Is this a judicial coup?

[chotthee]

Is this a judicial coup?

is the Buddha a Buddhist?

Is that lady a man? Everything is possible in Thailand.

[smutcakes]

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.

You are living a complete fantasy land if you really think there is desire for reform from the powers that be which would ever mean that previous administrations could or would be held accountable.

It just will not happen ever in a million years.

[Thait Spot]

Since there has been no change in ruling party there cannot possibly have been a coup d'etat.

There was almost certainly a well deserved coup de poing (punch).

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[tomhell]

Reminder to myself: I´m a falang and know nothing.... politics are a dirty business and you can trust no one.

One problem in Thailand is that the so called "democrats"/PDRC/Suthep are not a big role-model for honesty and fair play in Thai politics.

Why Thai people should trust the "democrats"?

I´ve have heard the following story and maybe someone can tell me if it´s true?

It was in a faraway kingdom: When the PTP came back to power in 2010 is that it still had to deal with the legacy of the 2007 "Democrats" party. When Abhisit/Suthep took over the government, the first thing they did was to suspend the constitution and "reform" it; the second thing they did was ban the red shirts leadership from politics for five years and banned them from the 2007 elections. That enabled the Democrats to make unopposed appointments made to create the independent agencies like the EC which did not exist before. The NACC and the courts.This political senate is the only body that can remove members from these institutions but it requires a jurisdictional organization to investigate, charge, and judge guilt such as the courts.

Nowadays Suthep/Abhisit talk again a lot about reform before election. Has any one heard of concrete reform suggestions?

A lot of people talk about reforms, reforms, reforms - but it´s just empty chatter when you don´t say what you exactly want.

Could it be that they want to make this "reforms" before election because some of their ideas are unconstitutional and undemocratic?

Tom

Edited May 13, 2014 by tomhell

[rubl]

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.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/707780-court-faults-abhisit-over-sacking-of-police-chief/

1. Abhisit dismissed the NPC on recommendations.

2. A Police committee later rules that those recommendations were based on statements deemed to be invalid and recommended Abhsit reinstated the NPC.

3. Abhisit said to have to check with whoever before a move could be move.

4. The dismissed NPC asked Abhisit to reinstate him a few times

5. With Abhisit slowly to get too busy with red-shirts in 2010 the ex-NPC files a petition,

6. Commission rules that the chap should be re-instated.

Now tell me again about the political move?

ADD in the Thawill case defenders here stated a government should be able to choose it's own people for certain top positions. I disagreed. Don't remember your ideas on that type of 'political' moves.

Anyway here we discuss the NACC which is trying to collect data on the RPPS for more than a year already and is still looking for an account overview from the no-longer-government. All we seem to know is Ms. Yingluck didn't oversee the mislaying of 700++ billion Baht

Edited May 13, 2014 by rubl

[bigbamboo]

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.

The military dictatorship and it's allies may have written the constitution but it was the people who voted for it.

And that's democracy.

[fab4]

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.

Yes, OK, pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

[gangrel]

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.

Yes, except the bit about the anti-monarchist red shirts wanting President Thaksin as their solution.

[MGP]

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?

I do agree that it applies to all sides of the political spectrum. But that is not excuse to to call this particular judgment a "judicial coup" in order to permit this rampant corruption, disrespect of law and abuse of power; it is plain justice. Others are also pending to be judged? Yes, of course!! but do not fall into the tricks of the Shinawatra's lawyer and lobbyst! Calling justice a "judicial coup" is perverted. Absolutely perverted.

[mikemac]

The trolls are in a feeding frenzy over this one !

If I had to choose between a judicial coup and a Thaksin funded coup which results in the deaths of scores of people, I know what I would opt for.

[Nickymaster]

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.

Before we have elections can we agree an having governors elected (besides the BKK one)? That's very democratic...right? But for some reason the PT clan doesn't like that. I am still puzzled that the democracy loving reds don't want governess to be elected. Could you please enlighten me?

And...give the elites some respect man.

[bigbamboo]

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.

