Thai Pm Rejects Protesters' Demand Amid March On Barracks

anotherpeter · March 17, 2010

I'd go so far as to say that Thailand has a better system than the USA. In the USA, you're stuck with the current President for 4 years. There's no provisions to get rid of him, even if he's breaking the law (And there's some debate as to if he can even be charged for crimes while President).
In Thailand, the people can overthrow the PM any time they want and install a new one. All they have to do is convince their representatives (MPs) to pass a No Confidence motion on the current government. Which (correct me if I'm wrong) is a simple 50%+1 vote by the MPs.

Also by having multiple parties forming coalitions, there's much more chance for different ideas to be put forward and integrated into law, vs the US system of 2 parties, where there's only two sides to any debate, and rather than debate the issues, the minority party (at least in recent history) has become the party of "no" to whatever the majority party wants, regardless of validity or need.

Generally speaking in Thailand its not the people that overthrows the thai PM but the military . Is that good ?

In USA as far as I know the president can be removed by the two chambers (both senate and house of reps ) , see what was about to happen to Nixon , or could have happened to Clinton (after the Levinsky affair).

Even assuming the thai peole can remove the PM at anytime , is it a good thing ? If the people is unhappy with the PM , then on poll day they can vote for another party . Else the PM is so preoccupied with keeping in power (generally by compromising ,or bribing) that he has precious little time to work for the people

The coups are not good, but that isn't because of the system, it's because of the abuse by the politicians. Thailand is still learning. Give it some time.

If the PM is not doing what the majority of the people want, then it's a good thing that the peoples representatives (MPs) can remove him. The PM will stay in power if he does what the majority of the people (and MPs) want.

The problem with any system, is the politician is only interested in getting voted in at the next election. It stops them doing long term things that may cost in the short term but be beneficial in the long term.

Edited March 17, 2010 by anotherpeter

anotherpeter · March 17, 2010

Actually, there is one difference between the British and Thai systems. In the British system, parliament rejects a prime minister, whereas in the Thai system, parliament chooses a prime minister.

Whether that is technically true or not (which I don't believe it is), it's still the same result. The majority of MPs still get who they want.

What the MP's want is to keep their plush seat !!! Nothing else . Thats the all point

That's politics in any system.

moresomekl · March 17, 2010

Back to the core subject , we hear time and time again that the red shirts "discredit themselves" by protesting , that they are the stooges of Mr T , that they are thugs and other non sense by what i can only describe as facists .

2 years ago or so yellow shirts occupied the BKK airport for 9 days , violating one of the basic human right , the right for people to travel as they please when they please . And for what ? To remove a governement accused (rightly it seems) of buying votes , when that has been standard operating procedure in Thailand since democracy exist . If such why red shirts should not have the right to demonstrate , they are also thai citizens , its their country and their life . The right to demonstrate peacefully is ALSO one basic human right . By no mean they are thugs .. I also dont see how they discredit themselves in any ways .

Mr T is the first PM that brought attention to the rural population , it is hardly suprising that they recognise him as a leader . They dont care on whether Mr T sold his telecom company without paying taxes , even though its illegal . What they care about is their life and their future . I dont see any of the red shirts putting up a slogan asking for the money to be returned to Mr T , but then maybe am blind

Thank you

shawndoc · March 17, 2010

I'd go so far as to say that Thailand has a better system than the USA. In the USA, you're stuck with the current President for 4 years. There's no provisions to get rid of him, even if he's breaking the law (And there's some debate as to if he can even be charged for crimes while President).
In Thailand, the people can overthrow the PM any time they want and install a new one. All they have to do is convince their representatives (MPs) to pass a No Confidence motion on the current government. Which (correct me if I'm wrong) is a simple 50%+1 vote by the MPs.

Also by having multiple parties forming coalitions, there's much more chance for different ideas to be put forward and integrated into law, vs the US system of 2 parties, where there's only two sides to any debate, and rather than debate the issues, the minority party (at least in recent history) has become the party of "no" to whatever the majority party wants, regardless of validity or need.

Generally speaking in Thailand its not the people that overthrows the thai PM but the military . Is that good ?

