Governor Sukhumband insists he will stay on as Democrat party deputy leader



BANGKOK: -- Bangkok Governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra announced today that he would continue to perform his duty as a deputy leader of the Democrat party although the party announced last week its decision to disown him because he is uncontrollable.

In his first interview with the media after the party’s decision to disown him, the embattled governor declined to answer reporters’ questions pertaining to the conflict between him and the party saying that his deputy governors had already clarified to the media regarding the family feud.

He, however, said that the meeting between him and Mr Suthep Thuagsuban, head of the People’s Democratic Reform Committee Foundation in Koh Samui on Sunday had nothing to do with politics.

He said he was invited to attend the event, Samui Festival, by Mr Suthep and they only discussed about educational matter because he used to work in this field for a long time.

The embattled city governor was all smiles in his encounter with the media at the Thai-Japanese youth centre in Din Daeng to preside over a ceremony to take delivery of cars for official use.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/content/148206

-- Thai PBS 2016-01-27

So! If they disavowed him for the democratic party then how can he continue to perform his duty as the deputy leader for the democrats? Seems redundant!

So! If they disavowed him for the democratic party then how can he continue to perform his duty as the deputy leader for the democrats? Seems redundant!

I suppose they are waiting for a vote by the members to remove him from his position (or not) rather than some shadowy figure with a huge bank account telling them how it will be.

So! If they disavowed him for the democratic party then how can he continue to perform his duty as the deputy leader for the democrats? Seems redundant!

I suppose they are waiting for a vote by the members to remove him from his position (or not) rather than some shadowy figure with a huge bank account telling them how it will be.

Don't you think that a vote (if it had any authority) would have been the first option months ago?

How do you know that "some shadowy figure with a huge bank account" is not "telling them how it will be"?

(Although it's probably not such a "shadowy" figure. And not using money.)

Edited January 27, 201610 yr by Enoon

So! If they disavowed him for the democratic party then how can he continue to perform his duty as the deputy leader for the democrats? Seems redundant!

I suppose they are waiting for a vote by the members to remove him from his position (or not) rather than some shadowy figure with a huge bank account telling them how it will be.

And you suppose the Democrats are not directed and led by the nose by powers that have never been elected? They are more slavish than any other political group - partly because they know they can never win the Thai people's support in an election.

Incidentally if the Nation report is to be believed Sukhumbhand is lying through his teeth about the meeting with the criminal Suthep.

So! If they disavowed him for the democratic party then how can he continue to perform his duty as the deputy leader for the democrats? Seems redundant!

I suppose they are waiting for a vote by the members to remove him from his position (or not) rather than some shadowy figure with a huge bank account telling them how it will be.

And you suppose the Democrats are not directed and led by the nose by powers that have never been elected? They are more slavish than any other political group - partly because they know they can never win the Thai people's support in an election.

Incidentally if the Nation report is to be believed Sukhumbhand is lying through his teeth about the meeting with the criminal Suthep.

You're waisting your time jayboy debating with the rabid anti-Thaksin brigade. According to that bunch original sin started with the bogeyman in Dubai.

Hypocritical? You bet!

Edited January 27, 201610 yr by MZurf

Sukhumbhand's meeting with Suthep immediately following Abhisit efforts have the Democrats disown him might imply either a split in Democrat leadership with Suthep prepared to challenge Ahbisit to lead the party or go independent as a PM candidate with Sukhumbhand as Deputy PM.

Sukhumbhand's meeting with Suthep immediately following Abhisit efforts have the Democrats disown him might imply either a split in Democrat leadership with Suthep prepared to challenge Ahbisit to lead the party or go independent as a PM candidate with Sukhumbhand as Deputy PM.

.

Wow.Abhisit or Suthep/Sukhumbhand to choose from.Neither seems a potentially election winning combo.Still it's interesting that the Dems don't even consider the possibility of reform but simply rely on the old discredited failures.Perhaps they have abandoned the possibility of winning a mandate from the Thai people, preferring to be guided into power by the old non elected elites and a rigged constitution.

So! If they disavowed him for the democratic party then how can he continue to perform his duty as the deputy leader for the democrats? Seems redundant!

