Thailand: Regime is not 'Democratically Elected'

[JamesDean3]

Thank you Red Shirt apologist for the links to Tony Carlucci. I did not even know there are journalist who actually write the truth. All I have seen since the Thaksin financed 2010 Red Riots was BBC, CNN etc fawning on the poor unarmed Thai Poor. When on the ground I could see for myself they were armed to the teeth and were attacking ordinary folks. I also know some if not most journalist have a price. One notable one was this lady from Newsweek (may her soul RIP) who used to write sterling bios of ASEAN dictators, strongman etc. When she passed away she had millions in the bank.

[DirtFarmer]

in his own words... "Elections did indeed take place, and in those elections, the current regime did garner the most votes, but the same could be said about elections held anywhere, even in nations that are decidedly very undemocratic. "

I don't think anyone here is naive enough to think that ANY democracy is perfect... but there are channels and elections are one of them others are political outreach ..delegate and populous...education campaigns etc..

I don't think I have ever seen this guy Cartalucci ever fairly represent the truth about the the rest of the lot..IE: Abhiset, Suthep, Leekpai and that whole mafia... I think I have only read him slamming the current whipping boy... anybody else can direct me to a fair and balanced view of the good people by this guy...? Would be happy to read it.. he seems to have the ability to build a pretty strong case... wonder if it even exists... or is he just bought and paid for as well..? He can't possibly be representing the "good people's council...yes...? no...?... any links to his analysis of any other Thai governments in the last 20 years...? Would love to see them..

[fab4]

Thank you Red Shirt apologist for the links to Tony Carlucci. I did not even know there are journalist who actually write the truth. All I have seen since the Thaksin financed 2010 Red Riots was BBC, CNN etc fawning on the poor unarmed Thai Poor. When on the ground I could see for myself they were armed to the teeth and were attacking ordinary folks. I also know some if not most journalist have a price. One notable one was this lady from Newsweek (may her soul RIP) who used to write sterling bios of ASEAN dictators, strongman etc. When she passed away she had millions in the bank.

Another good source I'm sure you'll like is Michael Yon. He's right up there with cartalucci.

I'll look forward to your posts based on these sources.........

[edwardandtubs]

At last, a journalist with a grasp of The Truth.

Press TV is funded by the Iranian government, well-known for its commitment to "The Truth" and democracy. It's not surprising that Suthep's groupies can find common cause with such a "journalist".

[473geo]

And the Bangkok yellow shirt farangs come out to worship the article.

I do not live in Bangkok and I am not yellow, I live in a rural village but I am not red.

But if you can find an article that gives an alternative reason as to why the country is currently in this unenviable position, I will gladly read it.

The article is very well written, the reason for the conflict becomes apparent to those who look

Nothing to do with democracy or elections..........

[3NUMBAS]

unsubstantiated propaganda article.

the myths about thaksin pulling the strings again when its the BKK elite (chinese) who control everything .

the wealthiest families in LOS are well known

http://www.forbes.com/thailand-billionaires/list/

[rabas]

unsubstantiated propaganda article.

the myths about thaksin pulling the strings again when its the BKK elite (chinese) who control everything .

the wealthiest families in LOS are well known

http://www.forbes.com/thailand-billionaires/list/

Interesting. Here is the full page on Taksin.

http://www.forbes.com/profile/thaksin-shinawatra/

If you look at the bar chart on the right, you can see that his visible fortune greatly increased in March last year, less than 12 months ago, by over a billion dollars.

According to Forbes.....

Shinawatra disclosed to FORBES in October that Thai authorities had returned to him close to $1 billion of his $2.3 billion in frozen assets.

Was this in the news here? I do remember that they did not confiscate all his assets, did the government only now return money that was frozen after 2006? Just curious if that has anything to do with the rice money shortage.

Also from Forbes,

His influence over sister Yingluck, Thailand's current prime minister, whom he nominated for the position, is said to be waning.

[kikoman]

And another NY Times article says the protests are undemocratic.

Am I missing something ?

Yes you are it is a little know Canadian media, Affiliated with Shaw TV and Press TV, operates like a Fox TV type network the darling of the US right wing movement, Have a lot of Articles about Iran and Lot of anti-American,Rhetoric. a minor news network another Fair and Balance reporting.. Nothing really bad but a very small network, the elite fascist must have dug hard to find this one.

Desperate indeed!

