7 is a proposal that calls on the King to carry out action for which there is no royal prerogative. This is because Article 7 provides for the Constitutional organs to rule in line with Constitutional conventions on a case-by-case basis on matters not included in the written Constitution. This is not a measure that provides the King with the power to appoint a Prime Minister during the period between the announcement of the royal decree to dissolve the Parliament and the process of holding elections for Parliament in order for Parliament to select the next Prime Minister. 6. The proposal for the caretaker Prime Minister to be relieved from acting in the position of Prime Minister, whether by forcing the Prime Minister to cease carrying out her duties or by other means, all have the aim of creating a “vacuum” in the political system in order for the country to become deadlocked. There are some academics who have proposed that when the Prime Minister is relieved from acting in her position, and the entire Council of Ministers has been removed, the Senate should select an individual, who does not need to be a member of parliament, to perform the duties instead of the Prime Minister. This proposal has no legal basis for support, because the Constitution does not give this power to the Senate. Also, the position of a person who does the duties of the Prime Minister instead of the Prime Minister is not stipulated in the Constitution. In the case in which an incident arises in which the Prime Minister may be unable to carry out the duties of office, no matter what the reason, a member of the Council of Ministers must assume the position of acting Prime Minister. In the case of an incident arises in which the entire Council of Ministers is unable to function as acting Prime Minister, no matter what the reason, the Permanent Secretary will assume the acting position in order to wait to hold it for the existing Council of Ministers that came from the Parliament elected by the people to enter to assume the position. The Constitution does not provide an opening to select an individual who is not a member of parliament, or who is called an “intermediary” or an “outsider” to carry out the function of the caretaker Prime Minister. 7. The Constitution stipulates that a general election for Members of Parliament must be carried out within 45 to 60 days after the dissolution of Parliament. When there is a new Parliament, a new Prime Minister and Council of Ministers will be appointed in turn. In the period in which there is a not a new Parliament or Council of Ministers, the caretaker Council of Ministers carries out only the duties stipulated under the conditions in Article 181 (1) – (4) of the Constitution. The duration of the caretaker position is short, along with the conditions to act only as needed, thus we do not see any need for there to be an “intermediary” or “outsider” to perform the duties of a caretaker Prime Minister or caretaker Council of Ministers. The Prime Minister’s decision to dissolve Parliament is a method of solving the problem of political conflict by returning the power to decide to the people, who hold the sovereign power, to have the opportunity to use their sovereign power to once again vote in an election. This is a method that is in line with democratic rule and with the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand. When the Parliament has been dissolved, there must be a general election of Members of Parliament, in order for there to then in turn be a Parliament and a Council of Ministers. During the interim period, the Council of Ministers must continue to carry out caretaking duties. The Assembly for the Defense of Democracy (AFDD) thinks that, no matter the means, the obstruction of holding elections, or the forcing a slowdown of parliamentary elections, or the creation of a “vacuum” in the political system, no matter the means, opens opportunities for political transformations that are neither constitutional nor democratic. All of the aforementioned actions are entirely devoid of the aim of the Constitution. They destroy the process of building political will through peaceful means in a democracy and they will lead the country to violent crisis. Therefore, the Assembly for the Defense of Democracy calls on all sides to enter the electoral process. The AFDD calls on all sides to express their political will through the mechanism of elections. After the general election has been held, the AFDD calls on the elected government to proceed to reform politics, governance, and the constitutional regime to be democratic and in line with the rule of law. With an unrelenting will towards democracy Assembly for the Defense of Democracy (AFDD) 10 December 2013 Signed: 1. Charnvit Kasetsiri 2. Nidhi Eoseewong 3. Kasian Tejapira 4. Puangthong Pawakapan 5. Yukti Mukdawijitra 6. Pitch Pongsawat 7. Pornsan Liengbunlertchai 8. Worachet Pakeerut 9. Piyabutr Saengkanokkul 10. Jantajira Iammayura 11. Sawatree Suksri 12. Poonthep Sirinupong 13. Teera Suteewarangkul 14. Viengrat Nethipo 15. Niti Pawakapan 16. Prajak Kongkirati While Abhiset has been stoking the fires quietly and behind the scenes with his 'shadow government' Suthep has been