Thai Elite, Middle Class Cold To Unfavourable Poll Results

[hyperdimension]

Thaksin simply understands modern Thai psychology better than the Democrats

He has the money to pay for some of the "best" public relations / lobbyists / perception management people in the world, the mass psychological manipulators.

After the coup, the military government was inept, but they weren't evil. They actually had good intentions and tried to help.

Even though people claim that Abhisit was "installed" by higher powers, all evidence suggests that he too has good intentions to help the country, not to enrich himself nor to expand his business interests (if he actually has any). Yet people cry "we want democracy" and wish to elect a corrupt despot with a large business empire who has no intention of shrinking the empire but more likely to expand it.

When I see a people supporting a truly evil, convicted fugitive and holding him up as a role model and a savior, I know democracy has failed in this country. I wouldn't be at all disappointed to see it abandoned. I would rather be controlled by a diffuse organization with an internal system of checks and balances like the military than a single evil man like Thaksin.

I agree, the people should choose to remain with the status quo for the time-being, as it is the safest option, until some time in which there are good non-corrupt candidates who are not connected with any elites nor are self-enriching capitalists. I think Abhisit is a good role model.

People like the academic "Aek" should give serious consideration to why he supports democracy.

He was talking at a symposium on post-electoral Thai politics organised by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and the Institute of Democratisation Studies (IDS), which was founded by Chaturon Chaisang, former deputy prime minister under Thaksin Shinawatra. As Bucholz has shown, Chaturon is intimately connected with the UDD and Pheu Thai, who use the issue of democracy merely as a tool to gain power for Thaksin.

Edited June 25, 2011 by hyperdimension

[hyperdimension]

The small number of families that own a large chunk of the economy don't want to hear about anything other than their own views and have worked as a group to preserve their monopoly. Play by their rules or suffer the consequences.

The wealthy Bangkok families that own the land and companies don't care about anyone but themselves.

Your statements are very applicable in describing the Shinawatras' business empire (SHINAWATRA’S BUSINESS NETWORK), which would continue to grow like a cancer if Thaksin regains power via Yingluck.

Edited June 25, 2011 by hyperdimension

[lannarebirth]

Would the vote of an electorate (anywhere in the world, not just Thailand) be more respected if they voted in an idiot or a womaniser or an alcoholic or a rascist or a homophobic or a homosexual/lesbian or a.... or a .... or a. .....

If the idiot, the womaniser, the alcoholic, the racist, the homophobe, the homosexual and the lesbian, had lived their lives within the law, then yes, a vote for such a person could be respected and more importantly, would have to be accepted. If however the idiot, the womaniser, the alcoholic, the racist, the homophobe, the homosexual and the lesbian, happened to have committed a crime, been convicted and sentenced, and then fled, then no, voting for such a person doesn't have to be respected and more importantly, should not be allowed. Electoral laws should prevent it.

In some countries, being an homosexual is a crime. So you agree that in those countries, homosexuals should be sentenced, serve their time, amend their way and be banned from being elected ?

And that people should be prevented from changing the law as homosexuality is such an awful, against nature crime ?

Even if the majority of the people of this country thinks that homosexuality is not a crime, the high moral ground give the right to the minority to ignore the will of the majority and keep sending homosexual to jail then rehabilitation ?

Think about it, there isn't much difference between what I just said and the views expressed by the anti-Thaksin brigade.

