Sukampol Dismisses Rumours Of Top General Conspiring To Oust Thai Govt

[kerryk]

Are military coups legal?

Shouldn't those involved go to prison, not promoted?

They should be under certain circumstances

Coups ARE illegal. Amnesty isn't.

Sent from my shoe phone

How many coups since 1930 and how many amnesties? Isn't amnesty granted on special occasions all the time? I think if you look at prison records you will find out amnesty is quite common in Thailand.

[whybother]

Coups ARE illegal. Amnesty isn't.

Sent from my shoe phone

How many coups since 1930 and how many amnesties? Isn't amnesty granted on special occasions all the time? I think if you look at prison records you will find out amnesty is quite common in Thailand.

Yes. And?

[kerryk]

Sure everyone knows that but who figures out what circumstances? You? Not to disparage you but a lot of your posts are a bit whacky. And some other posters on Thai Visa come on like refugees the from the 1930's in Europe or Russia. You probably think you are OK but I don't. So there we have a problem. The only way to get a consensus is by election and for elections to work one has to outlaw coups. Do you see the logic in that. No of course not because you are whacky.

"The only way to get a consensus is by elections" is not accurate. Consensus in politics is a gradual process of debate and acknowledgment, resulting in an agreed set of conditions which can move forward. Elections, by contrast, are a purely individual box ticking number-crunch and have nothing to do with agreement at all. Consensus is actually what is required in parliament, at least in modern democracies such as England where the Opposition's views have to be heard and respected and debates are (almost always) structured around consensus-forming, highlighting the most contentious items and either removing them or debating them further until there is agreement.

Military intervention is a failsafe or self-defense mechanism that is employed by parliamentary democracy around the world in 21st century. Parliamentary democracy is books and pens and debate in essence and as such it is entirely fragile without the support of the army and police.

Obviously Thailand is not a modern progressive democracy. Nonetheless, the military has to step in if the centre of government is threatened from within. It is the same as calling the police if your house is burgled. The police do not live in your house 24/7 because you take it on faith that there will not be armed criminals in your house. You call the police in that emergency. Exactly the same, in democratic government you take it on faith that there will not be autocratic dictatorial criminals in office and you do not need to have the army living in parliament all the time, but they are called in if there is an emergency.

How many times has the military stepped in as a fail safe to change democracies in Sweden, UK and the US in the past couple of hundred years? I would submit that the military is the reason consensus is not reached. If the politicians know they have to stay in session till they work out a deal they will work out a deal. A free press is far more important than the military. That's the reason the reds and yellows are united on that one issue, No Free Press.

Edited June 30, 2012 by kerryk

[Yunla]

Before I even read your whole post I have to ask one question. Apologies for the word election. What I really meant was the majority rules, voting or however you establish agreement. You said consensus is a gradual process of debate resulting in an agreed set of conditions. Ya? How do you establish agreement? You have three people all with different opinions, two have to agree and then lean on the third till he comes along. However you shape it. However you blend it. The majority rules. And that is what I meant by election. Sorry I used the word without further explanation.

No need for apologies, and I see what you are saying. Yes elections are majority-based be that actual votes or by representatives or by region, either way to have the numbers is of importance.

I think the critical point is actually not the election of a given party, or the election process, but the conduct of this party post-election while in office. That is where 'consensus' becomes critically important. Democracy literally 'rule by the people', is based entirely on the concept of debate. Without debate there can be no democracy. In parliament the ruling party must debate openly with the Oppostion, who must be allowed free speaking, and their views must be treated with respect. To disrespect the Opposition is to disrespect parliament itself.

It was almost always the case that the parties disagree on fundamentals especially working-class versus landed-gentry etc. , that is not so true in the modern world where most of the world lives under a type of surrogate corporatocracy and left-right parties agree to maintain the status quo in most cases. This is especially true in the US where 'republic' has become 'corporatocracy' in all but name. However, when there is disagreement, the process of debate is still the essence of consensus forming and democracy.

My problem with PTP and Yingluck in particular is that it is almost unheard of in history for a PM to avoid all unscripted debate and to see parliamentary absenteeism as her right. Infact Yingluck does not have the right to avoid debate, or to avoid parliament, because she is an employee of the voter, she is elected or employed to represent the voters in parliament. Her failure to fulfill her prime ministerial duties breaches the trust of her voters, and violates the most basic principles of parliamentary democracy.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Yunla

[Yunla]

How many times has the military stepped in as a fail safe to change democracies in Sweden, UK and the US in the past couple of hundred years?

