Is this a judicial coup?

[Thai at Heart]

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.

Always knew l and h was a PTP pal. They are forever grateful for getting that banking licence to get into the Bangkok bank and Thai farmers market.

They just love having more players in their pitch. By the way, who was front and centre with Sondhi at the beginning? Daughter bangkok bank wasn't it? How long previous had l and h got its license?

I think it was about a month or so after that Sondhi was stirred into action. All in the name of democracy and all of course.

[rubl]

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.

ad1. you wrote before "appointed to MAINTAIN a majority

ad3. misunderstanding on your part, or I was too vague. I mean some people think that democracy = election

ad4. people complain about 'appointed' senators. well there are still a few countries where you have hereditary functions. Functions of the THai senate are defined in the Constitution and in this aspects the 1997 and 2007 versions are not really different.

ad5. Agreed people see that a political party is pushing to make the Senate more compliant. Same we saw in 2006 when our dear criminal fugitive tried to control all.

ad6. not only the new senators are qualified, even the appointed senators. BTW there are no Pheu THai senators, only some who favour Pheu Thai.

ad7. pure and utter manure.

The government pushed through a modified blanket amnesty bill suddenly even covering Thaksin's last two years in/out of office and Yingluck's first two years. When the spontaneous protests started and where picked up by Suthep and the Democrats party Ms. Yingluck said "please go home, more procedure to follow", "it's up to the senate", "we leave it to the senate". Next the senate speaker tries to get a quorum together three days before originally planned, even waits till late afternoon before giving up. The senate rejected the bill. If protesters would have returned home, the senate might have concluded "no one seems againt as, no protests, no nothing, so OK accept the bill". The government even suggested they'd withdraw the bill, but they only withdrew the others which were no longer needed. Lots of obfuscation.

Edited May 14, 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?

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."

rubl if you're not going to bother to even make an attempt at research of your own and rely on The Nation all the time, why do you even bother posting?

You obviously cannot or will not fill the gaps in between the Nations sketchy cover of events and take what that rag says as gospel. Case in point is your last sentence - The Nation says it so it must be true. I gave you some leads with the Asian Correspondent links. If you had even bothered to read those you would see links provided from other sources to give you the background.

You stay in your myopic world, rubl, you're welcome to it.

[mikemac]

Now, back on topic.

Is this a judicial coup ?

Only in the tiny little minds of the ones who will feel the rough end of the pineapple, the scumbags in the PTP, all the Shinawatra regime, the low-life Thai Rouge terrorists etc etc. Oh, and the ones who are either not too bright or are cursed with black hearts, who actually support these morons.

It is the new style coup of the 21st century, no tanks, no guns, no soldiers, just a big old dose of Karma for the bad guys.

And rubl, regarding the question you were asked - "why do you even bother posting?" .... I would rather ask why waste so much time feeding annoying trolls ?

Edited May 14, 2014 by mikemac

[rubl]

Now, back on topic.

Is this a judicial coup ?

Only in the tiny little minds of the ones who will feel the rough end of the pineapple, the scumbags in the PTP, all the Shinawatra regime, the low-life Thai Rouge terrorists etc etc. Oh, and the ones who are either not too bright or are cursed with black hearts, who actually support these morons.

It is the new style coup of the 21st century, no tanks, no guns, no soldiers, just a big old dose of Karma for the bad guys.

And rubl, regarding the question you were asked - "why do you even bother posting?" .... I would rather ask why waste so much time feeding annoying trolls ?

Why, oh why? Must be the Dutch uncle part in me. Plus the dislike of truthtwisters. Plus a dislike of those who always seem to need to add personal attacks to 'strengthen' their points. Things like that.

[JAG]

Would calling someone who doesn't agree with you " not too bright" and " cursed with a black heart" count as a personal attack? Just after clarification there......

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[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

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?

Don't like that one? Try this one from The Japan Times:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/05/15/editorials/short-circuiting-thai-democracy/#.U3WR5y9iuRH

[sumtingwong]

Enforcing the Thai constitution is not a coup.

[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?

Don't like that one? Try this one from The Japan Times:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/05/15/editorials/short-circuiting-thai-democracy/#.U3WR5y9iuRH

Awww shucks, he doesn't say "judicial coup". Although he overcompensates by downplaying and misrepresenting the court ruling with half truths(1), outright lies(2) and biased innuendo(3). Still no argument debunking of the court ruling based on the law, so try again.

1) Half truths: The ruling that forced Yingluck from office was ostensibly based on her decision to replace the secretary general of the National Security Council in 2011. While most prime ministers have the right to select their own Cabinet and staff, Thailand’s top court instead decided in a unanimous ruling that it was an abuse of power for her to transfer a civil servant and ordered the prime minister to step down immediately, along with all the other members of her Cabinet who were in office at the time of the offense.

The court said in its ruling that the prime minister’s move had a “hidden agenda,” was intended to create a job for her relative and not done according to “moral principles.”

Half truth because he "fails" to mention that the move was made so that a member of her extended family, Priewapan Demapong could be installed as chief of police, so "intended to create a job for her relative" is false, she did create an opening for her relative.

Also "fails" to mention the forged documentation the cabinet presented to the court.

2) Outright lie: Sadly this judicial activism is not unprecedented. In an earlier case — cited by the court as precedent — a previous prime minister, also aligned with Yingluck, was forced from office because he appeared on a televised cooking show (supposedly because he accepted payment for the appearances).

Samak didn't just appear in a cooking show, it was his cooking show and he was paid to do it, no supposedly, actually; and then lied about it. So that statement is an outright lie.

3) Biased innuendo: With the removal of Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, Thailand has honed its unique form of government — juristocracy — in which the judiciary repeatedly overthrows democratically elected governments on transparent pretexts.

Transparent pretexts, like Samaks obvious and blatantly breaking the law, PPP blatantly committing electoral fraud and Yingluck's case of musical chairs so that the cabinet could place a family member as Chief of Police. On top of that none of those instances removed a government, PTP is still in power and after Samak and Somchai the change of government came via a vote in parliament by elected MPs.

[Crushdepth]

Oh noes the law applies to the Shinawatras....oh the humanity