Thanet

The tragedy is that he may not know it. He sounds like he is basing his arguments on falsehoods that he has somehow come to believe as the truth, despite logical rebuttals around factual evidence.

1) Boycotting elections makes you a winner

2) Losing elections makes you a winner

3) Taking out one side but not the other via a judicial coup makes you a winner, because you are the last man standing, until the citizenry re-elects the opposite side

4) Not going to the people and putting up a credible opposition, hiding behind the army, then claiming the lead will make him a winner and endear yourself to the citizenry

5) Taking out an elected government by street protests makes you a winner

6) Calling yourself a democrat, using all kinds of sophistry and propaganda to redefine what this commonly understood word 'democrat' means, when if fact you are the exact opposite of a democrat makes you a winner

6) Etcetera

you may be right about the poster, but I think it is just baiting.

to your points, it is true that democratic systems can be manipulated in undemocratic ways. it happens in Thailand. it happens in other countries. it is what happened in 2008.

one of the reasons it is sooooo hilarious to see Abhisit making his pronouncements now is that his only job after the 2006 coup was to win an election. Then his only job, after being installed and given the advantage of incumbency, was to win an election. It was the only thing that he and his party needed to do to give the post 2006 coup and the post 2008 judicial coup a sheen of democratic legitimacy. But he failed. He failed big time. He failed repeatedly.

I suspect that he (Abhisit) is trying to stay relevant for the next 'elections' but to be honest, I don't see the junta repeating their 'mistakes' of the last 8 years and leaving anything up to the voters in a significant way. The voters, when it is one person, one vote, do not elect Abhisit and his party. The junta knows that. When they do come out with a new constitution, it will be a sham.

I agree with you there. The interim constitution, with it's 'army has the final say' clause, will likely be adopted permanently. Any government that the citizenry then tries to elect, will in effect be cowed by the army and be supine and utterly powerless.

All this talk about democracy and elections is just a façade -- all the army offers people is lip service to democracy, and elections here are merely worthless devices to delude gullible people into thinking that they have any political rights. They don't.

to say that he held the post legitimately is going a bit too far in my opinion since it was exactly the way that the elected government was removed and a non-elected government installed which caused the protests against the Abhisit government in the first place.

he was officially voted in by the MPs. so was the current PM. Neither government could be called 'elected'.

The difference being that Abhisit was elected by the people, and the MPs that elected him PM were all elected by the people.

Can you explain to me the difference between the election to PM of Samak, Somchai and Abhisit?

stop, stop already - you are talking nonsense and you know it.

The tragedy is that he may not know it. He sounds like he is basing his arguments on falsehoods that he has somehow come to believe as the truth, despite logical rebuttals around factual evidence.

1) Boycotting elections makes you a winner

2) Losing elections makes you a winner

3) Taking out one side but not the other via a judicial coup makes you a winner, because you are the last man standing, until the citizenry re-elects the opposite side

4) Not going to the people and putting up a credible opposition, hiding behind the army, then claiming the lead will make him a winner and endear yourself to the citizenry

5) Taking out an elected government by street protests makes you a winner

6) Calling yourself a democrat, using all kinds of sophistry and propaganda to redefine what this commonly understood word 'democrat' means, when if fact you are the exact opposite of a democrat makes you a winner

6) Etcetera

17.5k posts - I am beginning to understand how.

Let's take your first example, Yingluck. The party won the right in a general election to form a government and she became the PM which was what the voting public expected to happen in the case that her party won enough seats.

Abhisit was installed after the judicial coup and military arm-twisting/coalition building exercise. That is all well documented and understood, and it had nothing to do with winning a general election. He had a second chance in 2011 and failed spectacularly.

So please, give up with the "Abhisit was elected" nonsense.

Yingluck was elected, besides the fact that she was installed by Thaksin.

Now, please explain the difference between Samak, Somchai and Abhisit.

Politics runs in families. The Kennedy's, the Bushes, the Clintons, the Shinawatras.

And please let's not forget the Chan-ocha's - Prayuth's kid brother is in the NLA. Do you think that this is sheer coincidence, and that it is solely on his own merits? Or do you think that his big bro may have had something to do with him being there?

And your point is?

Mine was that Abhisit is a divisive figure, which he is, as he represents one side only of the political divide. His being given a forum by the state media apparatus will cause the very kind of resentment that the NCPO is claiming to oppose right now.

I know how parliamentary systems work. So does Abhisit. That's why he boycotted the last general election.

Talking was all Abhisit was good at. While he was the PM, all he did was talk, and accuse anyone who disagreed with him of LM.

He's nothing more than a shameless hypocrite and a deceitful charlatan. He lacks the courage to go to the country and win the hearts and minds of the citizenry, preferring instead to hide behind the army while holding up this pretence that he supports democracy.

