Former Thai leaders may face impeachment over 2010 crackdown

[AleG]

The only thing you have exposed is your cognitive dissonance, as in saying you are against subverting democracy and simultaneously carrying water for people that have done nothing but subvert democracy to serve their own purposes.

Care to explain how the Yingluck government subverted democracy? Before you cry "vote buying", remember that the 2011 election results were declared legitimate by both ANFREL: http://www.voanews.com/content/asian-observer-group-commends-thai-election-cites-minor-flaws--125003034/141777.html and one of Suthep's advisors:

"But there is almost no evidence that any of these elections were systematically bought or rigged in anyway. Indeed, the last election, certainly, was very well conducted by comparison with other recent elections in the South-East Asian region. Indeed, when pressed, one of Mr Suthep’s main advisers admitted to me that despite all the alleged vote-buying (which he produced no evidence for) the result was still “legitimate”." http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2013/12/thailand-s-protests

Or perhaps you meant the junta is more democratic than the government it toppled. Is that it?

An unelected, convicted criminal living abroad, dictating policy and putting lackeys in positions of power to work for his own private agenda through a figurehead is subverting democracy; of course, it takes someone not completely drunk in Koolaid to see it.

Edited February 25, 2015 by AleG

[heybruce]

Apparently someone's got 93.6% approval but maybe this is just insurance? take out both sides and WHALLA, Look mum now I'm legit.

but far more likely it's window dressing in a dismal attempt to show the un-bias nature of this lot Look see we are fair, we are good, we are, we are, we are.

If they were indeed serious then this should have happened 4 years ago, What a load.

And some here are buying this snot, Ahhh there's a sucker born every day.

Expression: Voilà

Pronunciation: [ vwa la ]

http://french.about.com/od/vocabulary/a/voila.htm

far more likely it's window dressing in a dismal attempt to show the un-bias nature of this lot

When you hold ALL the cards, as the General does, you don't need window dressing. You don't get it. The General is cleaning up Thailand and he's cleaning behind the toilet, under the bed and in the attic and doing a thorough job of it. Don't think the corrupt Democrat party will escape; they're on the list. Remember, "Slowly, slowly, catchee monkey". It's going to take five years at least to bring some order to the chaos that is Thailand.

You seem to think the General is a saint and superman and can do no wrong. Why is that?

[heybruce]

The only thing you have exposed is your cognitive dissonance, as in saying you are against subverting democracy and simultaneously carrying water for people that have done nothing but subvert democracy to serve their own purposes.

Care to explain how the Yingluck government subverted democracy? Before you cry "vote buying", remember that the 2011 election results were declared legitimate by both ANFREL: http://www.voanews.com/content/asian-observer-group-commends-thai-election-cites-minor-flaws--125003034/141777.html and one of Suthep's advisors:

"But there is almost no evidence that any of these elections were systematically bought or rigged in anyway. Indeed, the last election, certainly, was very well conducted by comparison with other recent elections in the South-East Asian region. Indeed, when pressed, one of Mr Suthep’s main advisers admitted to me that despite all the alleged vote-buying (which he produced no evidence for) the result was still “legitimate”." http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2013/12/thailand-s-protests

Or perhaps you meant the junta is more democratic than the government it toppled. Is that it?

An unelected, convicted criminal living abroad, dictating policy and putting lackeys in positions of power to work for his own private agenda through a figurehead is subverting democracy; of course, it takes someone not completely drunk in Koolaid to see it.

And you've now gone full-circle, all the way back to my post #75, which you replied to, without addressing anything I posted, in your post #77. Just so you don't have to back up, I'll repeat my post #75:

"I guess you don't see anything wrong with a non elected criminal fugitive running the government and personally selecting senior police officers."

Yingluck campaigned on the promise to be "Thaksin's clone" and her party won the election by a wide margin, indicating the voters approved. Once in office she listened to her brother and frequently acted upon his advice, indicating that she kept her campaign promise. No formal charge against this has been filed, indicating that it was legal.

In summary, a campaign promise was made, it was kept, and no one has shown it to be illegal. Clearly you don't like it, but that doesn't matter. The voters should have been given the option to show if they liked it during the next election, but that right was taken away.