In Yingluck's case It's the old nepotism thing again. Admittedly with so many family members strewn across the political arena it must be hard to avoid at times.

To paraphrase the Python's Alan Wicker sketch ....." there are just too many Shinawats on Shinawat Island."

[fab4]

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/707780-court-faults-abhisit-over-sacking-of-police-chief/

1. Abhisit dismissed the NPC on recommendations.

2. A Police committee later rules that those recommendations were based on statements deemed to be invalid and recommended Abhsit reinstated the NPC.

3. Abhisit said to have to check with whoever before a move could be move.

4. The dismissed NPC asked Abhisit to reinstate him a few times

5. With Abhisit slowly to get too busy with red-shirts in 2010 the ex-NPC files a petition,

6. Commission rules that the chap should be re-instated.

Now tell me again about the political move?

ADD in the Thawill case defenders here stated a government should be able to choose it's own people for certain top positions. I disagreed. Don't remember your ideas on that type of 'political' moves.

Anyway here we discuss the NACC which is trying to collect data on the RPPS for more than a year already and is still looking for an account overview from the no-longer-government. All we seem to know is Ms. Yingluck didn't oversee the mislaying of 700++ billion Baht

Abhisit dismissed the NPC on recommendations.

So it was nothing to do with the fact that the incumbent, (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/08/05/politics/politics_30109110.php)

"Patcharawat, had been under intense pressure to step aside after investigation into the attempt on Sondhi Limtrongkul's life ran into obstacles.

The police chief, the younger brother of Defence Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan, is also due to appear before the National Anti-Corruption Commission today to clarify his role in the action taken against anti-government protesters last October".

abhisit named

"Gen Wichien Potposri as caretaker police chief for the 10 days that the incumbent, Pol General Patcharawat Wongsuwan, is on leave."

despite the fact that

"If the post were to be given based on seniority, it should go to Pol General Prieopan Damapong, a deputy national police chief, who is the senior-most officer. However, Prieopan is the older brother of Pojaman, the ex-wife of ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra"

Previous to this, abhisit had been dithering about wondering whether to sack Patcharawat

Reports of a decision to axe Patcharawat intensified last week, when deputy national police chief Thani Somboonsap reported to Abhisit about his investigation into the shooting of People’s Alliance for Democracy leader Sondhi Limthongkul.

Thani told Abhisit he was facing big obstacles which blocked the probe from further progress.

Abhisit’s insistance yesterday he wanted the case to go ahead signalled Patcharawat’s likely removal, although Abhisit said he would discuss it further with Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban.

Patcharawat, like Thani, is scheduled to retire in September. Therefore, Abhisit must decide whether to proceed with the case or to support Suthep – which would stop the investigation just where it is.

However, if Abhisit decides to remove Patcharawat, the result would be like a row of collapsing dominoes. Besides hurting the images of police and the military, Patcharawat’s removal would hurt relations with Defence Minister Prawit – who is highly respected by Army chief General Anupong Paochinda.

The decision would also be a slap in the face of Suthep who is the “government manager” and link to all factions during the government’s formation. And Suthep would not leave alone. Bhum Jai Thai Party de facto leader Newin Chidchob would go with him.

Departure of the coalition party would certainly hurt the government’s number of seats in the House, leaving the Democrats with no choice but to lead a minority government.

http://antithaksin.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/to-sack-or-not-to-sack-national-police-chief/

So we've established that intense pressure has been put on the replacement of the police chief (looking at the reasons for doing so it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to realise just who was behind this intense pressure, cough, PAD) and that abhisit had overridden the seniority rule because the suitable replacement was "linked" with Thaksin, oh, the horror.

And bearing in mind the analysis by the PAD above, try and tell me that the removal of the Police Chief was not political and was not a conflict of interest.

Edited May 13, 2014 by fab4

[MGP]

This discussion is getting too long and bored. Please, mark the option(s) why you believe that this is a “judicial coup”, so we can arrive to a definitive conclusion:

1. I work for Amsterdam & Peroff, therefore it is my duty to defend the hand that feeds us.
2. I’ve got interests in a company of the Shin group. Corruption and cheating is OK, as far as it gives me benefit.
3. My girlfriend is a Redshirt, and her family will cut my balls if I disagree with them.
4. I hate Thailand and I want it to descend into lawless chaos.
5. Yingluck is pretty, she doesn’t deserve this.

