‘Prayut creating network of allies’ to remain as PM

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Rob, don't want to dwell on this subject too long as it is off topic and the moderator has rules on that. Want to end this subject by saying coups in any part of the world never have solved any political problems and mostly are carried out for self serving agenda. No different here especially coup government with tainted corruption, nepotism and cronyism and connection to the rightest elites. The power of empowered citizens to decide and rid corrupt government through election has universal acceptance; not coup. As for Thailand, politics with new or old parties will continue to be obstructed by the evil twins of the military and rightest elites for a long time. 

Yea we are going off base.. (mainly my doing). 

 

I will still disagree with you though.. elections are not there to get rid of corrupt governments, the courts are and when they can't a coup is an option. (last resort). Just voting them out solves nothing as they then are not punished for their corruption. 

 

On the other hand you got a point too.. because a coup can punish the crimes of the previous goverment (good thing) But then you have a junta that is above the law.

 

Just agree to disagree.

Edited April 20, 2018 by robblok

[robblok]

@Eric Loh,

 

But why is people here condemn the junta for courting these criminals but fail to accept that they were first in bed with the Shins making the junta and the Shins equally bad for associating themselves with people like this. 

 

That is OT. 

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, robblok said:

Bruce,

 

You have absolutely NO proof about the corruption of the army or how large it is while I on the other hand have figures on Thaksin. The 33 billion is for sure the largest corruption case in the last 10-15 years (that is uncovered). If you can give me any proof of your claims, because they are based on hot air without any facts to back them up I will consider them. 

 

I certainly don't believe the army is without corruption, Prawit has proven that IMHO. But you have never given any figures or proof to back your claims up. So how can you say the army is more corrupt if you have no figures. Just look at the current corruption scandals the are in the 100's of millions not 33 billion (that is 1 billion U$ in fake G2G) trades nothing even comes close to that what I have read about in newspapers. So please back your claims up and we can discuss it or otherwise you have no proof at all. 

 

Even the coup in 1991 did not last as long.. so since 1991 coups did not last long that is in the last 25 years they all lasted 1-2 years not 4 like this one. So in I was right that in recent history coups did not last long, and it was certainly not a strange thing to expect something similar.

 

You always tell me not to speculate but yous speculate a lot yourself.. stating that if they get rid of the appointed senators a coup will follow. I disagree. 

 

I appears you have abandoned your claim that events before 2000 have little or no bearing on events since 2000.

 

If you do an internet search on the words "Prayut", "Khmer Rouge", "Eastern Tigers" you will find links to sources regarding Prayut and the RTA's sordid past.  When I posted links in the past the moderators deleted them.  I assume you know about Lt Gen Manas and his involvement in the human smuggling/slave trade a few years ago.  The human smuggling case alone is proof of far greater corruption than the failed rice program.

 

You are correct, rumors abound about ghost soldiers, cozy relationships between senior officers and military contractors, the wealth of generals, etc.  However I can find no breakdown of military spending in Thailand and no news stories on the subject, or sources regarding full, independent audits of military spending.  I don't expect to ever see such stories in Thailand's censored and cowed press.

 

The 1991 coup lead to a military appointed PM, a constitution to accommodate the military, and the Black May protest:

 

" The coup-makers, who called themselves the National Peace-Keeping Council (NPKC), appointed Anand Panyarachun as Prime Minister. Anand's interim government promulgated a new constitution and scheduled parliamentary elections for March 22, 1992. A government coalition with 55% of the lower house was formed, which appointed General Suchinda as Prime Minister. Massive public protests immediately followed. "   https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/thailand/coup-1991.htm

 

" The military crackdown resulted in 52 officially confirmed deaths, many disappearances, hundreds of injuries, and over 3,500 arrests. Many of those arrested are alleged to have been tortured. "   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_May_(1992)

 

The 1991 coup is not a good example of a benign military coup.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

Your naive if you think Thaksin did not cover his corruption up. He did / does that just like the army does. More is uncovered as its more public as the armies spending.

 

The military is corrupt too.. I would not deny that but you can't say without any backup that the army is more corrupt. 

 

I am not sure if you missed the rice scam, but its a prime example of how the PTP used the same things the army uses now. They threatened the Democrats that came with rotting rice with jail, they threatened and tried to fire the government offical that came out saying there was corruption. Then YL held a secret investigation (about as credible as the watch investigation of the NACC) of the rice program and when done claimed no corruption in the rice program. Guess what one of the biggest (monetary value) corruption got uncovered by fake G2G deals. So the Shins and the army both do the same things, only difference is the army has a bit more power but if the Shins had more power they would do the same as demonstrated by this example that has been proven in court.

