Thailand's Oldest Party Announces New Policy Platform

[Plus]

TRT was "the best of the bunch" ... simply because they were able to govern the country without sucking up to the military and the established elites, keeping the worst at bay and because they had popular support.

It's only die-hard leftists who assume that challenging the basic order of Thai society is the "best" thing. Even TRT itself would never ever admit this because they'd have lost ALL popular support for mere mention of intent to challenge forces the military (and whatever is meant by established elites) represent. I doubt anyone outside a very close circle of TRT founders even realised that they were going down that road.

And that old and tiring Giles Ungpakorn's idea that vote-buying is overrated - he would say that, woudn't he? His marxist theory would collapse if he admits that voters don't care much about his class struggles and policies if they are not being fed and clothed at the rallies and money is not paid on election days.

[ColPyat]

TRT was "the best of the bunch" ... simply because they were able to govern the country without sucking up to the military and the established elites, keeping the worst at bay and because they had popular support.

It's only die-hard leftists who assume that challenging the basic order of Thai society is the "best" thing. Even TRT itself would never ever admit this because they'd have lost ALL popular support for mere mention of intent to challenge forces the military (and whatever is meant by established elites) represent. I doubt anyone outside a very close circle of TRT founders even realised that they were going down that road.

And that old and tiring Giles Ungpakorn's idea that vote-buying is overrated - he would say that, woudn't he? His marxist theory would collapse if he admits that voters don't care much about his class struggles and policies if they are not being fed and clothed at the rallies and money is not paid on election days.

That, by the way, is not just shared by Giles Ungpakorn, but by many political scientists who do not like Giles at all. This was even a topic of a birthday speech a bit more than ten years ago.

And stop labeling people as "die-hard leftists" - for your information - the cold war is over.

[Plus]

Cold war?!? Leftists I have in mind still live in nineteenth century!

My favourite Giles quote:

"The 1997 economic crisis cannot be explained without looking at the competition to exploit labour, the fight for increased wages and the over-production in capitalism."

I like it - "cannot be explained". What does it mean? Other explanations do not exist? Giles has never seen other explanations? Or all others are just morons not worth considering?

He is priceless, that Giles fellow.

[ColPyat]

Cold war?!? Leftists I have in mind still live in nineteenth century!

My favourite Giles quote:

"The 1997 economic crisis cannot be explained without looking at the competition to exploit labour, the fight for increased wages and the over-production in capitalism."

I like it - "cannot be explained". What does it mean? Other explanations do not exist? Giles has never seen other explanations? Or all others are just morons not worth considering?

He is priceless, that Giles fellow.

And you are even more priceless with your obsession over a university professor without much influence.

Well, and your difficulties of comprehension. "Cannot be explained without looking at..." means simply that these factors have to be taken into consideration.

And please, stop baiting me.

[Plus]

I wasn't really talking to you, that quote is deserved to be read by all, just for enterntainment value alone. It's like sharing a joke.

[ColPyat]

It's like sharing a joke.

Just don't, Trigger. Please.

[hammered]

TRT was "the best of the bunch" ... simply because they were able to govern the country without sucking up to the military and the established elites, keeping the worst at bay and because they had popular support.

It's only die-hard leftists who assume that challenging the basic order of Thai society is the "best" thing. Even TRT itself would never ever admit this because they'd have lost ALL popular support for mere mention of intent to challenge forces the military (and whatever is meant by established elites) represent. I doubt anyone outside a very close circle of TRT founders even realised that they were going down that road.

And that old and tiring Giles Ungpakorn's idea that vote-buying is overrated - he would say that, woudn't he? His marxist theory would collapse if he admits that voters don't care much about his class struggles and policies if they are not being fed and clothed at the rallies and money is not paid on election days.

I would actually agree with Giles on this one from my own observations of Thai elections which includes some time spent in villages around or on election days.

While many parties or cnandidates do pay villagers, those who lose also do. When I first came to Thailand I observed a candidate in the Isaan who was not going to win and actually didnt stand achance actually pay out substantially more than the winner. His reasoning was that people would remember he was a good man. I never checked on his future performance. While if you want to win you have to pay in most places there is alot more that will ensure a win. The village headmen wil at least guide villagers in which way to vote. This may be from well X is in my opinion best for the village to Lets all jump in these trucks go down the polling station and vote for X or usually a combination of both. What is the motivation of the headmen? Well maybe they truely think the person is best for the village and that is their only motivation (rare), maybethey have been given a wad of cash, maybe they are beholden to an influetnial one (common), or maybe they have been promised state funds for the village with their own cut of course (common). Howeevr, the power of these people should not be underestimated. Certainly no politcal party does.