Keeping a legal campaign promise is not subverting democracy, even if you don't like the campaign promise. Yingluck and the PTP's democratic credentials were further reinforce by trying very hard to have an election, but unfortunately the elections were subverted by undemocratic forces that you seem to support.

Now, do you care to actually address my post this time, or do you prefer going in circles?

[Stjohnm]

Don't worry Abhisit if you get banned from Thai politics come back to Blighty & take over the Liberal's here, there will be a Clegg shaped vacancy after May.

[Maestro]

Removed an abusive post (dictator) and the replies to it.

[casualbiker]

The only thing you have exposed is your cognitive dissonance, as in saying you are against subverting democracy and simultaneously carrying water for people that have done nothing but subvert democracy to serve their own purposes.

Care to explain how the Yingluck government subverted democracy? Before you cry "vote buying", remember that the 2011 election results were declared legitimate by both ANFREL: http://www.voanews.com/content/asian-observer-group-commends-thai-election-cites-minor-flaws--125003034/141777.html and one of Suthep's advisors:

"But there is almost no evidence that any of these elections were systematically bought or rigged in anyway. Indeed, the last election, certainly, was very well conducted by comparison with other recent elections in the South-East Asian region. Indeed, when pressed, one of Mr Suthep’s main advisers admitted to me that despite all the alleged vote-buying (which he produced no evidence for) the result was still “legitimate”." http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2013/12/thailand-s-protests

Or perhaps you meant the junta is more democratic than the government it toppled. Is that it?

An unelected, convicted criminal living abroad, dictating policy and putting lackeys in positions of power to work for his own private agenda through a figurehead is subverting democracy; of course, it takes someone not completely drunk in Koolaid to see it.

And you've now gone full-circle, all the way back to my post #75, which you replied to, without addressing anything I posted, in your post #77. Just so you don't have to back up, I'll repeat my post #75:

"I guess you don't see anything wrong with a non elected criminal fugitive running the government and personally selecting senior police officers."

Yingluck campaigned on the promise to be "Thaksin's clone" and her party won the election by a wide margin, indicating the voters approved. Once in office she listened to her brother and frequently acted upon his advice, indicating that she kept her campaign promise. No formal charge against this has been filed, indicating that it was legal.

In summary, a campaign promise was made, it was kept, and no one has shown it to be illegal. Clearly you don't like it, but that doesn't matter. The voters should have been given the option to show if they liked it during the next election, but that right was taken away.

Keeping a legal campaign promise is not subverting democracy, even if you don't like the campaign promise. Yingluck and the PTP's democratic credentials were further reinforce by trying very hard to have an election, but unfortunately the elections were subverted by undemocratic forces that you seem to support.

Now, do you care to actually address my post this time, or do you prefer going in circles?

So you honestly think it's Democratic to have a government run by proxy, by a convicted criminal living abroad?

[heybruce]

Care to explain how the Yingluck government subverted democracy? Before you cry "vote buying", remember that the 2011 election results were declared legitimate by both ANFREL: http://www.voanews.com/content/asian-observer-group-commends-thai-election-cites-minor-flaws--125003034/141777.html and one of Suthep's advisors:

"But there is almost no evidence that any of these elections were systematically bought or rigged in anyway. Indeed, the last election, certainly, was very well conducted by comparison with other recent elections in the South-East Asian region. Indeed, when pressed, one of Mr Suthep’s main advisers admitted to me that despite all the alleged vote-buying (which he produced no evidence for) the result was still “legitimate”." http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2013/12/thailand-s-protests

Or perhaps you meant the junta is more democratic than the government it toppled. Is that it?

An unelected, convicted criminal living abroad, dictating policy and putting lackeys in positions of power to work for his own private agenda through a figurehead is subverting democracy; of course, it takes someone not completely drunk in Koolaid to see it.

And you've now gone full-circle, all the way back to my post #75, which you replied to, without addressing anything I posted, in your post #77. Just so you don't have to back up, I'll repeat my post #75:

"I guess you don't see anything wrong with a non elected criminal fugitive running the government and personally selecting senior police officers."

