Bangkok Governor Blamed On Flooding Mismanagement

[Skywalker69]

I was told it would be impossible to remove the Governor based on his bloodline/family connections.......more likely the government would be removed before the Governor.

Interesting little power struggle going on......

Before YS does anything, it is worth to check who is the grand-father of the current Governor.

Just checked that out on Wikipedia.

Holy crap DIRECTLY related to a man who is still HIGHLY revered.

Kicking him out and making him lose face would be a a very rash move and would certainly bite the PT in the ass.

edit: YS is not stupid enough to kick him out. She knows his history, you can be sure of that.

I had to check as well. I 100% agree. Good luck in removing him, the will stepp in shit deeper than the flood!

[sjaak327]

Lets recall that at the moment of the coup Thaksins caretaker time has expired, he opened parliament with less than the amount of MPs necessary.

So technically he wasn't premier anymore and technically the parliament was illegal. So it wasn't a usual coup.

The whole purpose was to establish democracy again. No evil military dictator wanted to control Thailand. Instead they made an election as soon as possible. And actually too soon.

You conveniently forgot to mention that a general election (the ultimate form of democracy) was scheduled 4 weeks AFTER the coup took place. The coup was staged because the results of that election was feared, as became apparent when Samak won, and even more so when Yinluck won. Democracy isn't for everyone or so it seems. Accepting the results of a general elections and the direct consequences of those elections is what seem to be lacking here. Too bad.

It is time that certain people in Thailand start accepting the will of the people, if that will leads to an overly corrupt government so be it.

[DocN]

Lets recall that at the moment of the coup Thaksins caretaker time has expired, he opened parliament with less than the amount of MPs necessary.

So technically he wasn't premier anymore and technically the parliament was illegal. So it wasn't a usual coup.

The whole purpose was to establish democracy again. No evil military dictator wanted to control Thailand. Instead they made an election as soon as possible. And actually too soon.

I recall that.

Let's also keep in mind, that practically the same people won the next election and it so would be highly likely that TS would have won "his" election as well.

Therefor the Army was acting as a kind of "political police".

But my point is: 2 wrongs don't make a right!

May his actions have been illegal (not really a discussion about that)- the coup still was illegal.

[noahvail]

How about we all get back to the topic and get off the historical coup subject...

[whybother]

Overthrowing a corrupt and incompetent government no matter how many misguided supporters that government has, is still overthrowing a corrupt and incompetent government. It's the right thing to do.

There'd never be a government in Thailand again if the army threw out corrupt governments. Even their own junta government would need to be thrown out.

Anyway, you can't argue for a coup to throw out the PT government and argue against Chalerm sacking the democratically elected Bangkok government.

Edited November 9, 2011 by whybother

[Skywalker69]

Deputy PM Reserved on BKK Governor Dismissal

A deputy prime minister said the dismissal of the Bangkok governor is a serious issue and therefore should not be considered during this critical time.

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung talked about rumors about the dismissal of the Bangkok governor, saying that he personally thinks it is unnecessary at this time since it is a very important issue.

He said the Bangkok governor is working well with the government even though he is with the opposition Democrat Party.

Chalerm said the dismissal of the governor is not officially his responsibility, but there have been recent discussions that it would be legally feasible for him to issue the order under the Administrative Act of 1985.

Regarding the killings of 13 Chinese boat crewmen that Chalerm has been supervising for over two weeks, Chalerm said that the case is going well and the Chinese government is satisfied with Thai government's handling of the case.

He further said the case is under his authority as well as the National Police Office and does not involve any other units.

He said that each legal procedure must be in compliance with the law and applied impartially.

-- Tan Network 2011-11-09

They must have been told he is untoucheble!!

Good luck, kicking him out!

[pimay11]

Deputy PM Reserved on BKK Governor Dismissal

A deputy prime minister said the dismissal of the Bangkok governor is a serious issue and therefore should not be considered during this critical time.

