jayboy

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.

As the Thais say you must have a very thick face since you have repeated this red herring several times on this forum as if it explains away Abhisit's grubby rise to power, the corrupt back door deals and ignoring the fact that the Thai people have consistently rejected him.I am actually intrigued who you think your audience is.Do you think anyone is convinced or persuaded by your irrelevant lectures on parliamentary democracy? Everybody knows Abhisit held the premiership legitimately but that is not the point being made.

It's reassuring to know the "good people" are in the vanguard of the anti - corruption campaign, and we will await Yingluck's charges (or not) with interest.

There is a teeniest problem however that not only is the military corrupt, but corrupt on a massive scale.The following Asia Times article sets out the scale of the criminality involved:

http://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/thailand-crooked-army/

Fortunately (phew) the NCPO is composed of good clean people without a corrupt stain on their character.That is why they have been so keen to declare their assets to ensure transparency.Oh wait.....

I didn't say that the army weren't corrupt, but it is a bit of a laugh that a Yingluck supporter complains about it.

Glad you are so easily amused though not really clear why.Surely one can object to corruption wherever it is found.

In the case of the military it's the hypocrisy that is so striking - given its self appointed role as scourge of corruption.The case against Yingluck ( unlike the case against the army which is never accountable for its crimes) has yet to be proved.When or if it is proven then all reasonable people will condemn it and endorse the appropriate sentence.

But in the grisly league of these matters, even if found guilty ( actual corruption, not mismanagement or lack of oversight) Yingluck would not even be close to the venality of the military.

How much of the rice went bad from last November till now when the government were not able to function due to the PRDC/Army teamwork?

yes of course, all problems started in November 2013....

How much rice was already rotten in November 2013? You can't answer that because nobody knew that at that stage. Thanks to Yingluck's transparent way of working.

How much where the losses in November 2013? You can't answer that because nobody knew that at that stage. Thanks to Yingluck's transparent way of working.

Only thing we know is that in November 2013, payments from May 2013 to farmers where outstanding.

What we know for sure is that since the day Yinglck was put on non-active, everything started to become clear.

Right, you mean from the really transparent junta, who don't have to declare or be held liable for anything they do. LOL!

A Yingluck supporter complaining about junta transparency???? 55555555555555555555555

It's reassuring to know the "good people" are in the vanguard of the anti - corruption campaign, and we will await Yingluck's charges (or not) with interest.

There is a teeniest problem however that not only is the military corrupt, but corrupt on a massive scale.The following Asia Times article sets out the scale of the criminality involved:

http://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/thailand-crooked-army/

Fortunately (phew) the NCPO is composed of good clean people without a corrupt stain on their character.That is why they have been so keen to declare their assets to ensure transparency.Oh wait.....

His posting as Deputy is absolutely spot on; proves of leadership qualities by the PM and will be a fantastic back-up help for the Foreign Minister.

Give them a chance - they certainly deserve it!

So you think pushing this brilliant, excellent diplomat down to second place under a four-star general and coup-maker without a shred of diplomatic, international experience — shunting aside an excellent diplomat with rafts of experience - someone you personally known and admire - is proof of excellent leadership. The logic of that escapes me even further than the actual goofiness of the action itself, which appalls me.

Just wondering what you would have thought if Don had been appointed as minister of foreign affairs, instead of Briefcase Holder of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I think it would have been a good idea. You seem to think he's not really qualified for the job, compared with this actual appointee who has no experience at all and who is weighed down by guns, medals and dress greens. I think Don would have actually got respect.

.

Excellent post on a very foolish one.I have no reason to doubt this particular bureaucrat's professional skills but he will wrestle with having a dimbulb general as his boss - as welcome to the rest of the civilised world as a fart in a phone box.Anyway that ludicrous and rather sinister little dumpling Kasit was Head of Mission in his time, so that fact doesn't exactly guarantee quality control.

An enlightened approach from the UK in that they would judge in accordance with actions. Wonder if the US and Aussie are as enlightened yet.

Read what Mark Kent commented more carefully.Of course everybody is judged by their action, but what the Ambassador said in diplomatic language reflects the UK's profound unhappiness with the coup, the Junta's dictatorship and the excessively vague timetable to democracy when the Thai people's wishes will be properly reflected.It is not the UK's role to interfere in Thailand's internal affairs and there is an acceptance of the status quo but equally friends should speak frankly to friends.If you have the slightest doubt of the Ambassador's views on this you should scrutinise his blog and twitter feed.

