Mob Rule Disguised As Democracy; Thai Opinion

[hammered]

In a democracy it is wrong to talk about 'government legally imposes their will'. It's after long discussions, feed back from pro/anti, further deliberations, etc., etc. that new laws are accepted. Within the legal framework, constitution, and so on and so forth.

The coming government will be able to do the same, within the same framework, conditions, etc. Just having been able to form a majority coalition is no free pass to do just anything. Same with the previous government. The opposition will have it's say, question proposals, question legallity (without being too obstinate).

Italy is a good example of what can go wrong when a majority ruled by one pushes through laws to help cronies rather than the people. Of course Thailand has the (universal) right to learn from it's own mistakes, but do you really want them to do that?

What I intially said was: "Mmmm actually elected governments with a majority can do what they want as long as they do it through the constitutional system and not illegally." Stressing the part that covers all of the systemic procedure of debate, bill writing and sending to senate (which has an inbuilt establishment majority) etc etc. Which doesnt seem to differ from what you are saying tbh

By the way there are court cases in Italy against Berlusconi, so it would seem checks and balances are functioning.

[whybother]

The part you are making up is that there was a democratically elected government deposed by the army. That wasn't the case in 2006.

It was & you know it

It wasn't and you obviously don't.

Thaksin dissolved parliament in early 2006 for a snap election (only 12 months after him getting a huge landslide).

Thaksin was unable to form government following the election due to there not being enough elected MPs. In some electorates, TRT was unable to get more that 20% of the vote, even though they were the only candidates.

Later, the election was invalidated because polling booths were placed in way that the voters had no privacy.

Thaksin wasn't even legally care-taker PM as a couple of days after the election he stood down from the position ... only to self appoint himself again a little later.

To add insult to injury, the new election wasn't organised within the required within the required time frame.

So, there was no democratically elected government at the time of the coup. Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup. He wasn't even the proper care-taker PM.

[rubl]

In a democracy it is wrong to talk about 'government legally imposes their will'. It's after long discussions, feed back from pro/anti, further deliberations, etc., etc. that new laws are accepted. Within the legal framework, constitution, and so on and so forth.

The coming government will be able to do the same, within the same framework, conditions, etc. Just having been able to form a majority coalition is no free pass to do just anything. Same with the previous government. The opposition will have it's say, question proposals, question legallity (without being too obstinate).

Italy is a good example of what can go wrong when a majority ruled by one pushes through laws to help cronies rather than the people. Of course Thailand has the (universal) right to learn from it's own mistakes, but do you really want them to do that?

What I intially said was: "Mmmm actually elected governments with a majority can do what they want as long as they do it through the constitutional system and not illegally." Stressing the part that covers all of the systemic procedure of debate, bill writing and sending to senate (which has an inbuilt establishment majority) etc etc. Which doesnt seem to differ from what you are saying tbh

By the way there are court cases in Italy against Berlusconi, so it would seem checks and balances are functioning.

True, you did say that and we seem on line in that part. May be we should have had this topic closed before it drifted a bit back and forth.

As for checks and balances in Italy, PM Berlusconi did manage to push through some laws favouring himself or some cronies. It took awhile for the system to catch up. One may wonder if all would still be right without the Global Financial Crisis and budget balancing in Italy? Had TRT with k. Thaksin been in government in 2008 would Thaksinomics add to the GFC problems? With various 'goodies' schemes growth from exports started to get really essential.

Anyway topic 'Mob rule disguised as democracy'

Edited July 30, 2011 by rubl

[pisico]

The part you are making up is that there was a democratically elected government deposed by the army. That wasn't the case in 2006.

It was & you know it

It wasn't and you obviously don't.

Thaksin dissolved parliament in early 2006 for a snap election (only 12 months after him getting a huge landslide).

Thaksin was unable to form government following the election due to there not being enough elected MPs. In some electorates, TRT was unable to get more that 20% of the vote, even though they were the only candidates.

Later, the election was invalidated because polling booths were placed in way that the voters had no privacy.

Thaksin wasn't even legally care-taker PM as a couple of days after the election he stood down from the position ... only to self appoint himself again a little later.

To add insult to injury, the new election wasn't organised within the required within the required time frame.

So, there was no democratically elected government at the time of the coup. Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup. He wasn't even the proper care-taker PM.

So, according to "your version" of the events and facts, Thaksin was never elected in any elections. He was voted as PM by whom? The army?

Please, stop parsing and spinning and address the question: was Thaksin ever elected in an election? Was he the result of a coup d'etat? Black magic or something else?

[whybother]

Thaksin was unable to form government following the election due to there not being enough elected MPs. In some electorates, TRT was unable to get more that 20% of the vote, even though they were the only candidates.

what a load of crap twist it as much as you want it won't change what we all know . Also all these bias post against the incoming government are out of order.

Must be TV policy to support the elite as they think they are.

