PM defends the use of administrative order against Ms Yingluck as necessary

[Muirton]

I like this statement he made

The prime minister said Tuesday that his government would duty-bound to seek compensation for the loss and it was necessary to use the administrative order because the civil case will expire in two years.

How can an illegal government be duty bound?

This "government" has a duty to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted. History gives it high marks for fulfilling this duty.

[Muirton]

I like this statement he made

The prime minister said Tuesday that his government would duty-bound to seek compensation for the loss and it was necessary to use the administrative order because the civil case will expire in two years.

How can an illegal government be duty bound?

It's only illegal in your mind.

How about "illegal" in the minds of 69.5 million Thais and falang interested in democracy?

[Muirton]

Her family name is Shinawatra. What more justification is needed?

Evidence would be lovely.

[Muirton]

Whether members like it or not, PM Prayut is applying the law & there was an enquiry that found fmr PM Yingluck guilty of negligence & malfeasance in control of the Rice Pledging Scheme, now she's being brought to justice. All you naysayers, would you be happy if she simply walks free, does a runner, same as Bro & leaves all the poor rice farmers down the drain further?

Similar to telling the farmers they can plant only one crop this year?

What's wrong with advising greedy farmers that there is not enough water to go round this year.

What is your basis for calling Thailand's farmers "greedy"? Please supply specific cites and sites -- if, that is, you're not in great ignorance insulting Thailand's farmers. If you can't supply the facts you must have in order to be able to state the farmers are "greedy", what conclusion can the readers of this thread come to regarding you?

[Muirton]

I like this statement he made

The prime minister said Tuesday that his government would duty-bound to seek compensation for the loss and it was necessary to use the administrative order because the civil case will expire in two years.

How can an illegal government be duty bound?

I suggest that you petition the Privy Council and the highest person in the land who actually have made this government legal.

If you cannot accept that fact then the problem is yours.

Neither you nor I nor perhaps 99% of TVF posters can affect the reality that this government is legal and in charge of running the country.

It is NOT an illegal government and nothing you can say or do will affect that no matter what spin you try to put on it.

If this "government" is not "illegal", what does it take for a government on this planet to be illegal?

[scorecard]

Better she pays than I pay or Mr. Motorbike Taxi pays.

I don't think Mr. Motorbike Taxi pays tax ....... so that leaves just you paying.

Alternatively, they could save some money by not buying any submarines.

Or they could stop all the school administrators buying themselves new cars with educational funds.

Or sack a few of the excess generals, inactive police officers.

Etc.

Well considering the mess this gang achieved (along with their finance minister telling blatant dangerous lies):

1. Maybe mr. motor cycle taxi driver will need to pay taxes to keep Thailand out of bankruptcy.

2. "they could save some money by not buying any submarines.Or they could stop all the school administrators buying themselves new cars with educational funds.

Or sack a few of the excess generals, inactive police officers." No argument.

[halloween]

I love the way that the junta lovers cry that "they were not in power, as they dissolved parliament" which ironically was what many were calling for, including all those on here who continue to say that they were not kicked out of power because they had already dissolved parliament as they were demanded to!!!

I am sure someone with more energy than me, could go back on people like Bill767 etc and find many a post calling for them to dissolve parliament!

In most western democracies, a government that passed a bill so blatantly self-serving and corrupt that it was rejected unanimously by the Senate and caused huge public protest, would have resigned out of shame. Yingluk and company dont understand the concept.

[elviajero]

I love the way that the junta lovers cry that "they were not in power, as they dissolved parliament" which ironically was what many were calling for, including all those on here who continue to say that they were not kicked out of power because they had already dissolved parliament as they were demanded to!!!

I am sure someone with more energy than me, could go back on people like Bill767 etc and find many a post calling for them to dissolve parliament!

In most western democracies, a government that passed a bill so blatantly self-serving and corrupt that it was rejected unanimously by the Senate and caused huge public protest, would have resigned out of shame. Yingluk and company dont understand the concept.

Absolutely right!

And a party wouldn't get away with standing on a populist policy that every expert warned would cause huge financial losses and corruption.

