halloween

1 minute ago, Srikcir said:

The chose was the junta's to decide what its priorities were. It chose to abolish the legal foundation for abuse of office vis a vis the 2007 Constitution in order to protect its own act of treason as defined by the 2007 Constitution.

But don't cry for Prayut. The 2017 Constitution still gives Prayut absolute power for abuse of office with immunity. So Lose-Win for the junta.

Oh please. A coup was going to be illegal no matter what constitution was in effect. And immunity was well justified by their actions of removing the Shinawatra's grubby paws from the people's pockets.

Which is getting away from the subject - why should a fugitive criminal be allowed 'rights' which prevent the course of his prosecution? You claim it would be an abuse of power to prosecute a criminal who had no qualms abusing his power to enrich himself. Moreover, if prosecuting him in absentia is so abusive, he has the remedy of making himself available to the courts.

What happened to the other 5 crew?

The price of 'free' television is having your intelligence insulted every 10 minutes or so. For those with little intelligence, it's a small price to pay.

1 hour ago, debate101 said:

Chaturon is always right. He's the only honest, intelligent politician Thailand has that doesn't have a huge blind spot for establishment corruption and abuse , so I doubt he will ever again achieve a position of power.

Not a blind spot, just a very selective memory regarding those who pay him.

3 hours ago, Srikcir said:

I agree as the "norm."

But can be expected take place about every four years when a military junta comes to power. The NCPO's retrospective application of the 2007 Constitution abolished by the NCPO to try Yingluck for negligent dereliction of duty is such a case. In the presence of absolute power, the only norm is abuse of power itself.

Oh I can imagine all the Thaksin supporters moaning about his civil/human/whatever rights if he was convicted of the billion baht bank scam, which would be the easiest and fastest case to prosecute. But THAT abuse of power should be ignored, to protect his rights.

14 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

The cost of the coup will dwarf the rice scheme. Over dramatic today? The rice scheme is less than 3% of GDP; not a massive debt. The rice scheme puts money in farmer hands and according to economist will generate 5 times multiple to the GDP. Submarines and tanks are outflow and generate zilch to the economy except for sales of Benz. 

 

 

So where was the 15% increase in GDP? What was there to show for $20 billion dollars except mountains of rotting rice still attracting storage fees? And without the coup, when would it have stopped, when the B2 trillion loan was all spent?

How do get a job as a traditional soothsayer forsooth? Do you need a PhD (Piled higher and  Deeper) on top of your degree in BS?

53 minutes ago, Becker said:

So, the voters in the UK (and all other countries where they don't have this evaluation process) are making uninformed choices? 

Also, who should pick and make sure the "evaluators" are independent and actually give the right information?

That would seem to be the case, that's why the UK was looking at it, so the voters would be better informed. OTOH lying to parliament and the public are frowned upon in the UK and many other countries, while here, we have the Shinawatras, who couldn't lie straight in bed.

To ensure independence, there are a number of possibilities from the Public service or reputable major accounting firms. Oh wait, now you'll tell me they are 'elite' and there aren't any uneducated rice farmers included. 

On 11/05/2017 at 2:08 PM, Srikcir said:

An idea that needs exploring.

For example, one puts their work, games, etc. into cloud storage prior to boarding. The aircraft comes with its own server. Passengers access the server via airline-provided devices, ie. built into the seat monitor area, thence to the cloud for one's personal or commercial data. Costs of server would be covered by an additional fee or offered free depending on competition.

Wonderful, so what do I do when I reach my destination? Buy another computer?

Now think about this, why do I have a laptop, rather than a desktop?

3 hours ago, Misterwhisper said:

Perhaps Thailand wouldn’t need this highly controversial law if…

 

…the authorities weren’t in the annoying habit of publicly announcing a week ahead that they’re going to issue an arrest warrant for a suspect in order to give them plenty time to arrange their escape and pad their foreign bank accounts with sufficient funds.

 

…judges would finally abandon the absurd reasoning for not issuing an arrest warrant that a suspect is not a flight risk just because they have a permanent address.