The facility of the army removal is a last resort and used not often or not ever. But leaders are fairly frequently removed from office when they break the law, usually by police and the courts. The problem in Thailand is that the institutional corruption grants leaders impunity to keep breaking the law, or they refuse to go quietly. In the West, leaders step down quietly and are arrested, they do not need to be removed by the Army because they are not operating as corrupt dictators in a corrupt oligarchy.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Yunla

[kerryk]

Sure everyone knows that but who figures out what circumstances? You? Not to disparage you but a lot of your posts are a bit whacky. And some other posters on Thai Visa come on like refugees the from the 1930's in Europe or Russia. You probably think you are OK but I don't. So there we have a problem. The only way to get a consensus is by election and for elections to work one has to outlaw coups. Do you see the logic in that. No of course not because you are whacky.

"The only way to get a consensus is by elections" is not accurate. Consensus in politics is a gradual process of debate and acknowledgment, resulting in an agreed set of conditions which can move forward. Elections, by contrast, are a purely individual box ticking number-crunch and have nothing to do with agreement at all. Consensus is actually what is required in parliament, at least in modern democracies such as England where the Opposition's views have to be heard and respected and debates are (almost always) structured around consensus-forming, highlighting the most contentious items and either removing them or debating them further until there is agreement.

Military intervention is a failsafe or self-defense mechanism that is employed by parliamentary democracy around the world in 21st century. Parliamentary democracy is books and pens and debate in essence and as such it is entirely fragile without the support of the army and police.

Obviously Thailand is not a modern progressive democracy. Nonetheless, the military has to step in if the centre of government is threatened from within. It is the same as calling the police if your house is burgled. The police do not live in your house 24/7 because you take it on faith that there will not be armed criminals in your house. You call the police in that emergency. Exactly the same, in democratic government you take it on faith that there will not be autocratic dictatorial criminals in office and you do not need to have the army living in parliament all the time, but they are called in if there is an emergency.

Before I even read your whole post I have to ask one question. Apologies for the word election. What I really meant was the majority rules, voting or however you establish agreement. You said consensus is a gradual process of debate resulting in an agreed set of conditions. Ya? How do you establish agreement? You have three people all with different opinions, two have to agree and then lean on the third till he comes along. However you shape it. However you blend it. The majority rules. And that is what I meant by election. Sorry I used the word without further explanation.

No need for apologies, and I see what you are saying. Yes elections are majority-based be that actual votes or by representatives or by region, either way to have the numbers is of importance.

I think the critical point is actually not the election of a given party, or the election process, but the conduct of this party post-election while in office. That is where 'consensus' becomes critically important. Democracy literally 'rule by the people', is based entirely on the concept of debate. Without debate there can be no democracy. In parliament the ruling party must debate openly with the Oppostion, who must be allowed free speaking, and their views must be treated with respect. To disrespect the Opposition is to disrespect parliament itself. It was almost always the case that the parties disagree on fundamentals especially working-class versus landed-gentry etc. , that is not so true in the modern world where most of the world lives under a type of surrogate corporatocracy and left-right parties agree to maintain the status quo in most cases. This is especially true in the US where 'republic' has become 'corporatocracy' in all but name. however, when there is disagreement, the process of debate is still the essence of consensus forming and democracy.

My problem with PTP and Yingluck in particular is that it is almost unheard of in history for a PM to avoid all unscripted debate and to see parliamentary absenteeism as her right. Infact Yingluck does not have the right to avoid debate, or to avoid parliament, because she is an employee of the voter, she is elected or employed to represent the voters in parliament. Her failure to fulfill her prime miniisterial duties breaches the trust of her voters, and violates the most basic principles of parliamentary democracy.

I don't agree with you because it is well known that politicians lie to get elected and rarely fulfill election promises or pass any meaningful laws while in office. I can't even remember an American President who did most of anything he said he was going to do but there have been no military coups in America.

I realize you enjoy bashing Yingluck but what does it have to do with Sukampol dismisses rumors of a top general conspiring to outs the Thai government (which still is the topic of this thread I think)?

[kerryk]

How many times has the military stepped in as a fail safe to change democracies in Sweden, UK and the US in the past couple of hundred years?