[kikoman]

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer,=. he has been published by many alternative Media websites. Including Alternative Thai News Network and Local Org. (Accent mine)

Source Press TV, Tony Cartalucci commentator Bio

The writer of the article is based in Bangkok and writes for Alternative type websites, not from New York

Cheers

Edited February 22, 2014 by kikoman

[aimbc]

I think this article is intended for the ones blindly listening to the govt propaganda. It does not take much to conclude the obvious fact that this govt serves Thaksin.

They said they didn't, but pushed through an Amnesty Bill.

They said that the rice policy is suppose to help the farmers, but actually stole from them. If it is helping the farmers, why is thailand ranking dropped in the world and thai rice is no longer desirable. And why 1.4 million farmers have not been paid. Especially not forth coming with information, it only raises more red flag about how much corruption is really going on. The program is already over budgeted. And the reason they got additional budget approval was based on being able to sell the rice and guaranteed by the phantom G-G deal. And we know know niether that is true.

Then you have the Tablet program, which is another policy that steals from kids. The idea that China can not produce 800,000 tablets is almost laughable and quite insulting for China. We haven't heard the last of this policy.

[moonao]

"Regime is not democratically elected"....

next headline.... "Tony Cartalucci is a nutcase"...

[englishoak]

Tony Cartalucci is a hack and indeed a nutcase, really need to see what else the pinhead writes about hes a grade A nut.

[heybruce]

"So why is the West defending what is clearly a dysfunctional democracy, clearly abusing the mechanisms of real representative governance, to perpetuate a very undemocratic regime?"

That's easy, the alternative is to support a man with a history of corruption leading a lawless mob who is attempting to topple a democratically elected government. I also question the assumption that the current constitution, written by a military junta, allows adequate mechanisms for real representative governance, or the implication that Suthep or the Democrats are interested in a more democratic regime.

BTW, presstv.ir is an Iranian "news" network. The country isn't noted for free, unbiased news. Iran also isn't keen on true democracy.

[whybother]

"So why is the West defending what is clearly a dysfunctional democracy, clearly abusing the mechanisms of real representative governance, to perpetuate a very undemocratic regime?"

That's easy, the alternative is to support a man with a history of corruption leading a lawless mob who is attempting to topple a democratically elected government. I also question the assumption that the current constitution, written by a military junta, allows adequate mechanisms for real representative governance, or the implication that Suthep or the Democrats are interested in a more democratic regime.

BTW, presstv.ir is an Iranian "news" network. The country isn't noted for free, unbiased news. Iran also isn't keen on true democracy.

The current constitution wasn't written by the military junta. It is 90% the same as the 1997 constitution, word for word.

[geriatrickid]

At last, a journalist with a grasp of The Truth.

He is not a journalist and does not claim to be a journalist.

He is a blogger who posts at the LandDestroyer blog. He is a long time supporter of PAD and is a self declared supporter of all things anti PTP.

I give "him" credit for at least being honest in that regard.

It is unfortunate that the information was not posted with the story as it is a biased view. Nothing wrong with having alternative views expressed. However, there is a moral obligation it state the vested interest.

It is also of importance to mention that Press TV is an approved news outlet of the Government of Iran. It is interesting that PR outlet of the Iranian government would post an overtly negative blog article. I do note that Iran is currently feuding with Thailand over the arrest and pursuit of Iranian linked terrorists in Thailand. Thailand has also raised the issue of Iranian linked jihadists supporting the southern Islamic insurgents. This too is germane to the article.

Basically, Thai Visa and all those who are showing their approval of this blog excerpt l are being used by groups with a vested interest, none of whom have Thailand's best interests at heart. Legitimate constructive criticism is important, but in this case it is not and is politically motivated with the sole intent of hurting Thailand.

[VegasVic]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

And another NY Times article says the protests are undemocratic.

Am I missing something ?

No you are not missing anything, the NY times is a dying institution and they will print anything if they think it will sell papers!

[VegasVic]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

And the Bangkok yellow shirt farangs come out to worship the article. alt=guitar.gif width=29 height=25> alt=angry.gif width=20 height=20>

So predictable one could set their watch by it

[VegasVic]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

And another NY Times article says the protests are undemocratic.

Am I missing something ?

Yes, you must understand the New York Times is corporate run for interests of the corporatacracy that

is acting as a government. "All The News Fit To Print" is not an accident, but rather what they see as

what is fit to print and what is not. Doesn't have to be the truth, they just have to see it as fit to print.

You are correct, the NY Times made their living for decades by printing liberal rubbish, but over the past decade most have turned a deaf ear to the Times so they will print just about anything to stay afloat

[heybruce]

"So why is the West defending what is clearly a dysfunctional democracy, clearly abusing the mechanisms of real representative governance, to perpetuate a very undemocratic regime?"

