Abhisit to CDC: New charter should not whitewash wrongdoers

[sjaak327]

Something here I don't understand. "As for senators, he suggested that they all come from election ..."

Two PTP members are being impeached for the same suggestion.

Seems a bit like a case of "But that was bad when they were in power. Now, well, it's okay."

No they are not and I am sure you know that.

They are being impeached for the underhand (illegal) way they tried to get the legislation passed.

He and the Dems were always in favor of a fully elected senate, in fact they voted for the first reading of bill 190.

It was the last minute add on's allowing family of sitting MP's to be senators and abolishing the 6 year term that they were against and the sneaky way PT tried to push through those amendments.

Was it Robby? Have you seen the file? What was illegal in what they did in comparison to the countless times the Constitution has been amended previously.

I wait with baited breath for your reply.

Me too, and whilst we are at it, what part of abolishing the 2007 constitution and replacing it with your own would be legal and perfectly alright and when can we see the people responsible being impeached ?

[sjaak327]

Whats with this ?

Abhisit, who himself served as an unelected prime minister from 2008 to 2011, also warned against certain misunderstandings or wrong hypotheses in writing the new charter.

He was elected PM by the majority of MP's in the house after forming a coalition with the minor parties exactly the same as Yingluck was elected PM by the members of her party.

Has the Nation been reading the red version of history or what ?

Maybe they are referring to the fact that he was the looser of the general elections, and that the voting for him as PM was largely due to a former member of parliament that at the time was banned from politics for five years, but I guess that was perfectly alright, as in this case it wasn't someone from the other side...

By the way, Yingluck was not just voted in by members of her party, but also by an additional 35 MP's from four other coalition partners, and she did win the elections with a wide margin.

Edited November 28, 2014 by sjaak327

[Robby nz]

Something here I don't understand. "As for senators, he suggested that they all come from election ..."

Two PTP members are being impeached for the same suggestion.

Seems a bit like a case of "But that was bad when they were in power. Now, well, it's okay."

No they are not and I am sure you know that.

They are being impeached for the underhand (illegal) way they tried to get the legislation passed.

He and the Dems were always in favor of a fully elected senate, in fact they voted for the first reading of bill 190.

It was the last minute add on's allowing family of sitting MP's to be senators and abolishing the 6 year term that they were against and the sneaky way PT tried to push through those amendments.

Was it Robby? Have you seen the file? What was illegal in what they did in comparison to the countless times the Constitution has been amended previously.

I wait with baited breath for your reply.

You also know the answer to that and if you think you don't then go and compare with "the countless times" that you know about, the way the senate went about attempting to get bill 190 put through in its amended form.

[Robby nz]

Whats with this ?

Abhisit, who himself served as an unelected prime minister from 2008 to 2011, also warned against certain misunderstandings or wrong hypotheses in writing the new charter.

He was elected PM by the majority of MP's in the house after forming a coalition with the minor parties exactly the same as Yingluck was elected PM by the members of her party.

Has the Nation been reading the red version of history or what ?

Maybe they are referring to the fact that he was the looser of the general elections, and that the voting for him as PM was largely due to a former member of parliament that at the time was banned from politics for five years, but I guess that was perfectly alright, as in this case it wasn't someone from the other side...

By the way, Yingluck was not just voted in by members of her party, but also by an additional 35 MP's from four other coalition partners, and she did win the elections with a wide margin.

That's right she was voted in by her party and the coalition partners exactly the same way Abhisit was.

The fact that his party did not get a majority of votes in the general election has nothing to do with it, what matters is that he was able to form a coalition to get enough votes to form a Govt.

Incidentally the two Thaksin proxy parties that were in power before his Govt were formed in the same way with a coalition of minor parties for they did not have enough seats (votes) to be able to form a Govt on their own.

[sjaak327]

Whats with this ?

Abhisit, who himself served as an unelected prime minister from 2008 to 2011, also warned against certain misunderstandings or wrong hypotheses in writing the new charter.

He was elected PM by the majority of MP's in the house after forming a coalition with the minor parties exactly the same as Yingluck was elected PM by the members of her party.

Has the Nation been reading the red version of history or what ?

Maybe they are referring to the fact that he was the looser of the general elections, and that the voting for him as PM was largely due to a former member of parliament that at the time was banned from politics for five years, but I guess that was perfectly alright, as in this case it wasn't someone from the other side...

By the way, Yingluck was not just voted in by members of her party, but also by an additional 35 MP's from four other coalition partners, and she did win the elections with a wide margin.

That's right she was voted in by her party and the coalition partners exactly the same way Abhisit was.

