Prayuth Promises Not to Arrest Thaksin at Lee Kuan Yew's Funeral

[jamesjohnsonthird]

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

Thaksin was convicted by a court that had little option but to find him guilty. All they could get him on was a conflict of interest, that is not corruption, but a minor charge the same as they got Samak on for appearing on a cooking program. Quite right Prayuth nor any other Thai could arrest Mr T in Singapore, that's a civilized country governed by the rule of law, and not the rule of thugs and force and illegal coups.

What total rubbish you write.

Another graduate of the robert twist and confuse and tell it differently than the actual truth school.

Your opening line is a bit like 'he was convicted of murder because there was no other alternative but in fact there is solid evidence that he committed the murder. So It's all unfair'.

The felon was charged with abuse of authority, which is a serious charge, and there was indisputable evidence of guilt on a grand scale, nothing more and nothing less.

Let's also mention the discussion about why the paymaster was never fully investigated in regard to his war on drugs. There is more than enough evidence in the last few months and earlier that the RTP was under the direction and control of the paymaster and in reality frightened of his power.

So why do you think the RTP never fully investigated?

This genius thinks that the reason the drugs war abuses were never investigated was because Thaksin controlled the police.One doesn't know whether to weep or mock this kind of ignorance.

Fact is, the Democrats did open an investigation after HRH requested it, in his Dec 4 speech.

Abhisit opened an investigation into the killings, claiming that a successful probe would lead to prosecution.

Witnesses and victims were urged to report to the Department of Special Investigation.

Abhisit's investigation failed to find or publicize any conclusive evidence linking Thaksin or members of his Government to any extrajudicial killings.

The Democrats let the story fade.

Funny, The Nation never mentioned this.

Edited March 27, 2015 by jamesjohnsonthird

[chainarong]

The leader of Thailand is a jester, lay one hand on another person old son outside of your own country and you could find yourself being arrested, your power of influence stops at 33,000 ft in the Air or the Thai border whichever comes first and I would be careful General, you are not that popular, not in some quarters outside of Thailand, to be on the safe side I would request Singapore to provide extra security.

[rubl]

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

Thaksin was convicted by a court that had little option but to find him guilty. All they could get him on was a conflict of interest, that is not corruption, but a minor charge the same as they got Samak on for appearing on a cooking program. Quite right Prayuth nor any other Thai could arrest Mr T in Singapore, that's a civilized country governed by the rule of law, and not the rule of thugs and force and illegal coups.

What total rubbish you write.

Another graduate of the robert twist and confuse and tell it differently than the actual truth school.

Your opening line is a bit like 'he was convicted of murder because there was no other alternative but in fact there is solid evidence that he committed the murder. So It's all unfair'.

The felon was charged with abuse of authority, which is a serious charge, and there was indisputable evidence of guilt on a grand scale, nothing more and nothing less.

Let's also mention the discussion about why the paymaster was never fully investigated in regard to his war on drugs. There is more than enough evidence in the last few months and earlier that the RTP was under the direction and control of the paymaster and in reality frightened of his power.

So why do you think the RTP never fully investigated?

This genius thinks that the reason the drugs war abuses were never investigated was because Thaksin controlled the police.One doesn't know whether to weep or mock this kind of ignorance.

Fact is, the Democrats did open an investigation after HRH requested it, in his Dec 4 speech.

Abhisit opened an investigation into the killings, claiming that a successful probe would lead to prosecution.

Witnesses and victims were urged to report to the Department of Special Investigation.

Abhisit's investigation failed to find or publicize any conclusive evidence linking Thaksin or members of his Government to any extrajudicial killings.

The Democrats let the story fade.

Funny, The Nation never mentioned this.

Fact is that the Surayut government had the issue investigated and it was reported that there were sufficient issues to warrant further investigation. Then the December 2007 elections happened and Thaksin's governments let it drop. The Abhisit government gave it a try again, but was somewhat distracted by 'peaceful protests' and so. Then we had the Yingluck government which somehow also didn't really feel up to it and thought that a 'blanket amnesty bill' would be much easier to solve the issue.

[billd766]

What total rubbish you write.

Another graduate of the robert twist and confuse and tell it differently than the actual truth school.

Your opening line is a bit like 'he was convicted of murder because there was no other alternative but in fact there is solid evidence that he committed the murder. So It's all unfair'.

