Thawil says he will not report to PM Yingluck

[JRSoul]

what a despicable and disloyal 'public' servant

unprofessional

You don't understand that loyalty works both ways?

[Piichai]

what a despicable and disloyal 'public' servant

unprofessional

WTH!?!? It's about time 'public' servants started serving the public, and not the Shins!

[Nickymaster]

It's going to be pretty interesting if the courts try to remove her for moving him given that he's on record for insubordination like this. If they're dumb enough to try, I wonder if they'll be shocked by both her and the world press not acknowledging their rulings anymore.

How do you mean? Please explain.

[Nickymaster]

" Nevertheless, he said he was a professional and would not have problem working with the government or the Centre for the Administration of Peace and Order but whether he would be allowed to attend the meetings of the cabinet or CAPO or not would depend on the government and CAPO. "

Everybody who has followed this case, particularly since the unanimous Supreme Administrative Court ruling, has found that this man has been frozen out of the Yingluck administration. Yes, they have reinstated him - with regret and a great deal of resistance - but Chalerm made it clear to him that there would be no place for him at CAPO. Remember, this is a man the Yingluck administration summarily dismissed for a Thaksin relative, and spent the next two and half years battling his reinstatement in court. Chalerm's horrible comment to him pretty much summarizes that he has not been asked to participate in either the cabinet or CAPO, though if he were would doubtless distinguish himself as ten times better than any other cabinet minister or ten times better than Chalerm - in his sleep. It needs also to be noted that this man is head of an independent agency. He is not beholden to the prime minister. At the moment, we have a caretaker administration on life-support, and under criminal investigation. Thawil can hold his head up high in comparison.

Has it never occurred to you that this guy Thawil was perhaps a "pain in the butt"? I could be wrong and he could be a really honorable guy, but if a boss is saddled with a "pain in the butt", the boss fires them, right? It happens in every business or organisation I've ever been in. Except in Thailand, apparently, where - if you are a pal of the ammart - you get "special treatment".

It seems obvious to me that if the electorate votes in a government, then that government has the right to govern pretty much as it wishes within the law. That happens in India, America, Germany, all over Africa, in Indonesia, Israel, the Philippines, etc etc. Only in Thailand, it seems, is everything different. Here, the ammart courts, supported by the PDRC, decide what the elected government can do. What a disgraceful version of "democracy".

Lol. Why are you not mentioning the reason Yingluck transferred him in the first place? Come on tell us.

[Nickymaster]

How to report to Yingluck? She is either hiding in the north or at home. And in the event Thawil can catch her, I doubt she will understand what he is talking about.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Nickymaster

[michaelscottfan]

It's going to be pretty interesting if the courts try to remove her for moving him given that he's on record for insubordination like this. If they're dumb enough to try, I wonder if they'll be shocked by both her and the world press not acknowledging their rulings anymore.

How do you mean? Please explain.

In Thailand, Some Foresee a Coup by Legal Means (New York Times)

BANGKOK — Five months of protests in Bangkok have snarled traffic, scared away tourists and deflated the Thai economy, but the thousands of protesters who have regularly descended onto the streets have failed to unseat the government or any of its top officials.

That may change in the coming weeks, as focus shifts from the protesters’ encampment in the heart of Bangkok to the courts and government agencies that have handed down a series of decisions favorable to the protest movement.

Although nominally independent, a number of the judges and top officials in the agencies handling cases against Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s government have had longstanding antagonistic relationships with Ms. Yingluck and her party.

“It no longer makes sense to attempt to explain the current political situation in Thailand by relying on legal principles,” Verapat Pariyawong, a lawyer and commentator, said in a Facebook posting. “The current situation is more or less a phenomenon of raw politics whereby the rule of law is conveniently stretched and stripped to fit a political goal.”

On Monday, Ms. Yingluck appeared briefly before the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which is pursuing a case against her on the grounds that she did nothing to stop alleged corruption in a rice subsidy program. If the commission finds that there is a prima facie case, she will be suspended as prime minister, a decision that could come within weeks.

Wicha Mahakhun, the member of the commission who is charged with handling the case, has sparred with Ms. Yingluck’s party before. He was appointed by the military in 2007 to rewrite the Constitution after the overthrow of Ms. Yingluck’s brother Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted as prime minister in a 2006 coup d'état.

The new Constitution was intended to blunt the governing party’s electoral power in part by making half of the Senate appointed by judges and the heads of agencies, instead of directly elected.

“We all know elections are evil,” Mr. Wicha said at the time, arguing that power must be transferred into the hands of judges rather than elected representatives, who he said had caused the country to “collapse.”

“People, especially academics who want to see the Constitution lead to genuine democracy, are naïve,” he said.

Three current judges of the Constitutional Court, which has repeatedly ruled against the government in recent months, were also members of the post-coup commission to rewrite the Constitution.

This power struggle between Ms. Yingluck — whose Pheu Thai party retains strong support among voters in the hinterland — and judges and agencies in Bangkok that want to blunt what they see as a destructive populist movement that encroaches on their power has been a central undercurrent of the five months of political stalemate.

The prospect that courts and agencies will remove Ms. Yingluck, and potentially her entire cabinet, from power is being described in Thailand as a judicial coup.

Some protesters in recent months have pleaded for the army to step in — the military in Thailand has a long history of overthrowing governments — but analysts say the head of the army appears to be wary both of bloodshed and of foreign reaction to a coup.

“We used to suspend democracy by military coup,” Sodsri Satayathum, a former election commissioner and another member of the 2007 committee charged with drafting a constitution, said at a seminar earlier this month. “Military coups do not work anymore,” she said.

Continue reading the main story

Continue reading the main story

Advertisement

Likhit Dhiravegin, a prominent academic and frequent commentator on television, said last week that an “orchestrated” judicial coup was already underway.

“This is a coup conducted inside the system by using regulations,” he said. “Don’t deny it — everybody knows about it, inside and outside the country.”

Tensions escalated late last year, when the governing party passed a constitutional amendment restoring the Senate as a fully elected body.

The Constitutional Court struck down the change, ruling in November that making the Senate fully elected was an attempt to “overthrow” democracy, a decision that has been criticized by constitutional scholars.

The Constitutional Court has also struck down an ambitious and costly infrastructure plan, partly because the judges ruled that high-speed trains, a major element of the plan, are not appropriate for Thailand. Critics say that is a judgment for legislators, not the courts.

The activism of the courts has renewed a debate about double standards in Thai society. Government supporters point out that the leader of the protest movement, Suthep Thaugsuban, a former deputy prime minister, is wanted on murder charges for his role in a crackdown that left dozens of “red shirts” — supporters of Mr. Thaksin — dead in 2010. He has ignored numerous requests to appear in court.

Government supporters also question the priorities of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The rice subsidy case has swiftly been pursued when other cases that appear to be obvious examples of corruption have languished.

In the case of the rice subsidy allegations, Ms. Yingluck said over the weekend that the proceedings appeared rushed.

“We are wondering if we were treated as same as other persons holding political positions,” she said.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission sought to rebut that allegation Monday, saying that the investigation had been underway for nearly two years.

Whether or not Ms. Yingluck was guilty of “neglect of duty” in the rice subsidy program, the case goes to the heart of the conflict between protesters and supporters of the governing party.

The governing party defends the subsidy — the government buys rice from farmers at double the market price — as a way to lift rural incomes. But experts and even some prominent government supporters call it wasteful, very expensive and destructive to the country’s rice industry.

