Thai Army Has Veto Power Over Key Issues: Robert Amsterdam

[Siam Simon]

Yesterday it was reported that Chalerm promised to issue a government decree stipulating that 112 will never be amended. He also promised the campaigners that no matter how many signatures they collect his party will not allow deliberation of their proposals in the parliament.

To which one of the campaigners replied that Chalerm is the worst and wondered who elected him. I don't know what to think. Who elected this government? The military? Democrats? Yellow shirts?

Read the AT article linked by folium. Great signature line, btw .

[volk666]

Thanks, Simon.

That AT piece runs counter to Amsterdam's assertion that military controls the current government.

Perhaps Folium, after covering all past military transgressions from 1932 to 2010, will finally turn his attention to proving that Yingluck's government is under military thumb. So far he is just using every excuse to rant his heart out on every other issue under the sun.

Note this sentence, for example:

Thai military have little concern about which civilian politician fronts up the government as long as they do not interfere with what the military sees as its turf and/or interests.

What else do you expect them to do? Which agency will not protect its own turf? Also a perfect example that the military has no interest in controlling the government and so I don't know what Folium is trying to prove with his lengthy posts.

Let them skim whatever they can from their budget, they are not the first ones and not the last ones to do so. If you want to clean them up then you'll have to find a relatively cleaner institution elsewhere first. Good luck with that, it's basically a non-starter and it's not a priority neither for the government nor the country.

Nattawut was in a car accident recently, this self-appointed "prai" with his feet on the ground, looking up to the sky with hope, was traveling in Mukdakan in a proper ministerial convoy with motorcycles and police cars. If you don't know any better you'd think it was one of those red hated "ammarts". He wasn't injured, btw, so he made it to a meeting with Prem at yesterday's gala dinner. May the souls of red protesters who listened to him and sacrificed their lives in 2010 rest in peace. It's all good now.

[folium]

Thanks, Simon.

That AT piece runs counter to Amsterdam's assertion that military controls the current government.

Perhaps Folium, after covering all past military transgressions from 1932 to 2010, will finally turn his attention to proving that Yingluck's government is under military thumb. So far he is just using every excuse to rant his heart out on every other issue under the sun.

Note this sentence, for example:

Thai military have little concern about which civilian politician fronts up the government as long as they do not interfere with what the military sees as its turf and/or interests.

What else do you expect them to do? Which agency will not protect its own turf? Also a perfect example that the military has no interest in controlling the government and so I don't know what Folium is trying to prove with his lengthy posts.

Let them skim whatever they can from their budget, they are not the first ones and not the last ones to do so. If you want to clean them up then you'll have to find a relatively cleaner institution elsewhere first. Good luck with that, it's basically a non-starter and it's not a priority neither for the government nor the country.

Nattawut was in a car accident recently, this self-appointed "prai" with his feet on the ground, looking up to the sky with hope, was traveling in Mukdakan in a proper ministerial convoy with motorcycles and police cars. If you don't know any better you'd think it was one of those red hated "ammarts". He wasn't injured, btw, so he made it to a meeting with Prem at yesterday's gala dinner. May the souls of red protesters who listened to him and sacrificed their lives in 2010 rest in peace. It's all good now.

The AT article is an interesting oversight of the machinations within the military. Strikes me that if the RTA was such a politically insignificant organization why all the effort to control appointments?

The final paragraph (talking about possible consequences of TS's return) is definitely worth thinking about:

"The Puea Thai government's decisive move to assert control over the police by appointing Thaksin's ex-brother-in-law as national chief may well be an indirect admission of the military's still strong independence. The police could be deployed as a counterweight to the military, particularly in suppressing any anti-Thaksin street protests that may emerge and bid to destabilize Yingluck's government in the months ahead. Such a scenario would test the ties that bind and reshuffles that divide Thailand's military establishment."

This underlines the lesson learnt from 2008, namely that the current government cannot rely on the military to act in a similar situation to the occupation of the airports and Government House.

It's a very rare organization/institution that gives up power (and all that comes with it) voluntarily. The RTA (and it is largely an army issue) is no different. Whether you want to call it control over/ influence over/ veto power over the government, the military is still one of the key players in this country and will indeed protect its position and powers that it has gained over the last 80 years. That position is being at the heart of the power structure of this country, and while the overt exercise of such power in the form of military dictatorship is only seen in the aftermath of coups, the less obvious exercise of power continues to the detriment of this country.

[z12]

"Thai Army Has Veto Power Over Key Issues: Robert AmsterdamTHAKSIN'S LAWYER"

that is good news

Edited February 11, 2012 by z12

[folium]

For a more positive post on the Thai military check this one out:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/NA06Ae01.html

The weird thing is that in any other country this is bread and butter MACP (military aid to the civil power) stuff and is the classic non lethal function of a military. Here it is viewed through the prism of regaining political prestige. Rather sad but somewhat indicative of where the Thai military has come to.

Edited February 11, 2012 by folium

[tlansford]

<snip>

Most people regard the feeble efforts of "fightback" by the demonstrators against the coup perps as fully justified - not anti-social, not anarchic - but fully justified when confronting the force assertions from the coup perps. trying to enforce their undemocratic power grab.

The 2010 protests were not against the coup. They were against the court's decision to seize Thaksin's assets.

The protests were called for new elections. The seizure was the trigger IMO.

[longway]

For a more positive post on the Thai military check this one out:

http://www.atimes.co...a/NA06Ae01.html

The weird thing is that in any other country this is bread and butter MACP (military aid to the civil power) stuff and is the classic non lethal function of a military. Here it is viewed through the prism of regaining political prestige. Rather sad but somewhat indicative of where the Thai military has come to.

