Is this a judicial coup?

[Nickymaster]

When a pm or minister or other authority breaks the law it goes way much further than "simple" missmanagement. Courts should step in when the law is broken.

Lil sis broke the law, so out she went.

Later she will have to answer for her management approach. Presiding over the rice scheme commission which involves many billions but not attending one single meeting of that commission, may not exactly be breaking the law but the least be very negligent. Ignoring multiple warnings about fraud and huge costs add up to a far from competent image.

And then there will be much more. F.i. the trip when she took about 40 suitcases - protected against inspection, coz diplomatic luggage - and returned with only two. There definitely is a bad smell surrounding her functioning as pm. And it has nothing to to do with the choice of pefume by the darling of Isan...

I wouldn't call this a judicial coup.

You have made a blatantly false and malicious insinuation . Now back up your disgusting allegation.

Correct him!

[wprime]

Funnt how this whole thing started on the TS amnesty thing. Where were the generals and Suthep when they were granting themselves amnesty after the coup?

It started nearly two decades before TS was even born. Thaksin, like almost every past Thai PM, was just an opportunist who took advantage of a broken system to enhance his own net wealth and power. He just did it better than any prior PM.

[Som wat]

It must be so tiring for the elite.

Just when oh when are the peasant majority going to vote in the correct people, so they can stop this merry go round of finding ways to remove the democratically elected.

[sumtingwong]

"Is this a judicial coup?'

No it is not. They were guilty.

samuiforsale "CONSTITUTION OF THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND (2007)"
Section 268. The Prime Minister and a Minister shall not perform any act in violation of the provisions of section 266, except the performance of powers and duties for the administration of State affairs as stated to the National Assembly or as provided by law.
Section 266. A member of the House of Representatives and a senator shall not, through the status or position of member of the House of Representatives or senator, interfere or intervene the following matters, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of his own or other persons or of political party:
(1) the performance of official duties or routine works of a government official, official or employee of a government agency, State agency, State agency, an enterprise in which the State is a major shareholders or a local government organisation;
(2) the recruitment, appointment, reshuffle, transfer, promotion and elevation of the salary scale of a government official holding a permanent position or receiving salary and not being a political official, an official or employee of a government agency, State agency, State enterprise or local government organisation;
(3) the removal from office of a government official holding a permanent position or receiving salary and not being a political official, an official or employee of a government agency, State agency, State enterprise or local government organisation.

[MaxLee]

Is this a judicial coup?

Hell no, because innocent people become victims of AND within various brawls, bombings and etc. related from both sides Pro- and Anti-government protestors.

Edited May 13, 2014 by MaxLee

[Acharn]

she took about 40 suitcases - protected against inspection, coz diplomatic luggage - and returned with only two.

Where can we read more about this, please provide a link if true

Maybe a mix up with the Thaksin kids who went to London with lots of luggage and seemed to return with slightly less, six months ago when the anti-government protests started against the blanket amnesty bill ?

I was thinking maybe one of Pochamon's trips. I seem to remember a big brouhaha back in 2008 or 2009. The "40 pieces of luggage" seems familiar.

[rubl]

Are you in the habit of defaming a Senate and the Judiciary in a country?

Also you seem to provide half-truths. The 2007 constitution is mainly the 1997 version with clarificatons. The main black blob is the coup involved amnesty bit only.

The rest is just your opinion as it would seem to you anyone who is against Yingluck, Pheu Thai must be wrong.

Clarifications????

May be do some reading?

"Deconstructing Thailand's (New) Eighteenth Constitution

Vitit Muntarbhorn

This article originally appeared in Chulalongkorn Law Volume 26 No.3 February 2008."

http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html

[Raymonddiaz]

The so called " elites" bangkokians think they are first class citizens. Better than the issan second class citizens. It is indeed a Judicial Coup.

[Acharn]

Let's refresh our minds why there was a coup in the first place:

The military junta in a public announcement (blamed) Thaksin for the coup. The official statement said the ousted leader had caused an unprecedented rift in society, widespread corruption, nepotism, and interfered with independent agencies, crippling them so they cannot function. If [Thaksin's regime] is allowed to govern it will hurt the country. They have also repeatedly insulted the King. Thus the council needed to seize power.

You said the military broke the law with the coup. Could you please explain which law?