[smutcakes]

I love the way that the junta lovers cry that "they were not in power, as they dissolved parliament" which ironically was what many were calling for, including all those on here who continue to say that they were not kicked out of power because they had already dissolved parliament as they were demanded to!!!

I am sure someone with more energy than me, could go back on people like Bill767 etc and find many a post calling for them to dissolve parliament!

In most western democracies, a government that passed a bill so blatantly self-serving and corrupt that it was rejected unanimously by the Senate and caused huge public protest, would have resigned out of shame. Yingluk and company dont understand the concept.

Absolutely right!

And a party wouldn't get away with standing on a populist policy that every expert warned would cause huge financial losses and corruption.

Although it was ok with other agriculture policies and governments,albeit on a smaller scale?

And direct handouts are okay?

[smutcakes]

I love the way that the junta lovers cry that "they were not in power, as they dissolved parliament" which ironically was what many were calling for, including all those on here who continue to say that they were not kicked out of power because they had already dissolved parliament as they were demanded to!!!

I am sure someone with more energy than me, could go back on people like Bill767 etc and find many a post calling for them to dissolve parliament!

In most western democracies, a government that passed a bill so blatantly self-serving and corrupt that it was rejected unanimously by the Senate and caused huge public protest, would have resigned out of shame. Yingluk and company dont understand the concept.

It was rejected by the Senate, as per how the system works. And they dissolved parliament as you mention.

Should the junta stand down for lying about the single gateway?

[Muirton]

It's only illegal in your mind.

and in the minds of many others.

Look, this "government" has control of the country.

But that doesn't make this "government" legitimate.

I'm sure they will struggle on without your stamp of approval.

Struggle on they will, every day a fiasco larger than the day before. It's time for three high-speed submarines from China to Bangkok.

[baboon]

This illegal government has flushed Thailand down the toilet financially and internationally. I can't wait to see this PM's face when the next legally elected government go after him for all of the losses incurred, I hope they reclaim all of these "rewards" being paid to the keystone cops too

What illegal government would that be?

The one that was approved by the highest person in Thailand?

The one that overthrew by means of a coup the democratically elected government and which was approved by the highest person in Thailand.

Don't even try that one. General Suchinda did and the lese majeste charge against Sulak Sivarkasa was thrown out of court. By the way, invoking the name of His Majesty is a particularly dirty and underhanded way of attempting to stifle discourse, given forum rules. Shame on you for doing that.

I never mentioned any persons name. You did.

So who were you referring to if not His Majesty?

[smutcakes]

This illegal government has flushed Thailand down the toilet financially and internationally. I can't wait to see this PM's face when the next legally elected government go after him for all of the losses incurred, I hope they reclaim all of these "rewards" being paid to the keystone cops too

What illegal government would that be?

The one that was approved by the highest person in Thailand?

The one that overthrew by means of a coup the democratically elected government and which was approved by the highest person in Thailand.

Don't even try that one. General Suchinda did and the lese majeste charge against Sulak Sivarkasa was thrown out of court. By the way, invoking the name of His Majesty is a particularly dirty and underhanded way of attempting to stifle discourse, given forum rules. Shame on you for doing that.

I never mentioned any persons name. You did.

So who were you referring to if not His Majesty?

Yet bill you are always the one who refers to if you disagree wih something petition the highest power!!

Have some consistency.

[halloween]

I love the way that the junta lovers cry that "they were not in power, as they dissolved parliament" which ironically was what many were calling for, including all those on here who continue to say that they were not kicked out of power because they had already dissolved parliament as they were demanded to!!!

I am sure someone with more energy than me, could go back on people like Bill767 etc and find many a post calling for them to dissolve parliament!

In most western democracies, a government that passed a bill so blatantly self-serving and corrupt that it was rejected unanimously by the Senate and caused huge public protest, would have resigned out of shame. Yingluk and company dont understand the concept.

It was rejected by the Senate, as per how the system works. And they dissolved parliament as you mention.

Should the junta stand down for lying about the single gateway?