What are you going on about? Twist what? What has this got to do with the incoming government?

The law says that an unopposed candidate must get more than 20% of the vote. In 2006 there were a number of electorates where this didn't happen.

The law says that the government can't be formed until 95% of electorates have elected an MP. In 2006 there was not 95% of elected candidates.

Does your bias really stop you from accepting clear facts?

[snorkelador]

Wow! Talk to the hand, dude! :jap:

The part you are making up is that there was a democratically elected government deposed by the army. That wasn't the case in 2006.

It was & you know it

It wasn't and you obviously don't.

Thaksin dissolved parliament in early 2006 for a snap election (only 12 months after him getting a huge landslide).

Thaksin was unable to form government following the election due to there not being enough elected MPs. In some electorates, TRT was unable to get more that 20% of the vote, even though they were the only candidates.

Later, the election was invalidated because polling booths were placed in way that the voters had no privacy.

Thaksin wasn't even legally care-taker PM as a couple of days after the election he stood down from the position ... only to self appoint himself again a little later.

To add insult to injury, the new election wasn't organised within the required within the required time frame.

So, there was no democratically elected government at the time of the coup. Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup. He wasn't even the proper care-taker PM.

So, according to "your version" of the events and facts, Thaksin was never elected in any elections. He was voted as PM by whom? The army?

Please, stop parsing and spinning and address the question: was Thaksin ever elected in an election? Was he the result of a coup d'etat? Black magic or something else?

[whybother]

The part you are making up is that there was a democratically elected government deposed by the army. That wasn't the case in 2006.

It was & you know it

It wasn't and you obviously don't.

Thaksin dissolved parliament in early 2006 for a snap election (only 12 months after him getting a huge landslide).

Thaksin was unable to form government following the election due to there not being enough elected MPs. In some electorates, TRT was unable to get more that 20% of the vote, even though they were the only candidates.

Later, the election was invalidated because polling booths were placed in way that the voters had no privacy.

Thaksin wasn't even legally care-taker PM as a couple of days after the election he stood down from the position ... only to self appoint himself again a little later.

To add insult to injury, the new election wasn't organised within the required within the required time frame.

So, there was no democratically elected government at the time of the coup. Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup. He wasn't even the proper care-taker PM.

So, according to "your version" of the events and facts, Thaksin was never elected in any elections. He was voted as PM by whom? The army?

Please, stop parsing and spinning and address the question: was Thaksin ever elected in an election? Was he the result of a coup d'etat? Black magic or something else?

Why is it such a problem for Thaksin supporters to accept facts?

I didn't say Thaksin was never elected. I said he wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup.

It was Thaksin that dissolved parliament, which meant he was no longer PM. It was Thaksin that stepped down as care-taker PM after the election. Government couldn't be formed. A new election had been organised.

No matter how you want to twist it, you can't argue with those facts.

[rixalex]

No matter how guilty and/or convincted Thaksin was of those imputed crimes, there was a process in place in the Constitution and the power of Parliament to remove him and call for snap election or have the Depute PM take care of government until the new and proper elections were carried out. The army stepped in. That coup d'etat erased any semblances of Democracy in Thailand.

The process you talk about for dealing with crimes committed by the PM, we all saw in action in 2001. The process failed. Guilt was as clear to see as in the OJ case. Everyone saw it, even the gawd dam judges saw it, but didn't dare speak it. This was what began the downward spiral for democracy. The coup was just the bump as we hit the bottom and could go no further down.

[JAG]

The part you are making up is that there was a democratically elected government deposed by the army. That wasn't the case in 2006.

It was & you know it

Why does this return every week or so? Just another newbie who can't be bothered to do homework first? Agitation? Tell a lie often enough so it gets 'truth' status?

The care-taker government of k. Thaksin had a distinct illegal character. K. Thaksin had stepped down and come back again, second time without royal endorsement. The caretaker government tried to dismantle checks and balances by putting trustworthy persons (like Shinawatra family members) in crucial positions to be able to control judiciary, police, army, whatever. The planned election in October 2006 was beyond the legal limit according to the constitution. Etc., etc.

With Thailand basicly a democracy this could continue even with the illegal character. Almost like Belgium without a government for more than a year now, but without the illegal aspects

1. Why does it return? Because whichever way you slice it Thaksin was prime minister because he had been elected to that role. That the pre coup election failed to produce a quorum, because the democrats, aware that they would lose it boycotted it, does not change that. The EC currently declared it void (quelle surprise). The Army deposed him in a coup, and despite Thaksins faction winning again they were manoeuvered out of power using the courts and an Army brokered political stitch up. Thaksin, at the time he was deposed, had a greater claim on the premiership, based on a mandate, than the generals who deposed him, and started this whole business.