The point missed by allthese 'analyses' of your is that Thailand is not a democracy. Thailand only exists as it does because of the balance of power is split between the military and political structures, not in spite of it.

Until all sides are forced to follow the rule of law, thauland cannot and never will eb a democracy. the sad fact is that if the military would vanish from thailand tomorrow then thailand would be even less democratic than it is now.

You can argue all you want, but if a sitting PM can order the execution of thousands of suspected drug dealers without due process, then thailand is in now way shpae or form a democracy. just because it was 'popular' policy does not make it a democratic one. its just underlines how dangerous it is to put power into one set of hands in thailand.

its mob rule here not democracy and 2 centres of powers is nt necessarily a bad thing. reform the police first as they are the enorcers of teh law and the rest can falll into place, not to mention the poison to democracy that is vote buying.

[tlansford]

IMO one of the things that bothers TVF posters so much about RA is his ability to take morsels of truth and place them in the limelight to support his positions.

The only thing I appreciate is that it is perfectly transparent who he is supporting. Comparable to Sondi and ASTV in that sense. Thaksin was not a friend of democracy, but that doesn't justify the actions of the military nor the actions of the Democratic party in their efforts to undermine the democratic process and gain power.

Unlike many posters, I think Thaksin is only part of the problem, not the entire problem himself.

[longway]

IMO one of the things that bothers TVF posters so much about RA is his ability to take morsels of truth and place them in the limelight to support his positions.

The only thing I appreciate is that it is perfectly transparent who he is supporting. Comparable to Sondi and ASTV in that sense. Thaksin was not a friend of democracy, but that doesn't justify the actions of the military nor the actions of the Democratic party in their efforts to undermine the democratic process and gain power.

Unlike many posters, I think Thaksin is only part of the problem, not the entire problem himself.

Its like saying the klu klux klan does not support affirmative action programmes for ethnic minorities.

In fact it does justify their actions, without the rule of law there are no democratic processes, if one man holds the reins of power in thailand, especially a man like thaksin, you will not get a democracy. you can argue he is more competent etc, but its just mob rule a marginally different mob.

i prefer the status quo, to the potentially deadly alternatives, progress was being made. i ask again, name one country more democratic than thailand in se asia in 2001? or one with a more free press?

Edited February 11, 2012 by longway

[Roadman]

IMO one of the things that bothers TVF posters so much about RA is his ability to take morsels of truth and place them in the limelight to support his positions.

The only thing I appreciate is that it is perfectly transparent who he is supporting. Comparable to Sondi and ASTV in that sense. Thaksin was not a friend of democracy, but that doesn't justify the actions of the military nor the actions of the Democratic party in their efforts to undermine the democratic process and gain power.

Unlike many posters, I think Thaksin is only part of the problem, not the entire problem himself.

Amazingly for the 1st time I am going to agree with most of what you are saying.

However I will disagree with the last sentence in that I think most of the posters on here against Thaksin do not see him as the entire problem.

I see him right now as the one who has figured out that he has the cash so he can buy or intimidate into a position above the law with the base of a brought electorate vote. He is the current problem. If the best were to happen to him similiar to Sae Daeung then the long term problem would not go away. It would however allow the country to move on in the short term.

The long term problem is if democracy is to have the chance to establish then the one thing that has to be there is "the law". Until such time as the law is applied and enforced "equally to all" by a competent judiciary and police force then sadly Thaialnd is not going to advance and governance will be at the mercy of the next Thaksin and the Army. I support fully the Army but that is as a choice between ther lesser of the two evils, which over rides what most would like to see in a full democracy.

[Roadman]

For a more positive post on the Thai military check this one out:

http://www.atimes.co...a/NA06Ae01.html

The weird thing is that in any other country this is bread and butter MACP (military aid to the civil power) stuff and is the classic non lethal function of a military. Here it is viewed through the prism of regaining political prestige. Rather sad but somewhat indicative of where the Thai military has come to.

The point missed by allthese 'analyses' of your is that Thailand is not a democracy. Thailand only exists as it does because of the balance of power is split between the military and political structures, not in spite of it.

Until all sides are forced to follow the rule of law, thauland cannot and never will eb a democracy. the sad fact is that if the military would vanish from thailand tomorrow then thailand would be even less democratic than it is now.

You can argue all you want, but if a sitting PM can order the execution of thousands of suspected drug dealers without due process, then thailand is in now way shpae or form a democracy. just because it was 'popular' policy does not make it a democratic one. its just underlines how dangerous it is to put power into one set of hands in thailand.

its mob rule here not democracy and 2 centres of powers is nt necessarily a bad thing. reform the police first as they are the enorcers of teh law and the rest can falll into place, not to mention the poison to democracy that is vote buying.

Well said and basically thats it in a nutshell.

[hellodolly]

IMO one of the things that bothers TVF posters so much about RA is his ability to take morsels of truth and place them in the limelight to support his positions.

The only thing I appreciate is that it is perfectly transparent who he is supporting. Comparable to Sondi and ASTV in that sense. Thaksin was not a friend of democracy, but that doesn't justify the actions of the military nor the actions of the Democratic party in their efforts to undermine the democratic process and gain power.

Unlike many posters, I think Thaksin is only part of the problem, not the entire problem himself.

How did the democrats try to undermine democracy?

And while we are on the point of democracy what country has it.

It is just a word that people like to through around.

Many countries have leaders who did not receive 50% of the vote including Thailand. In the states Bush received less votes than Gore but he still became president.

[hellodolly]

IMO one of the things that bothers TVF posters so much about RA is his ability to take morsels of truth and place them in the limelight to support his positions.