I cannot think of other reasons! You can try as hard as you can, but I am sure that their origin will be inspired from those 5.

[smutcakes]

This discussion is getting too long and bored. Please, mark the option(s) why you believe that this is a “judicial coup”, so we can arrive to a definitive conclusion:

1. I work for Amsterdam & Peroff, therefore it is my duty to defend the hand that feeds us.
2. I’ve got interests in a company of the Shin group. Corruption and cheating is OK, as far as it gives me benefit.
3. My girlfriend is a Redshirt, and her family will cut my balls if I disagree with them.
4. I hate Thailand and I want it to descend into lawless chaos.
5. Yingluck is pretty, she doesn’t deserve this.

I cannot think of other reasons! You can try as hard as you can, but I am sure that their origin will be inspired from those 5.

6. The continuing of throwing out any corrupt elected Government which is not the Democrat party will continue to build resentment in society, and we will continue to be stuck in this endless circle. The only way the system can be changed is for the Democrat party to win an election and then make their changes. (we know they wont make any changes as they are very happy with the corruption, only at the moment its not theirs but like the 'reform' idea, its a nice little gimmick)

[The stuttering parrot]

6 that the yellow elites ignored the disenfranchised poor for so many years .

7 That every time an elected government by the people it is stolen by any means by the yellows

8 yingluck is pretty

PS

Don't let the wife see your post man!

[ginjag]

6 that the yellow elites ignored the disenfranchised poor for so many years .

7 That every time an elected government by the people it is stolen by any means by the yellows

8 yingluck is pretty

PS

Don't let the wife see your post man!

9, Thai people say when we elect you again please do not S##t on us like the last time and the time before. We are loyal to you why you do like this.???

[animatic]

Judicial coup?

No, just social constipation from endemic corruption, without question.

The constitutional court is writing lines in the sand about corrupt practices.

That some are small instances does NOT make them less corrupt or illegal.

That the same corrupt crew is making serial mistakes is not a great surprise.

There is no constitutional sliding scale of corruptness.

That not doing your elected job legally as it is constitutionally delineated,

is considered corrupt and reason for removal, is proper separation of the

three pillars of democracy interacting within their own areas.

Legislative makes laws within the constitutions framework.

The executive administers those laws within the framework.

Courts rule on the other two pillars actions being legal.

Only partisans can see this as a truly bad thing.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[rubl]

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/707780-court-faults-abhisit-over-sacking-of-police-chief/

1. Abhisit dismissed the NPC on recommendations.

2. A Police committee later rules that those recommendations were based on statements deemed to be invalid and recommended Abhsit reinstated the NPC.

3. Abhisit said to have to check with whoever before a move could be move.

4. The dismissed NPC asked Abhisit to reinstate him a few times

5. With Abhisit slowly to get too busy with red-shirts in 2010 the ex-NPC files a petition,

6. Commission rules that the chap should be re-instated.

Now tell me again about the political move?

ADD in the Thawill case defenders here stated a government should be able to choose it's own people for certain top positions. I disagreed. Don't remember your ideas on that type of 'political' moves.

Anyway here we discuss the NACC which is trying to collect data on the RPPS for more than a year already and is still looking for an account overview from the no-longer-government. All we seem to know is Ms. Yingluck didn't oversee the mislaying of 700++ billion Baht

Abhisit dismissed the NPC on recommendations.

So it was nothing to do with the fact that the incumbent, (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/08/05/politics/politics_30109110.php)

"Patcharawat, had been under intense pressure to step aside after investigation into the attempt on Sondhi Limtrongkul's life ran into obstacles.