In USA as far as I know the president can be removed by the two chambers (both senate and house of reps ) , see what was about to happen to Nixon , or could have happened to Clinton (after the Levinsky affair).

Even assuming the thai peole can remove the PM at anytime , is it a good thing ? If the people is unhappy with the PM , then on poll day they can vote for another party . Else the PM is so preoccupied with keeping in power (generally by compromising ,or bribing) that he has precious little time to work for the people

For some reason Thai Visa (new Firefox version?) isn't letting me trim the quote to make my reply easier.

So for point 1, I was referring to the Constitutional Thai system that is currently in place. Not situations where the situation has been illegally bypassed.

And yes, you are correct about the US Presidency. Brian fart on my part. In the US system the house must vote by simple majority to "impeach" the president, then the president is tried for the crimes he has comitted, and then a SuperMajority in the Senate must vote to remove him from office. And it can only happen for certain crimes, namely, "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

So the Thai system is much more flexible and easier to remove a sitting Executive should their actions prove unpopular.

Also, in regards to the US directly electing a President. I'd say that's almost correct, and in most cases the candidate with the most votes wins the Presidency, but one only has to look 10 years in the past to the situation where Bush won the Presidency despite coming in second to Al Gore in votes cast by the public.

Edited March 17, 2010 by shawndoc

anotherpeter · March 17, 2010

Actually, there is one difference between the British and Thai systems. In the British system, parliament rejects a prime minister, whereas in the Thai system, parliament chooses a prime minister.

Really ?

Well then maybe Thailand should adopt the UK system which as far as I know is working pretty well .

Or alternatively elect the prime minister by the whole of the thai nation , same as in US or in France .

The first aim beeing to garantee that once elected the parliament members dont relax in their plush seat givin just

lip service to the needs of the people that have elected them . The secund aim beeing to garantee that the PM is stable and can

devote its attention to his program rather then to remaining in power .

moresomekl: it's been explained to you in several posts - the US don't directly elect the president.

Fine its the senate who elects the US president if that suits you .

And France the same ... LOL

From wikipedia:

"Rather than directly voting for the President and Vice President, United States citizens vote for electors. Electors are technically free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates and voters cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.^"

From the US constitution:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

KKvampire · March 17, 2010

Actually, there is one difference between the British and Thai systems. In the British system, parliament rejects a prime minister, whereas in the Thai system, parliament chooses a prime minister.

O dear , it's amazing the lack of knowledge some people have on a country parliamentary system, maybe thats why they come to Thailand and spout their garbage,

The British Prime minister is "Prime Minister" or the "first Minister" , members of parliament have no say or"rejection" of him or her. Parliament can reject or show their "no confidence" in a government.

Posters on these boards need to stick to talking about their views on Thailand and it's political situation even if it is ilinformed opinion.

Edited March 17, 2010 by KKvampire

Publicus · March 17, 2010

A lotta forumists posting to this thread need Comparative Government 101, 102, 103, 104.........

........Scorecard knows his stuff and as animatic pointed out, there are too many errors in too many posts to try to untangle, in even one day.

The most woeful among the many who are lost need to know that the US does not have a prime minister (at least not since the Rev Billy Graham died ).

In the US the Congress (House and Senate) is the ultimate insitution - the Congress can receive or not receive the votes of the electors of the president, Congress can remove the president and determines who can be a cabinet secretary or a judge to include the Supreme Court, the Congress can remove any judge or member of the judiciary to include the Supreme Court, and constitutionally the Congress is the final judge of its own membership, i.e., of whether to seat or expell a member directly elected by his/her constituency.

In a Congressional system governments don't fall because the executive and the legislative are separate parts of the government and stand at regularly scheduled elections. Thailand's parliamentary system of crashing governments at will, on demand, suddenly, invites the circus that began with Sonti in early 2006 and which led to the coup, and which has produced the horrors and fiascos since, continuing up to the present moment and with no end in sight.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Publicus

moresomekl · March 17, 2010

I'd go so far as to say that Thailand has a better system than the USA. In the USA, you're stuck with the current President for 4 years. There's no provisions to get rid of him, even if he's breaking the law (And there's some debate as to if he can even be charged for crimes while President).
In Thailand, the people can overthrow the PM any time they want and install a new one. All they have to do is convince their representatives (MPs) to pass a No Confidence motion on the current government. Which (correct me if I'm wrong) is a simple 50%+1 vote by the MPs.

