Govt vows "to protect democracy" : Nuttawut

[icare999]

they would not know democracy if it hit them in the face

[WhizBang]

The red shirts would also protect the "elected government" of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

He condemned the rally, saying its leaders were falsely accusing the Shinawatra family of lese majesty. He said that this action is violent, and does not give the Shinawatra family chance to defend themselves.

Once again, it is ALL about the resident Shinawatra mafia clan and NOT about the country or it's citizens.

Shameful.

[whybother]

I think it is quite farcical to think that only one political party buys votes in Thailand. As opposed to buying votes, I guess it is a much better option for a political party to be installed via a coup. If one truly thinks that there is not a social divide in Thailand, they are only fooling themselves. It is not only a social divide, it is blatant discrimination. If parliament is dissolved and a new election is held, the PTP will win, again - albeit by a slimmer margin. Then, the cycle will start all over.

Yes, the government being installed via a coup is wrong.

What should happen is that the elected MPs vote for the PM in parliament, and the elected PM should form government, like Abhisit did.

[whybother]

What a one-eyed, biased piece of rubbish post!

Since when did the Democrats cross the floor during their tenure. NEVER is the answer. They pushed through constitutional amendments to change the electoral system in their favour with no concern for the protests & debate from the opposition. They expedited the 'buffet budget' just before the election as a massive populist push to win votes, even though it was almost unanimously disliked by economists, industry & business leaders alike.

The PTP have systematically fulfilled the election promises that they were elected on. Rice pledging, minimum wage, infrastructure spending, reconciliation, constitutional amendments,...were all in the party manifesto prior 2011 victory. They aren't doing anything more or less than they promised.

I am just wondering how the Democrats "pushed through constitutional amendments" when they didn't have a majority of MPs. They needed to get their coalition partners to agree to the amendments that were proposed.

Whereas the PTP did exactly what you are saying the Democrats did. The PTP MPs were told which way to vote, and that sounds like "pushing through constitutional amendments".

Also, the budget that the Democrats implemented was necessary following the 2008 GFC. It's the PTP policies that have been almost unanimously disliked by economists. Certain industry and business leaders have liked them because they can make money from them, particularly the policies that are *supposed* to help the poor farmers. If the PTP policies weren't "a massive populist push to win votes", I don't know what was.

It seems that everything you complain that the Democrats did were actually done by the PTP.

[soundman]

Libellous post removed from view.

[waza]

"BANGKOK: -- Deputy Commerce Minister Nuttawut Saikuar said Monday that the government would protect democracy from anti-government rally leader Suthep Thaugsuban."

Isn't it ironic that the government is in this mess because they have been acting in an undemocratic, corrupt and unconstitutional manner and that Nuttawut Saikuar is currently on bail from charges of terrorism.

Speaking of corruption, On 22 June 2013, a music video surfaced on YouTube featuring Nattawut singing about and promoting grocery stores. The video received harsh criticism, with some viewers stating it was a waste of government spending

Edited November 25, 2013 by waza

[Rich teacher]

What a one-eyed, biased piece of rubbish post!

Since when did the Democrats cross the floor during their tenure. NEVER is the answer. They pushed through constitutional amendments to change the electoral system in their favour with no concern for the protests & debate from the opposition. They expedited the 'buffet budget' just before the election as a massive populist push to win votes, even though it was almost unanimously disliked by economists, industry & business leaders alike.

The PTP have systematically fulfilled the election promises that they were elected on. Rice pledging, minimum wage, infrastructure spending, reconciliation, constitutional amendments,...were all in the party manifesto prior 2011 victory. They aren't doing anything more or less than they promised.

I am just wondering how the Democrats "pushed through constitutional amendments" when they didn't have a majority of MPs. They needed to get their coalition partners to agree to the amendments that were proposed.

Whereas the PTP did exactly what you are saying the Democrats did. The PTP MPs were told which way to vote, and that sounds like "pushing through constitutional amendments".

Also, the budget that the Democrats implemented was necessary following the 2008 GFC. It's the PTP policies that have been almost unanimously disliked by economists. Certain industry and business leaders have liked them because they can make money from them, particularly the policies that are *supposed* to help the poor farmers. If the PTP policies weren't "a massive populist push to win votes", I don't know what was.

