Yingluck plans to make her own closing statement

[Grubster]

4 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

She WAS warned both internally in Thailand and also by the world bank system and the IMF but she ignored why was said externally and had the lady whistleblower within Thailand moved and sacked.

 

It has been posted many times and I suppose it is still out there on the internet if you want to research for it.

And maybe you should, and then show evidence of a crime, isn't that what we are talking about? I was always led to believe that intent had to be proven.

[robblok]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

What you forgot are the dumping rules. If a country subsidises a commodity and then sells it for less than they paid for it, it is called dumping, which leads to international trade sanctions. So your little plan is not viable.

It has been explained repeatedly that failing to take measures to stem the losses is negligence in office, which is the crime she is charged with. The Hunt bros did it with their own money, Yingluk did it with money she was supposed to manage for the nation.

Not to mention that the whole program was never put in the central budget even when it was apparent that there where huge cost.. That is an accounting sin and certainly negligence. They touted it as cost neutral and did not want to put it int he budget as then the deficit would be to high and they would have to cut somewhere.. that is willful negligence.. knowing you have to do something but don't do it because it would impact other budgets. 

 

 

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed. 

[Grubster]

3 hours ago, halloween said:

What you forgot are the dumping rules. If a country subsidises a commodity and then sells it for less than they paid for it, it is called dumping, which leads to international trade sanctions. So your little plan is not viable.

It has been explained repeatedly that failing to take measures to stem the losses is negligence in office, which is the crime she is charged with. The Hunt bros did it with their own money, Yingluk did it with money she was supposed to manage for the nation.

So anytime someone fails to take measures to stem losses in a government project it is a crime, OK fair enough. I used the Hunt brothers as an example of how this can happen when surely the Hunt brothers did care about their money.

   In case you are not aware of it foreign countries have been dumping their goods in the USA for many years. Buy a Toyota in the US and then Buy one for 20% more in Japan.

[halloween]

37 minutes ago, Grubster said:

So anytime someone fails to take measures to stem losses in a government project it is a crime, OK fair enough. I used the Hunt brothers as an example of how this can happen when surely the Hunt brothers did care about their money.

   In case you are not aware of it foreign countries have been dumping their goods in the USA for many years. Buy a Toyota in the US and then Buy one for 20% more in Japan.

So you still don't understand dumping. Not my job to educate you.

The Hunt brothers can waste their money all day long because it is their money. When you have the job of responsible fiscal management of other people's money, it is a different story.

[Grubster]

2 minutes ago, halloween said:

So you still don't understand dumping. Not my job to educate you.

The Hunt brothers can waste their money all day long because it is their money. When you have the job of responsible fiscal management of other people's money, it is a different story.

Yes I understand Dumping and there are many ways to subsidize things and get around the dumping laws. Do you understand dumping? Doesn't sound like it to me. What the hell does dumping have to do with this issue? Are they going to convict her of dumping? Your way wrong or every politician that made huge mistakes and didn't correct them in a timely fashion would be in jail, can you name a few from democratic nations.

[halloween]

1 minute ago, Grubster said:

Yes I understand Dumping and there are many ways to subsidize things and get around the dumping laws. Do you understand dumping? Doesn't sound like it to me. What the hell does dumping have to do with this issue? Are they going to convict her of dumping? Your way wrong or every politician that made huge mistakes and didn't correct them in a timely fashion would be in jail, can you name a few from democratic nations.

Perhaps I should take lessons on dumping from the master who wrote " They would have been so much better off just selling it for what they could get from the start after paying the farmer for it."

She was buying rice that they couldn't sell.

And there was no " correct them in a timely fashion" - she did NOTHING to stop the losses even after they had drained all available revenue sources and farmers weren't being paid.

 

[billd766]

4 hours ago, Grubster said:

And maybe you should, and then show evidence of a crime, isn't that what we are talking about? I was always led to believe that intent had to be proven.

 

Why should I look for you?

 

How could I show evidence in a court in Thailand?

 

I was never involved in the rice scheme in any way.

 

It was the auditors who found the problem and not me. They did show the evidence and got hammered for doing so.

[Grubster]

1 minute ago, halloween said:

Perhaps I should take lessons on dumping from the master who wrote " They would have been so much better off just selling it for what they could get from the start after paying the farmer for it."