The government has accumulated debt totaling 695 billion baht, or roughly $21 billion, to finance the rice policy over the past two and a half years, according to a calculation by Nipon Poapongsakorn, a leading expert on the rice subsidy program. Some, but not nearly all, of the debt could be paid back by selling the government’s estimated stockpile of around 15 million to 17 million tons of rice. But the government appears to be having difficulty selling rice at market prices, given questions over its quality and freshness.

Relative to the size of their economies, the rice subsidies are costing Thailand four times more than the European Union’s farm aid program: Thailand’s rice subsidies cost the government at least 200 billion baht last year, equivalent to 1.7 percent of the country’s total economic output. By comparison, Europe’s Common Agricultural Policy, one of the world’s most generous farm programs, cost the equivalent of less than half a percent of the European Union’s economic output.

Nattakorn Devakula, a television host who has been blistering in his criticism of the subsidy program, said the government “needs to be punished enough so that they realize that they cannot carry out the same rice scheme.”

But he warned of a destructive backlash by government supporters if a so-called judicial coup is carried out.

“It’s not worth ruining democracy over this issue,” he said.

[Nickymaster]

It's going to be pretty interesting if the courts try to remove her for moving him given that he's on record for insubordination like this. If they're dumb enough to try, I wonder if they'll be shocked by both her and the world press not acknowledging their rulings anymore.

How do you mean? Please explain.

In Thailand, Some Foresee a Coup by Legal Means (New York Times)

BANGKOK — Five months of protests in Bangkok have snarled traffic, scared away tourists and deflated the Thai economy, but the thousands of protesters who have regularly descended onto the streets have failed to unseat the government or any of its top officials.

That may change in the coming weeks, as focus shifts from the protesters’ encampment in the heart of Bangkok to the courts and government agencies that have handed down a series of decisions favorable to the protest movement.

Although nominally independent, a number of the judges and top officials in the agencies handling cases against Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s government have had longstanding antagonistic relationships with Ms. Yingluck and her party.

“It no longer makes sense to attempt to explain the current political situation in Thailand by relying on legal principles,” Verapat Pariyawong, a lawyer and commentator, said in a Facebook posting. “The current situation is more or less a phenomenon of raw politics whereby the rule of law is conveniently stretched and stripped to fit a political goal.”

On Monday, Ms. Yingluck appeared briefly before the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which is pursuing a case against her on the grounds that she did nothing to stop alleged corruption in a rice subsidy program. If the commission finds that there is a prima facie case, she will be suspended as prime minister, a decision that could come within weeks.

Wicha Mahakhun, the member of the commission who is charged with handling the case, has sparred with Ms. Yingluck’s party before. He was appointed by the military in 2007 to rewrite the Constitution after the overthrow of Ms. Yingluck’s brother Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted as prime minister in a 2006 coup d'état.

The new Constitution was intended to blunt the governing party’s electoral power in part by making half of the Senate appointed by judges and the heads of agencies, instead of directly elected.

“We all know elections are evil,” Mr. Wicha said at the time, arguing that power must be transferred into the hands of judges rather than elected representatives, who he said had caused the country to “collapse.”

“People, especially academics who want to see the Constitution lead to genuine democracy, are naïve,” he said.

Three current judges of the Constitutional Court, which has repeatedly ruled against the government in recent months, were also members of the post-coup commission to rewrite the Constitution.

This power struggle between Ms. Yingluck — whose Pheu Thai party retains strong support among voters in the hinterland — and judges and agencies in Bangkok that want to blunt what they see as a destructive populist movement that encroaches on their power has been a central undercurrent of the five months of political stalemate.

The prospect that courts and agencies will remove Ms. Yingluck, and potentially her entire cabinet, from power is being described in Thailand as a judicial coup.

Some protesters in recent months have pleaded for the army to step in — the military in Thailand has a long history of overthrowing governments — but analysts say the head of the army appears to be wary both of bloodshed and of foreign reaction to a coup.

“We used to suspend democracy by military coup,” Sodsri Satayathum, a former election commissioner and another member of the 2007 committee charged with drafting a constitution, said at a seminar earlier this month. “Military coups do not work anymore,” she said.

Continue reading the main story

Continue reading the main story

Advertisement

Likhit Dhiravegin, a prominent academic and frequent commentator on television, said last week that an “orchestrated” judicial coup was already underway.

“This is a coup conducted inside the system by using regulations,” he said. “Don’t deny it — everybody knows about it, inside and outside the country.”

Tensions escalated late last year, when the governing party passed a constitutional amendment restoring the Senate as a fully elected body.

The Constitutional Court struck down the change, ruling in November that making the Senate fully elected was an attempt to “overthrow” democracy, a decision that has been criticized by constitutional scholars.

The Constitutional Court has also struck down an ambitious and costly infrastructure plan, partly because the judges ruled that high-speed trains, a major element of the plan, are not appropriate for Thailand. Critics say that is a judgment for legislators, not the courts.

The activism of the courts has renewed a debate about double standards in Thai society. Government supporters point out that the leader of the protest movement, Suthep Thaugsuban, a former deputy prime minister, is wanted on murder charges for his role in a crackdown that left dozens of “red shirts” — supporters of Mr. Thaksin — dead in 2010. He has ignored numerous requests to appear in court.

Government supporters also question the priorities of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The rice subsidy case has swiftly been pursued when other cases that appear to be obvious examples of corruption have languished.

In the case of the rice subsidy allegations, Ms. Yingluck said over the weekend that the proceedings appeared rushed.

“We are wondering if we were treated as same as other persons holding political positions,” she said.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission sought to rebut that allegation Monday, saying that the investigation had been underway for nearly two years.

Whether or not Ms. Yingluck was guilty of “neglect of duty” in the rice subsidy program, the case goes to the heart of the conflict between protesters and supporters of the governing party.

The governing party defends the subsidy — the government buys rice from farmers at double the market price — as a way to lift rural incomes. But experts and even some prominent government supporters call it wasteful, very expensive and destructive to the country’s rice industry.

The government has accumulated debt totaling 695 billion baht, or roughly $21 billion, to finance the rice policy over the past two and a half years, according to a calculation by Nipon Poapongsakorn, a leading expert on the rice subsidy program. Some, but not nearly all, of the debt could be paid back by selling the government’s estimated stockpile of around 15 million to 17 million tons of rice. But the government appears to be having difficulty selling rice at market prices, given questions over its quality and freshness.

Relative to the size of their economies, the rice subsidies are costing Thailand four times more than the European Union’s farm aid program: Thailand’s rice subsidies cost the government at least 200 billion baht last year, equivalent to 1.7 percent of the country’s total economic output. By comparison, Europe’s Common Agricultural Policy, one of the world’s most generous farm programs, cost the equivalent of less than half a percent of the European Union’s economic output.

Nattakorn Devakula, a television host who has been blistering in his criticism of the subsidy program, said the government “needs to be punished enough so that they realize that they cannot carry out the same rice scheme.”

But he warned of a destructive backlash by government supporters if a so-called judicial coup is carried out.

“It’s not worth ruining democracy over this issue,” he said.

Do you have any idea what you are copying? This reply has nothing to do with your comment and my question to elaborate on that comment.

In case you hadn't read it, It's mainly a summary of what a couple of Thai People have to say about some court rulings, especially in relation to the rice scheme. Hint! Look at the title of your article. In Thailand, Some Foresee a Coup by Legal Means

I asked you to explain how the world press would not acknowledge Thai court rulings anymore. How would that work? Again,please explain.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Nickymaster

[JRSoul]

It's going to be pretty interesting if the courts try to remove her for moving him given that he's on record for insubordination like this. If they're dumb enough to try, I wonder if they'll be shocked by both her and the world press not acknowledging their rulings anymore.

How do you mean? Please explain.