Oh deary me! Parliament was dissolved almost a month later. Remind me, was that because of PTP's shame over corruption, the mass public protests, or because the opposition resigned, in the red shirt version of history?

Stick to the topic.

[Muirton]

I love the way that the junta lovers cry that "they were not in power, as they dissolved parliament" which ironically was what many were calling for, including all those on here who continue to say that they were not kicked out of power because they had already dissolved parliament as they were demanded to!!!

I am sure someone with more energy than me, could go back on people like Bill767 etc and find many a post calling for them to dissolve parliament!

In most western democracies, a government that passed a bill so blatantly self-serving and corrupt that it was rejected unanimously by the Senate and caused huge public protest, would have resigned out of shame. Yingluk and company dont understand the concept.

It was rejected by the Senate, as per how the system works. And they dissolved parliament as you mention.

Should the junta stand down for lying about the single gateway?

Oh deary me! Parliament was dissolved almost a month later. Remind me, was that because of PTP's shame over corruption, the mass public protests, or because the opposition resigned, in the red shirt version of history?

Stick to the topic.

The topic is freedom for Thais. Let's stick to it. You tell the head of the current administration. I ain't gonna walk into days of attitude adjustment by informing him. Be TV's guest on this.

[Muirton]

Moreover, if Yingluck is to punished for alleged corruption, it should be through a criminal prosecution, and depending on the verdict a punishment imposed by the court, not by administrative orders enforced by civil court action.

I am not sure where you come from but the previous PTP government was NOT forced from office at all. The PM, Yingluck Shinawatra actually dissolved parliament on 9th December 2013 and became the caretaker PM with limited powers and none at all to take out loans that the incoming government would have to repay.

No matter what spin you attempt to put on it, you are wrong.

They called an election, which was prevented from happening by a mob run by a leading opposition politician, and whose activities were, shall we be generous, regarded benignly by the judiciary and the military, (some might say they colluded). The military then used the resulting stalemate to justify a coup, and installed a junta government which for 18 months has persistently strengthened it's grip on power.

If that is not being forced from power - then how would you describe defeat of Germany in 1945 - a minor setback for National Socialism?

In claiming that the Yingluck Government was not forced from power you are simply denying an evident ( if inconvenient for your narrative) truth.

..........................Moreover, if Yingluck is to punished for alleged corruption...........................

I thought she was being charged with negligence, not corruption.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-former-thai-pm-in-court-on-negligence-charges-2015-5?IR=T

If it were possible to charge Thai politicians with corruption the courts would be tied up for years. And I think the main reason she was even charged with negligence was because of the amount of money involved (and of course because she is a Shinawatra and everyone has it in for that family)

............................"which was prevented from happening by a mob run by a leading opposition politician".............................

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-25116427

"Suthep Thaugsuban, a former Thai deputy prime minister, resigned from the opposition Democrat Party to lead protests aimed at dislodging Thailand's government."

......................."and whose activities were, shall we be generous, regarded benignly by the judiciary and the military, (some might say they colluded).".....................

Not going near that one, waste of time even discussing that subject.

It seems to me the main arguing point the majority of the Junta-bashing posters use is how "crooked bent and dirty" the current regime is.

Most of the Shin-bashing posters like myself don't deny that, so you really are arguing with yourself. We don't defend the actions of the Junta, although some posters have this crazy idea in their heads that we do.

Personally I would love to see free and fair elections (wow ! never had them before) held tomorrow, just as long as the Military, the Shins and their terrorist wing, and the Democrats had no part in those elections whatsoever.

I think it is comical to read some of the attacks on the current regime, when the previous governments were just as guilty.

The previous governments were elected. And, please, no more "Taksin bought elections".

[Muirton]

Good man. The Thaksins need to be kept out of politics.

You didn't finish the sentence. If you did, you're boring us to death with you banalité.

[smutcakes]

I love the way that the junta lovers cry that "they were not in power, as they dissolved parliament" which ironically was what many were calling for, including all those on here who continue to say that they were not kicked out of power because they had already dissolved parliament as they were demanded to!!!