Also by having multiple parties forming coalitions, there's much more chance for different ideas to be put forward and integrated into law, vs the US system of 2 parties, where there's only two sides to any debate, and rather than debate the issues, the minority party (at least in recent history) has become the party of "no" to whatever the majority party wants, regardless of validity or need.

Generally speaking in Thailand its not the people that overthrows the thai PM but the military . Is that good ?

In USA as far as I know the president can be removed by the two chambers (both senate and house of reps ) , see what was about to happen to Nixon , or could have happened to Clinton (after the Levinsky affair).

Even assuming the thai peole can remove the PM at anytime , is it a good thing ? If the people is unhappy with the PM , then on poll day they can vote for another party . Else the PM is so preoccupied with keeping in power (generally by compromising ,or bribing) that he has precious little time to work for the people

The coups are not good, but that isn't because of the system, it's because of the abuse by the politicians. Thailand is still learning. Give it some time.

If the PM is not doing what the majority of the people want, then it's a good thing that the peoples representatives (MPs) can remove him. The PM will stay in power if he does what the majority of the people (and MPs) want.

The problem with any system, is the politician is only interested in getting voted in at the next election. It stops them doing long term things that may cost in the short term but be beneficial in the long term.

How much more time ? There is no more time. Mr T has opened a pandora box , cant you see that .

Its not good for Thailand to change governement every 6 months . Or for a PM to be abble to buy votes in the parliament wtih cash

Yes i agree with you on politicians

anotherpeter · March 17, 2010

Back to the core subject , we hear time and time again that the red shirts "discredit themselves" by protesting , that they are the stooges of Mr T , that they are thugs and other non sense by what i can only describe as facists .
2 years ago or so yellow shirts occupied the BKK airport for 9 days , violating one of the basic human right , the right for people to travel as they please when they please . And for what ? To remove a governement accused (rightly it seems) of buying votes , when that has been standard operating procedure in Thailand since democracy exist . If such why red shirts should not have the right to demonstrate , they are also thai citizens , its their country and their life . The right to demonstrate peacefully is ALSO one basic human right . By no mean they are thugs .. I also dont see how they discredit themselves in any ways .

Mr T is the first PM that brought attention to the rural population , it is hardly suprising that they recognise him as a leader . They dont care on whether Mr T sold his telecom company without paying taxes , even though its illegal . What they care about is their life and their future . I dont see any of the red shirts putting up a slogan asking for the money to be returned to Mr T , but then maybe am blind

Thank you

I don't think most people were saying that they were discrediting themselves ONLY for protesting. It was more about *some* of what they were protesting for - to bring down the government and bring Thaksin back - and how they were going to protest - the violence suggested by some of the red leaders.

Now that the reds have handled themselves peacefully, they have done a credit to their cause. Even the 'symbolic' blood pouring protests, however it is seen o/s, has raised awareness.

The protestors seem to have been distancing themselves from Thaksin a little since the protests began (Did he call in last night?). Also they delayed the time of their procession to Abhisit's house in Suhkumvit "to avoid traffic congestion".

They won't get what their original aim was to bring down the government. But they have brought more awareness to their plight.

moresomekl · March 17, 2010

A lotta forumists posting to this thread need Comparative Government 101, 102, 103, 104.........
........Scorecard knows his stuff and as animatic pointed out, there are too many errors in too many posts to try to untangle, in even one day.

The most woeful among the many who are lost need to know that the US does not have a prime minister (at least not since Billy Graham died ).

In the US the Congress (House and Senate) is the ultimate insitution -the Congress can remove the president and determines who can be a cabinet secretary or a judge to include the Supreme Court, the Congress can remove any judge or member of the judiciary to include the Supreme Court, and constitutionally the Congress is the final judge of whether to seat a member directly elected by his/her constituency.

In a Congressional system governments don't fall because the executive and the legislative are separate parts of the government and stand at regularly scheduled elections. Thailand's parliamentary system of crashing governments at will, on demand, suddenly, invites the circus that began with Sonti in early 2006 and which led to the coup and has produced the horrors and fiascos since, continuing up to the present moment and with no end in sight.