I'm guessing English is not your first language and you don't havea full understanding of the vocabulary. Here's a new word for you:

spe·cious

adj \ˈspē-shəs\

Definition of SPECIOUS

1obsolete : showy 2: having deceptive attraction or "]allure 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness : sophistic <specious reasoning> — spe·cious·ly adverb — spe·cious·ness noun .learners-link div.learners-link-content{ font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0 5px 0 22px;}.learners-link div.learners-link-content a .word{ text-decoration: none;}.learners-link div.learners-link-content a:hover .word{ color: #5358a9; text-decoration: underline;}#content .definition div.d .learners-link a,#content .definition div.d .learners-link a:hover,#content .definition div.d .learners-link a:link,#content .definition div.d .learners-link a:visited{ color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-variant: normal; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none;} See specious defined for English-language learners ».wcentral-link div.wcentral-link-content{ font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0 5px 0 0;}.wcentral-link div.wcentral-link-content a .word{ text-decoration: none;}.wcentral-link div.wcentral-link-content a:hover .word{ color: #5358a9; text-decoration: underline;}#content .definition div.d .wcentral-link a,#content .definition div.d .wcentral-link a:hover,#content .definition div.d .wcentral-link a:link,#content .definition div.d .wcentral-link a:visited{ color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-variant: normal; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none;}See specious defined for kids ».example-sentences ol.collapsed-list li.hidden{ display: none;}li.more-sent-link{ background: none;}#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.more-link,#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.hide-link{ color: #717274; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none;}#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.more-link:hover .text,#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.hide-link:hover .text{ text-decoration: underline;}.example-sentences ol.expanded-list a.more-link,.example-sentences ol.collapsed-list a.hide-link{ display: none;}#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link span.icon{ padding-right: 2px;}

Examples of SPECIOUS

1. He justified his actions with specious reasoning.
2. <a specious argument that really does not stand up under close examination>

[Bkkorupcountry]

Would the vote of an electorate (anywhere in the world, not just Thailand) be more respected if they voted in an idiot or a womaniser or an alcoholic or a rascist or a homophobic or a homosexual/lesbian or a.... or a .... or a. .....

If the idiot, the womaniser, the alcoholic, the racist, the homophobe, the homosexual and the lesbian, had lived their lives within the law, then yes, a vote for such a person could be respected and more importantly, would have to be accepted. If however the idiot, the womaniser, the alcoholic, the racist, the homophobe, the homosexual and the lesbian, happened to have committed a crime, been convicted and sentenced, and then fled, then no, voting for such a person doesn't have to be respected and more importantly, should not be allowed. Electoral laws should prevent it.

In some countries, being an homosexual is a crime. So you agree that in those countries, homosexuals should be sentenced, serve their time, amend their way and be banned from being elected ?

And that people should be prevented from changing the law as homosexuality is such an awful, against nature crime ?

Even if the majority of the people of this country thinks that homosexuality is not a crime, the high moral ground give the right to the minority to ignore the will of the majority and keep sending homosexual to jail then rehabilitation ?

Think about it, there isn't much difference between what I just said and the views expressed by the anti-Thaksin brigade.

I'm guessing English is not your first language and you don't havea full understanding of the vocabulary. Here's a new word for you:

spe·cious

adj \ˈspē-shəs\

Definition of SPECIOUS

1obsolete : showy 2: having deceptive attraction or allure 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness : sophistic <specious reasoning> — spe·cious·ly adverb — spe·cious·ness noun .learners-link div.learners-link-content{ font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0 5px 0 22px;}.learners-link div.learners-link-content a .word{ text-decoration: none;}.learners-link div.learners-link-content a:hover .word{ color: #5358a9; text-decoration: underline;}#content .definition div.d .learners-link a,#content .definition div.d .learners-link a:hover,#content .definition div.d .learners-link a:link,#content .definition div.d .learners-link a:visited{ color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-variant: normal; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none;} See specious defined for English-language learners ».wcentral-link div.wcentral-link-content{ font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0 5px 0 0;}.wcentral-link div.wcentral-link-content a .word{ text-decoration: none;}.wcentral-link div.wcentral-link-content a:hover .word{ color: #5358a9; text-decoration: underline;}#content .definition div.d .wcentral-link a,#content .definition div.d .wcentral-link a:hover,#content .definition div.d .wcentral-link a:link,#content .definition div.d .wcentral-link a:visited{ color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-variant: normal; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none;}See specious defined for kids ».example-sentences ol.collapsed-list li.hidden{ display: none;}li.more-sent-link{ background: none;}#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.more-link,#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.hide-link{ color: #717274; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none;}#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.more-link:hover .text,#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.hide-link:hover .text{ text-decoration: underline;}.example-sentences ol.expanded-list a.more-link,.example-sentences ol.collapsed-list a.hide-link{ display: none;}#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link span.icon{ padding-right: 2px;}

Examples of SPECIOUS

1. He justified his actions with specious reasoning.
2. <a specious argument that really does not stand up under close examination>

Your point being? I thought Jurgen put up a good point (of course, I am biased as his post supports mine).

