Bangkok Police Asked To Remove Hundreds Of Protesters In Sanam Luang

[whybother]

Democracy allows an elected government (note elected) to complete the term for which it was elected!

'Straw Man' argument. Where were you on this forum when the Red-Shirts were holding Ratchaprasong hostage while demanding the resignation of the elected government of Abhisit? BTW Abhisit is an elected MP as opposed to the party list MP who is now PM. They both became PM by the same method of MPs voting for them.

Abhisit was also a party list MP when he was PM. He was elected as a constituent MP when he started in politics, as opposed to the current PM who didn't want anything to do with politics a month before the election.

[whybother]

Democracy allows an elected government (note elected) to complete the term for which it was elected!

Couldn't be more wrong. The right for citizens to partition government is a fundamental aspect in a democratic electoral scenario. The above quote suggests that under performing elected officials should get a free ride for the duration. This is just plain wrong. Corrections / adjustments are a continuous process. No one is irreplaceable in gov't.

So, you're saying that democrats who STOLE the right to rule here are right?

How did they "steal" the right to rule? A majority of MPs voted for Abhisit in parliament.

[rametindallas]

Democracy allows an elected government (note elected) to complete the term for which it was elected!

Does it also allow them to ignore laws, committ criminal offences (has Yingluck ever responded on the question of the illegally issued Thai passport to her criminal fugitive brother yet?), re-write history to suit themselves or try to dismantle the constitutional checks and balances to suit themselves?

Democracy usually allows for the removal of governments that act illegally.

Does that also include the democrat's who stole power after an illegal coop?

You mean two and a half years after the coup? The Thaksin controlled PPP won the first elections after the coup? Are you a propagandist or just ignorant of history?

[Baerboxer]

Democracy allows an elected government (note elected) to complete the term for which it was elected!

Ask Richard Nixon.

Why ask an American who also doesn't understand democracy?

Obviously too subtle for you. Let me help you - Nixon told lies and ignored the law, so he was dismissed before his democratically elected term ended. Now do you see? Democracy allows for corrupt governments to be removed before their term ends.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Baerboxer

[Baerboxer]

Democracy allows an elected government (note elected) to complete the term for which it was elected!

Does it also allow them to ignore laws, committ criminal offences (has Yingluck ever responded on the question of the illegally issued Thai passport to her criminal fugitive brother yet?), re-write history to suit themselves or try to dismantle the constitutional checks and balances to suit themselves?

Democracy usually allows for the removal of governments that act illegally.

Does that also include the democrat's who stole power after an illegal coop?

You mean two and a half years after the coup? The Thaksin controlled PPP won the first elections after the coup? Are you a propagandist or just ignorant of history?

If someone is removed from illegally holding office, e.g. a "caretaker PM" hanging on illegally, does that constitute a coup, or is it enforcing the rule of law?

There is history, and then there is history through red tinted glasses of course!

Edited May 21, 2013 by Baerboxer

[Baerboxer]

Democracy allows an elected government (note elected) to complete the term for which it was elected!

Couldn't be more wrong. The right for citizens to partition government is a fundamental aspect in a democratic electoral scenario. The above quote suggests that under performing elected officials should get a free ride for the duration. This is just plain wrong. Corrections / adjustments are a continuous process. No one is irreplaceable in gov't.

So, you're saying that democrats who STOLE the right to rule here are right?

Read FM505's post again. Then read your response. FM is making a point about citizens rights regarding under performing elected officials (and the same applies to corrupt ones). The is a fundamental of democracy.

He is not using the word democratic as in "democrats" but as in democracy.

[Baerboxer]

Democracy allows an elected government (note elected) to complete the term for which it was elected!

Does it also allow them to ignore laws, committ criminal offences (has Yingluck ever responded on the question of the illegally issued Thai passport to her criminal fugitive brother yet?), re-write history to suit themselves or try to dismantle the constitutional checks and balances to suit themselves?

Democracy usually allows for the removal of governments that act illegally.

