Is this a judicial coup?

[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?

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.

How about, instead of calling me a dim bulb, you disprove the facts quoted in the Wikipedia citation?

[aussieinthailand]

Really?
When ever a NON Yellow government is formed the people in the south can not and will not accept that they lost the election and no longer have the power to keep the north disenfranchised and repressed and lining their pockets, so the choice is simple, have a military coup, or judicial coup,

The problem is that the next election when ever it is allowed the Dems will not change policy's to appeal to the hole of the country instead of just the powerful few then they will most likely loose again so the wheels go round and round.

[Baerboxer]

Yes it is

Oh no it's not!

Pantomime season starting early this year.

[Baerboxer]

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.

How about, instead of calling me a dim bulb, you disprove the facts quoted in the Wikipedia citation?

Don't bother AleG - your wasting your time. He always tries to imply that any poster with a different view to his own must be intellectually inferior. It helps hide the sophistry often found in his postings and is driven by an underlying self doubt and insecurity often associate with pretend intellectuals.

You are quite right. Samak broke the law. Had he apologized and shown remorse, maybe the court would have warned him. Who knows? But he chose to commit perjury, a much more serious offence, and lie to the court.

The fact that there is a repeated pattern of events in the history of Thaksin controlled political parties suggests they don't learn from previous mistakes. Stupidity, arrogance, or cavalier attitude to the law has consequences. They get caught, lie and get caught again. Never learn.

Again note how he tries to imply that Thawil was moved for insubordination. Yet there was no suggestion of this at the time of transfer or by Ms.Yingluck or her defense team. He also completely ignores the small issue of the bother of Thaksin's former wife benefiting considerably be being moved into the head of police role as a result. Clearly having a "family" member as head of police was the real motive to anyone with any sense.

There is nothing absurd or ridiculous about a PM and government caught acting illegally to facilitate nepotism and self benefit being removed from office, if, as in this case, the law permits it. What is insane, is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Something PTP/UDD and their great thinker have yet to learn.

He can't dispute your facts - because they are exactly that facts. But, as we have seen many times, PTP and their supporters here don't like facts.

[wandasloan]

Edited May 13, 2014 by wandasloan

[Melyn]

Singapore, that staunch defender of democracy, not in the least bit concerned about rebellion in its own nanny state, speaks....

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[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.

How about, instead of calling me a dim bulb, you disprove the facts quoted in the Wikipedia citation?

I don't think I have disputed anything in your Wikipedia reference, nor in any case does its content affect the explanation and context of Samak's dismissal provided in my post.

[gangrel]

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.

How about, instead of calling me a dim bulb, you disprove the facts quoted in the Wikipedia citation?

Don't bother AleG - your wasting your time. He always tries to imply that any poster with a different view to his own must be intellectually inferior. It helps hide the sophistry often found in his postings and is driven by an underlying self doubt and insecurity often associate with pretend intellectuals.

You are quite right. Samak broke the law. Had he apologized and shown remorse, maybe the court would have warned him. Who knows? But he chose to commit perjury, a much more serious offence, and lie to the court.

The fact that there is a repeated pattern of events in the history of Thaksin controlled political parties suggests they don't learn from previous mistakes. Stupidity, arrogance, or cavalier attitude to the law has consequences. They get caught, lie and get caught again. Never learn.

Again note how he tries to imply that Thawil was moved for insubordination. Yet there was no suggestion of this at the time of transfer or by Ms.Yingluck or her defense team. He also completely ignores the small issue of the bother of Thaksin's former wife benefiting considerably be being moved into the head of police role as a result. Clearly having a "family" member as head of police was the real motive to anyone with any sense.

There is nothing absurd or ridiculous about a PM and government caught acting illegally to facilitate nepotism and self benefit being removed from office, if, as in this case, the law permits it. What is insane, is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Something PTP/UDD and their great thinker have yet to learn.

He can't dispute your facts - because they are exactly that facts. But, as we have seen many times, PTP and their supporters here don't like facts.

It seems he sure does like to flame members with derogatory comments.

It's hard to miss as it seems to be in almost every one of his posts.