2. Comments about newbies are a cheap shot, and are not a means of browbeating anyone who does not subscribe to your view. The fact that you have been here, either in Thailand or on this forum, for a relatively long time, does not give your views any particular legitamacy, however impressive your post count.

3 Thaksin was deposed by an illegal military coup, his partys subsequent political victory was neutralised by a stitch up. The Thai electorate believe that, and they have given their judgement.

Edited July 30, 2011 by JAG

[DumFarang]

No matter how guilty and/or convincted Thaksin was of those imputed crimes, there was a process in place in the Constitution and the power of Parliament to remove him and call for snap election or have the Depute PM take care of government until the new and proper elections were carried out. The army stepped in. That coup d'etat erased any semblances of Democracy in Thailand.

The process you talk about for dealing with crimes committed by the PM, we all saw in action in 2001. The process failed. Guilt was as clear to see as in the OJ case. Everyone saw it, even the gawd dam judges saw it, but didn't dare speak it. This was what began the downward spiral for democracy. The coup was just the bump as we hit the bottom and could go no further down.

Also, it's important to not leave out the military's stranglehold on Thai politics. There was an interview at some point in time (I can't possibly be expected to reference it now) of one of the Thai Generals talking about politics. The gist of the question was, "what is the military's role in Thai politics?" The gist of the answer was from the General, "imagine Thai politics is a horse race and the PM is like the jockey. The powers that be can change the jockey and change employees who help get everything ready, but it's always going to be OUR horse."

[rubl]

1. Why does it return? Because whichever way you slice it Thaksin was prime minister because he had been elected to that role. That the pre coup election failed to produce a quorum, because the democrats, aware that they would lose it boycotted it, does not change that. The EC currently declared it void (quelle surprise). The Army deposed him in a coup, and despite Thaksins faction winning again they were manoeuvered out of power using the courts and an Army brokered political stitch up. Thaksin, at the time he was deposed, had a greater claim on the premiership, based on a mandate, than the generals who deposed him, and started this whole business.

2. Comments about newbies are a cheap shot, and are not a means of browbeating anyone who does not subscribe to your view. The fact that you have been here, either in Thailand or on this forum, for a relatively long time, does not give your views any particular legitamacy, however impressive your post count.

3 Thaksin was deposed by an illegal military coup, his partys subsequent political victory was neutralised by a stitch up. The Thai electorate believe that, and they have given their judgement.

ad.1. K. Thaksin was (barely) a caretaker PM whatever you may think. He became caretaker PM when he announced the new General Elections in Feb 2006, to be held in april 2006. Even with the elections held k. Thaksin was still caretaker PM only. Like caretaker PM Abhisit at this very moment. Had the elections not been voided k. Thaksin would have been endorsed as MP and most likely elected by the MP's as PM. As is was caretaker PM Thaksin passed authority to his deputy and went on holiday.

The election was voided whatever you personally may think of that. A new election was called immediately, but passed the legal limit. K. Thaksin didn't get (didn't ask?) royal endorsement so wasn't caretaker PM anymore.

As for starting this whole business, that was on the 23rd of January 2006 when a new Telecoms law came into effect and at the same day the Shinawatra clan sold their stake in Shinawatra holdings to Temasek without paying taxes. In 2000 or 2001 k. Thaksin had stated to be (amply) rich enough not to need to be corrupt.

ad.2. I have nothing against newbies, I was one myself a while ago. What annoys me, is seeing the same incorrect remarks coming back with a certain regularity. Mostly by newbies, that's the problem with re-incarnation, no past to remember, just new position.

ad.3. The coup was illegal, if understandable. The 'free pass' in the new constitution is equally understandable, and equally dubious. One of these days that part will be removed, but Thai society needs to evolve more before that can happen. The stitch up of two k. Thaksin proxy governments is well documented. Party executives caught on video bribing kamnan (I think) to bribe people. That's an offence in both old and new constitution. In the switch from the late PM Samak to PM Somchai to PM Abhisit, the outgoing PM had the legal option to call new general elections, they choose not to. Political haggling and voilà: PM Abhisit. Legally.

Some part of the electorate, the part red-shirt & UDD leaning and sufficiently indoctrinated with 'enlightening' speeches, have choosen for Pheu Thai. Fine, democracy, next week new parliament in session, another week a new PM. That's democracy, give it a try again.

The topic is 'Mob rule disguised as democracy'. To my opinion that means that all politically linked protest should move into the legal framework for controlled protests, controlled in the sense of planned with city officials, police, orderly, limited in time. The UDD with soon a number of leaders in parliament needs to rethink their position. A government party can't have a (loud) protest arm without loosing some legitimacy. The Dem's never had such a protest-arm. If PTP = UDD isn't true, Dems = PAD is certainly not true.