If you know how parliamentary systems work, then you will know that Abhisit WAS elected.

That's nonsense.

How could he be elected, when he boycotted the general election?

And why did he lose the last election?

Abhisit is a divisive figure. Why don't they tell him to shut up, just like they told the red lot to shut up?

Seems he has been given a forum in the censored press to pontificate, but nobody else has been given that privilege.

They don't tell him to shut up because he's being constructive rather than just whining.

Regardless of what he says, isn't this supposed to be a time of reconciliation, where all political sides are told to shut up until the situation returns to "normal"? Reconciliation will be harder to achieve if one of the core supporters of leaders of the yellow shirts is allowed to have his say, repeatedly, while others are not.

As others have said here, he is a mere puppet of the military and has never been elected, so maybe this is just a sign of the military's true colours?

Not elected? Check out how parliamentary systems work.

What is wrong with what he said? In what way is it divisive? All he has said is that the current government are going to find the going tough because of the economy. There is nothing political in that.

I know how parliamentary systems work. So does Abhisit. That's why he boycotted the last general election.

Talking was all Abhisit was good at. While he was the PM, all he did was talk, and accuse anyone who disagreed with him of LM.

He's nothing more than a shameless hypocrite and a deceitful charlatan. He lacks the courage to go to the country and win the hearts and minds of the citizenry, preferring instead to hide behind the army while holding up this pretence that he supports democracy.

Abhisit is a divisive figure. Why don't they tell him to shut up, just like they told the red lot to shut up?

Seems he has been given a forum in the censored press to pontificate, but nobody else has been given that privilege.

They don't tell him to shut up because he's being constructive rather than just whining.

Regardless of what he says, isn't this supposed to be a time of reconciliation, where all political sides are told to shut up until the situation returns to "normal"? Reconciliation will be harder to achieve if one of the core supporters of leaders of the yellow shirts is allowed to have his say, repeatedly, while others are not.

As others have said here, he is a mere puppet of the military and has never been elected, so maybe this is just a sign of the military's true colours?

Have your next coffee somewhere else.

I also liked Australia Network.

It's demise is a sad casualty of one of the most unpopular budgets ever.

Joe Hockey will likely fall on his sword sooner rather than later, and it serves him right.

It's all about expectations.

People have a deluded view that their embassy is something like a concierge service, and will roll out the red carpet and welcome them with open arms when they get into trouble. Bailing them out of legal problems, supporting them, and putting them on the first flight home at the taxpayer's expense is what a lot of people see as their birthright.

The reality turns out to be far different, and so disappointment sets in.

Prices for embassy services are at home country rates plus a premium too, which can be a lot for people scratching a living here.

You'll get used to it. I went to live in Sydney after 20 years in Thailand and was aghast at first. After a few months, the high prices became the "new normal". I had to work a lot harder, but got used to it and indeed enjoyed it after a while.

Forget the Thailand constitution, they just make the rules as they go along. Plenty of other things to do in Thailand.

I avoid the so-called tourist attractions that smack higher prices on tourists and if they all done the same, than soon duel pricing would become a thing of the past. It`s that simple.

Agreed that constitutions have as long a service life as tissue paper here in Thailand.

That said, the old one forbade discrimination on the grounds of origin, but presumably allowed it on the grounds of nationality. For example, a Thai citizen of Indian origin must not be discriminated against, whereas an Indian citizen of Indian origin may be discriminated against. Various laws, immigration and labour laws for example, discriminate against non-citizens the world over.

Another government. Another promise to end corruption.

First decent PM we've had in a long long long time,

You could be right. Or not. But not on this, which only makes him look like a plagiarist. This particular speech about the middle-income trap is a straight steal from Yingluck.

And poverty is the chariot of corruption

Speaking of stealing.... corruption, yes!

What you just wrote deserves to be beaten down and contradicted and exposed every time it is written. If it were true, Thaksin would be the most honest Thai in history and his time as prime minister the most honest in the annals of the country.

Fact is rich people are far more likely to be corrupt in almost all ways including money. You'd think that electing a guy with eleventeen jillion baht would ensure the end of corruption. By your claim, that's what happened, and the Thaksin-Yingluck years with their were enabled, rich cronies were models of honesty. Right? That's what happened by keeping poor people out of government, right?

Please.

.

Straight steal? Yes indeed. Came together with her announcement of an ambitious mega project 'to lift Thailand out of this middle income trap' (23 Jan 2013). Details included the national income by promoting Agro-industry, tourism, service sector and zoning on land use. NESDB concurred and expect Thailand to break out of the middle income trap in 10-12 years. So the good general is just repeating what was said.

