Thaksin warns on democracy, economy in New Year message

[rixalex]

I too would like to see more responsible campaigning but this cannot be dealt with by diktat.Your complaint about Thaksin seems to be he is a very effective campaigning politician who has outclassed his rivals in this respect.

In your view, promising things that can't be delivered to a vast section of the population who don't necessarily have the luxury of a more long-term approach to social and economic improvement, might show the mind of a political genius at work. To me it shows something quite different.

[rixalex]

Frankly I find your obsessive tone on Thaksin's campaigning style rather bizarre given the current climate when politicians are being threatened with imprisonment for engaging in democratic debate.On this of course you and other apologists for repression remain firmly silent.

This thread specifically concerns Thaksin and his concerns about democracy. I wholeheartedly concur with his concerns but i simply don't think he is the best placed person to be giving a lecture on the subject.

[jayboy]

Frankly I find your obsessive tone on Thaksin's campaigning style rather bizarre given the current climate when politicians are being threatened with imprisonment for engaging in democratic debate.On this of course you and other apologists for repression remain firmly silent.

This thread specifically concerns Thaksin and his concerns about democracy. I wholeheartedly concur with his concerns but i simply don't think he is the best placed person to be giving a lecture on the subject.

That's well put so we find something to agree on.

[jayboy]

It has been explained to you several times your assumptions on the role of the EC are completely wrong.There is no fuzziness or doubt on this matter since the regulations of the EC are public documents.

You talked about such rules in most democracies but as far as I know there are no such rules in the US, the UK and Western Europe

Interesting how you have switched from an earlier as far as i know position to now this sudden and new position of complete clarity without room for a whisker of doubt in your understanding. I assume in the interim period you sat down and read, back to front, the entire list of published rules by the EC, in order to have climbed to your lofty superior knowledge perch. Impressive dedication to the cause.

Either that or you are just guessing...

Have you not heard that excellent military maxim, never reinforce defeat.

[jayboy]

I too would like to see more responsible campaigning but this cannot be dealt with by diktat.Your complaint about Thaksin seems to be he is a very effective campaigning politician who has outclassed his rivals in this respect.

In your view, promising things that can't be delivered to a vast section of the population who don't necessarily have the luxury of a more long-term approach to social and economic improvement, might show the mind of a political genius at work. To me it shows something quite different.

That's actually very funny (and deluded) as though any group of voters have a long term view of social and economic improvement when they cast their ballots.People vote for their own interests and should not blamed for that.There's absolutely no evidence one grouping of voters in Thailand is less principled than any other.

[phoenixdoglover]

You will have to do a lot better than this.I asked you to be specific about the rules governing what can be said by a political party during election campaigns.You talked about such rules in most democracies but as far as I know there are no such rules in the US, the UK and Western Europe.You do not even demonstrate there are any such rules in Thailand apart from a vague reference to the Junta's political campaign against the Shinawatras.

Yes of course. Everything is a conspiracy against the Shinawatras. You go on enough about other people have a bogey-man obsession, seemingly oblivious of your own.

The very fact that the PTP were able to assume power in spite of the fact that the party was very obviously being lead by an overseas criminal (are you going to deny that that was the situation or deny that there are laws against that sort of thing?), proves that your nasty bogeyman is clearly not as out to get your dear Shinawatras as your paranoid delusions make you think it is.

As far as i am aware, every democratic country that runs elections has an election commission of some sort whose job it is to see that election rules are followed. I already stated that i am not privy to the exact details as to what can and can't be done or said in an election campaign, but i would imagine something such as promising a cash advance to every citizen upon election to power would be in violation of the rules. I may be wrong. As i say, my assumption that there were certain rules or guidelines was taken from the fact that i have heard of parties being investigated for promises made. If there are no rules as you suggest, presumably there would be no investigations.

Irregardless of all of that, the point i was making was that i personally would like to see more responsible campaigning, and since i am not deluded enough to think that politicians will do so of their own accord, i think an independent body is needed to keep track of what is being promised and demand things like cost break downs when necessary, if nothing else just to make sure the public is aware of what is a realistic pledge and what is not. At the end of the day it would still be up to the public to decide.