It seems that everything you complain that the Democrats did were actually done by the PTP.

Aren't you forgetting that the 2008 coalition partners had pledged their support with Anupong and Suthep behind army walls? Oh, I remember, selective memory.

[waza]

What a one-eyed, biased piece of rubbish post!

Since when did the Democrats cross the floor during their tenure. NEVER is the answer. They pushed through constitutional amendments to change the electoral system in their favour with no concern for the protests & debate from the opposition. They expedited the 'buffet budget' just before the election as a massive populist push to win votes, even though it was almost unanimously disliked by economists, industry & business leaders alike.

The PTP have systematically fulfilled the election promises that they were elected on. Rice pledging, minimum wage, infrastructure spending, reconciliation, constitutional amendments,...were all in the party manifesto prior 2011 victory. They aren't doing anything more or less than they promised.

I am just wondering how the Democrats "pushed through constitutional amendments" when they didn't have a majority of MPs. They needed to get their coalition partners to agree to the amendments that were proposed.

Whereas the PTP did exactly what you are saying the Democrats did. The PTP MPs were told which way to vote, and that sounds like "pushing through constitutional amendments".

Also, the budget that the Democrats implemented was necessary following the 2008 GFC. It's the PTP policies that have been almost unanimously disliked by economists. Certain industry and business leaders have liked them because they can make money from them, particularly the policies that are *supposed* to help the poor farmers. If the PTP policies weren't "a massive populist push to win votes", I don't know what was.

It seems that everything you complain that the Democrats did were actually done by the PTP.

Aren't you forgetting that the 2008 coalition partners had pledged their support with Anupong and Suthep behind army walls? Oh, I remember, selective memory.

Are you also forgetting that the Thaksin proxy party also gave inferred support for these constitutional amendments and the "buffet budget" by not opposing them? "Oh, I remember, selective memory."

Edited November 25, 2013 by waza

[whybother]

What a one-eyed, biased piece of rubbish post!

Since when did the Democrats cross the floor during their tenure. NEVER is the answer. They pushed through constitutional amendments to change the electoral system in their favour with no concern for the protests & debate from the opposition. They expedited the 'buffet budget' just before the election as a massive populist push to win votes, even though it was almost unanimously disliked by economists, industry & business leaders alike.

The PTP have systematically fulfilled the election promises that they were elected on. Rice pledging, minimum wage, infrastructure spending, reconciliation, constitutional amendments,...were all in the party manifesto prior 2011 victory. They aren't doing anything more or less than they promised. 

 

 

I am just wondering how the Democrats "pushed through constitutional amendments" when they didn't have a majority of MPs.  They needed to get their coalition partners to agree to the amendments that were proposed.  

 

Whereas the PTP did exactly what you are saying the Democrats did. The PTP MPs were told which way to vote, and that sounds like "pushing through constitutional amendments".

 

Also, the budget that the Democrats implemented was necessary following the 2008 GFC.  It's the PTP policies that have been almost unanimously disliked by economists.  Certain industry and business leaders have liked them because they can make money from them, particularly the policies that are *supposed* to help the poor farmers.  If the PTP policies weren't "a massive populist push to win votes", I don't know what was.

 

It seems that everything you complain that the Democrats did were actually done by the PTP.

Aren't you forgetting that the 2008 coalition partners had pledged their support with Anupong and Suthep behind army walls? Oh, I remember, selective memory.

Actually, Thaksin supporters always tell me that they were "encouraged" to back the Democrats with the promise of lucrative ministries. That doesn't sound like they were forced to do anything. It also didn't mean that they were forced to vote for every piece of legislation that was put forward. There were no reports of them being told they had to vote for a particular piece of legislation as happened with PTP.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Rich teacher]

What a one-eyed, biased piece of rubbish post!

Since when did the Democrats cross the floor during their tenure. NEVER is the answer. They pushed through constitutional amendments to change the electoral system in their favour with no concern for the protests & debate from the opposition. They expedited the 'buffet budget' just before the election as a massive populist push to win votes, even though it was almost unanimously disliked by economists, industry & business leaders alike.

