A case of abuse of power
Kornchanok Raksaseri
The Nation

How Yingluck and her 2011 Cabinet were found guilty of abuse of power:

lThawil Pliensri's tranfer was aimed at paving the way for Pol General Priewpan Damapong - who is Yingluck's relative - to become national police chief;

lThe transfer order was rushed through, while certain Cabinet members began sending dubious "top secret" and "very urgent" letters from September 4, 2011, which was a Sunday;

lThe copies of the same letters submitted to court by Thawil and Yingluck's secretary-general as evidence featured different dates, signifying irregularities and an attempt to conceal something;

lThough Yingluck had not initiated the transfer, she was actively involved in the process by signing relevant documents and voting for it at Cabinet meetings;

lYingluck did not specify the reasons for Thawil's transfer;

lYingluck's claim that Thawil had been moved because he was more qualified to be PM's adviser was wrong

lAn official's transfer that is not ordered according to good governance principles is considered interference and an abuse of power;

lYingluck cannot continue as caretaker PM as an unqualified person cannot, by law, hold the post;

lYingluck and Cabinet members who approved Thawil's transfer must step down;

lThe rest of the Cabinet can continue serving in its caretaker status.

-- The Nation 2014-05-08

Shameful Thai circus.

Pathetic!

The world is laughing at the elites and the low, low levels they have had to stoop to because their extreme unpopularity prohibits them from legitimately coming to power via elections.

Abuse of power has it's price. PT had the right to govern because they won the election. Fair enough, that's as it should be. They then abused that right and have rightly paid the price.

Pathetic!

The world is laughing at the elites and the low, low levels they have had to stoop to because their extreme unpopularity prohibits them from legitimately coming to power via elections.

Sick denial

On the surface, a reasonable assessment. Unfortunately, the explanation only skims the surface.

The unspoken circumstances that put the case in perspective are ignored. The PM and the PTP took office in difficult times. The Democrat party and its allies were intent on doing all that they could to sabotage and bring down the government. They made it very clear they would "get" her. The government had the view that there was a real threat of being violently overthrown by the military. Considering Thailand's history, it wasn't unreasonable.

It is understandable that a man who held a key position in the government and who was responsible for components of internal security had to be someone who could be counted on. In Thailand, only family can be trusted and even then, only up to a certain point. In the jaundiced world of Thai political life, there had to be a change, particularly of a person who was not a supporter of the government. Where the government erred, was in the appointment of someone who was "family". They should have appointed someone in the interim, a non descript person who was loyal. Perhaps, the view was that there was an immediate need to have a loyalist in the position. It was a miscalculation, For a government that has meticulously planned its return to power, its strategists erred and created the basis upon which the PM could be removed. Whatever the reasons, or the motives, it was poor political judgement to appoint a "family" member to the position. Had it been someone else, the case would have floundered.

Pathetic!

The world is laughing at the elites and the low, low levels they have had to stoop to because their extreme unpopularity prohibits them from legitimately coming to power via elections.

It's business of the Thais, the world please stay out

On the surface, a reasonable assessment. Unfortunately, the explanation only skims the surface.

The unspoken circumstances that put the case in perspective are ignored. The PM and the PTP took office in difficult times. The Democrat party and its allies were intent on doing all that they could to sabotage and bring down the government. They made it very clear they would "get" her. The government had the view that there was a real threat of being violently overthrown by the military. Considering Thailand's history, it wasn't unreasonable.

It is understandable that a man who held a key position in the government and who was responsible for components of internal security had to be someone who could be counted on. In Thailand, only family can be trusted and even then, only up to a certain point. In the jaundiced world of Thai political life, there had to be a change, particularly of a person who was not a supporter of the government. Where the government erred, was in the appointment of someone who was "family". They should have appointed someone in the interim, a non descript person who was loyal. Perhaps, the view was that there was an immediate need to have a loyalist in the position. It was a miscalculation, For a government that has meticulously planned its return to power, its strategists erred and created the basis upon which the PM could be removed. Whatever the reasons, or the motives, it was poor political judgement to appoint a "family" member to the position. Had it been someone else, the case would have floundered.

If a.n. other had been appointed ??? there wasn't a.n.other it was a shin family.