In Thailand, Some Foresee a Coup by Legal Means (New York Times)

BANGKOK — Five months of protests in Bangkok have snarled traffic, scared away tourists and deflated the Thai economy, but the thousands of protesters who have regularly descended onto the streets have failed to unseat the government or any of its top officials.

That may change in the coming weeks, as focus shifts from the protesters’ encampment in the heart of Bangkok to the courts and government agencies that have handed down a series of decisions favorable to the protest movement.

Although nominally independent, a number of the judges and top officials in the agencies handling cases against Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s government have had longstanding antagonistic relationships with Ms. Yingluck and her party.

“It no longer makes sense to attempt to explain the current political situation in Thailand by relying on legal principles,” Verapat Pariyawong, a lawyer and commentator, said in a Facebook posting. “The current situation is more or less a phenomenon of raw politics whereby the rule of law is conveniently stretched and stripped to fit a political goal.”

On Monday, Ms. Yingluck appeared briefly before the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which is pursuing a case against her on the grounds that she did nothing to stop alleged corruption in a rice subsidy program. If the commission finds that there is a prima facie case, she will be suspended as prime minister, a decision that could come within weeks.

Wicha Mahakhun, the member of the commission who is charged with handling the case, has sparred with Ms. Yingluck’s party before. He was appointed by the military in 2007 to rewrite the Constitution after the overthrow of Ms. Yingluck’s brother Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted as prime minister in a 2006 coup d'état.

The new Constitution was intended to blunt the governing party’s electoral power in part by making half of the Senate appointed by judges and the heads of agencies, instead of directly elected.

“We all know elections are evil,” Mr. Wicha said at the time, arguing that power must be transferred into the hands of judges rather than elected representatives, who he said had caused the country to “collapse.”

“People, especially academics who want to see the Constitution lead to genuine democracy, are naïve,” he said.

Three current judges of the Constitutional Court, which has repeatedly ruled against the government in recent months, were also members of the post-coup commission to rewrite the Constitution.

This power struggle between Ms. Yingluck — whose Pheu Thai party retains strong support among voters in the hinterland — and judges and agencies in Bangkok that want to blunt what they see as a destructive populist movement that encroaches on their power has been a central undercurrent of the five months of political stalemate.

The prospect that courts and agencies will remove Ms. Yingluck, and potentially her entire cabinet, from power is being described in Thailand as a judicial coup.

Some protesters in recent months have pleaded for the army to step in — the military in Thailand has a long history of overthrowing governments — but analysts say the head of the army appears to be wary both of bloodshed and of foreign reaction to a coup.

“We used to suspend democracy by military coup,” Sodsri Satayathum, a former election commissioner and another member of the 2007 committee charged with drafting a constitution, said at a seminar earlier this month. “Military coups do not work anymore,” she said.

Continue reading the main story

Continue reading the main story

Advertisement

Likhit Dhiravegin, a prominent academic and frequent commentator on television, said last week that an “orchestrated” judicial coup was already underway.

“This is a coup conducted inside the system by using regulations,” he said. “Don’t deny it — everybody knows about it, inside and outside the country.”

Tensions escalated late last year, when the governing party passed a constitutional amendment restoring the Senate as a fully elected body.

The Constitutional Court struck down the change, ruling in November that making the Senate fully elected was an attempt to “overthrow” democracy, a decision that has been criticized by constitutional scholars.

The Constitutional Court has also struck down an ambitious and costly infrastructure plan, partly because the judges ruled that high-speed trains, a major element of the plan, are not appropriate for Thailand. Critics say that is a judgment for legislators, not the courts.

The activism of the courts has renewed a debate about double standards in Thai society. Government supporters point out that the leader of the protest movement, Suthep Thaugsuban, a former deputy prime minister, is wanted on murder charges for his role in a crackdown that left dozens of “red shirts” — supporters of Mr. Thaksin — dead in 2010. He has ignored numerous requests to appear in court.

Government supporters also question the priorities of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The rice subsidy case has swiftly been pursued when other cases that appear to be obvious examples of corruption have languished.

In the case of the rice subsidy allegations, Ms. Yingluck said over the weekend that the proceedings appeared rushed.

“We are wondering if we were treated as same as other persons holding political positions,” she said.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission sought to rebut that allegation Monday, saying that the investigation had been underway for nearly two years.

Whether or not Ms. Yingluck was guilty of “neglect of duty” in the rice subsidy program, the case goes to the heart of the conflict between protesters and supporters of the governing party.

The governing party defends the subsidy — the government buys rice from farmers at double the market price — as a way to lift rural incomes. But experts and even some prominent government supporters call it wasteful, very expensive and destructive to the country’s rice industry.

The government has accumulated debt totaling 695 billion baht, or roughly $21 billion, to finance the rice policy over the past two and a half years, according to a calculation by Nipon Poapongsakorn, a leading expert on the rice subsidy program. Some, but not nearly all, of the debt could be paid back by selling the government’s estimated stockpile of around 15 million to 17 million tons of rice. But the government appears to be having difficulty selling rice at market prices, given questions over its quality and freshness.

Relative to the size of their economies, the rice subsidies are costing Thailand four times more than the European Union’s farm aid program: Thailand’s rice subsidies cost the government at least 200 billion baht last year, equivalent to 1.7 percent of the country’s total economic output. By comparison, Europe’s Common Agricultural Policy, one of the world’s most generous farm programs, cost the equivalent of less than half a percent of the European Union’s economic output.

Nattakorn Devakula, a television host who has been blistering in his criticism of the subsidy program, said the government “needs to be punished enough so that they realize that they cannot carry out the same rice scheme.”

But he warned of a destructive backlash by government supporters if a so-called judicial coup is carried out.

“It’s not worth ruining democracy over this issue,” he said.

So you believe there should NOT be government accountability for an unviable policy "wasteful, very expensive and destructive to the country’s rice industry" but which bought a lot of votes?

[michaelscottfan]

It's going to be pretty interesting if the courts try to remove her for moving him given that he's on record for insubordination like this. If they're dumb enough to try, I wonder if they'll be shocked by both her and the world press not acknowledging their rulings anymore.

How do you mean? Please explain.

In Thailand, Some Foresee a Coup by Legal Means (New York Times)

BANGKOK — Five months of protests in Bangkok have snarled traffic, scared away tourists and deflated the Thai economy, but the thousands of protesters who have regularly descended onto the streets have failed to unseat the government or any of its top officials.

That may change in the coming weeks, as focus shifts from the protesters’ encampment in the heart of Bangkok to the courts and government agencies that have handed down a series of decisions favorable to the protest movement.

Although nominally independent, a number of the judges and top officials in the agencies handling cases against Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s government have had longstanding antagonistic relationships with Ms. Yingluck and her party.

“It no longer makes sense to attempt to explain the current political situation in Thailand by relying on legal principles,” Verapat Pariyawong, a lawyer and commentator, said in a Facebook posting. “The current situation is more or less a phenomenon of raw politics whereby the rule of law is conveniently stretched and stripped to fit a political goal.”

On Monday, Ms. Yingluck appeared briefly before the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which is pursuing a case against her on the grounds that she did nothing to stop alleged corruption in a rice subsidy program. If the commission finds that there is a prima facie case, she will be suspended as prime minister, a decision that could come within weeks.

Wicha Mahakhun, the member of the commission who is charged with handling the case, has sparred with Ms. Yingluck’s party before. He was appointed by the military in 2007 to rewrite the Constitution after the overthrow of Ms. Yingluck’s brother Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted as prime minister in a 2006 coup d'état.

The new Constitution was intended to blunt the governing party’s electoral power in part by making half of the Senate appointed by judges and the heads of agencies, instead of directly elected.