 

…law enforcement would finally stop to be taken for fools by suspects who ignore summons after summons after summons without having to fear any consequences.

 

…authorities would immediately revoke the passports of suspects who ignore a single summons in order to prevent them from leaving the country and inform them that they’re in fact prohibited from traveling abroad until further notice.

 

…suspects who flee abroad are automatically slapped with an additional charge of actively trying to evade justice.

 

…public prosecutors would not drag their feet for years on end until the statute of limitations kicks in. If a “nobody” can go to trial and be convicted within 2 weeks, so can a “somebody.”

 

But then again, it is clear why this law is going to be instated in the first place, namely solely for the purpose to finally go after one certain man.

Your last paragraph assumes that this law is to be applied retrospectively, which is rarely the case. While that fugitive thoroughly deserves to have the much more serious charges that are pending heard, do you have any proof that is the case?

20 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

I am referring to your insult of people who voted by calling them ignorant. You should have some respect for the common people who may be not as educated as you but they are much more intelligent than you think by voting for the party who brought them benefits and a better standard of living. 

 

I am not Aussie and I don't think policy evaluation used there have brought the desired government that all Aussie want. They wanted for the term to expire to show their displeasure. Do the Aussie politicians lie? You know better.

 

As for the cost benefit analyse, it still based on certain assumptions and when the assumptions go awry, it is just a waste of paper like 5 years or 10 years plan. 

 

If you feel that I insulted you, I apologize. 

You object to 'ignorant', yet you don't want the voters to be informed. Isn't more than a little hypocritical? The process in Oz at the very least allows voters to evaluate policies presented, they didn't have to wait until they collapsed with massive debts and little if any return - like the rice scam.

BTW i believe the UK is looking into a similar scheme.

18 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

When you can't refute the argument, start regurgitating anti-PTP and anti-democracy nonsensical propaganda falsehoods.

 

The only reason you know anything about any misdeeds by Australian politicians is because the opposition party does it job, not because of some BS policy evaluation process.

It might be an idea to look into the process and how it works, because it DOES work. Feel free to point out any falsehoods, if you can.

18 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

Why shouldn't, why shouldn't, why shouldn't ....

 

What exactly is the role of the opposition political parties in elections and in parliament??

Seems to me your problem lies with the performance of Abhisit and the Democrats and not with PTP

 

What their role IS NOT is costing their opponents BS. That should be done by an independent body, as proposed.

Do you think it is a good idea for BS policies to be presented to the public without cost/benefit analysis? Why shouldn't the people be more informed, because crap policies win elections better?

Perhaps you should change your username to Smarter than Ewe.

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

No. only from your bigoted mind. 

So tell me, why did ordinary people seek to disrupt an ASEAN meeting?

Just now, Eric Loh said:

Spoken like a true bigoted junta apologist. 

When you can't refute the argument, resort to insult. Policy evaluation is used in Oz, with no junta in sight. It lets us know when politicians are lying.

Seems strange to me that the alleged would-be rapist didn't notice hubby entering and getting his gun from its storage place in what seems quite a small home. Or that he didn't immediately stop his rape attempt when looking down the barrel, making it necessary to shoot him.

In scientific tests, 8/10 would be rapists lost their erection at the sound of a hammer being cocked. Of the other 2, one was deaf and the other terminally stupid.

6 hours ago, davehowden said:

"He also praised security guards at the Big C store for their decision to evacuate people from the store after the first bomb blast. Their acts helped minimise the number of injured people, he said. "

 

"The first explosion was triggered by big firecrackers inside the store, sparking a panic that forced people towards the second bomb."

 

Seems that if everybody had stayed put inside the store nobody would have been injured ??

Earlier reports indicated that security stopped people rushing out the front doors.