The felon was charged with abuse of authority, which is a serious charge, and there was indisputable evidence of guilt on a grand scale, nothing more and nothing less.

Let's also mention the discussion about why the paymaster was never fully investigated in regard to his war on drugs. There is more than enough evidence in the last few months and earlier that the RTP was under the direction and control of the paymaster and in reality frightened of his power.

So why do you think the RTP never fully investigated?

This genius thinks that the reason the drugs war abuses were never investigated was because Thaksin controlled the police.One doesn't know whether to weep or mock this kind of ignorance.

Fact is, the Democrats did open an investigation after HRH requested it, in his Dec 4 speech.

Abhisit opened an investigation into the killings, claiming that a successful probe would lead to prosecution.

Witnesses and victims were urged to report to the Department of Special Investigation.

Abhisit's investigation failed to find or publicize any conclusive evidence linking Thaksin or members of his Government to any extrajudicial killings.

The Democrats let the story fade.

Funny, The Nation never mentioned this.

Funny how not only the Nation never mentioned this but neither did any body else except you.

YOU are the person stating this as a fact so where are the links to all of this. In the same part of your mind that the stories came from?

Put up the links and references to back up your claim.

Or as we say in the UK. put your money where your mouth is.

Edited March 27, 2015 by billd766

[jamesjohnsonthird]

What total rubbish you write.

Another graduate of the robert twist and confuse and tell it differently than the actual truth school.

Your opening line is a bit like 'he was convicted of murder because there was no other alternative but in fact there is solid evidence that he committed the murder. So It's all unfair'.

The felon was charged with abuse of authority, which is a serious charge, and there was indisputable evidence of guilt on a grand scale, nothing more and nothing less.

Let's also mention the discussion about why the paymaster was never fully investigated in regard to his war on drugs. There is more than enough evidence in the last few months and earlier that the RTP was under the direction and control of the paymaster and in reality frightened of his power.

So why do you think the RTP never fully investigated?

This genius thinks that the reason the drugs war abuses were never investigated was because Thaksin controlled the police.One doesn't know whether to weep or mock this kind of ignorance.

Fact is, the Democrats did open an investigation after HRH requested it, in his Dec 4 speech.

Abhisit opened an investigation into the killings, claiming that a successful probe would lead to prosecution.

Witnesses and victims were urged to report to the Department of Special Investigation.

Abhisit's investigation failed to find or publicize any conclusive evidence linking Thaksin or members of his Government to any extrajudicial killings.

The Democrats let the story fade.

Funny, The Nation never mentioned this.

Funny how not only the Nation never mentioned this but neither did any body else except you.

YOU are the person stating this as a fact so where are the links to all of this. In the same part of your mind that the stories came from?

Put up the links and references to back up your claim.

Or as we say in the UK. put your money where your mouth is.

Seriously?!

The military and opposition leader Abhisit had every incentive to make Thaksin look bad, and had the authority to appoint a bunch of lackeys to make it so. Yet neither of these found ANYTHING on Thaksin.

Google it.

Edited March 27, 2015 by jamesjohnsonthird

[jayboy]

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

Thaksin was convicted by a court that had little option but to find him guilty. All they could get him on was a conflict of interest, that is not corruption, but a minor charge the same as they got Samak on for appearing on a cooking program. Quite right Prayuth nor any other Thai could arrest Mr T in Singapore, that's a civilized country governed by the rule of law, and not the rule of thugs and force and illegal coups.

What total rubbish you write.

Another graduate of the robert twist and confuse and tell it differently than the actual truth school.

Your opening line is a bit like 'he was convicted of murder because there was no other alternative but in fact there is solid evidence that he committed the murder. So It's all unfair'.

The felon was charged with abuse of authority, which is a serious charge, and there was indisputable evidence of guilt on a grand scale, nothing more and nothing less.

Let's also mention the discussion about why the paymaster was never fully investigated in regard to his war on drugs. There is more than enough evidence in the last few months and earlier that the RTP was under the direction and control of the paymaster and in reality frightened of his power.

So why do you think the RTP never fully investigated?

This genius thinks that the reason the drugs war abuses were never investigated was because Thaksin controlled the police.One doesn't know whether to weep or mock this kind of ignorance.

Fact is, the Democrats did open an investigation after HRH requested it, in his Dec 4 speech.

Abhisit opened an investigation into the killings, claiming that a successful probe would lead to prosecution.

Witnesses and victims were urged to report to the Department of Special Investigation.