“We all know elections are evil,” Mr. Wicha said at the time, arguing that power must be transferred into the hands of judges rather than elected representatives, who he said had caused the country to “collapse.”

“People, especially academics who want to see the Constitution lead to genuine democracy, are naïve,” he said.

Three current judges of the Constitutional Court, which has repeatedly ruled against the government in recent months, were also members of the post-coup commission to rewrite the Constitution.

This power struggle between Ms. Yingluck — whose Pheu Thai party retains strong support among voters in the hinterland — and judges and agencies in Bangkok that want to blunt what they see as a destructive populist movement that encroaches on their power has been a central undercurrent of the five months of political stalemate.

The prospect that courts and agencies will remove Ms. Yingluck, and potentially her entire cabinet, from power is being described in Thailand as a judicial coup.

Some protesters in recent months have pleaded for the army to step in — the military in Thailand has a long history of overthrowing governments — but analysts say the head of the army appears to be wary both of bloodshed and of foreign reaction to a coup.

“We used to suspend democracy by military coup,” Sodsri Satayathum, a former election commissioner and another member of the 2007 committee charged with drafting a constitution, said at a seminar earlier this month. “Military coups do not work anymore,” she said.

Continue reading the main story

Continue reading the main story

Advertisement

Likhit Dhiravegin, a prominent academic and frequent commentator on television, said last week that an “orchestrated” judicial coup was already underway.

“This is a coup conducted inside the system by using regulations,” he said. “Don’t deny it — everybody knows about it, inside and outside the country.”

Tensions escalated late last year, when the governing party passed a constitutional amendment restoring the Senate as a fully elected body.

The Constitutional Court struck down the change, ruling in November that making the Senate fully elected was an attempt to “overthrow” democracy, a decision that has been criticized by constitutional scholars.

The Constitutional Court has also struck down an ambitious and costly infrastructure plan, partly because the judges ruled that high-speed trains, a major element of the plan, are not appropriate for Thailand. Critics say that is a judgment for legislators, not the courts.

The activism of the courts has renewed a debate about double standards in Thai society. Government supporters point out that the leader of the protest movement, Suthep Thaugsuban, a former deputy prime minister, is wanted on murder charges for his role in a crackdown that left dozens of “red shirts” — supporters of Mr. Thaksin — dead in 2010. He has ignored numerous requests to appear in court.

Government supporters also question the priorities of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The rice subsidy case has swiftly been pursued when other cases that appear to be obvious examples of corruption have languished.

In the case of the rice subsidy allegations, Ms. Yingluck said over the weekend that the proceedings appeared rushed.

“We are wondering if we were treated as same as other persons holding political positions,” she said.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission sought to rebut that allegation Monday, saying that the investigation had been underway for nearly two years.

Whether or not Ms. Yingluck was guilty of “neglect of duty” in the rice subsidy program, the case goes to the heart of the conflict between protesters and supporters of the governing party.

The governing party defends the subsidy — the government buys rice from farmers at double the market price — as a way to lift rural incomes. But experts and even some prominent government supporters call it wasteful, very expensive and destructive to the country’s rice industry.

The government has accumulated debt totaling 695 billion baht, or roughly $21 billion, to finance the rice policy over the past two and a half years, according to a calculation by Nipon Poapongsakorn, a leading expert on the rice subsidy program. Some, but not nearly all, of the debt could be paid back by selling the government’s estimated stockpile of around 15 million to 17 million tons of rice. But the government appears to be having difficulty selling rice at market prices, given questions over its quality and freshness.

Relative to the size of their economies, the rice subsidies are costing Thailand four times more than the European Union’s farm aid program: Thailand’s rice subsidies cost the government at least 200 billion baht last year, equivalent to 1.7 percent of the country’s total economic output. By comparison, Europe’s Common Agricultural Policy, one of the world’s most generous farm programs, cost the equivalent of less than half a percent of the European Union’s economic output.

Nattakorn Devakula, a television host who has been blistering in his criticism of the subsidy program, said the government “needs to be punished enough so that they realize that they cannot carry out the same rice scheme.”

But he warned of a destructive backlash by government supporters if a so-called judicial coup is carried out.

“It’s not worth ruining democracy over this issue,” he said.

Do you have any idea what you are copying? This reply has nothing to do with your comment and my question to elaborate on that comment.

In case you hadn't read it, It's mainly a summary of what a couple of Thai People have to say about some court rulings, especially in relation to the rice scheme.

I asked you to explain how the world press would not acknowledge Thai court rulings anymore. How would that work? They would go on strike or stop reporting on Thailand? Will they sue Thailand? Please explain. I prefer quality, not quantity in a reply.

From your response here it seems you might not be a native English speaker so I'll forgive your misunderstanding: By not acknowledging their legitimacy I mean they will not challenge her decision to ignore the courts ruling, which will translate to no international pressure for her to resign (Something people on your side would obviously want). The NY Times made an editorial decision to give credence to the argument that the judiciary is not behaving honestly, reflecting how they would respond if the courts actually tried to remove her based on the Thawil move, especially in light of his recent comments. This would lead to increased negative coverage of the current political climate in your country which would lead to further economic uncertainty.

As it stands now, only a slim number of Thais in Bangkok and southern Thailand support the courts and their efforts to oust the PM in this manner, as it would make the country an even bigger laughing stock on the world stage. The vast majority of the people of Thailand and global opinion stand against your cause.

[Valentine]

In Thailand, Some Foresee a Coup by Legal Means (New York Times)

BANGKOK — Five months of protests in Bangkok have snarled traffic, scared away tourists and deflated the Thai economy, but the thousands of protesters who have regularly descended onto the streets have failed to unseat the government or any of its top officials.

That may change in the coming weeks, as focus shifts from the protesters’ encampment in the heart of Bangkok to the courts and government agencies that have handed down a series of decisions favorable to the protest movement.

Although nominally independent, a number of the judges and top officials in the agencies handling cases against Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s government have had longstanding antagonistic relationships with Ms. Yingluck and her party.

“It no longer makes sense to attempt to explain the current political situation in Thailand by relying on legal principles,” Verapat Pariyawong, a lawyer and commentator, said in a Facebook posting. “The current situation is more or less a phenomenon of raw politics whereby the rule of law is conveniently stretched and stripped to fit a political goal.”

On Monday, Ms. Yingluck appeared briefly before the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which is pursuing a case against her on the grounds that she did nothing to stop alleged corruption in a rice subsidy program. If the commission finds that there is a prima facie case, she will be suspended as prime minister, a decision that could come within weeks.

Wicha Mahakhun, the member of the commission who is charged with handling the case, has sparred with Ms. Yingluck’s party before. He was appointed by the military in 2007 to rewrite the Constitution after the overthrow of Ms. Yingluck’s brother Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted as prime minister in a 2006 coup d'état.

The new Constitution was intended to blunt the governing party’s electoral power in part by making half of the Senate appointed by judges and the heads of agencies, instead of directly elected.

“We all know elections are evil,” Mr. Wicha said at the time, arguing that power must be transferred into the hands of judges rather than elected representatives, who he said had caused the country to “collapse.”

“People, especially academics who want to see the Constitution lead to genuine democracy, are naïve,” he said.

Three current judges of the Constitutional Court, which has repeatedly ruled against the government in recent months, were also members of the post-coup commission to rewrite the Constitution.

This power struggle between Ms. Yingluck — whose Pheu Thai party retains strong support among voters in the hinterland — and judges and agencies in Bangkok that want to blunt what they see as a destructive populist movement that encroaches on their power has been a central undercurrent of the five months of political stalemate.

The prospect that courts and agencies will remove Ms. Yingluck, and potentially her entire cabinet, from power is being described in Thailand as a judicial coup.

