New poll commissioner vows to prevent crooks from getting into the parliament

[sjaak327]

1 hour ago, candide said:

Frankly, can anyone doubt that he's just laying ground for rigging the next elections?

 

I bet that in the election law, there will be a provision such as "in case a candidate is suspected/accused of corruption or another crime by the EC, his candidacy will be suspended until a court makes a decision" (i.e. six month later).

How do I know? Because that's what I would do If I were the Junta. Untill now this method has proven to be quite often predictive.

Most people see those antics from a mile away, some others keep their eyes closed, don't ask me why, it is almost impossible to neglect the facts. 

[klauskunkel]

23 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Newly-appointed election commissioner Pakorn Mahannop vowed today that he would try to make sure that dishonest people will not be able to get into the parliament.

good on you, making sure the current crooks don't get any competition

[robblok]

14 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

If you cannot, or will not understand the point I am trying to make about the self appointed amnesty, then there really is no point arguing any further. If you really believe that people that are subjected to checks and balances and have to follow the rules set forth in the constitution are the same as people that set aside said constitution, drafted their own, and are not accountable to anyone, then what is the point of this discussion. You are denying facts, or are trying to leave them out of the discussion. That's not how the world works Rob. 

 

Of course at no point in time did I ever claim that people with a mandate should not be punished and those that don't should, in fact, I claimed that those with a mandate have and will be punished and those without such a mandate will not, and will never, because of their self awarded amnesty. Those are cold hard facts, that cannot possibly be denied. 

 

As to this bloke, he is not appointed in the EC for nothing, he is appointed because he will do what he is told to do by the NCPO. That includes preventing people from running with no real apparent reason, up to simply rigging the result, which they now have been givena whopping 30 days to achieve !

 

for crying out loud, this is not about Thaksin, this is about a small group of people taking Thailand for the next few decades, when oh when do people wake up. In spite of overwhelming evidence, some remain blissfully ignorant. Open your eyes, instead of making a fool out of yourself. 

 

Oh and stop lecturing me about justice, people that go to jail for offense, whilst others don't, just because they happen to be the judge, executioner and jury at the same time, is not justice. For crying out loud. You have no clue about justice whatsoever. 

Your point about the amnesty does not fly, because I condemned it, you are stuck in the mindset that i support the junta. I don't, I also don't condone crimes of the junta nor do I condone their amnesty. I did not like Thaksin his amnesty one bit why would i support the junta its amnesty ?. We are not arguing here about what side is better or what is happening now. I am telling you how I see things and what I WANT to happen. Not how it is happening. You constantly come with points about how bad the junta is.. you will not get an argument there at all. Maybe you should change  your black and white reasoning once and open your mind.

 

My point is that it does not matter who commits a crime they should all be punished and I don't see the difference between people who have a mandate or not. I only look at the crime committed. I can can assure you it does not matter much in reality if you got beaten up by a democrat or got beaten up by a junta lover. The crime stays the same. That is my point you seem to be thinking its worse if someone is from the junta and better if they are a democrat. I don't i want them all to be punished the same way and yes I know about the amnesty but its not about what IS but its about what I want it to be. Its about my opinion and how I see things.. not what the junta is doing those are 2 different things.

 

So what is your big problem with me liking the idea of keeping crooks from getting into government ?. I was talking about all crooks... you seem to constantly make it about junta vs democrats while I never said such a thing. I specifically stated if the guy GENUINELY thought like this about all crooks. That is my point that the idea of keeping crooks out is a good one. 

 

I also said its not this guys job, because even if he was not junta appointed it would give him too much power.

 

I am not denying facts at all, I am talking about the IDEA of keeping crooks out of a goverment. I was not talking about how it is used against the PTP. 

 

I have also stated in this topic that id like the junta to be subjected to the same laws, what is wrong with that ?

 

I was NOT talking about how it won't happen because they are protected right now I was talking about my opinion about how things should be.. not how they are at this time. I have made that quite clear while you keep making it out about junta VS democrats. 