Quote " they took office in difficult times" most new governments do, that's how they get in. Once IN what did they achieve ??? 3years of squander and corrupt governing defying the courts.

No government in Thailand would be violently overthrown by the army IF they governed as per rule and as sworn in on oath to do so. They had a wonderful chance this FAMILY to come clean and govern in fine fashion BUT was not interested, initially to get Thaksin back here to rule and charges dropped ---that would have been unlawful.

Pathetic!

The world is laughing at the elites and the low, low levels they have had to stoop to because their extreme unpopularity prohibits them from legitimately coming to power via elections.

It's business of the Thais, the world please stay out

The world has an interest because it does business with Thais and Thailand.

It is a global, multi-lateral connected world that we live in.

The shops and factories of multinationals in Thailand and the the jobs and wealth that they bring to Thailand give them and their parent nations a voice in this debacle.

Thailand has sought foreign investment and it has an obligation to uphold the promises and guarantees made to win those investments.

The last thing Thailand wants or needs is for the world to abandon her (for Myanma,Cambodia, Laos….)

There is nothing new in the Shinawatra's being involved in this nepotism business, they do it all the time , what stands out is the prime Ministers involvement as with Thaskin the past master of nepotism they seem to think they are more important than everybody else , this mind set will bring you down , you are employed by the people to up hold the law of the land , this happened in 2011 and has there been any attempt to change the system of senior appointments, this should now read an independent panel to appoint senior government and military personal , at the end of the day the PM should have stepped down and anybody else that had a guilt conscious thought. This sort of carrying on only enforces the international belief that Thailand is a back water and run by a pack of despots.

On the surface, a reasonable assessment. Unfortunately, the explanation only skims the surface.

The unspoken circumstances that put the case in perspective are ignored. The PM and the PTP took office in difficult times. The Democrat party and its allies were intent on doing all that they could to sabotage and bring down the government. They made it very clear they would "get" her. The government had the view that there was a real threat of being violently overthrown by the military. Considering Thailand's history, it wasn't unreasonable.

It is understandable that a man who held a key position in the government and who was responsible for components of internal security had to be someone who could be counted on. In Thailand, only family can be trusted and even then, only up to a certain point. In the jaundiced world of Thai political life, there had to be a change, particularly of a person who was not a supporter of the government. Where the government erred, was in the appointment of someone who was "family". They should have appointed someone in the interim, a non descript person who was loyal. Perhaps, the view was that there was an immediate need to have a loyalist in the position. It was a miscalculation, For a government that has meticulously planned its return to power, its strategists erred and created the basis upon which the PM could be removed. Whatever the reasons, or the motives, it was poor political judgement to appoint a "family" member to the position. Had it been someone else, the case would have floundered.

If PTP were aware that the Dems were out to "get" them it may have been prudent for them to operate in an above board, open, legal way. That has never been Thaksins style. The most disturbing, illegal, contemptuous act by PTP was the passing of the amnesty bill in the middle of the night after amending the bill after the first reading. I think the party will be dissolved over that. The sad thing is that they could have done so much for the people, and they failed miserably. Having said that, Suthep should have no part in the reform process, he has had his day. Abhisit should step aside, if a party wants the support of the public they must offer the people something, or someone they will vote for. Let us not forget that Abhisit pledged to not be PM again until the party wins an election. I for one expect that promise to be kept and will castigate him on the forum if he reneges.

On the surface, a reasonable assessment. Unfortunately, the explanation only skims the surface.

The unspoken circumstances that put the case in perspective are ignored. The PM and the PTP took office in difficult times. The Democrat party and its allies were intent on doing all that they could to sabotage and bring down the government. They made it very clear they would "get" her. The government had the view that there was a real threat of being violently overthrown by the military. Considering Thailand's history, it wasn't unreasonable.