Some protesters in recent months have pleaded for the army to step in — the military in Thailand has a long history of overthrowing governments — but analysts say the head of the army appears to be wary both of bloodshed and of foreign reaction to a coup.

“We used to suspend democracy by military coup,” Sodsri Satayathum, a former election commissioner and another member of the 2007 committee charged with drafting a constitution, said at a seminar earlier this month. “Military coups do not work anymore,” she said.

Continue reading the main story

Continue reading the main story

Advertisement

Likhit Dhiravegin, a prominent academic and frequent commentator on television, said last week that an “orchestrated” judicial coup was already underway.

“This is a coup conducted inside the system by using regulations,” he said. “Don’t deny it — everybody knows about it, inside and outside the country.”

Tensions escalated late last year, when the governing party passed a constitutional amendment restoring the Senate as a fully elected body.

The Constitutional Court struck down the change, ruling in November that making the Senate fully elected was an attempt to “overthrow” democracy, a decision that has been criticized by constitutional scholars.

The Constitutional Court has also struck down an ambitious and costly infrastructure plan, partly because the judges ruled that high-speed trains, a major element of the plan, are not appropriate for Thailand. Critics say that is a judgment for legislators, not the courts.

The activism of the courts has renewed a debate about double standards in Thai society. Government supporters point out that the leader of the protest movement, Suthep Thaugsuban, a former deputy prime minister, is wanted on murder charges for his role in a crackdown that left dozens of “red shirts” — supporters of Mr. Thaksin — dead in 2010. He has ignored numerous requests to appear in court.

Government supporters also question the priorities of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The rice subsidy case has swiftly been pursued when other cases that appear to be obvious examples of corruption have languished.

In the case of the rice subsidy allegations, Ms. Yingluck said over the weekend that the proceedings appeared rushed.

“We are wondering if we were treated as same as other persons holding political positions,” she said.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission sought to rebut that allegation Monday, saying that the investigation had been underway for nearly two years.

Whether or not Ms. Yingluck was guilty of “neglect of duty” in the rice subsidy program, the case goes to the heart of the conflict between protesters and supporters of the governing party.

The governing party defends the subsidy — the government buys rice from farmers at double the market price — as a way to lift rural incomes. But experts and even some prominent government supporters call it wasteful, very expensive and destructive to the country’s rice industry.

The government has accumulated debt totaling 695 billion baht, or roughly $21 billion, to finance the rice policy over the past two and a half years, according to a calculation by Nipon Poapongsakorn, a leading expert on the rice subsidy program. Some, but not nearly all, of the debt could be paid back by selling the government’s estimated stockpile of around 15 million to 17 million tons of rice. But the government appears to be having difficulty selling rice at market prices, given questions over its quality and freshness.

Relative to the size of their economies, the rice subsidies are costing Thailand four times more than the European Union’s farm aid program: Thailand’s rice subsidies cost the government at least 200 billion baht last year, equivalent to 1.7 percent of the country’s total economic output. By comparison, Europe’s Common Agricultural Policy, one of the world’s most generous farm programs, cost the equivalent of less than half a percent of the European Union’s economic output.

Nattakorn Devakula, a television host who has been blistering in his criticism of the subsidy program, said the government “needs to be punished enough so that they realize that they cannot carry out the same rice scheme.”

But he warned of a destructive backlash by government supporters if a so-called judicial coup is carried out.

“It’s not worth ruining democracy over this issue,” he said.

Do you have any idea what you are copying? This reply has nothing to do with your comment and my question to elaborate on that comment.

In case you hadn't read it, It's mainly a summary of what a couple of Thai People have to say about some court rulings, especially in relation to the rice scheme.

I asked you to explain how the world press would not acknowledge Thai court rulings anymore. How would that work? They would go on strike or stop reporting on Thailand? Will they sue Thailand? Please explain. I prefer quality, not quantity in a reply.

From your response here it seems you might not be a native English speaker so I'll forgive your misunderstanding: By not acknowledging their legitimacy I mean they will not challenge her decision to ignore the courts ruling, which will translate to no international pressure for her to resign (Something people on your side would obviously want). The NY Times made an editorial decision to give credence to the argument that the judiciary is not behaving honestly, reflecting how they would respond if the courts actually tried to remove her based on the Thawil move, especially in light of his recent comments. This would lead to increased negative coverage of the current political climate in your country which would lead to further economic uncertainty.

As it stands now, only a slim number of Thais in Bangkok and southern Thailand support the courts and their efforts to oust the PM in this manner, as it would make the country an even bigger laughing stock on the world stage. The vast majority of the people of Thailand and global opinion stand against your cause.

I doubt anyone on the world stage considers Thailand to be a laughing stock as most on the world stage do not consider Thailand to be of any importance that is if they even know where it is. There have many upheavals here in the past & it is does not affect business. There may be a slight blimp on occasion but most international investors do not really care who is running the country as long as they get favourable terms with which to do business. The car rebate scheme was a classic example of trying to appease the car makers.

[ginjag]

It's going to be pretty interesting if the courts try to remove her for moving him given that he's on record for insubordination like this. If they're dumb enough to try, I wonder if they'll be shocked by both her and the world press not acknowledging their rulings anymore.

How do you mean? Please explain.

In Thailand, Some Foresee a Coup by Legal Means (New York Times)

BANGKOK — Five months of protests in Bangkok have snarled traffic, scared away tourists and deflated the Thai economy, but the thousands of protesters who have regularly descended onto the streets have failed to unseat the government or any of its top officials.

That may change in the coming weeks, as focus shifts from the protesters’ encampment in the heart of Bangkok to the courts and government agencies that have handed down a series of decisions favorable to the protest movement.

Although nominally independent, a number of the judges and top officials in the agencies handling cases against Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s government have had longstanding antagonistic relationships with Ms. Yingluck and her party.

“It no longer makes sense to attempt to explain the current political situation in Thailand by relying on legal principles,” Verapat Pariyawong, a lawyer and commentator, said in a Facebook posting. “The current situation is more or less a phenomenon of raw politics whereby the rule of law is conveniently stretched and stripped to fit a political goal.”

On Monday, Ms. Yingluck appeared briefly before the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which is pursuing a case against her on the grounds that she did nothing to stop alleged corruption in a rice subsidy program. If the commission finds that there is a prima facie case, she will be suspended as prime minister, a decision that could come within weeks.

Wicha Mahakhun, the member of the commission who is charged with handling the case, has sparred with Ms. Yingluck’s party before. He was appointed by the military in 2007 to rewrite the Constitution after the overthrow of Ms. Yingluck’s brother Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted as prime minister in a 2006 coup d'état.

The new Constitution was intended to blunt the governing party’s electoral power in part by making half of the Senate appointed by judges and the heads of agencies, instead of directly elected.

“We all know elections are evil,” Mr. Wicha said at the time, arguing that power must be transferred into the hands of judges rather than elected representatives, who he said had caused the country to “collapse.”

“People, especially academics who want to see the Constitution lead to genuine democracy, are naïve,” he said.

Three current judges of the Constitutional Court, which has repeatedly ruled against the government in recent months, were also members of the post-coup commission to rewrite the Constitution.

This power struggle between Ms. Yingluck — whose Pheu Thai party retains strong support among voters in the hinterland — and judges and agencies in Bangkok that want to blunt what they see as a destructive populist movement that encroaches on their power has been a central undercurrent of the five months of political stalemate.

The prospect that courts and agencies will remove Ms. Yingluck, and potentially her entire cabinet, from power is being described in Thailand as a judicial coup.

Some protesters in recent months have pleaded for the army to step in — the military in Thailand has a long history of overthrowing governments — but analysts say the head of the army appears to be wary both of bloodshed and of foreign reaction to a coup.