You have no idea what you're talking about! Do you really believe that the democrats don't do the same? For Christ sake get a life!

And you do? The clarity and understanding of your posts speaks volumes for your graps of politics. Which points do you disagree with then?

Corruption is endemic in Thailand but the current regime have reached new levels.

[JAG]

One might say that there is yellow tinted history, which holds that virtually any means is justified if it allows those that have always held the levers of power to retain control, and there is red tinted history which holds that an elected government should be allowed to complete its term in office and then face the judgement of the electorate. Naively I tend to the view that the latter is democracy.

[monty1412]

Democracy allows an elected government (note elected) to complete the term for which it was elected!

Just ask Gough Whitlam about that one ( You have to be an Aussie to understand this)

[TheGhostWithin]

Democracy allows an elected government (note elected) to complete the term for which it was elected!

Correct Brian, but it also in principal allows peaceful, non-disruptive protest without fear of violence or being silenced. The basis of democracy also assumes that post election, all parties will be treated in a fair and equal way. This has clearly not happened in Thailand since the election of PTP into government for the current term.

Within the past few days supposedly thousands of Red Shirt "protesters" (coined by the media and government, not by the people) blocked major roadways, setting up stages and roadblocks, imposing their own security forces and allegedly selling and distributing weapons within the protest. The described protest is exactly the kind of protest which would immediately be disbursed in other DEMOCRATIC countries first through legal means and if this failed then imposed eviction by the Police.

A few hundred protesters in a park is nothing new in Bangkok (there were protesters visible when I first visited Thailand in 1999, and there have been protesters on every trip since) but they have generally always been tolerated by the government. This is the first government which is actively attempting to rout the entire opposition political movement by using their time to actively harass them, rather than spending their time doing what they were DEMOCRATICALLY elected by the PEOPLE to do. Governing means leading by example, not annihilating your opposition so that they do not have the capacity to campaign against the opposition and their good/bad decisions.

[MunterHunter]

Double standards, pure and simple.

Reds are allowed to protest anytime they want - no police brought to control or expel them by this puppet government, anyone else tries to demonstrate/protest...

[BrianCR]

Democracy allows an elected government (note elected) to complete the term for which it was elected!

Couldn't be more wrong. The right for citizens to partition government is a fundamental aspect in a democratic electoral scenario. The above quote suggests that under performing elected officials should get a free ride for the duration. This is just plain wrong. Corrections / adjustments are a continuous process. No one is irreplaceable in gov't.

What, with mob rule? We'll stay here until the government goes! Total rubbish!

[whybother]

Democracy allows an elected government (note elected) to complete the term for which it was elected!

Couldn't be more wrong. The right for citizens to partition government is a fundamental aspect in a democratic electoral scenario. The above quote suggests that under performing elected officials should get a free ride for the duration. This is just plain wrong. Corrections / adjustments are a continuous process. No one is irreplaceable in gov't.

What, with mob rule? We'll stay here until the government goes! Total rubbish!

You don't seem to mind it when the red shirts do that.

But, they can stay there until the government goes ... When the government call elections they have to disband parliament.

Edited May 22, 2013 by whybother

[BrianCR]

Democracy allows an elected government (note elected) to complete the term for which it was elected!

Correct Brian, but it also in principal allows peaceful, non-disruptive protest without fear of violence or being silenced. The basis of democracy also assumes that post election, all parties will be treated in a fair and equal way. This has clearly not happened in Thailand since the election of PTP into government for the current term.

Within the past few days supposedly thousands of Red Shirt "protesters" (coined by the media and government, not by the people) blocked major roadways, setting up stages and roadblocks, imposing their own security forces and allegedly selling and distributing weapons within the protest. The described protest is exactly the kind of protest which would immediately be disbursed in other DEMOCRATIC countries first through legal means and if this failed then imposed eviction by the Police.