The only thing I appreciate is that it is perfectly transparent who he is supporting. Comparable to Sondi and ASTV in that sense. Thaksin was not a friend of democracy, but that doesn't justify the actions of the military nor the actions of the Democratic party in their efforts to undermine the democratic process and gain power.

Unlike many posters, I think Thaksin is only part of the problem, not the entire problem himself.

Amazingly for the 1st time I am going to agree with most of what you are saying.

However I will disagree with the last sentence in that I think most of the posters on here against Thaksin do not see him as the entire problem.

I see him right now as the one who has figured out that he has the cash so he can buy or intimidate into a position above the law with the base of a brought electorate vote. He is the current problem. If the best were to happen to him similiar to Sae Daeung then the long term problem would not go away. It would however allow the country to move on in the short term.

The long term problem is if democracy is to have the chance to establish then the one thing that has to be there is "the law". Until such time as the law is applied and enforced "equally to all" by a competent judiciary and police force then sadly Thaialnd is not going to advance and governance will be at the mercy of the next Thaksin and the Army. I support fully the Army but that is as a choice between ther lesser of the two evils, which over rides what most would like to see in a full democracy.

I agree that Thaksin is not the whole problem. But I do have reservations. To my way of thinking Thailand will have no progress towards a solution as long as Thaksin is still drawing air.

He is not all the problem but he has to be dealt with before the rest of the problems can be dealt with. Only then can Thailand turn to the problems of unity, education,corruption, decent health care for the needy and all the other things that will arise.

I agree with many of the posters that Thailand is sorely lacking in these things but that is only by comparing them to the western standards. As countries in the whole world go they are doing a lot better than many of them. It is ironic that the removal of one man will open the gates to progress. It will take time but it will happen.

For those who are for ever complying that Thailand is not like back home you might want to remember it has moved that way in a large way. Sadly they are starting to lose the family unity that they had. I really don't think that is a desirable thing.

[volk666]

Imagine you've got lung cancer because of your excessive smoking. It would be fine to try and fight your addiction but that won't stop cancer from spreading and killing you so you should obviously treat cancer first, before it has spread all over your body.

Talking of the second stage - it's thanks to Thaksin that such odious characters like Chalerm or Chavalit or late Samak get resurrected over and over again and are given free reign over the country.

You would think that after "Do you know who my father is" and shooting of a policeman Chalerm would be retired from politics for good, but no, Thaksin's party won and gave him one ministerial position after another until the only step up left is becoming a Prime Minister.

It's this kind of "improvements" that make people glad that the army still has power to stand up to these clowns, and also forces people to have serious reservations about "democracy".

It's nice to talk about rule of law and civilian control and all but in this country the most basic sense of right and wrong is getting trampled on nearly every day and the army is viewed as the last resort of restoring sense of justice.

That doesn't work, too, however, the army does not make a society, they can remove one tumor, so to speak, but I'm afraid that it's too late - the external facade of institutions, rules and laws is becoming increasingly irrelevant and no one really cares anymore. No one believes that Yingluck chooses her ministers, for example, she can lie all about it and no one bats a lid anymore.

[tlansford]

IMO one of the things that bothers TVF posters so much about RA is his ability to take morsels of truth and place them in the limelight to support his positions.

The only thing I appreciate is that it is perfectly transparent who he is supporting. Comparable to Sondi and ASTV in that sense. Thaksin was not a friend of democracy, but that doesn't justify the actions of the military nor the actions of the Democratic party in their efforts to undermine the democratic process and gain power.

Unlike many posters, I think Thaksin is only part of the problem, not the entire problem himself.

Amazingly for the 1st time I am going to agree with most of what you are saying.

However I will disagree with the last sentence in that I think most of the posters on here against Thaksin do not see him as the entire problem.

I see him right now as the one who has figured out that he has the cash so he can buy or intimidate into a position above the law with the base of a brought electorate vote. He is the current problem. If the best were to happen to him similiar to Sae Daeung then the long term problem would not go away. It would however allow the country to move on in the short term.

The long term problem is if democracy is to have the chance to establish then the one thing that has to be there is "the law". Until such time as the law is applied and enforced "equally to all" by a competent judiciary and police force then sadly Thaialnd is not going to advance and governance will be at the mercy of the next Thaksin and the Army. I support fully the Army but that is as a choice between ther lesser of the two evils, which over rides what most would like to see in a full democracy.

"Amazingly for the 1st time I am going to agree with most of what you are saying."

wow...

So I also agree with several points you make. I still feel that many posters view Thaksin (and everyone related to him and the red shirts) as the (let me put it in quotes) "only" problem, but that is not significant except to drive their pattern of posting here.

I definitely agree that the issue of Thaksin needs to be resolved before the country can move on politically. Whether he lives the rest of his life in exile or returns, it seems like he will dominate the discussion until that is resolved. This is the only reason that I would support a compromise to bring him back. I would not want to see him thoroughly involved in politics again, although he is at the moment anyway, so that is not likely to change whether he is in Thailand or not.

I agree about the need to enforce the law. But also to follow the rules of a civilian democracy which means to me that the military needs to get out of politics. I don't see the military as the ultimate check and balance but rather as large a part of the problem as corrupt politicians like Thaksin and Abhisit. It seems like neither the military nor the politicians are likely to change soon. Beyond these two points, the third issue is the level of corruption - at all levels. There are adequate levels of corruption in the west, too, but it is not as generally (and as passively) accepted as in Thailand. People here see it and live with it because they (IMO) feel powerless to change it. While this is not absolutely true, corruption is very hard to root out.

Coming back to the point about the law, I am pretty sure that to move on, Thailand will need to find a compromise that will probably not see Thaksin, Abhisit, or any generals in jail. It is sad, but I suspect true. While that is counter to the point regarding the laws in a democracy and civil society, it is likely to be necessary in order to arrive at a compromise.