Yingluck campaigned on the promise to be "Thaksin's clone" and her party won the election by a wide margin, indicating the voters approved. Once in office she listened to her brother and frequently acted upon his advice, indicating that she kept her campaign promise. No formal charge against this has been filed, indicating that it was legal.

In summary, a campaign promise was made, it was kept, and no one has shown it to be illegal. Clearly you don't like it, but that doesn't matter. The voters should have been given the option to show if they liked it during the next election, but that right was taken away.

Keeping a legal campaign promise is not subverting democracy, even if you don't like the campaign promise. Yingluck and the PTP's democratic credentials were further reinforce by trying very hard to have an election, but unfortunately the elections were subverted by undemocratic forces that you seem to support.

Now, do you care to actually address my post this time, or do you prefer going in circles?

So you honestly think it's Democratic to have a government run by proxy, by a convicted criminal living abroad?

If that is what the voters voted for, yes.

I also think that voters will keep voting this way as long as the military keeps toppling elected governments, just as a way to send an "up yours" message to the military.

[longway]

^ Its not democracy you are defending, but electoralism.

[heybruce]

^ Its not democracy you are defending, but electoralism.

I could not find "electoralism" in a standard dictionary so went with Wikipedia:

"Electoralism is a term first used by Terry Karl, professor of political science at Stanford University, to describe a "half-way" transition from authoritarian rule toward democratic rule. As a topic in the dominant party system political science literature, electoralism describe a situation where the transition out of hard-authoritarian rule is initiated and managed by the incumbent regime. However, due to the dominant position of the incumbent regime throughout the transition process, the transition fails to attain the institutional qualities of liberal democracy. Other terms, such as guided transition or managed transition have been used to describe this process.

Under electoralism, the regime essentially conducts the electoral aspects of democratic governance in a relatively 'free and fair' manner. Massive acts of voting fraud and election-day intimidation are essentially absent. However, other features of democracy, such as the rule of law and institutional separation of powers, are absent under electoralism. The entire election process is skewed in favor of the incumbent regime. The media tends to ignore or paint the opposition in a negative light, the high court and election commission tends to make judgements in favor of the incumbent, and on some occasions, opposition rallies are denied or canceled by the police." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoralism

I assume you are arguing that Thaksin affiliated governments were the product of electoralism. Perhaps, but I still favor this due to the part:

"...a "half-way" transition from authoritarian rule toward democratic rule."

As I've long argued, flawed democracy can mature into functional democracy. Military rule can't.

[longway]

Its not a choice between military rule and a flawed democracy is it? Its just a break until the balance of power between elected and unelected elites can be re-distributed, both sets of elites are weakening each other, and this can only mean ordinary thais become more powerful in relation to both. The worst thing that can happen is if they both start co-operating, in terms of 'democracy' anyway.

Whatever the hysterics claim, elections will take place in a year or so. So whats the big deal about?

[Fatty123]

Don't worry Abhisit if you get banned from Thai politics come back to Blighty & take over the Liberal's here, there will be a Clegg shaped vacancy after May.

Nah. He'll be looking for a movement that suits him.

EDL?

[rubl]

Explain which government was imposed by a coup ?

In this case, it would have been the one from December 2008. Abhisit's government.

It's known as a judicial coup.

The same tactic may have been "Plan A" in 2014, but in the end, we just got an "intervention".

It's know as 'judicial coup' by those who like labels as they are not up to explaining in legal terms why that would be so. It's so much easier to suggest it's obvious and insinuate only morons or right wing fascists wouldn't see that.

There is no genuine democracy in the world where the courts can dissolve political parties or remove the head of government from office. In all genuine democracies the courts owe their allegiance only to the constitution, but not in Thailand. In most democracies it is the executive and/or the elected legislature that selects judges, but not in Thailand under the 2007 soldier's constitution, where the half-appointed Senate chose them. Those undemocratic features, along with the creation of "independent" agencies, like the National Anti-Corruption Council, held vast powers outside of elected officials including the apparent "right" to impeach the President of the Senate.