 

My point is that I think both army and Shins are equally bad while people here keep defending the Shins.

 

People are here commenting on how bad it is that these crooks now support the army.. while they were first supporting the Shins.. Why condemn the one and not the other for being in bed with criminals ?

 

Not saying the democrats are much better.. whole of Thai politics is one big bad corrupt mess. I just hope out for the new parties.. hopefully something changes. 

" People are here commenting on how bad it is that these crooks now support the army.. while they were first supporting the Shins.. "

 

Few if any of us were supporting the Shinawatras.  We were supporting the right of the Thai people to decide who would lead their country.  People supporting military coups were, and in many cases still are, supporting denying the Thai people that right.

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I appears you have abandoned your claim that events before 2000 have little or no bearing on events since 2000.

 

If you do an internet search on the words "Prayut", "Khmer Rouge", "Eastern Tigers" you will find links to sources regarding Prayut and the RTA's sordid past.  When I posted links in the past the moderators deleted them.  I assume you know about Lt Gen Manas and his involvement in the human smuggling/slave trade a few years ago.  The human smuggling case alone is proof of far greater corruption than the failed rice program.

 

You are correct, rumors abound about ghost soldiers, cozy relationships between senior officers and military contractors, the wealth of generals, etc.  However I can find no breakdown of military spending in Thailand and no news stories on the subject, or sources regarding full, independent audits of military spending.  I don't expect to ever see such stories in Thailand's censored and cowed press.

 

The 1991 coup lead to a military appointed PM, a constitution to accommodate the military, and the Black May protest:

 

" The coup-makers, who called themselves the National Peace-Keeping Council (NPKC), appointed Anand Panyarachun as Prime Minister. Anand's interim government promulgated a new constitution and scheduled parliamentary elections for March 22, 1992. A government coalition with 55% of the lower house was formed, which appointed General Suchinda as Prime Minister. Massive public protests immediately followed. "   https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/thailand/coup-1991.htm

 

" The military crackdown resulted in 52 officially confirmed deaths, many disappearances, hundreds of injuries, and over 3,500 arrests. Many of those arrested are alleged to have been tortured. "   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_May_(1992)

 

The 1991 coup is not a good example of a benign military coup.

Bruce,

 

No i just went back further to find the coups that you said lasted a long time.. even in 1991 it was not the case. So I disagree with you that I could have known the coup would last longer. I never stated that the 1991 coup was benign... You were the one who suggested to go back further. I think i gone back far enough and so far no evidence of your long lasting coups.. Going back around 30 years should be enough.

 

 

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

Yea we are going off base.. (mainly my doing). 

 

I will still disagree with you though.. elections are not there to get rid of corrupt governments, the courts are and when they can't a coup is an option. (last resort). Just voting them out solves nothing as they then are not punished for their corruption. 

 

On the other hand you got a point too.. because a coup can punish the crimes of the previous goverment (good thing) But then you have a junta that is above the law.

 

Just agree to disagree.

People vote according to their priorities.  Thaksin noted the obvious, the majority of Thais were living in appalling third world conditions while Bangkok was sucking up all the nations wealth to make itself a first world city.  Thaksin campaigned on the promise to provide badly needed investment (roads, schools and clinics) in the north and northeast, and delivered once elected.  That made him unstoppable in elections, and a threat to the traditional order.

 

The above is a common experience for countries emerging from corrupt autocratic rule--the majority want basic needs addressed first.  Once the basics are covered the voters begin to pay attention to corruption, but reducing corrupt democratic rule can take many years and election cycles.  However it can be done if democracy endures.  There is no cure for corrupt military rule other than somehow kicking the uniforms out of government.

 

People who think a military coup will provide a quick fix to corruption have no knowledge of history and how military government works.

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

" People are here commenting on how bad it is that these crooks now support the army.. while they were first supporting the Shins.. "

 

Few if any of us were supporting the Shinawatras.  We were supporting the right of the Thai people to decide who would lead their country.  People supporting military coups were, and in many cases still are, supporting denying the Thai people that right.

So its ok to have criminals in charge of a goverment who are aligned to maffia criminals as long as they are elected. Right. The Shins and the PTP are just pure toxic, you have these criminals that supported them, then you got Charlem with a real questionable past. Sounds like me like a group of crooks. 

 

But its all ok they were voted in. 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

People vote according to their priorities.  Thaksin noted the obvious, the majority of Thais were living in appalling third world conditions while Bangkok was sucking up all the nations wealth to make itself a first world city.  Thaksin campaigned on the promise to provide badly needed investment (roads, schools and clinics) in the north and northeast, and delivered once elected.  That made him unstoppable in elections, and a threat to the traditional order.