There are ways in which votes are just bought. One example is voters gambling on who will win. Obviously the bookies offer very good odds and there is no payout until victory is achieved. I heard of this in a bangkok constituency some time another thing happening now is that vote buying is getting increasingly risky. If caught a party can be disolved. This probably means the role of the headmen will become more important and there will also be a continuing rise in policy giveaways. Howeevr, the latter still right now rely on the headmen or other local influetials to sell to people. this brings us to the opposite of headman influence. The denying of it to opponents. In recent elections certain parties have found it difficult and dangerous for their canvassers to get to voters in some provinces and regions. This denies opponents the opportunity to win. Hopefully this undemocratic action will decrease.

Anyway while disagreeing with Giles on some things I think he is right here although I would not say that Thai politics had now moved openly into the careful and thoughtful comparison of policies befor making a vote. We are more at the point of a mix of traditional practices and getting your popular policies out while denying opponents the opportunity to do the same. In effect a mix of the traditional stuff with the use of state, regional and local power to control information and to start to replace old style vote buying with handout policies. Things are changing but slowly. It will beinteresting to see how others play this overall complicated game and if they can do it all as well as TRT did.

[Old Man River]

Now you are beginning to state things as they really are and maybe you are beginning to see why the Demo's are the best of the current bunch. Of course, if voters don't think they are, then they can vote another way. If there is one gain from the TRT, I hope those upcountry don't go back to selling their votes to the highest bidder as they have done for so many years. Now that would really be business as usual.

I am sorry, but no.

A Democracy will never work with a party that is "the best of the bunch". A party that goes along with a military coup that has destroyed a party that may have been flawed though was able to govern through a policy based platform, and that had popular support the Democrats never had.

TRT was "the best of the bunch", if you want to term it that way, simply because they were able to govern the country without sucking up to the military and the established elites, keeping the worst at bay and because they had popular support.

The Democrats have single handedly destroyed every advancement Thailand has made by boycotting the elections, because they were the only alternative to TRT, could have a few years down the line been a much better choice than TRT. They were partisan in preparing a military coup by the vested interests that cost over the decades thousands of lives to get them out of politics. Just because they were not able to formulate policies and communicate them, and had no hope to beat TRT.

The boycott and subsequent coup may have fastened the demise of TRT, but that would have been inevitable. And if has left the Democrats inable to govern, and to implement the necessary reforms. They may have a chance to form the next government, but weakened through military power and because of the inevitable odious coalitions they have to engage in.

What the Democrats have done is in the long term far worse than corruption. Instead of working on including large sectors of society, get them out of the grip of populist policies when the time would have been right and TRT has torn up itself, they went the shortcut, and have excluded the sectors of society that were only brought into politics by TRT.

You hope that won't go back to selling their votes to the highest bidder?

Haven't you read any of the studies on vote buying, and the far lesser effects it had than is always propagated? Far worse than vote buying is the destruction of options for those people, which throws them back into the old godfather parties, regardless of vote buying or not. And the Democrats are no option for them, and won't be. They will be lucky if they can campaign even in the North and Northeast without violence against them.

A Democrat supporter might glee now, but in a few years time chances are that nobody has much to glee about. And the Democrats shameful election boycott is one of the biggest contributers to what is coming here. Instead of staying put, keeping the moral highground, the Democrats have allied with the PAD in the boycott, and were drawn in one of the messiest chapters of recent Thai politics.

It's really sad, because in those elections they could have gotten much more votes than in a long time. They would have just waited until the tearing up process of TRT has finished (PAD's most influental leaders were TRT), and would have been able through parliamentary process to get to form the next government cleanly.

We are talking about real elections, not theory. Come back to reality. Discussions on what you think should be have no bearing on what is. You say the Demo's are not the best option for the poor, but then you say there is nobody else. Ok, then they shouldn't vote for anyone. Ah, but you say the Demo's made a mistake by seeking no votes. OK, then they should vote for someone, but you don't know who. Given those running (not your wish list), and given many people upcountry will vote, which party do you think they should vote for and why?

[Plus]

And that old and tiring Giles Ungpakorn's idea that vote-buying is overrated

There are ways in which votes are just bought.