Abhisit's investigation failed to find or publicize any conclusive evidence linking Thaksin or members of his Government to any extrajudicial killings.

The Democrats let the story fade.

Funny, The Nation never mentioned this.

Fact is that the Surayut government had the issue investigated and it was reported that there were sufficient issues to warrant further investigation. Then the December 2007 elections happened and Thaksin's governments let it drop. The Abhisit government gave it a try again, but was somewhat distracted by 'peaceful protests' and so. Then we had the Yingluck government which somehow also didn't really feel up to it and thought that a 'blanket amnesty bill' would be much easier to solve the issue.

A pack of lies.Frankly I am slightly surprised since though you are obviously deluded I had never previously thought of you as dishonest.

[rubl]

Fact is that the Surayut government had the issue investigated and it was reported that there were sufficient issues to warrant further investigation. Then the December 2007 elections happened and Thaksin's governments let it drop. The Abhisit government gave it a try again, but was somewhat distracted by 'peaceful protests' and so. Then we had the Yingluck government which somehow also didn't really feel up to it and thought that a 'blanket amnesty bill' would be much easier to solve the issue.

A pack of lies.Frankly I am slightly surprised since though you are obviously deluded I had never previously thought of you as dishonest.

'a pack of lies' ?

in 2004 a police commission investigating concluded 'hardly more than 50 killed by police forces'. The 'international community' protested and Thaksin was said to request a commission of the UN on HR to have a look, but also stated in an interview "the UN is not my father'. Nothing happened. After the September 2006 coup a commission looked into it and blamed the 'shoot to kill' policy of the Thaksin government. Under Surayut investigations continued. A report was even rumoured to have names of politicians who 'egged on' the violence. After PPP won the elections nothing happened, even Surayut was already said to have dropped things. See the January 2008 article in the Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/10566797

Do I need to go on, or are you ready to withdraw your accusation of 'pack of lies' ?

[jamesjohnsonthird]

Since 2003 the Democrats have been accusing Thaksin but they have been too busy or distracted to actually investigate.

Funny, they had plenty of time to nail that PM for appearing on a Sunday cooking TV show.

But 2,500 deaths.... well... we will get around to it someday. Until we do, we can just say Thaksin did it...

Edited March 27, 2015 by jamesjohnsonthird

[scorecard]

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

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

Thaksin was convicted by a court that had little option but to find him guilty. All they could get him on was a conflict of interest, that is not corruption, but a minor charge the same as they got Samak on for appearing on a cooking program. Quite right Prayuth nor any other Thai could arrest Mr T in Singapore, that's a civilized country governed by the rule of law, and not the rule of thugs and force and illegal coups.

What total rubbish you write.

Another graduate of the robert twist and confuse and tell it differently than the actual truth school.

Your opening line is a bit like 'he was convicted of murder because there was no other alternative but in fact there is solid evidence that he committed the murder. So It's all unfair'.

The felon was charged with abuse of authority, which is a serious charge, and there was indisputable evidence of guilt on a grand scale, nothing more and nothing less.

Let's also mention the discussion about why the paymaster was never fully investigated in regard to his war on drugs. There is more than enough evidence in the last few months and earlier that the RTP was under the direction and control of the paymaster and in reality frightened of his power.

So why do you think the RTP never fully investigated?

This genius thinks that the reason the drugs war abuses were never investigated was because Thaksin controlled the police.One doesn't know whether to weep or mock this kind of ignorance.

Fact is, the Democrats did open an investigation after HRH requested it, in his Dec 4 speech.
Abhisit opened an investigation into the killings, claiming that a successful probe would lead to prosecution.
Witnesses and victims were urged to report to the Department of Special Investigation.
Abhisit's investigation failed to find or publicize any conclusive evidence linking Thaksin or members of his Government to any extrajudicial killings.
The Democrats let the story fade.
Funny, The Nation never mentioned this.

Fact is that the Surayut government had the issue investigated and it was reported that there were sufficient issues to warrant further investigation. Then the December 2007 elections happened and Thaksin's governments let it drop. The Abhisit government gave it a try again, but was somewhat distracted by 'peaceful protests' and so. Then we had the Yingluck government which somehow also didn't really feel up to it and thought that a 'blanket amnesty bill' would be much easier to solve the issue.

A pack of lies.Frankly I am slightly surprised since though you are obviously deluded I had never previously thought of you as dishonest.