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung talked about rumors about the dismissal of the Bangkok governor, saying that he personally thinks it is unnecessary at this time since it is a very important issue.

He said the Bangkok governor is working well with the government even though he is with the opposition Democrat Party.

Chalerm said the dismissal of the governor is not officially his responsibility, but there have been recent discussions that it would be legally feasible for him to issue the order under the Administrative Act of 1985.

Regarding the killings of 13 Chinese boat crewmen that Chalerm has been supervising for over two weeks, Chalerm said that the case is going well and the Chinese government is satisfied with Thai government's handling of the case.

He further said the case is under his authority as well as the National Police Office and does not involve any other units.

He said that each legal procedure must be in compliance with the law and applied impartially.

-- Tan Network 2011-11-09

They must have been told he is untoucheble!!

Good luck, kicking him out!

Anyone want to make a stab at what the good Governor's response to Chalerm will be?

[rogerdee123]

We were talking about legal, as some posters on here treat a coup or even justify it, calling it legal.

Nothing else!

Idi Amin, Hitler...yeah, go ahead!

But just think about it for a second: the case is not so clear, when it comes to Thaksin (f.e.), because obviously not EVERYBODY wanted it. A big part of Thailands population actually was NOT in favor of the Army, no matter how many people in Bangkok were draping flower- garlands around tank- cannons.

And now tell me: where do YOU draw the line?

I can understand your argument Doc

I thought we were talking about a potential coup now ..... not the Thaksin coup

But anyway I think the Thaksin coup was also justified.

Marcos could have said the majority of the people voted for him too. There are also elections in Laos and everyone wins by landslides. They have laws there too. And they throw people in jail who opposed the Govt.

"Checks and Balances" in the political definition .... some way to deal with a Govt gone bad.

In Thailand the military has played that role historically. I agree it would be better to have an independent judiciary and independent legislative branch but in my opinion few countries anywhere have that ... maybe the US included.

I believe that there are situations where a military coup is justified ... whether legal or not. And I'm not saying it's justified in every case.

We can agree to disagree on this and that's cool.

[rubl]

Deputy PM Reserved on BKK Governor Dismissal

A deputy prime minister said the dismissal of the Bangkok governor is a serious issue and therefore should not be considered during this critical time.

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung talked about rumors about the dismissal of the Bangkok governor, saying that he personally thinks it is unnecessary at this time since it is a very important issue.

He said the Bangkok governor is working well with the government even though he is with the opposition Democrat Party.

Chalerm said the dismissal of the governor is not officially his responsibility, but there have been recent discussions that it would be legally feasible for him to issue the order under the Administrative Act of 1985.

... rest removed

-- Tan Network 2011-11-09

Whether or not the dismissal of Bangkok's governor is a serious issue is besides the point. There should be a reason to discuss this. Same with Dept. PM Chalerm now saying "not necessary at this time since it's an important issue". If it's so important there should be very valid and urgent reason to discuss it. If not, why even mention the possible discussion of a removal? Similar why recent discussions of a legal feasibility for him to issue a dismissal order? Just for the fun of it? Nothing better to do? Suddenly interested in the niceties of phrasing in legal acts

[rogerdee123]

Well on a related note regarding removing governors.

This Govt removed the governor of PT province (I think) a couple of weeks ago, for no apparent reason other than the fact that he wasn't PTP. OK I mean they claimed he handled the floods badly, but people (from every color) in that Province don't think this is true. And I don't know how that Province voted in this last election but I think PTP has lost a lot of votes there ... as they have in Prae and that other Province where they recently disbanded the Red Shirt movement because they were trying to get local red shirts to vote for their PTP candidates who the local people didn't want as their leaders.

Now in regard to the legal issue, removing the PT Gov was less ambiguous legally than the issue of removing the Bkk Gov.

And I predict they will continue to remove every Gov (followed by other local officials ... same same police chiefs) that are not PTP as time goes on.

I think the electorate is starting to see the elephant in the room.