Yes, actual handing out the money is not terribly important - buying off headmen and canvassers will get you a better price per guaranteed vote. Buying off a whole regional party is even cheaper - you don't give them anything, once elected they can feed themselves.

[ColPyat]

We are talking about real elections, not theory. Come back to reality. Discussions on what you think should be have no bearing on what is. You say the Demo's are not the best option for the poor, but then you say there is nobody else. Ok, then they shouldn't vote for anyone. Ah, but you say the Demo's made a mistake by seeking no votes. OK, then they should vote for someone, but you don't know who. Given those running (not your wish list), and given many people upcountry will vote, which party do you think they should vote for and why?

Given the chaos with newly formed parties, people and whole factions switching allegiance, it's a bit premature to advocate voting for anyone.

But as things are now, i would advocate for the No vote in the next elections (and in the referendum), because voting for any party is voting for Prem, the Military, and the bureaucracy - it matters not anymore which party will form the next government. Maybe after the next elections a new party with proper pro people policies has been able to get formed, and we can start the long climb up again to where we were before the coup.

The No vote now is the only option to vote against this system of not allowing democracy to sort political problems out in the political arena as soon as the first crises is hitting the political arena.

[Old Man River]

Given the chaos with newly formed parties, people and whole factions switching allegiance, it's a bit premature to advocate voting for anyone.

But as things are now, i would advocate for the No vote in the next elections (and in the referendum), because voting for any party is voting for Prem, the Military, and the bureaucracy - it matters not anymore which party will form the next government. Maybe after the next elections a new party with proper pro people policies has been able to get formed, and we can start the long climb up again to where we were before the coup.

The No vote now is the only option to vote against this system of not allowing democracy to sort political problems out in the political arena as soon as the first crises is hitting the political arena.

So there is a place for a "no vote" in democracy after all.

[ColPyat]

So there is a place for a "no vote" in democracy after all.

There is a place for a no vote, of course, at the voters discretion.

There is no place though for established parties to boycott an election by using a loophole of the law, and force opponents of the majority party to use a no vote.

Edited August 3, 2007 by ColPyat

[A_Traveller]

So there is a place for a "no vote" in democracy after all.

There is a place for a no vote, of course, at the voters discretion.

There is no place though for established parties to boycott an election by using a loophole of the law, and force opponents of the majority party to use a no vote.

But what happens then if TRT light recommends that 'within the law'? And who was forced to vote no? I'm sorry but I don't follow this additional point.

Regards

/edit format//

Edited August 3, 2007 by A_Traveller

[ColPyat]

So there is a place for a "no vote" in democracy after all.

There is a place for a no vote, of course, at the voters discretion.

There is no place though for established parties to boycott an election by using a loophole of the law, and force opponents of the majority party to use a no vote.

But what happens then if TRT light recommends that 'within the law'. And who was forced to vote no? I'm sorry but I don't follow this additional point.

Regards

/edit format//

Opponents of TRT were forced by the decision of the opposition parties not to stand for election to use the No vote option. I can't follow your first sentence - you lost me there.

[A_Traveller]

So there is a place for a "no vote" in democracy after all.

There is a place for a no vote, of course, at the voters discretion.

There is no place though for established parties to boycott an election by using a loophole of the law, and force opponents of the majority party to use a no vote.

But what happens then if TRT light recommends that 'within the law'. And who was forced to vote no? I'm sorry but I don't follow this additional point.

Regards

/edit format//

Opponents of TRT were forced by the decision of the opposition parties not to stand for election to use the No vote option. I can't follow your first sentence - you lost me there.

If TRT light recommends a 'no' vote, this has been actively spoken of. Position?

Regards

Edited August 3, 2007 by A_Traveller

[hammered]

So there is a place for a "no vote" in democracy after all.

There is a place for a no vote, of course, at the voters discretion.

There is no place though for established parties to boycott an election by using a loophole of the law, and force opponents of the majority party to use a no vote.

Elections are boycotted by parties worldwide fairly regularly. It wasnt long ago that the Venezuelan opposition boycotted a general election that they felt was unfair. The Iraqi Sunnis boycotted elections they felt were unfair. Sri Lanka sees regular election boycotts. In fact one MP was elected in a Tamil area with only ten votes showing the danger of a boycott. Many western countriees see constituencies where parites do not run candidates because either they think they cant win or in deference to another party. Serbia/Yugoslavia saw years of boycotts by Albanian parties. In the past major Palestinian factions have boycotted national elections as have groups in Egypt.