Well, I'm fairly sure it was called "The 1997 Constitution." Didn't they have to include a specific article in the 2007 Constitution, which they wrote, to grant amnesty to themselves? For violating the Constitution, that is. Maybe there's a statute on the books, too, but I'd suppose either a ministerial regulation or a Revolutionary Decree. Or maybe not because every coup they have to make their action legal. But it was definitely prohibited by the 1997 Constitution.

[geriatrickid]

Unfortunately some of our expert commentators from outside have no affinity with Thailand , they listen to a few comments and then make a news programme , so this is just silly nonsense of a judicial coup, the law was broken simple maths this , offences had occurred and if the courts ruling is dismissal then so be it , make no bones about it theses judges hold no interest in these politicians what so ever , they are a cut above the current cut of politicians, and lets face it previous and present governments have all been down this path in Thailand, that's the reason the constitution was enacted, to stop governments thinking they are a cut above the rest of the population , in reality they are a employer of the people, not the ruling junta.

The military dictatorship and its allies wrote the constitution. It contained multiple "laws" that would allow judicial intervention.

Then the military appointed senators such that it would maintain a majority of supporters in the senate.

Then the senate appointed judges and officials who had the "right" affiliations and views.

Then, when the Abhisit government took office, it made sure to top up its stranglehold on the senate.

After two successive PTP electoral victories, the PTP had a chance to appoint a few senators and although the elected senators numbers started to swing in favour of the PTP, it wasn't enough.

And now the military and its allies have a judiciary and senate that it appointed intervene to ensure that they can maintain their death grip on the country.

The senate and the judiciary are the legacy gift that keeps on giving. It's a lot like herpes.

If you don't want to see the manipulation and the interference, fine, you go along for the ride.

Are you in the habit of defaming a Senate and the Judiciary in a country?

Also you seem to provide half-truths. The 2007 constitution is mainly the 1997 version with clarificatons. The main black blob is the coup involved amnesty bit only.

The rest is just your opinion as it would seem to you anyone who is against Yingluck, Pheu Thai must be wrong.

I'll answer questions;

1. Is anything I wrote about the senate and the judiciary incorrect? If you want we can have a discussion as to which senators were appointed by the military dictatorship and the Abhisit government. We can then go through he list of elected senators if you want.

2. Half truth? The 2007 Constitution is not the 1997 Constitution. Why do you think the military dictatorship forbade any negative commentary of the 2007 Constitution, and why do you think they forbade anyone from campaigning against it? The 2007 Constitution laid the foundation for future interference in the democratic process by unelected senators and judges who owed their appointments to the military coup. In law, when a production process is flawed, the resulting product is deemed to be flawed. The very fact that the 2007 Constitution was drafted in an undemocratic fashion, makes the 2007 Constitution flawed. It was the product of an illegal act, the military coup.

3. My opinion? Really, are you so biased, that you cannot see that the major fight has been over control of the senate? The senate control the judicial appointments. If the senate is firmly anti government, it can continue to appoint judges who will sabotage the elected government. This won't end until the corrupt practice of appointing senators ends. Appointed senators is contrary to democracy and it is why many governments have abolished the position. No less than the conservative government in Canada has been leading a fight to do away with its own unelected senate and to force senators to be elected and to answer to the people.

Thanks for the set up. The next piece of Gouda is on me.

Edited May 13, 2014 by geriatrickid

[MGP]

The so called " elites" bangkokians think they are first class citizens. Better than the issan second class citizens. It is indeed a Judicial Coup.

We have a brand new parrot (4 posts so far) repeating the old mantra of the "elites". This is hilarious!

[sumtingwong]

Let's refresh our minds why there was a coup in the first place:

The military junta in a public announcement (blamed) Thaksin for the coup. The official statement said the ousted leader had caused an unprecedented rift in society, widespread corruption, nepotism, and interfered with independent agencies, crippling them so they cannot function. If [Thaksin's regime] is allowed to govern it will hurt the country. They have also repeatedly insulted the King. Thus the council needed to seize power.

You said the military broke the law with the coup. Could you please explain which law?

Well, I'm fairly sure it was called "The 1997 Constitution." Didn't they have to include a specific article in the 2007 Constitution, which they wrote, to grant amnesty to themselves? For violating the Constitution, that is. Maybe there's a statute on the books, too, but I'd suppose either a ministerial regulation or a Revolutionary Decree. Or maybe not because every coup they have to make their action legal. But it was definitely prohibited by the 1997 Constitution.