[lannarebirth]

Well on a related note regarding removing governors.

This Govt removed the governor of PT province (I think) a couple of weeks ago, for no apparent reason other than the fact that he wasn't PTP. OK I mean they claimed he handled the floods badly, but people (from every color) in that Province don't think this is true. And I don't know how that Province voted in this last election but I think PTP has lost a lot of votes there ... as they have in Prae and that other Province where they recently disbanded the Red Shirt movement because they were trying to get local red shirts to vote for their PTP candidates who the local people didn't want as their leaders.

Now in regard to the legal issue, removing the PT Gov was less ambiguous legally than the issue of removing the Bkk Gov.

And I predict they will continue to remove every Gov (followed by other local officials ... same same police chiefs) that are not PTP as time goes on.

I think the electorate is starting to see the elephant in the room.

Nothing very subtle about that mob, is there?

[whybother]

Well on a related note regarding removing governors.

This Govt removed the governor of PT province (I think) a couple of weeks ago, for no apparent reason other than the fact that he wasn't PTP. OK I mean they claimed he handled the floods badly, but people (from every color) in that Province don't think this is true. And I don't know how that Province voted in this last election but I think PTP has lost a lot of votes there ... as they have in Prae and that other Province where they recently disbanded the Red Shirt movement because they were trying to get local red shirts to vote for their PTP candidates who the local people didn't want as their leaders.

Now in regard to the legal issue, removing the PT Gov was less ambiguous legally than the issue of removing the Bkk Gov.

And I predict they will continue to remove every Gov (followed by other local officials ... same same police chiefs) that are not PTP as time goes on.

I think the electorate is starting to see the elephant in the room.

The governors of the provinces are appointed by the government, so the government would have the right to replace them.

All they need is a convenient excuse. Which they got.

Edited November 9, 2011 by whybother

[animatic]

Scapegoating 101

Blame the intended target early and often.

Facts are optional, sling mud till some sticks.

Bets on whether the head of Irrigation, who's paper pushers screwed the pooch on pump allocation paperwork, called in some favors from PTP buddies, to politically slay the one who's accurate facts made him look like the utter PRAT he seems to be?

Sorry dude that face is completely lost no winning it back by spinning blame.

Edited November 9, 2011 by animatic

[marquess]

Well on a related note regarding removing governors.

This Govt removed the governor of PT province (I think) a couple of weeks ago, for no apparent reason other than the fact that he wasn't PTP. OK I mean they claimed he handled the floods badly, but people (from every color) in that Province don't think this is true. And I don't know how that Province voted in this last election but I think PTP has lost a lot of votes there ... as they have in Prae and that other Province where they recently disbanded the Red Shirt movement because they were trying to get local red shirts to vote for their PTP candidates who the local people didn't want as their leaders.

Now in regard to the legal issue, removing the PT Gov was less ambiguous legally than the issue of removing the Bkk Gov.

And I predict they will continue to remove every Gov (followed by other local officials ... same same police chiefs) that are not PTP as time goes on.

I think the electorate is starting to see the elephant in the room.

The governors of the provinces are appointed by the government, so the government would have the right to replace them.

All they need is a convenient excuse. Which they got.

A change that was brought about by Thaksin, the Bangkok governor is elected and not appointed!

[h90]

Lets recall that at the moment of the coup Thaksins caretaker time has expired, he opened parliament with less than the amount of MPs necessary.

So technically he wasn't premier anymore and technically the parliament was illegal. So it wasn't a usual coup.

The whole purpose was to establish democracy again. No evil military dictator wanted to control Thailand. Instead they made an election as soon as possible. And actually too soon.

You conveniently forgot to mention that a general election (the ultimate form of democracy) was scheduled 4 weeks AFTER the coup took place. The coup was staged because the results of that election was feared, as became apparent when Samak won, and even more so when Yinluck won. Democracy isn't for everyone or so it seems. Accepting the results of a general elections and the direct consequences of those elections is what seem to be lacking here. Too bad.