The PTP have systematically fulfilled the election promises that they were elected on. Rice pledging, minimum wage, infrastructure spending, reconciliation, constitutional amendments,...were all in the party manifesto prior 2011 victory. They aren't doing anything more or less than they promised.

I am just wondering how the Democrats "pushed through constitutional amendments" when they didn't have a majority of MPs. They needed to get their coalition partners to agree to the amendments that were proposed.

Whereas the PTP did exactly what you are saying the Democrats did. The PTP MPs were told which way to vote, and that sounds like "pushing through constitutional amendments".

Also, the budget that the Democrats implemented was necessary following the 2008 GFC. It's the PTP policies that have been almost unanimously disliked by economists. Certain industry and business leaders have liked them because they can make money from them, particularly the policies that are *supposed* to help the poor farmers. If the PTP policies weren't "a massive populist push to win votes", I don't know what was.

It seems that everything you complain that the Democrats did were actually done by the PTP.

Aren't you forgetting that the 2008 coalition partners had pledged their support with Anupong and Suthep behind army walls? Oh, I remember, selective memory.

Are you also forgetting that the Thaksin proxy party also gave inferred support for these constitutional amendments and the "buffet budget" by not opposing them? "Oh, I remember, selective memory."

This is hilarious....by your reckoning that means the Dems 'gave inferred support' for the recent blanket amnesty...lol...checkmate

[waza]

I am just wondering how the Democrats "pushed through constitutional amendments" when they didn't have a majority of MPs. They needed to get their coalition partners to agree to the amendments that were proposed.

Whereas the PTP did exactly what you are saying the Democrats did. The PTP MPs were told which way to vote, and that sounds like "pushing through constitutional amendments".

Also, the budget that the Democrats implemented was necessary following the 2008 GFC. It's the PTP policies that have been almost unanimously disliked by economists. Certain industry and business leaders have liked them because they can make money from them, particularly the policies that are *supposed* to help the poor farmers. If the PTP policies weren't "a massive populist push to win votes", I don't know what was.

It seems that everything you complain that the Democrats did were actually done by the PTP.

Aren't you forgetting that the 2008 coalition partners had pledged their support with Anupong and Suthep behind army walls? Oh, I remember, selective memory.

Are you also forgetting that the Thaksin proxy party also gave inferred support for these constitutional amendments and the "buffet budget" by not opposing them? "Oh, I remember, selective memory."

This is hilarious....by your reckoning that means the Dems 'gave inferred support' for the recent blanket amnesty...lol...checkmate

Actually you are wrong the Dems refused to vote for the amnesty which is not inferred but actual dissidence to the blanket Amnesty and they petition the Constitutional Court for legal interpretation which is active opposition. "Oh, I remember, selective memory."

Edited November 25, 2013 by waza

[Rich teacher]

Actually you are wrong the Dems refused to vote for the amnesty which is not inferred but actual dissidence to the blanket Amnesty and they petition the Constitutional Court for legal interpretation which is active opposition. "Oh, I remember, selective memory."

Aren't you forgetting that the 2008 coalition partners had pledged their support with Anupong and Suthep behind army walls? Oh, I remember, selective memory.

Are you also forgetting that the Thaksin proxy party also gave inferred support for these constitutional amendments and the "buffet budget" by not opposing them? "Oh, I remember, selective memory."

This is hilarious....by your reckoning that means the Dems 'gave inferred support' for the recent blanket amnesty...lol...checkmate

PT boycotted the constitutional amendment vote in 2011 . Now I think (even) you realise that a boycott is not an expression of 'inferred support'

Edited November 25, 2013 by Rich teacher

[waza]

Actually you are wrong the Dems refused to vote for the amnesty which is not inferred but actual dissidence to the blanket Amnesty and they petition the Constitutional Court for legal interpretation which is active opposition. "Oh, I remember, selective memory."

Aren't you forgetting that the 2008 coalition partners had pledged their support with Anupong and Suthep behind army walls? Oh, I remember, selective memory.

Are you also forgetting that the Thaksin proxy party also gave inferred support for these constitutional amendments and the "buffet budget" by not opposing them? "Oh, I remember, selective memory."