Yes i did not even attempt to mention about the separation beetween executive and legislative branch as this in Thailand is unclear to me.

Precisely Thailand appears as a circus and as you said with no end in sight . Anyone can say that the thai system is good , unfortunately that is no supported by the facts

Thank you for your excellent post

anotherpeter · March 17, 2010

I'd go so far as to say that Thailand has a better system than the USA. In the USA, you're stuck with the current President for 4 years. There's no provisions to get rid of him, even if he's breaking the law (And there's some debate as to if he can even be charged for crimes while President).
In Thailand, the people can overthrow the PM any time they want and install a new one. All they have to do is convince their representatives (MPs) to pass a No Confidence motion on the current government. Which (correct me if I'm wrong) is a simple 50%+1 vote by the MPs.

Also by having multiple parties forming coalitions, there's much more chance for different ideas to be put forward and integrated into law, vs the US system of 2 parties, where there's only two sides to any debate, and rather than debate the issues, the minority party (at least in recent history) has become the party of "no" to whatever the majority party wants, regardless of validity or need.

Generally speaking in Thailand its not the people that overthrows the thai PM but the military . Is that good ?

In USA as far as I know the president can be removed by the two chambers (both senate and house of reps ) , see what was about to happen to Nixon , or could have happened to Clinton (after the Levinsky affair).

Even assuming the thai peole can remove the PM at anytime , is it a good thing ? If the people is unhappy with the PM , then on poll day they can vote for another party . Else the PM is so preoccupied with keeping in power (generally by compromising ,or bribing) that he has precious little time to work for the people

The coups are not good, but that isn't because of the system, it's because of the abuse by the politicians. Thailand is still learning. Give it some time.

If the PM is not doing what the majority of the people want, then it's a good thing that the peoples representatives (MPs) can remove him. The PM will stay in power if he does what the majority of the people (and MPs) want.

The problem with any system, is the politician is only interested in getting voted in at the next election. It stops them doing long term things that may cost in the short term but be beneficial in the long term.

How much more time ? There is no more time. Mr T has opened a pandora box , cant you see that .

Its not good for Thailand to change governement every 6 months . Or for a PM to be abble to buy votes in the parliament wtih cash

Yes i agree with you on politicians

Democracy took 100 years to bring in to Britain (1645-1745). With better communication, it should be a bit faster than that here.

The current government has been in for 15 months, with another 18 months until the next election. Thaksin got a 4 year term, and then voted in for another 4 year term before he disolved parliament after a year for new elections in 2006. There is some progress.

rogerdee123 · March 17, 2010

Yes indeed KKvampire ... you hit the nail on the head.

I would also suggest that posters read the thread before posting so they don't keep repeating the same old boring drivel & BS .

>> Posters on these boards need to stick to talking about their views on Thailand and it's political situation even if it is ilinformed opinion.

anotherpeter · March 17, 2010

<snip>
In a Congressional system governments don't fall because the executive and the legislative are separate parts of the government and stand at regularly scheduled elections. Thailand's parliamentary system of crashing governments at will, on demand, suddenly, invites the circus that began with Sonti in early 2006 and which led to the coup and has produced the horrors and fiascos since, continuing up to the present moment and with no end in sight.

The "horrors and fiasco's" in Thailand in the last 5 years are not due to the system in use. Corruption and coups would ruin any democratic system in any country.

moresomekl · March 17, 2010

Back to the core subject , we hear time and time again that the red shirts "discredit themselves" by protesting , that they are the stooges of Mr T , that they are thugs and other non sense by what i can only describe as facists .
2 years ago or so yellow shirts occupied the BKK airport for 9 days , violating one of the basic human right , the right for people to travel as they please when they please . And for what ? To remove a governement accused (rightly it seems) of buying votes , when that has been standard operating procedure in Thailand since democracy exist . If such why red shirts should not have the right to demonstrate , they are also thai citizens , its their country and their life . The right to demonstrate peacefully is ALSO one basic human right . By no mean they are thugs .. I also dont see how they discredit themselves in any ways .

