| |
Kaymanx
|
Banning an entire political party, for the crimes committed by apparently one person, might reek of undemocratic treatment. But the party was founded by the maverick, staffed and managed by his own handpicked people, and inner party democracy was itself non-existent. Had there been democracy within the party, voices of protest would surely have been heard when the founder committed the mega tax and corporate fraud associated with the sale of his company to a Singaporean investment firm, thereby maligning the party and any ideology it might have had. This did not happen. On the contrary, the man made his moolah and, as reports have it, carted away suitcases of cash before the eventual coup that he appears to have anticipated. This is Thailand. Nay, this in many ways, is true for all Third World countries.
Given this background, and the fact that the entire party machinery was at his personal service, at his beck and call, the authorities acted against the entire party. One might disagree with the methods and the military coup employed to end the subversion that was taking place under Thaksin. Remember that the spoils were evidently shared by top functionaries of his party and his government, who naturally were considered abettors and conspirators.
In the corporate and financial world of today, in the west and in the east, it is common for regulators to ban broking or investment firms, implicated in fraud, from trading for restricted periods and that is an established regulatory practice. The Election Commission and its ban of Thaksin’s political party, and certain officials for a period of five years, was not much different. In many ways Thaksin was shaping -- if not already running -- a totalitarian regime that fully exploited all the weaknesses of the Thai political set-up and its uncertain democratic credentials. There was certainly much scope for a more democratic and acceptable means of bringing about his end. But again TiT and, as I said earlier, local culture and tradition is preponderant in political life.
On his side Thaksin and his cronies might have been more effective in their fightback if the man, given all his denial of wrongdoing, had returned to Thailand to face trial and was physically present now when the red shirts need him most. He has a lot to hide, so why would he return and endanger himself ? Weirdly he is safe abroad (unless the cancer reports are true) and his red-shirted pawns are being manipulated and sacrificed while the rest of the country remains traumatized.
Where I would fault the Abhisit government – if I do not take into account the underlying TiT condition -- is in its failure to pursue the numerous cases against Thaksin resolutely, bring criminal charges and issue an international notice against him. Instead he was allowed to fly and float freely, unhindered, while the government and political machinery wrapped itself up in convoluted circles, looking almost comical at times, and the wrong-doers made hay building up sound defences for a vengeful comeback.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 10:32 am on May 1, 2010
|
|
don5252
|
My simple take on this, Power=Corruption=Wealth
The current regime isn't going anywhere until they all fill up their bank accounts, hard to put a figure on that, the former rat faced worm leader made billions and wants to come back for more.
The great thing about the good ole U.S.A. 'and I guess some European countries' is despite all the corruption here there is still enough resourses for a majority of people to live a fairly nice lifestyle, not the case in 3rd world countries
My two main hopes are innocent people aren't made to suffer and 'maybe a little selfish but I believe good for Thailand in the long haul' is a complete and total collapse of the real estate bubble, especially in PTY, this would enable potential retirees such as myself to make LOS a viable place to consider taking up permenant residence again, thus contributing to their economy. The speculators won't miss anything, in fact they'll a right off.
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Sensual Bangkok Women
Posted on: 11:25 am on May 1, 2010
|
|
Mr Alan
|
Quote: from Kaymanx on 10:32 am on May 1, 2010
In the corporate and financial world of today, in the west and in the east, it is common for regulators to ban broking or investment firms, implicated in fraud, from trading for restricted periods and that is an established regulatory practice. The Election Commission and its ban of Thaksin’s political party, and certain officials for a period of five years, was not much different. his own handpicked people, and inner party democracy was itself non-existent.
I don't know what kind of banana republic you are from, but this would not ever be allowed in the US. This logic would be rejected by the US Supreme Court by a 9-0 vote, by both right wing and left wing judges in the US. Your analogy is shear lunacy, and nothing but a thinly veiled excuse to seize power away and dispense with democracy.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 12:20 pm on May 1, 2010
|
|
S M E G M A
|
Democracy is always a good excuse for guys like Thaksin in Thailand, and Chavez in Venezuela. Once elected they start to subvert the system and change it from the inside to accommodate to their undemocratic style. Zelaya in Honduras tried to follow that path and he was thrown out; lucky for Honduras the coup took place only a handful of months before already planned elections, and these went forward as planned and a new president was elected; Zelaya, following his mentor's advice (Chavez), planned to change the constitution to be able to remain in power. Guys like Thaksin and Chavez do not let go easily democratically; they use democracy only when it suits them and then they reject it. Those guys only go out by force as they do not allow free fair elections (not that it would help much in the long run, in a country of idiots, democracy replace one populist with another populist).