Edited July 30, 2011 by rubl

[Ricardo]

The care-taker government of k. Thaksin had a distinct illegal character. K. Thaksin had stepped down and come back again, second time without royal endorsement. The caretaker government tried to dismantle checks and balances by putting trustworthy persons (like Shinawatra family members) in crucial positions to be able to control judiciary, police, army, whatever. The planned election in October 2006 was beyond the legal limit according to the constitution. Etc., etc.

"second time without a royal endorsement"

This, for me, cuts to the heart of the matter. A government becomes legal when it is endorsed by the revered Head-of-State, as was the military-appointed one under former-PM Sorayud, and as Thaksin had been until he resigned as caretaker-PM shortly after the later-to-be-annulled before-the-coup April-2006 election.

Governments and even constitutions may come and go, but the State continues, the basic protection of the Thai people. :jap:

Edited July 31, 2011 by metisdead
Removed deleted post and comments addressing that post.

[Crushdepth]

No matter how guilty and/or convincted Thaksin was of those imputed crimes, there was a process in place in the Constitution and the power of Parliament to remove him and call for snap election or have the Depute PM take care of government until the new and proper elections were carried out. The army stepped in. That coup d'etat erased any semblances of Democracy in Thailand.

I understand where you are coming from, but your comments assume that Thailand had a functioning system of governance at the time. It didn't. The government was dismantling the checks and balances designed to limit its powers. The coup was an ugly but arguably necessary reset switch.

You can't break the rules and expect other people to play fair. Fix the governance and the coups will go away.

[pisico]

The part you are making up is that there was a democratically elected government deposed by the army. That wasn't the case in 2006.

It was & you know it

Why does this return every week or so? Just another newbie who can't be bothered to do homework first? Agitation? Tell a lie often enough so it gets 'truth' status?

The care-taker government of k. Thaksin had a distinct illegal character. K. Thaksin had stepped down and come back again, second time without royal endorsement. The caretaker government tried to dismantle checks and balances by putting trustworthy persons (like Shinawatra family members) in crucial positions to be able to control judiciary, police, army, whatever. The planned election in October 2006 was beyond the legal limit according to the constitution. Etc., etc.

With Thailand basicly a democracy this could continue even with the illegal character. Almost like Belgium without a government for more than a year now, but without the illegal aspects

1. Why does it return? Because whichever way you slice it Thaksin was prime minister because he had been elected to that role. That the pre coup election failed to produce a quorum, because the democrats, aware that they would lose it boycotted it, does not change that. The EC currently declared it void (quelle surprise). The Army deposed him in a coup, and despite Thaksins faction winning again they were manoeuvered out of power using the courts and an Army brokered political stitch up. Thaksin, at the time he was deposed, had a greater claim on the premiership, based on a mandate, than the generals who deposed him, and started this whole business.

2. Comments about newbies are a cheap shot, and are not a means of browbeating anyone who does not subscribe to your view. The fact that you have been here, either in Thailand or on this forum, for a relatively long time, does not give your views any particular legitamacy, however impressive your post count.

3 Thaksin was deposed by an illegal military coup, his partys subsequent political victory was neutralised by a stitch up. The Thai electorate believe that, and they have given their judgement.

Articulated brilliantly and to the point. I wholly agree with your statements.

Regarding number 2: It is a turn off for newcomers to read the supercilious name calling, the "shut up, listen and learn newbie: we are the only truth" and/or "we are holier than thou" of the old timers. That is the unionist principle of seniority: all is needed is not talent, but to stick around long enough. I have referred 4 friends to this TV forum and they have shied away because of such comments hurled at them by the old timers. I wonder what the owner of TV will do if he knows that people are repelled by such condescending comments? TV is a good forum but it is also a business and it has an owner. Clicks are the name of the game. If no newcomers join, or if the new ones that join are repelled, TV advertisers will migrate to other forums. It's only a matter of time.

This being said, I know that those irrepressible "we are holier than thou" members will not accept these facts, your views and will deny reality.

The vote was against Abhisit, the Democrats, the Yellow shirts and the army. They won. You lost. Deal with it!

[Crushdepth]

Comments about 'newbies' often arise because they are often spectacularly ignorant of life, death and other abuses under Thaksin's government. If you are a recent arrival, subscribing to the anti-coup movement may seem cool, just and fashionable. But in 2006, rabid pro-Thaksin supporters were a distinct minority on this board, the atmosphere in Thailand was oppressive and the media were self-censoring out of fear. More than 3,000 people had been butchered in extra-judicial killings.

The overwhelming reaction to the coup was not despair, it was relief. But if you weren't here you probably don't know that. You probably have no clue what he he was. And it's quite easy to believe the output of his successful 5-year propaganda and armed provocateur campaign. That's the whole point of propaganda: Influence the uninformed.

So yeah, when I see a foreigner espousing the 'evil of the coup' or who is living in some fantasy Thailand where order *and* law prevails, I tend to think you just got off the bus. Sorry if you find that offensive, but there aren't too many polite ways to tell people that they are ignorant.