To me it reads like the old elite is hedging its bets.

Prayuth controls the country as a dictator, but when democracy comes back in fashion the old elite has their person ready by letting him make some remarks now which some people classify as courageous. Either dictatorship or democracy, the old elite will be in power.

Right.

"The old elite are setting it up so that Abhisit becomes PM".

If Abhisit gets elected: "See, the old elite set it up so that Abhisit would become PM."

If someone else gets elected. "The old elite failed in getting Abhisit elected PM".

Maybe "the old elite" are just trying to set up a system that stops one person from controlling everything.

As usual you completely miss the point, in this case spectacularly.The price of flawed judgement that often affects rigid ideologues.

Abhisit was guided towards power but thereafter became damaged goods (hopeless in elections, tainted by bloodshed, weird unsympathetic image), and was put on one side.He may seem irreversibly sidelined but it's possible he could have some kind of zombie existence if the old elites see the need to resuscitate him.

In my view he is a tragic Shakespearian figure.The brightest and most talented Thai politician around, brought down by his own character defects and cowardice.He KNEW what was right but did nothing.

You just make up "points" so that you can spout crap, don't you?

Translation: you have no coherent response.

To me it reads like the old elite is hedging its bets.

Prayuth controls the country as a dictator, but when democracy comes back in fashion the old elite has their person ready by letting him make some remarks now which some people classify as courageous. Either dictatorship or democracy, the old elite will be in power.

Right.

"The old elite are setting it up so that Abhisit becomes PM".

If Abhisit gets elected: "See, the old elite set it up so that Abhisit would become PM."

If someone else gets elected. "The old elite failed in getting Abhisit elected PM".

Maybe "the old elite" are just trying to set up a system that stops one person from controlling everything.

As usual you completely miss the point, in this case spectacularly.The price of flawed judgement that often affects rigid ideologues.

Abhisit was guided towards power but thereafter became damaged goods (hopeless in elections, tainted by bloodshed, weird unsympathetic image), and was put on one side.He may seem irreversibly sidelined but it's possible he could have some kind of zombie existence if the old elites see the need to resuscitate him.

In my view he is a tragic Shakespearian figure.The brightest and most talented Thai politician around, brought down by his own character defects and cowardice.He KNEW what was right but did nothing.

A functioning democracy was never the aim of Thaksin and his stooges. Gangs of mercenary thugs killing those with opposing views was hardly democratic was it? So is stopping that moving towards or away from democracy?

I would have thought your key priority should be to " move towards" a quiet spot for some serious reflection on what is reality and what is not.

Were the questions a little awkward for you to answer? Sorry, I forgot, you don't answer questions.

Actually I enjoy debating with intelligent people who hold different views.To answer a question requires a premise that makes some kind of sense.Yours doesn't.

However in an effort to be conciliatory even with the dimmer section I do agree that Thaksin's commitment to democracy was dubious.He exploited it as other authoritarian leaders have done.

No you are wrong.The President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.He does not tolerate insubordinate generals with ideas above their station challenging the elected civilian authorities - and if necessary (Obama and Truman did exactly this) will throw the bums out. That is how a proper democracy works.

But this is Thailand, which has never been a proper democracy and certainly not a republic, thankfully. Here, the generals throw the bums out.

Whether or not a country is a republic is irrelevant.The US is a republic but the UK,Japan,Holland,Norway,Denmark,Sweden,Spain and Begium are constitutional monarchies.In all these countries the military is completely subordinate to elected politicians.

In Thailand as you say the generals reserve the right to "throw the bums out", though strangely one of the recommendations of a functioning democracy is that the electorate can do just that.

Exactly, the US is a republic with a completely different system of government, and irrelevant as a comparison. Yet you continually use it as an example.

In Thailand there are many facets of a functioning democracy that need improving before military oversight is removed, and IMO they are more likely to be improved under the current system than the previous kleptocracies.

You seem incapable of processing information.I specifically referred to parliamentary democracies which are constitutional monarchies,very similar to Thailand.