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Sexy Bangkok Girls
Posted on: 2:33 pm on May 1, 2010
|
|
Mr Alan
|
Quote: from S M E G M A on 2:33 pm on May 1, 2010
...not that it would help much in the long run, in a country of idiots, democracy replace one populist with another populist.
One man's idiot is another man's genius.
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 3:09 pm on May 1, 2010
|
|
S M E G M A
|
That is difficult. Idiots are at the bottom. Morons and imbeciles are above. Now, to an idiot, an imbecile may look quite smart, and a moron must look like a genius.
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Beautiful Thai Girls
Posted on: 11:29 pm on May 1, 2010
|
|
koolbreez
|
It's like Iraq under Husain, that was a "Democracy", with free elections. The only difference was there was only one candidate, and unless you were in a hospital, and unable to write, you went to jail for not voting.
But the logic of the situation was sound. In a Democracy, the majority rules, and everyone should adapt to the majority, so there was logically never any need for a second candidate under the majority concept of Democracy.....lolol.
It took Chavez 3 tries to get the laws changed so he could run for president in perpetuity. Afterall If the majority elected him once, then logically they would not change their minds, and would want him there for life....lolol.
That part about majority rules, and everyone should adapt to the majority, is always the stickler under pure Democracy....lol. It's conceptually very similar to a socialistic form of government. In both systems there is no place for the minority.
The saving grace, in some circumstances though, is the right to free speech, so the minority has the chance to try to convince the majority to change their minds. Something that doesn't make logical sense in either form of gov't....lol. Afterall, the majority is never wrong....lol. Just ask Thaksin......lol.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 1:47 am on May 2, 2010
|
|
Kaymanx
|
Quote: from Mr Alan on 12:20 am on May 2, 2010
I don't know what kind of banana republic you are from, but this would not ever be allowed in the US. This logic would be rejected by the US Supreme Court by a 9-0 vote, by both right wing and left wing judges in the US. Your analogy is shear lunacy, and nothing but a thinly veiled excuse to seize power away and dispense with democracy.
Just a few instances FYI, since your knowledge and perception appear to be limited by your US-centricity :
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2007/09/17/story2.html
Capsule: In September 2007 Swiss banking authorities froze the assets of a Boston-based trading firm named Tradex for a procedural fault. This was followed in the USA by the National Futures Association, a local currency trading authority, imposing a ban on the same firm’s US operations.
- So you have 2 “banana republics” here by your criteria.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63P0VO20100426
26 April 2010 : Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission is seeking to ban Tiger Asia, a New York-based asset management company, from trading following allegations of insider trading.
- Now there’s a third banana republic in your list.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c3a5c06-2897-11df-a0b1-00144feabdc0.html
5 March 2010 : Greece ordered its bankers to exclude hedge funds from a bond offering this week in an effort to punish the speculators it blames for destabilising its debt markets. The decision came amid growing anger among European leaders over what they see as the role speculators played in undermining the Greek debt market and driving the country towards a possible default. In a meeting in Berlin Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and George Papandreou, the Greek prime minister, promised a joint push both in the European Union and the Group of 20 leading economies to clamp down on speculators who seek to exploit uncertainty over sovereign debt.
Note that, although the hedge funds were not themselves banned, they were banned from trading in a particular product.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/440970/1/.html
7 July 2009 : The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has, for the first time, imposed bans on the sale of structured notes by 10 financial institutions (FIs) which had distributed toxic structured notes linked to the collapsed US financial institution Lehman Brothers. The bans took effect on July 1 and will remain in place until MAS is satisfied there are adequate measures to address the findings of its investigation into the sale of the failed structured products last year. The 10 FIs are ABN Amro Bank, CIMB-GK Securities, DBS Bank, DMG and Partners Securities, Hong Leong Finance, Kim Eng Securities, Maybank, OCBC Securities, Philip Securities and UOB Kay Hian.