Are you familiar with the Tak Bai massacre? That's a good point to start your education.

Edited August 1, 2011 by sbk
inflammatory comment removed-sbk

[animatic]

'whybother' timestamp='1312002880' post='4592018'

The part you are making up is that there was a democratically elected government deposed by the army. That wasn't the case in 2006.

It was & you know it

Why does this return every week or so? Just another newbie who can't be bothered to do homework first? Agitation? Tell a lie often enough so it gets 'truth' status?

The care-taker government of k. Thaksin had a distinct illegal character. K. Thaksin had stepped down and come back again, second time without royal endorsement. The caretaker government tried to dismantle checks and balances by putting trustworthy persons (like Shinawatra family members) in crucial positions to be able to control judiciary, police, army, whatever. The planned election in October 2006 was beyond the legal limit according to the constitution. Etc., etc.

With Thailand basicly a democracy this could continue even with the illegal character. Almost like Belgium without a government for more than a year now, but without the illegal aspects

1. Why does it return? Because whichever way you slice it Thaksin was prime minister because he had been elected to that role. That the pre coup election failed to produce a quorum, because the democrats, aware that they would lose it boycotted it, does not change that. The EC currently declared it void (quelle surprise). The Army deposed him in a coup, and despite Thaksins faction winning again they were manoeuvered out of power using the courts and an Army brokered political stitch up. Thaksin, at the time he was deposed, had a greater claim on the premiership, based on a mandate, than the generals who deposed him, and started this whole business.

2. Comments about newbies are a cheap shot, and are not a means of browbeating anyone who does not subscribe to your view. The fact that you have been here, either in Thailand or on this forum, for a relatively long time, does not give your views any particular legitamacy, however impressive your post count.

3 Thaksin was deposed by an illegal military coup, his partys subsequent political victory was neutralised by a stitch up. The Thai electorate believe that, and they have given their judgement.

Articulated brilliantly and to the point. I wholly agree with your statements.

Regarding number 2: It is a turn off for newcomers to read the supercilious name calling, the "shut up, listen and learn newbie: we are the only truth" and/or "we are holier than thou" of the old timers. That is the unionist principle of seniority: all is needed is not talent, but to stick around long enough. I have referred 4 friends to this TV forum and they have shied away because of such comments hurled at them by the old timers. I wonder what the owner of TV will do if he knows that people are repelled by such condescending comments? TV is a good forum but it is also a business and it has an owner. Clicks are the name of the game. If no newcomers join, or if the new ones that join are repelled, TV advertisers will migrate to other forums. It's only a matter of time.

This being said, I know that those irrepressible "we are holier than thou" members will not accept these facts, your views and will deny reality.

The vote was against Abhisit, the Democrats, the Yellow shirts and the army. They won. You lost. Deal with it!

#1 Articulated brilliantly and to the point.

And in most aspects factually incorrect.

As has been noted here endlessly, and then ignored by the biased.

Naught more than the Propaganda Version of events.

It's all out there in black and white, on numerous search engines and pages. Why bother with the historical revisionism at this late stage, except to attempt to justify something not worth bothering with. Or use numbers of posts to sway search engines and press research assistants reports, all to burnish a legend in the making. Oh wait that's modern propagandizing.

#2 yes some newbies get a shellacking,

but there is also a high percentage of 'questionable newbies' and so

there is little grace period to prove their are not a repeat banned returned, or a new partisan coming in to fight the good fight. Newbies coming in parroting the same old non-factual propaganda lines are a classic case in point. If you want to be respected and not hassled, at least try and deal with facts, and not propaganda to make your arguments. Otherwise fair game to have your points rendered asunder.

So till a newbie shows independence of thought and some modicum of research, he is generally not trusted as some new oracle.

THIS goes for BOTH sides of the political spectrum here.

#3 yes there was a switch up while PTP was playing catch up,

And this was done via parliamentary procedures, probably best if they had just called a snap election, that was Somchai's chance, he didn't do it. Burt he was generally ineffectual anyway.

If TRT PPP dregs had it together the switch up couldn't have happened.They dropped the ball while in disarray. They had time to plan, but they didn't, from arrogance I suspect

If Thaksin hadn't stomped in Newin in Hong Kong, this also likely would not have happened. PTP back then clearly was not the organized machine it was in July '11, public speaking cockups not withstanding.

Edited July 30, 2011 by animatic

[DumFarang]

Comments about 'newbies' often arise because they are often spectacularly ignorant of life, death and other abuses under Thaksin's government. If you are a recent arrival, subscribing to the anti-coup movement may seem cool, just and fashionable. But in 2006, rabid pro-Thaksin supporters were a distinct minority on this board, the atmosphere in Thailand was oppressive and the media were self-censoring out of fear. More than 3,000 people had been butchered in extra-judicial killings.