That's easy, the alternative is to support a man with a history of corruption leading a lawless mob who is attempting to topple a democratically elected government. I also question the assumption that the current constitution, written by a military junta, allows adequate mechanisms for real representative governance, or the implication that Suthep or the Democrats are interested in a more democratic regime.

BTW, presstv.ir is an Iranian "news" network. The country isn't noted for free, unbiased news. Iran also isn't keen on true democracy.

The current constitution wasn't written by the military junta. It is 90% the same as the 1997 constitution, word for word.

Really? Who wrote the constitution if not the military installed government following the 2006 coup?

Regarding the 90% nonsense, do you really believe that or are you just spreading disinformation? For an informed summary of the changes, check: http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html.

If that's too much reading for you, consider the intent of the most undemocratic changes, summarized in the article "Not a vote for the generals" in the August 23, 2007 edition of "The Economist":

"The plan, it is assumed, was that after TRT's demise Thailand would return to the weak and short-lived coalition governments that had preceded its rise to power in 2001. Several changes in the new constitution—such as the merging of single-seat constituencies into larger ones in which the second- and third-placed candidates would also win seats—seem designed to give lesser parties more of a chance and thus increase the likelihood of unstable multi-party coalitions. If so, the royalist-military elite who staged the coup would be able to return to exerting influence behind the scenes, as they did in pre-Thaksin times."

or, from "The long march to the barracks" in the same issue:

"The charter is designed to prevent the re-emergence of an elected strongman like Mr Thaksin. To this end, it contains some unobjectionable measures, such as reducing the number of parliamentarians needed to call a vote of no confidence in the prime minister and strengthening the powers of the national human-rights commission. Public criticism forced the army to drop some egregiously undemocratic clauses, such as the provision for a “national crisis council”, including army officers, to take charge in any future political conflict. However, some dubious bits remain: almost half of the Senate will be appointed by a panel of judges and bureaucrats; and the coupmakers themselves are granted a blanket amnesty."

and:

"Built-in weakness

In May a constitutional tribunal created by the junta found the TRT guilty of electoral fraud and dissolved it. But the charter-drafters wanted to make it harder for any other dominant majority party to emerge in future. For that reason, the new constitution tweaks the voting system in favour of smaller parties. This is ironic: the whole point of Thailand's last democratic constitution, passed in 1997, was to free the country from the cycle of weak and unstable coalitions and frequent coups."

Perhaps the new constitution uses 90% of the same words, but clearly it is a different document, and an intentionally flawed one.

In case you want to bring up the vote approving the constitution, I will point out the the 2007 constitution was approved in a vote in which the choice was approving the constitution or continuing to live under military rule.

BTW, most people consider "The Economist" to be much more credible than an Iranian television station.

[Thai at Heart]

The Wests investment in thaksin?

&lt;deleted&gt;? So how come for example, korn made bazillions from JP Morgan? Or coke and other huge businesses are in partnership with pro democrat people, or Dtac is already in the arms of a Norwegian company and that thaksin made his final wealth selling to Singapore.

I fail to see what thaksin can promise the "west"?

This is not a western conspiracy, this is a thai Chinese turf war.

[heybruce]

And another NY Times article says the protests are undemocratic.

Am I missing something ?

Let's see, a mob attempts to topple a democratically elected government by illegally occupying government buildings, declines to participate in the election, and then illegally prevents candidates from registering for the election and people from voting.

Gee, how could anyone see that as undemocratic?

[NongKhaiKid]

And another NY Times article says the protests are undemocratic.

Am I missing something ?

Let's see, a mob attempts to topple a democratically elected government by illegally occupying government buildings, declines to participate in the election, and then illegally prevents candidates from registering for the election and people from voting.

Gee, how could anyone see that as undemocratic?

I take it you have overlooked I posted in December and long before some of the serious stuff started.

[michaeljordan]

How true this headline is.

But of course the unlected Regime is still in command of the Army generals and Bangkok.

Up country power is fading though.

[whybother]

"So why is the West defending what is clearly a dysfunctional democracy, clearly abusing the mechanisms of real representative governance, to perpetuate a very undemocratic regime?"

That's easy, the alternative is to support a man with a history of corruption leading a lawless mob who is attempting to topple a democratically elected government. I also question the assumption that the current constitution, written by a military junta, allows adequate mechanisms for real representative governance, or the implication that Suthep or the Democrats are interested in a more democratic regime.