If you ( finally) admit that what you are in fact referring to are Electoral Commissons then you seem blissfully ignorant of what ECs are required to do.It's not a matter to use your comically lame excuse of not being privy to the exact details.

The job of the EC in most countries is to manage elections and referendums effectively including voter registration.An EC must also monitor party and election finance.Thus an EC certainly has a remit in matters of vote buying etc.It has no part in costing campaign pledges as you seemed to believe before backtracking.

I'm aware thank you of the primary function of the EC in most countries, i'm just not aware of the precise remit in individual cases, as it seems nor are you.

If you do a search for EC investigates you will find that this body has been involved into looking into a fairly wide range of matters concerning elections and election campaigns. Whether or not they take an interest in exactly what promises are being made and how they are being made, i admit to being uncertain, except to say, and to repeat, that i do know of investigations that have been launched into promises made and it would be a logical conclusion to suspect that the EC were in some way involved into looking into these matters, would it not.

All of this however is nicely sidetracking from the main point i was making, and that was that whatever the rules are or aren't, i would like to see a more responsible type of campaigning that didn't use crude, simplistic, short-term vote buying techniques, that played on voters vulnerabilities. I do appreciate however, as this technique has been exemplified most successfully by a certain politician - who by no coincidence has also had great election success - why some people would be in favour of the keeping of this practice, and might be fearful were it curbed.

I have a suggestion regarding your concern about politicians that make excessive promises as an enticement for getting votes. You have suggested that there should be some sort of limitation or regulation of this.

The time tested alternative to regulation is a Free Press. The press, if not censored, can publicize politicians promises, subject them to analysis, and counter them with a differing view. (of course, this is also a role the opposing parties can play).

In the new world of social media and citizen blogging, this "counter-spin" can be especially fast and dynamic.

Thailand is going in the opposite direction at present - A neutered press, arrest for use of social media, threats for expressing dissenting opinions. This is a perfect breeding ground for deceit on the part of the powerful and connected; it just happens to be the Junta in that vaunted position right now.

More freedom is the answer.

[Duncan Donut]

Prayut bumps into Taksin in New York……

Prayut - Ah, Taksin, you're just in time for one of my brief 60-minute soundbites.

Taksin - No sorry, I really have to go now as my salad will be getting cold. But I do have one question, why are you so obsessed with Red Bowls?

Prayut - Red Bull, mmmm. That’s a very intelligent question and deserves a proper answer.

Taksin - Can I have it then?

Prayut - Well, that’s another great question, if I may say so. And it highlights the very point I’m making.

Taksin - Which is what?

Prayut - Well, let me try to explain. I strongly believe that the answer is Yes.

Taksin - The answer to what?

Prayut - That’s a marvellous question, and I firmly believe that the answer is No.

Taksin - Just a final question then, when will you deliver on your promises?

Prayut - Today is the ‘Tomorrow’ that I promised Yesterday I would change things. My memory's not as sharp as it used to be. Also, my memory's not as sharp as it used to be.

Taksin - <deleted>! Hope you get the help you need…..bye!

[rixalex]

I have a suggestion regarding your concern about politicians that make excessive promises as an enticement for getting votes. You have suggested that there should be some sort of limitation or regulation of this.

The time tested alternative to regulation is a Free Press. The press, if not censored, can publicize politicians promises, subject them to analysis, and counter them with a differing view. (of course, this is also a role the opposing parties can play).

In the new world of social media and citizen blogging, this "counter-spin" can be especially fast and dynamic.

Thailand is going in the opposite direction at present - A neutered press, arrest for use of social media, threats for expressing dissenting opinions. This is a perfect breeding ground for deceit on the part of the powerful and connected; it just happens to be the Junta in that vaunted position right now.

More freedom is the answer.

Totally agree although i think the problem is two-part. Firstly there is the issue of lack of freedom and secondly there is the issue of poor unprofessional journalism.

[heybruce]

"The very fact that the PTP were able to assume power in spite of the fact that the party was very obviously being lead by an overseas criminal (are you going to deny that that was the situation or deny that there are laws against that sort of thing?)"

Are there laws against such a thing? How would one write a law saying a politician or political party can't consult with anyone it wanted to?

I assume if there were such laws, there would have been many legal challenges against the PTP before, during and after the election.