 

You als keep talking about democrats and equate that with the PTP I never attacked that because you want the PTP to be democratic even though they are not and are lea by a man who said "democracy is not my goal and he did not mind how a country is led as long as it prospers"  those are not words of a democrat. But I did not attack you on it because I understand you are a democrat and don't share the same vision. Why do you don't give me the same curtsy and split my opinions from the junta's actions because I don't support them. 

 

I said it a few times.. I support neither junta nor PTP because they are both evil.. neither one is good at all the only thing the PTP has going for them is that they get checked more if they get in power. That is why i would say the PTP is the lesser evil. 

 

[robblok]

13 hours ago, candide said:

Frankly, can anyone doubt that he's just laying ground for rigging the next elections?

 

I bet that in the election law, there will be a provision such as "in case a candidate is suspected/accused of corruption or another crime by the EC, his candidacy will be suspended until a court makes a decision" (i.e. six month later).

How do I know? Because that's what I would do If I were the Junta. Untill now this method has proven to be quite often predictive.

 

I doubt they will falsify votes they will not go that far. Your method might be used, not sure about it but it could be. I would be against it of course. I am NOT against banning politicians for corruption after a court case. I actually feel that any politician that is been proven corrupt in a cour tof law should be banned for life. That is different from what you are talking about. 

[Srikcir]

14 hours ago, candide said:

I bet that in the election law, there will be a provision such as "in case a candidate is suspected/accused of corruption or another crime by the EC, his candidacy will be suspended

2017 Constitution,* Part 2, The Election Commission, Section 224, The Election Commission shall [in part] the duties and powers as follows:

• (1) to hold or arrange for the holding of an election of Members of the House of Representatives, a selection of Senators, an election of members of the local assembly and local administrators and a referendum;
• (2) to control and supervise elections and selections under (1) to proceed in an honest and just manner, and control and supervise the holding of a referendum to proceed in a lawful manner; for this purpose, it shall have the power to conduct an investigation or inquiry as necessary or as deemed appropriate;
• (4) to temporarily suspend the right to stand for election of a candidate for an election or selection under (1) for a period of not more than one year where there is evidence to reasonably believe that such person has committed or has connived at the act committed by other persons which is dishonest or which causes the election or selection to not proceed in an honest or just manner (my underline)

And there's this provision following subpart (6) that might have the potential for political influence:

• In conducting an investigation or inquiry under (2), the Election Commission may entrust an individual Election Commissioner with the execution  or entrust a group of persons with the execution thereof under the supervision of an Election Commissioner in accordance with the rules, procedures and conditions prescribed by the Election Commission. (my underline)

* translation prepared by Legal Opinion and Translation Section, Foreign Law Division under the legal duty of the Office of the Council of State (COS) for information purpose only.

[sjaak327]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

Your point about the amnesty does not fly, because I condemned it, you are stuck in the mindset that i support the junta. I don't, I also don't condone crimes of the junta nor do I condone their amnesty. I did not like Thaksin his amnesty one bit why would i support the junta its amnesty ?. We are not arguing here about what side is better or what is happening now. I am telling you how I see things and what I WANT to happen. Not how it is happening. You constantly come with points about how bad the junta is.. you will not get an argument there at all. Maybe you should change  your black and white reasoning once and open your mind.

 

My point is that it does not matter who commits a crime they should all be punished and I don't see the difference between people who have a mandate or not. I only look at the crime committed. I can can assure you it does not matter much in reality if you got beaten up by a democrat or got beaten up by a junta lover. The crime stays the same. That is my point you seem to be thinking its worse if someone is from the junta and better if they are a democrat. I don't i want them all to be punished the same way and yes I know about the amnesty but its not about what IS but its about what I want it to be. Its about my opinion and how I see things.. not what the junta is doing those are 2 different things.

