Thai Democrats deny supporting pre-coup protests

[webfact]

Democrats Deny Supporting Pre-Coup Protests
By Khaosod English


Democrat Party chairman Abhisit Vejjajiva visits PCAD leader Suthep Thaugsuban at the PCAD rally in Bangkok's Lumpini Park, 22 March 2014. Despite their close coordination, the Democrat Party denies supporting the protest movement.

BANGKOK — Leading members of the Democrat Party have denied the allegation that their party supported the anti-government protest campaign that was launched at the end of last year.

The comments came in response to a complaint filed by Redshirt activist Sa-ngiam Samranrat to the Constitutional Court, asking the court to dissolve the Democrat Party on the grounds that it engaged in politics through non-parliamentary means.

Mr. Sa-ngiam's complaint was based on the involvement of prominent Democrat party leaders in the six months of street protests staged against then-Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra starting last November. The former secretary-general of the Democrat party, Suthep Thaugsuban, became the leader of the protest movement.

"The party did not organise the protests," Wirat Kalyasiri, director of Democrat Party's legal department, said on Thursday, explaining that Mr. Suthep and other Democrat leaders had already resigned from the party when they joined and organised the protests.

Full story: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1411294611&typecate=06&section=


-- Khaosod English 2014-09-22

[englishoak]

LOL keep flapping those lips, no one buys it.

[ThailandNoob]

555 this stretches the imagination. This is the party that resigned from parliament and then boycotted an election in support of Suthep's aim of an unelected people's council (not to mention all of the senior leaders that spoke at the protests).

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[siampolee]

Of course the actions and links that the P.T.P. proxy government had with assorted groups were, are all a figment of their opponents imaginations.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/thailand-thaksins-red-shirts-and-the-ongoing-violence/5376310

[Tatsujin]

555 this stretches the imagination. This is the party that resigned from parliament and then boycotted an election in support of Suthep's aim of an unelected people's council (not to mention all of the senior leaders that spoke at the protests).

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

It might stretch your imagination, but the simple fact is they had resigned from the Democrat party prior to joining the protests, so they are 100% correct, it wasn't run or organized by "the Democrats".

Much in the same way that the UDD (and other letter combinations) pro-Govt protests were not instigated, funded or sponsored or run by PT or Thaksin.

[ThailandNoob]

555 this stretches the imagination. This is the party that resigned from parliament and then boycotted an election in support of Suthep's aim of an unelected people's council (not to mention all of the senior leaders that spoke at the protests).

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

It might stretch your imagination, but the simple fact is they had resigned from the Democrat party prior to joining the protests, so they are 100% correct, it wasn't run or organized by "the Democrats".

Much in the same way that the UDD (and other letter combinations) pro-Govt protests were not instigated, funded or sponsored or run by PT or Thaksin.

I would never deny that there are strong connections between the UDD, Thaksin and Pheu Thai. And it is obvious that the same goes for the "Democrats" and the protests. Even if they are not in Parliament, they are still in the political party (or have very strong links to it in the case of Suthep). Besides which, I seem to recall that some members of Parliament were speaking at the protests before the mass demonstrations.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[whybother]

"on the grounds that it engaged in politics through non-parliamentary means."

Is there really a law that says politicians can't do anything outside parliament?

[rubl]

LOL keep flapping those lips, no one buys it.

No doubt prominent executives and members of the Democrat party supported the anti-government protests. The question seems to be if they had resigned as MP, executive or member and when.

I would assume an MP can join a protest, but maybe not lead it, but a 'normal' party member would be under no such restrictions, especially when his party has no parliamentary representation. Even in the (very) first days of the protests PM Yingluck admitted to the democratic rights of protesting.

[englishoak]

LOL keep flapping those lips, no one buys it.

No doubt prominent executives and members of the Democrat party supported the anti-government protests. The question seems to be if they had resigned as MP, executive or member and when.

I would assume an MP can join a protest, but maybe not lead it, but a 'normal' party member would be under no such restrictions, especially when his party has no parliamentary representation. Even in the (very) first days of the protests PM Yingluck admitted to the democratic rights of protesting.

Semantics basically ... and thats all and well re a case but in the end everyone knows the truth of it.

[rubl]

LOL keep flapping those lips, no one buys it.