In any event the point was about the military being subordinate to civilian authorities in democracies.Actually that is also the case in most authoritarian or ersatz "democracies" - China, Russia etc.

No you are wrong.The President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.He does not tolerate insubordinate generals with ideas above their station challenging the elected civilian authorities - and if necessary (Obama and Truman did exactly this) will throw the bums out. That is how a proper democracy works.

But this is Thailand, which has never been a proper democracy and certainly not a republic, thankfully. Here, the generals throw the bums out.

Maybe Thailand has never had a proper democracy because the generals keep throwing "bums" out.

A democracy is not something you can install overnight. It takes time to work properly and for everyone to see the value of it. But if generals keep interfering it will never reach a stage where it works.

A functioning democracy was never the aim of Thaksin and his stooges. Gangs of mercenary thugs killing those with opposing views was hardly democratic was it? So is stopping that moving towards or away from democracy?

I would have thought your key priority should be to " move towards" a quiet spot for some serious reflection on what is reality and what is not.

No you are wrong.The President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.He does not tolerate insubordinate generals with ideas above their station challenging the elected civilian authorities - and if necessary (Obama and Truman did exactly this) will throw the bums out. That is how a proper democracy works.

But this is Thailand, which has never been a proper democracy and certainly not a republic, thankfully. Here, the generals throw the bums out.

Whether or not a country is a republic is irrelevant.The US is a republic but the UK,Japan,Holland,Norway,Denmark,Sweden,Spain and Begium are constitutional monarchies.In all these countries the military is completely subordinate to elected politicians.

In Thailand as you say the generals reserve the right to "throw the bums out", though strangely one of the recommendations of a functioning democracy is that the electorate can do just that.

What I learned from the Thai CEO of a big bank who gave a guest lecture at my university is that Thai leaders do not ask their subordinates for input; they go into a meeting knowing 85% of the answers to not lose face and be able to lead the group.

Knowing that, it is really worrying that at least 10 of the new cabinet ministers have about zero to none specific knowledge of their portfolio ( i assume that the general doing the defense portfolio will know a bit about the military). If he wanted to really change the country for the good, why didn't he pick people who are right for the job instead of people who he owes?

The first group consists of those who deserve his gratitude (...)

The second group consists of Prayuth's close friends who he believes deserve rewards and important posts (...)

The third group consists of his trusted subordinates who are to act as his "limbs" in his Cabinet (...)

Could you then please explain how a woman with zero political experience was elected by her brother to be the Prime Minister of Thailand?

When you have done with that can you please explain how a woman with zero experience of the military elected herself as Defence Minister of Thailand?

Both ridiculously easy questions.She was nominated by her party and them elected by the people of Thailand.Though like Obama, Cameron and Merkel she had no military experience, as a legitimate democratically elected leader (like the others mentioned) took on responsibility for oversight of the armed forces.

Did Obama, Cameron and Merkel have any political experience before being elected as leaders of the respective countries. In the USA I believe the President is elected by a popular vote in their party after spending many millions of $ to get there. In the UK the PM is elected by a popular party vote and I confess I have no idea how it is done in Germany. AFAIR remember none of those 3 were also Defence minister at the the same time and the only oversight they have is that of being the leader and not the actual Minister of Defence.

No you are wrong.The President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.He does not tolerate insubordinate generals with ideas above their station challenging the elected civilian authorities - and if necessary (Obama and Truman did exactly this) will throw the bums out. That is how a proper democracy works.

I don't think the topic is about Thaksin.It's about the alleged crimes of Abhisit and Suthep and the unlikelihood they will ever be held accountable for the murder of innocent civilians.Interesting that the relatives of the nurse that was murdered by the army have recently been arrested for seeking justice and accountability.Even the most bone headed quisling must wonder whether the Junta has its public relations finely tuned given this debacle.

The question that needs to be answered is: Are they accountable for the murder of innocent civilians?

Shouldn't it be first determined who killed these innocent civilians? Then, if it was the army that killed them, were they following direct orders that came down from Abhisit and Suthep?

Just because Abhisit and Suthep gave the ok for the soldiers to be armed with live ammunition, doesn't make them murderers. Soldiers were being attacked by protesters armed with military weapons. Do you think the soldiers should have dealt with those attacks with riot shields and water cannons?