As for Thaksin and jail, his land-deal conviction was IMO clearly a political conviction, guilty or not. This is the root of the problem with that conviction, and his supporters will never accept it because they see it as a political conviction. To be honest, I think he should be in jail for tax evasion and for his war on drugs. On the other hand, Abhisit has shown that he is equally undemocratic and power-hungry. Neither Thaksin nor Abhisit appear to have real integrity. With Thaksin is it clear, tax evasion, human rights violations, and a thirst for power. With Abhisit, it is particularly disappointing given his western education / upbringing and experiences with other democracies, but he is also un-democratic and has his own history of human rights violations. One can discuss which man is "worse", but neither has integrity and both are un-democratic, so the discussion would be lively, but without effect.

[bigbamboo]

IMO one of the things that bothers TVF posters so much about RA is his ability to take morsels of truth and place them in the limelight to support his positions.

The only thing I appreciate is that it is perfectly transparent who he is supporting. Comparable to Sondi and ASTV in that sense. Thaksin was not a friend of democracy, but that doesn't justify the actions of the military nor the actions of the Democratic party in their efforts to undermine the democratic process and gain power.

Unlike many posters, I think Thaksin is only part of the problem, not the entire problem himself.

Amazingly for the 1st time I am going to agree with most of what you are saying.

However I will disagree with the last sentence in that I think most of the posters on here against Thaksin do not see him as the entire problem.

I see him right now as the one who has figured out that he has the cash so he can buy or intimidate into a position above the law with the base of a brought electorate vote. He is the current problem. If the best were to happen to him similiar to Sae Daeung then the long term problem would not go away. It would however allow the country to move on in the short term.

The long term problem is if democracy is to have the chance to establish then the one thing that has to be there is "the law". Until such time as the law is applied and enforced "equally to all" by a competent judiciary and police force then sadly Thaialnd is not going to advance and governance will be at the mercy of the next Thaksin and the Army. I support fully the Army but that is as a choice between ther lesser of the two evils, which over rides what most would like to see in a full democracy.

"Amazingly for the 1st time I am going to agree with most of what you are saying."

wow...

So I also agree with several points you make. I still feel that many posters view Thaksin (and everyone related to him and the red shirts) as the (let me put it in quotes) "only" problem, but that is not significant except to drive their pattern of posting here.

I definitely agree that the issue of Thaksin needs to be resolved before the country can move on politically. Whether he lives the rest of his life in exile or returns, it seems like he will dominate the discussion until that is resolved. This is the only reason that I would support a compromise to bring him back. I would not want to see him thoroughly involved in politics again, although he is at the moment anyway, so that is not likely to change whether he is in Thailand or not.

I agree about the need to enforce the law. But also to follow the rules of a civilian democracy which means to me that the military needs to get out of politics. I don't see the military as the ultimate check and balance but rather as large a part of the problem as corrupt politicians like Thaksin and Abhisit. It seems like neither the military nor the politicians are likely to change soon. Beyond these two points, the third issue is the level of corruption - at all levels. There are adequate levels of corruption in the west, too, but it is not as generally (and as passively) accepted as in Thailand. People here see it and live with it because they (IMO) feel powerless to change it. While this is not absolutely true, corruption is very hard to root out.

Coming back to the point about the law, I am pretty sure that to move on, Thailand will need to find a compromise that will probably not see Thaksin, Abhisit, or any generals in jail. It is sad, but I suspect true. While that is counter to the point regarding the laws in a democracy and civil society, it is likely to be necessary in order to arrive at a compromise.

As for Thaksin and jail, his land-deal conviction was IMO clearly a political conviction, guilty or not. This is the root of the problem with that conviction, and his supporters will never accept it because they see it as a political conviction. To be honest, I think he should be in jail for tax evasion and for his war on drugs. On the other hand, Abhisit has shown that he is equally undemocratic and power-hungry. Neither Thaksin nor Abhisit appear to have real integrity. With Thaksin is it clear, tax evasion, human rights violations, and a thirst for power. With Abhisit, it is particularly disappointing given his western education / upbringing and experiences with other democracies, but he is also un-democratic and has his own history of human rights violations. One can discuss which man is "worse", but neither has integrity and both are un-democratic, so the discussion would be lively, but without effect.

Taking morsels of truth to support their clients positions is what lawyers do.

[hellodolly]

Interesting no one knows of a country with democracy yet the word is still thrown around like as if Thailand was the only country in the word that didn't have it.

[valerian]

It's a tragedy what fanatism does to people. And all the suffering it brings about. Regardless of skintone, religion, moral or belief.

Amsterdam is completely lost and I feel so sorry for the all poor farmers that suffer because of him and his likes.

[MikeOboe57]

[...] No one believes that Yingluck chooses her ministers, for example, she can lie all about it and no one bats a lid anymore.

I know a few here in this forum...

[scorecard]

IMO one of the things that bothers TVF posters so much about RA is his ability to take morsels of truth and place them in the limelight to support his positions.

The only thing I appreciate is that it is perfectly transparent who he is supporting. Comparable to Sondi and ASTV in that sense. Thaksin was not a friend of democracy, but that doesn't justify the actions of the military nor the actions of the Democratic party in their efforts to undermine the democratic process and gain power.

Unlike many posters, I think Thaksin is only part of the problem, not the entire problem himself.

Amazingly for the 1st time I am going to agree with most of what you are saying.

However I will disagree with the last sentence in that I think most of the posters on here against Thaksin do not see him as the entire problem.

I see him right now as the one who has figured out that he has the cash so he can buy or intimidate into a position above the law with the base of a brought electorate vote. He is the current problem. If the best were to happen to him similiar to Sae Daeung then the long term problem would not go away. It would however allow the country to move on in the short term.