It is understandable that a man who held a key position in the government and who was responsible for components of internal security had to be someone who could be counted on. In Thailand, only family can be trusted and even then, only up to a certain point. In the jaundiced world of Thai political life, there had to be a change, particularly of a person who was not a supporter of the government. Where the government erred, was in the appointment of someone who was "family". They should have appointed someone in the interim, a non descript person who was loyal. Perhaps, the view was that there was an immediate need to have a loyalist in the position. It was a miscalculation, For a government that has meticulously planned its return to power, its strategists erred and created the basis upon which the PM could be removed. Whatever the reasons, or the motives, it was poor political judgement to appoint a "family" member to the position. Had it been someone else, the case would have floundered.

That the government assumed its role in difficult times is a matter of record. That it therefore should have kept its collective nose clean should have been a given.

As with any other HR issue, changing peoples' jobs or firing them has rules that need to be followed - they weren't

"In Thailand, only family can be trusted and even then, only up to a certain point" - what a terrible statement and one that roughly defines why Thailand is in this position.

Politics aside, this ruling is very problematic from a procedural standpoint. The complaint was filed only against Ms Yingluck, but the court also found other cabinet members guilty without giving them a fair trial. Perhaps due process doesn't apply to the constitutional court?

So you can't appoint your own people to important posts, even in the face of intimidation and threats? You might want to call this one another coup--of the judicial variety.

On the surface, a reasonable assessment. Unfortunately, the explanation only skims the surface.

The unspoken circumstances that put the case in perspective are ignored. The PM and the PTP took office in difficult times. The Democrat party and its allies were intent on doing all that they could to sabotage and bring down the government. They made it very clear they would "get" her. The government had the view that there was a real threat of being violently overthrown by the military. Considering Thailand's history, it wasn't unreasonable.

It is understandable that a man who held a key position in the government and who was responsible for components of internal security had to be someone who could be counted on. In Thailand, only family can be trusted and even then, only up to a certain point. In the jaundiced world of Thai political life, there had to be a change, particularly of a person who was not a supporter of the government. Where the government erred, was in the appointment of someone who was "family". They should have appointed someone in the interim, a non descript person who was loyal. Perhaps, the view was that there was an immediate need to have a loyalist in the position. It was a miscalculation, For a government that has meticulously planned its return to power, its strategists erred and created the basis upon which the PM could be removed. Whatever the reasons, or the motives, it was poor political judgement to appoint a "family" member to the position. Had it been someone else, the case would have floundered.

If a.n. other had been appointed ??? there wasn't a.n.other it was a shin family.

Quote " they took office in difficult times" most new governments do, that's how they get in. Once IN what did they achieve ??? 3years of squander and corrupt governing defying the courts.

No government in Thailand would be violently overthrown by the army IF they governed as per rule and as sworn in on oath to do so. They had a wonderful chance this FAMILY to come clean and govern in fine fashion BUT was not interested, initially to get Thaksin back here to rule and charges dropped ---that would have been unlawful.

And only 191 sleeps till Santa comes for you

No correlation for how top army generals are so rich on their public servants wages. Must be nice living in your yellow world.

No doubt PT are corrupt, but surely the Thai people should get to say who steals from them

Pathetic!

The world is laughing at the elites and the low, low levels they have had to stoop to because their extreme unpopularity prohibits them from legitimately coming to power via elections.

It's business of the Thais, the world please stay out

Can you please show us a link to any western country where she even got a mention

Have tried all the Australia newspapers and they not give her dissmissal 1 line

Im my world western countries believe in the rule of LAW

On the surface, a reasonable assessment. Unfortunately, the explanation only skims the surface.

The unspoken circumstances that put the case in perspective are ignored. The PM and the PTP took office in difficult times. The Democrat party and its allies were intent on doing all that they could to sabotage and bring down the government. They made it very clear they would "get" her. The government had the view that there was a real threat of being violently overthrown by the military. Considering Thailand's history, it wasn't unreasonable.

It is understandable that a man who held a key position in the government and who was responsible for components of internal security had to be someone who could be counted on. In Thailand, only family can be trusted and even then, only up to a certain point. In the jaundiced world of Thai political life, there had to be a change, particularly of a person who was not a supporter of the government. Where the government erred, was in the appointment of someone who was "family". They should have appointed someone in the interim, a non descript person who was loyal. Perhaps, the view was that there was an immediate need to have a loyalist in the position. It was a miscalculation, For a government that has meticulously planned its return to power, its strategists erred and created the basis upon which the PM could be removed. Whatever the reasons, or the motives, it was poor political judgement to appoint a "family" member to the position. Had it been someone else, the case would have floundered.