I am sure someone with more energy than me, could go back on people like Bill767 etc and find many a post calling for them to dissolve parliament!

In most western democracies, a government that passed a bill so blatantly self-serving and corrupt that it was rejected unanimously by the Senate and caused huge public protest, would have resigned out of shame. Yingluk and company dont understand the concept.

It was rejected by the Senate, as per how the system works. And they dissolved parliament as you mention.

Should the junta stand down for lying about the single gateway?

Oh deary me! Parliament was dissolved almost a month later. Remind me, was that because of PTP's shame over corruption, the mass public protests, or because the opposition resigned, in the red shirt version of history?

Stick to the topic.

Sometimes the truth is uncomfortable

[halloween]

Oh deary me! Parliament was dissolved almost a month later. Remind me, was that because of PTP's shame over corruption, the mass public protests, or because the opposition resigned, in the red shirt version of history?

Stick to the topic.

Sometimes the truth is uncomfortable

I fully understand your reluctance to talk about it, and your attempt to change the subject. SOP for PTP supporters.

[billd766]

What on earth has Germany being defeated in 1945 got to do with the subject at hand?

Do you accept that Yingluck dissolved parliament, yes or no?

Was she forced by the military to do so, yes or no?

Where am I denying an evident truth?

Suthep had resigned from the Democratic party so he was NO longer a leading opposition politician.

I do wish you would stick to the facts and not try to twist them in your favour.

Why did Yingluck ignore the election commissions recommendation not to hold an election at that time,

She didn't even need to dissolve parliament as the election was not due for a while.

You always seek to justify the lack of freedoms here and are a Military Junta apologist.

Apichatpong Weerasethakul, winner of the prestigious Cannes Film Festival Palme d'Or prize in 2010 who resists the Thai censor and a THAI citizen unlike you or I recognizes and speaks out against the bully tactics and censorship whilst you a FARANG defend them.

Yingluck was forced out and it is a self-evident truth if you are at all familiar with what happened. No smoke and mirrors about "the Court did it" can hide these truths from brave Thais like Apichatpong Weerasethaku. Your analysis is not worthy of most second grade Thai school kids - go LEARN then come back to us.

Show us junta apologists where Yingluck was forced out of power.

She dissolved the government all on her own. NOBODY forced her to do so.

If you believe that she WAS forced to do so then come up with proof and the truth and not just your words with NO verification.

[billd766]

Thinking about it, this application of the law could mean that any boss of a civil service department could be held accountable for not stopping any corruption in their ministry..... This would put every minister in the clink.

Now that would be a good idea. If you are the person in charge then you take the good with the bad. If you don't want the responsibility, then don't take the job.

[billd766]

Whether members like it or not, PM Prayut is applying the law & there was an enquiry that found fmr PM Yingluck guilty of negligence & malfeasance in control of the Rice Pledging Scheme, now she's being brought to justice. All you naysayers, would you be happy if she simply walks free, does a runner, same as Bro & leaves all the poor rice farmers down the drain further?

No the majority want a government elected by the people to apply laws made in parliament, rather than a self appointed junta leader who is pursuing his backers aims to finish a political movement which threatens their perpetual hold on power and the access it gives them to the country's wealth.

JAG, you are aware how crooked, bent and dirty the last government was, aren't you ?

Because to read your posts one would think you were a newcomer to Thailand who knew nothing about them.

Mikemac, I don't deny that there were serious faults in the previous government. However at the time that it was forced from office it had offered itself for reelection, under the rules of the constitution. Preventing that process in order to engineer a coup to install a military Junta is at least as crooked bent and dirty.

Moreover, if Yingluck is to punished for alleged corruption, it should be through a criminal prosecution, and depending on the verdict a punishment imposed by the court, not by administrative orders enforced by civil court action.

I am not sure where you come from but the previous PTP government was NOT forced from office at all. The PM, Yingluck Shinawatra actually dissolved parliament on 9th December 2013 and became the caretaker PM with limited powers and none at all to take out loans that the incoming government would have to repay.

No matter what spin you attempt to put on it, you are wrong.