A few hundred protesters in a park is nothing new in Bangkok (there were protesters visible when I first visited Thailand in 1999, and there have been protesters on every trip since) but they have generally always been tolerated by the government. This is the first government which is actively attempting to rout the entire opposition political movement by using their time to actively harass them, rather than spending their time doing what they were DEMOCRATICALLY elected by the PEOPLE to do. Governing means leading by example, not annihilating your opposition so that they do not have the capacity to campaign against the opposition and their good/bad decisions.

The "red" demo was peaceful and short lived, the yellow mafia are planning to disrupt matters until an elected government (unlike the democrats who stole power with an UNLAWFUL coop) steps down - that could be an awful lot of disruption! As for playing fair don't you think that the democrats will steal power again if they get the chance? Let's face it, it's the only way that they could get to power as they (and their yellow shirt mafia friends) don't have a hope in hell's chance of actually legally winning an election. As a matter of fact I doubt if the word legal is even in their dictionaries!

[BrianCR]

Democracy allows an elected government (note elected) to complete the term for which it was elected!

Does it also allow them to ignore laws, committ criminal offences (has Yingluck ever responded on the question of the illegally issued Thai passport to her criminal fugitive brother yet?), re-write history to suit themselves or try to dismantle the constitutional checks and balances to suit themselves?

Democracy usually allows for the removal of governments that act illegally.

You have no idea what you're talking about! Do you really believe that the democrats don't do the same? For Christ sake get a life!

And you do? The clarity and understanding of your posts speaks volumes for your graps of politics. Which points do you disagree with then?

Corruption is endemic in Thailand but the current regime have reached new levels.

'Corruption is endemic in Thailand but the current regime have reached new levels.' Only in the minds eye of the few dozen misinformed TV posters who view everything Thai in a negative fashion!

By the way can you explain the meaning of "your graps of politics" I am at a loss in trying to understand if this is a new technical way to describe something political or the lack of clarity in your post?

[BrianCR]

Democracy allows an elected government (note elected) to complete the term for which it was elected!

Ask Richard Nixon.

Why ask an American who also doesn't understand democracy?

Obviously too subtle for you. Let me help you - Nixon told lies and ignored the law, so he was dismissed before his democratically elected term ended. Now do you see? Democracy allows for corrupt governments to be removed before their term ends.

It allows for people to be legally impeached NOT removed by mob law and military coups! Edited May 22, 2013 by BrianCR

[whybother]

The "red" demo was peaceful and short lived, the yellow mafia are planning to disrupt matters until an elected government (unlike the democrats who stole power with an UNLAWFUL coop) steps down - that could be an awful lot of disruption! As for playing fair don't you think that the democrats will steal power again if they get the chance? Let's face it, it's the only way that they could get to power as they (and their yellow shirt mafia friends) don't have a hope in hell's chance of actually legally winning an election. As a matter of fact I doubt if the word legal is even in their dictionaries!

What are the "yellow mafia" disrupting? They have just said they are going to stay where they are ... in a park.

What was unlawful about how the Democrats came to power?

The Democrats "yellow mafia friends" didn't do much for them in the last election.

[whybother]

By the way can you explain the meaning of "your graps of politics" I am at a loss in trying to understand if this is a new technical way to describe something political or the lack of clarity in your post?

.

What "your graps of politics" means is understanding that a "coop" is a hen house.

[whybother]

It allows for people to be legally impeached NOT removed by mob law and military coups!

.

And there I was thinking that you supported the red shirts protests to get rid of the Democrats in 2010. Good to hear that you don't.

[hellodolly]

The "red" demo was peaceful and short lived, the yellow mafia are planning to disrupt matters until an elected government (unlike the democrats who stole power with an UNLAWFUL coop) steps down - that could be an awful lot of disruption! As for playing fair don't you think that the democrats will steal power again if they get the chance? Let's face it, it's the only way that they could get to power as they (and their yellow shirt mafia friends) don't have a hope in hell's chance of actually legally winning an election. As a matter of fact I doubt if the word legal is even in their dictionaries!