She was buying rice that they couldn't sell.

And there was no " correct them in a timely fashion" - she did NOTHING to stop the losses even after they had drained all available revenue sources and farmers weren't being paid.

 

So you are saying that selling it on the open market for what it is worth would have been dumping? There is no such thing as rice or any other commodity that can't be sold that I know of, please enlighten. She was buying rice that they "wouldn't sell" because they thought they could drive the world market, they could have sold it at any time which would have driven the world price down. I see you didn't have an answer for who has been prosecuted for not correcting a failed program in a democratic country?

[robblok]

16 minutes ago, Grubster said:

Yes I understand Dumping and there are many ways to subsidize things and get around the dumping laws. Do you understand dumping? Doesn't sound like it to me. What the hell does dumping have to do with this issue? Are they going to convict her of dumping? Your way wrong or every politician that made huge mistakes and didn't correct them in a timely fashion would be in jail, can you name a few from democratic nations.

Grubster, 

 

Can you name one PM that hid a cost to the goverment equal to the health budget and kept it off budget off books ? No .. I guess because something this big would never happen as it would indeed involve jail time. Heads have rolled for less in my country ministers having stepped down over letters and budget problems. But at this scale.. giving your country an extra loss the size of a health budget for a year and not reporting it.. that would be criminal to say the least. 

 

Its not a case of it being a subsidy, that would be the case if the had put it in the central budget and called it that way. But she hid it and called it cost neutral. Subsidies in the west are named in the budgets and monitored and certainly not hidden or kept off books. Just imagine if someone in the UK hid a cost the size of the health budget off books....  I guess you cant.. i know I cant because something of that magnitude would never ever happen.. its a huge case of negligence to willfully hide such a thing off books. 

[Grubster]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

Grubster, 

 

Can you name one PM that hid a cost to the goverment equal to the health budget and kept it off budget off books ? No .. I guess because something this big would never happen as it would indeed involve jail time. Heads have rolled for less in my country ministers having stepped down over letters and budget problems. But at this scale.. giving your country an extra loss the size of a health budget for a year and not reporting it.. that would be criminal to say the least. 

 

Its not a case of it being a subsidy, that would be the case if the had put it in the central budget and called it that way. But she hid it and called it cost neutral. Subsidies in the west are named in the budgets and monitored and certainly not hidden or kept off books. Just imagine if someone in the UK hid a cost the size of the health budget off books....  I guess you cant.. i know I cant because something of that magnitude would never ever happen.. its a huge case of negligence to willfully hide such a thing off books. 

Well I guess the several Trillion dollars that have been found to be unaccounted for in US military spending over the last several decades might be a good start, thats only about ten thousand times this amount.

    If they have proven that she intentionally deceived the Thai government and the people then by all means guilty as charged, Problem is I have not seen that come out yet, remember the word Proven. Is she guilty of her brothers crimes?

[Grubster]

35 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Why should I look for you?

 

How could I show evidence in a court in Thailand?

 

I was never involved in the rice scheme in any way.

 

It was the auditors who found the problem and not me. They did show the evidence and got hammered for doing so.

Because you were the one to bring it up, why should I look for you?

[Dumbastheycome]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

So you still don't understand dumping. Not my job to educate you.

The Hunt brothers can waste their money all day long because it is their money. When you have the job of responsible fiscal management of other people's money, it is a different story.

Dumping is a term where I come  from  that is  generally  understood  to involve  excrement. I  can understand   rice   would  easily  be involved  in that scenario. For sure  no problem for  some  when it is  other peoples  rice  that  gets  eaten  and  dumped !  

[bangrak]

'Yingluck plans...': yeah, right, fake news! LOL

[halloween]

9 hours ago, Grubster said:

So you are saying that selling it on the open market for what it is worth would have been dumping? There is no such thing as rice or any other commodity that can't be sold that I know of, please enlighten. She was buying rice that they "wouldn't sell" because they thought they could drive the world market, they could have sold it at any time which would have driven the world price down. I see you didn't have an answer for who has been prosecuted for not correcting a failed program in a democratic country?

" It occurs when manufacturers export a product to another country at a price either below the price charged in its home market or below its cost of production."