No doubt prominent executives and members of the Democrat party supported the anti-government protests. The question seems to be if they had resigned as MP, executive or member and when.

I would assume an MP can join a protest, but maybe not lead it, but a 'normal' party member would be under no such restrictions, especially when his party has no parliamentary representation. Even in the (very) first days of the protests PM Yingluck admitted to the democratic rights of protesting.

Semantics basically ... and thats all and well re a case but in the end everyone knows the truth of it.

Now wondering what the Constitutional Court will think about semantics, the 'letter of the law' and "everyone knows".

[whybother]

I wonder how many PTP MPs attended red shirt rallies in the months before the coup.

[englishoak]

Dosnt really matter Rubi, its already common knowledge as to the stark truth, law book detail or not, the case will just highlight it and remind everyone.....

[whybother]

Dosnt really matter Rubi, its already common knowledge as to the stark truth, law book detail or not, the case will just highlight it and remind everyone.....

The court case will most likely remind everyone what they want to believe.

There were Democrat party members involved in the protest, but whether they broke any particular laws or not by being involved is the question. The people that organised the protests resigned from the party before the protests.

Show me the law and show me which part of it was broken by the Democrats. Until then, all that you can do is comment on someone's interpretation (or mis-interpretation) of what they want you to believe.

[englishoak]

Wont change the truth of it.

[whybother]

Wont change the truth of it.

The truth of what? The truth of what you want to believe?

[englishoak]

Wont change the truth of it.

The truth of what? The truth of what you want to believe?

What do you believe ?

[whybother]

Wont change the truth of it.

The truth of what? The truth of what you want to believe?

What do you believe ?

I believe they won't be dissolved because they didn't break the law.

Unless you can show me the law that they broke, that's what you should believe too.

If all you're going on is someone saying that "they broke the law and should be dissolved" and someone else saying "no we didn't", then that highlights that, for you, this is all about what you want to believe.

[HUAHIN62]

Wont change the truth of it.

The truth of what? The truth of what you want to believe?

The truth that 100% of the leaders of the PDRC was connected to the Dems. That they are starting to prepare for the next "election" and need to clean their image - distance themselves from their undemocratic actions that led to the illegal overthrow of an elected government. That Thai politics is like a bad Thai soap opera, directed by people living in the middle ages.

[whybother]

Wont change the truth of it.

The truth of what? The truth of what you want to believe?

The truth that 100% of the leaders of the PDRC was connected to the Dems. That they are starting to prepare for the next "election" and need to clean their image - distance themselves from their undemocratic actions that led to the illegal overthrow of an elected government. That Thai politics is like a bad Thai soap opera, directed by people living in the middle ages.

Is being "connected to the Dems" against the law, and should "being connected to the Dems" lead to the Democrats being dissolved?

If the answer is "Yes", then PTP should be dissolved for being connected to the red shirts.

They didn't "illegally overthrow an elected government". They protested. The government dissolved parliament. The army overthrew a care-taker government.

Edited September 22, 2014 by whybother

[englishoak]

Wont change the truth of it.

The truth of what? The truth of what you want to believe?

What do you believe ?

I believe they won't be dissolved because they didn't break the law.

Unless you can show me the law that they broke, that's what you should believe too.

If all you're going on is someone saying that "they broke the law and should be dissolved" and someone else saying "no we didn't", then that highlights that, for you, this is all about what you want to believe.

Why would I care if they are found not have broken the law ? the law is whatever they say it is, big deal, it still dosnt affect the truth of the link between the Dems and them supporting the PDRC made up of a few Ex Dems .... uhhh duh ..

[whybother]

Why would I care if they are found not have broken the law ? the law is whatever they say it is, big deal, it still dosnt affect the truth of the link between the Dems and them supporting the PDRC made up of a few Ex Dems .... uhhh duh ..

OK. They're linked. So what?

[animatic]

The friend of my enemy is my friend.

My friend does a crime,

while doing something I suport doing but only by legal means,

and I remained his friend afterwards,

but that doesn't mean I am culpable for his actions.

Yes they had the same goals more or less. But that is not the same thing as doing the same actions.

Your legal resignation before the fact means your old business partner is NOT culpable for your acts after your resignation.