The police chief, the younger brother of Defence Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan, is also due to appear before the National Anti-Corruption Commission today to clarify his role in the action taken against anti-government protesters last October".

abhisit named

"Gen Wichien Potposri as caretaker police chief for the 10 days that the incumbent, Pol General Patcharawat Wongsuwan, is on leave."

despite the fact that

"If the post were to be given based on seniority, it should go to Pol General Prieopan Damapong, a deputy national police chief, who is the senior-most officer. However, Prieopan is the older brother of Pojaman, the ex-wife of ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra"

Previous to this, abhisit had been dithering about wondering whether to sack Patcharawat

--- long quote to

http://antithaksin.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/to-sack-or-not-to-sack-national-police-chief/

So we've established that intense pressure has been put on the replacement of the police chief (looking at the reasons for doing so it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to realise just who was behind this intense pressure, cough, PAD) and that abhisit had overridden the seniority rule because the suitable replacement was "linked" with Thaksin, oh, the horror.

And bearing in mind the analysis by the PAD above, try and tell me that the removal of the Police Chief was not political and was not a conflict of interest.

So, Abhisit going against Suthep, army generals and PAD is political motivation? A man removed from the position of NPC by Abhisit's predecesor? A man charged by the NACC? Why should the post be given on seniority, rather than 'knowledge', 'capabilities' and 'potential'? Why is a step described as 'suicide' political motivated?

From the two links you provide:

""Abhisit said Wichien, a senior adviser at the National Police Office, was an appropriate choice because there has been some public concern about the handling of some important cases at this juncture."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/08/05/politics/politics_30109110.php

"That would be in addition to the serious disciplinary charge recommended against him by the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the source said."

"Patcharawat was appointed national police chief in the Samak Sundaravej government. He was removed by the succeeding PM Somchai Wongsawat for failing to stop the rallies of the Sondhi-led People’s Alliance for Democracy, the yellow shirts, which led to the airport seizures."

"if Abhisit decides to remove Patcharawat, the result would be like a row of collapsing dominoes"

"Patcharawat’s removal would hurt relations with Defence Minister Prawit"

"decision would also be a slap in the face of Suthep"

"And Suthep would not leave alone. Bhum Jai Thai Party de facto leader Newin Chidchob would go with him."

http://antithaksin.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/to-sack-or-not-to-sack-national-police-chief/

[fab4]

So, Abhisit going against Suthep, army generals and PAD is political motivation? A man removed from the position of NPC by Abhisit's predecesor? A man charged by the NACC? Why should the post be given on seniority, rather than 'knowledge', 'capabilities' and 'potential'? Why is a step described as 'suicide' political motivated?

From the two links you provide:

""Abhisit said Wichien, a senior adviser at the National Police Office, was an appropriate choice because there has been some public concern about the handling of some important cases at this juncture."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/08/05/politics/politics_30109110.php

"That would be in addition to the serious disciplinary charge recommended against him by the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the source said."

"Patcharawat was appointed national police chief in the Samak Sundaravej government. He was removed by the succeeding PM Somchai Wongsawat for failing to stop the rallies of the Sondhi-led People’s Alliance for Democracy, the yellow shirts, which led to the airport seizures."

"if Abhisit decides to remove Patcharawat, the result would be like a row of collapsing dominoes"

"Patcharawat’s removal would hurt relations with Defence Minister Prawit"

"decision would also be a slap in the face of Suthep"

"And Suthep would not leave alone. Bhum Jai Thai Party de facto leader Newin Chidchob would go with him."

http://antithaksin.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/to-sack-or-not-to-sack-national-police-chief/

Well if you can't work out that it was in his political interest to keep his faltering coalition alive you're more naive on the political situation in Thailand than even I thought

you were.

Do some background reading yourself, try and find something about the dithering over the police chief election and the back room business going on over the election. Here's a taster http://asiancorrespondent.com/17757/abhisit-gets-his-way-no-not-yet/ and there's this

The latest twist in the saga appears to be even messier than was earlier apparent — in fact it’s mind-boggling even for seasoned observers of police affairs. The drama which was earlier thought to be a power play between the Democrat and Bhumjaithai parties appears to have extended its wings and to involve new influential players.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/17756/whose-side-is-thani-on/

Still going to tell me the sacking of one Police Chief and the electing of the new Police Chief wasn't political and in abhisits interest?