Please cite the section.

http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/1997/

[AleG]

I don't really have a problem, or not too much of one, for the courts "guilty" verdicts. If you're guilty of violating the law, that's all there is to it. What I do have a problem with is their "sentencing" on those guilty verdicts. Come on, removing a PM for one appearance on a cooking show. I'm sure there were other "options" and sanctions that could have been imposed. But it's also difficult to observe them as "non-partisan" when they dissolve a party for "vote fraud", yet fail to even listen to charges against the Democrats for the same thing, citing the suit as frivolous, stating there was no evidence for it, without even reading the suit to begin with. They simply rejected it out of hand. Ok, sorry folks, but THAT is biased. And, to appearances, they go after anything connected to Thaksin in any way like starving Pit Bulls after a fresh steak, while allowing cases against the "royal elites", such as PAD and Dems sit and collect dust. Where are the cases on the PAD's occupation of Government House, or the take over of the airport and shutting down the country? Why has Sondhi, with 5 convictions against him, still free to walk the streets? Let the punishment fit the crime, and apply the law equally and fairly for all, which, often times, doesn't seem to be the case.

Again with the "only guilty of appearing in a cooking show"

Hey, Just1Voice, read carefully now, OK?

Samak did not just appear on a cooking show, IT WAS HIS SHOW, HE WAS WORKING AND GETTING PAID FOR IT AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS A PM, then lied in court about it, both things being impeachable offences. You understood those written words there? Will you AGAIN come with the "removing a PM for one appearance on a cooking show" or will you show some intellectual honesty and stop it?

[Benmart]

Of course it is. The whole idea of this Thai drama is preposterous. What a waste of time and money to pay people to write this tripe.

"What a waste of time and money to pay people to write this tripe".

Freedom of thought, Freedom of speech and Freedom of the press perhaps? Foreign to some. Dear to others.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".

Voltaire

[rreddin]

Funnt how this whole thing started on the TS amnesty thing. Where were the generals and Suthep when they were granting themselves amnesty after the coup?

Suthep and Abhisit would also have benefited under the amnesty bill.

[Nickymaster]

The so called " elites" bangkokians think they are first class citizens. Better than the issan second class citizens. It is indeed a Judicial Coup.

Next time, try to convince us if you have something to say.

[Benmart]

I don't really have a problem, or not too much of one, for the courts "guilty" verdicts. If you're guilty of violating the law, that's all there is to it. What I do have a problem with is their "sentencing" on those guilty verdicts. Come on, removing a PM for one appearance on a cooking show. I'm sure there were other "options" and sanctions that could have been imposed. But it's also difficult to observe them as "non-partisan" when they dissolve a party for "vote fraud", yet fail to even listen to charges against the Democrats for the same thing, citing the suit as frivolous, stating there was no evidence for it, without even reading the suit to begin with. They simply rejected it out of hand. Ok, sorry folks, but THAT is biased. And, to appearances, they go after anything connected to Thaksin in any way like starving Pit Bulls after a fresh steak, while allowing cases against the "royal elites", such as PAD and Dems sit and collect dust. Where are the cases on the PAD's occupation of Government House, or the take over of the airport and shutting down the country? Why has Sondhi, with 5 convictions against him, still free to walk the streets? Let the punishment fit the crime, and apply the law equally and fairly for all, which, often times, doesn't seem to be the case.

Again with the "only guilty of appearing in a cooking show"

Hey, Just1Voice, read carefully now, OK?

Samak did not just appear on a cooking show, IT WAS HIS SHOW, HE WAS WORKING AND GETTING PAID FOR IT AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS A PM, then lied in court about it, both things being impeachable offences. You understood those written words there? Will you AGAIN come with the "removing a PM for one appearance on a cooking show" or will you show some intellectual honesty and stop it?

It is an art to be able to attack and dismantle the post and not the poster.

By the way, CAPS equals yelling I am told.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Benmart

[wprime]

The so called " elites" bangkokians think they are first class citizens. Better than the issan second class citizens. It is indeed a Judicial Coup.

Both sides of the conflict are billionaires using farmers as pawns to further their wealth and power.

[rubl]

The military dictatorship and its allies wrote the constitution. It contained multiple "laws" that would allow judicial intervention.

Then the military appointed senators such that it would maintain a majority of supporters in the senate.

