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

[JAG]

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.

Frankly I have too many other things to do in my spare time to spend it hunting around the Internet in an a vain attempt to satisfy your wish to be proved right. You appear to be unable to take part in a discussion without demanding evidence and proof whose admissibility you will then rule on. This being a forum for airing opinions rather than a court of law, I'm off, I shouldn't have bothered replying to you on the first place!

[sawadee1947]

necessary? Probably not but wanted to secure his power. I'm afraid paying back will come soon....

[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.

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

And direct handouts are okay?

Do you remember which PTP member public stated that the rice scheme wouldn't lose money and that the PTP should be judged on the results?

Their plan gambled on pushing the price of rice up which failed. They are now being judged as requested.

The scheme was an outrageous bribe that left many voters, regardless of their politics, with little choice but to vote for the man offering a 40% pay increase.

[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".

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".

"Thaksin did buy elections ..." Poodle in the microwave.

[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!

If you are going to talk about me please get my name right.

It is billd766 and not bill767.

It shows, at least to me, that you cannot read and comprehend even something as simple as my screen name.

"It shows, at least to me, that you cannot read and comprehend even something as simple as my screen name." Pray elucidate for us the connection between your plaint and the OP?

[Muirton]

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.

And who, pray tell, is interested that you are not?

[mikemac]

@ Muirton, You asked billd766 what the connection was between his comment and the OP......................the same question could be asked of you -

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.

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.

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

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

"Thaksin did buy elections ..." Poodle in the microwave.

And who, pray tell, is interested that you are not?

From the OP -

The prime minister said he didn’t know what was the real motive for the submission of the open letter by Ms Yingluck. As the prime minister, he said he was duty-bound to demand compensation for the loss but, at the same time, he must make sure that the action to be taken should not be seen as a bully against Ms Yingluck.

The actions taken will always be looked at as being "a bully" against Yingluck, especially by the Shins, what supporters she has left, and her TVF fan club.

Her lawyers will not care less what it is seen as, they will be milking it for all it is worth.

[Muirton]

@ Muirton, You asked billd766 what the connection was between his comment and the OP......................the same question could be asked of you -

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.

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.

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

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

"Thaksin did buy elections ..." Poodle in the microwave.

And who, pray tell, is interested that you are not?

From the OP -

The prime minister said he didn’t know what was the real motive for the submission of the open letter by Ms Yingluck. As the prime minister, he said he was duty-bound to demand compensation for the loss but, at the same time, he must make sure that the action to be taken should not be seen as a bully against Ms Yingluck.

The actions taken will always be looked at as being "a bully" against Yingluck, especially by the Shins, what supporters she has left, and her TVF fan club.

Her lawyers will not care less what it is seen as, they will be milking it for all it is worth.

Pray share with us how you know that "her lawyers will not care less what it is seen as, ..." To make this statement accurate or contain meaning, you surely have been in communication with her attorneys/solicitors.

[Bender]

PM defends the use of administrative order against Ms Yingluck as necessary.... for the elite to avoid losing, again, one more time, the next election

otherwise Yingluck will again win.

[elviajero]

PM defends the use of administrative order against Ms Yingluck as necessary.... for the elite to avoid losing, again, one more time, the next election

otherwise Yingluck will again win.

What makes you think they'll win the election.

The longer the election is delayed the better for the PTP because people have short memories. If an election happened today I'd doubt very much they'd win a majority of seats. They only scrapped over the line with 16 seats with the rice bribe and Yingluck factor. As both have failed the PTP supporters and floating voters it's not looking so good for the PTP right now.

[JAG]

PM defends the use of administrative order against Ms Yingluck as necessary.... for the elite to avoid losing, again, one more time, the next election

otherwise Yingluck will again win.

What makes you think they'll win the election.

The longer the election is delayed the better for the PTP because people have short memories. If an election happened today I'd doubt very much they'd win a majority of seats. They only scrapped over the line with 16 seats with the rice bribe and Yingluck factor. As both have failed the PTP supporters and floating voters it's not looking so good for the PTP right now.

In my opinion the people who have the best information as to who would win an election are the junta and their backers. They have the greatest incentive, a "red victory" would ruin their game plan. The rest of us are just flailing around in the dark. They have the intelligence on this. Now the fact that they prevented the last election, their evident reluctance to hold one any time soon and the way they are going after Yingluck points to the fact that they know they can't win one.

I rather suspect that Yingluck believes the same - that's why she is sticking around rather than saying "sod it" and disappearing into exile.