The next constitution will even more fully ensure that elected officials are under the firm control of the very much un-elected ammart.

BTW the 'peoples constitution of 1997 which was so wonderful according to some had

Section 63

No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act

shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order the dissolution of such political party.

[rubl]

Explain which government was imposed by a coup ?

In this case, it would have been the one from December 2008. Abhisit's government.

It's known as a judicial coup.

The same tactic may have been "Plan A" in 2014, but in the end, we just got an "intervention".

It's know as 'judicial coup' by those who like labels as they are not up to explaining in legal terms why that would be so. It's so much easier to suggest it's obvious and insinuate only morons or right wing fascists wouldn't see that.

It's know as 'judicial coup' by those who like labels as they are not up to explaining in legal terms why that would be so.

To be expected from someone who referred to the 2007 constitution as being "mainly the 1997 Constitution with clarifications", completely ignoring the shift of power to the senate and judiciary, both being reliant on, and self perpetuating each other (wrt to the insistence on appointed Senators in the 2007 and the latest power grab versions of the constitution).

Strangely enough it's not just those "those who like labels as they are not up to explaining in legal terms" that use the term "judicial coup". Academics have been known to describe the phenomenon as such.

Try googling "thailand judicial coup" or "thailand juristocracy", you may be enlightened - or you could stick with your assertion that it's just a label for people who don't understand what's going on.

Enjoy your "intervention"..............................

Some memories from a previous life remained, or did you inherit an archive?

Anyway you missed this link

http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html

So, impeachment for Abhisit/Suthep, shot at dawn maybe?

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed.

[TheDiva]

It's know as 'judicial coup' by those who like labels as they are not up to explaining in legal terms why that would be so. It's so much easier to suggest it's obvious and insinuate only morons or right wing fascists wouldn't see that.

It's know as 'judicial coup' by those who like labels as they are not up to explaining in legal terms why that would be so.

To be expected from someone who referred to the 2007 constitution as being "mainly the 1997 Constitution with clarifications", completely ignoring the shift of power to the senate and judiciary, both being reliant on, and self perpetuating each other (wrt to the insistence on appointed Senators in the 2007 and the latest power grab versions of the constitution).

Strangely enough it's not just those "those who like labels as they are not up to explaining in legal terms" that use the term "judicial coup". Academics have been known to describe the phenomenon as such.

Try googling "thailand judicial coup" or "thailand juristocracy", you may be enlightened - or you could stick with your assertion that it's just a label for people who don't understand what's going on.

Enjoy your "intervention"..............................

Some memories from a previous life remained, or did you inherit an archive?

Anyway you missed this link

http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html

So, impeachment for Abhisit/Suthep, shot at dawn maybe?

It's obvious that you find it difficult to use a search engine and just post without research. I don't. You should try it some time.

I googled those terms just to show how easy it was to find people (other than those impressed by labels as you accused members on this forum of being) that not only know what a judicial coup is but also describe it as happening again here in Thailand.

Amongst that "research" (difficult as it was ) was a thread on this forum discussing the constitution and judicial coups and amongst which was your assertion that the 2007 constitution was just the 1997 constitution with bells on. It caught my eye, mainly for its naivety.

If you can't see how the power was concentrated in the Senate and Judicial quarters in the 2007 constitution (and why) and just dismiss it as "clarification", it's pointless discussing this any further with you. The latest "incarnation" (something you seem curiously interested in) of the constitution is taking this power to new heights ( or lows, depending on your viewpoint)

[rubl]

It's know as 'judicial coup' by those who like labels as they are not up to explaining in legal terms why that would be so. It's so much easier to suggest it's obvious and insinuate only morons or right wing fascists wouldn't see that.

It's know as 'judicial coup' by those who like labels as they are not up to explaining in legal terms why that would be so.

To be expected from someone who referred to the 2007 constitution as being "mainly the 1997 Constitution with clarifications", completely ignoring the shift of power to the senate and judiciary, both being reliant on, and self perpetuating each other (wrt to the insistence on appointed Senators in the 2007 and the latest power grab versions of the constitution).