This is hilarious....by your reckoning that means the Dems 'gave inferred support' for the recent blanket amnesty...lol...checkmate

PT boycotted the constitutional amendment vote in 2011 . Now I think (even) you realise that a boycott is not an expression of 'inferred support'

Yer right Rich Teacher, I agree that, "a boycott is not an expression of 'inferred support', its is an action of active opposition.

"After debating for six hours, members of the two chambers voted 343 to 205 to provide endorsement of the bill to amend Section 190, a change suggested by the joint parliamentary committee..... The opposition Puea Thai Party MPs also took the floor to voice their support of the proposed 400:100ratio."

But to get back on topic, it is evident that the Dems followed the deocractic and constitutional process for their amendment to the constitution........

I think you will also find that the constitutional amendment was the recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee on Reconciliation, Political Reform and Constitutional Amendment then through extensive public consultation it was determined that the majority of Thais supported these constitutional changes. "the results revealed that majority of the public support the amendment. In sum, 73.7% supported the Constitution amendment against 21.7 % of those who opposed. Only 4.6% had no decision."

While the PTP followed their usual modus operandi, of a Thaksin proxy government, of subverting the democratic and constitutional process of public consultation and tried to bulldoze their unconstitutional changes through the backdoor via deception.

Edited November 26, 2013 by waza

[Muhendis]

said that Suthep's action is contrary to democratic principles

So is having a redshirt House Speaker who takes orders on affairs of state from non-elected person who is also a convicted felon and residing abroad, triple treason, and Somsak was caught on tape doing so. It doesn't get any less democratic than that, folks. You have to be elected by the people, and to put your policies through the chambers of debate at length and with consensus success, to give orders in a democratic state. And Thaksin is not elected, on the contrary, he is a wanted criminal.

Its amazing that PTP can actually even keep a straight face when they talk about democracy. They had their redmob bootboys handing out home addresses of dissenting judges, homes where women and children lived. With possible intimidation or even violence as a possible outcome of that action. There is nothing democratic about that. Democracy begins and ends on the floor of debate. There are no private-armies, bootboys, unelected rulers, or threats in a democracy. Democracy solves ALL problems on the debating room floor. Done and dusted, top to toe.

And why that is extra ironic is that Yingluck avoids debates like other people avoid dogdirt on the pavement. She is a paragon of anti-democracy. She stands against everything that matters in a democracy, primarily using debating skills to put forth a winning argument which achieves consensus by being a worthy suggestion. This never happens with Yingluck or PTP. They avoid debates, and they steamroller their policies through with concrete earmuffs on so they don't hear what anyone else says. In a democracy you always listen to everybody's views, if you disagree you debate it, and if your argument is the one that emerges ontop after being cross-examined at length, you win and your policy goes through.

There is nothing at all democratic about PTP. Getting votes in an election is not democracy. That is simply election into a democratic system. It is like being born. After you are elected it is your debating skill and the common-sense strengths of your arguments that win the day, and that is what democracy is about. When you are elected you are a new-born baby, but you grow to democratic adulthood in the chambers of debate. And if your arguments are constantly wrongheaded then your policies will be rejected and you will remain a democratic child. See above. On the floor of debate Yingluck would be asked "why do you want Thaksin to have a new passport, why do you want him to escape his criminal conviction" and the only answer she would be able to offer is "because he is my brother" at which point her argument would die and so would all policies associated with it. However she avoids this problem by avoiding all debates, and just steamrollering policies through and hoping for a lucky win without anybody noticing.

What a wonderful, ideal world that would be. No more toeing the party line. No more buying your votes. Your Ideas are most laudable and your comments about the goings on in the govt. are spot on, but the suggestion that all are free to change their minds due to persuasive argument is as unattainably utopian in this govt. as it is in any other democratically elected govt. in the world.

[Yunla]

What a wonderful, ideal world that would be. No more toeing the party line. No more buying your votes. Your Ideas are most laudable and your comments about the goings on in the govt. are spot on, but the suggestion that all are free to change their minds due to persuasive argument is as unattainably utopian in this govt. as it is in any other democratically elected govt. in the world.

Yes I hold the same standard when I discuss other governments who use the word "democratic" self-referentially. Although it should be said that nobody throws the word Democracy around as much as politicians in Thailand.