The overwhelming reaction to the coup was not despair, it was relief. But if you weren't here you probably don't know that. You probably have no clue what he was. And it's quite easy to believe the output of his successful 5-year propaganda and armed provocateur campaign. That's the whole point of propaganda: Influence the uninformed.

So yeah, when I see a foreigner espousing the 'evil of the coup' or who is living in some fantasy Thailand where order *and* law prevails, I tend to think you just got off the bus. Sorry if you find that offensive, but there aren't too many polite ways to tell people that they are ignorant.

Are you familiar with the Tak Bai massacre? That's a good point to start your education.

It's true. There really are some people who come on here spouting off about democracy and give the man a chance etc. It's foolish, and if some people want to weigh in on serious matters despite such a rudimentary comprehension of events, and then they decide to be so offended when corrected even if, admittedly it can at times be harsh, they should survey the waters they dare tread into a bit more thoroughly before weighing in.

As another member pointed out we're not talking about some of the bigger crises that do exist in the world (Iceland's problems were referenced), however we are talking about events that people feel passionately about. People who live here. This isn't an Icelandic forum, a European, or an American one. So, given the locale and the topics it is supremely important to some people here. I'm not trying to hate, just saying test the waters first.

[hellodolly]

Comments about 'newbies' often arise because they are often spectacularly ignorant of life, death and other abuses under Thaksin's government. If you are a recent arrival, subscribing to the anti-coup movement may seem cool, just and fashionable. But in 2006, rabid pro-Thaksin supporters were a distinct minority on this board, the atmosphere in Thailand was oppressive and the media were self-censoring out of fear. More than 3,000 people had been butchered in extra-judicial killings.

The overwhelming reaction to the coup was not despair, it was relief. But if you weren't here you probably don't know that. You probably have no clue what he was. And it's quite easy to believe the output of his successful 5-year propaganda and armed provocateur campaign. That's the whole point of propaganda: Influence the uninformed.

So yeah, when I see a foreigner espousing the 'evil of the coup' or who is living in some fantasy Thailand where order *and* law prevails, I tend to think you just got off the bus. Sorry if you find that offensive, but there aren't too many polite ways to tell people that they are ignorant.

Are you familiar with the Tak Bai massacre? That's a good point to start your education.

I made the decision when to come back to Thailand for a further 6 month study the day of the coup. So no I was not here but that in no way stopped me from knowing the facts. Not only was Thaksin a crook but he was responsible for mass murders. I remember seeing a picture of a elderly lady handing flowers up to a soldier in a tank.

It is down right disgusting when people deliberately lie about Thaksin's atrocities and lead the newbie's down the primrose path. They are equal to the scammers who hit on the newly arrived tourists.

One other point some of these newbie's are just posters who have made a complete fool of them selves and had to change their name.

In all likely hood if your computer could show you a real time picture of these posters you would see a disgruntled older person sitting at their keyboards all day long in their underwear pounding out any old crap that would justify their erroneous opinion. Real facts have nothing to do with their lives.

[moe666]

I think the tea party has arrived at Thaivisa, we will ignore the facts that are avaliable at many sources other than Thaivisa. I was In Thailand and watched on television as protestors where beaten and thrown into trucks to die on the way to army base. Who was PM and incharge Thaksin. Learn a bit about the man you seem to think got a raw deal.

[pisico]

Comments about 'newbies' often arise because they are often spectacularly ignorant of life, death and other abuses under Thaksin's government. If you are a recent arrival, subscribing to the anti-coup movement may seem cool, just and fashionable. But in 2006, rabid pro-Thaksin supporters were a distinct minority on this board, the atmosphere in Thailand was oppressive and the media were self-censoring out of fear. More than 3,000 people had been butchered in extra-judicial killings.

The overwhelming reaction to the coup was not despair, it was relief. But if you weren't here you probably don't know that. You probably have no clue what he was. And it's quite easy to believe the output of his successful 5-year propaganda and armed provocateur campaign. That's the whole point of propaganda: Influence the uninformed.

So yeah, when I see a foreigner espousing the 'evil of the coup' or who is living in some fantasy Thailand where order *and* law prevails, I tend to think you just got off the bus. Sorry if you find that offensive, but there aren't too many polite ways to tell people that they are ignorant.

Are you familiar with the Tak Bai massacre? That's a good point to start your education.

So someone who is anti coup (as they are carried out in banana republics) automatically "has to be" pro Thaksin. That's faulty elitist logic.

Someone opposed to using the force of the army to stifle the will and voice of the people is not necessarily pro Thaksin.

That assumption of some in this forum who constantly talk about "mob rule" and the ignorant and uncultured Thai people should rethink the reasons they are here.

I do not sit all day in front of the computer waiting for someone who disagrees with my views to respond from a high throne and call them names and be condescending towards them. That is uncivil.

You show your stripes when you treat newbies disrespectfully.