[lannarebirth]

If the idiot, the womaniser, the alcoholic, the racist, the homophobe, the homosexual and the lesbian, had lived their lives within the law, then yes, a vote for such a person could be respected and more importantly, would have to be accepted. If however the idiot, the womaniser, the alcoholic, the racist, the homophobe, the homosexual and the lesbian, happened to have committed a crime, been convicted and sentenced, and then fled, then no, voting for such a person doesn't have to be respected and more importantly, should not be allowed. Electoral laws should prevent it.

In some countries, being an homosexual is a crime. So you agree that in those countries, homosexuals should be sentenced, serve their time, amend their way and be banned from being elected ?

And that people should be prevented from changing the law as homosexuality is such an awful, against nature crime ?

Even if the majority of the people of this country thinks that homosexuality is not a crime, the high moral ground give the right to the minority to ignore the will of the majority and keep sending homosexual to jail then rehabilitation ?

Think about it, there isn't much difference between what I just said and the views expressed by the anti-Thaksin brigade.

I'm guessing English is not your first language and you don't havea full understanding of the vocabulary. Here's a new word for you:

spe·cious

adj \ˈspē-shəs\

Definition of SPECIOUS

1obsolete : showy 2: having deceptive attraction or allure 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness : sophistic <specious reasoning> — spe·cious·ly adverb — spe·cious·ness noun .learners-link div.learners-link-content{ font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0 5px 0 22px;}.learners-link div.learners-link-content a .word{ text-decoration: none;}.learners-link div.learners-link-content a:hover .word{ color: #5358a9; text-decoration: underline;}#content .definition div.d .learners-link a,#content .definition div.d .learners-link a:hover,#content .definition div.d .learners-link a:link,#content .definition div.d .learners-link a:visited{ color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-variant: normal; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none;} See specious defined for English-language learners ».wcentral-link div.wcentral-link-content{ font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0 5px 0 0;}.wcentral-link div.wcentral-link-content a .word{ text-decoration: none;}.wcentral-link div.wcentral-link-content a:hover .word{ color: #5358a9; text-decoration: underline;}#content .definition div.d .wcentral-link a,#content .definition div.d .wcentral-link a:hover,#content .definition div.d .wcentral-link a:link,#content .definition div.d .wcentral-link a:visited{ color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-variant: normal; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none;}See specious defined for kids ».example-sentences ol.collapsed-list li.hidden{ display: none;}li.more-sent-link{ background: none;}#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.more-link,#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.hide-link{ color: #717274; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none;}#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.more-link:hover .text,#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.hide-link:hover .text{ text-decoration: underline;}.example-sentences ol.expanded-list a.more-link,.example-sentences ol.collapsed-list a.hide-link{ display: none;}#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link span.icon{ padding-right: 2px;}

Examples of SPECIOUS

1. He justified his actions with specious reasoning.
2. <a specious argument that really does not stand up under close examination>

Your point being? I thought Jurgen put up a good point (of course, I am biased as his post supports mine).

My point is that he presented a specious argument. An argument lacking in validity and wholly unrelated to the subject under discussion.

[hanuman1]

Would the vote of an electorate (anywhere in the world, not just Thailand) be more respected if they voted in an idiot or a womaniser or an alcoholic or a rascist or a homophobic or a homosexual/lesbian or a.... or a .... or a. .....