[chotthee]

So, Abhisit going against Suthep, army generals and PAD is political motivation? A man removed from the position of NPC by Abhisit's predecesor? A man charged by the NACC? Why should the post be given on seniority, rather than 'knowledge', 'capabilities' and 'potential'? Why is a step described as 'suicide' political motivated?

From the two links you provide:

""Abhisit said Wichien, a senior adviser at the National Police Office, was an appropriate choice because there has been some public concern about the handling of some important cases at this juncture."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/08/05/politics/politics_30109110.php

"That would be in addition to the serious disciplinary charge recommended against him by the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the source said."

"Patcharawat was appointed national police chief in the Samak Sundaravej government. He was removed by the succeeding PM Somchai Wongsawat for failing to stop the rallies of the Sondhi-led People’s Alliance for Democracy, the yellow shirts, which led to the airport seizures."

"if Abhisit decides to remove Patcharawat, the result would be like a row of collapsing dominoes"

"Patcharawat’s removal would hurt relations with Defence Minister Prawit"

"decision would also be a slap in the face of Suthep"

"And Suthep would not leave alone. Bhum Jai Thai Party de facto leader Newin Chidchob would go with him."

http://antithaksin.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/to-sack-or-not-to-sack-national-police-chief/

Well if you can't work out that it was in his political interest to keep his faltering coalition alive you're more naive on the political situation in Thailand than even I thought

you were.

Do some background reading yourself, try and find something about the dithering over the police chief election and the back room business going on over the election. Here's a taster http://asiancorrespondent.com/17757/abhisit-gets-his-way-no-not-yet/ and there's this

The latest twist in the saga appears to be even messier than was earlier apparent — in fact it’s mind-boggling even for seasoned observers of police affairs. The drama which was earlier thought to be a power play between the Democrat and Bhumjaithai parties appears to have extended its wings and to involve new influential players.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/17756/whose-side-is-thani-on/

Still going to tell me the sacking of one Police Chief and the electing of the new Police Chief wasn't political and in abhisits interest?

Correct, it wasn't.

[rubl]

Still going to tell me the sacking of one Police Chief and the electing of the new Police Chief wasn't political and in abhisits interest?

So sacking a man removed before already by the previous PM Somchai, going the suicide way endangering the relation with his deputy, the army, the PAD and above all his coalition partners was in Abhisit's interest?

[rubl]

Blanked on purpose, duplicate post. Sorry

Edited May 13, 2014 by rubl

[fab4]

Still going to tell me the sacking of one Police Chief and the electing of the new Police Chief wasn't political and in abhisits interest?

So sacking a man removed before already by the previous PM Somchai, going the suicide way endangering the relation with his deputy, the army, the PAD and above all his coalition partners was in Abhisit's interest?

I'm not going to waste any more time trying to help you see that the whole charade surrounding the sacking of the police chief and the election of the new one was political.

You're not going to accept it fine, you carry on telling your self that abhisit sacking the Police Chief to keep the PAD happy and subsequent political trade offs over the election of the new Police Chief was done purely because Wichean was the best man for the job and there was no political self interest involved whatsoever. Naive in the extreme.

I'll leave you this final word from your favourite number one source of political knowledge

After a long delay and ensuing public criticism and political complications surrounding the government, Pol General Wichean Potephosree was yesterday appointed the new Royal Thai Police commander.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, who chaired the Police Commission meeting, declined to comment on the appointment, saying only: "It is now over, everything is fine." He laughed when asked if he felt more comfortable after Wichean was chosen, but did not give a reply.

[geriatrickid]

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?

1. Yes, the military appointed its allies to the senate. They certainly did not appoint them for their dashing good looks did they?

2. ok.

3. Ahh, so we can have a democracy without an election. Nice. In what imaginary world? The fundamental characteristic of a democracy is that it is based upon an election of the ruling authority. Do you want someone to throw you something to grab onto before you drown in your deficient logic?