If a.n. other had been appointed ??? there wasn't a.n.other it was a shin family.

Quote " they took office in difficult times" most new governments do, that's how they get in. Once IN what did they achieve ??? 3years of squander and corrupt governing defying the courts.

No government in Thailand would be violently overthrown by the army IF they governed as per rule and as sworn in on oath to do so. They had a wonderful chance this FAMILY to come clean and govern in fine fashion BUT was not interested, initially to get Thaksin back here to rule and charges dropped ---that would have been unlawful.

No, he isn't in the Shin Familiy, he's an ex-brother in law, which is not a relative. He wasn't 'family' ever. Family is blood line relatives.

He wasn't either family or a relative at the time of the transfer either.

On the surface, a reasonable assessment. Unfortunately, the explanation only skims the surface.

The unspoken circumstances that put the case in perspective are ignored. The PM and the PTP took office in difficult times. The Democrat party and its allies were intent on doing all that they could to sabotage and bring down the government. They made it very clear they would "get" her. The government had the view that there was a real threat of being violently overthrown by the military. Considering Thailand's history, it wasn't unreasonable.

It is understandable that a man who held a key position in the government and who was responsible for components of internal security had to be someone who could be counted on. In Thailand, only family can be trusted and even then, only up to a certain point. In the jaundiced world of Thai political life, there had to be a change, particularly of a person who was not a supporter of the government. Where the government erred, was in the appointment of someone who was "family". They should have appointed someone in the interim, a non descript person who was loyal. Perhaps, the view was that there was an immediate need to have a loyalist in the position. It was a miscalculation, For a government that has meticulously planned its return to power, its strategists erred and created the basis upon which the PM could be removed. Whatever the reasons, or the motives, it was poor political judgement to appoint a "family" member to the position. Had it been someone else, the case would have floundered.

If a.n. other had been appointed ??? there wasn't a.n.other it was a shin family.

Quote " they took office in difficult times" most new governments do, that's how they get in. Once IN what did they achieve ??? 3years of squander and corrupt governing defying the courts.

No government in Thailand would be violently overthrown by the army IF they governed as per rule and as sworn in on oath to do so. They had a wonderful chance this FAMILY to come clean and govern in fine fashion BUT was not interested, initially to get Thaksin back here to rule and charges dropped ---that would have been unlawful.

And only 191 sleeps till Santa comes for you

No correlation for how top army generals are so rich on their public servants wages. Must be nice living in your yellow world.

No doubt PT are corrupt, but surely the Thai people should get to say who steals from them

For starters I am NOT yellow--now they do not exist ----The Thai people have to be taught what is good and bad as most do not know. Maybe this --GET OUT to Yingluck will serve as a waking up lesson. If Thai education is no good for the masses how can they have knowledge to vote clearly, when they ty they are intimidated in rural areas.

On the surface, a reasonable assessment. Unfortunately, the explanation only skims the surface.

The unspoken circumstances that put the case in perspective are ignored. The PM and the PTP took office in difficult times. The Democrat party and its allies were intent on doing all that they could to sabotage and bring down the government. They made it very clear they would "get" her. The government had the view that there was a real threat of being violently overthrown by the military. Considering Thailand's history, it wasn't unreasonable.

It is understandable that a man who held a key position in the government and who was responsible for components of internal security had to be someone who could be counted on. In Thailand, only family can be trusted and even then, only up to a certain point. In the jaundiced world of Thai political life, there had to be a change, particularly of a person who was not a supporter of the government. Where the government erred, was in the appointment of someone who was "family". They should have appointed someone in the interim, a non descript person who was loyal. Perhaps, the view was that there was an immediate need to have a loyalist in the position. It was a miscalculation, For a government that has meticulously planned its return to power, its strategists erred and created the basis upon which the PM could be removed. Whatever the reasons, or the motives, it was poor political judgement to appoint a "family" member to the position. Had it been someone else, the case would have floundered.