"This genius thinks that the reason the drugs war abuses were never investigated was because Thaksin controlled the police.One doesn't know whether to weep or mock this kind of ignorance."

Nice try jayboy, but facts are facts.

Simple examples, since the general took control many matters that the police conveniently pushed under the rug for many years (very obviously whilst under a certain control) have been investigated and legal proceedings are now in progress. But don't let facts get in the way of your always negative comment.

[jayboy]

Fact is that the Surayut government had the issue investigated and it was reported that there were sufficient issues to warrant further investigation. Then the December 2007 elections happened and Thaksin's governments let it drop. The Abhisit government gave it a try again, but was somewhat distracted by 'peaceful protests' and so. Then we had the Yingluck government which somehow also didn't really feel up to it and thought that a 'blanket amnesty bill' would be much easier to solve the issue.

A pack of lies.Frankly I am slightly surprised since though you are obviously deluded I had never previously thought of you as dishonest.

'a pack of lies' ?

in 2004 a police commission investigating concluded 'hardly more than 50 killed by police forces'. The 'international community' protested and Thaksin was said to request a commission of the UN on HR to have a look, but also stated in an interview "the UN is not my father'. Nothing happened. After the September 2006 coup a commission looked into it and blamed the 'shoot to kill' policy of the Thaksin government. Under Surayut investigations continued. A report was even rumoured to have names of politicians who 'egged on' the violence. After PPP won the elections nothing happened, even Surayut was already said to have dropped things. See the January 2008 article in the Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/10566797

Do I need to go on, or are you ready to withdraw your accusation of 'pack of lies' ?

Totally dishonest and the evidence of your nonsense is contained in your own post in which various administrations suddenly find nothing to report or get distracted or some other feeble excuse.There is actually a reason for the complete lack of follow up (complicity of powerful unelected elites) and the whole world knows it except for a tiny bunch of not very well informed foreigners.Certainly the drugs war was invoked by many as a weapon against Thaksin but as you unwittingly admitted action ground to a halt when the collateral damage implications were grasped.

[rubl]

Fact is that the Surayut government had the issue investigated and it was reported that there were sufficient issues to warrant further investigation. Then the December 2007 elections happened and Thaksin's governments let it drop. The Abhisit government gave it a try again, but was somewhat distracted by 'peaceful protests' and so. Then we had the Yingluck government which somehow also didn't really feel up to it and thought that a 'blanket amnesty bill' would be much easier to solve the issue.

A pack of lies.Frankly I am slightly surprised since though you are obviously deluded I had never previously thought of you as dishonest.

'a pack of lies' ?

in 2004 a police commission investigating concluded 'hardly more than 50 killed by police forces'. The 'international community' protested and Thaksin was said to request a commission of the UN on HR to have a look, but also stated in an interview "the UN is not my father'. Nothing happened. After the September 2006 coup a commission looked into it and blamed the 'shoot to kill' policy of the Thaksin government. Under Surayut investigations continued. A report was even rumoured to have names of politicians who 'egged on' the violence. After PPP won the elections nothing happened, even Surayut was already said to have dropped things. See the January 2008 article in the Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/10566797

Do I need to go on, or are you ready to withdraw your accusation of 'pack of lies' ?

Totally dishonest and the evidence of your nonsense is contained in your own post in which various administrations suddenly find nothing to report or get distracted or some other feeble excuse.There is actually a reason for the complete lack of follow up (complicity of powerful unelected elites) and the whole world knows it except for a tiny bunch of not very well informed foreigners.Certainly the drugs war was invoked by many as a weapon against Thaksin but as you unwittingly admitted action ground to a halt when the collateral damage implications were grasped.

'totally dishonest' ?

You are a bit disillusional it would seem. Do you disagree with the Economist article? Did you even read it?

Do you diagree with me "nothing happened after the PPP won and even Surayut was already said to have dropped things'

Totally dishonest? A pack of lies?

"One doesn't know whether to weep or mock this kind of ignorance."

"though you are obviously deluded I had never previously thought of you as dishonest."

More likely a case of someone being unable to be a jayman and fess up. Did I hear you say anything about JJ3, or doesn't that matter because it might be you're both on the same side?

The truth has nothing to do with which side you prefer. Only the interpretation of the truth.