Mr T is the first PM that brought attention to the rural population , it is hardly suprising that they recognise him as a leader . They dont care on whether Mr T sold his telecom company without paying taxes , even though its illegal . What they care about is their life and their future . I dont see any of the red shirts putting up a slogan asking for the money to be returned to Mr T , but then maybe am blind

Thank you

I don't think most people were saying that they were discrediting themselves ONLY for protesting. It was more about *some* of what they were protesting for - to bring down the government and bring Thaksin back - and how they were going to protest - the violence suggested by some of the red leaders.

Now that the reds have handled themselves peacefully, they have done a credit to their cause. Even the 'symbolic' blood pouring protests, however it is seen o/s, has raised awareness.

The protestors seem to have been distancing themselves from Thaksin a little since the protests began (Did he call in last night?). Also they delayed the time of their procession to Abhisit's house in Suhkumvit "to avoid traffic congestion".

They won't get what their original aim was to bring down the government. But they have brought more awareness to their plight.

Well you have not seen the anti red shirts haters in this forum

The red shirts have the right to ask for the governement to step down if they feel that the current governement is not adressing their plight . Nothing wrong with that . On whether they succeed or not is a different story .. entirely.

In fact everybody wins , the red shirt by bringing attention to their cause peacefully and Abhasisit by showig restrain and thus remaining in power ... for the time beeing.

Yes for the red shirts distancing themselves from Thaksin is important . At the very least Thaksin is too controversial .

Finally it would be good for the thai circus of changing governement at will to stop . A change of the constitution , not one spearheaded by the military as the last one , seems in order

moresomekl · March 17, 2010

<snip>
In a Congressional system governments don't fall because the executive and the legislative are separate parts of the government and stand at regularly scheduled elections. Thailand's parliamentary system of crashing governments at will, on demand, suddenly, invites the circus that began with Sonti in early 2006 and which led to the coup and has produced the horrors and fiascos since, continuing up to the present moment and with no end in sight.

The "horrors and fiasco's" in Thailand in the last 5 years are not due to the system in use. Corruption and coups would ruin any democratic system in any country.

Agree with you , problem is that corruption and coups dont happen in "any" democracy , they happen in Thailand .

Ask yourself why ?

anotherpeter · March 17, 2010

<snip>
In a Congressional system governments don't fall because the executive and the legislative are separate parts of the government and stand at regularly scheduled elections. Thailand's parliamentary system of crashing governments at will, on demand, suddenly, invites the circus that began with Sonti in early 2006 and which led to the coup and has produced the horrors and fiascos since, continuing up to the present moment and with no end in sight.

The "horrors and fiasco's" in Thailand in the last 5 years are not due to the system in use. Corruption and coups would ruin any democratic system in any country.

Agree with you , problem is that corruption and coups dont happen in "any" democracy , they happen in Thailand .

Ask yourself why ?

It's nothing to do with the system in place. Corruption and coups were here long before they attempted democracy.

moresomekl · March 17, 2010

How much more time ? There is no more time. Mr T has opened a pandora box , cant you see that .

Its not good for Thailand to change governement every 6 months . Or for a PM to be abble to buy votes in the parliament wtih cash

Yes i agree with you on politicians

Democracy took 100 years to bring in to Britain (1645-1745). With better communication, it should be a bit faster than that here.

The current government has been in for 15 months, with another 18 months until the next election. Thaksin got a 4 year term, and then voted in for another 4 year term before he disolved parliament after a year for new elections in 2006. There is some progress.

********************************************************************************

*****************

Democracy in Thailand is not new either .

Ok lets wait and see

anotherpeter · March 17, 2010

Well you have not seen the anti red shirts haters in this forum
The red shirts have the right to ask for the governement to step down if they feel that the current governement is not adressing their plight . Nothing wrong with that . On whether they succeed or not is a different story .. entirely.

In fact everybody wins , the red shirt by bringing attention to their cause peacefully and Abhasisit by showig restrain and thus remaining in power ... for the time beeing.

Yes for the red shirts distancing themselves from Thaksin is important . At the very least Thaksin is too controversial .