 

And your answer is they "wouldn't" sell the rice overflowing the warehouses while they were having problems raising the money to pay farmers, because they were worried the price would go down. Right.

 

The reason I can't give you a similar case is that no-one else has been as  cluelessly negligent as Yingluk. Other democratic counties have leaders chosen for their experience and political skill, not selected by the party owner,  and if any party member showed such gross negligence they would be replaced in their position without fear of losing their monthly bribe.

[jayboy]

10 minutes ago, halloween said:

" It occurs when manufacturers export a product to another country at a price either below the price charged in its home market or below its cost of production."

 

And your answer is they "wouldn't" sell the rice overflowing the warehouses while they were having problems raising the money to pay farmers, because they were worried the price would go down. Right.

 

The reason I can't give you a similar case is that no-one else has been as  cluelessly negligent as Yingluk. Other democratic counties have leaders chosen for their experience and political skill, not selected by the party owner,  and if any party member showed such gross negligence they would be replaced in their position without fear of losing their monthly bribe.

Please don't patronise the forum as an anti Shinawatra fanatic about the requirements of democratic countries.Democratic countries view the issue this way,

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-thailand-politics-yingluck-idUKKBN1A3007

[halloween]

1 minute ago, jayboy said:

Please don't patronise the forum as an anti Shinawatra fanatic about the requirements of democratic countries.Democratic countries view the issue this way,

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-thailand-politics-yingluck-idUKKBN1A3007

Really, is that why they have laws forbidding MPs from accepting 3rd party payments? In democratic countries you can't buy a political party and the PMship, you can't write and change laws for self benefit, and if you think democratic countries don't understand the situation here you are only fooling yourself.

[Grubster]

8 hours ago, halloween said:

" It occurs when manufacturers export a product to another country at a price either below the price charged in its home market or below its cost of production."

 

And your answer is they "wouldn't" sell the rice overflowing the warehouses while they were having problems raising the money to pay farmers, because they were worried the price would go down. Right.

 

The reason I can't give you a similar case is that no-one else has been as  cluelessly negligent as Yingluk. Other democratic counties have leaders chosen for their experience and political skill, not selected by the party owner,  and if any party member showed such gross negligence they would be replaced in their position without fear of losing their monthly bribe.

Yes I am well aware of dumping is, and they could have sold the rice at any time for the world market price [ what it is worth], like I said. I said they wouldn't sell it because they were trying to drive the market up [ that was the plan]. I did not say they wouldn't sell it because the market price would go down, I said that if they would have sold it the market price would in fact have gone down. You really like to twist statements around. Read my post #161 above and tell me which of the leaders in the US are being prosecuted for that.  Also can you tell me what year Yingluck initiated this scheme?

[jayboy]

Really, is that why they have laws forbidding MPs from accepting 3rd party payments? In democratic countries you can't buy a political party and the PMship, you can't write and change laws for self benefit, and if you think democratic countries don't understand the situation here you are only fooling yourself.

I think democratic countries understand the position in Thailand very well - hence the cold shoulder Prayuth receives (even Trump wavers) and the warm welcome Yingluck had.The most egregious example of a political party and PM ship being brought was the military organized shenanigans which propelled Abhisit to unelected power.I don't dispute Thaksin's tendency to implement arrangements to suit his business interests - but we were not discussing that (see topic subject matter).


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Grubster]

9 hours ago, halloween said:

Really, is that why they have laws forbidding MPs from accepting 3rd party payments? In democratic countries you can't buy a political party and the PMship, you can't write and change laws for self benefit, and if you think democratic countries don't understand the situation here you are only fooling yourself.

Well Well, did you know that it is perfectly legal for a US congressman to buy a ton of stock for a company that he and his coworkers are about to pass a very favorable and unexpected law for? Yes insider trading is only legal in congress. Think about that. I would sure like to be the stock broker for one of those guys.

[halloween]

2 hours ago, jayboy said:

 

I think democratic countries understand the position in Thailand very well - hence the cold shoulder Prayuth receives (even Trump wavers) and the warm welcome Yingluck had.The most egregious example of a political party and PM ship being brought was the military organized shenanigans which propelled Abhisit to unelected power.I don't dispute Thaksin's tendency to implement arrangements to suit his business interests - but we were not discussing that (see topic subject matter).