“We used to suspend democracy by military coup,” Sodsri Satayathum, a former election commissioner and another member of the 2007 committee charged with drafting a constitution, said at a seminar earlier this month. “Military coups do not work anymore,” she said.

Continue reading the main story

Continue reading the main story

Advertisement

Likhit Dhiravegin, a prominent academic and frequent commentator on television, said last week that an “orchestrated” judicial coup was already underway.

“This is a coup conducted inside the system by using regulations,” he said. “Don’t deny it — everybody knows about it, inside and outside the country.”

Tensions escalated late last year, when the governing party passed a constitutional amendment restoring the Senate as a fully elected body.

The Constitutional Court struck down the change, ruling in November that making the Senate fully elected was an attempt to “overthrow” democracy, a decision that has been criticized by constitutional scholars.

The Constitutional Court has also struck down an ambitious and costly infrastructure plan, partly because the judges ruled that high-speed trains, a major element of the plan, are not appropriate for Thailand. Critics say that is a judgment for legislators, not the courts.

The activism of the courts has renewed a debate about double standards in Thai society. Government supporters point out that the leader of the protest movement, Suthep Thaugsuban, a former deputy prime minister, is wanted on murder charges for his role in a crackdown that left dozens of “red shirts” — supporters of Mr. Thaksin — dead in 2010. He has ignored numerous requests to appear in court.

Government supporters also question the priorities of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The rice subsidy case has swiftly been pursued when other cases that appear to be obvious examples of corruption have languished.

In the case of the rice subsidy allegations, Ms. Yingluck said over the weekend that the proceedings appeared rushed.

“We are wondering if we were treated as same as other persons holding political positions,” she said.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission sought to rebut that allegation Monday, saying that the investigation had been underway for nearly two years.

Whether or not Ms. Yingluck was guilty of “neglect of duty” in the rice subsidy program, the case goes to the heart of the conflict between protesters and supporters of the governing party.

The governing party defends the subsidy — the government buys rice from farmers at double the market price — as a way to lift rural incomes. But experts and even some prominent government supporters call it wasteful, very expensive and destructive to the country’s rice industry.

The government has accumulated debt totaling 695 billion baht, or roughly $21 billion, to finance the rice policy over the past two and a half years, according to a calculation by Nipon Poapongsakorn, a leading expert on the rice subsidy program. Some, but not nearly all, of the debt could be paid back by selling the government’s estimated stockpile of around 15 million to 17 million tons of rice. But the government appears to be having difficulty selling rice at market prices, given questions over its quality and freshness.

Relative to the size of their economies, the rice subsidies are costing Thailand four times more than the European Union’s farm aid program: Thailand’s rice subsidies cost the government at least 200 billion baht last year, equivalent to 1.7 percent of the country’s total economic output. By comparison, Europe’s Common Agricultural Policy, one of the world’s most generous farm programs, cost the equivalent of less than half a percent of the European Union’s economic output.

Nattakorn Devakula, a television host who has been blistering in his criticism of the subsidy program, said the government “needs to be punished enough so that they realize that they cannot carry out the same rice scheme.”

But he warned of a destructive backlash by government supporters if a so-called judicial coup is carried out.

“It’s not worth ruining democracy over this issue,” he said.

sssnnnzzzzzzzzzzzz

[fab4]

It's going to be pretty interesting if the courts try to remove her for moving him given that he's on record for insubordination like this. If they're dumb enough to try, I wonder if they'll be shocked by both her and the world press not acknowledging their rulings anymore.

Nothing Thawit does in the present is admissible as evidence in the defense of Ms. Yingluck's crime. Thaksin tried the same ploy in 2008 when he had his wife give back the publicly owned land she had illegally acquired. The thief who steals money is not absolved of the theft because he brings the money back. Also, I doubt the court will be shocked if she doesn't acknowledge their ruling. They will simply order her to be arrested. The world press doesn't give a hoot one way or the other.

Your lack of knowledge over the Ratchadaphisek land court case really doesn't give you the excuse to post lies.

Background to the case:

The investigation is focused on a plot of land on Ratchadapisek Road that Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra bought not long after her husband came to power.

The land’s history can be traced back 10 years to three former premiers, Banharn Silapaarcha, General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh and Chuan Leekpai.

This plot of land was bought by the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF) and later became the land bank of Thai Asset Management Corp during the Banharn government.

It was put up for auction during the Chavalit and Chuan governments and then sold to Pojaman during the Thaksin administration in 2003.

Thaksin's written permission as a spouse, allowing Pojaman to enter into the land deal, is being used as evidence in the case. She bought the land for Bt772 million.

Following pressure from the Assets Examination Committee, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) and the Financial Sector Restructuring Authority (FRA) have agreed to file a legal complaint over Pojaman’s purchas

In 2003 she won a sealed bid auction for 33 rai of land. All perfectly legal. Then the Junta formed AEC got involved. At the end of the trial the Judges ruled as follows:

9-0 - The 1999 anti-corruption act is effective.

9-0 - Appointment of Assets Examination Committee is constitutional.

9-0 - Financial Institutions Development Fund, the land seller, is a government agency.

6-3 - The prime minister has oversight of FIDF.

5-4 - Thaksin Shinawatra violated the 1999 anti-corruption act.

7-2 - Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra is not guilty and her arrest warrant will be cancelled.

7-2 - The Ratchadaphisek land plot and transaction money will not be confiscated.

9-0 - Thaksin is sentenced to a two-year jail term

In September 2010 the Civil Court ordered Pojaman to return the land to the FIDF (from whom she had bought it off). They returned her money plus interest.

Your comparison of Thaksins involvement in the Rachadaphisek Land case to Yinglucks involvement in the Thawil transfer case is pointless.

[timmuhonen]

thaidrama...first shouting and then tears in eyes...check it out on tv

[gabruce]

I would note that he is just saying that he is not reporting to the PM and won't be at the official ceremony. This seems to be different than refusing to attend or to report. He goes on to say he would attend meetings and work with the government and CAPO, but he doubts they will invite them. So, at the moment I see nothing wrong here. Perhaps a clarification on whether the translation is that he "refuses" to attend vs "won't be there" is reasonable.

[Nickymaster]

How do you mean? Please explain.

In Thailand, Some Foresee a Coup by Legal Means (New York Times)

BANGKOK Five months of protests in Bangkok have snarled traffic, scared away tourists and deflated the Thai economy, but the thousands of protesters who have regularly descended onto the streets have failed to unseat the government or any of its top officials.

That may change in the coming weeks, as focus shifts from the protesters encampment in the heart of Bangkok to the courts and government agencies that have handed down a series of decisions favorable to the protest movement.

Although nominally independent, a number of the judges and top officials in the agencies handling cases against Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatras government have had longstanding antagonistic relationships with Ms. Yingluck and her party.

It no longer makes sense to attempt to explain the current political situation in Thailand by relying on legal principles, Verapat Pariyawong, a lawyer and commentator, said in a Facebook posting. The current situation is more or less a phenomenon of raw politics whereby the rule of law is conveniently stretched and stripped to fit a political goal.

On Monday, Ms. Yingluck appeared briefly before the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which is pursuing a case against her on the grounds that she did nothing to stop alleged corruption in a rice subsidy program. If the commission finds that there is a prima facie case, she will be suspended as prime minister, a decision that could come within weeks.

Wicha Mahakhun, the member of the commission who is charged with handling the case, has sparred with Ms. Yinglucks party before. He was appointed by the military in 2007 to rewrite the Constitution after the overthrow of Ms. Yinglucks brother Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted as prime minister in a 2006 coup d'état.