The facility of the army removal is a last resort and used not often or not ever. But leaders are fairly frequently removed from office when they break the law, usually by police and the courts. The problem in Thailand is that the institutional corruption grants leaders impunity to keep breaking the law, or they refuse to go quietly. In the West, leaders step down quietly and are arrested, they do not need to be removed by the Army because they are not operating as corrupt dictators in a corrupt oligarchy.

Again I should point out that is your opinion and not supported by the majority of Thais who vote. Are we to listen to you and a minority of Thai people to remove people from office in Thailand? And what does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

[whybother]

Sure everyone knows that but who figures out what circumstances? You? Not to disparage you but a lot of your posts are a bit whacky. And some other posters on Thai Visa come on like refugees the from the 1930's in Europe or Russia. You probably think you are OK but I don't. So there we have a problem. The only way to get a consensus is by election and for elections to work one has to outlaw coups. Do you see the logic in that. No of course not because you are whacky.

Again I should point out that is your opinion and not supported by the majority of Thais who vote. Are we to listen to you and a minority of Thai people to remove people from office in Thailand? And what does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

I do like how you bring something into the conversation, and then complain because it's off topic.

[Yunla]

I don't agree with you because it is well known that politicians lie to get elected and rarely fulfill election promises or pass any meaningful laws while in office. I can't even remember an American President who did most of anything he said he was going to do but there have been no military coups in America.

I realize you enjoy bashing Yingluck but what does it have to do with Sukampol dismisses rumors of a top general conspiring to outs the Thai government (which still is the topic of this thread I think)?

Again you are focusing on the "they got elected", "majority of voters", "lying to get elected" stuff.

I have said many times I am interested in the actions of PTP post-election, not the election itself. I assure you that PTP breaking the laws of democratic government is very much on topic to a thread about them being removed from power. The actions of PTP since they were elected are actions which you personally avoid discussing, acrobatically dodging the subject with the grace and speed of a professional gymnast.

Once again, would you care to discuss PTP policy (and lack of), Yingluck's speeches and debates in Parliament (if you can find any), or Yingluck's failure to show up for work in parliament to represent the electorate. Or to make it easy on you, forget those minor side-issues, how about just remind me again about how PTP got elected by being voted in.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Yunla

[kerryk]

I don't agree with you because it is well known that politicians lie to get elected and rarely fulfill election promises or pass any meaningful laws while in office. I can't even remember an American President who did most of anything he said he was going to do but there have been no military coups in America.

I realize you enjoy bashing Yingluck but what does it have to do with Sukampol dismisses rumors of a top general conspiring to outs the Thai government (which still is the topic of this thread I think)?

Again you are focusing on the "they got elected", "majority of voters", "lying to get elected" stuff.

I have said many times I am interested in the actions of PTP post-election, not the election itself. I assure you that PTP breaking the laws of democratic government is very much on topic to a thread about them being removed from power. The actions of PTP since they were elected are actions which you personally avoid discussing, acrobatically dodging the subject with the grace and speed of a professional gymnast.

Once again, would you care to discuss PTP policy (and lack of), Yingluck's speeches and debates in Parliament (if you can find any), or Yingluck's failure to show up for work in parliament to represent the electorate. Or to make it easy on you, forget those minor side-issues, how about just remind me again about how PTP got elected by being voted in.

What you are interested are in does not determine the meaning of words. The topic is "Sukampol dismisses rumors of a top general conspiring to outs the Thai government." You want to talk about Yingluck not going to work.

Because you want to talk about it does not make it on topic. I don't think the moderators can be bothered to read your posts but if they did they would find they are off topic.

[kerryk]

Sure everyone knows that but who figures out what circumstances? You? Not to disparage you but a lot of your posts are a bit whacky. And some other posters on Thai Visa come on like refugees the from the 1930's in Europe or Russia. You probably think you are OK but I don't. So there we have a problem. The only way to get a consensus is by election and for elections to work one has to outlaw coups. Do you see the logic in that. No of course not because you are whacky.

Again I should point out that is your opinion and not supported by the majority of Thais who vote. Are we to listen to you and a minority of Thai people to remove people from office in Thailand? And what does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

I do like how you bring something into the conversation, and then complain because it's off topic.