[Scamper]

Khaosod have at last a competitor. This article contains one side of an argument and one side of a story. It seeks not to balance itself with views on either side, but just one. It locks itself into a narrative that seeks to legitimize the UDD refrain " judicial coup ". The U.S. Supreme Court is known to be split down the middle between conservative and liberal mindsets. Whenever a 5 to 4 ruling is reached, to be sure, there is this political vault line yawning down it. Everyone sees it, everyone talks about it, and everyone knows it's there. Rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court are therefore are almost always not without controversy. And yet, the rulings are never challenged. To be sure, many will either agree or disagree with any particular ruling - often vehemently - but they are regard it as final nonetheless. In short, it isn't that the U.S. Supreme Court is infallible. It is simply final. And so should the Thai Constitutional Court. It also is the highest court in the land. It too is determined by a majority vote among judges. It too must be respected. For those who defend the U.S. Supreme Court but criticize the Thai Constitutional Court by saying " well, they aren't political " Yes they are. Deeply political. But that does not invalidate the rulings. It does not give them a different legal weight. Why should it in another country ? But you can't have it both ways. There is no legal basis for defying a court ruling by the highest court in the land. Nor should there be. And yet, again and again - and incredibly even from some foreign publications - we have this narrative highlighted again and again. And it is a false narrative.

[jayboy]

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.

How about, instead of calling me a dim bulb, you disprove the facts quoted in the Wikipedia citation?

Don't bother AleG - your wasting your time. He always tries to imply that any poster with a different view to his own must be intellectually inferior. It helps hide the sophistry often found in his postings and is driven by an underlying self doubt and insecurity often associate with pretend intellectuals.

You are quite right. Samak broke the law. Had he apologized and shown remorse, maybe the court would have warned him. Who knows? But he chose to commit perjury, a much more serious offence, and lie to the court.

The fact that there is a repeated pattern of events in the history of Thaksin controlled political parties suggests they don't learn from previous mistakes. Stupidity, arrogance, or cavalier attitude to the law has consequences. They get caught, lie and get caught again. Never learn.

Again note how he tries to imply that Thawil was moved for insubordination. Yet there was no suggestion of this at the time of transfer or by Ms.Yingluck or her defense team. He also completely ignores the small issue of the bother of Thaksin's former wife benefiting considerably be being moved into the head of police role as a result. Clearly having a "family" member as head of police was the real motive to anyone with any sense.

There is nothing absurd or ridiculous about a PM and government caught acting illegally to facilitate nepotism and self benefit being removed from office, if, as in this case, the law permits it. What is insane, is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Something PTP/UDD and their great thinker have yet to learn.

He can't dispute your facts - because they are exactly that facts. But, as we have seen many times, PTP and their supporters here don't like facts.

Actually I welcome discussion with those of different views.Isn't that the main object of discussion on this forum, with the expectation that we might arrive at some common understanding? I'm not sure your personal insults advance that objective much and I'm afraid your own unlettered reference to "pretend intellecutuals" pigeon holes you more devastatingly than I ever could.

In any event your rather laboured comments seem to be beside the point.As already mentioned no informed person suggests the "offences" were invented, simply that the penalties exacted were absurdly disproportionate.They only can be explained in the context of the policy of judicial intervention already explained on this forum.

If you deny Thawil was an insubordinate official I'm not sure how you would explain the evidence to the contrary.In any case it's quite normal for Ministers to transfer obstructionist senior officials, in this case one very close to retirement anyway.The point that you fail to grasp is that the details are not of central importance.Even if a court ordered a reinstatement, that's not sufficient reason to dismiss the PM.

[Bakseeda]

For the good of the whole nation, Issan and the North should be given autonomy... Let it become one area with Shinewatras as their leaders.. Allow the peoples to the west , Bangkok and south to have their own parliament... And one King for all... east solution..

[chuang]

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

Yes I too would like to read about it...come on Eric enlighten us....

[peterquixote]

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.

I suppose we could correct the stutters basic failure with English, eg 'the smug elite and done nothing ' perhaps to did nothing , but then he is stuttering and has a bird brain,

[tullynagardy]

This article contains one side of an argument and one side of a story. It seeks not to balance itself with views on either side, but just one.

Like most of your long winded posts then

[mrtoad]

There has to be laws to prevent convicted criminals from abuse of power. PTP continue to break laws and then cry foul.

[AleG]

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.

How about, instead of calling me a dim bulb, you disprove the facts quoted in the Wikipedia citation?

I don't think I have disputed anything in your Wikipedia reference, nor in any case does its content affect the explanation and context of Samak's dismissal provided in my post.

Your argument is that the courts were too harsh against Samak by removing him as PM was a terrible, terrible penalty... it doesn't seem so harsh in view of the fact that he could had been reinstated the next day by Thaksin's party voting him back in, which they didn't.