The long term problem is if democracy is to have the chance to establish then the one thing that has to be there is "the law". Until such time as the law is applied and enforced "equally to all" by a competent judiciary and police force then sadly Thaialnd is not going to advance and governance will be at the mercy of the next Thaksin and the Army. I support fully the Army but that is as a choice between ther lesser of the two evils, which over rides what most would like to see in a full democracy.

"Amazingly for the 1st time I am going to agree with most of what you are saying."

wow...

So I also agree with several points you make. I still feel that many posters view Thaksin (and everyone related to him and the red shirts) as the (let me put it in quotes) "only" problem, but that is not significant except to drive their pattern of posting here.

I definitely agree that the issue of Thaksin needs to be resolved before the country can move on politically. Whether he lives the rest of his life in exile or returns, it seems like he will dominate the discussion until that is resolved. This is the only reason that I would support a compromise to bring him back. I would not want to see him thoroughly involved in politics again, although he is at the moment anyway, so that is not likely to change whether he is in Thailand or not.

I agree about the need to enforce the law. But also to follow the rules of a civilian democracy which means to me that the military needs to get out of politics. I don't see the military as the ultimate check and balance but rather as large a part of the problem as corrupt politicians like Thaksin and Abhisit. It seems like neither the military nor the politicians are likely to change soon. Beyond these two points, the third issue is the level of corruption - at all levels. There are adequate levels of corruption in the west, too, but it is not as generally (and as passively) accepted as in Thailand. People here see it and live with it because they (IMO) feel powerless to change it. While this is not absolutely true, corruption is very hard to root out.

Coming back to the point about the law, I am pretty sure that to move on, Thailand will need to find a compromise that will probably not see Thaksin, Abhisit, or any generals in jail. It is sad, but I suspect true. While that is counter to the point regarding the laws in a democracy and civil society, it is likely to be necessary in order to arrive at a compromise.

As for Thaksin and jail, his land-deal conviction was IMO clearly a political conviction, guilty or not. This is the root of the problem with that conviction, and his supporters will never accept it because they see it as a political conviction. To be honest, I think he should be in jail for tax evasion and for his war on drugs. On the other hand, Abhisit has shown that he is equally undemocratic and power-hungry. Neither Thaksin nor Abhisit appear to have real integrity. With Thaksin is it clear, tax evasion, human rights violations, and a thirst for power. With Abhisit, it is particularly disappointing given his western education / upbringing and experiences with other democracies, but he is also un-democratic and has his own history of human rights violations. One can discuss which man is "worse", but neither has integrity and both are un-democratic, so the discussion would be lively, but without effect.

'''As for Thaksin and jail, his land-deal conviction was IMO clearly a political conviction, guilty or not. This is the root of the problem with that conviction, and his supporters will never accept it because they see it as a political conviction.'''

You know very well that this was not a political conviction. It's very straight forward, no shades of gray whatevr, he broke a serious law, a law which has been on the statute books of Thailand and most countries in the world for many decades, in regard to good governance and abuse of power, to prevent ruthless nor morals people from getting their sticky fingers on state assets.

He knew well that he was breaking a serious law and his then wife knew also, and the state oficials in the photo op at that time knew also.

Why do you keep saying it was a political conviction, you know well that it wasn't.

In terms of his followers, of course they won't accept it because the version that has been explained to them is totally dishonest and you know that also.

[tlansford]

IMO one of the things that bothers TVF posters so much about RA is his ability to take morsels of truth and place them in the limelight to support his positions.

The only thing I appreciate is that it is perfectly transparent who he is supporting. Comparable to Sondi and ASTV in that sense. Thaksin was not a friend of democracy, but that doesn't justify the actions of the military nor the actions of the Democratic party in their efforts to undermine the democratic process and gain power.

Unlike many posters, I think Thaksin is only part of the problem, not the entire problem himself.

Amazingly for the 1st time I am going to agree with most of what you are saying.

However I will disagree with the last sentence in that I think most of the posters on here against Thaksin do not see him as the entire problem.

I see him right now as the one who has figured out that he has the cash so he can buy or intimidate into a position above the law with the base of a brought electorate vote. He is the current problem. If the best were to happen to him similiar to Sae Daeung then the long term problem would not go away. It would however allow the country to move on in the short term.

The long term problem is if democracy is to have the chance to establish then the one thing that has to be there is "the law". Until such time as the law is applied and enforced "equally to all" by a competent judiciary and police force then sadly Thaialnd is not going to advance and governance will be at the mercy of the next Thaksin and the Army. I support fully the Army but that is as a choice between ther lesser of the two evils, which over rides what most would like to see in a full democracy.

"Amazingly for the 1st time I am going to agree with most of what you are saying."

wow...

So I also agree with several points you make. I still feel that many posters view Thaksin (and everyone related to him and the red shirts) as the (let me put it in quotes) "only" problem, but that is not significant except to drive their pattern of posting here.

I definitely agree that the issue of Thaksin needs to be resolved before the country can move on politically. Whether he lives the rest of his life in exile or returns, it seems like he will dominate the discussion until that is resolved. This is the only reason that I would support a compromise to bring him back. I would not want to see him thoroughly involved in politics again, although he is at the moment anyway, so that is not likely to change whether he is in Thailand or not.

I agree about the need to enforce the law. But also to follow the rules of a civilian democracy which means to me that the military needs to get out of politics. I don't see the military as the ultimate check and balance but rather as large a part of the problem as corrupt politicians like Thaksin and Abhisit. It seems like neither the military nor the politicians are likely to change soon. Beyond these two points, the third issue is the level of corruption - at all levels. There are adequate levels of corruption in the west, too, but it is not as generally (and as passively) accepted as in Thailand. People here see it and live with it because they (IMO) feel powerless to change it. While this is not absolutely true, corruption is very hard to root out.