If the idiot, the womaniser, the alcoholic, the racist, the homophobe, the homosexual and the lesbian, had lived their lives within the law, then yes, a vote for such a person could be respected and more importantly, would have to be accepted. If however the idiot, the womaniser, the alcoholic, the racist, the homophobe, the homosexual and the lesbian, happened to have committed a crime, been convicted and sentenced, and then fled, then no, voting for such a person doesn't have to be respected and more importantly, should not be allowed. Electoral laws should prevent it.

How can anybody from an upbringing in a country where the rule of law is strictly enforced disagree?

But this is the problem. All these people saying Thaksin should go to jail, Thaksin broke the law, Thaksin is an awful role model, Thaksin will monopolize pawer, are simply ignoring the context into which they have brought their opinions and in many cases their lives.

Many point out the inherently feudal nature of Thai politics. 50-100 years of 'the modern world' (for want of a better phrase to describe the effect of western military and economic imperialism around the globe) is NOT going to fundamentally change centuries of tradition, no matter how appealing the alternative is to enlightened foreigners and educated Thais. There are no shortcuts on the path to reconciling the difference between the role of the state and the role of its constituent individuals.

The simplest illustration of how misplaced the exasperation of many posters towards the Thaksin/ PTP situation is, is that whilst they understandably call for him to go to jail as the law dictates, for UDD leaders to be denied bail en masse on the basis of their charges of terrorism, for the general population to see through the allegedly apparent lies and scheming of the PTP, they are perfectly happy to accept a law which they would consider an outrage in their own country - lese majeste.

So on the one hand it's 'why isn't the law executed like it is in our own countries', and on the other it's 'we accept a law that in our own countries would be completely unacceptable'. Isn't there some dissonance here?

And whilst it is easy to say 'well it's their laws, so they should all stick to them', it is equally simple to ignore the nature of the evolution of statute laws in this country, the level of their general acceptance in everyday life, their applicability to specific strata and groups within society, and the other traditional factors which relegate them to a status some distance short of that in the West.

Whilst I would agree with the notion that universally applied and well enforced laws are something certainly worth aiming at, I believe it's a bit facile to rant about and question this indigenous system which allows accused suspects of terrorism to make political speeches and even convicted criminals to possibly return to lead a country.

Have you ever heard of a 'White-eyed River-martin'? It is a bird - like several other species - unique to Thailand. Let's not forget that like our own countries, this place has phenomena - and quite understandably so - that one cannot find anywhere else.

Edited June 25, 2011 by hanuman1

[whybother]

How can anybody from an upbringing in a country where the rule of law is strictly enforced disagree?

But this is the problem. All these people saying Thaksin should go to jail, Thaksin broke the law, Thaksin is an awful role model, Thaksin will monopolize pawer, are simply ignoring the context into which they have brought their opinions and in many cases their lives.

Many point out the inherently feudal nature of Thai politics. 50-100 years of 'the modern world' (for want of a better phrase to describe the effect of western military and economic imperialism around the globe) is NOT going to fundamentally change centuries of tradition, no matter how appealing the alternative is to enlightened foreigners and educated Thais. There are no shortcuts on the path to reconciling the difference between the role of the state and the role of its constituent individuals.

The simplest illustration of how misplaced the exasperation of many posters towards the Thaksin/ PTP situation is, is that whilst they understandably call for him to go to jail as the law dictates, for UDD leaders to be denied bail en masse on the basis of their charges of terrorism, for the general population to see through the allegedly apparent lies and scheming of the PTP, they are perfectly happy to accept a law which they would consider an outrage in their own country - lese majeste.

So on the one hand it's 'why isn't the law executed like it is in our own countries', and on the other it's 'we accept a law that in our own countries would be completely unacceptable'. Isn't there some dissonance here?

And whilst it is easy to say 'well it's their laws, so they should all stick to them', it is equally simple to ignore the nature of the evolution of statute laws in this country, the level of their general acceptance in everyday life, their applicability to specific strata and groups within society, and the other traditional factors which relegate them to a status some distance short of that in the West.