 

So what is your big problem with me liking the idea of keeping crooks from getting into government ?. I was talking about all crooks... you seem to constantly make it about junta vs democrats while I never said such a thing. I specifically stated if the guy GENUINELY thought like this about all crooks. That is my point that the idea of keeping crooks out is a good one. 

 

I also said its not this guys job, because even if he was not junta appointed it would give him too much power.

 

I am not denying facts at all, I am talking about the IDEA of keeping crooks out of a goverment. I was not talking about how it is used against the PTP. 

 

I have also stated in this topic that id like the junta to be subjected to the same laws, what is wrong with that ?

 

I was NOT talking about how it won't happen because they are protected right now I was talking about my opinion about how things should be.. not how they are at this time. I have made that quite clear while you keep making it out about junta VS democrats. 

 

You als keep talking about democrats and equate that with the PTP I never attacked that because you want the PTP to be democratic even though they are not and are lea by a man who said "democracy is not my goal and he did not mind how a country is led as long as it prospers"  those are not words of a democrat. But I did not attack you on it because I understand you are a democrat and don't share the same vision. Why do you don't give me the same curtsy and split my opinions from the junta's actions because I don't support them. 

 

I said it a few times.. I support neither junta nor PTP because they are both evil.. neither one is good at all the only thing the PTP has going for them is that they get checked more if they get in power. That is why i would say the PTP is the lesser evil. 

 

Of course that points flies, it is very relevant to the issue we were discussing, and it is very relevant to the current situation. Whether you support the junta or not, wheter you condem the amnesty or not, fact is, that amnesty is there, it didn't magically went away just because you wanted it to go away. 

 

The reason why I believe that a lawbreaker that is subjected to the law is much less of a problem, then a lawbreaker who can do the same thing with total inmpunity should not really need any more explanation. Your wish for everyone to be punished is a wish, nothing more, as a group of people placed themselves above the law. 

 

As to the PTP, they might or they might not be democratic. However their power base is completely depended of the electorate, and their tenure is limited by a period set in the constitution at which time they need to obtain a renewed mandate from the electorate or go home. How different is the situation now. As to Thaksin's quote, when do people quote the whole thing, and not just one sentence ? He is a hell of a lot more democratic than the people that replaced him, that much is absolutely certain. 

 

Your wish to keep crooks out of parliament or government is a nice one, I am just pointing out that this is not the goal this person is trying to achieve. If he had any ounce of decency, he would never have taken the job in the first place, he is an instrument of the NCPO, nothing more and nothing less. His crooks are not the same as your crooks is the concept I am trying to explain to you. 

 

 

[sjaak327]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

 

I doubt they will falsify votes they will not go that far. Your method might be used, not sure about it but it could be. I would be against it of course. I am NOT against banning politicians for corruption after a court case. I actually feel that any politician that is been proven corrupt in a cour tof law should be banned for life. That is different from what you are talking about. 

You are making the same mistakes again, with their track record, do you really believe they wouldn't go as far as to falsify votes ? Why do you think they now have a whopping 30 days to count the votes ? I know the answer to that question already.

 

Everything is being put in place to make Prayuth the "legitimate" PM of Thailand after those elections. This may include disbanding certain parties, wasting tax payer money to buy support, changing laws so they can open up court cases against anyone named Shinawatra,  being fully in campaining mode, whilst anyone from the competititon is not allowed to do the same, right up to rigging the election if that is needed, and the way things are going, that might be the only viable way for him to fullfil hhis dream. 

 

Of course even if that fails, he Always has the constitution to fall back to, whoever becomes PM, will have to follow a 20 year roadmap, has a fully appointed senate to keep them in line, and the defacto powers simply resides with the NCPO not with the government du jour. 

[robblok]

22 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Of course that points flies, it is very relevant to the issue we were discussing, and it is very relevant to the current situation. Whether you support the junta or not, wheter you condem the amnesty or not, fact is, that amnesty is there, it didn't magically went away just because you wanted it to go away. 