Coming back to the point about the law, I am pretty sure that to move on, Thailand will need to find a compromise that will probably not see Thaksin, Abhisit, or any generals in jail. It is sad, but I suspect true. While that is counter to the point regarding the laws in a democracy and civil society, it is likely to be necessary in order to arrive at a compromise.

As for Thaksin and jail, his land-deal conviction was IMO clearly a political conviction, guilty or not. This is the root of the problem with that conviction, and his supporters will never accept it because they see it as a political conviction. To be honest, I think he should be in jail for tax evasion and for his war on drugs. On the other hand, Abhisit has shown that he is equally undemocratic and power-hungry. Neither Thaksin nor Abhisit appear to have real integrity. With Thaksin is it clear, tax evasion, human rights violations, and a thirst for power. With Abhisit, it is particularly disappointing given his western education / upbringing and experiences with other democracies, but he is also un-democratic and has his own history of human rights violations. One can discuss which man is "worse", but neither has integrity and both are un-democratic, so the discussion would be lively, but without effect.

'''As for Thaksin and jail, his land-deal conviction was IMO clearly a political conviction, guilty or not. This is the root of the problem with that conviction, and his supporters will never accept it because they see it as a political conviction.'''

You know very well that this was not a political conviction. It's very straight forward, no shades of gray whatevr, he broke a serious law, a law which has been on the statute books of Thailand and most countries in the world for many decades, in regard to good governance and abuse of power, to prevent ruthless nor morals people from getting their sticky fingers on state assets.

He knew well that he was breaking a serious law and his then wife knew also, and the state oficials in the photo op at that time knew also.

Why do you keep saying it was a political conviction, you know well that it wasn't.

In terms of his followers, of course they won't accept it because the version that has been explained to them is totally dishonest and you know that also.

We have different opinions on the nature of the judgment for crime for which he was actually convicted. We probably do not disagree on whether he really was guilty or not of that accusation.

IMO, there are plenty of things for which he could / should be serving time. But for the reasons noted above, I do not believe that will ever happen.

[airconsult]

IMO one of the things that bothers TVF posters so much about RA is his ability to take morsels of truth and place them in the limelight to support his positions.

The only thing I appreciate is that it is perfectly transparent who he is supporting. Comparable to Sondi and ASTV in that sense. Thaksin was not a friend of democracy, but that doesn't justify the actions of the military nor the actions of the Democratic party in their efforts to undermine the democratic process and gain power.

Unlike many posters, I think Thaksin is only part of the problem, not the entire problem himself.

Amazingly for the 1st time I am going to agree with most of what you are saying.

However I will disagree with the last sentence in that I think most of the posters on here against Thaksin do not see him as the entire problem.

I see him right now as the one who has figured out that he has the cash so he can buy or intimidate into a position above the law with the base of a brought electorate vote. He is the current problem. If the best were to happen to him similiar to Sae Daeung then the long term problem would not go away. It would however allow the country to move on in the short term.

The long term problem is if democracy is to have the chance to establish then the one thing that has to be there is "the law". Until such time as the law is applied and enforced "equally to all" by a competent judiciary and police force then sadly Thaialnd is not going to advance and governance will be at the mercy of the next Thaksin and the Army. I support fully the Army but that is as a choice between ther lesser of the two evils, which over rides what most would like to see in a full democracy.

"Amazingly for the 1st time I am going to agree with most of what you are saying."

wow...

So I also agree with several points you make. I still feel that many posters view Thaksin (and everyone related to him and the red shirts) as the (let me put it in quotes) "only" problem, but that is not significant except to drive their pattern of posting here.

I definitely agree that the issue of Thaksin needs to be resolved before the country can move on politically. Whether he lives the rest of his life in exile or returns, it seems like he will dominate the discussion until that is resolved. This is the only reason that I would support a compromise to bring him back. I would not want to see him thoroughly involved in politics again, although he is at the moment anyway, so that is not likely to change whether he is in Thailand or not.

I agree about the need to enforce the law. But also to follow the rules of a civilian democracy which means to me that the military needs to get out of politics. I don't see the military as the ultimate check and balance but rather as large a part of the problem as corrupt politicians like Thaksin and Abhisit. It seems like neither the military nor the politicians are likely to change soon. Beyond these two points, the third issue is the level of corruption - at all levels. There are adequate levels of corruption in the west, too, but it is not as generally (and as passively) accepted as in Thailand. People here see it and live with it because they (IMO) feel powerless to change it. While this is not absolutely true, corruption is very hard to root out.

Coming back to the point about the law, I am pretty sure that to move on, Thailand will need to find a compromise that will probably not see Thaksin, Abhisit, or any generals in jail. It is sad, but I suspect true. While that is counter to the point regarding the laws in a democracy and civil society, it is likely to be necessary in order to arrive at a compromise.

As for Thaksin and jail, his land-deal conviction was IMO clearly a political conviction, guilty or not. This is the root of the problem with that conviction, and his supporters will never accept it because they see it as a political conviction. To be honest, I think he should be in jail for tax evasion and for his war on drugs. On the other hand, Abhisit has shown that he is equally undemocratic and power-hungry. Neither Thaksin nor Abhisit appear to have real integrity. With Thaksin is it clear, tax evasion, human rights violations, and a thirst for power. With Abhisit, it is particularly disappointing given his western education / upbringing and experiences with other democracies, but he is also un-democratic and has his own history of human rights violations. One can discuss which man is "worse", but neither has integrity and both are un-democratic, so the discussion would be lively, but without effect.