It is difficult. Take a deep breath and count. What is it three, so far supposed civilized people have come out in favor of coups. Even Hilly on her worst day would never publicly back a military coup on an elected government. It is very difficult for a person living in the year 2012 to have a discussion with people who are in favor of potentially violent armed overthrow of an elected government. I simply don't know what to say to such people. It is like saying murder or rape are OK if the people are really bad people. I can't deal with it. Stretching rationalization I can see the topic is marginally about coups but certainly not the performance of the current government on a daily basis.

[Reasonableman]

Kerryk, Perhaps the confusion arises from your refocusing discussion on "outs the Thai Government" (sic).

[whybother]

Sure everyone knows that but who figures out what circumstances? You? Not to disparage you but a lot of your posts are a bit whacky. And some other posters on Thai Visa come on like refugees the from the 1930's in Europe or Russia. You probably think you are OK but I don't. So there we have a problem. The only way to get a consensus is by election and for elections to work one has to outlaw coups. Do you see the logic in that. No of course not because you are whacky.

Again I should point out that is your opinion and not supported by the majority of Thais who vote. Are we to listen to you and a minority of Thai people to remove people from office in Thailand? And what does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

I do like how you bring something into the conversation, and then complain because it's off topic.

It is difficult. Take a deep breath and count. What is it three, so far supposed civilized people have come out in favor of coups. Even Hilly on her worst day would never publicly back a military coup on an elected government. It is very difficult for a person living in the year 2012 to have a discussion with people who are in favor of potentially violent armed overthrow of an elected government. I simply don't know what to say to such people. It is like saying murder or rape are OK if the people are really bad people. I can't deal with it. Stretching rationalization I can see the topic is marginally about coups but certainly not the performance of the current government on a daily basis.

Does that mean elections are On topic, or Off topic? I'm not sure, since you brought it up, but also said it was off topic.

[Yunla]

What you are interested are in does not determine the meaning of words. The topic is "Sukampol dismisses rumors of a top general conspiring to outs the Thai government." You want to talk about Yingluck not going to work.

Because you want to talk about it does not make it on topic. I don't think the moderators can be bothered to read your posts but if they did they would find they are off topic.

You have actually asked me several questions in this last page, relating to consensus forming and coups. I responded to them. However, you use 'off-topic' as a shield when the responses come back to you and you are unable to discuss them.

OK. Thread title "Sukampol dismisses rumours" - nothing to discuss. He dismissed those rumours. "Top general conspiring" - not much to discuss, maybe he conspired or not, we don't have proof so its a very short discussion isn't it. "To oust thai govt" is a bigger topic which can actually be discussed on a news forum.

I offered some responses of my opinion on coups used as a military defense of the democratic state. We don't know if a general conspired or not. But we know that a lot of people want the PTP out of office. The questions are then "why" and "how". I offered answers to those questions.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Yunla

[silsburyhill]

Totally dysfunctional Gov. The Thai people would be far better off if the Military ran the Government. Things seem to run smoother and safer. I hear this from Thais all the time. Let the military run things and get rid of the corrupt Gov.

I too have heard this. Bloody pathetic from a nation of so called adults. 'Where's papa?!' And the last stupid military regime were so good at running things were they ... NOT.

[kerryk]

Kerryk, Perhaps the confusion arises from your refocusing discussion on "outs the Thai Government" (sic).

Yunia said, “ I assure you that PTP breaking the laws of democratic government is very much on topic.”

OK I give up. How can a rational person respond to this? What are the laws of democratic government?

There is no such thing. How can anyone discuss a thing that does not exist? Oh, and sorry but I don't understand your reference "outs the Thai Government."

[whybother]

<snip> The topic is "Sukampol dismisses rumors of a top general conspiring to outs the Thai government." <snip>

Kerryk, Perhaps the confusion arises from your refocusing discussion on "outs the Thai Government" (sic).

<snip>

Oh, and sorry but I don't understand your reference "outs the Thai Government." [/size]

I think you meant "oust".

[Yunla]

Yunia said, “ I assure you that PTP breaking the laws of democratic government is very much on topic.”

OK I give up. How can a rational person respond to this? What are the laws of democratic government?

There is no such thing.

Yes, and so then we will all see the red boxer-shorts of communist totalitarian dictatorship poking out from the pinstripe trousers of democracy once again.