Yes, some unarmed protesters were killed by the army. That doesn't make the people that allowed them to be armed with live ammunition guilty of murder. If it did, every police chief, police minister, and PM in the world would be in jail for murder.

A reasonable post and I would not argue against it.Some of the comments on this thread defending Abhisit and Suthep have been dishonest and even unhinged - so it's welcome to see rationality ( even though I might question some details )

Incidentally the Criminal Court dismissal of the case was not unanimous indicating there was a good argument that it should have been heard.The NACC has of course no experience of this kind of case - so the reality is they are off the hook.

I don't think the topic is about Thaksin.It's about the alleged crimes of Abhisit and Suthep and the unlikelihood they will ever be held accountable for the murder of innocent civilians.Interesting that the relatives of the nurse that was murdered by the army have recently been arrested for seeking justice and accountability.Even the most bone headed quisling must wonder whether the Junta has its public relations finely tuned given this debacle.

Actually the topic is "Tarit shrugs off court decision to reject case against Abhisit, Suthep".

BTW I like you're crummy English, learned it while studying in Cambridge I guess? Your

"alleged crimes of Abhisit and Suthep and the unlikelihood they will ever be held accountable for the murder of innocent civilians"

starts with "alleged" and continues with the suggestion that they should be held accountable for murders. Almost as if you do not believe in their innocence, as if the charge of "premeditated murder as private citizens" can only be the correct charge.

Anyway, Tarit who was only the 'secretary' in the CRES and had absolutely no say in things shrugs off the court decision. I'm sure he'll be more than happy to cooperate with the NACC if necessary as also he wants to see 'justice' done.

Apparently I was wrong.Some boneheaded quislings remain boneheaded.

did someone roll over a large stone - what a horrible man

That's no way to describe Abhisit, or Suthep for that matter.They may have blood on their hands but this need to be determined or otherwise in the courts.There must be a presumption of innocence until proved guilty.

But I appreciatre your disgust and revulsion at the deaths of many innocent civilians.

Not only should there be a presumption of innocence until proved guilty, there should also be sufficient competence in those laying charges to bring the case to the appropriate court for rapid decision. As the AG and Tarit are assumed to be intelligent men, or at least have staff to advise them, can we assume the use of an inappropriate venue was a delaying tactic so that the charges could be used as a smear against the accused for as long as possible? And as neither have anything to gain from that, that is was done at the behest of others, in return for some consideration?

Ah yes the hand of Thaksin at work again.Strange how these fantasies occupy the minds of some more than the fates of innocents mown down in the street.

Unlike your fantasies about Abhisit and Suthep.

All those videos showing the criminal fugitive inciting his minions and the old AG said couldn't prosecute him as he was out of the country when he committed the offences.

The financier, instigator, manipulator and controller of the insurrection should be held accountable - he had the most to gain, gained the most and lost nowt. And some of those who did his bidding are still rotting in jail despite 3 years of his government through his sister as it doesn't suit his agenda to release them.

You may well see them as fantasies, like the ones that promote Thaksin as honest,caring, man of the people - which he has proven he's not.

I don't think the topic is about Thaksin.It's about the alleged crimes of Abhisit and Suthep and the unlikelihood they will ever be held accountable for the murder of innocent civilians.Interesting that the relatives of the nurse that was murdered by the army have recently been arrested for seeking justice and accountability.Even the most bone headed quisling must wonder whether the Junta has its public relations finely tuned given this debacle.

did someone roll over a large stone - what a horrible man

That's no way to describe Abhisit, or Suthep for that matter.They may have blood on their hands but this need to be determined or otherwise in the courts.There must be a presumption of innocence until proved guilty.

But I appreciatre your disgust and revulsion at the deaths of many innocent civilians.

Not only should there be a presumption of innocence until proved guilty, there should also be sufficient competence in those laying charges to bring the case to the appropriate court for rapid decision. As the AG and Tarit are assumed to be intelligent men, or at least have staff to advise them, can we assume the use of an inappropriate venue was a delaying tactic so that the charges could be used as a smear against the accused for as long as possible? And as neither have anything to gain from that, that is was done at the behest of others, in return for some consideration?

Ah yes the hand of Thaksin at work again.Strange how these fantasies occupy the minds of some more than the fates of innocents mown down in the street.

did someone roll over a large stone - what a horrible man

That's no way to describe Abhisit, or Suthep for that matter.They may have blood on their hands but this need to be determined or otherwise in the courts.There must be a presumption of innocence until proved guilty.