Then the senate appointed judges and officials who had the "right" affiliations and views.

Then, when the Abhisit government took office, it made sure to top up its stranglehold on the senate.

After two successive PTP electoral victories, the PTP had a chance to appoint a few senators and although the elected senators numbers started to swing in favour of the PTP, it wasn't enough.

And now the military and its allies have a judiciary and senate that it appointed intervene to ensure that they can maintain their death grip on the country.

The senate and the judiciary are the legacy gift that keeps on giving. It's a lot like herpes.

If you don't want to see the manipulation and the interference, fine, you go along for the ride.

Are you in the habit of defaming a Senate and the Judiciary in a country?

Also you seem to provide half-truths. The 2007 constitution is mainly the 1997 version with clarificatons. The main black blob is the coup involved amnesty bit only.

The rest is just your opinion as it would seem to you anyone who is against Yingluck, Pheu Thai must be wrong.

I'll answer questions;

1. Is anything I wrote about the senate and the judiciary incorrect? If you want we can have a discussion as to which senators were appointed by the military dictatorship and the Abhisit government. We can then go through he list of elected senators if you want.

2. Half truth? The 2007 Constitution is not the 1997 Constitution. Why do you think the military dictatorship forbade any negative commentary of the 2007 Constitution, and why do you think they forbade anyone from campaigning against it? The 2007 Constitution laid the foundation for future interference in the democratic process by unelected senators and judges who owed their appointments to the military coup. In law, when a production process is flawed, the resulting product is deemed to be flawed. The very fact that the 2007 Constitution was drafted in an undemocratic fashion, makes the 2007 Constitution flawed. It was the product of an illegal act, the military coup.

3. My opinion? Really, are you so biased, that you cannot see that the major fight has been over control of the senate? The senate control the judicial appointments. If the senate is firmly anti government, it can continue to appoint judges who will sabotage the elected government. This won't end until the corrupt practice of appointing senators ends. Appointed senators is contrary to democracy and it is why many governments have abolished the position. No less than the conservative government in Canada has been leading a fight to do away with its own unelected senate and to force senators to be elected and to answer to the people.

Thanks for the set up. The next piece of Gouda is on me.

1. The military appointed senators to maintain a majority in Senate ?

2. The 2007 is indeed not the 1997 version,. I said mainly the same.

3. You confuse democracy with how a democracy is run. Like those who confuse democracy with elections.

4. Still a few democracies with appointed senators it would seem. How the House of Lords nowadays?

5. Pheu thai remarked after the Senate election this year that at least 40 were theirs.

6. Appointed senators need the same qualifications as elected senators.

7. Answer to the people? Like in Thaksin c.s.? Like the blanket amnesty bill pushing Yingluck government. Like the opposition obstruction of the Yingluck government?

[Thailand]

If it wasn't it is about as close to one that there could possibly have been.

Wonder what will happen when the PTP win the next elections which is very likely, I am sure certain events will take place to "warrant" judicial intervention to try to usurp the will of the people yet again.

Standard procedure here.

[AleG]

I don't really have a problem, or not too much of one, for the courts "guilty" verdicts. If you're guilty of violating the law, that's all there is to it. What I do have a problem with is their "sentencing" on those guilty verdicts. Come on, removing a PM for one appearance on a cooking show. I'm sure there were other "options" and sanctions that could have been imposed. But it's also difficult to observe them as "non-partisan" when they dissolve a party for "vote fraud", yet fail to even listen to charges against the Democrats for the same thing, citing the suit as frivolous, stating there was no evidence for it, without even reading the suit to begin with. They simply rejected it out of hand. Ok, sorry folks, but THAT is biased. And, to appearances, they go after anything connected to Thaksin in any way like starving Pit Bulls after a fresh steak, while allowing cases against the "royal elites", such as PAD and Dems sit and collect dust. Where are the cases on the PAD's occupation of Government House, or the take over of the airport and shutting down the country? Why has Sondhi, with 5 convictions against him, still free to walk the streets? Let the punishment fit the crime, and apply the law equally and fairly for all, which, often times, doesn't seem to be the case.

Again with the "only guilty of appearing in a cooking show"

Hey, Just1Voice, read carefully now, OK?

Samak did not just appear on a cooking show, IT WAS HIS SHOW, HE WAS WORKING AND GETTING PAID FOR IT AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS A PM, then lied in court about it, both things being impeachable offences. You understood those written words there? Will you AGAIN come with the "removing a PM for one appearance on a cooking show" or will you show some intellectual honesty and stop it?