They called an election, which was prevented from happening by a mob run by a leading opposition politician, and whose activities were, shall we be generous, regarded benignly by the judiciary and the military, (some might say they colluded). The military then used the resulting stalemate to justify a coup, and installed a junta government which for 18 months has persistently strengthened it's grip on power.

If that is not being forced from power - then how would you describe defeat of Germany in 1945 - a minor setback for National Socialism?

In claiming that the Yingluck Government was not forced from power you are simply denying an evident ( if inconvenient for your narrative) truth.

What on earth has Germany being defeated in 1945 got to do with the subject at hand?

Do you accept that Yingluck dissolved parliament, yes or no?

Was she forced by the military to do so, yes or no?

Where am I denying an evident truth?

Suthep had resigned from the Democratic party so he was NO longer a leading opposition politician.

I do wish you would stick to the facts and not try to twist them in your favour.

Why did Yingluck ignore the election commissions recommendation not to hold an election at that time,

She didn't even need to dissolve parliament as the election was not due for a while.

1, My reference to Germany was a political metaphor, and as such was not meant or intended to be taken literally. I'm sorry if it went over your head.

2, Yes Yingluck dissolved parliament. We don't know if she was under any pressure from the army (and we probably will never know) so I cannot give you one of your beloved yes or no answers.

3, The self evident truth is that the previous government was forced from office: a lengthy process with many phases, many players, civil, judicial and military. The process ultimately depended on creating the conditions for a coup. The prevention of the election was essential for that.

4, Suthep's resignation from the Democratic Party hardly removes his standing as a leading opposition politician. He demanded that the government resign and be replaced by a council appointed by him - pretty political I would suggest.

5, The election commissions recommendation not to hold an election was just that, a recommendation. It carried no force. I don't know why she chose to go ahead, perhaps she thought she would win it. Others certainly did, that's why it was prevented. It would have been impossible to justify the coup if she had "gone to the country" and won!

6, I am not twisting facts. You're interpretation of what happened, and the thinking behind the various actions, differs from mine, and numerous other people's. You're zeal for removing the Shinawatra family and Pheu-Thai from the Thai political scene does not make you the arbiter of "the facts". Nor incidentally is Wikipedia a reliable " journal of record", reflecting as it does (and as you inferred in a recent post) the views of its most recent editor.

In contrast a wide variety of independent international media have published articles supporting the proposition that the Yingluck Government was forced from office. Are they also twisting the facts?

So like me and many others, you really have no idea what went on at the time, yet you are convinced that you and many others are right and I and many others are wrong but with nothing to back it up.

There are many other links to that Wikipedia site and in this particular incidence Wikipedia is correct. If you don't believe me or Wikipedia to be correct then amend the article to your version of the truth. I am sure that there are many people who are willing to correct you if you are wrong or to congratulate you if you are correct.

Do you have the links for the international media to support the proposition that Yingluck was forced from office?

I gave you the Wikipedia link that you didn't like but you have not given any links to prove me wrong.

[smutcakes]

I love the way that the junta lovers cry that "they were not in power, as they dissolved parliament" which ironically was what many were calling for, including all those on here who continue to say that they were not kicked out of power because they had already dissolved parliament as they were demanded to!!!

I am sure someone with more energy than me, could go back on people like Bill767 etc and find many a post calling for them to dissolve parliament!

In most western democracies, a government that passed a bill so blatantly self-serving and corrupt that it was rejected unanimously by the Senate and caused huge public protest, would have resigned out of shame. Yingluk and company dont understand the concept.

It was rejected by the Senate, as per how the system works. And they dissolved parliament as you mention.

Should the junta stand down for lying about the single gateway?

Oh deary me! Parliament was dissolved almost a month later. Remind me, was that because of PTP's shame over corruption, the mass public protests, or because the opposition resigned, in the red shirt version of history?

Stick to the topic.

They followed the law, what did you want them to do? Did they stand down- yes. Did tge Senate do what its supposed to do- yes.

Quite frankly i have no idea what your whining about.