To try and argue that Thaksin was merely "consulting" the party is nothing more than a sad and pathetic attempt to try and dance around the truth with semantics. Nobody believes it, not even the idiots who spout it. It's to be received with the same sort of incredulity as Bill Clinton saying that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinski, on the basis that his supposed understanding of the definition of having sexual relations included the giving of oral sex but excluded the receiving.

No doubt if pushed to respond on the matter of leadership in the case of a legal challenge, Thaksin would offer some similarly mealy mouthed lie, based on his own concocted and farcical idea of what was included in the definition of leadership and what wasn't.

Why embarrass yourself with all this? Why not just admit the truth?

By dodging the question and focusing on one word, you confirm that you know of no such laws. The PTP made no secret of its relationship with Thaksin and the voters chose them to lead the nation. No one challenged the legality of the election, and there were parties that would have done so if they'd had anything anything that suggested illegality.

The PTP was legally elected. Why embarrass yourself with denial? Why not just admit the truth?

Edited April 12, 2016 by heybruce

[rixalex]

I too would like to see more responsible campaigning but this cannot be dealt with by diktat.Your complaint about Thaksin seems to be he is a very effective campaigning politician who has outclassed his rivals in this respect.

In your view, promising things that can't be delivered to a vast section of the population who don't necessarily have the luxury of a more long-term approach to social and economic improvement, might show the mind of a political genius at work. To me it shows something quite different.

That's actually very funny (and deluded) as though any group of voters have a long term view of social and economic improvement when they cast their ballots.People vote for their own interests and should not blamed for that.There's absolutely no evidence one grouping of voters in Thailand is less principled than any other.

It's not about one group of voters being less principled than another, it is about one group of voters being more vulnerable to exploitation.

Dangle a carrot in front of a well fed man and he is more likely to ask questions before grabbing it than the starving man next to him. That doesn't mean the starving man has no principles, and nor does it mean he is uneducated or stupid, it means the starving man is desperate and in need.

[rixalex]

By dodging the question and focusing on one word, you confirm that you know of no such laws. The PTP made no secret of its relationship with Thaksin and the voters chose them to lead the nation. No one challenged the legality of the election, and there were parties that would have done so if they'd had anything anything that suggested illegality.

The PTP was legally elected. Why embarrass yourself with denial? Why not just admit the truth?

I didn't dodge the question i just thought it too banal to warrant response. Of course there are laws that prohibit on the run criminals who live overseas from leading the country. Save yourself some embarrassment by not arguing otherwise.

The reason why there was no legal challenge was two-fold. Firstly, PTP was genuinely popular and had just been voted into office. Much as with Thaksin's asset concealment case in 2001 after being elected, the authorities had to consider what sort of backlash there would be had they ruled against him, particularly when taking into account the violent element of his support.

Secondly, just because something is obvious and well-known, doesn't necessarily mean it is easy to prove. Thaksin knew he could pull exactly the same sort of ridiculous stunt you are pulling here, by claiming to not be leading the party but rather simply advising it. Nobody believes it for one second of course, but how do you prove it? It's not easy, at least not without access to private conversations.

[tbthailand]

"The very fact that the PTP were able to assume power in spite of the fact that the party was very obviously being lead by an overseas criminal (are you going to deny that that was the situation or deny that there are laws against that sort of thing?)"

Are there laws against such a thing? How would one write a law saying a politician or political party can't consult with anyone it wanted to?

I assume if there were such laws, there would have been many legal challenges against the PTP before, during and after the election.

To try and argue that Thaksin was merely "consulting" the party is nothing more than a sad and pathetic attempt to try and dance around the truth with semantics. Nobody believes it, not even the idiots who spout it. It's to be received with the same sort of incredulity as Bill Clinton saying that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinski, on the basis that his supposed understanding of the definition of having sexual relations included the giving of oral sex but excluded the receiving.

No doubt if pushed to respond on the matter of leadership in the case of a legal challenge, Thaksin would offer some similarly mealy mouthed lie, based on his own concocted and farcical idea of what was included in the definition of leadership and what wasn't.

Why embarrass yourself with all this? Why not just admit the truth?

wait a minute, YOU tried to slip by with the claim that it was against the law.