Strangely enough it's not just those "those who like labels as they are not up to explaining in legal terms" that use the term "judicial coup". Academics have been known to describe the phenomenon as such.

Try googling "thailand judicial coup" or "thailand juristocracy", you may be enlightened - or you could stick with your assertion that it's just a label for people who don't understand what's going on.

Enjoy your "intervention"..............................

Some memories from a previous life remained, or did you inherit an archive?

Anyway you missed this link

http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html

So, impeachment for Abhisit/Suthep, shot at dawn maybe?

It's obvious that you find it difficult to use a search engine and just post without research. I don't. You should try it some time.

I googled those terms just to show how easy it was to find people (other than those impressed by labels as you accused members on this forum of being) that not only know what a judicial coup is but also describe it as happening again here in Thailand.

Amongst that "research" (difficult as it was ) was a thread on this forum discussing the constitution and judicial coups and amongst which was your assertion that the 2007 constitution was just the 1997 constitution with bells on. It caught my eye, mainly for its naivety.

If you can't see how the power was concentrated in the Senate and Judicial quarters in the 2007 constitution (and why) and just dismiss it as "clarification", it's pointless discussing this any further with you. The latest "incarnation" (something you seem curiously interested in) of the constitution is taking this power to new heights ( or lows, depending on your viewpoint)

Nice try, fabby.

[TheDiva]

Nice try, fabby.

Flying_Pigs.jpg

One consolation, you can use google images. 30 seconds of my life wasted, whatever.

[rubl]

Nice try, fabby.

Flying_Pigs.jpg

One consolation, you can use google images. 30 seconds of my life wasted, whatever.

I still have my own archive build up over the many years discussing the same over and over again with every new generation emerging.

[heybruce]

Its not a choice between military rule and a flawed democracy is it? Its just a break until the balance of power between elected and unelected elites can be re-distributed, both sets of elites are weakening each other, and this can only mean ordinary thais become more powerful in relation to both. The worst thing that can happen is if they both start co-operating, in terms of 'democracy' anyway.

Whatever the hysterics claim, elections will take place in a year or so. So whats the big deal about?

Well, "hysterics" may be concerned that democracy will never have a chance to establish itself if there is a coup and rewrite of the constitution every five to ten years. There is also some concern that the latest rewrite of the constitution will ensure that whenever elections are held they will be purely for show, with all real power in the hands of unelected people.

It certainly looks like a choice between military rule and flawed democracy to me. Especially since this "break" is under military rule and there is no pretense of democracy in how the balance of power is being shifted to the elites. My biggest fear is that the military will be so determined to protect certain groups that they will try to drag Thailand into a society similar to Burma's in the 1990's, which could lead to bloody protests and unknown results. I think that would be a very big deal.

[longway]

^ in an democracy real power is supposed to be held by the unelected people.

powerful politicians does not equate to a strong democracy, in fact just the opposite.

The army will do whatever ensures they make the most money at the end, and reverting to Burmese society of the 1990s, will just make far too many of them poorer.

tbh I find your concerns so fanciful as to be laughable.

[rubl]

Its not a choice between military rule and a flawed democracy is it? Its just a break until the balance of power between elected and unelected elites can be re-distributed, both sets of elites are weakening each other, and this can only mean ordinary thais become more powerful in relation to both. The worst thing that can happen is if they both start co-operating, in terms of 'democracy' anyway.

Whatever the hysterics claim, elections will take place in a year or so. So whats the big deal about?

Well, "hysterics" may be concerned that democracy will never have a chance to establish itself if there is a coup and rewrite of the constitution every five to ten years. There is also some concern that the latest rewrite of the constitution will ensure that whenever elections are held they will be purely for show, with all real power in the hands of unelected people.

It certainly looks like a choice between military rule and flawed democracy to me. Especially since this "break" is under military rule and there is no pretense of democracy in how the balance of power is being shifted to the elites. My biggest fear is that the military will be so determined to protect certain groups that they will try to drag Thailand into a society similar to Burma's in the 1990's, which could lead to bloody protests and unknown results. I think that would be a very big deal.