Finally it would be good for the thai circus of changing governement at will to stop . A change of the constitution , not one spearheaded by the military as the last one , seems in order

"anti red shirt haters" ... the people that hate the "anti red shirts"?? Anyway, I know what you mean. I, like some of them, were against the red shirts (and therefore against their supporters) because they supported Thaksin and because of the violent rhetoric of the red leaders. Not because they were supporting the poor farmers.

The army getting out of politics is very important. An inclusive constitution that does not change every 5 minutes is important too.

moresomekl · March 17, 2010

<snip>
In a Congressional system governments don't fall because the executive and the legislative are separate parts of the government and stand at regularly scheduled elections. Thailand's parliamentary system of crashing governments at will, on demand, suddenly, invites the circus that began with Sonti in early 2006 and which led to the coup and has produced the horrors and fiascos since, continuing up to the present moment and with no end in sight.

The "horrors and fiasco's" in Thailand in the last 5 years are not due to the system in use. Corruption and coups would ruin any democratic system in any country.

Agree with you , problem is that corruption and coups dont happen in "any" democracy , they happen in Thailand .

Ask yourself why ?

It's nothing to do with the system in place. Corruption and coups were here long before they attempted democracy.

Well if the system in place has not brought an improvement , then perhaps its time to improve it , or change it

animatic · March 17, 2010

Actually, there is one difference between the British and Thai systems. In the British system, parliament rejects a prime minister, whereas in the Thai system, parliament chooses a prime minister.

Really ?

Well then maybe Thailand should adopt the UK system which as far as I know is working pretty well .

Or alternatively elect the prime minister by the whole of the thai nation , same as in US or in France .

The first aim beeing to garantee that once elected the parliament members dont relax in their plush seat givin just

lip service to the needs of the people that have elected them . The secund aim beeing to garantee that the PM is stable and can

devote its attention to his program rather then to remaining in power .

moresomekl: it's been explained to you in several posts - the US don't directly elect the president.

Fine its the senate who elects the US president if that suits you .

And France the same ... LOL

Electoral college is the body that actually elects US presidents.

They are decided on similar to Senators two per state based on popular vote tallies.

But it is not law that they must vote as those who elected them in a state choose.

So a few idiots 'vote their conscious' eve if that is against those that voted them

into the position to do so. A glaring deformity in the election laws.

iff there IS a dead heat draw in the electoral collage ()never happened)

the Senate MIGHT cast a tie breaking decision.

moresomekl · March 17, 2010

Well you have not seen the anti red shirts haters in this forum
The red shirts have the right to ask for the governement to step down if they feel that the current governement is not adressing their plight . Nothing wrong with that . On whether they succeed or not is a different story .. entirely.

In fact everybody wins , the red shirt by bringing attention to their cause peacefully and Abhasisit by showig restrain and thus remaining in power ... for the time beeing.

Yes for the red shirts distancing themselves from Thaksin is important . At the very least Thaksin is too controversial .

Finally it would be good for the thai circus of changing governement at will to stop . A change of the constitution , not one spearheaded by the military as the last one , seems in order

"anti red shirt haters" ... the people that hate the "anti red shirts"?? Anyway, I know what you mean. I, like some of them, were against the red shirts (and therefore against their supporters) because they supported Thaksin and because of the violent rhetoric of the red leaders. Not because they were supporting the poor farmers.

The army getting out of politics is very important. An inclusive constitution that does not change every 5 minutes is important too.

Yes it was unclear

I dont think they support Thaksin's personal ambitions but they are in a situation where Thaksin has been their original champion and thus they refer to him .

Yes indeed political stability not chaos and anarchy is important for the future of THailand . And no coups of course (which i think the army has no desire to do unlike what was he case in the past )

Publicus · March 17, 2010

<snip>
In a Congressional system governments don't fall because the executive and the legislative are separate parts of the government and stand at regularly scheduled elections. Thailand's parliamentary system of crashing governments at will, on demand, suddenly, invites the circus that began with Sonti in early 2006 and which led to the coup and has produced the horrors and fiascos since, continuing up to the present moment and with no end in sight.

The "horrors and fiasco's" in Thailand in the last 5 years are not due to the system in use. Corruption and coups would ruin any democratic system in any country.

Agree with you , problem is that corruption and coups dont happen in "any" democracy , they happen in Thailand .