As heybruce pointed out, if there were such a law (there isn't) or even anything vaguely close to such a law, then the PTP and all their previous incarnations would have been taken to court and disbanded in an instant.

Go ahead and slam Thaksin, he's no angel. But don't just make stuff up.

[tbthailand]

I too would like to see more responsible campaigning but this cannot be dealt with by diktat.Your complaint about Thaksin seems to be he is a very effective campaigning politician who has outclassed his rivals in this respect.

In your view, promising things that can't be delivered to a vast section of the population who don't necessarily have the luxury of a more long-term approach to social and economic improvement, might show the mind of a political genius at work. To me it shows something quite different.

That's actually very funny (and deluded) as though any group of voters have a long term view of social and economic improvement when they cast their ballots.People vote for their own interests and should not blamed for that.There's absolutely no evidence one grouping of voters in Thailand is less principled than any other.

It's not about one group of voters being less principled than another, it is about one group of voters being more vulnerable to exploitation.

Dangle a carrot in front of a well fed man and he is more likely to ask questions before grabbing it than the starving man next to him. That doesn't mean the starving man has no principles, and nor does it mean he is uneducated or stupid, it means the starving man is desperate and in need.

that is not even a subtle denigration of Thai people.

you should be ashamed.

[heybruce]

By dodging the question and focusing on one word, you confirm that you know of no such laws. The PTP made no secret of its relationship with Thaksin and the voters chose them to lead the nation. No one challenged the legality of the election, and there were parties that would have done so if they'd had anything anything that suggested illegality.

The PTP was legally elected. Why embarrass yourself with denial? Why not just admit the truth?

I didn't dodge the question i just thought it too banal to warrant response. Of course there are laws that prohibit on the run criminals who live overseas from leading the country. Save yourself some embarrassment by not arguing otherwise.

The reason why there was no legal challenge was two-fold. Firstly, PTP was genuinely popular and had just been voted into office. Much as with Thaksin's asset concealment case in 2001 after being elected, the authorities had to consider what sort of backlash there would be had they ruled against him, particularly when taking into account the violent element of his support.

Secondly, just because something is obvious and well-known, doesn't necessarily mean it is easy to prove. Thaksin knew he could pull exactly the same sort of ridiculous stunt you are pulling here, by claiming to not be leading the party but rather simply advising it. Nobody believes it for one second of course, but how do you prove it? It's not easy, at least not without access to private conversations.

"Of course there are laws that prohibit on the run criminals who live overseas from leading the country. Save yourself some embarrassment by not arguing otherwise."

This isn't the least bit embarrassing for me, because you are the one who is wrong. There are no laws against the communication that took place, often very openly, between the PTP and Thaksin.

Maybe there were money transfers, and maybe some of these transfers were illegal, but no one has proven that. I assume Thaksin has been using his money to influence the government, but he is hardly alone in that. People who pretend he is the only corrupt politician in Thailand are the ones who come across as fools.

I have long argued in this forum that Thailand desperately needs greater transparency in government, including the finances of all government employees--politicians, civil servants, military officers, judges, etc.--in a position to profit from any conflict of interest. Real democracy might eventually bring about this transparency, Thailand's corrupt military definitely won't.

[rixalex]

It's not about one group of voters being less principled than another, it is about one group of voters being more vulnerable to exploitation.

Dangle a carrot in front of a well fed man and he is more likely to ask questions before grabbing it than the starving man next to him. That doesn't mean the starving man has no principles, and nor does it mean he is uneducated or stupid, it means the starving man is desperate and in need.

that is not even a subtle denigration of Thai people.

you should be ashamed.

It's not a denigration of anyone besides the politicians.

[rixalex]

"The very fact that the PTP were able to assume power in spite of the fact that the party was very obviously being lead by an overseas criminal (are you going to deny that that was the situation or deny that there are laws against that sort of thing?)"

Are there laws against such a thing? How would one write a law saying a politician or political party can't consult with anyone it wanted to?

I assume if there were such laws, there would have been many legal challenges against the PTP before, during and after the election.