[jayboy]

Fact is that the Surayut government had the issue investigated and it was reported that there were sufficient issues to warrant further investigation. Then the December 2007 elections happened and Thaksin's governments let it drop. The Abhisit government gave it a try again, but was somewhat distracted by 'peaceful protests' and so. Then we had the Yingluck government which somehow also didn't really feel up to it and thought that a 'blanket amnesty bill' would be much easier to solve the issue.

A pack of lies.Frankly I am slightly surprised since though you are obviously deluded I had never previously thought of you as dishonest.

'a pack of lies' ?

in 2004 a police commission investigating concluded 'hardly more than 50 killed by police forces'. The 'international community' protested and Thaksin was said to request a commission of the UN on HR to have a look, but also stated in an interview "the UN is not my father'. Nothing happened. After the September 2006 coup a commission looked into it and blamed the 'shoot to kill' policy of the Thaksin government. Under Surayut investigations continued. A report was even rumoured to have names of politicians who 'egged on' the violence. After PPP won the elections nothing happened, even Surayut was already said to have dropped things. See the January 2008 article in the Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/10566797

Do I need to go on, or are you ready to withdraw your accusation of 'pack of lies' ?

Totally dishonest and the evidence of your nonsense is contained in your own post in which various administrations suddenly find nothing to report or get distracted or some other feeble excuse.There is actually a reason for the complete lack of follow up (complicity of powerful unelected elites) and the whole world knows it except for a tiny bunch of not very well informed foreigners.Certainly the drugs war was invoked by many as a weapon against Thaksin but as you unwittingly admitted action ground to a halt when the collateral damage implications were grasped.

'totally dishonest' ?

You are a bit disillusional it would seem. Do you disagree with the Economist article? Did you even read it?

Do you diagree with me "nothing happened after the PPP won and even Surayut was already said to have dropped things'

Totally dishonest? A pack of lies?

"One doesn't know whether to weep or mock this kind of ignorance."

"though you are obviously deluded I had never previously thought of you as dishonest."

More likely a case of someone being unable to be a jayman and fess up. Did I hear you say anything about JJ3, or doesn't that matter because it might be you're both on the same side?

The truth has nothing to do with which side you prefer. Only the interpretation of the truth.

You are pretending there was a serious attempt to seek justice for victims of the drugs war after Thaksin was removed from power.There wasn't and the few half hearted inquiries were never followed up.There is a reason for this which has already been explained.Your attempt to deny it reflects badly on you and certainly in my view is dishonest.it is also foolish because the truth is widely known why the most damning of all Thaksin's abuses was never pursued - even when many were casting around for some extraditable crime to pin on him.This could have been it.

Your suggestion that the Abhisit administration became distracted so couldn't pursue is not only a lie but ridiculous.

[rubl]

'totally dishonest' ?

You are a bit disillusional it would seem. Do you disagree with the Economist article? Did you even read it?

Do you diagree with me "nothing happened after the PPP won and even Surayut was already said to have dropped things'

Totally dishonest? A pack of lies?

"One doesn't know whether to weep or mock this kind of ignorance."

"though you are obviously deluded I had never previously thought of you as dishonest."

More likely a case of someone being unable to be a jayman and fess up. Did I hear you say anything about JJ3, or doesn't that matter because it might be you're both on the same side?

The truth has nothing to do with which side you prefer. Only the interpretation of the truth.

You are pretending there was a serious attempt to seek justice for victims of the drugs war after Thaksin was removed from power.There wasn't and the few half hearted inquiries were never followed up.There is a reason for this which has already been explained.Your attempt to deny it reflects badly on you and certainly in my view is dishonest.it is also foolish because the truth is widely known why the most damning of all Thaksin's abuses was never pursued - even when many were casting around for some extraditable crime to pin on him.This could have been it.

Your suggestion that the Abhisit administration became distracted so couldn't pursue is not only a lie but ridiculous.

Your strong statements suggest facts, but are your opinion only. As such you lie according to your own definition. By the way anything which is a lie doesn't need further labels like 'ridiculous', it only adds to the suggestion that maybe it's not a lie but only something you do not agree with.

So, once more, grow up boy.

PS try not to upset the quotes in the posts

Edited March 27, 2015 by rubl

[jayboy]

'totally dishonest' ?

You are a bit disillusional it would seem. Do you disagree with the Economist article? Did you even read it?

Do you diagree with me "nothing happened after the PPP won and even Surayut was already said to have dropped things'

Totally dishonest? A pack of lies?