By the way, very rich of you saying:

Actually I welcome discussion with those of different views.Isn't that the main object of discussion on this forum, with the expectation that we might arrive at some common understanding? I'm not sure your personal insults advance that objective much and I'm afraid your own unlettered reference to "pretend intellecutuals" pigeon holes you more devastatingly than I ever could.

after writing to me: "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."

What an utter hypocrite.

[Kered]

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.

I could support this view if it was to be a fair and honest election but their is nothing more elitist and undemocratic than Thaksin Shinawatra and his family using the poorer people of Thailand in order to gain power and increase their personal wealth.

[rubl]

Actually I welcome discussion with those of different views.Isn't that the main object of discussion on this forum, with the expectation that we might arrive at some common understanding? I'm not sure your personal insults advance that objective much and I'm afraid your own unlettered reference to "pretend intellecutuals" pigeon holes you more devastatingly than I ever could.

In any event your rather laboured comments seem to be beside the point.As already mentioned no informed person suggests the "offences" were invented, simply that the penalties exacted were absurdly disproportionate.They only can be explained in the context of the policy of judicial intervention already explained on this forum.

If you deny Thawil was an insubordinate official I'm not sure how you would explain the evidence to the contrary.In any case it's quite normal for Ministers to transfer obstructionist senior officials, in this case one very close to retirement anyway.The point that you fail to grasp is that the details are not of central importance.Even if a court ordered a reinstatement, that's not sufficient reason to dismiss the PM.

You may have missed this, jayboy, but upon being asked the C.C. ruled that the 'promoting' to the inactive post of Advisor to the PM was a case of 'conflict of interest'

[fab4]

Actually I welcome discussion with those of different views.Isn't that the main object of discussion on this forum, with the expectation that we might arrive at some common understanding? I'm not sure your personal insults advance that objective much and I'm afraid your own unlettered reference to "pretend intellecutuals" pigeon holes you more devastatingly than I ever could.

In any event your rather laboured comments seem to be beside the point.As already mentioned no informed person suggests the "offences" were invented, simply that the penalties exacted were absurdly disproportionate.They only can be explained in the context of the policy of judicial intervention already explained on this forum.

If you deny Thawil was an insubordinate official I'm not sure how you would explain the evidence to the contrary.In any case it's quite normal for Ministers to transfer obstructionist senior officials, in this case one very close to retirement anyway.The point that you fail to grasp is that the details are not of central importance.Even if a court ordered a reinstatement, that's not sufficient reason to dismiss the PM.

You may have missed this, jayboy, but upon being asked the C.C. ruled that the 'promoting' to the inactive post of Advisor to the PM was a case of 'conflict of interest'

One would question the CC's independence as they did not see fit to dismiss abhisit , at the time, for transferring the chief of police so that he could get his choice in. Also a conflict of interest.

Unfortunately people like yourself don't seem to regard this as seriously as you do Yingluck "case", so perhaps you can understand why your sense of "what's right" wears a bit thin.

[rubl]

Actually I welcome discussion with those of different views.Isn't that the main object of discussion on this forum, with the expectation that we might arrive at some common understanding? I'm not sure your personal insults advance that objective much and I'm afraid your own unlettered reference to "pretend intellecutuals" pigeon holes you more devastatingly than I ever could.

In any event your rather laboured comments seem to be beside the point.As already mentioned no informed person suggests the "offences" were invented, simply that the penalties exacted were absurdly disproportionate.They only can be explained in the context of the policy of judicial intervention already explained on this forum.

If you deny Thawil was an insubordinate official I'm not sure how you would explain the evidence to the contrary.In any case it's quite normal for Ministers to transfer obstructionist senior officials, in this case one very close to retirement anyway.The point that you fail to grasp is that the details are not of central importance.Even if a court ordered a reinstatement, that's not sufficient reason to dismiss the PM.

You may have missed this, jayboy, but upon being asked the C.C. ruled that the 'promoting' to the inactive post of Advisor to the PM was a case of 'conflict of interest'

One would question the CC's independence as they did not see fit to dismiss abhisit , at the time, for transferring the chief of police so that he could get his choice in. Also a conflict of interest.

Unfortunately people like yourself don't seem to regard this as seriously as you do Yingluck "case", so perhaps you can understand why your sense of "what's right" wears a bit thin.

Was an Abhisit relative involved?