I suppose they are waiting for a vote by the members to remove him from his position (or not) rather than some shadowy figure with a huge bank account telling them how it will be.

Don't you think that a vote (if it had any authority) would have been the first option months ago?

How do you know that "some shadowy figure with a huge bank account" is not "telling them how it will be"?

(Although it's probably not such a "shadowy" figure. And not using money.)

No. He is a major player in the party, and I would expect attempts to be made to have him follow party policy before disciplinary measures such as removal are taken.

Which shadowy figure do you think holds sway over the Democrats, and to what does he owe such influence?

So! If they disavowed him for the democratic party then how can he continue to perform his duty as the deputy leader for the democrats? Seems redundant!

I suppose they are waiting for a vote by the members to remove him from his position (or not) rather than some shadowy figure with a huge bank account telling them how it will be.

And you suppose the Democrats are not directed and led by the nose by powers that have never been elected? They are more slavish than any other political group - partly because they know they can never win the Thai people's support in an election.

Incidentally if the Nation report is to be believed Sukhumbhand is lying through his teeth about the meeting with the criminal Suthep.

If you have proof of such, feel free to present it. At the very least, I don't see members of the Democrat party openly accepting payment To be members. Do you think this is common practice elsewhere, or would it be considered illegal?

So! If they disavowed him for the democratic party then how can he continue to perform his duty as the deputy leader for the democrats? Seems redundant!

I suppose they are waiting for a vote by the members to remove him from his position (or not) rather than some shadowy figure with a huge bank account telling them how it will be.

And you suppose the Democrats are not directed and led by the nose by powers that have never been elected? They are more slavish than any other political group - partly because they know they can never win the Thai people's support in an election.

Incidentally if the Nation report is to be believed Sukhumbhand is lying through his teeth about the meeting with the criminal Suthep.

If you have proof of such, feel free to present it. At the very least, I don't see members of the Democrat party openly accepting payment To be members. Do you think this is common practice elsewhere, or would it be considered illegal?

If you are unable to grasp a simple and indisputable point ( namely the influence of unelected elites over the Democrat Party ) there's little point in discussion.

If you have proof of such, feel free to present it. At the very least, I don't see members of the Democrat party openly accepting payment To be members. Do you think this is common practice elsewhere, or would it be considered illegal?

If you are unable to grasp a simple and indisputable point ( namely the influence of unelected elites over the Democrat Party ) there's little point in discussion.

If it is so "simple and indisputable" it should be easy to document. But you didn't answer the point about paying PTP members to belong to the party - is it common practice or corruption?

If you have proof of such, feel free to present it. At the very least, I don't see members of the Democrat party openly accepting payment To be members. Do you think this is common practice elsewhere, or would it be considered illegal?

If you are unable to grasp a simple and indisputable point ( namely the influence of unelected elites over the Democrat Party ) there's little point in discussion.

If it is so "simple and indisputable" it should be easy to document. But you didn't answer the point about paying PTP members to belong to the party - is it common practice or corruption?

The point is simple.The background is quite complex and would require knowledge and wide reading - which people like you seem to avoid preferring to deal in soundbites.Assuming you are not just trolling,I suggest you start with Duncan McCargo's writings on the network monarchy.

I didn't respond to your comment on PTP membership because whether true, partly true or false it is irrelevant to this thread.

So! If they disavowed him for the democratic party then how can he continue to perform his duty as the deputy leader for the democrats? Seems redundant!

I suppose they are waiting for a vote by the members to remove him from his position (or not) rather than some shadowy figure with a huge bank account telling them how it will be.

Don't you think that a vote (if it had any authority) would have been the first option months ago?

How do you know that "some shadowy figure with a huge bank account" is not "telling them how it will be"?

(Although it's probably not such a "shadowy" figure. And not using money.)

No. He is a major player in the party, and I would expect attempts to be made to have him follow party policy before disciplinary measures such as removal are taken.

Which shadowy figure do you think holds sway over the Democrats, and to what does he owe such influence?

M R Sukhumband, whose second wife was Na Ayudhya, might be well connected, maybe?

'The embattled city governor was all smiles ... at the Thai-Japanese youth centre ... to preside over a ceremony to take delivery of cars for official use.' No doubt it involved use of spirit dolls.