Ask yourself why ?

It's nothing to do with the system in place. Corruption and coups were here long before they attempted democracy.

Corruption and nepotism yes, coups no. The present dynasty suffered one coup, in 1932. Post WW2 'democratic' governments have been removed by something like 16 or 17 coups.

The weak culture of democracy in Thailand has many areas that need improvement, but the major problem with coups is that the political class never established from the outset the absolute principle of civilian control of and over the military. Given that instead it's quite the opposite - military control/leverage over the civilian authorities - Thailand is always under the gun, literally.

The consequence is that Thailand will take even longer than the UK did to develop into anything resembling a constitutional democracy. (And, yes, technically the UK is a constitutional monarchy.)

anotherpeter · March 17, 2010

It's nothing to do with the system in place. Corruption and coups were here long before they attempted democracy.

Well if the system in place has not brought an improvement , then perhaps its time to improve it , or change it

So that corruption and coups can ruin that too?

The electoral system doesn't need fixing. The corruption needs fixing.

moresomekl · March 17, 2010

Corruption and nepotism yes, coups no. The present dynasty suffered one coup, in 1932. Post WW2 'democratic' governments have been removed by something like 16 or 17 coups.

The weak culture of democracy in Thailand has many areas that need improvement, but the major problem with coups is that the political class never established from the outset the absolute principle of civilian control of and over the military. Given that instead it's quite the opposite - military control/leverage over the civilian authorities - Thailand is always under the gun, literally.

The consequence is that Thailand will take even longer than the UK did to develop into anything resembling a constitutional democracy. (And, yes, technically the UK is a constitutional monarchy.)

Exactly ... Now the election of the chief executive (PM or President) by the whole of the nation rather then by corrupted politicians usually seems to be an answer whereby the CE is vested with enough moral authority to direct the military rather then the other way around . I dont know in USA but in France the military obeys the president because the president is elected by the nation

Now whether that would work for Thailand remains to be seen . But i do believe that the thai military probably would be far more willing to obey a popularly elected PM

moresomekl · March 17, 2010

It's nothing to do with the system in place. Corruption and coups were here long before they attempted democracy.

Well if the system in place has not brought an improvement , then perhaps its time to improve it , or change it

So that corruption and coups can ruin that too?

The electoral system doesn't need fixing. The corruption needs fixing.

You are right and wrong in my opinion . Its the system that creates the corruption . In a system where its the whole people who elects the PM , there is no need for the PM to pay bribes to remain in power . he just govern and gives instructions , its FOC LOL

animatic · March 17, 2010

Back to the core subject , we hear time and time again that the red shirts "discredit themselves" by protesting , that they are the stooges of Mr T , that they are thugs and other non sense by what i can only describe as facists .
2 years ago or so yellow shirts occupied the BKK airport for 9 days , violating one of the basic human right , the right for people to travel as they please when they please . And for what ? To remove a governement accused (rightly it seems) of buying votes , when that has been standard operating procedure in Thailand since democracy exist . If such why red shirts should not have the right to demonstrate , they are also thai citizens , its their country and their life . The right to demonstrate peacefully is ALSO one basic human right . By no mean they are thugs .. I also dont see how they discredit themselves in any ways .

Mr T is the first PM that brought attention to the rural population , it is hardly suprising that they recognise him as a leader . They dont care on whether Mr T sold his telecom company without paying taxes , even though its illegal . What they care about is their life and their future . I dont see any of the red shirts putting up a slogan asking for the money to be returned to Mr T , but then maybe am blind

Thank you

Where to start...

It's not by ptrotesting thatthey discredit themselves,

but how they protest and the duplicity within reasons the say they are protesting.

Say one thing take the money for another. Their hypocracy discredits them.

The PPP was going out anyway, PAD's aim was to prevent a discredited and lameduck

PPP party from re-writing the constitution before they left and giving Thaksin

and his 111 TRT cronies a free RETROACTIVE pass to return and rob the people.

There is a right to free travel... but it does not say by any possible means you choose.

Such as every potential airport for instance. There are plenty of airports world wide

that you are not allowed to fly out of.

PAD discredited themselves with th Suvarnabuhmi take over, no question.