 

The above is a common experience for countries emerging from corrupt autocratic rule--the majority want basic needs addressed first.  Once the basics are covered the voters begin to pay attention to corruption, but reducing corrupt democratic rule can take many years and election cycles.  However it can be done if democracy endures.  There is no cure for corrupt military rule other than somehow kicking the uniforms out of government.

 

People who think a military coup will provide a quick fix to corruption have no knowledge of history and how military government works.

Meanwhile corrupt clans like the Shins can rob the country blind, people they align with like Charlem can get away with murder.. just a small price to pay for democracy.. its all worth it it will all turn out right said he while looking at his crystal ball. 

 

If i look around here in Asia i seen few real good functioning democracies.... So how long do you want corruption nepotism to last without some correction ?

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, robblok said:

So its ok to have criminals in charge of a goverment who are aligned to maffia criminals as long as they are elected. Right. The Shins and the PTP are just pure toxic, you have these criminals that supported them, then you got Charlem with a real questionable past. Sounds like me like a group of crooks. 

 

But its all ok they were voted in. 

So long as they can be voted out, yes, they are better than military rule. 

 

Would you have supported a military coup and dictatorship in Italy when Berlusconi was PM"

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

Meanwhile corrupt clans like the Shins can rob the country blind, people they align with like Charlem can get away with murder.. just a small price to pay for democracy.. its all worth it it will all turn out right said he while looking at his crystal ball. 

 

If i look around here in Asia i seen few real good functioning democracies.... So how long do you want corruption nepotism to last without some correction ?

Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea may not have perfect, corruption free democracies, but they definitely have good functioning democracies.  When you look around the world do you find examples of military rule leading to clean government? 

[robblok]

Just now, heybruce said:

So long as they can be voted out, yes, they are better than military rule. 

 

Would you have supported a military coup and dictatorship in Italy when Berlusconi was PM"

No voted out or in has nothing to do with performance at all ? you cant just make a blanket statement like that you know it.. and i know it.

 

I wanted Berlusconi gone the guy was / is a crook but I have (a little) more trust in the Italian justice system then the Thai to deal with people like that. But I don't feel that it dealt with him well enough.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea may not have perfect, corruption free democracies, but they definitely have good functioning democracies.  When you look around the world do you find examples of military rule leading to clean government? 

I would say that some dictatorships bring the country forward.. look at Singapore, with Lee Kuan Yew. Quite close to Thailand.. I think he would have done a better job as Thaksin. 

[heybruce]

Just now, robblok said:

No voted out or in has nothing to do with performance at all ? you cant just make a blanket statement like that you know it.. and i know it.

 

I wanted Berlusconi gone the guy was / is a crook but I have (a little) more trust in the Italian justice system then the Thai to deal with people like that. But I don't feel that it dealt with him well enough.

Performance determines if a government gets voted out; it should be the people's decision, not the military's.

 

Moving from backwards, corrupt autorcacy to reasonably clean, functioning democracy is a decades long slog, but it has been achieved around the world and can be achieved in Thailand, but only if democracy is allowed without coups. 

 

Expecting a corrupt, above the law military to provide a quick fix to corruption is foolish, but the quick fix crowd refues to surrender the fantasy. 

 

Give an example of a military coup, in Thailand or anywhere else, providing a clean, functioning democracy.

 

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, robblok said:

I would say that some dictatorships bring the country forward.. look at Singapore, with Lee Kuan Yew. Quite close to Thailand.. I think he would have done a better job as Thaksin. 

Lee Kuan Yew was a western educated lawyer who campaigned for a referendum on independence from colonial rule and managed a city-state that relied on western democratic allies to keep Singapore safe in a hostile world.  He did not come to power in a military coup, and, while Singapore elections are not free and fair, he and his successors know they must keep Singapore safe, prosperous and free in order to win these one-sided elections. 

 

In short, there is no comparison between Lee Kuan Yew, Thaksin, or Prayut.

[heybruce]

12 minutes ago, robblok said:

No voted out or in has nothing to do with performance at all ? you cant just make a blanket statement like that you know it.. and i know it.

 

I wanted Berlusconi gone the guy was / is a crook but I have (a little) more trust in the Italian justice system then the Thai to deal with people like that. But I don't feel that it dealt with him well enough.

"No voted out or in has nothing to do with performance at all ? you cant just make a blanket statement like that you know it.. and i know it."

 

I didn't make that blanket statement.  You know it and I know it.