But when they use this word, often wrongly, people who actually know what it means and more importantly how democracy came to exist in the first place, need to stand up and hold aloft the standard of Ancient Greece [AG]. Debate was practically worshipped back then, at the dawn of democratic philosophy, and was considered central to the concept of democracy. In those days they had 'free-street' debates, later known as 'soapboxing' where any citizen could stand up and say what they think and people would listen. Those who disagreed would debate it. By this lengthy process two crucial things occurred.

Firstly, people who had good ideas for for social development, and good debating skills, rose in popularity through society and that meant that the "people at the top" had got there by having realistic and sensible views which they were able to defend with logic in the arena of free discussion. That is in contrast with today where globally the people at the top often get there by being groomed for power, playing a shrewd media-marketing campaign, and by coming from positions of privilege. But that is not Democracy, which is about the common man on the street who has views and is able to express them & his arguments win support if those views are sensible, for the public good and for the healthy continuation of society.

Secondly, the AG debate concept of Democracy had a built-in and self-regulating system that 'ironed-out' bad ideas and corrupt schemes, before those schemes could ever leave the 'drawing board.' That was Democracy's greatest achievement, the debates were not a picnic, it was a 'trial by fire', and if you were a scam artist and corrupt then it would become clear during the course of debate. You can lie to the public if you only have to give a five minute scripted soundbite on Prime Minister's Talk show, but you can not lie to the public if they are standing there debating you for days on end as was the case in AG where debates could last for weeks. In terms of purely separating right from wrong at the' factory stage' of consensus-development, this True Democracy was the first beacon of hope in our troubled world. It should also be noted that AG had elite and slave class, feudal oligarchs, and soforth. It was a far from perfect society, but the mechanism of free debate which was born there is (IMHO) the only hope we have for any kind of human race in the future.

But when people in Thailand use the word democracy they are using the AG word and so if they don't want to play by the rules of free and challenging debate that is central to that word, they should make up a new word, say 'Wehavemostvotes', where you can get the most votes in some number-crunch polling event ,and then just go jetting around the world on holiday while your meatball goons take care of business at home, and nobody ever hears your voice or your true opinions, or is able to challenge you on those views.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Yunla

[selftaopath]

There is NO democracy without RULE OF LAW.

[Roadman]

said that Suthep's action is contrary to democratic principles

So is having a redshirt House Speaker who takes orders on affairs of state from non-elected person who is also a convicted felon and residing abroad, triple treason, and Somsak was caught on tape doing so. It doesn't get any less democratic than that, folks. You have to be elected by the people, and to put your policies through the chambers of debate at length and with consensus success, to give orders in a democratic state. And Thaksin is not elected, on the contrary, he is a wanted criminal.

Its amazing that PTP can actually even keep a straight face when they talk about democracy. They had their redmob bootboys handing out home addresses of dissenting judges, homes where women and children lived. With possible intimidation or even violence as a possible outcome of that action. There is nothing democratic about that. Democracy begins and ends on the floor of debate. There are no private-armies, bootboys, unelected rulers, or threats in a democracy. Democracy solves ALL problems on the debating room floor. Done and dusted, top to toe.

And why that is extra ironic is that Yingluck avoids debates like other people avoid dogdirt on the pavement. She is a paragon of anti-democracy. She stands against everything that matters in a democracy, primarily using debating skills to put forth a winning argument which achieves consensus by being a worthy suggestion. This never happens with Yingluck or PTP. They avoid debates, and they steamroller their policies through with concrete earmuffs on so they don't hear what anyone else says. In a democracy you always listen to everybody's views, if you disagree you debate it, and if your argument is the one that emerges ontop after being cross-examined at length, you win and your policy goes through.

There is nothing at all democratic about PTP. Getting votes in an election is not democracy. That is simply election into a democratic system. It is like being born. After you are elected it is your debating skill and the common-sense strengths of your arguments that win the day, and that is what democracy is about. When you are elected you are a new-born baby, but you grow to democratic adulthood in the chambers of debate. And if your arguments are constantly wrongheaded then your policies will be rejected and you will remain a democratic child. See above. On the floor of debate Yingluck would be asked "why do you want Thaksin to have a new passport, why do you want him to escape his criminal conviction" and the only answer she would be able to offer is "because he is my brother" at which point her argument would die and so would all policies associated with it. However she avoids this problem by avoiding all debates, and just steamrollering policies through and hoping for a lucky win without anybody noticing.