Academics seem to argue that boycotting an election has no place in a functioning democracy where everything is fair, but do have a role in a non-functioning democracy that lacks a level playing field althopugh the boycott should be a short term approach.

As the no-vote is on the ballot paper there should also be no reason why it should not be campaigned for. If a party anywhere in the world is willing to not run a candidate because they think they will lose or in defernce to another party then there is an equal and valid arguement that a party has the right to field no candidate in favour of the no-vote. It then becomes beholden on the other candidates to prove they have the backing of the people, or in the case of the Sri-Lankan ten vote winner prove they have the gall to say they represent anyone. The no-vote or the none of the above offered in some places are valid democratic options. Many countries exclude these as options especially the latter one as the ruling classes seem worried of the attraction they may have.

It is too simplistic to say that election boycotts are always valid or never valid It should also be recognized that they to some degree are widely used worldwide.

[Hampstead]

Arent you now becoming a little farfetched in relating thailand's politics of the democrats no participation in the last election to religious torn civil war countries of the nature of iraq, palestine, serbia, sri lanka . The only one on your list which has no real conflict is venezuela, and even that country has had so many democratic problems in the way chavez has forced all opposition parties to become so weak and with no very little influence by trying to force all media pro-opposition to be closed down.

and in all those no participating in the elections, were any of the election commissioners arrested and put in prison for allowing the elections to proceed? were the party with the most votes told that the elections are not legal as the opposition were not participating?

and could you please explain if any of these election victories of the main parties where the opposition were not participating in your chosen countries led to the termination of the election victory and the election deemed illegal by the courts to which the main party were found guilty and punished with 5 year bans for winning an election without the participation of the main oppososition?

[hammered]

Arent you now becoming a little farfetched in relating thailand's politics of the democrats no participation in the last election to religious torn civil war countries of the nature of iraq, palestine, serbia, sri lanka . The only one on your list which has no real conflict is venezuela, and even that country has had so many democratic problems in the way chavez has forced all opposition parties to become so weak and with no very little influence by trying to force all media pro-opposition to be closed down.

and in all those no participating in the elections, were any of the election commissioners arrested and put in prison for allowing the elections to proceed? were the party with the most votes told that the elections are not legal as the opposition were not participating?

and could you please explain if any of these election victories of the main parties where the opposition were not participating in your chosen countries led to the termination of the election victory and the election deemed illegal by the courts to which the main party were found guilty and punished with 5 year bans for winning an election without the participation of the main oppososition?

I was merely discussing the nature of election boycotts and that it is accepted pretty much that it is a legitimate tactic in a country with a non-functioning democracy. Some argue that was the case in Thaksins Thailand, some dont. I do not think it is worthwhile to raise the exact same arguements gone through ad infinitum in the past as there are sides and which side you are on determines wheher the tactic was legitimate or not. there is not some correct answer.

As for the rest of your comments they realate to punishment stemming from an election nullified by a court decision (technically an illegal election), which is a different matter except in that boycotting what was found to be an illegal election some would say probably offers justifcation to the action under the non-functioning democracy case.

Sometimes it helps to move away from the propoganda provided by one side or the other and just look at raw facts. Please note that I am not saying the boycott was legitimate but that there is an arguement that it was. Each individual can make their own mind up on that and that doesnt need the likes of us to try and falsely declare that there is a right or wrong answer.

[Mid]

Democrat urges NLA to tone down election, party organic laws

August 4, 2007 : Last updated 01:43 pm

The Democrat Party Saturday called on the National Legislative Assembly to water down what it sees as too tough election and party bills, saying they are too restrictive with too many trivial points.

snip

The Nation

[Hampstead]

you were not merely mentioning, you were using it as an excuse to say that boycotts happen, but you did not explain in what degree they happened in those chosen countries.

those countries you mentioned have varying oppositions, which are suppressed and oppressed, imprisoned, banned from having some of their mps from participating to allow the main opposition to have a strangle hold on the whole democratic process, therefore some of those opposition parties you mention will use the boycott of an election to try and show the people of the country why they are boycotting and for what reason, to sway their minds of the propaganda and oppression on their parties by the main party or regime.

the democrats in thailand used the boycotting, not because their mps were imprisoned, not because they were forced not to participate, not because they had little voice in the media, not because they had any influence in thai society for which the democrats do, not because the homes, land, businesses of their supporters has been seized by the government

the democrats used the no participation to allow the election to become illegal and therefore push their party close to a new election victory

that is a very different tactic to those countries you mentioned whereby their non participation would never make the election illegal but just make a point to the people on how its not fair or democratic in the way the main party is going about with the election.