Just because someone does not have all the facts (as you see them or think they are) that is not a valid reason to call names or treat condescendingly those newbies.

Following that logic, teachers should insult their pupils because they are ignorant of what they already know?

We are all foreigners and none of us is a member of the government or the Bangkok elite. Bangkok is not Thailand.

Learn to be gracious. instruct and inform instead of being rude and condescending. If those who insult and mistreat newbies are so superior, what are they doing in this forum? Why they are not in charge of a high office in the Democrats or government? You wish you were, you feel you are, but you are not.

[Crushdepth]

Comments about 'newbies' often arise because they are often spectacularly ignorant of life, death and other abuses under Thaksin's government. If you are a recent arrival, subscribing to the anti-coup movement may seem cool, just and fashionable. But in 2006, rabid pro-Thaksin supporters were a distinct minority on this board, the atmosphere in Thailand was oppressive and the media were self-censoring out of fear. More than 3,000 people had been butchered in extra-judicial killings.

The overwhelming reaction to the coup was not despair, it was relief. But if you weren't here you probably don't know that. You probably have no clue what he was. And it's quite easy to believe the output of his successful 5-year propaganda and armed provocateur campaign. That's the whole point of propaganda: Influence the uninformed.

So yeah, when I see a foreigner espousing the 'evil of the coup' or who is living in some fantasy Thailand where order *and* law prevails, I tend to think you just got off the bus. Sorry if you find that offensive, but there aren't too many polite ways to tell people that they are ignorant.

Are you familiar with the Tak Bai massacre? That's a good point to start your education.

So someone who is anti coup (as they are carried out in banana republics) automatically "has to be" pro Thaksin. That's faulty elitist logic.

Someone opposed to using the force of the army to stifle the will and voice of the people is not necessarily pro Thaksin.

That assumption of some in this forum who constantly talk about "mob rule" and the ignorant and uncultured Thai people should rethink the reasons they are here.

I do not sit all day in front of the computer waiting for someone who disagrees with my views to respond from a high throne and call them names and be condescending towards them. That is uncivil.

You show your stripes when you treat newbies disrespectfully.

Just because someone does not have all the facts (as you see them or think they are) that is not a valid reason to call names or treat condescendingly those newbies.

Following that logic, teachers should insult their pupils because they are ignorant of what they already know?

We are all foreigners and none of us is a member of the government or the Bangkok elite. Bangkok is not Thailand.

Learn to be gracious. instruct and inform instead of being rude and condescending. If those who insult and mistreat newbies are so superior, what are they doing in this forum? Why they are not in charge of a high office in the Democrats or government? You wish you were, you feel you are, but you are not.

Who's being disrespectful and insulting? All I said was: If you didn't experience it, you probably don't know what it was like, and parroting propaganda to those that did is like having a timestamp printed on your forehead.

Did you look up Tak Bai?

[DumFarang]

Yeah so anyway...the mob and stuff like the article was talking about. Or are certain people going to continue being too preoccupied dragging Thaksin into any and every problem Thailand has?

[rixalex]

So someone who is anti coup (as they are carried out in banana republics) automatically "has to be" pro Thaksin.

I am anti coup but i would say what separates me from the pro-Thaksin crowd is that i can knowledgeable that it was Thaksin himself who laid the conditions for the coup, and that had he not screwed about changing laws days before selling his business to foreigners, and done so dodging massive tax payments and benefiting from dodgy share dealings that stunk of insider-trading, then the likelihood is there would never have been a coup in the first place.

[Thaddeus]

Yeah so anyway...the mob and stuff like the article was talking about. Or are certain people going to continue being too preoccupied dragging Thaksin into any and every problem Thailand has?

Perhaps, but only when he stops voluntarily involving himself.

[ginjag]

Yeah so anyway...the mob and stuff like the article was talking about. Or are certain people going to continue being too preoccupied dragging Thaksin into any and every problem Thailand has?

Perhaps, but only when he stops voluntarily involving himself.

EXACTLY---+1

[DumFarang]

Yeah so anyway...the mob and stuff like the article was talking about. Or are certain people going to continue being too preoccupied dragging Thaksin into any and every problem Thailand has?

Perhaps, but only when he stops voluntarily involving himself.

Fair enough I suppose.

[pisico]

So someone who is anti coup (as they are carried out in banana republics) automatically "has to be" pro Thaksin.

I am anti coup but i would say what separates me from the pro-Thaksin crowd is that i can knowledgeable that it was Thaksin himself who laid the conditions for the coup, and that had he not screwed about changing laws days before selling his business to foreigners, and done so dodging massive tax payments and benefiting from dodgy share dealings that stunk of insider-trading, then the likelihood is there would never have been a coup in the first place.

Hypothetical. If Thaksin had not done this or that, etc.