If PTP were aware that the Dems were out to "get" them it may have been prudent for them to operate in an above board, open, legal way. That has never been Thaksins style. The most disturbing, illegal, contemptuous act by PTP was the passing of the amnesty bill in the middle of the night after amending the bill after the first reading. I think the party will be dissolved over that. The sad thing is that they could have done so much for the people, and they failed miserably. Having said that, Suthep should have no part in the reform process, he has had his day. Abhisit should step aside, if a party wants the support of the public they must offer the people something, or someone they will vote for. Let us not forget that Abhisit pledged to not be PM again until the party wins an election. I for one expect that promise to be kept and will castigate him on the forum if he reneges.

sorry I am confused

Please add a link to this statement

What I read was he will not run for PM if his new plan is adopted by all parties

are we reading different newspapers

I could be wrong ?

On the surface, a reasonable assessment. Unfortunately, the explanation only skims the surface.

The unspoken circumstances that put the case in perspective are ignored. The PM and the PTP took office in difficult times. The Democrat party and its allies were intent on doing all that they could to sabotage and bring down the government. They made it very clear they would "get" her. The government had the view that there was a real threat of being violently overthrown by the military. Considering Thailand's history, it wasn't unreasonable.

It is understandable that a man who held a key position in the government and who was responsible for components of internal security had to be someone who could be counted on. In Thailand, only family can be trusted and even then, only up to a certain point. In the jaundiced world of Thai political life, there had to be a change, particularly of a person who was not a supporter of the government. Where the government erred, was in the appointment of someone who was "family". They should have appointed someone in the interim, a non descript person who was loyal. Perhaps, the view was that there was an immediate need to have a loyalist in the position. It was a miscalculation, For a government that has meticulously planned its return to power, its strategists erred and created the basis upon which the PM could be removed. Whatever the reasons, or the motives, it was poor political judgement to appoint a "family" member to the position. Had it been someone else, the case would have floundered.

If PTP were aware that the Dems were out to "get" them it may have been prudent for them to operate in an above board, open, legal way. That has never been Thaksins style. The most disturbing, illegal, contemptuous act by PTP was the passing of the amnesty bill in the middle of the night after amending the bill after the first reading. I think the party will be dissolved over that. The sad thing is that they could have done so much for the people, and they failed miserably. Having said that, Suthep should have no part in the reform process, he has had his day. Abhisit should step aside, if a party wants the support of the public they must offer the people something, or someone they will vote for. Let us not forget that Abhisit pledged to not be PM again until the party wins an election. I for one expect that promise to be kept and will castigate him on the forum if he reneges.

But they did, the took 4 days to approve a single transfer of a single civil servant, replacing him with a similar civil servant, who was qualified and experienced and not a relative and not family.

Which is what Abhisit did when he transferred Thawil into the job in the first place. Of course a PM would want to move a civil servant in charge during the 2010 massacre.

On the surface, a reasonable assessment. Unfortunately, the explanation only skims the surface.

The unspoken circumstances that put the case in perspective are ignored. The PM and the PTP took office in difficult times. The Democrat party and its allies were intent on doing all that they could to sabotage and bring down the government. They made it very clear they would "get" her. The government had the view that there was a real threat of being violently overthrown by the military. Considering Thailand's history, it wasn't unreasonable.

It is understandable that a man who held a key position in the government and who was responsible for components of internal security had to be someone who could be counted on. In Thailand, only family can be trusted and even then, only up to a certain point. In the jaundiced world of Thai political life, there had to be a change, particularly of a person who was not a supporter of the government. Where the government erred, was in the appointment of someone who was "family". They should have appointed someone in the interim, a non descript person who was loyal. Perhaps, the view was that there was an immediate need to have a loyalist in the position. It was a miscalculation, For a government that has meticulously planned its return to power, its strategists erred and created the basis upon which the PM could be removed. Whatever the reasons, or the motives, it was poor political judgement to appoint a "family" member to the position. Had it been someone else, the case would have floundered.

If a.n. other had been appointed ??? there wasn't a.n.other it was a shin family.

Quote " they took office in difficult times" most new governments do, that's how they get in. Once IN what did they achieve ??? 3years of squander and corrupt governing defying the courts.