The new Constitution was intended to blunt the governing partys electoral power in part by making half of the Senate appointed by judges and the heads of agencies, instead of directly elected.

We all know elections are evil, Mr. Wicha said at the time, arguing that power must be transferred into the hands of judges rather than elected representatives, who he said had caused the country to collapse.

People, especially academics who want to see the Constitution lead to genuine democracy, are naïve, he said.

Three current judges of the Constitutional Court, which has repeatedly ruled against the government in recent months, were also members of the post-coup commission to rewrite the Constitution.

This power struggle between Ms. Yingluck whose Pheu Thai party retains strong support among voters in the hinterland and judges and agencies in Bangkok that want to blunt what they see as a destructive populist movement that encroaches on their power has been a central undercurrent of the five months of political stalemate.

The prospect that courts and agencies will remove Ms. Yingluck, and potentially her entire cabinet, from power is being described in Thailand as a judicial coup.

Some protesters in recent months have pleaded for the army to step in the military in Thailand has a long history of overthrowing governments but analysts say the head of the army appears to be wary both of bloodshed and of foreign reaction to a coup.

We used to suspend democracy by military coup, Sodsri Satayathum, a former election commissioner and another member of the 2007 committee charged with drafting a constitution, said at a seminar earlier this month. Military coups do not work anymore, she said.

Continue reading the main story

Continue reading the main story

Advertisement

Likhit Dhiravegin, a prominent academic and frequent commentator on television, said last week that an orchestrated judicial coup was already underway.

This is a coup conducted inside the system by using regulations, he said. Dont deny it everybody knows about it, inside and outside the country.

Tensions escalated late last year, when the governing party passed a constitutional amendment restoring the Senate as a fully elected body.

The Constitutional Court struck down the change, ruling in November that making the Senate fully elected was an attempt to overthrow democracy, a decision that has been criticized by constitutional scholars.

The Constitutional Court has also struck down an ambitious and costly infrastructure plan, partly because the judges ruled that high-speed trains, a major element of the plan, are not appropriate for Thailand. Critics say that is a judgment for legislators, not the courts.

The activism of the courts has renewed a debate about double standards in Thai society. Government supporters point out that the leader of the protest movement, Suthep Thaugsuban, a former deputy prime minister, is wanted on murder charges for his role in a crackdown that left dozens of red shirts supporters of Mr. Thaksin dead in 2010. He has ignored numerous requests to appear in court.

Government supporters also question the priorities of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The rice subsidy case has swiftly been pursued when other cases that appear to be obvious examples of corruption have languished.

In the case of the rice subsidy allegations, Ms. Yingluck said over the weekend that the proceedings appeared rushed.

We are wondering if we were treated as same as other persons holding political positions, she said.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission sought to rebut that allegation Monday, saying that the investigation had been underway for nearly two years.

Whether or not Ms. Yingluck was guilty of neglect of duty in the rice subsidy program, the case goes to the heart of the conflict between protesters and supporters of the governing party.

The governing party defends the subsidy the government buys rice from farmers at double the market price as a way to lift rural incomes. But experts and even some prominent government supporters call it wasteful, very expensive and destructive to the countrys rice industry.

The government has accumulated debt totaling 695 billion baht, or roughly $21 billion, to finance the rice policy over the past two and a half years, according to a calculation by Nipon Poapongsakorn, a leading expert on the rice subsidy program. Some, but not nearly all, of the debt could be paid back by selling the governments estimated stockpile of around 15 million to 17 million tons of rice. But the government appears to be having difficulty selling rice at market prices, given questions over its quality and freshness.

Relative to the size of their economies, the rice subsidies are costing Thailand four times more than the European Unions farm aid program: Thailands rice subsidies cost the government at least 200 billion baht last year, equivalent to 1.7 percent of the countrys total economic output. By comparison, Europes Common Agricultural Policy, one of the worlds most generous farm programs, cost the equivalent of less than half a percent of the European Unions economic output.

Nattakorn Devakula, a television host who has been blistering in his criticism of the subsidy program, said the government needs to be punished enough so that they realize that they cannot carry out the same rice scheme.

But he warned of a destructive backlash by government supporters if a so-called judicial coup is carried out.

Its not worth ruining democracy over this issue, he said.

Do you have any idea what you are copying? This reply has nothing to do with your comment and my question to elaborate on that comment.

In case you hadn't read it, It's mainly a summary of what a couple of Thai People have to say about some court rulings, especially in relation to the rice scheme.

I asked you to explain how the world press would not acknowledge Thai court rulings anymore. How would that work? They would go on strike or stop reporting on Thailand? Will they sue Thailand? Please explain. I prefer quality, not quantity in a reply.

From your response here it seems you might not be a native English speaker so I'll forgive your misunderstanding: By not acknowledging their legitimacy I mean they will not challenge her decision to ignore the courts ruling, which will translate to no international pressure for her to resign (Something people on your side would obviously want). The NY Times made an editorial decision to give credence to the argument that the judiciary is not behaving honestly, reflecting how they would respond if the courts actually tried to remove her based on the Thawil move, especially in light of his recent comments. This would lead to increased negative coverage of the current political climate in your country which would lead to further economic uncertainty.

As it stands now, only a slim number of Thais in Bangkok and southern Thailand support the courts and their efforts to oust the PM in this manner, as it would make the country an even bigger laughing stock on the world stage. The vast majority of the people of Thailand and global opinion stand against your cause.

From your response here it seems you might not be a native English speaker so I'll forgive your misunderstanding

Don't make it personal with silly statements about forgiveness and misunderstanding. Nasty tactics. You draw conclusions based on your own assumptions and then you want me to believe that I don't understand you. You are merely trying to mislead people. Instead spend some more time trying to back op what you are saying.

You said: By not acknowledging their legitimacy I mean they will not challenge her decision to ignore the courts ruling, which will translate to no international pressure for her to resign

Again, how is the world not acknowledging their (the court's) legitimacy? All I know is that the international community, Incl the US, EU and UN has stated that Thailand's problems should be solved In Thailand by Thais. IMO this confirms they accept (for what it is worth) the Thai courts. And you want us to believe that the courts would/should not do certain things because the international community will not accept it. Doesnt make sense at all.

As it stands now, only a slim number of Thais in Bangkok and southern Thailand support the courts and their efforts to oust the PM in this manner,

Again, this is just you spreading red propaganda IMO. I have a poll showing that the vast majority of Thais accept the court's decisions. I might show it but I want you to show me first where you got your info from.

as it would make the country an even bigger laughing stock on the world stage.

an even bigger laughing stock than having an allergic-to-debates-puppet called Yingluck as PM? Difficult. Just joking....

[bigbamboo]

<

what a despicable and disloyal 'public' servant

unprofessional

When one could hardly blame him as his loyalty has been kind of stretched to the limits really hasn't it. That aside he owes no loyalty to Yingluck, nor does she deserve it. I just wish you had such high standards and expectations for Yingluck and her Government as you do for everyone else.

indeed and nor was I suggesting he had any loyalty to Yingluck

it is to the PM he owes his loyalty WHOEVER that may be - that is the professional approach and the high road

and, as you well know, I am for anti-corruption, honesty and integrity on ALL sides of the spectrum

I, like many others, feel PTP is the "lesser of two evils" during this time of paradigm shift - this time of ordinary Thais wanting to rid themselves of this feudalism - this does not mean that just about all of us do not support reform - it is urgently needed

'it is to the PM he owes his loyalty WHOEVER that may be.'

I know what you mean.... Yingluck or Thaksin? I'd say from his recent comments it's still Thaksin myself.