In what way was the last election not fair or democratic for the main opposition party to justify a non participation in Thailand?

[hammered]

you were not merely mentioning, you were using it as an excuse to say that boycotts happen, but you did not explain in what degree they happened in those chosen countries.

those countries you mentioned have varying oppositions, which are suppressed and oppressed, imprisoned, banned from having some of their mps from participating to allow the main opposition to have a strangle hold on the whole democratic process, therefore some of those opposition parties you mention will use the boycott of an election to try and show the people of the country why they are boycotting and for what reason, to sway their minds of the propaganda and oppression on their parties by the main party or regime.

the democrats in thailand used the boycotting, not because their mps were imprisoned, not because they were forced not to participate, not because they had little voice in the media, not because they had any influence in thai society for which the democrats do, not because the homes, land, businesses of their supporters has been seized by the government

the democrats used the no participation to allow the election to become illegal and therefore push their party close to a new election victory

that is a very different tactic to those countries you mentioned whereby their non participation would never make the election illegal but just make a point to the people on how its not fair or democratic in the way the main party is going about with the election.

In what way was the last election not fair or democratic for the main opposition party to justify a non participation in Thailand?

LOL

[Hampstead]

great, now you cannot even justify the non participation by the democrats in a successful way, LOL

nice try on the tour of many of the worn torn conflicts of religion throughout the world, that was a little off the wall to say the least

will any of you applauding the democrats actually openly criticize their actions in the last election?

or just argue weak cases to justify their non participation in a democratic process

after all it is looking as though the democrats have the advantage going into the elections to form the new govevernment with or without gen. sonthi in their ranks

Edited August 4, 2007 by Hampstead

[blaze]

Anything to the rumor reported by the Nation today that General Sonthi is preparing to run for the

Democrats- expecting a Deputy PM position? The same General Sonthi who also predicts that unless the military is given a consitutionally defined role in the running of the country, (supervisory?), we can expect more coups.

[hammered]

great, now you cannot even justify the non participation by the democrats in a successful way, LOL

nice try on the tour of many of the worn torn conflicts of religion throughout the world, that was a little off the wall to say the least

will any of you applauding the democrats actually openly criticize their actions in the last election?

or just argue weak cases to justify their non participation in a democratic process

after all it is looking as though the democrats have the advantage going into the elections to form the new govevernment with or without gen. sonthi in their ranks

Just read the second paragraph in my original post on boycotts although I dont expect partisan Thaksinista to accept that Thailand had a non functioning or unfair democracy although many others would argue this was the case. As I said before there is no clear right or wrong on this it is dependent on your point of view. Sadly with the partisan fighting we now see even on this board few are willing to take the step back and recognise there is no right and wrong. In fact when trying to do this criticism seems to be stronger.

If you dont like my examples sorry but that does not mean electoral boycotts are not a valid tactic under the conditions laid out above. The comon thread with all the examples and many would argue with the one in Thailand is that an election was seen as unfair and the process as bias and the boycott was held to make exactly that point. Some would argue that the subsequent determining of the election as illegal actually retrospectively justifed the boycott action.

Please note I am not giving an opinion on whether the election boycott was right or wrong but merely a framework through which it can be analysed. As I said before everyone can make their own mind up depending on how the interpret the level of brokenness or otherwise of Thai democracy at the time. Sadly most peple would just rather argue vehemnetly that something was totally right or totally wrong which within the realm of politics nearly always tends to be a tenuous thing to do albeit a common thing especially in the almost faith based pro and anti Thaksin factions which tend to deny anything was ever done wrong on either of their respective sides.

Peace

Edited August 4, 2007 by hammered

[Siripon]

great, now you cannot even justify the non participation by the democrats in a successful way, LOL

nice try on the tour of many of the worn torn conflicts of religion throughout the world, that was a little off the wall to say the least

will any of you applauding the democrats actually openly criticize their actions in the last election?

or just argue weak cases to justify their non participation in a democratic process

after all it is looking as though the democrats have the advantage going into the elections to form the new govevernment with or without gen. sonthi in their ranks

Democrats, Chart Thai, Mahachon all boycotted the last election because it was only a year since the previous election, they had no money, Thaksin controlled all the state TV channels and possessed a huge war chest.