Excellent post.

And the answer to all the Red apologists on here harping on that these scum have been democratically elected so should serve their terms. If democracy was being over ridden and ripped apart in their own countries the perpetrators would have been removed from office and serving time long ago.

[Artisi]

perhaps the PTP and the Red shirts need to do a little research as to what democracy actually is before trying to defend it, this seems to be a large part of the problem as they simply think if they win an election then they are free to do exactly what they want - unfortunately that is not how it works

Perhaps education is the key to all this, maybe start to run some education programs on prime TV to help the people understand how it is all supposed to work and expose how so many are getting it wrong

WHAT, cancel the mind numbing soapies- heavens forbid, never, outrageous, this cannot be allowed to happen.

[Rorri]

"He added that the government would do their best to protect the principles of democracy."

- by trying to press charges against the judges?

I would think it illegal for him to intimidate the judges, by threatening to charge them. Charge them with what? For doing their job of interpreting the law? Strange people in Thailand.

[indyuk]

perhaps the PTP and the Red shirts need to do a little research as to what democracy actually is before trying to defend it, this seems to be a large part of the problem as they simply think if they win an election then they are free to do exactly what they want - unfortunately that is not how it works

Perhaps education is the key to all this, maybe start to run some education programs on prime TV to help the people understand how it is all supposed to work and expose how so many are getting it wrong

It would seem that it is the Democrats that need to be educated in democratic principle and behaviour. Having both served as the government and as the opposition in the past ten years and failed miserably each time.

I would be the first to compliment the Democrats if they had driven Thailand's economy forward when they were the government.

Right now I wish they had the knowledge and skill to mount a credible and respected opposition, but they don't know how to do that either, Do they?

[bigbamboo]

perhaps the PTP and the Red shirts need to do a little research as to what democracy actually is before trying to defend it, this seems to be a large part of the problem as they simply think if they win an election then they are free to do exactly what they want - unfortunately that is not how it works

Perhaps education is the key to all this, maybe start to run some education programs on prime TV to help the people understand how it is all supposed to work and expose how so many are getting it wrong

It would seem that it is the Democrats that need to be educated in democratic principle and behaviour. Having both served as the government and as the opposition in the past ten years and failed miserably each time.

I would be the first to compliment the Democrats if they had driven Thailand's economy forward when they were the government.

Right now I wish they had the knowledge and skill to mount a credible and respected opposition, but they don't know how to do that either, Do they?

The Dems were hampered by the worst economic crisis in most people's memory. Thailand was one of the few countries to hold things together well in the aftermath and Finance Minister Korn was and still is highly regarded worldwide.

[whybother]

perhaps the PTP and the Red shirts need to do a little research as to what democracy actually is before trying to defend it, this seems to be a large part of the problem as they simply think if they win an election then they are free to do exactly what they want - unfortunately that is not how it works

Perhaps education is the key to all this, maybe start to run some education programs on prime TV to help the people understand how it is all supposed to work and expose how so many are getting it wrong

It would seem that it is the Democrats that need to be educated in democratic principle and behaviour. Having both served as the government and as the opposition in the past ten years and failed miserably each time.

I would be the first to compliment the Democrats if they had driven Thailand's economy forward when they were the government.

Right now I wish they had the knowledge and skill to mount a credible and respected opposition, but they don't know how to do that either, Do they?

Given the world economy went backwards due to the GFC while the Democrats were in power, they didn't do too badly with the Thai economy.

[longway]

I hope these protests fail in their goals of bringing down this govt., not because I support the current clowns, but I would rather they will unravel of their own accord which will happen within months anyway and then they cannot claim to be the victims of undemocratic forces.

Lets face it, they are hopeless (even worse than the dems low standards) - greedy, incompetent and arrogant - and could not manage a piss up in a brewery; let them have to stand by the messes they have made; the rice scam itself will probably bring them crashing down soon.

Thai people have ensured that they cannot pass their nasty little amnesty and the consttution court has ensured they cannot own the senate; so all they are left with is stealing as much money as they until their time is up.