Whilst I would agree with the notion that universally applied and well enforced laws are something certainly worth aiming at, I believe it's a bit facile to rant about and question this indigenous system which allows accused suspects of terrorism to make political speeches and even convicted criminals to possibly return to lead a country.

Have you ever heard of a 'White-eyed River-martin'? It is a bird - like several other species - unique to Thailand. Let's not forget that like our own countries, this place has phenomena - and quite understandably so - that one cannot find anywhere else.

I'm a bit confused hanuman. Are you agreeing with the LM laws, as part of the Thai's "indigenous system"?

"they understandably call for him to go to jail as the law dictates" and "accept a law which they would consider an outrage" ... In both cases, it's the law.

What most people want is the law to be enforced. People are exasperated because the law seems to be applied so inconsistently.

IMO, most posters are not "happy to accept" the LM laws. But it is the law and I don't see any political party changing that law in the foreseeable future.

[JurgenG]

Regarding the couple of posts above, sometime we try to make complicated what is indeed a very simple matter.

So if there is an election tomorrow and a majority of people decide to vote (indirectly) for Thaksin amnesty, a number of people won't accept it. But if there is Royal pardon for Thaksin, nobody will contest it.

What does that say ?

Those people have no respect for democracy !

Q.E.D.

[Ricardo]

<snip for brevity>

IMO, most posters are not "happy to accept" the LM laws. But it is the law and I don't see any political party changing that law in the foreseeable future.

Agreed, were it possible to run a Poll or debate on this, I suspect that most TV-posters would be for free-speech.

But sometimes one has to accept the world as it is, and to encourage or applaud steps in what we believe to be the right direction, is the most that they feel able to do, in this particular case & at the present time.

[whybother]

Regarding the couple of posts above, sometime we try to make complicated what is indeed a very simple matter.

So if there is an election tomorrow and a majority of people decide to vote (indirectly) for Thaksin amnesty, a number of people won't accept it. But if there is Royal pardon for Thaksin, nobody will contest it.

What does that say ?

Those people have no respect for democracy !

Q.E.D.

There is a difference between people voting for a Thaksin amnesty and Thaksin getting a royal pardon.

Usually, a royal pardon is given after someone has plead or been found guilty AND spent some time in jail.

IMO, if people vote for a Thaksin amnesty so he doesn't have to spend any time in jail, then they have no respect for the law.

Will you accept that if the PTP don't get a majority, that Thaksin shouldn't get amnesty?

[jdinasia]

Regarding the couple of posts above, sometime we try to make complicated what is indeed a very simple matter.

So if there is an election tomorrow and a majority of people decide to vote (indirectly) for Thaksin amnesty, a number of people won't accept it. But if there is Royal pardon for Thaksin, nobody will contest it.

What does that say ?

Those people have no respect for democracy !

Q.E.D.

Again .... this, in light of regional political machines controlling the vote in most places upcountry, is a specious argument. If there were a referendum on an amnesty for Thaksin AND it got over 50% of the vote THEN it would be the will of the people and it still would not be correct in the spirit of Democracy (where people are treated as equals and bound by the same laws.)

A pardon is a totally different issue. To the best of my knowledge, Thaksin is not eligible for a pardon BUT a pardon is within the scope of law.

[JurgenG]

IMO, if people vote for a Thaksin amnesty so he doesn't have to spend any time in jail, then they have no respect for the law.

Democracy is a system where people decide what the law should be.

I believe our misunderstanding is because some people have problem to understand this concept.

[whybother]

IMO, if people vote for a Thaksin amnesty so he doesn't have to spend any time in jail, then they have no respect for the law.

Democracy is a system where people decide what the law should be.

I believe our misunderstanding is because some people have problem to understand this concept.

So, once again, will you accept that he shouldn't get amnesty if a majority do not vote for PTP?