You know what they say about imitation being the sincerest form of flattery

Lots of grand promises, and he's starting to sound a bit like a politician. A question that has been asked for several years now. The question is how?

I'd say that Thailand's only option to escape a middle income trap is to go upwards, as to try to lower wages and go back down to competitive production via cheap labour would not be practical for various reasons.

To go upwards. to a fully developed economy would mean:

1) Making Thailand a friendlier place to do business, opening the doors to investment, relaxing immigration requirements to attract skilled foreign workers, cutting red tape, etcetera. No evidence of that yet

2) Educating Thais to be creative lateral thinkers, who question and challenge the norm and in doing so invent. No evidence of that yet, quite the opposite in fact

3) Understanding that calling for a step back in time to an agrarian utopia based on mere self-sufficiency, and the development of a modern technology based economy are opposing mindsets and may not successfully coexist. No evidence of that yet

Talk's cheap, as the old saying goes, Actions speak louder than words, even.

And why the arbitrary 12 years? What's the plan to go from here to there?

Buy her a Kindle.

Ebooks are all easily available from Amazon, and using a Kindle is private - nobody can see what you are reading, and no risk she'll get arrested for reading 1984 in public either.

Good for him

Well now, there's a surprise.

They're grooming him to be the next PM.

How populist s that?

Maybe because Thais don't need visas to go to Russia, but they do need visas to go to Oz.

Putting any kind of personal information into a public Internet profile is a serious risk to your personal security, and should be avoided.

1) Identity thieves can use it to build a profile of who you actually are. Using multiple sources of information they may eventually get enough details to pose as you and then steal from you

2) Nutcases, psychos and assorted cranks may take a disliking to what you say here, and use personal information to find out who you actually are

We are all talking to complete strangers here. 99% of people here (even the ones we may bicker with sometimes) are likely to be decent and honest, but there is always the other 1% that isn't.

Real names, addresses, personal photos that give away other information about you, email addresses, place of work, places frequented routinely, phone numbers, DOB, any documents that identifies you, etc, should all be kept private until you are really sure you know whom you are talking to.

Can't help but think elections, referendums and freedom of speech could help him a little bit here

Can't help but think that those who dislike the NCPO might be unpleasantly surprised.

Don't lose your head over this, Robespierre

You are absolutely right that the NCPO will try to make its detractors feel unpleasantly surprised. Any news that would make us feel pleasantly surprised will be censored out.

Keep watching the Friday Prayers.

Thailand has always been an oligarchy. Now it's a tyranny.

People here have been telling me so many times that THailand was a democracy that I almost started to believe that. Luckily you as Thai put me on the right track again.

Things are not always as they seem. In 1994, for example, Alexander Lukashenko seized power on an anti-corruption ticket. They all do, and he's been in total control ever since.

He's one of the good guys, right?

Do you believe all that you are told in Prayuth's Friday Prayers? Doesn't it grate on you that it gets in the way of regular programming?

To repeat, people keep telling me they want to return to pre-coup days when Thailand was a democracy. You tell me it was on oligarchy and now we have a tyranny.

Brings me back to the NRC and CDC to finally help put Thailand on the road to democracy.

BTW regarding Belarus, you might want to reread, event and timeline are a bit different from what you describe. Also if you feel to mention Alex L. here you might consider his early 'career' much closer to Thaksin S. career and Thaksin is not part of the topic.

Oh no! Here you are still banging on about the NLA, NRC, CBA, ABC, XYZ like they actually mean anything??

Whom do they all report to???

I'll give you a clue: begins with an N, and ends with a CPO.

It beggars belief that individuals still champion Fascism , mankind is going backwards.

Guess you could say that the current government comprises many elements of fascism. The only element lacking this far seems to be belligerence toward foreign neighbours.

Other than that, it's getting hard to tell the difference.

Thailand has always been an oligarchy. Now it's a tyranny.

Tyranny is not a form of government. In your mind, anything short of Dr. Thaksin being in complete control is 'tyranny'.

Bitter, much?

It's not about Thaksin - never has been.

Anything short of the people choosing their own government is tyranny.

The noble struggle that began in 1932 continues.

It is ALWAYS about Thaksin with Thanet; that is to whom my reply was directed.

One can have tyranny even when the people choose their own government.

Eh? Why on earth are you putting words into my mouth? To be honest, I always thought that Thaksin was an arrogant tosser.

But at least he could be kicked out when people got sick of him. Not so with the current lot who took over illegally under the barrel of the gun.

The one good thing about democracy is that justice prevails, in the end. Now the M16 prevails instead and a group of soldiers are running the country. What do they know about anything, other than fighting foreign wars, that is?,