It is an art to be able to attack and dismantle the post and not the poster.

By the way, CAPS equals yelling I am told.

The "only guilty of appearing in a cooking show" has been shown to be a lie over, and over and over again. But if you insist that I rehearse the reasons once more thankfully Wikipedia has a full explanation:

4. The Constitutional Court considered that:

• 4.1) The spirit of this Constitution is to prevent against the conflict of interest which may cause the condition of misconduct—the condition compelled to choose between self-interest and public interest—to be occurred. Should a holder of the position offered by the public be mindful on his own interest beyond the public interest, he could conduct an abuse of his power. Therefor, the accomplishment of the spirit of the Constitution is not only to construct the term "employee" through the definition under the Civil and Commercial Code, the law on labour protection or the law on taxation, as each law contains different spirit and purposes of enforcement; as well as the said laws are at the lower class than the Constitution. The term "employee" under the Constitution holds broader meaning than that of any other laws, and should be interpreted in a general path. For which the Official Dictionary of Thai Words by the Royal Institute, 1999 Version defined the term "employee" that "a person who works for any job; a person who agrees to work for other person, irrespective of how he is called."

• 4.2) Samak gave an interview in the Sakul Thai Magazine vol 47 (Tuesday 23 October 2001) pp 37 that he was monthly paid 80,000 Baht for being the emcee of the said programmes. And pursuant to the letter Samak replied to the Face Media Co., Ltd. on 25 December 2007 that he will do this work [being the emcee] without receiving anything as usual, this kind of letter has never been made by Samak prior to being enquired by the ECT. As well as the affirmation of Samak that he had received only the travelling costs from the Company was in contrary to the witnesses' testimonies and to the taxation evidences showing that what Samak previously received was the payments for working, not only the travelling costs as he represented.

• 4.3) As Samak defended himself that the programmes aired after he was in office and were pre-recorded months before he came in; however, in one of the said programmes Samak stated that: "... Came again those people who wanted to find a person to replace Mr Samak as boisterously appeared on the news. Yes, that group, the group which delivered an ultimatum to Mr Samak to resign. They newly discovered that the programme 'Tasting and Grumbling' was in breach of law. Because, as I assumed the premiership ... and you know, they said that it [the Constitution] told that I was unable to be a temporary employee, permanent employee ... But, I have to fill my words into your ears that after having been in the premiership for three months, I am engaging in such work still. Because I have got some counsels from the top legal advisers that ..." This was a defence contrary per se.

• 4.4) These were the clear traces of guilt. According to the conclusion of fact, it could be concluded that Samak was an employee to the said Company. Moreover, three Constitutional judges deemed that Samak portrait and the picture of rose apple mocking Samak’s nose using as a logo of the "Tasting and Grumbling" programme as well the status of being an emcee and the use of the name "Tasting and Grumbling", a popular quote of Samak, were the acts of engaging in a joint affair with a commercial purpose which were in breach of Section 267 of the Constitution. And another six judges deemed that it was not necessary to further decide as to what position Samak held in the said Company, as he was manifestly breached the law.

5. Therefore, the ConCourt, by the unanimous resolution, held that Samak has performed the acts in breach of Section 267 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (2007) which individually led to the termination of his premiership in accordance with Section 182 Paragraph One (7) of which, and called forth the vacating from office of the entire Council of Ministers under Section 180 Paragraph One (1). However, as the premiership has individually been terminated, all Ministers other than Samak could remain in office as a caretaker government and continuing their functions until the new Council of Ministers is sworn in.

[tullynagardy]

teamkorn ‏@teamkorn 26 mins

Question: Can you name a Democrat policy that served self-interest the same degree as Thaksin Amnesty Bill or decrease tax for corporates?