To try and argue that Thaksin was merely "consulting" the party is nothing more than a sad and pathetic attempt to try and dance around the truth with semantics. Nobody believes it, not even the idiots who spout it. It's to be received with the same sort of incredulity as Bill Clinton saying that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinski, on the basis that his supposed understanding of the definition of having sexual relations included the giving of oral sex but excluded the receiving.

No doubt if pushed to respond on the matter of leadership in the case of a legal challenge, Thaksin would offer some similarly mealy mouthed lie, based on his own concocted and farcical idea of what was included in the definition of leadership and what wasn't.

Why embarrass yourself with all this? Why not just admit the truth?

wait a minute, YOU tried to slip by with the claim that it was against the law.

As heybruce pointed out, if there were such a law (there isn't) or even anything vaguely close to such a law, then the PTP and all their previous incarnations would have been taken to court and disbanded in an instant.

Go ahead and slam Thaksin, he's no angel. But don't just make stuff up.

Lining up to join the embarrassment now. Of course there is a law against convicted on the run criminals from running the country from overseas, and i've already explained why PTP was not taken to court over it.

Funny that on this issue your proof of a law not being broken is that nobody was convicted.

[rixalex]

This isn't the least bit embarrassing for me, because you are the one who is wrong. There are no laws against the communication that took place, often very openly, between the PTP and Thaksin.

I didn't say there were laws against communication, i said there were laws against on the run convicted criminals who don't even live in the country from running it. If you are denying those laws exist, you should be embarrassed. Or are you denying that Thaksin was leading the country? In that case, you should also be embarrassed.

[rockingrobin]

"The very fact that the PTP were able to assume power in spite of the fact that the party was very obviously being lead by an overseas criminal (are you going to deny that that was the situation or deny that there are laws against that sort of thing?)"

Are there laws against such a thing? How would one write a law saying a politician or political party can't consult with anyone it wanted to?

I assume if there were such laws, there would have been many legal challenges against the PTP before, during and after the election.

To try and argue that Thaksin was merely "consulting" the party is nothing more than a sad and pathetic attempt to try and dance around the truth with semantics. Nobody believes it, not even the idiots who spout it. It's to be received with the same sort of incredulity as Bill Clinton saying that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinski, on the basis that his supposed understanding of the definition of having sexual relations included the giving of oral sex but excluded the receiving.

No doubt if pushed to respond on the matter of leadership in the case of a legal challenge, Thaksin would offer some similarly mealy mouthed lie, based on his own concocted and farcical idea of what was included in the definition of leadership and what wasn't.

Why embarrass yourself with all this? Why not just admit the truth?

wait a minute, YOU tried to slip by with the claim that it was against the law.

As heybruce pointed out, if there were such a law (there isn't) or even anything vaguely close to such a law, then the PTP and all their previous incarnations would have been taken to court and disbanded in an instant.

Go ahead and slam Thaksin, he's no angel. But don't just make stuff up.

Lining up to join the embarrassment now. Of course there is a law against convicted on the run criminals from running the country from overseas, and i've already explained why PTP was not taken to court over it.

Funny that on this issue your proof of a law not being broken is that nobody was convicted.

It would be more transparent if you could cite the law , and put an end to the argument if one such law existed

[heybruce]

"The very fact that the PTP were able to assume power in spite of the fact that the party was very obviously being lead by an overseas criminal (are you going to deny that that was the situation or deny that there are laws against that sort of thing?)"

Are there laws against such a thing? How would one write a law saying a politician or political party can't consult with anyone it wanted to?

I assume if there were such laws, there would have been many legal challenges against the PTP before, during and after the election.

To try and argue that Thaksin was merely "consulting" the party is nothing more than a sad and pathetic attempt to try and dance around the truth with semantics. Nobody believes it, not even the idiots who spout it. It's to be received with the same sort of incredulity as Bill Clinton saying that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinski, on the basis that his supposed understanding of the definition of having sexual relations included the giving of oral sex but excluded the receiving.

No doubt if pushed to respond on the matter of leadership in the case of a legal challenge, Thaksin would offer some similarly mealy mouthed lie, based on his own concocted and farcical idea of what was included in the definition of leadership and what wasn't.

Why embarrass yourself with all this? Why not just admit the truth?

wait a minute, YOU tried to slip by with the claim that it was against the law.