"One doesn't know whether to weep or mock this kind of ignorance."

"though you are obviously deluded I had never previously thought of you as dishonest."

More likely a case of someone being unable to be a jayman and fess up. Did I hear you say anything about JJ3, or doesn't that matter because it might be you're both on the same side?

The truth has nothing to do with which side you prefer. Only the interpretation of the truth.

You are pretending there was a serious attempt to seek justice for victims of the drugs war after Thaksin was removed from power.There wasn't and the few half hearted inquiries were never followed up.There is a reason for this which has already been explained.Your attempt to deny it reflects badly on you and certainly in my view is dishonest.it is also foolish because the truth is widely known why the most damning of all Thaksin's abuses was never pursued - even when many were casting around for some extraditable crime to pin on him.This could have been it.

Your suggestion that the Abhisit administration became distracted so couldn't pursue is not only a lie but ridiculous.

Your strong statements suggest facts, but are your opinion only. As such you lie according to your own definition. By the way anything which is a lie doesn't need further labels like 'ridiculous', it only adds to the suggestion that maybe it's not a lie but only something you do not agree with.

So, once more, grow up boy.

PS try not to upset the quotes in the posts

So just empty blathering.No attempt to deal with the main issue viz

- the unwillingness of the establishment to pursue Thaksin for the worst of his excesses.Thoroughly dishonest too because you are well aware of the reasons.As with all the usual suspects they become hysterical when presented with facts that don't fit their narrative.

[uptheos]

I think that's jolly decent of the PM, not to make an arrest in the sovereign nation state of Singapore

[rubl]

Your strong statements suggest facts, but are your opinion only. As such you lie according to your own definition. By the way anything which is a lie doesn't need further labels like 'ridiculous', it only adds to the suggestion that maybe it's not a lie but only something you do not agree with.

So, once more, grow up boy.

PS try not to upset the quotes in the posts

So just empty blathering.No attempt to deal with the main issue viz

- the unwillingness of the establishment to pursue Thaksin for the worst of his excesses.Thoroughly dishonest too because you are well aware of the reasons.As with all the usual suspects they become hysterical when presented with facts that don't fit their narrative.

So totally honest. Thaksin versus the establishment as all of course know that only the establishment is against Thaksin. Obviously those who run their provinces as their personal fief and are in favour of Thaksin are non-establishment democracy lovers. Still good to read your "worst of his excesses".

anyway, don't worry, Prayut will not arrest Thaksin if he sees him tomorrow that is. Obviously because the establishment doesn't want him to.

[jayboy]

Your strong statements suggest facts, but are your opinion only. As such you lie according to your own definition. By the way anything which is a lie doesn't need further labels like 'ridiculous', it only adds to the suggestion that maybe it's not a lie but only something you do not agree with.

So, once more, grow up boy.

PS try not to upset the quotes in the posts

So just empty blathering.No attempt to deal with the main issue viz

- the unwillingness of the establishment to pursue Thaksin for the worst of his excesses.Thoroughly dishonest too because you are well aware of the reasons.As with all the usual suspects they become hysterical when presented with facts that don't fit their narrative.

So totally honest. Thaksin versus the establishment as all of course know that only the establishment is against Thaksin. Obviously those who run their provinces as their personal fief and are in favour of Thaksin are non-establishment democracy lovers. Still good to read your "worst of his excesses".

anyway, don't worry, Prayut will not arrest Thaksin if he sees him tomorrow that is. Obviously because the establishment doesn't want him to.

I have consistently and over several years criticised Thaksin for his illegal drugs war.I just don't lie about its background and high level support/complicity.

Incidentally your comment about provincial bosses indicates your grasp of current Thai politics is hopelessly out of date.What you suggest had some elements of truth about 20 years ago but makes no sense now given subsequent events.There's actually quite a lot of decent research/publications on this issue.

[rubl]

So totally honest. Thaksin versus the establishment as all of course know that only the establishment is against Thaksin. Obviously those who run their provinces as their personal fief and are in favour of Thaksin are non-establishment democracy lovers. Still good to read your "worst of his excesses".

anyway, don't worry, Prayut will not arrest Thaksin if he sees him tomorrow that is. Obviously because the establishment doesn't want him to.

I have consistently and over several years criticised Thaksin for his illegal drugs war.I just don't lie about its background and high level support/complicity.