But I appreciatre your disgust and revulsion at the deaths of many innocent civilians.

At the very least both Abhisit and Suthep never left the country and ran away.

If you know there is not a chance in hell of ever serving a day in prison it doesn't really take much courage not to run away.

While PT was calling the shots and Tarit was being a good little boy for them, there was a chance they could go to gaol. Yet Abhisit stayed.

There was never the slightest chance Abhisit would serve time.Don't confuse the shadow play with the reality.

At the very least both Abhisit and Suthep never left the country and ran away.

If you know there is not a chance in hell of ever serving a day in prison it doesn't really take much courage not to run away.

So why did Thaksin run away then?

I would have thought the answer was obvious - he would have served time.Having said that I think his decision was foolish.

Maybe the protesters (and you) should learn how PMs are elected in Thailand. Abhisit was elected PM by a majority of MPs, the same way as Thaksin, Samak, Somchai and Yingluck.

Did PPP call an election when Samak was forced to step down? No. They went to parliament to elect a new PM.

Did Somchai call an election when he was elected PM? No. I didn't see the red shirts out protesting then.

Did PTP (who were effectively in government after Somchai and PPP was banned) call a general election to elect a new PM? No. They went to parliament to elect a PM. That's when Abhisit was elected by a majority of MPs.

There is an important distinction between the elections of Thaksin, Yingluck on one hand and Abhisit,Samak,Somchai on the other.The former two won a mandate from the Thai people and the latter three did not.The latter certainly were legitimately elected PM by MPs but would have needed to refresh their mandate with the people at large.This is well understood by anyone who understands the parliamentary system of government.It would be pleasant if we could be spared yet more pious lectures on how the system works - which usually tend to omit important background.

It's an irrelevant distinction. They were still all elected by a majority of MPs. For Thaksin (in 2005, not 2001) and Yingluck, that majority came from a single party.

Samak, Somchai and Abhisit were still all democratically elected PMs.

... and I didn't see the red shirts out protesting against Samak and Somchai.

It's irrelevant in your particular view because you wish to disguise the murky and money nourished path that led Abhisit to power in the interests of his puppet masters.For the more balanced the distinction is not even controversial.When in a parliamentary democracy a PM does not have a personal mandate there is a need to seek one sooner or later.It is not a question of legitimacy but political necessity.In the UK Gordon Brown was a classic example.Thaksin and Yingluck had that national mandate.Samak, Somchai and Abhisit didn't.

Your comment about redshirt protests is however completely irrelevant and if I may say so rather stupid.The point relates to how a parliamentary democracy works in practice not to your prejudiced view of Thai politics.

At the very least both Abhisit and Suthep never left the country and ran away.

If you know there is not a chance in hell of ever serving a day in prison it doesn't really take much courage not to run away.

Who knows? The important point is the politicians responsible have been let off the hook - as of course was part of the plan.Needless to say since this is Thailand there is no question of the senior army commanders being brought to account.

They haven't been let off the hook. They can still be charged under their official positions as PM / DPM.

It's just the charges against them in a personal capacity that have been dismissed. Seriously, how could they be charged under a personal capacity anyway. There was no way those charges were going to stick from the very start.

I think we can assume they will never face justice in any capacity.

Possibly, but maybe that's because everything they did was lawful. Just because people were killed doesn't mean that there were orders to kill people, and it doesn't make the people murderers because they gave orders to control armed protesters.

Exactly.They are both "good people" incapable of doing wrong and it is a scandal that charges were ever made against them.We know those civilians, both protestors and journalists, just "ran into bullets" and all the evidence clearly identifying the contrary including the HRW Report was untrue.Probably influenced by Robert Amsterdam if truth be told.

Who knows? The important point is the politicians responsible have been let off the hook - as of course was part of the plan.Needless to say since this is Thailand there is no question of the senior army commanders being brought to account.

They haven't been let off the hook. They can still be charged under their official positions as PM / DPM.

It's just the charges against them in a personal capacity that have been dismissed. Seriously, how could they be charged under a personal capacity anyway. There was no way those charges were going to stick from the very start.

I think we can assume they will never face justice in any capacity.