[jdinasia]

IMO, if people vote for a Thaksin amnesty so he doesn't have to spend any time in jail, then they have no respect for the law.

Democracy is a system where people decide what the law should be.

I believe our misunderstanding is because some people have problem to understand this concept.

Democracy includes checks and balances, even against the tyranny of the majority. The rule of law is one of those.

[hanuman1]

How can anybody from an upbringing in a country where the rule of law is strictly enforced disagree?

But this is the problem. All these people saying Thaksin should go to jail, Thaksin broke the law, Thaksin is an awful role model, Thaksin will monopolize pawer, are simply ignoring the context into which they have brought their opinions and in many cases their lives.

Many point out the inherently feudal nature of Thai politics. 50-100 years of 'the modern world' (for want of a better phrase to describe the effect of western military and economic imperialism around the globe) is NOT going to fundamentally change centuries of tradition, no matter how appealing the alternative is to enlightened foreigners and educated Thais. There are no shortcuts on the path to reconciling the difference between the role of the state and the role of its constituent individuals.

The simplest illustration of how misplaced the exasperation of many posters towards the Thaksin/ PTP situation is, is that whilst they understandably call for him to go to jail as the law dictates, for UDD leaders to be denied bail en masse on the basis of their charges of terrorism, for the general population to see through the allegedly apparent lies and scheming of the PTP, they are perfectly happy to accept a law which they would consider an outrage in their own country - lese majeste.

So on the one hand it's 'why isn't the law executed like it is in our own countries', and on the other it's 'we accept a law that in our own countries would be completely unacceptable'. Isn't there some dissonance here?

And whilst it is easy to say 'well it's their laws, so they should all stick to them', it is equally simple to ignore the nature of the evolution of statute laws in this country, the level of their general acceptance in everyday life, their applicability to specific strata and groups within society, and the other traditional factors which relegate them to a status some distance short of that in the West.

Whilst I would agree with the notion that universally applied and well enforced laws are something certainly worth aiming at, I believe it's a bit facile to rant about and question this indigenous system which allows accused suspects of terrorism to make political speeches and even convicted criminals to possibly return to lead a country.

Have you ever heard of a 'White-eyed River-martin'? It is a bird - like several other species - unique to Thailand. Let's not forget that like our own countries, this place has phenomena - and quite understandably so - that one cannot find anywhere else.

I'm a bit confused hanuman. Are you agreeing with the LM laws, as part of the Thai's "indigenous system"?

"they understandably call for him to go to jail as the law dictates" and "accept a law which they would consider an outrage" ... In both cases, it's the law.

What most people want is the law to be enforced. People are exasperated because the law seems to be applied so inconsistently.

IMO, most posters are not "happy to accept" the LM laws. But it is the law and I don't see any political party changing that law in the foreseeable future.

I agree with LM inasmuch as I heed it and follow it's stipulations. Just like most of us.

My main point was that people shouldn't get their knickers in a twist about the law in general being 'applied so inconsistently'. The reasons why we shouldn't get so wound up were the subject of my previous post.

[rixalex]

IMO, if people vote for a Thaksin amnesty so he doesn't have to spend any time in jail, then they have no respect for the law.

Democracy is a system where people decide what the law should be.

I believe our misunderstanding is because some people have problem to understand this concept.

Nonsense. The electorate doesn't decide laws, it decides governments. Governments can change laws, but it has to be within the constitution and within the already established legal framework.

[Jawnie]

It seems rather complicated and difficult to discern completely and correctly about the elites, middle class, poor, have/have nots. I agree it will take a while longer if true democracy is to grow in Thailand. One thing that seems perfectly clear to me is that the military and the Army must be brought under civilian control, completely and totally - now and forever. Until the Army gets put back in the barricks and the generals are no longer allowed their own separate public voices (and tv stations), Thailand simply can not move forward on developing the democratic institutions in now lacks.

[taff33]

Never mind only one week to go

[JurgenG]

IMO, if people vote for a Thaksin amnesty so he doesn't have to spend any time in jail, then they have no respect for the law.