Incidentally your comment about provincial bosses indicates your grasp of current Thai politics is hopelessly out of date.What you suggest had some elements of truth about 20 years ago but makes no sense now given subsequent events.There's actually quite a lot of decent research/publications on this issue.

I posted a reply which was removed by a mod, you can still read why.

As for provincial bosses, I forgot, my excuses. By now the 'baton' has been passed to the new generation which has less understanding of 'noblesse oblige' and more understanding of business, financing and profits.

Makes you wonder if Thaksin's son would smile if he saw Prayut in Singapore

[casindonet]

Seriously guys, do any of you for once think that the thai elites wants Thaksin back in thailand.

[rubl]

Seriously guys, do any of you for once think that the thai elites wants Thaksin back in thailand.

Well, some of them, like the Shinawatras, the Silpa-Archas just to name some.

[casindonet]

Seriously guys, do any of you for once think that the thai elites wants Thaksin back in thailand.

Well, some of them, like the Shinawatras, the Silpa-Archas just to name some.

If they really wanted to prosecute him, they wouldn't have let him attend the Olympic? Why didn't they ask Interpol for help, which they could have done after the 2006 coup & during the democrat tenure or even now? Bottom line is, the thai elites do not want him back on thai soil, period.

[rubl]

Seriously guys, do any of you for once think that the thai elites wants Thaksin back in thailand.

Well, some of them, like the Shinawatras, the Silpa-Archas just to name some.

If they really wanted to prosecute him, they wouldn't have let him attend the Olympic? Why didn't they ask Interpol for help, which they could have done after the 2006 coup & during the democrat tenure or even now? Bottom line is, the thai elites do not want him back on thai soil, period.

Well, as I wrote 'the Thai elite' like the Shinawatras and political and/or business related other families really want him back. That's one of the reasons they even voted in favour for a blanket amnesty bill.

Of course, the journalist asking PM Prayut if he would 'arrest' Thaksin if he bumped into him in Singapore was just a bit tongue-in-cheek. As if PMs are in the habit of personally arresting criminal fugitives while themselves being a guest in another country. Would be bad form, now wouldn't it. Would disgrace the country and upset relations, now wouldn't it. Actually a bloody stupid question, the journalist can call himself lucky PM Prayut didn't have him shot at dawn

[Ricardo]

Seriously guys, do any of you for once think that the thai elites wants Thaksin back in thailand.

Well, some of them, like the Shinawatras, the Silpa-Archas just to name some.

If they really wanted to prosecute him, they wouldn't have let him attend the Olympic? Why didn't they ask Interpol for help, which they could have done after the 2006 coup & during the democrat tenure or even now? Bottom line is, the thai elites do not want him back on thai soil, period.

"If they really wanted to prosecute him, they wouldn't have let him attend the Olympic?"

Who was PM, when the court permitted him to go watch the Olympics, don't you think the PPP-led coalition-government might have had another reason not to really want to prosecute their own inspirational thinker/leader ?

And Thaksin hadn't been judged guilty, at the time of the 2006 coup, that all came later.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Ricardo

[NongKhaiKid]

Seriously guys, do any of you for once think that the thai elites wants Thaksin back in thailand.

Well, some of them, like the Shinawatras, the Silpa-Archas just to name some.

If they really wanted to prosecute him, they wouldn't have let him attend the Olympic? Why didn't they ask Interpol for help, which they could have done after the 2006 coup & during the democrat tenure or even now? Bottom line is, the thai elites do not want him back on thai soil, period.

Well, as I wrote 'the Thai elite' like the Shinawatras and political and/or business related other families really want him back. That's one of the reasons they even voted in favour for a blanket amnesty bill.

Of course, the journalist asking PM Prayut if he would 'arrest' Thaksin if he bumped into him in Singapore was just a bit tongue-in-cheek. As if PMs are in the habit of personally arresting criminal fugitives while themselves being a guest in another country. Would be bad form, now wouldn't it. Would disgrace the country and upset relations, now wouldn't it. Actually a bloody stupid question, the journalist can call himself lucky PM Prayut didn't have him shot at dawn

In a so called civilised and sometimes democratic country why is it lucky that a journalist isn't shot for asking the PM a question he doesn't like, stupid or not ?

Edited March 29, 2015 by NongKhaiKid

[Ricardo]

Incidentally your comment about provincial bosses indicates your grasp of current Thai politics is hopelessly out of date.What you suggest had some elements of truth about 20 years ago but makes no sense now given subsequent events.There's actually quite a lot of decent research/publications on this issue.

