BangkokReady

Alternative but well established facts that happened and you can find reported by multiple independent sources? Suuuuuure. Have fun living in a dream world. No wonder you aren't in favour of the coups, have have no knowledge of their necessity. If you trust your imagination over what actually happen though, you probably aren't going to be able to make any sort of meaningful contribution when the subject is discussed.

No. Thaksin took it to another level, as I said before. I highly recommend you look into it a lot more. Are you sure? As far as I can tell she was held criminally responsible but was not made to pay compensation in a civil court. I mean, besides, it was her rice pledging scheme, she orchestrated it and she is responsible for it. You can't just pretend it was nothing to do with her because it doesn't fit your narrative. Nothing I have said is asinine whatsoever. As I said, look it up properly before you discuss it. If anyone "doesn't know", it's you.

How can you expect to discuss this if you lack the most basic of understandings of it? These are established and widely reported facts. Just search for Thaksin and vote buying or Yingluck and the rice pledge scheme. I'm honestly surprised you're discussing this topic without knowledge of this.

No, it's more about accepting the military's role in preventing a group from usurping the democratic process to take absolute power. How else would you address it? Or would you just go the "they were voted in so let them do whatever they want as that means it's democracy and therefore best regardless of their conduct or what method they used to get the votes" view?

I mean they weren't going to be voted out because they were paying people huge sums to keep themselves in power regardless of what they actually did for the country or for themselves. I'm not sure how that isn't a problem for you, as long as they're "voted in" nothing else matters? They can be completely illegitimate in every other way as long as they get the most votes? As I said already, I'm not in favour of what is happening now, only that the coups have clearly been necessary. They obviously would have voted her or another Thaksin proxy straight back in. It cannot simply be a case of remove the proxy and let them vote another straight back in. How would that solve the problem that necessitated the coup in the first place? I'm not sure how you expect democracy to function in Thailand without some way of prevent a Thaksin/Yingluck situation from reoccurring.

That might explain what happened to poor General Taksin.

These are the facts. Thaksin and Yingluk paid the provinces to get into power and that money was running out. Hence the rice pledging scheme. They were almost as unaccountable as the current government. Almost.

Well, they believed that their lives were better under Thaksin because in the short term they had more money in their pocket. Meanwhile Thaksin was using the country as his own personal piggy bank. Once Thaksin ran out of money (or rather could not pilfer anymore money) to buy votes, and probably fled the country leaving a massive whole in the economy, what would they think then?

As I said, they should certainly have returned to democracy after a year or two, but there was a certain transition that they wanted to prepare for. Also, the coups removed a government that couldn't really be voted out or held accountable, so that doesn't quite add up. So it isn't really the coup that is the problem, so much as the failure to follow the pattern and return to democracy. I don't think that's quite true. Why let them have a democratic election in the first place? Why not rig the elections or only allow approved candidates? Why haven't laws and policies that Thaksin brought in all been reversed? Why was the final straw with Thaksin when he was selling off a big telecoms company? Why did they only step in with Yingluck when she tried to pardon Thaksin and bankrupt the nation? I don't think the reality necessarily support what you are saying here. They certainly didn't have to manufacture anything or accuse them of anything they didn't do.

Sure, basically the methods that Thaksin and his proxy sister used to gain and hold power were such that you cannot really class them as being properly democratically elected. Did they get the most votes? Technically, sure. But if they had not used corruption, cronyism, silencing free speech/criticism, and the straight up purchasing of votes (and not the regular kind), would they have still gotten into power? Possibly not.

"He gave me money so I like him." I completely understand this, but I don't necessarily think it is good for democracy.

Narrator: They weren't

You seriously believe that the coups have interrupted actual democracy? Wow! I have a bridge to sell you, if you're interested...

Sure. Thailand has a history of it. Look it up. One could equally argue that they have been virtuous and the result of corruption, where improperly elected clans have only sought to enrich themselves and gotten dangerously close to bankrupting the country. As the current topic confirms, clan politics and corruption is standing in the way of any improvement in democracy in Thailand. (Probably a lack of proper education also.) On the contrary, the coup would serve as an essential part of the process, to ensure that absolute power does not slip into anyone's hands and remain there indefinitely. There is no democratic country where "the will of the people" goes against the interest of the ruling elite. It just doesn't happen. This is a delicate balance that Thailand needs to learn to manage, as other countries have.

That isn't how democracy has turned out in Thailand. I suggest you read up on Thaksin Shinawatra and his Sister Yingluck.

Brilliant film. It took me such a long time to watch it as well.

Laws are also meant to prevent any situation occurring where a coup or civil war is seen as necessary. Unfortunately, once someone is "voted" into power in Thailand they are able to restructure the political system and change laws at will to allow them to have complete and unchecked power, hence coups occur.

Absolutely, but if you look at how attempts at democracy actually play out in Thailand, you can see why people are often in favour of coups. No doubt, the junta should have gone back to democracy after a couple of years. Thais should try for democracy, but the coup "backstop" is clearly something that cannot be removed completely, otherwise you just end up in the same situation but with a different group. Neither total control by the elite, nor total control by the poor, results in an optimal outcome for the country.

Consequences? Punishments? They don't even stop the scrotes from wearing stupid hats to hide their identities! This is the land of jumping jacks and push-ups, then back onto your unregistered bike with no licence or helmet, carrying four children, driving the wrong way at high speed. You wouldn't want to make anyone feel bad...

Can you report something that hasn't happened yet? "Predicts" maybe?

Thailand is not coping well without tourism. It is clearly not simply a case of "everyone has returned to their villages and found another source of income". It is obvious that much of the Thai economy and most Thai people were supported by tourism income. Time to open up with few restrictions and rescue the economy and the Thai people. One would hope that in the future Thai people will have a newfound appreciation for foreigners and the money they bring in that Thai people clearly rely on to survive. But I doubt it.

Not technically untrue, but there are rules about who can run, how they can motivate people to vote for them and who can actually be in control of the people who are being elected. Keeping one family or one person in power indefinitely through corruption, cronyism and buying votes is not democracy. In a normal, functional democracy, sure. Where people can vote fairly and elections can allow leaders and parties to change freely, yes, coups are not needed.

No, you're right. The headline should be something like "Can democracy ever function effectively in Thailand while clan politics remains?".

I think both our explanations point to the fact that it gives men options that women would rather they did not have.

It's not for me, but generally all involved are consenting adults. It's not something I would advise people to do, and I don't plan to marry a bar girl, but people should be free to do what they want within "the law". It's derided because prostitution is seen, from a Western perspective, as only benefitting the man and exploiting the woman, with the woman being forced into it by her circumstances. (The real reason for the objection is likely that it gives men options and older/unattractive Western women don't like that.) Obviously this isn't the case in Thailand typically, but people still try to argue it because it is so deeply rooted in their minds.