[Muirton]

I love the way that the junta lovers cry that "they were not in power, as they dissolved parliament" which ironically was what many were calling for, including all those on here who continue to say that they were not kicked out of power because they had already dissolved parliament as they were demanded to!!!

I am sure someone with more energy than me, could go back on people like Bill767 etc and find many a post calling for them to dissolve parliament!

In most western democracies, a government that passed a bill so blatantly self-serving and corrupt that it was rejected unanimously by the Senate and caused huge public protest, would have resigned out of shame. Yingluk and company dont understand the concept.

"In most western democracies, a government that passed a bill so blatantly self-serving and corrupt that it was rejected unanimously by the Senate and caused huge public protest, would have resigned out of shame." Since you know this, please supply TV with the instances that you know of. Otherwise, what to think, what to think of your opinions.?

[Christie Paul]

I love the way that the junta lovers cry that "they were not in power, as they dissolved parliament" which ironically was what many were calling for, including all those on here who continue to say that they were not kicked out of power because they had already dissolved parliament as they were demanded to!!!

I am sure someone with more energy than me, could go back on people like Bill767 etc and find many a post calling for them to dissolve parliament!

In most western democracies, a government that passed a bill so blatantly self-serving and corrupt that it was rejected unanimously by the Senate and caused huge public protest, would have resigned out of shame. Yingluk and company dont understand the concept.

"In most western democracies, a government that passed a bill so blatantly self-serving and corrupt that it was rejected unanimously by the Senate and caused huge public protest, would have resigned out of shame." Since you know this, please supply TV with the instances that you know of. Otherwise, what to think, what to think of your opinions.?

There are no "Western" democracies", although Switzerland might come close. The US, UK, EU and the rest are violent oligarchies with a thin veneer of respectability that fools no one, who has the most rudimentary comprehension of history, or for that matter current reality.

[smutcakes]

I love the way that the junta lovers cry that "they were not in power, as they dissolved parliament" which ironically was what many were calling for, including all those on here who continue to say that they were not kicked out of power because they had already dissolved parliament as they were demanded to!!!

I am sure someone with more energy than me, could go back on people like Bill767 etc and find many a post calling for them to dissolve parliament!

In most western democracies, a government that passed a bill so blatantly self-serving and corrupt that it was rejected unanimously by the Senate and caused huge public protest, would have resigned out of shame. Yingluk and company dont understand the concept.

"In most western democracies, a government that passed a bill so blatantly self-serving and corrupt that it was rejected unanimously by the Senate and caused huge public protest, would have resigned out of shame." Since you know this, please supply TV with the instances that you know of. Otherwise, what to think, what to think of your opinions.?

There are no "Western" democracies", although Switzerland might come close. The US, UK, EU and the rest are violent oligarchies with a thin veneer of respectability that fools no one, who has the most rudimentary comprehension of history, or for that matter current reality.

Not going to disagree with your posts sentiment, but can you tell me what makes the UK a violent olixxxxy?

[halloween]

I love the way that the junta lovers cry that "they were not in power, as they dissolved parliament" which ironically was what many were calling for, including all those on here who continue to say that they were not kicked out of power because they had already dissolved parliament as they were demanded to!!!

I am sure someone with more energy than me, could go back on people like Bill767 etc and find many a post calling for them to dissolve parliament!

In most western democracies, a government that passed a bill so blatantly self-serving and corrupt that it was rejected unanimously by the Senate and caused huge public protest, would have resigned out of shame. Yingluk and company dont understand the concept.

"In most western democracies, a government that passed a bill so blatantly self-serving and corrupt that it was rejected unanimously by the Senate and caused huge public protest, would have resigned out of shame." Since you know this, please supply TV with the instances that you know of. Otherwise, what to think, what to think of your opinions.?

If you could supply me one instance of a government so corrupt that they had a bill unanimously rejected by the senate, other than Yingluk's........

<deleted>

[scorecard]

Moreover, if Yingluck is to punished for alleged corruption, it should be through a criminal prosecution, and depending on the verdict a punishment imposed by the court, not by administrative orders enforced by civil court action.