It is time that certain people in Thailand start accepting the will of the people, if that will leads to an overly corrupt government so be it.

No that is wrong, the election was BEFORE the coup and did not meet the standards the constitution set in many different ways. Than there were several elections in areas in which the TRT could not get enough votes. So the complete general election failed.

And from accepting what results do you speak??? It was a 1 party election, no other party took part of that election.

On this election you could only vote for TRT and even than they could not win as too many people voted "No".

So get that facts right.

[slapout]

For the subject of dismissal of the Bangkok Governor by the collation government just demonstrates their perchance for what some may term "pack mentality/behavior". They seem to consider themselves untouchable as well; as free to continue to carry on with their self serving agendas. Individuals within a pack, can and should be held accountable for individual and group actions which are unlawful and or contrary to social mores under which they are bound.

Absconding from either of the mentioned guidelines seem to be a prevalent characteristic as does disregard for any sanctions imposed on groups or individuals. Many have over stepped the line in the past, but by hook, crook, and statue of limitations, they have slithered back to the trough for feeding. Those are the ones who seem to blather the most with inane accusations, warnings, comparisons, interpretations, etc. Their own shortcomings/failures are often made more apparent by those they attack, so jealously may also be a factor to consider,

[h90]

Overthrowing a corrupt and incompetent government no matter how many misguided supporters that government has, is still overthrowing a corrupt and incompetent government. It's the right thing to do.

There'd never be a government in Thailand again if the army threw out corrupt governments. Even their own junta government would need to be thrown out.

Anyway, you can't argue for a coup to throw out the PT government and argue against Chalerm sacking the democratically elected Bangkok government.

Why? The clean elected Bangkok governor didn't do anything wrong. No indications of corruption, no indication to bring in family members on key positions, no indication of power abuse. If he would be corrupt sacking him would be right, but he isn't or at least nothing is found yet.

While the government is guilty in every point, corruption, putting family members in key positions, pressure courts. They want to change the constitution in ways just to fit their own needs. The last elections was the worst in matters of vote buying since ever (which isn't very democratic, or?). If there were orders to intentional bring flood problems than the government has to be removed by any means as 500+ people died.

[whybother]

No that is wrong, the election was BEFORE the coup and did not meet the standards the constitution set in many different ways. Than there were several elections in areas in which the TRT could not get enough votes. So the complete general election failed.

And from accepting what results do you speak??? It was a 1 party election, no other party took part of that election.

On this election you could only vote for TRT and even than they could not win as too many people voted "No".

So get that facts right.

Some facts:

An election was held in April 2006, which the Democrats boycotted, partly due to the short notice, and that it was only 12 months after TRT had won a majority.

After the election, which ofcourse Thaksin won (not having an opposition), Thaksin couldn't form parliament because there were an number of seats that were not filled due to the only party running in that electorate not getting 20% of the vote.

Later, the election was annulled because of irregularities with the placement of voting booths. The Election Commission was sacked.

A new election was scheduled for October but was going to be delayed until November because of delays getting a new election commission together.

The coup occurred.

[rogerdee123]

There'd never be a government in Thailand again if the army threw out corrupt governments. Even their own junta government would need to be thrown out.

Anyway, you can't argue for a coup to throw out the PT government and argue against Chalerm sacking the democratically elected Bangkok government.

Using this same logic, if PTP throws out the Bkk Governor, they shouldn't complain when the Army throws them out.

Edited November 9, 2011 by metisdead
Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes.

[DocN]

We were talking about legal, as some posters on here treat a coup or even justify it, calling it legal.

Nothing else!

Idi Amin, Hitler...yeah, go ahead!

But just think about it for a second: the case is not so clear, when it comes to Thaksin (f.e.), because obviously not EVERYBODY wanted it. A big part of Thailands population actually was NOT in favor of the Army, no matter how many people in Bangkok were draping flower- garlands around tank- cannons.