'''As for Thaksin and jail, his land-deal conviction was IMO clearly a political conviction, guilty or not. This is the root of the problem with that conviction, and his supporters will never accept it because they see it as a political conviction.'''

You know very well that this was not a political conviction. It's very straight forward, no shades of gray whatevr, he broke a serious law, a law which has been on the statute books of Thailand and most countries in the world for many decades, in regard to good governance and abuse of power, to prevent ruthless nor morals people from getting their sticky fingers on state assets.

He knew well that he was breaking a serious law and his then wife knew also, and the state oficials in the photo op at that time knew also.

Why do you keep saying it was a political conviction, you know well that it wasn't.

In terms of his followers, of course they won't accept it because the version that has been explained to them is totally dishonest and you know that also.

Oh goodness....

Who made the highest bid for the land in question?

Who made the law which said that a thai husband must countersign a land purchase of his wife?

And while you are there, look up the appointments and management of the selling agency (not owner, agency) - you may get a surprise.

Cheers

[pastitche]

IMO one of the things that bothers TVF posters so much about RA is his ability to take morsels of truth and place them in the limelight to support his positions.

The only thing I appreciate is that it is perfectly transparent who he is supporting. Comparable to Sondi and ASTV in that sense. Thaksin was not a friend of democracy, but that doesn't justify the actions of the military nor the actions of the Democratic party in their efforts to undermine the democratic process and gain power.

Unlike many posters, I think Thaksin is only part of the problem, not the entire problem himself.

Amazingly for the 1st time I am going to agree with most of what you are saying.

However I will disagree with the last sentence in that I think most of the posters on here against Thaksin do not see him as the entire problem.

I see him right now as the one who has figured out that he has the cash so he can buy or intimidate into a position above the law with the base of a brought electorate vote. He is the current problem. If the best were to happen to him similiar to Sae Daeung then the long term problem would not go away. It would however allow the country to move on in the short term.

The long term problem is if democracy is to have the chance to establish then the one thing that has to be there is "the law". Until such time as the law is applied and enforced "equally to all" by a competent judiciary and police force then sadly Thaialnd is not going to advance and governance will be at the mercy of the next Thaksin and the Army. I support fully the Army but that is as a choice between ther lesser of the two evils, which over rides what most would like to see in a full democracy.

I agree that Thaksin is not the whole problem. But I do have reservations. To my way of thinking Thailand will have no progress towards a solution as long as Thaksin is still drawing air.

He is not all the problem but he has to be dealt with before the rest of the problems can be dealt with. Only then can Thailand turn to the problems of unity, education,corruption, decent health care for the needy and all the other things that will arise.

I agree with many of the posters that Thailand is sorely lacking in these things but that is only by comparing them to the western standards. As countries in the whole world go they are doing a lot better than many of them. It is ironic that the removal of one man will open the gates to progress. It will take time but it will happen.

For those who are for ever complying that Thailand is not like back home you might want to remember it has moved that way in a large way. Sadly they are starting to lose the family unity that they had. I really don't think that is a desirable thing.

So what would be your solution to your perception that Thailand will have no progress "as long as Thaksin is still drawing air"? Edited February 12, 2012 by pastitche

[folium]

For a more positive post on the Thai military check this one out:

http://www.atimes.co...a/NA06Ae01.html

The weird thing is that in any other country this is bread and butter MACP (military aid to the civil power) stuff and is the classic non lethal function of a military. Here it is viewed through the prism of regaining political prestige. Rather sad but somewhat indicative of where the Thai military has come to.

The point missed by allthese 'analyses' of your is that Thailand is not a democracy. Thailand only exists as it does because of the balance of power is split between the military and political structures, not in spite of it.

Until all sides are forced to follow the rule of law, thauland cannot and never will eb a democracy. the sad fact is that if the military would vanish from thailand tomorrow then thailand would be even less democratic than it is now.

You can argue all you want, but if a sitting PM can order the execution of thousands of suspected drug dealers without due process, then thailand is in now way shpae or form a democracy. just because it was 'popular' policy does not make it a democratic one. its just underlines how dangerous it is to put power into one set of hands in thailand.

its mob rule here not democracy and 2 centres of powers is nt necessarily a bad thing. reform the police first as they are the enorcers of teh law and the rest can falll into place, not to mention the poison to democracy that is vote buying.

This is classic chicken & egg stuff. One of the key reasons that Thailand is not a democracy is the military.

18 coups and lengthy periods of military dictatorships, with a more modern version of "power behind the throne" being played out in the last few years, have warped the sense of normality here and allowed undemocratic actions by both military and civilians to become expected and part of the fabric.

How can you expect any institution to respect the law when one of the 2 key institutions in this country wields a significant degree of economic, political and physical power without any accountability under the law?

Extra judicial murders instigated by civilians such as Thaksin are fundamentally wrong and in most countries illegal. So are the murders committed in 1991-92, 1976 and during other episodes as the military struggled with the CPT and other perceived enemies of the state.

At the end of the day, whether it be S.Africa or N. Ireland to achieve a lasting settlement and to allow a country to move on and allow its people to develop, all sides have to hold their breath, bury their indignation and fury and move on.

In N. Ireland Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, both of whom with actual blood on their hands, are now part of the political process and have helped bring about the political solution to a brutal, unwinnable situation.

Like it or not, just as the instigators and perpetrators of murders and coups in the last few decades have never been brought to court, it is very likely that the hated figure of TS will probably also avoid legal sanction.

As unpalatable as this may seem, if this is part of a normalization of affairs in Thailand, it would be a small price to pay. Every institution in Thailand will have to play its part in this process and the suggestions of the Nittirat committee are probably the likely direction of such a compromise.