No government in Thailand would be violently overthrown by the army IF they governed as per rule and as sworn in on oath to do so. They had a wonderful chance this FAMILY to come clean and govern in fine fashion BUT was not interested, initially to get Thaksin back here to rule and charges dropped ---that would have been unlawful.

And only 191 sleeps till Santa comes for you

No correlation for how top army generals are so rich on their public servants wages. Must be nice living in your yellow world.

No doubt PT are corrupt, but surely the Thai people should get to say who steals from them

For starters I am NOT yellow--now they do not exist ----The Thai people have to be taught what is good and bad as most do not know. Maybe this --GET OUT to Yingluck will serve as a waking up lesson. If Thai education is no good for the masses how can they have knowledge to vote clearly, when they ty they are intimidated in rural areas.

More excuses, we don't vote for Abhisit because he used the army and massacred a bunch of people in the middle of the capital city, in front of the eyes of the world. Then he made it s crime to say so, then he declared the reds terrorists who shot themselves, then he declared the opposition PPP party illegal, declared 'red zones' in PPP voter districts where his goons went around arresting politicians and suppressing politics.

So we have good reason not to vote for him.

Pathetic!

The world is laughing at the elites and the low, low levels they have had to stoop to because their extreme unpopularity prohibits them from legitimately coming to power via elections.

It's business of the Thais, the world please stay out

Can you please show us a link to any western country where she even got a mention

Have tried all the Australia newspapers and they not give her dissmissal 1 line

Im my world western countries believe in the rule of LAW

You have internet in your house - well use it

Coverage on the BBC and Guardian online paper.

Sent from my i-mobile IQ 2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

So you can't appoint your own people to important posts, even in the face of intimidation and threats? You might want to call this one another coup--of the judicial variety.

That's called nepotism. I guess you support that. In most developed countries, people earn their positions. This explains exactly WHY Thailand is in the position it is.

On the surface, a reasonable assessment. Unfortunately, the explanation only skims the surface.

The unspoken circumstances that put the case in perspective are ignored. The PM and the PTP took office in difficult times. The Democrat party and its allies were intent on doing all that they could to sabotage and bring down the government. They made it very clear they would "get" her. The government had the view that there was a real threat of being violently overthrown by the military. Considering Thailand's history, it wasn't unreasonable.

It is understandable that a man who held a key position in the government and who was responsible for components of internal security had to be someone who could be counted on. In Thailand, only family can be trusted and even then, only up to a certain point. In the jaundiced world of Thai political life, there had to be a change, particularly of a person who was not a supporter of the government. Where the government erred, was in the appointment of someone who was "family". They should have appointed someone in the interim, a non descript person who was loyal. Perhaps, the view was that there was an immediate need to have a loyalist in the position. It was a miscalculation, For a government that has meticulously planned its return to power, its strategists erred and created the basis upon which the PM could be removed. Whatever the reasons, or the motives, it was poor political judgement to appoint a "family" member to the position. Had it been someone else, the case would have floundered.

If a.n. other had been appointed ??? there wasn't a.n.other it was a shin family.

Quote " they took office in difficult times" most new governments do, that's how they get in. Once IN what did they achieve ??? 3years of squander and corrupt governing defying the courts.

No government in Thailand would be violently overthrown by the army IF they governed as per rule and as sworn in on oath to do so. They had a wonderful chance this FAMILY to come clean and govern in fine fashion BUT was not interested, initially to get Thaksin back here to rule and charges dropped ---that would have been unlawful.

No, he isn't in the Shin Familiy, he's an ex-brother in law, which is not a relative. He wasn't 'family' ever. Family is blood line relatives.

He wasn't either family or a relative at the time of the transfer either.

Then I stand corrected and admit I didn't do my homework. I erred. Apologies.

Shameful Thai circus.

Is this what they call coup d' pen?

On the surface, a reasonable assessment. Unfortunately, the explanation only skims the surface.

The unspoken circumstances that put the case in perspective are ignored. The PM and the PTP took office in difficult times. The Democrat party and its allies were intent on doing all that they could to sabotage and bring down the government. They made it very clear they would "get" her. The government had the view that there was a real threat of being violently overthrown by the military. Considering Thailand's history, it wasn't unreasonable.