You saying that there are no laws of democratic government is wishful thinking on your part, and on Yingluck's too. There are indeed laws that differentiate a democracy from a dictatorship. The laws of democracy insist on for example not using ones PM office in personal business dealings, a law that Yingluck has already broken and will be held accountable for. Similarly the house speaker is currently being impeached for his crime, again along democratic laws. It is also against human-rights and privacy laws to distribute home-addresses and telephone numbers of dissenters to an angry mob, another crime PTP have committed in office.

Then there are the laws relating to parliamentary abuse, of which continuous absenteeism is one and failure to discuss or even read Bills is another. Your mistake is to assume that the rest of the democratic community are as willing to surrender their democratic rights as you clearly are. I hold my leaders to account, and expect them to behave in accordance with the laws of the land and of parliament. Failure to do so is what causes "generals to start conspiring to oust" the errant leader in question. This is to prevent the establishment of a dictatorial non-democratic state. Either play by the rules or get off the field. That applies to all MP's and the PM especially.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Yunla

[phiphidon]

<snip> The topic is "Sukampol dismisses rumors of a top general conspiring to outs the Thai government." <snip>

Kerryk, Perhaps the confusion arises from your refocusing discussion on "outs the Thai Government" (sic).

<snip>

Oh, and sorry but I don't understand your reference "outs the Thai Government." [/size]

I think you meant "oust".

Well done whybother et al, you win again. You have succeeded in dragging the thread this way and that until all reasonable debate about the topic is abandoned while the shrill voice of yunla is heard bleating away about the party she hates. Is it a technique you learnt from the dems?

[Yunla]

all reasonable debate about the topic is abandoned while the shrill voice of yunla is heard bleating away about the party she hates.

I take it you will not insult kerryk's voice or offensively compare him to a sheep. Why? Do you find his posts in this thread entirely ontopic and impartial.

[kerryk]

Yunia said, “ I assure you that PTP breaking the laws of democratic government is very much on topic.”

OK I give up. How can a rational person respond to this? What are the laws of democratic government?

There is no such thing.

Yes, and so then we will all see the red boxer-shorts of communist totalitarian dictatorship poking out from the pinstripe trousers of democracy once again.

You saying that there are no laws of democratic government is wishful thinking on your part, and on Yingluck's too. There are indeed laws that differentiate a democracy from a dictatorship. The laws of democracy insist on for example not using ones PM office in personal business dealings, a law that Yingluck has already broken and will be held accountable for. Similarly the house speaker is currently being impeached for his crime, again along democratic laws.

Then there are the laws relating to parliamentary abuse, of which continuous absenteeism is one and failure to discuss or even read Bills is another. Your mistake is to assume that the rest of the democratic community are as willing to surrender their democratic rights as you clearly are. I hold my leaders to account, and expect them to behave in accordance with the laws of the land and of parliament. Failure to do so is what causes "generals to start conspiring to oust" the errant leader in question. This is to prevent the establishment of a dictatorial non-democratic state. Either play by the rules or get off the field. That applies to all MP's and the PM especially.

Besides your posts where does one read these laws of democracy?

[whybother]

Well done whybother et al, you win again. You have succeeded in dragging the thread this way and that until all reasonable debate about the topic is abandoned while the shrill voice of yunla is heard bleating away about the party she hates. Is it a technique you learnt from the dems?

I think if you bother to look back at the thread, it was kerry who brought up elections, and it was kerry who complained it was off topic.

I had nothing to do with that, and I had nothing to do with the conversation between kerry and yunla.

As for the post you quoted, I was just pointing out to kerry what reasonableman was referring to. I'm sorry for that. I'll try not to do that any more.

[kerryk]

Everyone else is wacky, except thee and me. Oh Kerryk, the irony.... ;-) Anyway...

And for elections to work you have to outlaw corruption, nepotism and bribery, and instil the rule of law, not the rule of con-man, mob, thug and mafia. The dumbed-down color coding has also got to go. The separation of powers has to be maintained, not face continual erosion into tyranny. And the necessary role of a watchdog Opposition must be valued and respected. Lots to do, lots to do.

Everyone else is wacky, except thee and me. Oh Kerryk, the irony.... ;-) Anyway...

And for elections to work you have to outlaw corruption, nepotism and bribery, and instil the rule of law, not the rule of con-man, mob, thug and mafia. The dumbed-down color coding has also got to go. The separation of powers has to be maintained, not face continual erosion into tyranny. And the necessary role of a watchdog Opposition must be valued and respected. Lots to do, lots to do.