As heybruce pointed out, if there were such a law (there isn't) or even anything vaguely close to such a law, then the PTP and all their previous incarnations would have been taken to court and disbanded in an instant.

Go ahead and slam Thaksin, he's no angel. But don't just make stuff up.

Lining up to join the embarrassment now. Of course there is a law against convicted on the run criminals from running the country from overseas, and i've already explained why PTP was not taken to court over it.

Funny that on this issue your proof of a law not being broken is that nobody was convicted.

You are correct, it is difficult to prove a broad and general claim such as "convicted on the run criminals from running the country from overseas". So why don't you specify what acts by Thaksin and/or the PTP were illegal and what laws were broken?

"Funny that on this issue your proof of a law not being broken is that nobody was convicted."

Once again, you are making stuff up. The evidence that no law was broken is that no legal charges were made by some very litigious, well funded opponents of the government who were keen on smearing the PTP in any way possible. You offer no evidence that laws were broken, you simply keep stating it as if it were a fact. Repetition is not the same as proof.

[rixalex]

It would be more transparent if you could cite the law , and put an end to the argument if one such law existed

Cite it from where exactly? I'm not a Thai lawyer.

If there isn't a law against convicted overseas on the run criminals from running the country, why do you think Thaksin and PTP were constantly at pains to tell everyone that he wasn't leading the country or the party, but merely advising it?

Nobody believed it, but nobody could prove otherwise, and Thaksin and the PTP knew that.

[rixalex]

You are correct, it is difficult to prove a broad and general claim such as "convicted on the run criminals from running the country from overseas". So why don't you specify what acts by Thaksin and/or the PTP were illegal and what laws were broken?

"Funny that on this issue your proof of a law not being broken is that nobody was convicted."

Once again, you are making stuff up. The evidence that no law was broken is that no legal charges were made by some very litigious, well funded opponents of the government who were keen on smearing the PTP in any way possible. You offer no evidence that laws were broken, you simply keep stating it as if it were a fact. Repetition is not the same as proof.

What exactly have i made up?

I've already specified what laws were broken, and i've also explained why i believe they went unpunished. We are now going around in circles.

Edited April 12, 2016 by rixalex

[MZurf]

It would be more transparent if you could cite the law , and put an end to the argument if one such law existed

Cite it from where exactly? I'm not a Thai lawyer.

If there isn't a law against convicted overseas on the run criminals from running the country, why do you think Thaksin and PTP were constantly at pains to tell everyone that he wasn't leading the country or the party, but merely advising it?

Nobody believed it, but nobody could prove otherwise, and Thaksin and the PTP knew that.

So you're claiming that laws were broken but are totally clueless as to which laws it was, or even if such laws exist??

You really should just let this one go and instead concentrate on wiping the egg off your face.

[jayboy]

I too would like to see more responsible campaigning but this cannot be dealt with by diktat.Your complaint about Thaksin seems to be he is a very effective campaigning politician who has outclassed his rivals in this respect.

In your view, promising things that can't be delivered to a vast section of the population who don't necessarily have the luxury of a more long-term approach to social and economic improvement, might show the mind of a political genius at work. To me it shows something quite different.

That's actually very funny (and deluded) as though any group of voters have a long term view of social and economic improvement when they cast their ballots.People vote for their own interests and should not blamed for that.There's absolutely no evidence one grouping of voters in Thailand is less principled than any other.

It's not about one group of voters being less principled than another, it is about one group of voters being more vulnerable to exploitation.

Dangle a carrot in front of a well fed man and he is more likely to ask questions before grabbing it than the starving man next to him. That doesn't mean the starving man has no principles, and nor does it mean he is uneducated or stupid, it means the starving man is desperate and in need.

Wow.The mask slips and we see we are faced with something pretty unpleasant.Moreover it shows a profound ignorance of an increasingly prosperous modern Thailand where social mobility is increasing and habits of deference are declining.Voters in Thailand like voters everywhere make decisions based on the needs of their families and communities.

In your nasty little analogy I suppose the well fed group is the pampered urban middle class.Yet in recent years this group has been exploited like no other by vested interests terrified at the prospect of declining influence and wealth.

[rockingrobin]

It would be more transparent if you could cite the law , and put an end to the argument if one such law existed

Cite it from where exactly? I'm not a Thai lawyer.