beating the dead horse for all to see... in my opinion, had Abhiset unequivocally condemned the ant democratic efforts of his brother in arms Kuhn Suthep...who reps the PDRC which as we all know...is not a political party.....and made genuine efforts to help close the chasm of chaos we now have at hand...he might actually have the right to say .. hey...lets get this to the table,, have some tea... and try and reach some sort of middle ground. But none of these things happened..he was content to use this to their ultimate happy ending..but now with Suthep saying he will continue to disrupt the Democratic processes of elections... their true colors come to the fore once again for the world to see.... you can't make this stuff up... it is unbelievable... yet here we are... reminds me of the saying " I won an argument with a woman once...in this dream I had... The next few months will be very sad I fear... Edited March 22, 2014 by DirtFarmer 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HonestQuietBob Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 If he want talk, Abhisit must pressure Suthep to go to negotiation table...... Abisit is pulling the strings & he knows that his UNDEMOCRATIC PARTY has made a right Co*kup of all this & now have lost the backing of what few people that used to vote for them. Yes even the Dem voters hate Suthep & his kiddnapping mafia so called guards. The Lump-em -in - the - river Park mob. As to talks , what about ? That movie that Suthep seen THE 300 which are the FB friends that Suthep has mentioned . Yes a 400 committee where the Fruitcake gets 300 seats . Even though he has no support.so why talk to him he is nobody & a criminal ,yes criminal that word that gets chucked about here every day to the bordom of the majority. Anyway its about time he turned up to face the new charges against him isn't it. While the party that the people want stay in power for ever at this rate . The yellows ball's up last time when they was plotting with the military to hold on to power forever once they was put in power. They gave people just one opyion on a new constitution & that was their way or no way. The people voted for it because they didn't want to be oppressed by the serial killers in the army . Hand picked for all the committees Judges to maintain Yellow power but the people didn't forget did they & they wont forgive the UNDEMOCRATIC Party for their murderous crimes against them. Im not very good at predictions but my money is that there is going to be civil war here & it will seem like the insurrections in the south will be nothing when compared with what will happen North vs South What an incredible ill-written rant. There is nothing more undemocratic than Communism, Joe. You appear to know nothing about Abhisit (note spelling) or what he has tried to achieve. Farcanal3 hours ago Ignore them, guys. They are just sad, useless no hopers sitting at home looking for a diversion. Don't the psychologists have a word for it? Something like 'transference'? You know how when you're a kid going for a drive and you father lets you sit on his lap and hold onto the steering wheel and you think that you're actually driving the car…. well Mark is just the kid, he has no control over anything. When his team needed someone to man up and lead the insurrection they put Mark back in the cotton wool and sent out Suthep. How sad, in their hour of need, he's not even first choice for his own party. Loser. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gabruce Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 He is ethnically Chinese according to Wiki... not that wiki is always a reliable source of info these days... Not quite sure what his ethenticity has to do with it!? (which is Vietnamese actually i remember reading.) Born in England, educated in England, talk like hes English, British citizen..... The guys English. Not anything wrong with that per se, just think a local would be best placed. If this was the US he wouldn`t be able to be president. Are you completely sure about that? I would check your sources. The President of the United States must be a "Natural Born Citizen" which would include someone born to American parents who were not on US soil at the time of birth. So if Abhisit's parents were Americans and he was born in Britain, he would still be eligible. I don't know the Thai rules, however I suspect that they are the same, a child born to Thai parents is eligible for thai citizenship even if they are born outside the country. On the other hand, you are correct that Abhisit is not eligible to be the president of the United States (I'm not either since I'm not a natural born citizen of the united states). Most the world isn't eligible to be President of the United States of America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickirs Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 "Democrat party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, however, declined to confirm whether the party would contest the new election or not." Abhisit is irrelevant to all political parties and to the people of Thailand. Suthep used him to deflect from Suthep's efforts to overthrow the government and made Abhisit