Actually that is the point I was referring to. Sure you think I am nuts. I think Yunia thinks I am wacky. I think nepotism is when your son runs for President. I think corruption is when you bail out banks. I think only a thug would pass the largest tax hike in the history of man in the USA. But no one has a coup about it. I frankly don't understand generals having coups at all. A free press would solve all the problems. The reason the US and UK are having problems now is because the press was able to buy the government and vice a versa.

[Reasonableman]

You might find it strange that someone might find this offensive, and "disparaging", which was clearly the intent, despite the disingenuous (this week's buzzword) denial.

"Not to disparage you but a lot of your posts are a bit whacky.  And some other posters on Thai Visa come on like refugees the from the 1930's in Europe or Russia.  You probably think you are OK but I don't.  So there we have a problem.  The only way to get a consensus is by election and for elections to work one has to outlaw coups.  Do you see the logic in that.  No of course not because you are whacky."

[kerryk]

You might find it strange that someone might find this offensive, and "disparaging", which was clearly the intent, despite the disingenuous (this week's buzzword) denial.

"Not to disparage you but a lot of your posts are a bit whacky. And some other posters on Thai Visa come on like refugees the from the 1930's in Europe or Russia. You probably think you are OK but I don't. So there we have a problem. The only way to get a consensus is by election and for elections to work one has to outlaw coups. Do you see the logic in that. No of course not because you are whacky."

My fault, I'm wacky. But you lost me there. Should we outlaw coups in your opinion?

[kerryk]

Well done whybother et al, you win again. You have succeeded in dragging the thread this way and that until all reasonable debate about the topic is abandoned while the shrill voice of yunla is heard bleating away about the party she hates. Is it a technique you learnt from the dems?

I think if you bother to look back at the thread, it was kerry who brought up elections, and it was kerry who complained it was off topic.

I had nothing to do with that, and I had nothing to do with the conversation between kerry and yunla.

As for the post you quoted, I was just pointing out to kerry what reasonableman was referring to. I'm sorry for that. I'll try not to do that any more.

Actually, I am still waiting for you to find the 1,796 cases recently where amnesty has been granted legally.

[whybother]

Actually, I am still waiting for you to find the 1,796 cases recently where amnesty has been granted legally.

What 1,796 recent cases?

Are you suggesting that granting amnesty is illegal? Maybe you should mention that to the PTP who is trying to push amnesty laws through parliament.

[Reasonableman]

You might find it strange that someone might find this offensive, and "disparaging", which was clearly the intent, despite the disingenuous (this week's buzzword) denial.

"Not to disparage you but a lot of your posts are a bit whacky. And some other posters on Thai Visa come on like refugees the from the 1930's in Europe or Russia. You probably think you are OK but I don't. So there we have a problem. The only way to get a consensus is by election and for elections to work one has to outlaw coups. Do you see the logic in that. No of course not because you are whacky."

My fault, I'm wacky. But you lost me there. Should we outlaw coups in your opinion?

My understanding is that they are already illegal. Is there a law on the books providing for or enabling coups? If not, it would seem they must be extrajudicial, outlawed already.

[kerryk]

You might find it strange that someone might find this offensive, and "disparaging", which was clearly the intent, despite the disingenuous (this week's buzzword) denial.

"Not to disparage you but a lot of your posts are a bit whacky. And some other posters on Thai Visa come on like refugees the from the 1930's in Europe or Russia. You probably think you are OK but I don't. So there we have a problem. The only way to get a consensus is by election and for elections to work one has to outlaw coups. Do you see the logic in that. No of course not because you are whacky."

My fault, I'm wacky. But you lost me there. Should we outlaw coups in your opinion?

My understanding is that they are already illegal. Is there a law on the books providing for or enabling coups? If not, it would seem they must be extrajudicial, outlawed already.

So in your opinion are there circumstances where an elected government should be changed by coup in Thailand?

[Yunla]

So in your opinion are there circumstances where an elected government should be changed by coup in Thailand?

Being elected in democracy is not the same as being given the keys to the Sweet Shop. It means you have passed a job interview, and are required to show up at work and to work to a high standard. If you fail to do those things, you are sacked from your job. Depending on the way you behave at work you may have to be dragged forcefully from the building. The important thing is that the office survives and they can recruit new employees in future.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Yunla