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

And you don't want to discuss how he came to be PM. Or whether it is acceptable to pay MPs to be members of your party. or whether it's acceptable to appoint a political novice to the highest political office, or whether it is acceptable for outsiders to access closed cainet meetings.That's understandable, it shoots down your concept of how great Thai democracy was.

[halloween]

2 hours ago, Grubster said:

Well Well, did you know that it is perfectly legal for a US congressman to buy a ton of stock for a company that he and his coworkers are about to pass a very favorable and unexpected law for? Yes insider trading is only legal in congress. Think about that. I would sure like to be the stock broker for one of those guys.

I did know, but I don't care. Most Americans don't like to be told that other countries think their dearly loved democracy is somewhat lacking.

[jayboy]

And you don't want to discuss how he came to be PM. Or whether it is acceptable to pay MPs to be members of your party. or whether it's acceptable to appoint a political novice to the highest political office, or whether it is acceptable for outsiders to access closed cainet meetings.That's understandable, it shoots down your concept of how great Thai democracy was.

Are you now disputing Thaksin and succeeding PMs of his party did not have a democratic mandate? Get a grip.

Thaksin did not appoint Yingluck to the highest office.He arranged for her to be the leader of his party.It was the Thai people that gave her the democratic mandate as the last legitimate PM of the country.

I have never suggested Thai democracy was other than a sickly thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[bangrak]

'Jayboy', 'Grubster', though this is all quite a bit off topic, as you guys are doing your utter best to pull the spotlights away from dear Yingluck's actions, ...or lack of such, for a quite evident reason, please allow me, hopefully (I doubt it, but...) for a last time, to clear that red/PTP/Shins, all the same, alas, TALE about Abhist not having been 'elected', and all the rest of your propaganda blah-blah about the question!

In the Thai democratic (well...) system, 'the people', the Thais using their right to vote in a general election, elect members of Parliament, whether directly in circumsriptions (IMO: good), or indirirectly via a national list of party candidates (IMO: not good when generalised). The elected MPs, after going through necessary(!) scrutiny about the validity of their election, gather in Parliament, and choose a candidate-PM, candidate as it is a prerogative of His Majesty the King to appoint Thailand's PM, who is the one who becomes behind her/his name a simple majority of the votes of those MPs. Do you still follow? It isn't that difficult, is it?

There are, indeed, democratic countries where the PM is 'directly' elected: by the popular vote of the registered citizens making use of their right to vote, NOT SO in Thailand (as may I add, in most democratic countries). You are still with me?

This makes it essential for a PM, in countries like Thailand, to (always and at any time) have a majority, of the MPs, supporting her/him, to keep the right to top the Executive Power of the country.

When the opposition MPs in Parliament disagree with, the PM's decisions or political line, or those of Ministers members of her/his Government, etc., they can proclame they do not trust the PM anymore, and they can call for a 'motion of defiance', which is a vote among all MPs to support, or not, eventually anymore, this PM. So far, so good for you.

Well now, imagine in such a vote the acting PM does not become a majority of the MPs' vote, then you have a 'Government crisis', and the PM must step down, and negotiations start among the MPs and their parties to form a new majority in their ranks, the same parties or others, for another candidate-PM, or the same one, doesn't matter.

And that, 'Jayboy', Grubster', and all other spinners, twisters, denialists, in good faith, and the others working for the propaganda of a certain 'clan', party or movement, is how Abhisit came to power!

How? Well, a, smaller, political party, whose MPs' votes were absolutely needed by the PTP to form a majority in the Lower House, as it was on itself in minority in Parliament(!!!), has, for reasons of its own which don't do anything to the matter, has chosen not to support the PTP PM, anymore, but to support the program of the DP, and had its MPs vote for the person they brought forward for the function of PM, a certain Mr Abhisit, who, in consequence, became the votes behind his name of political parties which had, democratically(!!!) decided to form a new, alternative, different, majority together.

So, guys, I hope I did not waste my time attempting to wring the neck of that 'fake news' (may it be old one), with FACTS only!

And now my conclusion: in the truth of facts, it is the bloody insurgency fomented by 'certain person(s)' in 2010 en 2011, for his/their own profit, which was UNDEMOCRATICAL, and was the main element in the fall/resignment of a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Government!