an unwilling sacrafice for the Cause. Abhisit has wrapped himself in an alternate reality where only an academic elitist can face life that was destroyed by a false demigod. When he tried to encourage PDRC and PTP to talk about resolution, Suthep told him to shut it. When he announed his intention to vote, Suthep told him to shut it. I think Abhisit may have found a moral compass to see a peaceful, balanced path to political resolution (a potential murder conviction can change a person's outlook) but it is too late for Abhisit to remain part of the Thai political landscape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan7444 Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 This guy can't even control the message coming from his own party, peanut that he is. He sold his soul after the 2008 coup, and then planned the murder in the streets of his own citizens - too many Thais just flat out hate him He is better off retiring to focus on his fiction career (i.e. write a follow up to his fanciful garbage filled novel The Simple Truth). The Democrats will never again crack 10 million votes and Thaksin backed parties will most likely break 16 million in the near future. Hence the threats to boycott. As far as Thailand is concerned, the future is pure Red. Scurry off back to London, loser. Abhisit says one week ago the Dems will contest the next elections (supposedly so they are not dissolved as a political party by not having contested 2 elections in a row), then a spokesman for the Dems is quoted 2 days ago "we will not contest the next election and if our party is dissolved, that is alright", and now Abhisit again says today that the Dems will contest the next elections. Which version of this story is correct? Also, if the PM is "accused" of dereliction of duty by the NCCA and can therefore be removed from her responsibilities, how can the Dem party leader by charged of murder and remain as their party leader? Amazing Thailand! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HonestQuietBob Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 This guy can't even control the message coming from his own party, peanut that he is. He sold his soul after the 2008 coup, and then planned the murder in the streets of his own citizens - too many Thais just flat out hate him He is better off retiring to focus on his fiction career (i.e. write a follow up to his fanciful garbage filled novel The Simple Truth). The Democrats will never again crack 10 million votes and Thaksin backed parties will most likely break 16 million in the near future. Hence the threats to boycott. As far as Thailand is concerned, the future is pure Red. Scurry off back to London, loser. Why should he go back to London? He's Thai, was born in Newcastle and educated at Eton and Oxford. None of those are in London although Eton is the closest. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to how he planned the murder in the streets of his own citizens as I've never of this and of course if he did it never happened. Hello Bob. I haven't seen your answer yet. Have I missed it or are you having trouble thinking up an answer? 1. As he is of no use to anyone for anything in Thailand, maybe he can pick up a taxi job in London. 2. Read the UN report on the events of 2010 or even better, read Abhisits' book on the subject - "The Simple Truth", identify the holes in his story and logic and then seek the real answers through multiple and various sources. (Hint - use the internet) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbamboo Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 He is ethnically Chinese according to Wiki... not that wiki is always a reliable source of info these days... Not quite sure what his ethenticity has to do with it!? (which is Vietnamese actually i remember reading.) Born in England, educated in England, talk like hes English, British citizen..... The guys English. Not anything wrong with that per se, just think a local would be best placed. If this was the US he wouldn`t be able to be president. No doubt he's no good at cricket as well. Don't be ridiculous! If he was he'd be playing for England now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesDean3 Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 I think they have to make sure the Police are neutralized first. The last time they could not campaign thoroughly in Isaan because of the threats and intimidation from the Red Shirts who are actually Police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tullynagardy Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 He is ethnically Chinese according to Wiki... not that wiki is always a reliable source of info these days... Not quite sure what his ethenticity has to do with it!? (which is Vietnamese actually i remember reading.) Born in England, educated in England, talk like hes English, British citizen..... The guys English. Not anything wrong with that per se, just think a local would be best placed. If this was the US he wouldn`t be able to be president. Are you completely sure about that? I would check your sources. The President of the United States must be a "Natural Born Citizen" which would include someone born to American