Please explain Thaksin's refusal to join in the democratic process by explaining his sale to Temasek in Parliament as he had agreed to do.

He also promised to not dissolve Parliament.

Edited August 4, 2007 by Siripon

[Hampstead]

Od Dear!!!

Scrapping the barrel with bizaar excuses for the democrats non-participation

Where are those bank balances of those parties, whom you mentioned had no money to contest?

do you have their cash balance statements at hand to prove they had no money?

oh and i had no idea that the thai military who are major shareholders in 2 major tv companies, who staged the coup against taksin were OWNED by taksin, shouldnt you read up on all the major media companies in thailand and who are the major shareholders, a good place to start would be www.set.or.th, and those not listed you can search on their own websites.

shouldnt you do some sort of research before making false statements on the ownership of thai media companies

The Democrats non-participation was a disgrace to any democratic process

the last election was free for all concerned to contest, all politicians were freely allowed to canvass votes from voters, all parties were freelly allowed to present their policy platforms to voters to win over their support

unless you can prove that hundreds of mp's were banned from contesting the last election by the ruling party, or that all opposition parties funds were frozen by the ruling party, then the last election was fair and the democrats were not justified in non-participation

so back on topic

your point on the democrat party direct policies, do they have any?

and interesting comments today in the nation, if the article is true by the would be democratic party hopefull dear old gen. sonthi that "some political parties tried to suppress the millitary role, prompting the millitary vent out by staging coups" Nation newspaper 5 aug.

interesting thoughts on democracy by one democratic party hopefull!!!

[hammered]

great, now you cannot even justify the non participation by the democrats in a successful way, LOL

nice try on the tour of many of the worn torn conflicts of religion throughout the world, that was a little off the wall to say the least

will any of you applauding the democrats actually openly criticize their actions in the last election?

or just argue weak cases to justify their non participation in a democratic process

after all it is looking as though the democrats have the advantage going into the elections to form the new govevernment with or without gen. sonthi in their ranks

Democrats, Chart Thai, Mahachon all boycotted the last election because it was only a year since the previous election, they had no money, Thaksin controlled all the state TV channels and possessed a huge war chest.

Please explain Thaksin's refusal to join in the democratic process by explaining his sale to Temasek in Parliament as he had agreed to do.

He also promised to not dissolve Parliament.

Which is an arguement for a boycott by the Democrats and other opposition parties as legitmate based on the arguement Thai democracy was broken and unfair. Thanks for that. Now hopefully we will see arguements from the other side attempting to show that Thaio democracy was neither broken nor unfair at that particular time, and that therefore the boycott by Democrats and other opposition parties was not valid.

[Hampstead]

Great

so you guys have the proof to justify the democrats non-participation lol

where are the links?

do you have those cash statements to say they had no money?

do you have those secret documents to say that the thai millitary are not major shareholders in 2 tv companies but secretly a cover for mr t?

do you have those records to say that all opposition mps were banned from canvassing votes?

funny, i was expecting a more substantial arguement from you guys to justify their non-participation, not the pathetic excuses you have used, not to mention the other excuse of labelling thailand with the likes of the war conflicts in palestine, iraq.

[Hampstead]

Anything to the rumor reported by the Nation today that General Sonthi is preparing to run for the

Democrats- expecting a Deputy PM position? The same General Sonthi who also predicts that unless the military is given a consitutionally defined role in the running of the country, (supervisory?), we can expect more coups.

Gen. Sonthi statment certainly bodes well for all those generals, how many are in the ranks, 2-3000 army generals

it must be like winning the jackpot for these generals, every time they stage a coup

Edited August 5, 2007 by Hampstead

[Hampstead]

"The constitution should involve the military in order to prevent any more intervention," said General Pasit Sonthikhan.

Pasit said Burma and countries in Africa set legislative quotas for soldiers, and Thailand should emulate these nations by setting aside seats in the House and the Senate for commanding officers.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/08/05...es_30043760.php

is this part of the new face of the democratic party policy platforms?

For Thailand to Emulte the military dictatorship of "BURMA" the same burma which has one of the worst records of democracy developments for its people and some of the highest records of human rights violations and genocide on the planet!!!

Edited August 5, 2007 by Hampstead