Can, will, reason be able to reach you, I am not sure, as I guess it should already have, but these are THE FACTS, uncoloured, untainted, plain. Can you live with 'facts', even when you don't like them or their implications? Search yourself, I can tell you for myself: YES, how hard it can sometimes be to do so!

  

[Grubster]

15 minutes ago, bangrak said:

'Jayboy', 'Grubster', though this is all quite a bit off topic, as you guys are doing your utter best to pull the spotlights away from dear Yingluck's actions, ...or lack of such, for a quite evident reason, please allow me, hopefully (I doubt it, but...) for a last time, to clear that red/PTP/Shins, all the same, alas, TALE about Abhist not having been 'elected', and all the rest of your propaganda blah-blah about the question!

In the Thai democratic (well...) system, 'the people', the Thais using their right to vote in a general election, elect members of Parliament, whether directly in circumsriptions (IMO: good), or indirirectly via a national list of party candidates (IMO: not good when generalised). The elected MPs, after going through necessary(!) scrutiny about the validity of their election, gather in Parliament, and choose a candidate-PM, candidate as it is a prerogative of His Majesty the King to appoint Thailand's PM, who is the one who becomes behind her/his name a simple majority of the votes of those MPs. Do you still follow? It isn't that difficult, is it?

There are, indeed, democratic countries where the PM is 'directly' elected: by the popular vote of the registered citizens making use of their right to vote, NOT SO in Thailand (as may I add, in most democratic countries). You are still with me?

This makes it essential for a PM, in countries like Thailand, to (always and at any time) have a majority, of the MPs, supporting her/him, to keep the right to top the Executive Power of the country.

When the opposition MPs in Parliament disagree with, the PM's decisions or political line, or those of Ministers members of her/his Government, etc., they can proclame they do not trust the PM anymore, and they can call for a 'motion of defiance', which is a vote among all MPs to support, or not, eventually anymore, this PM. So far, so good for you.

Well now, imagine in such a vote the acting PM does not become a majority of the MPs' vote, then you have a 'Government crisis', and the PM must step down, and negotiations start among the MPs and their parties to form a new majority in their ranks, the same parties or others, for another candidate-PM, or the same one, doesn't matter.

And that, 'Jayboy', Grubster', and all other spinners, twisters, denialists, in good faith, and the others working for the propaganda of a certain 'clan', party or movement, is how Abhisit came to power!

How? Well, a, smaller, political party, whose MPs' votes were absolutely needed by the PTP to form a majority in the Lower House, as it was on itself in minority in Parliament(!!!), has, for reasons of its own which don't do anything to the matter, has chosen not to support the PTP PM, anymore, but to support the program of the DP, and had its MPs vote for the person they brought forward for the function of PM, a certain Mr Abhisit, who, in consequence, became the votes behind his name of political parties which had, democratically(!!!) decided to form a new, alternative, different, majority together.

So, guys, I hope I did not waste my time attempting to wring the neck of that 'fake news' (may it be old one), with FACTS only!

And now my conclusion: in the truth of facts, it is the bloody insurgency fomented by 'certain person(s)' in 2010 en 2011, for his/their own profit, which was UNDEMOCRATICAL, and was the main element in the fall/resignment of a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Government!

Can, will, reason be able to reach you, I am not sure, as I guess it should already have, but these are THE FACTS, uncoloured, untainted, plain. Can you live with 'facts', even when you don't like them or their implications? Search yourself, I can tell you for myself: YES, how hard it can sometimes be to do so!

  

Have I said at any point that I thought that the " Shins" were good PMs?  Thanks for your version of facts about things that do not apply to this subject. As for us trying to pull the spotlight off Yingluck's actions, which actions are you referring to. Or do you mean inactions which seems to be the charges leveled at her. I hope you don't think that the fact that the 'Shins" were bad PM's makes the current PM any better. I must admit he is smarter, as he has made himself and his people immune to any charges for anything they do.

[bangrak]

1 minute ago, Grubster said:

Have I said at any point that I thought that the " Shins" were good PMs?  Thanks for your version of facts about things that do not apply to this subject. As for us trying to pull the spotlight off Yingluck's actions, which actions are you referring to. Or do you mean inactions which seems to be the charges leveled at her. I hope you don't think that the fact that the 'Shins" were bad PM's makes the current PM any better. I must admit he is smarter, as he has made himself and his people immune to any charges for anything they do.