The fact that his party did not get a majority of votes in the general election has nothing to do with it, what matters is that he was able to form a coalition to get enough votes to form a Govt.

Incidentally the two Thaksin proxy parties that were in power before his Govt were formed in the same way with a coalition of minor parties for they did not have enough seats (votes) to be able to form a Govt on their own.

Yes they did, but at least that party did win the general election, thus making it more acceptable democratically than the looser getting PM. Of course the fact that Samak/Somchai were considered proxies of a banned politician has been used as a reason to casts doubt over their legitimacy, yet when Abhishit was voted in using behind the scenes deals with a banned politician, suddenly it was all above board.

Which of course simply confirms that both sides of the devide are corrupt to the core.

The correct way to have dealt with this was asking the Thai electorate, instead of coalition partners switching sides to form a different governement, but I guess Abhishit didn't feel he could possibly win.

Edited November 28, 2014 by sjaak327

[smutcakes]

You also know the answer to that and if you think you don't then go and compare with "the countless times" that you know about, the way the senate went about attempting to get bill 190 put through in its amended form.

So you have no answer? teach me Robby on these countless times? Are you talking about the 'appointed' Senate? The Senate appointed by a Coup?

[whybother]

Whats with this ?

Abhisit, who himself served as an unelected prime minister from 2008 to 2011, also warned against certain misunderstandings or wrong hypotheses in writing the new charter.

He was elected PM by the majority of MP's in the house after forming a coalition with the minor parties exactly the same as Yingluck was elected PM by the members of her party.

Has the Nation been reading the red version of history or what ?

Maybe they are referring to the fact that he was the looser of the general elections, and that the voting for him as PM was largely due to a former member of parliament that at the time was banned from politics for five years, but I guess that was perfectly alright, as in this case it wasn't someone from the other side...

By the way, Yingluck was not just voted in by members of her party, but also by an additional 35 MP's from four other coalition partners, and she did win the elections with a wide margin.

That's right she was voted in by her party and the coalition partners exactly the same way Abhisit was.

The fact that his party did not get a majority of votes in the general election has nothing to do with it, what matters is that he was able to form a coalition to get enough votes to form a Govt.

Incidentally the two Thaksin proxy parties that were in power before his Govt were formed in the same way with a coalition of minor parties for they did not have enough seats (votes) to be able to form a Govt on their own.

Yes they did, but at least that party did win the general election, thus making it more acceptable democratically than the looser getting PM. Of course the fact that Samak/Somchai were considered proxies of a banned politician has been used as a reason to casts doubt over their legitimacy, yet when Abhishit was voted in using behind the scenes deals with a banned politician, suddenly it was all above board.

Which of course simply confirms that both sides of the devide are corrupt to the core.

The correct way to have dealt with this was asking the Thai electorate, instead of coalition partners switching sides to form a different governement, but I guess Abhishit didn't feel he could possibly win.

It was the PTP (newly formed and in government after PPP were banned) were the ones that chose not to call an election. They chose to go to parliament to elect a new PM ... and lost.

[sjaak327]

It was the PTP (newly formed and in government after PPP were banned) were the ones that chose not to call an election. They chose to go to parliament to elect a new PM ... and lost.

And how exactly could they suddenly loose and how did that happen in line with the actual election that put the MP's there in the first place.

Not to mention the behind the scene deals with help of a certain banned politician, but I guess that was all Ok, as long as the right side gets the power. It was equally funny how that particular party wanted to be part of the Yingluck governement, yeah right, once bitten twice shy.

All of this didn't deserve the price for acting in line of elections, and I can see why the Nation would call Abhisit an 'unelected' Pm.

Edited November 28, 2014 by sjaak327

[whybother]

It was the PTP (newly formed and in government after PPP were banned) were the ones that chose not to call an election. They chose to go to parliament to elect a new PM ... and lost.

And how exactly could they suddenly loose and how did that happen in line with the actual election that put the MP's there in the first place.

Not to mention the behind the scene deals with help of a certain banned politician, but I guess that was all Ok, as long as the right side gets the power. It was equally funny how that particular party wanted to be part of the Yingluck governement, yeah right, once bitten twice shy.

All of this didn't deserve the price for acting in line of elections, and I can see why the Nation would call Abhisit an 'unelected' Pm.

One of the reasons they lost was that a regional political faction that had joined PPP decided to go their own way. When PPP were banned, most of the remaining MPs joined PTP, but this regional faction formed their own party and dumped Thaksin. Instead they backed the Democrats.

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"Lastly, Mr Abhisit reiterated that the new charter should not allow those guilty of serious crimes, such as assaults on others and corruption, to start over with a clean slate."