 

I stated that the choice should not be the military's.  You disagree.

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Lee Kuan Yew was a western educated lawyer who campaigned for a referendum on independence from colonial rule and managed a city-state that relied on western democratic allies to keep Singapore safe in a hostile world.  He did not come to power in a military coup, and, while Singapore elections are not free and fair, he and his successors know they must keep Singapore safe, prosperous and free in order to win these one-sided elections. 

 

In short, there is no comparison between Lee Kuan Yew, Thaksin, or Prayut.

So there was a democratic rule, strange i read differently. 

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"No voted out or in has nothing to do with performance at all ? you cant just make a blanket statement like that you know it.. and i know it."

 

I didn't make that blanket statement.  You know it and I know it.

 

I stated that the choice should not be the military's.  You disagree.

No you said that a democratic government is always better as they can be voted out or in, that is just not true.. a non democratic government like that of Lee Kuan Yew could preform much better. 

 

What choices did the people from Singapore had.. just one.. is that a democracy ? 

[JAG]

15 minutes ago, robblok said:

No voted out or in has nothing to do with performance at all ? you cant just make a blanket statement like that you know it.. and i know it.

 

I wanted Berlusconi gone the guy was / is a crook but I have (a little) more trust in the Italian justice system then the Thai to deal with people like that. But I don't feel that it dealt with him well enough.

Berlusconi is indeed a rather unsavoury character, and quite possibly a crook (I don't know).

He was however successively chosen by the Italian electorate, only to be eventually ousted by an avowadly politicised Italian Judiciary.

The last couple of Italian Governments have effectively been imposed upon Italy by the EU (some would say Germany) for fiscal reasons. They are about to have an election. Guess who looks like winning - Berlusconi or rather his party...

Off topic perhaps, but 1) I am responding not initiating; and 2) there are some eerie parrallels with the current situation in Thailand.

 

As an aside, and an attempt to lighten the tone, can you imagine Berlesconi's reaction to being confronted by Yingluck in full "gorgeous Prime Minister on a state visit" mode? He would go into meltdown!

 

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

No you said that a democratic government is always better as they can be voted out or in, that is just not true.. a non democratic government like that of Lee Kuan Yew could preform much better. 

 

What choices did the people from Singapore had.. just one.. is that a democracy ? 

I stated that a democratic government, no matter how flawed, that can be voted out is always better than military rule that can not be peacefully removed.  You are clutching at straws.

 

I also stated that the difference between a city state led by a western educated lawyer and relying on western democracies to keep his island safe and economy performing can not be compared to Thailand, an independent nation of over sixty million people that has long been dominated by a privileged elite and the military that supports it.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, JAG said:

Berlusconi is indeed a rather unsavoury character, and quite possibly a crook (I don't know).

He was however successively chosen by the Italian electorate, only to be eventually ousted by an avowadly politicised Italian Judiciary.

The last couple of Italian Governments have effectively been imposed upon Italy by the EU (some would say Germany) for fiscal reasons. They are about to have an election. Guess who looks like winning - Berlusconi or rather his party...

Off topic perhaps, but 1) I am responding not initiating; and 2) there are some eerie parrallels with the current situation in Thailand.

 

As an aside, and an attempt to lighten the tone, can you imagine Berlesconi's reaction to being confronted by Yingluck in full "gorgeous Prime Minister on a state visit" mode? He would go into meltdown!

 

Yea I know he is going to win again, and yes he is unsavory. 

 

And yes would be fun to see a meeting between YL and Berlesconi. But even though YL does not look bad I think he likes his woman younger. 

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I stated that a democratic government, no matter how flawed, that can be voted out is always better than military rule that can not be peacefully removed.  You are clutching at straws.

 

I also stated that the difference between a city state led by a western educated lawyer and relying on western democracies to keep his island safe and economy performing can not be compared to Thailand, an independent nation of over sixty million people that has long been dominated by a privileged elite and the military that supports it.

Bruce, whatever you stated its NOT a democracy.. and your constantly talking about voted out and such he could not.. You asked me to find a example of a non democracy being better then a democracy. I just did and your going in total meltdown skirting the issue avoiding it.

 

Anyway That is my point democracies are not always better and certainly growing democracies have a lot of problems. I for one just can't stand it to see criminals like Thaksin, Suthep and others fill their pockets without paying the price just to let a democracy grow in a proces that might take 20-40 more years of this corruption and nepotism. I just don't find that a nice prospect so sorry for looking for shortcuts. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Bruce,

 

No i just went back further to find the coups that you said lasted a long time.. even in 1991 it was not the case. So I disagree with you that I could have known the coup would last longer. I never stated that the 1991 coup was benign... You were the one who suggested to go back further. I think i gone back far enough and so far no evidence of your long lasting coups.. Going back around 30 years should be enough.