It is understandable that a man who held a key position in the government and who was responsible for components of internal security had to be someone who could be counted on. In Thailand, only family can be trusted and even then, only up to a certain point. In the jaundiced world of Thai political life, there had to be a change, particularly of a person who was not a supporter of the government. Where the government erred, was in the appointment of someone who was "family". They should have appointed someone in the interim, a non descript person who was loyal. Perhaps, the view was that there was an immediate need to have a loyalist in the position. It was a miscalculation, For a government that has meticulously planned its return to power, its strategists erred and created the basis upon which the PM could be removed. Whatever the reasons, or the motives, it was poor political judgement to appoint a "family" member to the position. Had it been someone else, the case would have floundered.

If a.n. other had been appointed ??? there wasn't a.n.other it was a shin family.

Quote " they took office in difficult times" most new governments do, that's how they get in. Once IN what did they achieve ??? 3years of squander and corrupt governing defying the courts.

No government in Thailand would be violently overthrown by the army IF they governed as per rule and as sworn in on oath to do so. They had a wonderful chance this FAMILY to come clean and govern in fine fashion BUT was not interested, initially to get Thaksin back here to rule and charges dropped ---that would have been unlawful.

No, he isn't in the Shin Familiy, he's an ex-brother in law, which is not a relative. He wasn't 'family' ever. Family is blood line relatives.

He wasn't either family or a relative at the time of the transfer either.

Hey the term family is used for persons very loyal and close to the trough, it is a rough guide to what is going on.

In Thailand as everyone knows a friend can be classed as FAMILY---so the clever clogs answer is one that is used in normal circles. I do agree on that.

Hope you get my gist ??

Knowing your bias I can understand your lashing out at anything other than recognizing the wrong, another in complete denial---you are all well noted for your loyalty to corrupt governing.

Pathetic!

The world is laughing at the elites and the low, low levels they have had to stoop to because their extreme unpopularity prohibits them from legitimately coming to power via elections.

It's business of the Thais, the world please stay out

Can you please show us a link to any western country where she even got a mention

Have tried all the Australia newspapers and they not give her dissmissal 1 line

Im my world western countries believe in the rule of LAW

Try this link.

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/World+News/Asia/Thailand/Politics

On the surface, a reasonable assessment. Unfortunately, the explanation only skims the surface.

The unspoken circumstances that put the case in perspective are ignored. The PM and the PTP took office in difficult times. The Democrat party and its allies were intent on doing all that they could to sabotage and bring down the government. They made it very clear they would "get" her. The government had the view that there was a real threat of being violently overthrown by the military. Considering Thailand's history, it wasn't unreasonable.

It is understandable that a man who held a key position in the government and who was responsible for components of internal security had to be someone who could be counted on. In Thailand, only family can be trusted and even then, only up to a certain point. In the jaundiced world of Thai political life, there had to be a change, particularly of a person who was not a supporter of the government. Where the government erred, was in the appointment of someone who was "family". They should have appointed someone in the interim, a non descript person who was loyal. Perhaps, the view was that there was an immediate need to have a loyalist in the position. It was a miscalculation, For a government that has meticulously planned its return to power, its strategists erred and created the basis upon which the PM could be removed. Whatever the reasons, or the motives, it was poor political judgement to appoint a "family" member to the position. Had it been someone else, the case would have floundered.

If a.n. other had been appointed ??? there wasn't a.n.other it was a shin family.

Quote " they took office in difficult times" most new governments do, that's how they get in. Once IN what did they achieve ??? 3years of squander and corrupt governing defying the courts.

No government in Thailand would be violently overthrown by the army IF they governed as per rule and as sworn in on oath to do so. They had a wonderful chance this FAMILY to come clean and govern in fine fashion BUT was not interested, initially to get Thaksin back here to rule and charges dropped ---that would have been unlawful.

No, he isn't in the Shin Familiy, he's an ex-brother in law, which is not a relative. He wasn't 'family' ever. Family is blood line relatives.

He wasn't either family or a relative at the time of the transfer either.

Then I stand corrected and admit I didn't do my homework. I erred. Apologies.