But the courts only sped the PPP removal process up a matter of days,

PAD did not cause PPP gov to fall, they only sped up the dissolution case by

2 weeks at most. But did stop the charter re-write, which was obviously their main aim.

Mr T. took credit for many existing programs and sold that credit big time with self promotion.

That is how he came to the attention of Issanese. ADVERTISING IN A BIG WAY.

So he was the first to do that, big deal. He also stole more froim the Thai people at the same time,

than any PM in history by most reckonings... Don't think that balances out favorably.

His abuse of power and lying about ownership of assests is the ONLY reasons why his sale

could be legally tax free. It wasn't and those taxes are due with interest.

Oh P.S.

Maybe you are blind. Bringing back PTP to power is tantamount to signing a get out of jail free pass

for Thaksin and then getting his money and more returned to him... He OWNS the PTP PARTY

He controls it stem to stern...

what part of he would control the government himself don't you understand.

So if I say some Red shirts have acted like thugs, you will say I am a fascist...

You've lost the plot for sure. Or refuse to try and find it. Try and research a word before using it.

Word Origin & History

fascist

1921, from It. partito nazionale fascista, the anti-communist political movement organized 1919

under Benito Mussolini (1883-1945); from It. fascio "group, association," lit. "bundle."

Like fascism, originally used in English in its Italian form, as an Italian word.

[Fowler: "Whether this full anglicization of the words is worth while cannot be decided

till we know whether the things are to be temporary or permanent in England"

-- probably an addition to the 1930 reprint, retained in 1944 U.S. edition.]

Fasci "groups of men organized for political purposes" had been a feature of Sicily since c.1895;

the 20c. sense probably influenced by the Roman fasces (q.v.) which became the party symbol.

----------------------

fas·cist n.

1. often Fascist An advocate or adherent of fascism.

2. A reactionary or dictatorial person.

adj. 1. often Fascist Of, advocating, or practicing fascism.

2. Fascist Of or relating to the regime of the Fascisti.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

----------------------------

fas-cist –noun

1.a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism.

2.(often initial capital letter) a member of a fascist movement or party.

3. a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

–adjective

4. fa·scis·tic of or like fascism or fascists.

Origin:

1915–20; < It fascista, equiv. to fasc(io) (see fascism) + -ista -ist

—Can be confused: communist, fascist, Marxist, socialist.

Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

Edited March 17, 2010 by animatic

jdinasia · March 17, 2010

nice to see the folks that just don't understand parliamentary democracy are still at it!

Then minimizing the damage that Thaksin has done to the country ... and then comparing Thailand to France? OI!

The reds get their chance in just over a year to try and dig in at the trough again. By then hopefully Thaksin will be serving his 2 years in jail and the other cases against him will be able to proceed.

animatic · March 17, 2010

So that corruption and coups can ruin that too?

The electoral system doesn't need fixing. The corruption needs fixing.

You are right and wrong in my opinion . Its the system that creates the corruption . In a system where its the whole people who elects the PM , there is no need for the PM to pay bribes to remain in power . he just govern and gives instructions , its FOC LOL

No again.

It is the corruption that has created the corrupted system.

The reason PAD was against the PPP was to stop the inherent corruption,

from re-writing the charter to allow INCREASED corruption to flourish.

Thaksin essentially went so far, that he became the metaphorical line in the sand.

His politician adherents are mostly the die hard corrupt, and the Reds their action arm.

His opponents are a mix of the middle class who came to fear him,

and those that fear unleashing a random chance of change from the st`tus quo

in some GRAND change vs gradual modernization in a rational manner.

Certainly the elites will fall in this group, yet are far from the main movers.

There are a great many more Thais who fear random, uncontroled, willy nilly change.

No one disputes that the system needs to change, the issue is

HOW FAST,

and WHO CONTROLS that change into the 21st century.

Having the red shirts and the Thaksin controlled PTP control Thailand,

is NOT the way to a logical improvement in the lives of the most Thais,

possible in the shortest time. They prove time and again, they are both

incompetent and unmotivated to reach that end goal in a rational manner.

This weekend added nothing but negatives to their to their poor image.

moresomekl · March 17, 2010