In response to an earlier post Thailand does not rate that highly in SE Asia in terms of freedom of speech/the press (hardly surprising given the increasing numbers of convictions under an article of law currently under debate). Indonesia, the Philippines and E. Timor are all higher rated (see map below). In terms of a democratic report card, Thailand is only bested by E. Timor in SE Asia, but sadly still ranks as a "flawed democracy" in the EIU (Economist Intelligence Review) democracy report for 2011.

See free link to that report below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Edited February 12, 2012 by folium

[NxaiPan]

two thoughts spring to mind...

Firstly if Thaksin did not exist would posters on this topic still be so keen on the military's existing legal right top stage a coup whenever it suits? Is this just Thai-style flawed democracy?

Secondly the ever-charming and softly spoken General Prayuth commented the other day in respect of the Nittirat group and its proposals:

''If you guys play hard ball, I'll have no choice but to do so too.''

Is this all a bit of "all talk and no trousers" or are we going to be seeing a rerun of what the Thai military does best?

See below for some gratuitous heavy metal pictures from 1932, 2006 and the latest toy acquired by the RTA, the Ukrainian Oplot, conveniently allocated to cavalry units either in or within easy striking range of Bangkok. The only downside is that the Oplots weigh over twice that of the ancient M41s and will really rip up the tarmac in downtown BKK.

[z12]

And you believe a lying mr T lawyer because?

"Thai Army Has Veto Power Over Key Issues: Robert Amsterdam THAKSIN'S LAWYER"

When the truth is:

"Thai mr T Has Veto Power Over Key Issues: Robert Amsterdam THAKSIN'S LAWYER"

Edited February 13, 2012 by z12

[scorecard]

Rather than discuss Mr. Amsterdam, how about some attention be given to his statement. Do people agree or disagree with this;

The Yingluck administration is not fully in charge of this country. We all know it. We all know the Army has a veto over what happens here. Let's not pretend. And therefore I understand that were this government to [sack General Prayuth], it would be removed militarily without hesitation," he said. Nevertheless he wished Prayuth could be removed

I agree with him. The military is still calling the plays and that is why there cannot be any progress on key issues such as corruption.

I agree with that statement.

Well, that makes it conclusive, then. Do you have any reasons underlying this belief? Would anyone care to address the issues of nepotism and cronyism, or are they verboten topics when we talk about corruption?

Well g'kid perhaps you could provide the list of human rights organizations which you say support amsterdam, perhaps that might help to build his credibility?

[whybother]

two thoughts spring to mind...

Firstly if Thaksin did not exist would posters on this topic still be so keen on the military's existing legal right top stage a coup whenever it suits? Is this just Thai-style flawed democracy?

<snip>

What "military's existing legal right to stage a coup"?

The interim constitution made the actions of 2006 coup legal (after the fact). It says nothing about future coups.

But realistically, it's irrelevant if coups were legal or not. That wouldn't stop them. Would you really expect someone to perform a coup and then say "Arrest me, I broke the law"?

[folium]

two thoughts spring to mind...

Firstly if Thaksin did not exist would posters on this topic still be so keen on the military's existing legal right top stage a coup whenever it suits? Is this just Thai-style flawed democracy?

<snip>

What "military's existing legal right to stage a coup"?

The interim constitution made the actions of 2006 coup legal (after the fact). It says nothing about future coups.

But realistically, it's irrelevant if coups were legal or not. That wouldn't stop them. Would you really expect someone to perform a coup and then say "Arrest me, I broke the law"?

Amazing Thailand. Coups under the latest constitution do not constitute a criminal act.

From an earlier post:

Article 15 of the proposed constitutional amendment covers this bizarre anomaly (see below and taken from a longer piece at:

http://asiancorrespo...titution-draft/

15. Defence against Usurpation

• Create a separate section in the new constitution concerning the “Nullification of the Legal Effects of a Military Coup d’Etat”, whose content is drawn from Nitirat’s proposal concerning the nullification of the legal effects of the 2006 coup.

• Citizens have the right and duty to use any means to resist against attempts to take away the supreme power from the people (usurpation).

• Specify that usurpation is a criminal act, and that after the supreme power of the people has been returned to the people, the usurpers must be prosecuted. Allow the period of prescription to start when the supreme power has been returned to the people.

Perhaps this explains why Prayuth has been so outspoken (and which would have seen him fired from his post in any normal country) on this matter and by wrapping up the constitutional amendments with Article 112 lese majeste reform, tries to conceal his desire to keep military coups legal.

[z12]

Rather than discuss Mr. Amsterdam, how about some attention be given to his statement. Do people agree or disagree with this;

The Yingluck administration is not fully in charge of this country. We all know it. We all know the Army has a veto over what happens here. Let's not pretend. And therefore I understand that were this government to [sack General Prayuth], it would be removed militarily without hesitation," he said. Nevertheless he wished Prayuth could be removed

I agree with him. The military is still calling the plays and that is why there cannot be any progress on key issues such as corruption.

I agree with that statement.

Well, that makes it conclusive, then. Do you have any reasons underlying this belief? Would anyone care to address the issues of nepotism and cronyism, or are they verboten topics when we talk about corruption?

Well g'kid perhaps you could provide the list of human rights organizations which you say support amsterdam, perhaps that might help to build his credibility?

Not this one.

Human Rights Watch has branded ousted Thai prime minister “a human rights abuser of the worst kind”

Thaksin’s human rights violations.

Thaksin presided over extrajudicial killings during the notorious “war on drugs”. HRW says 2,500 people were killed during one three-month period at the start of 2003.

Thaksin told the Thai military to employ any means to suppress an insurgency in the south of Thailand.

Thaksin Suppressed the Thai media.

Edited February 13, 2012 by z12