Democrats Can’t Support Prayuth As PM, Abhisit Says

[Eric Loh]

54 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Nope, I don't think it's silly. Because assumptions about Thai legal issues can go both ways - dreaming up lawsuits and legal action without merit isn't unheard of. I'm not assuming he's an angel, nor casting him as such. But I differentiate between a partisan poster lumping allegations and what actually took place. In the same way, you're bound to rile over mentioning some of the cases referencing political leaders from "your" pet side, regardless or not of their actual outcomes.

Don’t we all wish that the judiciary system in Thailand is totally independent and sufficiently robust to withstand influence for the sake of political expediency. Alas it is not and the cause of political divisiveness and conflicts. It will unlikely to change for the foreseeable future.  

[JAG]

On 02/04/2018 at 2:41 PM, gamini said:

He has got real "class" and the best education. He is completely incorruptible and is the only hope for Thailand. Let us pray that he becomes PM again without the problems he had last time.

The problem he had "last time" was that the army "fixed it" for him to become PM despite the fact that he had been emphatically rejected by the electorate. The fact that he was prepared to take the job in those circumstances shines a disturbingly intense light on both his "class" and "incorruptibility".

 

In a way, and I suspect that he realises it, he is one of the reasons for the current mess Thailand is in. A compliant Prime Minister was needed to ensure that a certain General could succeed to the post of head of the army, a job which he needed as the launching pad for the coup which was long planned to end Thailand's disastrous (for some) evolution as a democratic state.

 

Real class!

[bannork]

9 minutes ago, JAG said:

The problem he had "last time" was that the army "fixed it" for him to become PM despite the fact that he had been emphatically rejected by the electorate. The fact that he was prepared to take the job in those circumstances shines a disturbingly intense light on both his "class" and "incorruptibility".

 

In a way, and I suspect that he realises it, he is one of the reasons for the current mess Thailand is in. A compliant Prime Minister was needed to ensure that a certain General could succeed to the post of head of the army, a job which he needed as the launching pad for the coup which was long planned to end Thailand's disastrous (for some) evolution as a democratic state.

 

Real class!

You can't seriously believe Thailand was evolving into a democratic state under Thaksin and his clone(s)! lol.

If Phuea Thai hadn't slyly introduced the amnesty bill to pardon Thaksin, their paymaster, there would have been no grounds for a coup. 

Thaksion was a disaster for Thailand, money politics, a police state, dominated by one man and his family.

Now we have an army state which is just as. bad.

Abhisit was gutless, and as you say, he let the army fix it for him but to think Thaksin  means democracy is just as wrong.

 

 

[Srikcir]

10 hours ago, bannork said:

Come on. You accuse, please provide the evidence.

That's like asking someone to google "Google."

[bannork]

5 hours ago, Srikcir said:

That's like asking someone to google "Google."

I googled google and could only come up with this regarding corruption and Abhisit, and that was not even him but the party, overspending on billboard advertising.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-10-18/thai-pm-fronts-court-over-corruption-charges/2302324

[bannork]

13 minutes ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

You can't have been here back then.

 

Thailand was a World away from what it is now. Nothing like the 'disaster' you claim. There was real optimism for the future between 2001 and 2005. People had money, the economy was doing very well and the country was taking its place on the World stage. 

 

The 2006 coup set Thailand back 30 years at least, and we still haven't recovered. 

I've been here General Prem was PM. The poor were poor as always under Thaksin, they just more got into debt., 

It's true there was optimism at first because many people, including a considerable number of the middle class who were bored with Chuan's slow bureaucratic style, thought Thaksin was a breath of fresh air, dynamic, a busnessman who understood the economy. What they didn't know at the time was the depth of his meglomania and lust for absolute control. He introduced policy corruption on a grand scale.

For me he destroyed the 1997 constitution, a constitution designed to boost stable government of larger and fewer parties countered by strong checks and balances.. The writers of that constitution hadn't seen that someone with so much money and lust for power could undermine the system.

Edited April 4, 2018 by bannork