Suthep as deputy PM controlling the supply of Palm Oil to make himself a multi millionaire must come close!?

http://asiancorrespondent.com/49900/thailands-palm-oil-crisis-mr-s-strikes-again/

[pisico]

I don't really have a problem, or not too much of one, for the courts "guilty" verdicts. If you're guilty of violating the law, that's all there is to it. What I do have a problem with is their "sentencing" on those guilty verdicts. Come on, removing a PM for one appearance on a cooking show. I'm sure there were other "options" and sanctions that could have been imposed. But it's also difficult to observe them as "non-partisan" when they dissolve a party for "vote fraud", yet fail to even listen to charges against the Democrats for the same thing, citing the suit as frivolous, stating there was no evidence for it, without even reading the suit to begin with. They simply rejected it out of hand. Ok, sorry folks, but THAT is biased. And, to appearances, they go after anything connected to Thaksin in any way like starving Pit Bulls after a fresh steak, while allowing cases against the "royal elites", such as PAD and Dems sit and collect dust. Where are the cases on the PAD's occupation of Government House, or the take over of the airport and shutting down the country? Why has Sondhi, with 5 convictions against him, still free to walk the streets? Let the punishment fit the crime, and apply the law equally and fairly for all, which, often times, doesn't seem to be the case.

The alleged Anti Corruption commission denied YS to bring additional witnesses regarding the Rice Subsidy. The commission's rationale was that there was no need for additional witnesses because they already had enough evidence. Enough evidence to convict her?

That denial in itself signaled the bias and the expected outcome.

Why Suthep and Abhisit were not indicted by the same Commission when the Palm Oil scandal became notorious for months on end?

The judicial gerontocracy is as yellow as their party cards.

[sumtingwong]

I recommend term limits to end career politicians.

And anti nepotism laws in political appointments.

[MGP]

I recommend term limits to end career politicians.

And anti nepotism laws in political appointments.

+1

And another important one: do not allow people that made career at the Police to become politician

[pookiki]

Are you in the habit of defaming a Senate and the Judiciary in a country?

Also you seem to provide half-truths. The 2007 constitution is mainly the 1997 version with clarificatons. The main black blob is the coup involved amnesty bit only.

The rest is just your opinion as it would seem to you anyone who is against Yingluck, Pheu Thai must be wrong.

Clarifications????

May be do some reading?

"Deconstructing Thailand's (New) Eighteenth Constitution

Vitit Muntarbhorn

This article originally appeared in Chulalongkorn Law Volume 26 No.3 February 2008."

http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html

The power balance of the coup initiated constitution was greatly impacted by having the Senate changed from a fully elected body to an appointed body because the Senate controls so many of the appointment processes to other bodies and organizations. In fact, the 1997 Constitution specifically prohibited any Constitutional amendments that would change the way in which Senators were elected. This must have been a big issue since it was specifically addressed in the current Constitution and the CC rejected an attempt to amend the Constitution to return to a completely elected Senate as being 'unconstitutional'. Not only unconstitutional but those who voted for the amendment have been charged with an abuse of power and could face removal from office. I read the article but to label the full impact of the new constitution as just 'clarifications' is, to me, disingenuous.

[chotthee]

This pattern by the elites to deny the thai people the elected government has been going on for years.

They didn't care about the poor or the country people and still believe that they are above the disenfranchised people of Thailand.

Say what you want about the thaksin government but he raised the plight of the poor while the smug elitie sat on their hands and done nothing.

The problem is now for the yellow dems is that they have aligned themselves with sutep who's only agenda is to get something he cannot archive via the people and that's power.

The people of Thailand have seen their elected government thawted to many times now to have any respect for the courts as decision after decision goes against the government elected by the people.

The elections should go ahead on July 20 and once again the people will decide and it will be a PTP win.

The yellow dems should then do some soul searching reinvent themselves and gain the respect of the entire country not just their precious elite.

Repeating the word "elites" like a parrot.....

Nobody believes anymore the old mantra claiming that the Shinawatras protect and represent the rural classes, repeated on and on by the paid-pens of Amsterdam and Peroff. They represent their own interests, and the interest of their friend's corporations.

Look at this picture. Anant Asavabhokhin, a mega-rich elite CEO of Land & Houses at UDD protest yesterday:

And the consequent comments at Twitter:

teamkorn ‏@teamkorn 26 mins

MT @chomsowhat Anant Asavabhokhin, a CEO of Land & Houses was seen at UDD protest. Via @Nalinee_PLE pic.twitter.com/33KYpQZGV6

Did you know that Yingluck decreased corporate income tax (for the rich) from 30 percent to 20 percent? One reason why tax revenues fell.

I hv an interesting question for all of you. PT had policy that served self-interest i.e. Thaksin Amnesty Bill & decrease tax for corporates

Question: Can you name a Democrat policy that served self-interest the same degree as Thaksin Amnesty Bill or decrease tax for corporates?