4. The House of Lords should not be confused with the Thai senate.What century are you living in? For starters, the last time the House of Lords tried to interfere in the affairs of the elected members, the Parliament Act of 1911 stripped the HoL of its ability to reject legislation In 1949, the ability of the HoL to delay legislation was reduced. The HoL has no power to remove a PM, nor force an election.

5. Yes the PTP was able to increase its share of elected senators. And that's my point. The anti government groups can see that and need to stop the PTP form being in power long enough that the PTP can appoint the next large group of senators who's terms expire in the coming 2 years.

6. What's your point about the qualifications, except to say that the PTP senators are qualified?

7. You may disagree with the amnesty Bill, but it was legally passed by the House. One can argue that the Bill was flawed, but it was a legal legislative process. The Bill was withdrawn after the government said it would not support the Bill. The senate could not block the Bill, only delay it for 180 days. The fact of the matter is that the Bill was withdrawn to avoid conflict after the 3 days of civil unrest initiated by the Democrats. Those are the actual facts which you can deny, but cannot refute.

[jayboy]

This discussion is getting too long and bored. Please, mark the option(s) why you believe that this is a “judicial coup”, so we can arrive to a definitive conclusion:

1. I work for Amsterdam & Peroff, therefore it is my duty to defend the hand that feeds us.
2. I’ve got interests in a company of the Shin group. Corruption and cheating is OK, as far as it gives me benefit.
3. My girlfriend is a Redshirt, and her family will cut my balls if I disagree with them.
4. I hate Thailand and I want it to descend into lawless chaos.
5. Yingluck is pretty, she doesn’t deserve this.

I cannot think of other reasons! You can try as hard as you can, but I am sure that their origin will be inspired from those 5.

Ok that's taken care of the stupids.

For the rest of us ANU's Dr Blaxland summarises:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/news-events/all-stories/coup-any-other-name%E2%80%A6#.U2sl5bS-Wzo

[AleG]

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?

1. Yes, the military appointed its allies to the senate. They certainly did not appoint them for their dashing good looks did they?

2. ok.

3. Ahh, so we can have a democracy without an election. Nice. In what imaginary world? The fundamental characteristic of a democracy is that it is based upon an election of the ruling authority. Do you want someone to throw you something to grab onto before you drown in your deficient logic?

4. The House of Lords should not be confused with the Thai senate.What century are you living in? For starters, the last time the House of Lords tried to interfere in the affairs of the elected members, the Parliament Act of 1911 stripped the HoL of its ability to reject legislation In 1949, the ability of the HoL to delay legislation was reduced. The HoL has no power to remove a PM, nor force an election.

5. Yes the PTP was able to increase its share of elected senators. And that's my point. The anti government groups can see that and need to stop the PTP form being in power long enough that the PTP can appoint the next large group of senators who's terms expire in the coming 2 years.

6. What's your point about the qualifications, except to say that the PTP senators are qualified?

7. You may disagree with the amnesty Bill, but it was legally passed by the House. One can argue that the Bill was flawed, but it was a legal legislative process. The Bill was withdrawn after the government said it would not support the Bill. The senate could not block the Bill, only delay it for 180 days. The fact of the matter is that the Bill was withdrawn to avoid conflict after the 3 days of civil unrest initiated by the Democrats. Those are the actual facts which you can deny, but cannot refute.

3. Ahh, so we can have a democracy without an election. Nice. In what imaginary world? The fundamental characteristic of a democracy is that it is based upon an election of the ruling authority. Do you want someone to throw you something to grab onto before you drown in your deficient logic?

Deficient logic is assuming that elections = democracy?, North Korea has elections, Saddam Hussein's Iraq had them, and so on and so forth. By your standards those places are/were Democracies.

Stating "the fundamental characteristic of a democracy is that it is based upon an election of the ruling authority" is like arguing that four wheels make a car, if you don't have the rest you don't have a car. Similarly if you only have elections without the other fundamentals of a Democracy you don't have a Democracy.