[Nickymaster]

<

what a despicable and disloyal 'public' servant

unprofessional

When one could hardly blame him as his loyalty has been kind of stretched to the limits really hasn't it. That aside he owes no loyalty to Yingluck, nor does she deserve it. I just wish you had such high standards and expectations for Yingluck and her Government as you do for everyone else.

indeed and nor was I suggesting he had any loyalty to Yingluck

it is to the PM he owes his loyalty WHOEVER that may be - that is the professional approach and the high road

and, as you well know, I am for anti-corruption, honesty and integrity on ALL sides of the spectrum

I, like many others, feel PTP is the "lesser of two evils" during this time of paradigm shift - this time of ordinary Thais wanting to rid themselves of this feudalism - this does not mean that just about all of us do not support reform - it is urgently needed

PTP is the lesser evil?? How long have you been here in Thailand following politics? I tell you nobody beats Tahksin when large corruption deals are involved. The Dems are nasty too but Thaksin is the clear winner.

[MaxLee]

He'd better hire some bodyguards now and protect his own homeyard,... if you know what I mean...

Edited April 30, 2014 by MaxLee

[Tom420]

This ENTIRE situation is getting really annoying and really old. It is like a bunch of kids playing a silly little game, just sort it out &lt;deleted&gt;.

[fab4]

"Baerboxer"

As chair of the NSC, does she attend as often as she did the rice scheme?

Looks like many independent agencies and people of quite differing views have all united with one common aim - hold the Shin Clan accountable for their actions. That's what happens when you piss on everyone else. The get fed up of it.


It's irrelevant how often she chaired meetings of the NSC. Do you know how many she chaired, No, you don't. She is still Chair, he reports to the Chair.


"Looks like many independent agencies and people of quite differing views have all united with one common aim - hold the Shin Clan accountable for their actions"

Why do you think that is Baerboxer? You think someone might have had a word in their shell like?

First off , don't be so naive as to refer to these organisations as independent.

Secondly, why didn't the NSC employees make a song and a dance when abhisit appointed his man as deputy NSC Chief?

Thirdly, why didn't the CC get involved when abhisit made his transfers? Don't even think that abhisits transfers were not political.

Lt-Gen Paradon used to serve as the NSC deputy chief during the government of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej four years ago. However, he was transferred to an advisory post in the Prime Minister’s Office during the government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva because he was seen as close to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

http://www.isranews.org/south-news/English-Article/51-english-article/7637-paradons-appointment-and-governments-southern-policy.html?pop=1&tmpl=component&print=1

The Democrat Party and the army appear to be on a collision course over the crucial leadership of the National Security Council following the lightning transfer of Surapol Puen-Aiyaka.

The Democrats are said to be backing NSC deputy secretary-general Thawil Pliensri as Lt Gen Surapol’s successor.But army chief Anupong Paojinda was planning to nominate Lt Gen Pirun Pawepolsong to lead the agency, according to sources in the cabinet and the army.

Lt Gen Surapol and Lt Gen Pirun are Class 10 graduates of the Armed Forces Academy Preparatory School. Among their classmates are army leader Gen Anupong and convicted former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Mr Thawil also has strong backing from former NSC chief Prasong Soonsiri, who is allied to the coalition government’s leading party and a key opponent of Thaksin.
Lt Gen Surapol was recently transferred to Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva’s office as an adviser.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/64391/politics-behind-the-replacement-of-the-nsc/

He also called on the media to not focus too much on Thawil's case, adding that when Abhisit took over as PM, he had transferred then-NSC chief General Surapol Puenaiyaka, then-permanent secretary for Interior Ministry Pirapol Traithasawit and then-Bangkok city clerk Pongsak Semsan to advisory positions.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Prime-minister-advised-to-give-Thawil-his-NSC-posi-30207535.html

Pure hypocrisy and double standards. It is not possible to defend the CC actions. Who brought about the case in the first place? No surprise, the usual suspects:

The petition lodged with the Constitutional Court to disqualify Yingluck was politically motivated and part of moves to replace her and her government with an unelected, unconstitutional one, he alleged.

The petition filed by the Group of 40 senators asking the court to consider dismissing the Cabinet and installation of a new premier and new Cabinet according to Articles 172 and 173 was very strange and obviously against the constitution, Bhokin said.

"The Constitutional Court does not have the jurisdiction to take up this case and if it rules in favour of the petition, then it would effectively terminate the Constitution and the verdict itself would be unconstitutional," he said.

"If the Constitutional Court rules in favour of the senators, then I don't think this country would have a rule of law anymore. There would be no law, just the court," he said.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Court-petition-over-Thawils-transfer-aims-to-oust--30230919.html

[jayboy]

It's going to be pretty interesting if the courts try to remove her for moving him given that he's on record for insubordination like this. If they're dumb enough to try, I wonder if they'll be shocked by both her and the world press not acknowledging their rulings anymore.

He is the head of an independent agency and Yingluck is care taker PM who might be most probably illegally in office.

He is an insubordinate official who given his insolence to the Prime Minister would not last ten minutes in Beijing,Moscow,Paris,Tokyo,Jakarta,London,Paris or Washington.

He was kicked out of his job for one reason - to allow a Shin to take over the police. Now after fighting through the courts he has is job back, only for the caretaker administration and their quango CAPO to freeze him out if they can,

You think this caretaker PM and her cabinet deserve his respect? He doesn't report to her, her oft reshuffled handpicked cabinet or her unelected fugitive criminal brother.

He would last longer in any of the countries you mention than an inept administration controlled by a fugitive crook.

All of which does not detract from the fact that the supreme administrative court ruled unanamously he was illegally removed and now the judgement of the constitutional court on the caretaker PM's illegal act is awaited.

Nonsense.He reported directly to the PM and she has unrestricted right to remove him.In every country senior officials are replaced or transferred by the government.Only in Thailand would the courts get involved.Remember this is the country where elected representatives are charged with corruption for supporting an elected Senate.Dont bother trying to justify this tomfoolery.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Ulic]

I have no superiors, I report to nobody, Great government job if you can get it.

[michaelscottfan]

Don't make it personal with silly statements about forgiveness and misunderstanding. Nasty tactics. You draw conclusions based on your own assumptions and then you want me to believe that I don't understand you. You are merely trying to mislead people. Instead spend some more time trying to back op what you are saying.

Done and done.

Again, how is the world not acknowledging their (the court's) legitimacy? All I know is that the international community, Incl the US, EU and UN has stated that Thailand's problems should be solved In Thailand by Thais. IMO this confirms they accept (for what it is worth) the Thai courts. And you want us to believe that the courts would/should not do certain things because the international community will not accept it. Doesnt make sense at all.

The International community won't say anything if she peacefully accepts the ruling and moves on, but it also won't vilify her if she ignored it, and if the red shirts did go to war over the ruling it would be seen as legitimate. Make no mistake, if civil war did come to pass there's no question who people would side with. The PDRC has not been treated kindly by the BBC, the Economist, al-Jazeera, and has been condemned by virtually every major American newspaper from the Journal to the Washington Post. Should violence break out yes, people will start paying attention and it won't look good for your side.

Again, this is just you spreading red propaganda IMO. I have a poll showing that the vast majority of Thais accept the court's decisions. I might show it but I want you to show me first where you got your info from.

In 2006 they banned TRT for corruption and in 2007 the people of your country reelected the new party they formed. In 2008 they banned them again for even thinner reasons leading to massive protests and they re-elected the new party in the new elections in 2011 after they banned that one. Despite all the court rulings and despite his convictions in what amounted to a military tribunal the people of Thailand continue to elect his surrogates to head their government. That makes it pretty clear that people in your country don't think very highly of those court rulings banning their favored political party to represent them.