What are the "yellow mafia" disrupting? They have just said they are going to stay where they are ... in a park.

What was unlawful about how the Democrats came to power?

The Democrats "yellow mafia friends" didn't do much for them in the last election.

Actually if the Yellow shirts had voted PT would still have won but the margin would have have been bigger than 4 % of the voters. So in effect they helped the PT.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed. Other off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[hellodolly]

Democracy allows an elected government (note elected) to complete the term for which it was elected!

Does it also allow them to ignore laws, committ criminal offences (has Yingluck ever responded on the question of the illegally issued Thai passport to her criminal fugitive brother yet?), re-write history to suit themselves or try to dismantle the constitutional checks and balances to suit themselves?

Democracy usually allows for the removal of governments that act illegally.

Does that also include the democrat's who stole power after an illegal coop?

Before you post why don't you look up the facts.

After the Army assumed power there was two governments before the Democrats all three of them were elected the same way.

I am still wondering if it was a coup the country had no PM at the time and no interim PM. So who did they throw out of office? It has always been my understanding that a coup is when they seize power. In this case it was just laying there unused. There was a need to fill the hole and the army filled it. They hung on to government just long enough for the parties to get them selves organized and then called for an election.

[hellodolly]

I was wondering if they could move it to the streets of down town Bangkok.

They are acceptable by the red shirts and long term possession with barbed wire barricades is all so acceptable to the red shirts.

They are even in favor of invading hospitals and rockets fired at public transit centers is acceptable to them.

Remember they set the standards.

[Baerboxer]

One might say that there is yellow tinted history, which holds that virtually any means is justified if it allows those that have always held the levers of power to retain control, and there is red tinted history which holds that an elected government should be allowed to complete its term in office and then face the judgement of the electorate. Naively I tend to the view that the latter is democracy.

I almost agree with you. Sadly the choice seems to be polorized between those that have always held the levers of power (an act like the ruling European classes in the 18th - early 20th Centuries) and the current government who profess to be a "peoples' party" and are also trying to re-write laws and constitutions to favour themselves, retain power more easily and remove any checks and balances to their activities. Illegal acts have been committed and remain unremeded. Both lots seem to consider themselves above the law when it suits too.

A democracy needs to have a strong constitution, impartially enforced laws for all and an independent judiciary. The right of free speech and independent media are safeguards to forces trying to change this. Any government cannot expect to be allowed to complete its term if it chooses to act illegally or is incompetenet.. There has to be a way to legitimately remove governments in these cases. But, this would require all the pre-requisites of a democracy to be in place. These are not yet in place in Thaland.

[Baerboxer]

'Corruption is endemic in Thailand but the current regime have reached new levels.' Only in the minds eye of the few dozen misinformed TV posters who view everything Thai in a negative fashion!
By the way can you explain the meaning of "your graps of politics" I am at a loss in trying to understand if this is a new technical way to describe something political or the lack of clarity in your post?

Do you really think that? That the current government's levels of corruption and scamming are only in the minds eye of a few TV posters? And that's because they're misinformed! I certainly don't view everything in Thailand negatively, and defend against those that do regularly.

Other posters have made comments that you need to check facts and information before posting. Try researching on corruption, scams. and the history of a few key players before claiming it's " all in our minds" (look up "unusual wealth" for example). This may help you to answer your second question.

PTP also have a dislike of criticism, which is something they seemed to inherit from former incarnations. So, their supporters can disrupt people going about their lawful business and act as they please. But any opposition has to be silenced. Another manifestation of this is the constant attacks on the judiciary and independent bodies. They attack these by severely cutting their budgets, and in the case of the constitutional court, allow red shirts to stage intimidatory protests. This is all about removing checks and balances and making people frightend to voice a different opinion. Add to this the fact that the PM and her cousin the FM have still not responded to question on the illegal issuing of a new passport to a fugitve convicted criminal, the increasing transparency in the government taking instructions from said criminal, and the amount of time and energy expended (at tax payers cost) to try to whitewash said criminal and you get the idea that pursuing real democracy is not high on the agenda!