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

You are lumping things together to make the argument. Campaign promises like the rice scheme, tablets and raising the minimum wages were campaign pledges and were executed. That the rice scheme failed due to poor forecasting of price and arrogance in thinking Thailand can control pricing through supply and demand was not campaign promise. The electorate will have to judge them if the tablets given to their children help them or did the minimum wage improve their life in the next election.  The electorate have sufficient intelligence to decide which government give them a better life and in the last decade, they chose Thaksin. A small minority of powerful people has no right to impose their rule over the majority.   

 

 

I know you prefer the mushroom method of conducting elections - keep the voters in the dark and feed them BS. But for true democracy, one of the requirements is an INFORMED, and preferably educated, populace. Nobody deserves 4 years in office thanks to false promises and lies.

Why shouldn't the people know the rice scam would never work, despite PTP's promise it would? Why shouldn't they know that a quality tablet/child was simply unaffordable, or that simply raising wages doesn't increase wealth, BEFORE the election. Why shouldn't they know that the Shinawatras were lying to get elected, not to represent the people, but to enrich themselves? 

And even if they are elected, their criminal behaviour in office, their willful neglect of the interests of the nation in preference to self, fully justified their removal.

8 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

The largest and best-armed insurgent group that the military has chosen to bypass in peace talks.

Thus likely to encourage more BNR initiated violence.

Actively maintaining a bombing campaign aimed at civilians is an obvious indicator that they want to be included in peace talks. Since when did they NEED encouragement?

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

Nothing false about their campaign promises. All delivered. Which governments including the present do cost/benefit analysis that the previous government will have to do because you say so. Probably should start with this junta government analyzing the cost/benefits of buying the submarines and the tanks. 

 

I fully support the electorate deciding if they are better under specific government through the ballot box. Preventing this legitimate democratic way of people's mandate is robbing the people of their rights and wrecking the country economy with wasteful military spending. 

Nothing false about their campaign promises? Really? Did the country receive huge benefit from forcing the price of rice to rise, or was there just a huge waste of the people's resources? Did every schoolchild receive a tablet of the quality Yingluk displayed, lifting the quality of education, or did a select few get a piece of junk?  Are the poor better off after lifting the minimum wage, or did inflation erode any gains?

Having public service and/or independent auditors analyse campaign promises and policies works. But you would prefer the electorate to remain ignorant when they are being deceived, right?

That story smells almost as bad as the inevitable puns expected to follow.

12 hours ago, Becker said:

You mean you can't think of anyone yourself??

Anyone??? I think they were few some BS by Thaksin's mercenary agitators (aka UDD), probably with some paid thugs to carry out the violence from within the crowd. Isn't that their usual modus operandi?

12 hours ago, debate101 said:

That was their campaign promise. The electorate never agreed with Thaksin's removal, regardless of his corruption and abuse of power, and wanted to express that at the ballot box. That's essentially why they had to be disenfranchised.

The electorate believed their false campaign promises, that the rice scam was sustainable, that all school children would be given tablets to improve their education, and that they would be better off after the minimum wage was raised, amongst others. Would they have done the same if prior cost/benefit analysis had proved them to be unworkable?

I fully support financial analysis of campaign promises and government policy to prevent this election buying waste of public resources. It happens in Oz and it works well.

12 hours ago, Becker said:

They were elected and could be removed by the voters if they were not happy. The junta can only be removed by force.

Tell me; whose interests do you think the junta represent?

They were elected by offering unsustainable electoral bribes, just what this measure is intended to stop. You don't deny that they were acting in the interest of their owner, you can only make false claim - the junta will remove themselves.

22 hours ago, debate101 said:

Submarines? Tanks? Propaganda budget? Rubber subsidies? Here's a crazy idea. How about having parties make their spending policies part of their campaign platform, and then people can vote for the party whose plans they like best? A rhetorical question, I know, but how many of these people who are going to be deciding what spending is appropriate and what isn't were voted into office and represent the public and its interests (rather than unaccountable interests)?

What makes you think the last elected government was representing the public's interest? They were willing to promise unsustainable policies to get themselves elected, and then acted in the interest of the criminal that paid, directed and owned them.