Hmmm. You think it looks, especially since and therefore your biggest fear is, and you think that's a big deal.

Anyway, Abhisit / Suthep may face impeachment over 2010 crackdown, but that seems much less interesting than other issues. Wasn't there a 'hotly' debated topic a while ago, about relatives of the 'temple deaths' who vowed to sue the NACC for inaction? Nothing happened, although this latest activity of the NACC may be a result of gentle prodding. People should be happy about that. Even if not impeached we should at least get more info on the procedures and happenings in 2010.

[brucec64]

Its not a choice between military rule and a flawed democracy is it? Its just a break until the balance of power between elected and unelected elites can be re-distributed, both sets of elites are weakening each other, and this can only mean ordinary thais become more powerful in relation to both. The worst thing that can happen is if they both start co-operating, in terms of 'democracy' anyway.

Whatever the hysterics claim, elections will take place in a year or so. So whats the big deal about?

Have you by chance followed the monstrositiy of a constitution that is currently being drafted? It will basically render the election irrelevant. A large portion of the power is now moved to a fully appointed senate, and the PM no longer even needs to be elected. Any change Prayut has eyes on that?

A failry good chance the people will not be able to weigh in on this aberration before the election.

And, all opponents will be impeached by fairly dubious means prior to the election.

That is the big deal.

[rubl]

Its not a choice between military rule and a flawed democracy is it? Its just a break until the balance of power between elected and unelected elites can be re-distributed, both sets of elites are weakening each other, and this can only mean ordinary thais become more powerful in relation to both. The worst thing that can happen is if they both start co-operating, in terms of 'democracy' anyway.

Whatever the hysterics claim, elections will take place in a year or so. So whats the big deal about?

Have you by chance followed the monstrositiy of a constitution that is currently being drafted? It will basically render the election irrelevant. A large portion of the power is now moved to a fully appointed senate, and the PM no longer even needs to be elected. Any change Prayut has eyes on that?

A failry good chance the people will not be able to weigh in on this aberration before the election.

And, all opponents will be impeached by fairly dubious means prior to the election.

That is the big deal.

So you think Abhisit will be impeached by fairly dubious means ? He spoke out against some of the reforms.

[longway]

Its not a choice between military rule and a flawed democracy is it? Its just a break until the balance of power between elected and unelected elites can be re-distributed, both sets of elites are weakening each other, and this can only mean ordinary thais become more powerful in relation to both. The worst thing that can happen is if they both start co-operating, in terms of 'democracy' anyway.

Whatever the hysterics claim, elections will take place in a year or so. So whats the big deal about?

Have you by chance followed the monstrositiy of a constitution that is currently being drafted? It will basically render the election irrelevant. A large portion of the power is now moved to a fully appointed senate, and the PM no longer even needs to be elected. Any change Prayut has eyes on that?

A failry good chance the people will not be able to weigh in on this aberration before the election.

And, all opponents will be impeached by fairly dubious means prior to the election.

That is the big deal.

Whats also happening is that seats will apportioned by percentage of votes, so one party cannot win more seats than their voting share percentage. Well that's the theory anyway, there are ways to beat the system.

I don't agree with your assessment; the new system will make it more difficult for single parties or individual politicians to dominate Thailand. I cannot see how that is incompatible with democracy. Its too early to say whether the pitifully small amount of power that ordinary thais have in their own governance will be diminished or enhanced. IMPO I think an unintended consequence of the redistribution of power will enhance it a little bit.

If elections are really irrelevant you will find many political parties not bothering to stand and disbanding, and whoever standing will not spend money on elections. I am willing to bet you whatever you like it will not be the case.

Again its just fanciful interpretations of a complex situation.

Edited February 27, 2015 by longway

[beautifulthailand99]

Some interesting talk on the free web of the reasons behind this and events to come.

[heybruce]

Its not a choice between military rule and a flawed democracy is it? Its just a break until the balance of power between elected and unelected elites can be re-distributed, both sets of elites are weakening each other, and this can only mean ordinary thais become more powerful in relation to both. The worst thing that can happen is if they both start co-operating, in terms of 'democracy' anyway.