Democracy is a system where people decide what the law should be.

I believe our misunderstanding is because some people have problem to understand this concept.

Nonsense. The electorate doesn't decide laws, it decides governments. Governments can change laws, but it has to be within the constitution and within the already established legal framework.

Not really. One of Abhisit great fears is that the new government amends the constitution (as the junta did by the way). So it means the government is not bound by the constitution.

So it means that the people can chose a government that can amend the constitution and then change the law .

Basically the voters can change the law.

It's a long and complicated process, but they can do it.

[lannarebirth]

It seems rather complicated and difficult to discern completely and correctly about the elites, middle class, poor, have/have nots. I agree it will take a while longer if true democracy is to grow in Thailand. One thing that seems perfectly clear to me is that the military and the Army must be brought under civilian control, completely and totally - now and forever. Until the Army gets put back in the barricks and the generals are no longer allowed their own separate public voices (and tv stations), Thailand simply can not move forward on developing the democratic institutions in now lacks.

Couldn't agree more.

[jdinasia]

It seems rather complicated and difficult to discern completely and correctly about the elites, middle class, poor, have/have nots. I agree it will take a while longer if true democracy is to grow in Thailand. One thing that seems perfectly clear to me is that the military and the Army must be brought under civilian control, completely and totally - now and forever. Until the Army gets put back in the barricks and the generals are no longer allowed their own separate public voices (and tv stations), Thailand simply can not move forward on developing the democratic institutions in now lacks.

Couldn't agree more.

Me too!

The thing is that would require a change in the oath taken by the members of the military. Currently they take an oath to protect the head of state and the nation. There is no provision in the oath to protect the government nor the constitution. Next arises the issue of, if they take an oath to protect the constitution and some party/government tries changing it for the benefit of one man ............

[rixalex]

Democracy is a system where people decide what the law should be.

I believe our misunderstanding is because some people have problem to understand this concept.

Nonsense. The electorate doesn't decide laws, it decides governments. Governments can change laws, but it has to be within the constitution and within the already established legal framework.

Not really. One of Abhisit great fears is that the new government amends the constitution (as the junta did by the way). So it means the government is not bound by the constitution.

So it means that the people can chose a government that can amend the constitution and then change the law .

Basically the voters can change the law.

It's a long and complicated process, but they can do it.

Actually the junta didn't amend the constitution, they got rid of the old one and a number of academics wrote a new one, which then went to a referendum. At this point, yes, the citizens had a say in what the laws are. Likewise, if PTP are elected and have a referendum on who wants Thaksin to be whitewashed, then the people will become involved in deciding the law.

Whether or not it should be up to the electorate to decide, via a referendum, if a decision already passed by the judiciary be overturned, is up for debate. I would say no. I mean, how can the electorate possibly spend the time necessary going through all the details of the case, to make such a decision? Of course they can't. Not to mention the fact that the electorate, or at least the majority of it, has not spent years at university studying law. So how then could they come to an informed and a fair decision, based on what is in accordance with the law? They can't. The decision of the electorate would simply come down to each individual's personal feelings on whether they like the man or not. Is this OK with you? If yes, perhaps we can do away with the judiciary. Next time a suspected serial rapist is caught, government can show us all his picture, and we can vote on whether we think he was the culprit or not, whether or not he serves a life sentence or is set free. Next step to really get the public involved in a hands on way perhaps could be public stonings. Power to the people and all that.

[letitbe]

IMO, if people vote for a Thaksin amnesty so he doesn't have to spend any time in jail, then they have no respect for the law.

Democracy is a system where people decide what the law should be.

I believe our misunderstanding is because some people have problem to understand this concept.

so the german people decided to elect Hitler and most of them happily accepted law which said it was fine to have concentration camps and rest. Thats democracy is it ???

[cdnvic]

Please leave hitler out of this.

[EnhancePlus]

at least the THB will go down when PT gets into office. Good for farang ... power to the people