Relevant to PTP one of those fundamentals is Accountability of elected officials, obviously with Thaksin owning PTP and being a fugitive already on the run he has zero accountabilit for his actions dictating and directing policy. That is just an example, PTP/UDDs idea of democracy also fall very short in the realms of Free and Fair Elections, Independent Judiciary, Equality in Rule of Law, Respect to Minorities, etc, etc..

[Piichai]

7. You may disagree with the amnesty Bill, but it was legally passed by the House. One can argue that the Bill was flawed, but it was a legal legislative process. The Bill was withdrawn after the government said it would not support the Bill. The senate could not block the Bill, only delay it for 180 days. The fact of the matter is that the Bill was withdrawn to avoid conflict after the 3 days of civil unrest initiated by the Democrats. Those are the actual facts which you can deny, but cannot refute.

My recollection is that debate on the bill was ended prematurely, the session was closed and everyone told to return at the next scheduled meeting, and then they held a vote on the bill at 4AM.

That doesn't sound cricket to me. And that's without mentioning the various drafts circulating and last minute changes.

As we have seen for so many years, TRT, PPP, PTP, Reds or whatever you want to call them, just don't understand that there are laws, rules, and regulations to be followed.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Piichai

[AleG]

This discussion is getting too long and bored. Please, mark the option(s) why you believe that this is a “judicial coup”, so we can arrive to a definitive conclusion:

1. I work for Amsterdam & Peroff, therefore it is my duty to defend the hand that feeds us.
2. I’ve got interests in a company of the Shin group. Corruption and cheating is OK, as far as it gives me benefit.
3. My girlfriend is a Redshirt, and her family will cut my balls if I disagree with them.
4. I hate Thailand and I want it to descend into lawless chaos.
5. Yingluck is pretty, she doesn’t deserve this.

I cannot think of other reasons! You can try as hard as you can, but I am sure that their origin will be inspired from those 5.

Ok that's taken care of the stupids.

For the rest of us ANU's Dr Blaxland summarises:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/news-events/all-stories/coup-any-other-name%E2%80%A6#.U2sl5bS-Wzo

He just spouts the "judicial coup" mantra, he doesn't substantiate the argument. Besides that, PTP and their coalition is still in government, so where is the coup?

[rubl]

Still going to tell me the sacking of one Police Chief and the electing of the new Police Chief wasn't political and in abhisits interest?

So sacking a man removed before already by the previous PM Somchai, going the suicide way endangering the relation with his deputy, the army, the PAD and above all his coalition partners was in Abhisit's interest?

I'm not going to waste any more time trying to help you see that the whole charade surrounding the sacking of the police chief and the election of the new one was political.

You're not going to accept it fine, you carry on telling your self that abhisit sacking the Police Chief to keep the PAD happy and subsequent political trade offs over the election of the new Police Chief was done purely because Wichean was the best man for the job and there was no political self interest involved whatsoever. Naive in the extreme.

I'll leave you this final word from your favourite number one source of political knowledge

After a long delay and ensuing public criticism and political complications surrounding the government, Pol General Wichean Potephosree was yesterday appointed the new Royal Thai Police commander.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, who chaired the Police Commission meeting, declined to comment on the appointment, saying only: "It is now over, everything is fine." He laughed when asked if he felt more comfortable after Wichean was chosen, but did not give a reply.

Still at it I see.

Between the two paragraph you quote the original article has

"After a unanimous 8-0 vote of support by the Police Commission yesterday, the former deputy chief will replace acting police chief General Patheep Tanprasert, who retires on September 30, after a royal endorsement is approved to make the commission's decision effective.

PM: everything is fine"

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/08/10/politics/Long-wait-over-as-Wichean-is-named-police-chief-30135561.html

So, last time. Conflict of Fab4's interest anyone?

ADD: the same article also has

"Throughout his police career, in which he served mostly under the Office of the Royal Court Security Police, Wichean has been known for his relationship with all political powers and his willingness to compromise along with political neutrality. He is said to get along well with politicians of all colours and is frequently consulted by them on political and security issues."

Edited May 14, 2014 by rubl