And now tell me: where do YOU draw the line?

I can understand your argument Doc

I thought we were talking about a potential coup now ..... not the Thaksin coup

But anyway I think the Thaksin coup was also justified.

Marcos could have said the majority of the people voted for him too. There are also elections in Laos and everyone wins by landslides. They have laws there too. And they throw people in jail who opposed the Govt.

"Checks and Balances" in the political definition .... some way to deal with a Govt gone bad.

In Thailand the military has played that role historically. I agree it would be better to have an independent judiciary and independent legislative branch but in my opinion few countries anywhere have that ... maybe the US included.

I believe that there are situations where a military coup is justified ... whether legal or not. And I'm not saying it's justified in every case.

We can agree to disagree on this and that's cool.

Cool, indeed!

Now we just have to agree on one more point: the Army was NOT doing it to restore "democracy"...and never will!

[sjaak327]

Lets recall that at the moment of the coup Thaksins caretaker time has expired, he opened parliament with less than the amount of MPs necessary.

So technically he wasn't premier anymore and technically the parliament was illegal. So it wasn't a usual coup.

The whole purpose was to establish democracy again. No evil military dictator wanted to control Thailand. Instead they made an election as soon as possible. And actually too soon.

You conveniently forgot to mention that a general election (the ultimate form of democracy) was scheduled 4 weeks AFTER the coup took place. The coup was staged because the results of that election was feared, as became apparent when Samak won, and even more so when Yinluck won. Democracy isn't for everyone or so it seems. Accepting the results of a general elections and the direct consequences of those elections is what seem to be lacking here. Too bad.

It is time that certain people in Thailand start accepting the will of the people, if that will leads to an overly corrupt government so be it.

No that is wrong, the election was BEFORE the coup and did not meet the standards the constitution set in many different ways. Than there were several elections in areas in which the TRT could not get enough votes. So the complete general election failed.

And from accepting what results do you speak??? It was a 1 party election, no other party took part of that election.

On this election you could only vote for TRT and even than they could not win as too many people voted "No".

So get that facts right.

But I have got my facts right. I am not talking about the snap election boycotted by the opposition, I am talking about the scheduled election in october 2006 that were cancelled due to the coup a month earlier, amazing how quickly people seem to forget the facts that don't suit them...

[h90]

No that is wrong, the election was BEFORE the coup and did not meet the standards the constitution set in many different ways. Than there were several elections in areas in which the TRT could not get enough votes. So the complete general election failed.

And from accepting what results do you speak??? It was a 1 party election, no other party took part of that election.

On this election you could only vote for TRT and even than they could not win as too many people voted "No".

So get that facts right.

Some facts:

An election was held in April 2006, which the Democrats boycotted, partly due to the short notice, and that it was only 12 months after TRT had won a majority.

After the election, which ofcourse Thaksin won (not having an opposition), Thaksin couldn't form parliament because there were an number of seats that were not filled due to the only party running in that electorate not getting 20% of the vote.

Later, the election was annulled because of irregularities with the placement of voting booths. The Election Commission was sacked.

A new election was scheduled for October but was going to be delayed until November because of delays getting a new election commission together.

The coup occurred.

Not the Democrats boycotted, ALL parties boycotted. There were not only irregularities, there were tons of fraud and still he could not win the election. (the voting booths so that it is possible to check what people vote for, the rubber stamps to make fraud easier, transport by taxis, et cetc) And than count.....April...October, November. Who was than Premier?? I don't know, because in the 1997 constitution the caretaker period is only 3 month. So he could not be premier anymore, or?

[h90]

We were talking about legal, as some posters on here treat a coup or even justify it, calling it legal.

Nothing else!

Idi Amin, Hitler...yeah, go ahead!

But just think about it for a second: the case is not so clear, when it comes to Thaksin (f.e.), because obviously not EVERYBODY wanted it. A big part of Thailands population actually was NOT in favor of the Army, no matter how many people in Bangkok were draping flower- garlands around tank- cannons.