I am not sure where you come from but the previous PTP government was NOT forced from office at all. The PM, Yingluck Shinawatra actually dissolved parliament on 9th December 2013 and became the caretaker PM with limited powers and none at all to take out loans that the incoming government would have to repay.

No matter what spin you attempt to put on it, you are wrong.

They called an election, which was prevented from happening by a mob run by a leading opposition politician, and whose activities were, shall we be generous, regarded benignly by the judiciary and the military, (some might say they colluded). The military then used the resulting stalemate to justify a coup, and installed a junta government which for 18 months has persistently strengthened it's grip on power.

If that is not being forced from power - then how would you describe defeat of Germany in 1945 - a minor setback for National Socialism?

In claiming that the Yingluck Government was not forced from power you are simply denying an evident ( if inconvenient for your narrative) truth.

..........................Moreover, if Yingluck is to punished for alleged corruption...........................

I thought she was being charged with negligence, not corruption.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-former-thai-pm-in-court-on-negligence-charges-2015-5?IR=T

If it were possible to charge Thai politicians with corruption the courts would be tied up for years. And I think the main reason she was even charged with negligence was because of the amount of money involved (and of course because she is a Shinawatra and everyone has it in for that family)

............................"which was prevented from happening by a mob run by a leading opposition politician".............................

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-25116427

"Suthep Thaugsuban, a former Thai deputy prime minister, resigned from the opposition Democrat Party to lead protests aimed at dislodging Thailand's government."

......................."and whose activities were, shall we be generous, regarded benignly by the judiciary and the military, (some might say they colluded).".....................

Not going near that one, waste of time even discussing that subject.

It seems to me the main arguing point the majority of the Junta-bashing posters use is how "crooked bent and dirty" the current regime is.

Most of the Shin-bashing posters like myself don't deny that, so you really are arguing with yourself. We don't defend the actions of the Junta, although some posters have this crazy idea in their heads that we do.

Personally I would love to see free and fair elections (wow ! never had them before) held tomorrow, just as long as the Military, the Shins and their terrorist wing, and the Democrats had no part in those elections whatsoever.

I think it is comical to read some of the attacks on the current regime, when the previous governments were just as guilty.

The previous governments were elected. And, please, no more "Taksin bought elections".

Thaksin did buy elections and it should be brought up, since there are those that will try to push the inconvenient fact away.

Example: And, please, no more "Taksin bought elections".

[smutcakes]

I love the way that the junta lovers cry that "they were not in power, as they dissolved parliament" which ironically was what many were calling for, including all those on here who continue to say that they were not kicked out of power because they had already dissolved parliament as they were demanded to!!!

I am sure someone with more energy than me, could go back on people like Bill767 etc and find many a post calling for them to dissolve parliament!

In most western democracies, a government that passed a bill so blatantly self-serving and corrupt that it was rejected unanimously by the Senate and caused huge public protest, would have resigned out of shame. Yingluk and company dont understand the concept.

"In most western democracies, a government that passed a bill so blatantly self-serving and corrupt that it was rejected unanimously by the Senate and caused huge public protest, would have resigned out of shame." Since you know this, please supply TV with the instances that you know of. Otherwise, what to think, what to think of your opinions.?

If you could supply me one instance of a government so corrupt that they had a bill unanimously rejected by the senate, other than Yingluk's........

And whats your point? It was rejected. The system worked.

How do you think the Senate will consider the newly muted amnesty?

[halloween]

If you could supply me one instance of a government so corrupt that they had a bill unanimously rejected by the senate, other than Yingluk's........

And whats your point? It was rejected. The system worked.

How do you think the Senate will consider the newly muted amnesty?

Please stop with your distorted view of history. The government resigned because the opposition did, leaving them without a quorum, not because of unanimous senate rejection, and not because of public protest. In 6 months they could have passed their corrupt amnesty bill without senate approval, preventing prosecution of the crimes they were currently committing and thousands of ongoing cases.

If you think that is the system working, you are deluded.

Stop attempting to change the subject, I am NOT interested.