If there isn't a law against convicted overseas on the run criminals from running the country, why do you think Thaksin and PTP were constantly at pains to tell everyone that he wasn't leading the country or the party, but merely advising it?

Nobody believed it, but nobody could prove otherwise, and Thaksin and the PTP knew that.

False dichotomy

[rixalex]

Wow.The mask slips and we see we are faced with something pretty unpleasant.Moreover it shows a profound ignorance of an increasingly prosperous modern Thailand where social mobility is increasing and habits of deference are declining.Voters in Thailand like voters everywhere make decisions based on the needs of their families and communities.

In your nasty little analogy I suppose the well fed group is the pampered urban middle class.Yet in recent years this group has been exploited like no other by vested interests terrified at the prospect of declining influence and wealth.

The only unpleasant thing about this is the exploitation of the poor with lies and your continuing support of that practice.

[rixalex]

So you're claiming that laws were broken but are totally clueless as to which laws it was, or even if such laws exist??

You really should just let this one go and instead concentrate on wiping the egg off your face.

And you are claiming that there are no laws against on the run convicted criminals from running the country from overseas and the fact that the PTP party were continually making speeches to clarify that Thaksin was not giving orders, but rather giving advice, were all made for no particular reason.

[heybruce]

You are correct, it is difficult to prove a broad and general claim such as "convicted on the run criminals from running the country from overseas". So why don't you specify what acts by Thaksin and/or the PTP were illegal and what laws were broken?

"Funny that on this issue your proof of a law not being broken is that nobody was convicted."

Once again, you are making stuff up. The evidence that no law was broken is that no legal charges were made by some very litigious, well funded opponents of the government who were keen on smearing the PTP in any way possible. You offer no evidence that laws were broken, you simply keep stating it as if it were a fact. Repetition is not the same as proof.

What exactly have i made up?

I've already specified what laws were broken, and i've also explained why i believe they went unpunished. We are now going around in circles.

You made this up:

"Funny that on this issue your proof of a law not being broken is that nobody was convicted."

Show me where anyone has offered this as proof.

You have not specified any laws, broken or otherwise. In fact, in your post immediately preceding the above reply, you excused yourself from specifically citing a law on the grounds that you aren't a Thai lawyer. I assume this means you don't know the Thai legal system, yet you insist that there are specific unspecified laws on this matter. You really should give up on this one.

[rixalex]

You made this up:

"Funny that on this issue your proof of a law not being broken is that nobody was convicted."

Show me where anyone has offered this as proof.

Didn't make anything up.

tbthailand stated that, "were there such a law (there isn't) or even anything vaguely close to such a law, then the PTP and all their previous incarnations would have been taken to court and disbanded in an instant."

His proof therefore that no laws were broken comes from the fact that PTP were not taken to court and disbanded.

[jayboy]

Wow.The mask slips and we see we are faced with something pretty unpleasant.Moreover it shows a profound ignorance of an increasingly prosperous modern Thailand where social mobility is increasing and habits of deference are declining.Voters in Thailand like voters everywhere make decisions based on the needs of their families and communities.

In your nasty little analogy I suppose the well fed group is the pampered urban middle class.Yet in recent years this group has been exploited like no other by vested interests terrified at the prospect of declining influence and wealth.

The only unpleasant thing about this is the exploitation of the poor with lies and your continuing support of that practice.

Don't embarrass yourself further.

Incidentally if the PTP or its other incarnations just relied on the votes of the poor they would never win an election.

[rixalex]

You have not specified any laws, broken or otherwise. In fact, in your post immediately preceding the above reply, you excused yourself from specifically citing a law on the grounds that you aren't a Thai lawyer. I assume this means you don't know the Thai legal system, yet you insist that there are specific unspecified laws on this matter. You really should give up on this one.

I have specified the laws broken very clearly. No i can't cite them from the law books, because like you, i'm not a Thai lawyer, and like you, i don't have a library of Thai legal books to quote from. If you think there is nothing illegal about having a convicted on the run criminal from running a political party in Thailand and all of the denials that the PTP made about Thaksin's role were not made for fear of legal repercussions but simply made for the fun of it, then up to you.