Unfortunately people like yourself seem to be unable to see the differences of the cases.

BTW we had this discussion on "private citizen Abhisit to re-instate a former NPC" a while ago. You were incorrect that time, so don't force me to look up that topic again.

[siampolee]

So the country and its people should be totally content to endure the rampant corruption, nepotism, cronyism, manipulation of the judicial system, taxation and company laws along with the self promotion that have been the hallmarks of all of the Shinwatra influenced administrations over the last decade yes?

Criminals are outside of the lines of respect and as such the recent and now current administration members are being judged.One wonders how those unpaid rice farmers feel now along with the unpaid first car buyers?

It is not a judicial coup it is enforcement of the law(s) to the chagrin of those new self appointed elite as well as the old elite. Indeed a novelty here in Thailand.

Edited May 13, 2014 by siampolee

[fab4]

Actually I welcome discussion with those of different views.Isn't that the main object of discussion on this forum, with the expectation that we might arrive at some common understanding? I'm not sure your personal insults advance that objective much and I'm afraid your own unlettered reference to "pretend intellecutuals" pigeon holes you more devastatingly than I ever could.

In any event your rather laboured comments seem to be beside the point.As already mentioned no informed person suggests the "offences" were invented, simply that the penalties exacted were absurdly disproportionate.They only can be explained in the context of the policy of judicial intervention already explained on this forum.

If you deny Thawil was an insubordinate official I'm not sure how you would explain the evidence to the contrary.In any case it's quite normal for Ministers to transfer obstructionist senior officials, in this case one very close to retirement anyway.The point that you fail to grasp is that the details are not of central importance.Even if a court ordered a reinstatement, that's not sufficient reason to dismiss the PM.

You may have missed this, jayboy, but upon being asked the C.C. ruled that the 'promoting' to the inactive post of Advisor to the PM was a case of 'conflict of interest'

One would question the CC's independence as they did not see fit to dismiss abhisit , at the time, for transferring the chief of police so that he could get his choice in. Also a conflict of interest.

Unfortunately people like yourself don't seem to regard this as seriously as you do Yingluck "case", so perhaps you can understand why your sense of "what's right" wears a bit thin.

Was an Abhisit relative involved?

Unfortunately people like yourself seem to be unable to see the differences of the cases.

BTW we had this discussion on "private citizen Abhisit to re-instate a former NPC" a while ago. You were incorrect that time, so don't force me to look up that topic again.

I wasn't wrong rubl, you just couldn't understand past tense in media articles - look it up again, but keep it to yourself, you won't learn or admit you couldn't understand the grammatical tense, so what's the point.

If Yingluck was guilty of a conflict of interest, abhisit certainly was, his transfer of the Police Chief was a political move to suit him, ergo, a conflict of interest .

Yes, best you go look at that subject again, I feel.

Edited May 13, 2014 by fab4

[fab4]

So the country and its people should be totally content to endure the rampant corruption, nepotism, cronyism, manipulation of the judicial system, taxation and company laws along with the self promotion that have been the hallmarks of all of the Shinwatra influenced administrations over the last decade yes?

Criminals are outside of the lines of respect and as such the recent and now current administration members are being judged.One wonders how those unpaid rice farmers feel now along with the unpaid first car buyers?

It is not a judicial coup it is enforcement of the law(s) to the chagrin of those new self appointed elite as well as the old elite. Indeed a novelty here in Thailand.

Justice delayed is Justice denied, eh siampolee. Do you agree that applies to both sides of the political spectrum or just the one?

[Crushdepth]

Politicians are not above the law. Time they adjusted their practices and toed the line.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[siampolee]

fab4.

We are talking about the current situation, once progress has been made earlier administrations will be held accountable.

However under the great Shinwatra whitewash plan that would not have been so

It was to have been selective justice which of course we saw caused the downfall of the last family staffed administration.

[binjalin]

Is this a judicial coup?

is the Buddha a Buddhist?

[Piichai]

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.

But they didn't want it because they're innocent!

[Piichai]

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.

After the reforms are in place, it'll be more difficult to rape the country.

[Piichai]

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.

The NACC needs only evidence to indict. They don't convict.

[Piichai]

For the good of the whole nation, Issan and the North should be given autonomy... Let it become one area with Shinewatras as their leaders.. Allow the peoples to the west , Bangkok and south to have their own parliament... And one King for all... east solution..

Not a bad idea. Especially as that's what they've asked for.