Here again note that, although the FIs were not themselves banned, they were banned from trading in a particular product.
- So Greece, Germany alongwith the entire EU, G-20, Singapore … that’s too many banana republics now, because you could argue that these product-specific bans on firms were, to use your own words, “shear lunacy, and nothing but a thinly veiled excuse to seize power (business, in this case) away and dispense with democracy (by allotting business among a select few favoured entities).”
http://www.topnews.in/sebi-bans-26-trading-firms-stock-exchange-2174815
The market regulator, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), has banned 26 firms from any type of trading and transaction in stocks for allegedly circulating scam tainted stock broker, Ketan Parekh’s money in the stock market from January 2007 to February 2009 … SEBI found these firms as conduits for routing Ketan Parekh funds, referring the case to the Enforcement Directorate for further investigations. Ketan Parekh and others were banned from any trading at stock exchange following disclosure ofstock market fraud in 2000-2001.
- Add India to your list.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14813
12 November 2007 : The (US) Army has threatened to ban a private security firm in Iraq from government work because an executive allegedly got inside information to win $2.5 million in contracts, Army records show. Eric Barton, a former manager in Iraq for EOD Technology (EODT), was accused by the Army Suspension and Debarment Office of helping his company win convoy security work last year while having an affair with Air Force Capt. Sherrie Remington, a contracting officer, according to records released to USA TODAY under the Freedom of Information Act. Remington gave Barton information about previous security contracts and awarded his company seven contracts between January and March of 2006, according to the records from the Army Suspension and Debarment Office.
- That's two instances concerning the USA so you might like to accord pride of place in your august listing. The world is full of banana republics.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Active Thai Girls
Posted on: 5:21 am on May 2, 2010
|
|
Mr Alan
|
Quote: from Kaymanx on 5:21 am on May 2, 2010
Just a few instances FYI, since your knowledge and perception appear to be limited by your US-centricity :
blah
blah
Apparently you don't know the difference between free commerce and political free speech. Yes, one can ban a company from doing business in a democracy if that company has acted illegally, but comparing that to banning of a political party is so ludicrous that it is shocking that anyone would even relate the two.
If the current government wants to pursue charges against each elected member of the TRT (or whatever Thaksin's party is called) who they believe committed a crime, then they can do that, and if found guilty have them individually disqualified from holding office. But to ban a political party is a tyranny which cannot be allowed to stand.
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 3:57 pm on May 2, 2010
|
|
koolbreez
|
Banning the political party, and all it's executives, for illegal actions, eliminates the scapegoat element that is extensively used in all instances of illegal political, and legal, activity the world over, be it 1st world, or 3rd world.
By holding the whole party responsible for all actions by it's members, you get rid of the "I don't recall" excuse. This excuse was used extensively under the Clinton administration, yet he was proud of the fact he could recall in detail things that he had done in the past, until he was under oath, then it was "I don't recall".
Under the Bush administration, he was saved for starting a war, by the use of a scapegoat with supposedly false intellegence reports.
Under the system of holding the whole party responsible for illegal actions of it's executives, you take away those levels of scapegoat protection of those executives in charge, all the way up to the leader of the party. If he truly has no knowledge of what his executives are doing, does he have the right to remain in office for his stupidity? I think not, and also believe that everything that goes on at the executive level of his party he is totally aware of.
Thus desolving the whole party holds those that should be held responsible, held responsible. Be it Democratically correct, as opposed to morally correct, is the stumbling block. Do you protect justice at the expense of what is just?
There are to many instances to list of those that are actually guilty of orchastraighting illegal activity that never have to be held resposible for their actions because there is always a scapegoat ready, and willing to take total responsibility. You hold the whole party responsible, and it is a start at trying to get rid of the corruption, and holding every executive responsible, because they all are, or they are too stupid to be in an executive position.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 10:54 pm on May 2, 2010
|
|
| |
|