I am afraid you have rather missed the point.The picture of Khun Anant, Land and House CEO, as an apparent redshirt sympathiser is of interest only because it is so unusual, the exception rather than the norm.That's why Korn's Twitter team posted it so as to suggest there are elite types on both sides.And so there are except far far more on one side than the other.As the Suthep movement slowly disintegrates, the Democrats revitalise themselves and a compromise is agreed I would expect many big corporates to abandon their current extremist and actually hopeless position.Their interest is making money for themselves and their shareholders, and they will do what is necessary to secure that end.I looked up the twitter comments you mention.The most perceptive was one recognising there were elite types on both sides but that the broadly supported the caretaker government had hugely more grassroots support.

Khun Anant, Land and House CEO was there as a spy.

He was in disguise, however he did not do a good job, and spotted by other spy serving both sides.

Edited May 13, 2014 by chotthee

[jayboy]

I don't really have a problem, or not too much of one, for the courts "guilty" verdicts. If you're guilty of violating the law, that's all there is to it. What I do have a problem with is their "sentencing" on those guilty verdicts. Come on, removing a PM for one appearance on a cooking show. I'm sure there were other "options" and sanctions that could have been imposed. But it's also difficult to observe them as "non-partisan" when they dissolve a party for "vote fraud", yet fail to even listen to charges against the Democrats for the same thing, citing the suit as frivolous, stating there was no evidence for it, without even reading the suit to begin with. They simply rejected it out of hand. Ok, sorry folks, but THAT is biased. And, to appearances, they go after anything connected to Thaksin in any way like starving Pit Bulls after a fresh steak, while allowing cases against the "royal elites", such as PAD and Dems sit and collect dust. Where are the cases on the PAD's occupation of Government House, or the take over of the airport and shutting down the country? Why has Sondhi, with 5 convictions against him, still free to walk the streets? Let the punishment fit the crime, and apply the law equally and fairly for all, which, often times, doesn't seem to be the case.

Again with the "only guilty of appearing in a cooking show"

Hey, Just1Voice, read carefully now, OK?

Samak did not just appear on a cooking show, IT WAS HIS SHOW, HE WAS WORKING AND GETTING PAID FOR IT AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS A PM, then lied in court about it, both things being impeachable offences. You understood those written words there? Will you AGAIN come with the "removing a PM for one appearance on a cooking show" or will you show some intellectual honesty and stop it?

I am afraid it is you that must show some honesty.Samak certainly was paid a very modest amount for his appearences.Doubtless he shouldn't have during his time as PM though he was hardly hiding anything given the programmes were being broadcast.If he had been instructed to stop by a court (or better his own advisers), nobody would have thought it strange.But to be removed from the PM position by a politically partisan court was clearly absurd and ridiculous.Given the repeated pattern culminating in Yingluck being removed for transferring an insubordinate official, one would have to be a simpleton not to understand the reactionary judicial activism involved.So spare us your faux rage,spluttering and misplaced outrage.And for a helpful hint - don't quote Wikipedia in your defence.Only dim bulbs do that.

Edited May 13, 2014 by jayboy

[fab4]

The military broke the law with the coup. Then they forced through a constitution that gifted the courts and and blatantly biased, unelected senate more power than the government. This is a ridiculous and untenable position, but how can it be changed without the approval of those institutions with a vested interest. They have done a good job of permanently tilting the balance of power in their favour.

Let's refresh our minds why there was a coup in the first place:

The military junta in a public announcement (blamed) Thaksin for the coup. The official statement said the ousted leader had caused “an unprecedented rift in society, widespread corruption, nepotism, and interfered with independent agencies, crippling them so they cannot function. If [Thaksin's regime] is allowed to govern it will hurt the country. They have also repeatedly insulted the King. Thus the council needed to seize power.”

You said the military broke the law with the coup. Could you please explain which law?

I can't believe you had to ask that. Try Article 68 of the Thai Constitution (Section 66 in the the 1997 Charter they ripped up.) Then compare that with amending the constitution on the election of Senators and tell me which is the real transgression of Article 68.

[Just1Voice]

Of course it is NOT. Yingluck (like Samak and Somchai) broke the law, hence it is only right to be sack. Less law will no longer be respected. Same same, if you don't stand up before the national anthem, you go to 5 years jail.

Are you talking about Thailand or North Korea?