Please let me know which parts of my 'version of facts' in my previous post ID:174 you consider to be false, erroneous or wrong about Abhisit having been a legimitimate, democratically elected PM in accordance with the Constitutional rules of Thailand. Period.

That it are 'things that do not apply to this subject', I do know, and I would not have taken the time to write a post concerning it at this time and place, telling in the introduction it was: 'quite a bit off topic', when it would not be that certain persons here, not having any sensible argument left to bring forward in the debate, do have a talent(?) in creating diversions, one of which, of last recourse, being to repeat false propagandist material from a certain movement/party/clan about the Abhisit Government to have been 'undemocratic', what is plain untrue, and that I have become sick and tired to hear!

[Grubster]

2 minutes ago, bangrak said:

Please let me know which parts of my 'version of facts' in my previous post ID:174 you consider to be false, erroneous or wrong about Abhisit having been a legimitimate, democratically elected PM in accordance with the Constitutional rules of Thailand. Period.

That it are 'things that do not apply to this subject', I do know, and I would not have taken the time to write a post concerning it at this time and place, telling in the introduction it was: 'quite a bit off topic', when it would not be that certain persons here, not having any sensible argument left to bring forward in the debate, do have a talent(?) in creating diversions, one of which, of last recourse, being to repeat false propagandist material from a certain movement/party/clan about the Abhisit Government to have been 'undemocratic', what is plain untrue, and that I have become sick and tired to hear!

I didn't say any of your version of the facts were untrue but many may well be. I dammed sure won't be studying the things you obviously do to find out either. Don't say I have been taking sides, I have only pointed out the "Fact" that  "I don't think" that she has been proven guilty of a crime here. Unlike you, as you have clearly stated that you are taking sides which has nothing to do with this issue anyway.  

[jayboy]

I didn't say any of your version of the facts were untrue but many may well be. I dammed sure won't be studying the things you obviously do to find out either. Don't say I have been taking sides, I have only pointed out the "Fact" that  "I don't think" that she has been proven guilty of a crime here. Unlike you, as you have clearly stated that you are taking sides which has nothing to do with this issue anyway.  

They are untrue though given his garbled syntax and slovenly English,it is sometimes hard to decipher what the fellow is struggling to say.

As to Abhisit it's true that under the parliamentary system he became PM under the law.But it was a grubby dishonest and corrupt transaction in which money changed hands by buying the Newin faction, the military acting as broker.

Abhisit - a weak rather than a villainous man. - wasn't directly involved since he was just a puppet.He delayed obtaining a popular mandate but when he eventually sought the Thai people's confidence, he was soundly beaten by the party headed by Yingluck.



Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[halloween]

17 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

They are untrue though given his garbled syntax and slovenly English,it is sometimes hard to decipher what the fellow is struggling to say.

As to Abhisit it's true that under the parliamentary system he became PM under the law.But it was a grubby dishonest and corrupt transaction in which money changed hands by buying the Newin faction, the military acting as broker.

Abhisit - a weak rather than a villainous man. - wasn't directly involved since he was just a puppet.He delayed obtaining a popular mandate but when he eventually sought the Thai people's confidence, he was soundly beaten by the party headed by Yingluck.



Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

So you oppose the formation of a coalition by offering incentives. How about the buying up of minor parties such as New Aspiration (how apt!), Chart Pattana, and factions led by Chidchob, Sanoh and Newin all lured by the promise of position and regular payment?

Or do you accept that because it fits your agenda?

BTW do you have any proof of your allegation money changed hands, or is that something "everybody knows"?

[Pridilives]

54 minutes ago, halloween said:

So you oppose the formation of a coalition by offering incentives. How about the buying up of minor parties such as New Aspiration (how apt!), Chart Pattana, and factions led by Chidchob, Sanoh and Newin all lured by the promise of position and regular payment?

Or do you accept that because it fits your agenda?

BTW do you have any proof of your allegation money changed hands, or is that something "everybody knows"?

oppose formation of coalition from army make happen!!!

 

chart-thai-pattana-we-were-forced-to-join-the-democrat-led-government