Too right.

No pardons.

The guilty go to gaol, from all parties.

Thus spoke Abhisit who is out on bail for murder. And it will be a snowy day in Bangkok for him ever to go to trial to account for his crime.

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Something here I don't understand. "As for senators, he suggested that they all come from election ..."

Two PTP members are being impeached for the same suggestion.

Seems a bit like a case of "But that was bad when they were in power. Now, well, it's okay."

They're not being impeached for "suggesting" it. They're being impeached for endorsing a change that would "allegedly benefit them".

By that token they might as well do away with the senate. The chance that laws are being voted on that might benefit the senators doing the voting is 100%.

I think the issue is that it specifically benefited them, and didn't benefit anyone else.

You'd think that by the condition of "benefit" that the CDC will prohibit any party from getting a majority vote since having a majority would benefit a party through legislative control. I'm sure the Democrats would find such a provision beneficial to their party (would that then invalidate the suggestion?). This then comes back to the previous suggestion of a pure coalition-only government. Parties wouldn't have to work to gain support of the electorate except maybe to become registered as a party. How a pure coalition government would work towards concensus might prove to be a political nightmare and legislative strangulation.

[whybother]

You'd think that by the condition of "benefit" that the CDC will prohibit any party from getting a majority vote since having a majority would benefit a party through legislative control. I'm sure the Democrats would find such a provision beneficial to their party (would that then invalidate the suggestion?). This then comes back to the previous suggestion of a pure coalition-only government. Parties wouldn't have to work to gain support of the electorate except maybe to become registered as a party. How a pure coalition government would work towards concensus might prove to be a political nightmare and legislative strangulation.

Yes. Making things up is useful to discussions, isn't it.

I take it you haven't heard of "conflict of interest".

Edited November 29, 2014 by whybother

[whybother]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"Lastly, Mr Abhisit reiterated that the new charter should not allow those guilty of serious crimes, such as assaults on others and corruption, to start over with a clean slate."

Too right.

No pardons.

The guilty go to gaol, from all parties.

Thus spoke Abhisit who is out on bail for murder. And it will be a snowy day in Bangkok for him ever to go to trial to account for his crime.

Abhisit isn't out on bail for murder. His murder charges *as an individual* were dropped.

I still don't understand how he could be charged as an individual given the murder charges are based on the army supposedly killing people on his orders.

Since when did the army take orders from ordinary citizens?

Edited November 29, 2014 by whybother

[MiKT]

I like Abhisit's plummy accent.

As a scum , riff raff working class oink myself , I find it somewhat comforting that a man who went to both Eton and Oxford is telling me how to think

Most Thai people now think that Oxford University is a big corrupt joke (exactly what they expected from a Uni). Abby must have increased the admission applications by Thai's by large numbers.

[Robby nz]

Whats with this ?

Maybe they are referring to the fact that he was the looser of the general elections, and that the voting for him as PM was largely due to a former member of parliament that at the time was banned from politics for five years, but I guess that was perfectly alright, as in this case it wasn't someone from the other side...

By the way, Yingluck was not just voted in by members of her party, but also by an additional 35 MP's from four other coalition partners, and she did win the elections with a wide margin.

That's right she was voted in by her party and the coalition partners exactly the same way Abhisit was.

The fact that his party did not get a majority of votes in the general election has nothing to do with it, what matters is that he was able to form a coalition to get enough votes to form a Govt.

Incidentally the two Thaksin proxy parties that were in power before his Govt were formed in the same way with a coalition of minor parties for they did not have enough seats (votes) to be able to form a Govt on their own.Yes they did, but at least that party did win the general election, thus making it more acceptable democratically than the looser getting PM. Of course the fact that Samak/Somchai were considered proxies of a banned politician has been used as a reason to casts doubt over their legitimacy, yet when Abhishit was voted in using behind the scenes deals with a banned politician, suddenly it was all above board.

Which of course simply confirms that both sides of the devide are corrupt to the core.

The correct way to have dealt with this was asking the Thai electorate, instead of coalition partners switching sides to form a different governement, but I guess Abhishit didn't feel he could possibly win.

It was not Abjisits place to ask for an election, he was in no position to either ask for or call an election.

He formed a Govt in a legal and proper way with a coalition as has been done many times in many countries.

If you are going to talk about illegal then you could try commenting on a convicted criminal on the run controlling a political party.

[sjaak327]

Whats with this ?

Maybe they are referring to the fact that he was the looser of the general elections, and that the voting for him as PM was largely due to a former member of parliament that at the time was banned from politics for five years, but I guess that was perfectly alright, as in this case it wasn't someone from the other side...