parents who were not on US soil at the time of birth. So if Abhisit's parents were Americans and he was born in Britain, he would still be eligible. I don't know the Thai rules, however I suspect that they are the same, a child born to Thai parents is eligible for thai citizenship even if they are born outside the country. On the other hand, you are correct that Abhisit is not eligible to be the president of the United States (I'm not either since I'm not a natural born citizen of the united states). Most the world isn't eligible to be President of the United States of America. Read my subsequent posts. Mark is a dual citizen. Acceptable to lead Thailand and unacceptable to lead the USA. Its a side issue, my main problem is the lack of anyone on either side in Thailand, who isnt hiso or on their payroll, vying to lead the country. How can we expect the likes of "veggie" as Mark was known at Eton to be thinking on the same lines as the 40 million odd Thais who get by on less than $5000 a year when that would have been his weekly allowance at school? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimamey Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 I'm not as stupid as you seem to think. I get things very well actually. The problem is I was replying to your post: Still think the Dems should get a Thai guy to be their leader rather than this English toff. That Singha bird would be easy to watch Which as you see doesn't mention American Presidents. I've only seen it now because I've had time to look for it. Now I've seen it I should point out that this isn't the USA. I don't know if the rule there is related to place of birth or citizenship. Doing some quick research it appears that this is a bit of a grey area and there have been questions of eligibility over several presidential candidates as well as presidents. From what I can tell if someone is born outside the US to US parents they have US citizenship and are therefore eligible. The point is what's this got to do with the US presidential requirements. Have you checked the rules in countries that actually have a prime minister or are the US rules the only ones that apply now? Thailand doesn't have a president. Abhisit is entitled to be prime minister in Thailand. He could give up his dual citizenship if needed but it isn't. At least he doesn't have to use a proxy because he doesn't even live here. Wow you`ve got it for Abishit (Mark as hes known) real bad My opinion is someone born and bred in Thailand, and not from a hi so family, is best placed to lead the country. Someone brought up socialising with the aristocracy of England is the exact opposite of this. That doesnt even consider the mess his previous tenure in charge was. ps Im no fan of Thaskin pre-empting your crap "man in Dubai" banter No I haven't got it for Abhisit. I know his name by the way. I happen to think that even if he's not right for leader he's got something that this country needs. He wasn't born and bred in a country where politicians see for the most part to be in it just for the money and corruption. He's not going to change the face of Thailand on his own but he could be an important part of it. He doesn't have the control over the party that Thaksin has because it's not his party. He's not perfect by any means and under him there was more censorship and LM cases and some human rights abuses. I don't know how much of that was down to him but it certainly not a plus point for him. The reference to Thaksin wasn't because I thought you supported him but as a comparison between Abhisit being in the country and insisting on fighting his murder charge whilst Thaksin is doing the opposite. Thaksin comes from a family that were already rich although not to the same degree as now and of course the same goes for Yingluck. the idea that Abhisit was brought up socialising with aristocracy isn't really true either. He went to Eton and Oxford where some of the aristocracy send their offspring for a good education but many are funded by others who have earned their money through business. This gives him the ability to communicate with business people and heads of state. An important skill for a PM. That wasn't always the case though. He was born Wallsend, Newcastle, an area well known for shipbuilding and mining in years gone by. As far as I can tell he was born in a two bedroom flat in Marondale Avenue. I believe this shows that flat. http://goo.gl/maps/zzChw It was the upstairs flat with the door on the left hand side. Very Hi so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonbridgebrit Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Still think the Dems should get a Thai guy to be their leader rather than this English toff. That Singha bird would be easy to watch He is ethnically Chinese according to Wiki... not that wiki is always a reliable source of info these days... So are the Shinawatras and a lot of other high up people in Thailand. How about we wait for a Thai person who is not Chinese to run Thailand ? And yes, Abhisit is Chinese. His ancestors went from China to Thailand via Vietnam. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13298394 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now