Whatever the hysterics claim, elections will take place in a year or so. So whats the big deal about?

Well, "hysterics" may be concerned that democracy will never have a chance to establish itself if there is a coup and rewrite of the constitution every five to ten years. There is also some concern that the latest rewrite of the constitution will ensure that whenever elections are held they will be purely for show, with all real power in the hands of unelected people.

It certainly looks like a choice between military rule and flawed democracy to me. Especially since this "break" is under military rule and there is no pretense of democracy in how the balance of power is being shifted to the elites. My biggest fear is that the military will be so determined to protect certain groups that they will try to drag Thailand into a society similar to Burma's in the 1990's, which could lead to bloody protests and unknown results. I think that would be a very big deal.

Hmmm. You think it looks, especially since and therefore your biggest fear is, and you think that's a big deal.

Anyway, Abhisit / Suthep may face impeachment over 2010 crackdown, but that seems much less interesting than other issues. Wasn't there a 'hotly' debated topic a while ago, about relatives of the 'temple deaths' who vowed to sue the NACC for inaction? Nothing happened, although this latest activity of the NACC may be a result of gentle prodding. People should be happy about that. Even if not impeached we should at least get more info on the procedures and happenings in 2010.

"You think it looks, especially since and therefore your biggest fear is, and you think that's a big deal."

rubl, please proof-read before you post.

"Anyway, Abhisit / Suthep may face impeachment over 2010 crackdown, but that seems much less interesting than other issues."

I assume that is why you're bringing up history about past threatened lawsuits.

[rubl]

Its not a choice between military rule and a flawed democracy is it? Its just a break until the balance of power between elected and unelected elites can be re-distributed, both sets of elites are weakening each other, and this can only mean ordinary thais become more powerful in relation to both. The worst thing that can happen is if they both start co-operating, in terms of 'democracy' anyway.

Whatever the hysterics claim, elections will take place in a year or so. So whats the big deal about?

Well, "hysterics" may be concerned that democracy will never have a chance to establish itself if there is a coup and rewrite of the constitution every five to ten years. There is also some concern that the latest rewrite of the constitution will ensure that whenever elections are held they will be purely for show, with all real power in the hands of unelected people.

It certainly looks like a choice between military rule and flawed democracy to me. Especially since this "break" is under military rule and there is no pretense of democracy in how the balance of power is being shifted to the elites. My biggest fear is that the military will be so determined to protect certain groups that they will try to drag Thailand into a society similar to Burma's in the 1990's, which could lead to bloody protests and unknown results. I think that would be a very big deal.

Hmmm. You think it looks, especially since and therefore your biggest fear is, and you think that's a big deal.

Anyway, Abhisit / Suthep may face impeachment over 2010 crackdown, but that seems much less interesting than other issues. Wasn't there a 'hotly' debated topic a while ago, about relatives of the 'temple deaths' who vowed to sue the NACC for inaction? Nothing happened, although this latest activity of the NACC may be a result of gentle prodding. People should be happy about that. Even if not impeached we should at least get more info on the procedures and happenings in 2010.

"You think it looks, especially since and therefore your biggest fear is, and you think that's a big deal."

rubl, please proof-read before you post.

"Anyway, Abhisit / Suthep may face impeachment over 2010 crackdown, but that seems much less interesting than other issues."

I assume that is why you're bringing up history about past threatened lawsuits.

Proof read? The essence was covered. No need for a three page dissertation on the logical dissection of your sentences.

As for past threatened lawsuits. Well, as you may remember that was just two weeks ago and had to do with this topic. It had relatives vowing to file charges on the NACC for failure to show results. This topic here is about movements, possible results. BTW the lawsuit didn't seem to get substance, only attraction, political as some might say. I was wondering at the time which court would be selected and you didn't think that interesting either.

So, former leaders may face impeachment, even if you don't like I mention this.

[heybruce]

Well, "hysterics" may be concerned that democracy will never have a chance to establish itself if there is a coup and rewrite of the constitution every five to ten years. There is also some concern that the latest rewrite of the constitution will ensure that whenever elections are held they will be purely for show, with all real power in the hands of unelected people.