 

The reason why I believe that a lawbreaker that is subjected to the law is much less of a problem, then a lawbreaker who can do the same thing with total inmpunity should not really need any more explanation. Your wish for everyone to be punished is a wish, nothing more, as a group of people placed themselves above the law. 

 

As to the PTP, they might or they might not be democratic. However their power base is completely depended of the electorate, and their tenure is limited by a period set in the constitution at which time they need to obtain a renewed mandate from the electorate or go home. How different is the situation now. As to Thaksin's quote, when do people quote the whole thing, and not just one sentence ? He is a hell of a lot more democratic than the people that replaced him, that much is absolutely certain. 

 

Your wish to keep crooks out of parliament or government is a nice one, I am just pointing out that this is not the goal this person is trying to achieve. If he had any ounce of decency, he would never have taken the job in the first place, he is an instrument of the NCPO, nothing more and nothing less. His crooks are not the same as your crooks is the concept I am trying to explain to you. 

 

 

Then maybe you should have read what i stated... i said IF he genuinely believed this then i found it a noble thought and one that I share. I never said that this guy did or did not really believe this. Your point about the chances being slim as he is selected by the junta is a good one.

 

I agree that lawmakers subjected to law are far less of a problem then those who are not.. no argument here. But it seemed in your argument you were saying that those voted in should not be punished for crimes. Later you clarified that that was not your intention. I just feel all should be subjected to the law. I also said that the PTP is the least bad option because they are subjected to the law more than the junta. That does not mean I find them a good choice.. just the least bad one.

 

Your right about the amnesty, but again my point was that I applaud people who genuinely want to keep crooks out of goverment.. not ones that only want to do so for crooks that are not on their side.

 

If you still have not figured me out.. I detest corruption and detest how things go here in junta.. PTP democrat or whatever government. I dislike how corrupt they all are and will always comment on those things no matter what side they are on.

 

 

 

 

[spidermike007]

How about getting them out of parliament? Anyone want to take a wager on whether or not there is at least one honest member of parliament? I would wage quite a bit to the contrary. 

[sjaak327]

14 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

How about getting them out of parliament? Anyone want to take a wager on whether or not there is at least one honest member of parliament? I would wage quite a bit to the contrary. 

At least the few that openly fell asleep during an NLA "debate" might be almost honest ?

[Stargeezr]

Candide, Answer is,  Yellow, Red, Green and all other colored parties.

  I just hope that who ever gets into power will at least try to work for the

people of Thailand and not just for their greedy selves..  That in itself would

be something not done to date!

[Srikcir]

14 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

At least the few that openly fell asleep during an NLA "debate" might be almost honest ?

I would add the 20 or so military officers who were appointed by Prayut to the NLA and have been granted by the President of the NLA permanent absence from NLA meetings and voting - albeit they continue to be NLA ministers for the record, they are still paid compensation (explained as "not salary") as ministers.

Their disregard for the importance of their role as Parliament ministers represents an honest recognition as to the importance of Prayut's Parliament's legislative role - it's not worth their time!

[spidermike007]

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

I would add the 20 or so military officers who were appointed by Prayut to the NLA and have been granted by the President of the NLA permanent absence from NLA meetings and voting - albeit they continue to be NLA ministers for the record, they are still paid compensation (explained as "not salary") as ministers.

Their disregard for the importance of their role as Parliament ministers represents an honest recognition as to the importance of Prayut's Parliament's legislative role - it's not worth their time!

 

Yes, not salary. And as Guiliani said, truth is not truth. The planet earth is not within our solar system, and our solar system does not contain a sun. We are nowhere near he milky way, and all salmon is wild, not farmed. Candy is good for you, and so is tobacco. Prayuth is a good man, and has only the Thai people's well being at heart. Same with Trump. Honest as the day is long. Thai drivers are incredibly conscientious, and careful, and very talented. And the government is going to start giving us 10 year visas, because we contribute so much to the Thai economy. 

[Small Joke]

'Watch' this space. ?