Nevertheless, what you are saying is tantamount to this: "If he had not hit me first I would have never shot him", lamely the aggressor said to the police. Puerile justifications to unspeakable acts.

Thaksin did crocked dealings. He should have been impeached, as Clinton was during his first administration. Thaksin should have been prosecuted, impeached and kicked out of office, however long it took. That is the road of Democracy.

The problem is that to this day (and more days to come in the future) Thaksin haters (and democrat lovers) will not admit that a coup is not what Democracy is all about.

Allende in Chile was deposed by a coup d'etat because he was deemed to be a leftist. Was that democratic when he had been elected by the people, in spite of the socialist policies that he enacted?

A coup is a coup is a coup. No matter if it happens in Thailand or Chile.

Any political side can come with the right rational to justify negation of democratic principles and impose the will of the army backed by a friendly elite, to setup a likewise government.

PTP won. Democrats, Abhisit and yellow shirts lost. That is a fact no matter how much it hurts you. Move on and stop dwelling in the past.

[rixalex]

Hypothetical. If Thaksin had not done this or that, etc.

Nevertheless, what you are saying is tantamount to this: "If he had not hit me first I would have never shot him", lamely the aggressor said to the police. Puerile justifications to unspeakable acts.

OK. Going by your philosophy then, to say the violent protests by the red shirts in 2009 and 2010 were a reaction to the coup and would never have happened were not for the coup, is just a puerile justification to an unspeakable act.

Thaksin did crocked dealings. He should have been impeached, as Clinton was during his first administration. Thaksin should have been prosecuted, impeached and kicked out of office, however long it took. That is the road of Democracy.

That's all well and good, but democracy depends on there being checks and balances. Once these are taken away, you are no longer on the road to democracy, you are on a different road altogether. Just look at Cambodia for an example of what can happen.

[DumFarang]

PTP won. Democrats, Abhisit and yellow shirts lost. That is a fact no matter how much it hurts you. Move on and stop dwelling in the past.

Every time I see the "PTP won by democratic process so just get over it" argument I just have to laugh. For starters, can anyone tell me what era ended when that happened that we're supposed to stop talking about? Did someone pen it as a rule somewhere? Did I not get the memo?

Secondly, the question the article raises is the exact reason we should still be talking about it. Thailand may very well be on the verge of devolving into mob rule right on the heels of a successful democratic election. What are we supposed to not be talking about again?

Thirdly, if a mobocracy is developing right before our very eyes it's Thaksin's little intimidation machine that's driving the bus, and he may lose control of it. I don't see why a discussion about how potentially awful this/Thaksin is should be censored and limited to only the Thaksin of today, conveniently dredging nothing up from his murky past when there are so many examples.

For instance (one possible future), "hey Bob."

"Hey Tom."

"Bob, do you remember a few years back when Thaksin got caught in all those shady tax evasion schemes?"

"Yeah, Tom I do. Why?"

"Well don't these funky corporate sell offs happening right now that Yingluck promised she has nothing to do with look like exactly the same thing?"

"Tom, I think you're right."

(together) "hmmm"

[Crushdepth]

So someone who is anti coup (as they are carried out in banana republics) automatically "has to be" pro Thaksin.

I am anti coup but i would say what separates me from the pro-Thaksin crowd is that i can knowledgeable that it was Thaksin himself who laid the conditions for the coup, and that had he not screwed about changing laws days before selling his business to foreigners, and done so dodging massive tax payments and benefiting from dodgy share dealings that stunk of insider-trading, then the likelihood is there would never have been a coup in the first place.

Hypothetical. If Thaksin had not done this or that, etc.

Nevertheless, what you are saying is tantamount to this: "If he had not hit me first I would have never shot him", lamely the aggressor said to the police. Puerile justifications to unspeakable acts.

Thaksin did crocked dealings. He should have been impeached, as Clinton was during his first administration. Thaksin should have been prosecuted, impeached and kicked out of office, however long it took. That is the road of Democracy.

The problem is that to this day (and more days to come in the future) Thaksin haters (and democrat lovers) will not admit that a coup is not what Democracy is all about.

Allende in Chile was deposed by a coup d'etat because he was deemed to be a leftist. Was that democratic when he had been elected by the people, in spite of the socialist policies that he enacted?

A coup is a coup is a coup. No matter if it happens in Thailand or Chile.

Any political side can come with the right rational to justify negation of democratic principles and impose the will of the army backed by a friendly elite, to setup a likewise government.

PTP won. Democrats, Abhisit and yellow shirts lost. That is a fact no matter how much it hurts you. Move on and stop dwelling in the past.

Once again, you found your arguments on the assumption that Thailand has an effective system of governance, when obviously it does not. When governance is subverted there *is no rule of law*. The legal mechanisms to impeach, punish and kick people out no longer function because they have been corrupted. Get it?

You can't break the rules and expect other people to play fair, especially when you are killing them. People will fight dirty too.