It certainly looks like a choice between military rule and flawed democracy to me. Especially since this "break" is under military rule and there is no pretense of democracy in how the balance of power is being shifted to the elites. My biggest fear is that the military will be so determined to protect certain groups that they will try to drag Thailand into a society similar to Burma's in the 1990's, which could lead to bloody protests and unknown results. I think that would be a very big deal.

Hmmm. You think it looks, especially since and therefore your biggest fear is, and you think that's a big deal.

Anyway, Abhisit / Suthep may face impeachment over 2010 crackdown, but that seems much less interesting than other issues. Wasn't there a 'hotly' debated topic a while ago, about relatives of the 'temple deaths' who vowed to sue the NACC for inaction? Nothing happened, although this latest activity of the NACC may be a result of gentle prodding. People should be happy about that. Even if not impeached we should at least get more info on the procedures and happenings in 2010.

"You think it looks, especially since and therefore your biggest fear is, and you think that's a big deal."

rubl, please proof-read before you post.

"Anyway, Abhisit / Suthep may face impeachment over 2010 crackdown, but that seems much less interesting than other issues."

I assume that is why you're bringing up history about past threatened lawsuits.

Proof read? The essence was covered. No need for a three page dissertation on the logical dissection of your sentences.

As for past threatened lawsuits. Well, as you may remember that was just two weeks ago and had to do with this topic. It had relatives vowing to file charges on the NACC for failure to show results. This topic here is about movements, possible results. BTW the lawsuit didn't seem to get substance, only attraction, political as some might say. I was wondering at the time which court would be selected and you didn't think that interesting either.

So, former leaders may face impeachment, even if you don't like I mention this.

Yes, proof-read. "You think it looks, especially since and therefore your biggest fear is, and you think that's a big deal." makes no sense at all.

Re-read the OP and explain how your speculation about past threats of lawsuits applies to the NACC exploring the possibility of impeaching Abhisit and Suthep.

[Skywalker69]

Nice try, fabby.

Flying_Pigs.jpg

One consolation, you can use google images. 30 seconds of my life wasted, whatever.

I still have my own archive build up over the many years discussing the same over and over again with every new generation emerging.

Onkle, don´t feed the troll.

[rubl]

"You think it looks, especially since and therefore your biggest fear is, and you think that's a big deal."

rubl, please proof-read before you post.

"Anyway, Abhisit / Suthep may face impeachment over 2010 crackdown, but that seems much less interesting than other issues."

I assume that is why you're bringing up history about past threatened lawsuits.

Proof read? The essence was covered. No need for a three page dissertation on the logical dissection of your sentences.

As for past threatened lawsuits. Well, as you may remember that was just two weeks ago and had to do with this topic. It had relatives vowing to file charges on the NACC for failure to show results. This topic here is about movements, possible results. BTW the lawsuit didn't seem to get substance, only attraction, political as some might say. I was wondering at the time which court would be selected and you didn't think that interesting either.

So, former leaders may face impeachment, even if you don't like I mention this.

Yes, proof-read. "You think it looks, especially since and therefore your biggest fear is, and you think that's a big deal." makes no sense at all.

Re-read the OP and explain how your speculation about past threats of lawsuits applies to the NACC exploring the possibility of impeaching Abhisit and Suthep.

The way you go on, it's clear you think it's a big deal. That was what you thought and from which you extrapolated and managed to get to a situation you would fear.

As for this topic and the previous one, well

Here:

:The National Anti-Corruption Commission said former prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his deputy Suthep Thaugsuban should face "abuse of power" charges for overseeing the crackdown which also left hundreds injured.:

Previous on Friday 13th this February:

"Nattapat Akhart, whose sister Kamolkate Akhart was shot dead by soldiers during the military operation, has accused the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) of deliberately dragging its feet in prosecuting the Democrat Party politicians who authorized the crackdown."

At that time you were interested to discuss anything but the charging of the NACC and speculation on at which court. Now we have the NACC talking about impeachment and you're still not interested in the proceedings it would seem.