No more that a divorced man being culpable for the debts of his ex wife. Even debts signed the DAY AFTER the divorce.

This is a wishful thinking nuisance suit, brought by the sour grapes patrol.

Maybe some hope of political mud sticking, but foolishness at best.

Edited September 22, 2014 by animatic

[h90]

If it continues like this, more anger will mount and no reconciliation.

I recall alone 500 cases from Thaksin and his proxies against Sondhi at court. So most probable thousands of political cases block the courts from doing real work.

[englishoak]

Why would I care if they are found not have broken the law ? the law is whatever they say it is, big deal, it still dosnt affect the truth of the link between the Dems and them supporting the PDRC made up of a few Ex Dems .... uhhh duh ..

OK. They're linked. So what?

Leading members of the Democrat Party have denied the allegation that their party supported the anti-government protest campaign that was launched at the end of last year.

So they are lying, what a great bunch ... but if that floats your boat...

[binjalin]

oh yea who was that Abhisit look-a-like with the whistle then? what a hypocrite

Edited September 22, 2014 by binjalin

[whybother]

Why would I care if they are found not have broken the law ? the law is whatever they say it is, big deal, it still dosnt affect the truth of the link between the Dems and them supporting the PDRC made up of a few Ex Dems .... uhhh duh ..

OK. They're linked. So what?

Leading members of the Democrat Party have denied the allegation that their party supported the anti-government protest campaign that was launched at the end of last year.

So they are lying, what a great bunch ... but if that floats your boat...

Did "the party" support it, or did individual MPs (or ex-MPs/ex-party members) support it?

Do you know what they're referring to? If the Democrat Party didn't support it, then is he lying?

[animatic]

Depends how you define suport, and if it is

liking the goal, or assisting the actions.

The former could describe many organizations who didn't act but wanted Yingluck and PTP out of power.

The later would be people who actively gave money, provided transport, systems etc. as an organization.

Members of the rice farmer groups supported removing PTP because they weren't being paid,

but were not at PDRC rallies breaking laws, so they are not guilty by association.

And if one member showed up and made a speech,

that doesn't mean he was a leader of the group,

so it doesn't mean the group was officially doing it.

The argument being given is like McCarthyism, guilt for being " Fellow Travelers ".

You like their goal so you must be guilty by association not by action.

Edited September 22, 2014 by animatic

[englishoak]

Why would I care if they are found not have broken the law ? the law is whatever they say it is, big deal, it still dosnt affect the truth of the link between the Dems and them supporting the PDRC made up of a few Ex Dems .... uhhh duh ..

OK. They're linked. So what?

Leading members of the Democrat Party have denied the allegation that their party supported the anti-government protest campaign that was launched at the end of last year.

So they are lying, what a great bunch ... but if that floats your boat...

Did "the party" support it, or did individual MPs (or ex-MPs/ex-party members) support it?

Do you know what they're referring to? If the Democrat Party didn't support it, then is he lying?

Same thing different BS both lying...... get over it there aint no saints in Thailand

[seajae]

The truth that 100% of the leaders of the PDRC was connected to the Dems. That they are starting to prepare for the next "election" and need to clean their image - distance themselves from their undemocratic actions that led to the illegal overthrow of an elected government. That Thai politics is like a bad Thai soap opera, directed by people living in the middle ages.

you mean like the red shirts that killed the kids & women with bombs and bullets are 100% connected to the ptp and are their terrorist arm but of course thats different, they are on your side. They even got up on stage and bragged about it, they clapped and cheered the deaths and they were the sitting govt at the time but again, they are on your side.

Edited September 22, 2014 by seajae

[AleG]

The truth that 100% of the leaders of the PDRC was connected to the Dems. That they are starting to prepare for the next "election" and need to clean their image - distance themselves from their undemocratic actions that led to the illegal overthrow of an elected government. That Thai politics is like a bad Thai soap opera, directed by people living in the middle ages.

you mean like the red shirts that killed the kids & women with bombs and bullets are 100% connected to the ptp and are their terrorist arm but of course thats different, they are on your side. They even got up on stage and bragged about it, they clapped and cheered the deaths and they were the sitting govt at the time but again, they are on your side.

People living in glass houses shouldn't throw grenades.