Jimbolai Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 'Democracy has died in Thailand today': Thai ex-PM Yingluck, She has got that right. In Thailand if you have a brother you can not win elections. How sad this place is getting to be. They don't even pretend anymore. Just remove the PM from office and send her to jail. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post bobmac10 Posted January 24, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 24, 2015 Yingluck's version of democracy: 'we win the election, we get to do as we please with no censure until someone else wins the election. The end'. How this women ever got this far in life amazes me, luckily her brother gave her a job. At least she won an election,I don't remember Prayuth won an election The harder these military clowns and their masters push, the harder the push back will be when it eventually comes. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ResandePohm Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) Yingluck's version of democracy: 'we win the election, we get to do as we please with no censure until someone else wins the election. The end'. How this women ever got this far in life amazes me, luckily her brother gave her a job. At least she won an election,I don't remember Prayuth won an election And look what she did to this country after she won. At least Prayuth is trying to clean up the mess she left behind Edited January 25, 2015 by ResandePohm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugh2121 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Whatever your and my opinion of Yingluck and PTP, they were legally and properly elected by the vast majority of Thai people. Whether votes were "bought" with promises or not is irrelevant. All parties in all countries make such promises at election time. Was PTP's removal from government legal at the time? Was the current government voted in by a majority of Thai people? Many posters berate Yingluck and her government, how many of these posters are Thai people with the right to decide who governs them? The fact that Yingluck was properly elected is indisputable. Not being Thai I do not have a personal opinion. You must be joking. If votes are BOUGHT that is NOT LEGAL. How about 2,000 THB per day to demonstrate on the streets of Bangkok? Is that legal? Pot calling Kettle black. Take your biased opinion elsewhere until you know the FULL story of all players. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorecard Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> Whatever your and my opinion of Yingluck and PTP, they were legally and properly elected by the vast majority of Thai people. Whether votes were "bought" with promises or not is irrelevant. All parties in all countries make such promises at election time. Was PTP's removal from government legal at the time? Was the current government voted in by a majority of Thai people? Many posters berate Yingluck and her government, how many of these posters are Thai people with the right to decide who governs them? The fact that Yingluck was properly elected is indisputable. Not being Thai I do not have a personal opinion. You must be joking. If votes are BOUGHT that is NOT LEGAL. How about 2,000 THB per day to demonstrate on the streets of Bangkok? Is that legal? Pot calling Kettle black. Take your biased opinion elsewhere until you know the FULL story of all players. Who got paid 2,000Baht a day to protest on the streets of Bangkok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickirs Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) The rule of law can only be respected when all segements of society respects it, including the military. The rule of law has no validity when the military forces its own "rule of law" onto the Thais people through military coup, abolishment of the constitution, martial law, and military dominated government. Under NCPO's Articles 17 and 44 of the Provisional Charter, democratic rule of law CANNOT exist. Edited January 25, 2015 by rickirs 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 The ammart have made a big mistake by inserting an ugly and ill-tempered simpleton. Thai people are charmed by good looks & a mild manner. True, true, good looks and mild manner can get away with murder, 700 billion Baht losses, lying and cheating. 'rule of law' has no meaning for those especially when they're also Amply Rich and have a big, caring brother. The rule of law (also known as nomocracy) is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to decisions by individual government officials. A kangaroo court of hand picked military brasses and officials is the polar opposite of 'rule of law' however many times you repeat it. The 'democratic' situation before the coup didn't even manage to provide the clear evidence all are talking about. Even in the BBC we had ""That there was corruption is undeniable; there is plenty of evidence. The generous subsidy was also financially unsustainable." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30928835 and another poster provided a link to a party with ""Yingluck delivered her beginning as well as concluding discourses at the charge procedures ,however she decided not to respond to any specific asks from NLA membership . A set of individuals gave her absolutely no good credit on this . In her discourses , Yingluck as well decided not to reply to any specific asks or to clarify uncertainties over the rice plan . She generally attacked all that she stated was the National Anti-Corruption Commission's political intention in accusing her , an NLA insider mentioned . "" http://www.bangkok.net/politics_news/NLA_wished_the_lawful_result_to_exclude_former_prime_minister_Yingluck_Shinawatra_from_politics-1996/ So, who's flaunting 'rule of law'? Who's having crocodile tears? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 The rule of law can only be respected when all segements of society respects it, including the military. The rule of law has no validity when the military forces its own "rule of law" onto the Thais people through military coup, abolishment of the constitution, martial law, and military dominated government. Under NCPO's Articles 17 and 44 of the Provisional Charter, democratic rule of law CANNOT exist. It would seem that as far as Ms. Yingluck is concerned 'rule of law' has died as it dared to rule against her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firestar Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Even in the BBC we had ""That there was corruption is undeniable; there is plenty of evidence. The generous subsidy was also financially unsustainable." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30928835 From the same article, the following sentence in fact : [...]Nor were Ms Yingluck's opponents able to explain how impeachment was possible against a politician who has already been removed from office, and by an assembly entirely appointed by the military. So this was not about corruption, or the rule of law. [...] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulic Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 That's OK, .........It died in the USA when they allowed lobbyists and the courts ruled companies were people and could give as much as they wanted to super packs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Even in the BBC we had ""That there was corruption is undeniable; there is plenty of evidence. The generous subsidy was also financially unsustainable." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30928835 From the same article, the following sentence in fact : [...]Nor were Ms Yingluck's opponents able to explain how impeachment was possible against a politician who has already been removed from office, and by an assembly entirely appointed by the military. So this was not about corruption, or the rule of law. [...] Well, the legal representation of the Senate voted based on evidence provided. Of course if you think a foreign auditing team could do better than that Anyway in the trial at the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders Ms. Yingluck and her legal team will get all the documentation the prosecuter used to justify the charge. Furthermore within reason she and her legal team can request a long list of witnesses for the defence. PS the BP has the NCPO saying Ms. Yingluck is free to travel after asking permission, like before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firestar Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Well, the legal representation of the Senate voted based on evidence provided. Sure they did. The same senators who owe their seats to the last Junta voted on evidence alone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Well, the legal representation of the Senate voted based on evidence provided. Sure they did. The same senators who owe their seats to the last Junta voted on evidence alone and the lack of answers from Ms. Yingluck who seems to have stuck to stating party political nonsense and telling the NLA committee that they were only politically motivated. BTW no senators. The NLA is the legal representative of parliament and Senate only. Read the Interim Constitution if you feel like it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Well, the legal representation of the Senate voted based on evidence provided. Sure they did. The same senators who owe their seats to the last Junta voted on evidence alone The last senate, now dissolved, made a rather clear statement as to whether Yingluk's government should be allowed an amnesty. The self inclusion of the government in its amnesty attempt was a pretty clear admission and acknowledgement that they were acting illegally. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firestar Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 and the lack of answers from Ms. Yingluck who seems to have stuck to stating party political nonsense and telling the NLA committee that they were only politically motivated. BTW no senators. The NLA is the legal representative of parliament and Senate only. Read the Interim Constitution if you feel like it. On top of the 100 or so military brasses isn't there a Group of 40 Senators NLA members? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) and the lack of answers from Ms. Yingluck who seems to have stuck to stating party political nonsense and telling the NLA committee that they were only politically motivated. BTW no senators. The NLA is the legal representative of parliament and Senate only. Read the Interim Constitution if you feel like it. On top of the 100 or so military brasses isn't there a Group of 40 Senators NLA members? Senate dissolved, they became EX-senators. This sequence of events seems difficult for our Thaksin supporters. As in, after he resigned he became ex-PM, some time before the 2006 coup. Edited January 25, 2015 by halloween Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firestar Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) Senate dissolved, they became EX-senators. They are the legal representation of the senate, The Nation calls them the group of Senators, BP calls them the Senators even other NLA members. I'll make sure to tell them, even though it is quite clear to everyone, that they should be referred to as "The group who were Senators but now the legal representation of the senate in the NLA" This sequence of events seems difficult for our Thaksin supporters. As in, after he resigned he became ex-PM, some time before the 2006 coup. ....it seems just as difficult for Junta supporters... impeachment is the process of removing (or not), an active official... how can the NLA impeach someone who is an ex-PM and holds no current official position . Edited January 25, 2015 by firestar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 and the lack of answers from Ms. Yingluck who seems to have stuck to stating party political nonsense and telling the NLA committee that they were only politically motivated. BTW no senators. The NLA is the legal representative of parliament and Senate only. Read the Interim Constitution if you feel like it. On top of the 100 or so military brasses isn't there a Group of 40 Senators NLA members? Starting August 2nd, 2014 with 200 members including 24 former Senators, September 27th saw 28 more members added which, with 8 having 'gone' already, filled the 220 as desired by the Interim Constitution. Most newcomers seemed military or business people. No info found yet on how many former senators are member of the current NLA. Also lacking a list of 'the group of 40' senators I cannot compare, so no answer as yet. May be you could also do some searching? Anyway, clear evidence and no answers in defence, even baboons would have voted to impeach Ms. Yingluck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Senate dissolved, they became EX-senators. They are the legal representation of the senate, The Nation calls them the group of Senators, BP calls them the Senators even other NLA members. I'll make sure to tell them, even though it is quite clear to everyone, that they should be referred to as "The group who were Senators but now the legal representation of the senate in the NLA" This sequence of events seems difficult for our Thaksin supporters. As in, after he resigned he became ex-PM, some time before the 2006 coup. ....it seems just as difficult for Junta supporters... impeachment is the process of removing (or not), an active official... how can the NLA impeach someone who is an ex-PM and holds no current official position . Impeachment is normally a facade, an attempt to bring to light the government's misdeeds, destined to be defeated on party lines. Seems to me more than one government member has attempted to escape critical examination of their previous posts, supposedly invalidated because they no longer hold the position. This time it didn't work. The whining is deafening. BTW the impeachment will become irrelevant when she is found guilt of negligence, and hopefully corruption. The levels of conflict of interest in her government were mind-blowing with not a single recusal or declaration that I recall. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firestar Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Starting August 2nd, 2014 with 200 members including 24 former Senators, September 27th saw 28 more members added which, with 8 having 'gone' already, filled the 220 as desired by the Interim Constitution. Most newcomers seemed military or business people. No info found yet on how many former senators are member of the current NLA. Also lacking a list of 'the group of 40' senators I cannot compare, so no answer as yet. May be you could also do some searching? Anyway, clear evidence and no answers in defence, even baboons would have voted to impeach Ms. Yingluck The NLA voted 190 to 18 to impeach Yingluck in her former position as prime minister. The majority who voted against Yingluck are mostly military officers who were installed by the junta. Also seen as an enemy of Yingluck are a group of 40 former senators, while the 18 votes in her favour mostly came from people in the business sector. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/webmobile/politics/Most-military-officers-voted-against-the-former-pr-30252607.html Funny how it's the people from the business sector who voted in her favor while politicized army brasses and former senators didn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemac Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Starting August 2nd, 2014 with 200 members including 24 former Senators, September 27th saw 28 more members added which, with 8 having 'gone' already, filled the 220 as desired by the Interim Constitution. Most newcomers seemed military or business people. No info found yet on how many former senators are member of the current NLA. Also lacking a list of 'the group of 40' senators I cannot compare, so no answer as yet. May be you could also do some searching? Anyway, clear evidence and no answers in defence, even baboons would have voted to impeach Ms. Yingluck The NLA voted 190 to 18 to impeach Yingluck in her former position as prime minister. The majority who voted against Yingluck are mostly military officers who were installed by the junta. Also seen as an enemy of Yingluck are a group of 40 former senators, while the 18 votes in her favour mostly came from people in the business sector. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/webmobile/politics/Most-military-officers-voted-against-the-former-pr-30252607.html Funny how it's the people from the business sector who voted in her favor while politicized army brasses and former senators didn't @ firestar - You seem to have done a lot of research into the Junta but know very little about the PTP government and their shenanigans. Most of the things you are attacking the Junta for were trademark tactics of the previous government. And you are just another one having trouble with the word "impeach". Forget about that term, the fact is Yingluck is being held accountable for her actions and inactions, and it is about time. The two best things about the coup are the facts that the redshirts lost the ability to openly flaunt the law and run around killing the anti-government protesters, and wrong doers are being taken to task for their crimes. If you don't like the word "impeach" don't use it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) Starting August 2nd, 2014 with 200 members including 24 former Senators, September 27th saw 28 more members added which, with 8 having 'gone' already, filled the 220 as desired by the Interim Constitution. Most newcomers seemed military or business people. No info found yet on how many former senators are member of the current NLA. Also lacking a list of 'the group of 40' senators I cannot compare, so no answer as yet. May be you could also do some searching? Anyway, clear evidence and no answers in defence, even baboons would have voted to impeach Ms. Yingluck The NLA voted 190 to 18 to impeach Yingluck in her former position as prime minister. The majority who voted against Yingluck are mostly military officers who were installed by the junta. Also seen as an enemy of Yingluck are a group of 40 former senators, while the 18 votes in her favour mostly came from people in the business sector. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/webmobile/politics/Most-military-officers-voted-against-the-former-pr-30252607.html Funny how it's the people from the business sector who voted in her favor while politicized army brasses and former senators didn't Maybe Thai business people have less problems with business expenses, even those allegedly hand-picked by Gen. Prayut? Maybe more concerned with effect on economy with unrest because the darling Amply Rich woman is asked to take her responsibility. BTW without names it's difficult to confirm that indeed the NLA has 40 former senators as member, and equally difficult to confirm these are the 'group of 40' as a group of senators was known, or even if and how many of these are appointed to the NLA. Edited January 25, 2015 by rubl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man River Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 The rule of law can only be respected when all segements of society respects it, including the military. The rule of law has no validity when the military forces its own "rule of law" onto the Thais people through military coup, abolishment of the constitution, martial law, and military dominated government. Under NCPO's Articles 17 and 44 of the Provisional Charter, democratic rule of law CANNOT exist. It would seem that as far as Ms. Yingluck is concerned 'rule of law' has died as it dared to rule against her. Her attorneys are getting their rhetoric ready for the criminal courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watcharacters Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 There are many things, I would like to say. But ---------------------------------------. So that's all I can say on the matter at this time. Right. Perhaps better left unsaid. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugh2121 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> Whatever your and my opinion of Yingluck and PTP, they were legally and properly elected by the vast majority of Thai people. Whether votes were "bought" with promises or not is irrelevant. All parties in all countries make such promises at election time. Was PTP's removal from government legal at the time? Was the current government voted in by a majority of Thai people? Many posters berate Yingluck and her government, how many of these posters are Thai people with the right to decide who governs them? The fact that Yingluck was properly elected is indisputable. Not being Thai I do not have a personal opinion. You must be joking. If votes are BOUGHT that is NOT LEGAL. How about 2,000 THB per day to demonstrate on the streets of Bangkok? Is that legal? Pot calling Kettle black. Take your biased opinion elsewhere until you know the FULL story of all players. Who got paid 2,000Baht a day to protest on the streets of Bangkok? So called protesters bussed in from South Thailand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluespunk Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 What did she ever do for Democracy? She was elected by a great majority of the people. What part of that do you and your "likes" not understand? Actually PT was never elected by a majority of the people. A majority of seats, yes, votes, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now