And now tell me: where do YOU draw the line?

I can understand your argument Doc

I thought we were talking about a potential coup now ..... not the Thaksin coup

But anyway I think the Thaksin coup was also justified.

Marcos could have said the majority of the people voted for him too. There are also elections in Laos and everyone wins by landslides. They have laws there too. And they throw people in jail who opposed the Govt.

"Checks and Balances" in the political definition .... some way to deal with a Govt gone bad.

In Thailand the military has played that role historically. I agree it would be better to have an independent judiciary and independent legislative branch but in my opinion few countries anywhere have that ... maybe the US included.

I believe that there are situations where a military coup is justified ... whether legal or not. And I'm not saying it's justified in every case.

We can agree to disagree on this and that's cool.

Cool, indeed!

Now we just have to agree on one more point: the Army was NOT doing it to restore "democracy"...and never will!

Why?

they let vote for the constitution and let new elections happen.

[Moruya]

Lets recall that at the moment of the coup Thaksins caretaker time has expired, he opened parliament with less than the amount of MPs necessary.

So technically he wasn't premier anymore and technically the parliament was illegal. So it wasn't a usual coup.

The whole purpose was to establish democracy again. No evil military dictator wanted to control Thailand. Instead they made an election as soon as possible. And actually too soon.

You conveniently forgot to mention that a general election (the ultimate form of democracy) was scheduled 4 weeks AFTER the coup took place. The coup was staged because the results of that election was feared, as became apparent when Samak won, and even more so when Yinluck won. Democracy isn't for everyone or so it seems. Accepting the results of a general elections and the direct consequences of those elections is what seem to be lacking here. Too bad.

It is time that certain people in Thailand start accepting the will of the people, if that will leads to an overly corrupt government so be it.

No that is wrong, the election was BEFORE the coup and did not meet the standards the constitution set in many different ways. Than there were several elections in areas in which the TRT could not get enough votes. So the complete general election failed.

And from accepting what results do you speak??? It was a 1 party election, no other party took part of that election.

On this election you could only vote for TRT and even than they could not win as too many people voted "No".

So get that facts right.

But I have got my facts right. I am not talking about the snap election boycotted by the opposition, I am talking about the scheduled election in october 2006 that were cancelled due to the coup a month earlier, amazing how quickly people seem to forget the facts that don't suit them...

Nonsense. Thaksin, as caretaker PM, was obliged to organise new elections by a certain date. He made no effort.to do so and the army jumped in.

[elcent]

oh no, not again. We haven't forgotten that one yet.

[sjaak327]

@moruya that a general election was scheduled is an undeniable fact. That the army stepped in because there wasn't is nonsense, unless of course the army wasn't aware ! The lies from both sides of the devide continue to be entertaining, your lie included.

[rogerdee123]

We were talking about legal, as some posters on here treat a coup or even justify it, calling it legal.

Nothing else!

Idi Amin, Hitler...yeah, go ahead!

But just think about it for a second: the case is not so clear, when it comes to Thaksin (f.e.), because obviously not EVERYBODY wanted it. A big part of Thailands population actually was NOT in favor of the Army, no matter how many people in Bangkok were draping flower- garlands around tank- cannons.

And now tell me: where do YOU draw the line?

I can understand your argument Doc

I thought we were talking about a potential coup now ..... not the Thaksin coup

But anyway I think the Thaksin coup was also justified.

Marcos could have said the majority of the people voted for him too. There are also elections in Laos and everyone wins by landslides. They have laws there too. And they throw people in jail who opposed the Govt.

"Checks and Balances" in the political definition .... some way to deal with a Govt gone bad.

In Thailand the military has played that role historically. I agree it would be better to have an independent judiciary and independent legislative branch but in my opinion few countries anywhere have that ... maybe the US included.

I believe that there are situations where a military coup is justified ... whether legal or not. And I'm not saying it's justified in every case.