When the military government hands power over to a military appointed PM and a constitution is written to accommodate the military, I consider it a continuation of  military rule. 

 

Similarly, I consider the military/Abhisit government, with a brief period of elected government which the military and judiciary would not accept, to be a period of military rule as well.  The military did well during this period, tripling its budget.    http://militarybudget.org/thailand/

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

When the military government hands power over to a military appointed PM and a constitution is written to accommodate the military, I consider it a continuation of  military rule. 

 

Similarly, I consider the military/Abhisit government, with a brief period of elected government which the military and judiciary would not accept, to be a period of military rule as well.  The military did well during this period, tripling its budget.    http://militarybudget.org/thailand/

So your changing the definition of a military government to suit your argument. Sorry I dont agree.

Abhisit government was perfectly legal and not a military government just an change in a coalition. 

 

[heybruce]

17 minutes ago, robblok said:

Bruce, whatever you stated its NOT a democracy.. and your constantly talking about voted out and such he could not.. You asked me to find a example of a non democracy being better then a democracy. I just did and your going in total meltdown skirting the issue avoiding it.

 

Anyway That is my point democracies are not always better and certainly growing democracies have a lot of problems. I for one just can't stand it to see criminals like Thaksin, Suthep and others fill their pockets without paying the price just to let a democracy grow in a proces that might take 20-40 more years of this corruption and nepotism. I just don't find that a nice prospect so sorry for looking for shortcuts. 

Now you are redefining democracy to meet your needs.  No one is buying it.

 

I explained how Singapore can not be compared to Thailand.  I gave examples of functioning democracies in east Asia.  I explained how democracies, given decades to mature without military intervention, can provide clean government.  You are the one going into meltdown.  You seem to take it personally when I explain that military coups do not provide quick fixes to entrenched problems.

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

So your changing the definition of a military government to suit your argument. Sorry I dont agree.

Abhisit government was perfectly legal and not a military government just an change in a coalition. 

 

Legal in accordance with the constitution written to accommodate the military following the military coup.

 

So you think a government appointed by the military and dominated by the military is not a military government.  Semantics perhaps, but I disagree.

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Now you are redefining democracy to meet your needs.  No one is buying it.

 

I explained how Singapore can not be compared to Thailand.  I gave examples of functioning democracies in east Asia.  I explained how democracies, given decades to mature without military intervention, can provide clean government.  You are the one going into meltdown.  You seem to take it personally when I explain that military coups do not provide quick fixes to entrenched problems.

Just look online the Lee Kuan Yew government was never considered democratic.. even wiki quotes him as a benign dictator.  I am not shifting goal posts you are.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Legal in accordance with the constitution written to accommodate the military following the military coup.

 

So you think a government appointed by the military and dominated by the military is not a military government.  Semantics perhaps, but I disagree.

No it would be legal in the Netherlands too.. at any time can a coalition break up and reform differently. I am not sure what country your from but in multi party systems what happend is perfectly legal. 

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

No it would be legal in the Netherlands too.. at any time can a coalition break up and reform differently. I am not sure what country your from but in multi party systems what happend is perfectly legal. 

How much of a say would the Netherlands military have in these coalition talks?

[tomta]

The justification for coups is always that the country is in chaos and turmoil and that we the army don't want to step in but we have to and we are prepared to sacrifice ourselves for the good of the nation.That might carry some weight if the coupsters backed up their claims of possessing a superior morality by saying we really will sacrifice ourselves, when we finish saving the nation , we will submit ourselves to charges for treason and we are prepared to be shot. But they don't do they? They give themselves a corrupt, self-serving amnesty

 

There is no equivalence between an elected government and a coup government, Robblok. An elected government is a practical compromise , a way of establishing order amidst competing desires and interest. It cannot claim to be perfect and it allows itself to be judged for its satisfaction of various competing desires - the desire  for no corruption , the desire for a piece of the pie. A coup government proclaims itself as the font of all wisdom and morality. It says we are perfect. We know better than everyone, If they were perfect and they did know better than everyone, perhaps it could be justified

 

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, robblok said:

Just look online the Lee Kuan Yew government was never considered democratic.. even wiki quotes him as a benign dictator.  I am not shifting goal posts you are.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship

Does that change the fact that Singapore is a small island city-state with a western-style legal system and civil service, dependent on western democracies for its safety and prosperity, and one that has never had a military government or coup?