I wish I could agree, but IMO some of the local political power-brokers still view themselves, as being the real powers-that-be.

For example :- "While wheeling Yingluck's chair into the aquarium, Banharn said he was delighted to welcome the prime minister to his province.", my bold.

and from the same article,

"The PM, who was in a wheelchair after twisting her ankle last week, was warmly welcomed by Chart Thai Pattana de facto leader Banharn Silapa-archa, caretaker Agriculture and Cooperatives Minister Yukol Limlamthong, Deputy Premier Plodprasop Suraswadi and Suphan Buri Governor Supeepat Chongpanish."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/716340-whistle-blowers-greet-yingluck-in-suphan-buri/

Newin might be another example of the power-block leaders, who were originally aligned with Thaksin's TRT, when he put his group together ?

The way the minor parties jostle to join whatever coalition is being assembled, in return for jobs & pork, is a dead give-away, isn't it ?

Feudal politics remains alive and well here.

[rubl]

Seriously guys, do any of you for once think that the thai elites wants Thaksin back in thailand.

Well, some of them, like the Shinawatras, the Silpa-Archas just to name some.

If they really wanted to prosecute him, they wouldn't have let him attend the Olympic? Why didn't they ask Interpol for help, which they could have done after the 2006 coup & during the democrat tenure or even now? Bottom line is, the thai elites do not want him back on thai soil, period.

"If they really wanted to prosecute him, they wouldn't have let him attend the Olympic?"

Who was PM, when the court permitted him to go watch the Olympics, don't you think the PPP-led coalition-government might have had another reason not to really want to prosecute their own inspirational thinker/leader ?

And Thaksin hadn't been judged guilty, at the time of the 2006 coup, that all came later.

Shouldn't the last sentence be

"and Thaksin hadn't been judged guilty, at the time of the 2008 Olympics, that came in October 2008. Furthermore as the court case was about 'possible conflict of interest leaning towards corruption' a bail refusal would have looked like overkill and have suggested political motivation or just a crusade against poor, old Thaksin.

[rubl]

Well, some of them, like the Shinawatras, the Silpa-Archas just to name some.

If they really wanted to prosecute him, they wouldn't have let him attend the Olympic? Why didn't they ask Interpol for help, which they could have done after the 2006 coup & during the democrat tenure or even now? Bottom line is, the thai elites do not want him back on thai soil, period.

Well, as I wrote 'the Thai elite' like the Shinawatras and political and/or business related other families really want him back. That's one of the reasons they even voted in favour for a blanket amnesty bill.

Of course, the journalist asking PM Prayut if he would 'arrest' Thaksin if he bumped into him in Singapore was just a bit tongue-in-cheek. As if PMs are in the habit of personally arresting criminal fugitives while themselves being a guest in another country. Would be bad form, now wouldn't it. Would disgrace the country and upset relations, now wouldn't it. Actually a bloody stupid question, the journalist can call himself lucky PM Prayut didn't have him shot at dawn

In a so called civilised and sometimes democratic country why is it lucky that a journalist isn't shot for asking the PM a question he doesn't like, stupid or not ?

I woke up around 06:00 to the gentle ticking of the rain on the roof. Made a cuppa coffee and watched the rain wash away rubbish, dust and all my worries. It would seem your day started with getting out of bed wrong foot first, no coffee and no humour.

My excuses for spoiling your day with my non-native English speaker type of English mangling and the poor attempt at humour, and the bloody cheek to even include a smiley. Should be prohibited on Sundays, shouldn't it?

[rubl]

Sunday 15:43 Thai local time. No news about an international diplomatic scandal yet.

Mind you PM John Key from New Zealand was quoted as saying he thought to have made the right decision to go to Melbourne for the Cricket World Cup Final rather than to Singapore. "It was a difficult decision because obviously I want to go to both," Key told reporters."

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/zealand-pm-attend-cricket-final-over-lee-funeral-013828496.html

[hawker9000]

1. He doesn't have any authority to arrest someone on Singapore soil.

So when he gonna learn that it's better to put his foot in his mouth before he starts talking?

2. Of course he doesn't arrest him, the deal was done several months ago.

1. He never said that he did.

He could take lessons from some right here when it comes to putting his foot in his mouth.

2. See #1.

As silly as the topic title is, some apparently never get past it ...