We can agree to disagree on this and that's cool.

Cool, indeed!

Now we just have to agree on one more point: the Army was NOT doing it to restore "democracy"...and never will!

If we are talking about the Thaksin coup, there were elections afterwards. And if democracy was not restored I suppose we can also say that these last elections that PTP won were not democratic ??? and we don't have democracy now?

[Buchholz]

--Quote-- "Members of the Pheu Thai Party meeting yesterday threatened to discharge the Bangkok Governor for failing to handle the flood crisis effectively." - - unquote

So, according to this headline, in Thailand members of the ruling party can just "DISCHARGE" the governor of the most important province.

Is that true?? What kind of a constitution is that?? Isn't he an elected man in his province??

Can somebody help me here?

The administration of Bangkok does not fall under the constitution.

It would seem the Interior Minister does have the authority to do so under the Bangkok Metropolis Organisation Act of 2528 (1985).

Why remove him?

I don't know why Chalerm wants to fire him.

I was just answering the poster's question as whether or not it's possible to remove him. And it would seem that it is within the power of the Interior Minster, the multi-resigning Pheu Thai Party Leader himself, Yongyuth, under Article 52 of the cited Act.

[rogerdee123]

We were talking about legal, as some posters on here treat a coup or even justify it, calling it legal.

Nothing else!

Idi Amin, Hitler...yeah, go ahead!

But just think about it for a second: the case is not so clear, when it comes to Thaksin (f.e.), because obviously not EVERYBODY wanted it. A big part of Thailands population actually was NOT in favor of the Army, no matter how many people in Bangkok were draping flower- garlands around tank- cannons.

And now tell me: where do YOU draw the line?

I can understand your argument Doc

I thought we were talking about a potential coup now ..... not the Thaksin coup

But anyway I think the Thaksin coup was also justified.

Marcos could have said the majority of the people voted for him too. There are also elections in Laos and everyone wins by landslides. They have laws there too. And they throw people in jail who opposed the Govt.

"Checks and Balances" in the political definition .... some way to deal with a Govt gone bad.

In Thailand the military has played that role historically. I agree it would be better to have an independent judiciary and independent legislative branch but in my opinion few countries anywhere have that ... maybe the US included.

I believe that there are situations where a military coup is justified ... whether legal or not. And I'm not saying it's justified in every case.

We can agree to disagree on this and that's cool.

Cool, indeed!

Now we just have to agree on one more point: the Army was NOT doing it to restore "democracy"...and never will!

I should add that Thaksin himself was elected following (not immediately following) a coup in the 90's .... so are you saying he wasn't democratically elected?

If we have democracy now (which is another point to argue) it's been after several coup d'etats. None of them "ended democracy" (I mean permanently killing it). The coups in Thailand are kind of like pressing the reset button. Usually they announce new election dates shortly after the coup.

Sure you have generals like Suchinda who has visions of something like dictatorship .... similar as we have politicians like Thaksin with similar goals (sorry the devil made me say that) ... the usual egomaniacs and personality disorders. But in the end .... elections and "democracy" returns.

........

If we are talking about the Philippines, I think Gen's Ramos and Enrile announced elections quite soon afterwards and Cory Aquino was elected. So are you saying that the Aquino Govt was not democratically elected because it followed a coup ? And does the Philippines now have a democracy or not? (another argument I don't wish to enter)

[Crushdepth]

I was told it would be impossible to remove the Governor based on his bloodline/family connections.......more likely the government would be removed before the Governor.

Interesting little power struggle going on......

Before YS does anything, it is worth to check who is the grand-father of the current Governor.

Just checked that out on Wikipedia.

Holy crap DIRECTLY related to a man who is still HIGHLY revered.

Kicking him out and making him lose face would be a a very rash move and would certainly bite the PT in the ass.

edit: YS is not stupid enough to kick him out. She knows his history, you can be sure of that.

He's also elected. PTP are the bastions of democracy, let us not forget