[gemini81]

Which group now? So many and so many colors I can't keep up with it.

Edited May 23, 2013 by gemini81

[pastitche]

Talking about impeachment and other methods of removing heads of government is interesting but how relevant is it to effecting change of government?

It is not unusual for a Prime Minister to resign eg Thatcher (unwillingly) and Blair in the UK. Both governments continued despite protests from the opposition.

So if Yingluck decided to bite the bullet and devote her time to more feminine pursuits, what would these protestors gain?

[TheGhostWithin]

The "red" demo was peaceful and short lived, the yellow mafia are planning to disrupt matters until an elected government (unlike the democrats who stole power with an UNLAWFUL coop) steps down - that could be an awful lot of disruption! As for playing fair don't you think that the democrats will steal power again if they get the chance? Let's face it, it's the only way that they could get to power as they (and their yellow shirt mafia friends) don't have a hope in hell's chance of actually legally winning an election. As a matter of fact I doubt if the word legal is even in their dictionaries!

Thanks Brian, but there seems to be some confusion over the recent "protests" by the Red Shirts and as to if it was disruptive or not. I have to ask, when you were a working man (assuming you are far too wealthy to work now), would you have found frustration and anger if you could not go to work, or possibly run your business, because a group of people had unlawfully blocked the streets with their own barricades they had their own security services enforcing that protest-related only vehicles enter? Would you also find frustration in the fact that you lived in a country which was less kinder to its' citizens than we may be used to, and that even if your business was burnt down that the government which you pay taxes to would not protect you from damage to property nor loss of income as a result of the above?

Brian, you also seem to have experienced a little confusion over who holds the power in Thailand. Thailand has been overseen by the Police and the Military as the rightful protectors of the King, and only in recent times have politicians been considered in any way to hold "sway" over control of the Kingdom. I remind you that no matter how much money politicians in Thailand have, and no matter how many Police are in the pockets of the corrupt politicians, the army as more than enough bullets and shells to quell any rebellion.

But they also understand it would be a Pyrrhic victory as it is ultimately the people who must decide if they wish to be slaves of shadow kings with self serving ideals or if they wish to exist in the modern world ready to take their piece of the huge gains the Kingdom has made financially in the past 30 years. One path guarantees poverty through historical performance under the same leadership, the other gives (but not guarantees) hope of a better life for ALL Thais.

[TheGhostWithin]

Talking about impeachment and other methods of removing heads of government is interesting but how relevant is it to effecting change of government?

It is not unusual for a Prime Minister to resign eg Thatcher (unwillingly) and Blair in the UK. Both governments continued despite protests from the opposition.

So if Yingluck decided to bite the bullet and devote her time to more feminine pursuits, what would these protestors gain?

Probably a bigger, badder bulldog in the form of the "Yaopawa".. tougher than a ghetto soldier on the streets of Kabul.

Sometimes it is better to ignore the enemy understanding what it will become if it survives the attack wounded and returns with purpose and understanding. Let the confused beast wander endlessly.

Edited May 23, 2013 by TheGhostWithin

[pastitche]

Talking about impeachment and other methods of removing heads of government is interesting but how relevant is it to effecting change of government?

It is not unusual for a Prime Minister to resign eg Thatcher (unwillingly) and Blair in the UK. Both governments continued despite protests from the opposition.

So if Yingluck decided to bite the bullet and devote her time to more feminine pursuits, what would these protestors gain?

Probably a bigger, badder bulldog in the form of the "Yaopawa".. tougher than a ghetto soldier on the streets of Kabul.

Sometimes it is better to ignore the enemy understanding what it will become if it survives the attack wounded and returns with purpose and understanding. Let the confused beast wander endlessly.

You are probably correct about "a bigger badder bulldog" but what I asked was what would the protestors gain from YL's resignation?

Edited May 23, 2013 by pastitche