By the way, Yingluck was not just voted in by members of her party, but also by an additional 35 MP's from four other coalition partners, and she did win the elections with a wide margin.

That's right she was voted in by her party and the coalition partners exactly the same way Abhisit was.

The fact that his party did not get a majority of votes in the general election has nothing to do with it, what matters is that he was able to form a coalition to get enough votes to form a Govt.

Incidentally the two Thaksin proxy parties that were in power before his Govt were formed in the same way with a coalition of minor parties for they did not have enough seats (votes) to be able to form a Govt on their own.Yes they did, but at least that party did win the general election, thus making it more acceptable democratically than the looser getting PM. Of course the fact that Samak/Somchai were considered proxies of a banned politician has been used as a reason to casts doubt over their legitimacy, yet when Abhishit was voted in using behind the scenes deals with a banned politician, suddenly it was all above board.

Which of course simply confirms that both sides of the devide are corrupt to the core.

The correct way to have dealt with this was asking the Thai electorate, instead of coalition partners switching sides to form a different governement, but I guess Abhishit didn't feel he could possibly win.

It was not Abjisits place to ask for an election, he was in no position to either ask for or call an election.

He formed a Govt in a legal and proper way with a coalition as has been done many times in many countries.

If you are going to talk about illegal then you could try commenting on a convicted criminal on the run controlling a political party.

Which is at the very least just as wrong as the fact that Abhisiit's government was only possible due to support they received from a banned politician. But that time around the fans of that government never screamed bloody murder, that is only reserved for Thaksin and anyone connected to him.

Yelling convicted criminal becomes a bit old considering the way he became criminal in the first place.

[whybother]

Which is at the very least just as wrong as the fact that Abhisiit's government was only possible due to support they received from a banned politician. But that time around the fans of that government never screamed bloody murder, that is only reserved for Thaksin and anyone connected to him.

Yelling convicted criminal becomes a bit old considering the way he became criminal in the first place.

Do you mean the banned politician who's faction was part of the PPP?

[ikke]

Sure as this criminal and wrongdoer is whitewashed already ! Killing innocent people (or guilty but not proven) is on his account , unless you don't want to hold politicians responsible for what they decide !

[robblok]

Sure as this criminal and wrongdoer is whitewashed already ! Killing innocent people (or guilty but not proven) is on his account , unless you don't want to hold politicians responsible for what they decide !

Then YL and Charlem go to jail too for the deaths during the storming of an by the anti goverment protesters accupied building.

[whybother]

Sure as this criminal and wrongdoer is whitewashed already ! Killing innocent people (or guilty but not proven) is on his account , unless you don't want to hold politicians responsible for what they decide !

"guilty but not proven" ... you mean, not guilty?

I don't really see how authorising the army to carry live ammunition so that they could deal with protesters that were carrying live ammunition makes you a murderer?

He didn't shoot anyone. He didn't order the army to shoot anyone.

He hasn't been whitewashed already. The charges against him as a civilian were dropped - which were ridiculous charges in the first place. There are still other charges going through the courts, where he has been charged as PM.

[sjaak327]

Which is at the very least just as wrong as the fact that Abhisiit's government was only possible due to support they received from a banned politician. But that time around the fans of that government never screamed bloody murder, that is only reserved for Thaksin and anyone connected to him.

Yelling convicted criminal becomes a bit old considering the way he became criminal in the first place.

Do you mean the banned politician who's faction was part of the PPP?

Yep.

[whybother]

Which is at the very least just as wrong as the fact that Abhisiit's government was only possible due to support they received from a banned politician. But that time around the fans of that government never screamed bloody murder, that is only reserved for Thaksin and anyone connected to him.

Yelling convicted criminal becomes a bit old considering the way he became criminal in the first place.

Do you mean the banned politician who's faction was part of the PPP?

Yep.

So you've got no problem with Abhisit forming government with his support then?

[tbthailand]

he said the chairmen of all House committees should be opposition members.

he's looking to finally get a chairmanship?

....

I think they call this 'fighting the last war"

If the CDC does their job 'correctly', then Mark could finally 'win' and he would have red shirts chairing all the committees. Good job Abhisit.

Edited November 29, 2014 by tbthailand

[whybother]

he said the chairmen of all House committees should be opposition members.

he's looking to finally get a chairmanship?

....

I think they call this 'fighting the last war"

If the CDC does their job 'correctly', then Mark could finally 'win' and he would have red shirts chairing all the committees. Good job Abhisit.

Maybe Mark knows that all the crap about engineering his win is complete BS.