I can only imagine the poor 'ex brother-in-law's face when Thaksin told him "You were never family!!"

Family is blood line relatives? Should I now refer to my family as 'my family and my wife'? My wife does not share the same blood line as me. Are you from Somerset, perchance?

Could the next prime minister employ his/her wife or husband as deputy prime minister etc and say "They ain't the same blood' Seems kinda harsh on any future prime minister who indulges in incest.

Blood related, brother-in-law, ex brother-in-law etc - It's still nepotism in this case. "Your honour, he's actually my 'ex brother-in-law', and it's merely coincidence that he's the best man for this position, and it's also a coincidence that this kind of coincidence has happened before more than once"

On the surface, a reasonable assessment. Unfortunately, the explanation only skims the surface.

The unspoken circumstances that put the case in perspective are ignored. The PM and the PTP took office in difficult times. The Democrat party and its allies were intent on doing all that they could to sabotage and bring down the government. They made it very clear they would "get" her. The government had the view that there was a real threat of being violently overthrown by the military. Considering Thailand's history, it wasn't unreasonable.

It is understandable that a man who held a key position in the government and who was responsible for components of internal security had to be someone who could be counted on. In Thailand, only family can be trusted and even then, only up to a certain point. In the jaundiced world of Thai political life, there had to be a change, particularly of a person who was not a supporter of the government. Where the government erred, was in the appointment of someone who was "family". They should have appointed someone in the interim, a non descript person who was loyal. Perhaps, the view was that there was an immediate need to have a loyalist in the position. It was a miscalculation, For a government that has meticulously planned its return to power, its strategists erred and created the basis upon which the PM could be removed. Whatever the reasons, or the motives, it was poor political judgement to appoint a "family" member to the position. Had it been someone else, the case would have floundered.

If a.n. other had been appointed ??? there wasn't a.n.other it was a shin family.

Quote " they took office in difficult times" most new governments do, that's how they get in. Once IN what did they achieve ??? 3years of squander and corrupt governing defying the courts.

No government in Thailand would be violently overthrown by the army IF they governed as per rule and as sworn in on oath to do so. They had a wonderful chance this FAMILY to come clean and govern in fine fashion BUT was not interested, initially to get Thaksin back here to rule and charges dropped ---that would have been unlawful.

No, he isn't in the Shin Familiy, he's an ex-brother in law, which is not a relative. He wasn't 'family' ever. Family is blood line relatives.

He wasn't either family or a relative at the time of the transfer either.

Hey the term family is used for persons very loyal and close to the trough, it is a rough guide to what is going on.

In Thailand as everyone knows a friend can be classed as FAMILY---so the clever clogs answer is one that is used in normal circles. I do agree on that.

Hope you get my gist ??

Knowing your bias I can understand your lashing out at anything other than recognizing the wrong, another in complete denial---you are all well noted for your loyalty to corrupt governing.

Then Abhisit and Thawil are family, because they were friends when Abhisit transferred him into that job in the first place.

No, he isn't in the Shin Familiy, he's an ex-brother in law, which is not a relative. He wasn't 'family' ever. Family is blood line relatives.

He wasn't either family or a relative at the time of the transfer either.

Then I stand corrected and admit I didn't do my homework. I erred. Apologies.

I can only imagine the poor 'ex brother-in-law's face when Thaksin told him "You were never family!!"

Family is blood line relatives? Should I now refer to my family as 'my family and my wife'? My wife does not share the same blood line as me. Are you from Somerset, perchance?

Could the next prime minister employ his/her wife or husband as deputy prime minister etc and say "They ain't the same blood' Seems kinda harsh on any future prime minister who indulges in incest.

Blood related, brother-in-law, ex brother-in-law etc - It's still nepotism in this case. "Your honour, he's actually my 'ex brother-in-law', and it's merely coincidence that he's the best man for this position, and it's also a coincidence that this kind of coincidence has happened before more than once"

He also didn't marry into the Shin family, he's not the spouse, his sister divorced in 2008.

He was a police chief, so he's a good choice for that role, as to whether he's the best choice, that's a judgement for her to make. As the elected Prime Minister, we elected her to run the country and transferring civil servants at his pay grade is one of her jobs.