BTW, presstv.ir is an Iranian "news" network. The country isn't noted for free, unbiased news. Iran also isn't keen on true democracy.

The current constitution wasn't written by the military junta. It is 90% the same as the 1997 constitution, word for word.

Really? Who wrote the constitution if not the military installed government following the 2006 coup?

Regarding the 90% nonsense, do you really believe that or are you just spreading disinformation? For an informed summary of the changes, check: http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html.

If that's too much reading for you, consider the intent of the most undemocratic changes, summarized in the article "Not a vote for the generals" in the August 23, 2007 edition of "The Economist":

"The plan, it is assumed, was that after TRT's demise Thailand would return to the weak and short-lived coalition governments that had preceded its rise to power in 2001. Several changes in the new constitution—such as the merging of single-seat constituencies into larger ones in which the second- and third-placed candidates would also win seats—seem designed to give lesser parties more of a chance and thus increase the likelihood of unstable multi-party coalitions. If so, the royalist-military elite who staged the coup would be able to return to exerting influence behind the scenes, as they did in pre-Thaksin times."

or, from "The long march to the barracks" in the same issue:

"The charter is designed to prevent the re-emergence of an elected strongman like Mr Thaksin. To this end, it contains some unobjectionable measures, such as reducing the number of parliamentarians needed to call a vote of no confidence in the prime minister and strengthening the powers of the national human-rights commission. Public criticism forced the army to drop some egregiously undemocratic clauses, such as the provision for a “national crisis council”, including army officers, to take charge in any future political conflict. However, some dubious bits remain: almost half of the Senate will be appointed by a panel of judges and bureaucrats; and the coupmakers themselves are granted a blanket amnesty."

and:

"Built-in weakness

In May a constitutional tribunal created by the junta found the TRT guilty of electoral fraud and dissolved it. But the charter-drafters wanted to make it harder for any other dominant majority party to emerge in future. For that reason, the new constitution tweaks the voting system in favour of smaller parties. This is ironic: the whole point of Thailand's last democratic constitution, passed in 1997, was to free the country from the cycle of weak and unstable coalitions and frequent coups."

Perhaps the new constitution uses 90% of the same words, but clearly it is a different document, and an intentionally flawed one.

In case you want to bring up the vote approving the constitution, I will point out the the 2007 constitution was approved in a vote in which the choice was approving the constitution or continuing to live under military rule.

BTW, most people consider "The Economist" to be much more credible than an Iranian television station.

All that doesn't change the fact that it is nearly the same as the 1997 constitution.

The junta did make some changes, but it wasn't written from scratch. Most of it is exactly the same as the 1997 constitution.

Sent from my phone ...

[heybruce]

"So why is the West defending what is clearly a dysfunctional democracy, clearly abusing the mechanisms of real representative governance, to perpetuate a very undemocratic regime?"

That's easy, the alternative is to support a man with a history of corruption leading a lawless mob who is attempting to topple a democratically elected government. I also question the assumption that the current constitution, written by a military junta, allows adequate mechanisms for real representative governance, or the implication that Suthep or the Democrats are interested in a more democratic regime.

BTW, presstv.ir is an Iranian "news" network. The country isn't noted for free, unbiased news. Iran also isn't keen on true democracy.

The current constitution wasn't written by the military junta. It is 90% the same as the 1997 constitution, word for word.

Really? Who wrote the constitution if not the military installed government following the 2006 coup?

Regarding the 90% nonsense, do you really believe that or are you just spreading disinformation? For an informed summary of the changes, check: http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html.

If that's too much reading for you, consider the intent of the most undemocratic changes, summarized in the article "Not a vote for the generals" in the August 23, 2007 edition of "The Economist":

"The plan, it is assumed, was that after TRT's demise Thailand would return to the weak and short-lived coalition governments that had preceded its rise to power in 2001. Several changes in the new constitution—such as the merging of single-seat constituencies into larger ones in which the second- and third-placed candidates would also win seats—seem designed to give lesser parties more of a chance and thus increase the likelihood of unstable multi-party coalitions. If so, the royalist-military elite who staged the coup would be able to return to exerting influence behind the scenes, as they did in pre-Thaksin times."

or, from "The long march to the barracks" in the same issue:

"The charter is designed to prevent the re-emergence of an elected strongman like Mr Thaksin. To this end, it contains some unobjectionable measures, such as reducing the number of parliamentarians needed to call a vote of no confidence in the prime minister and strengthening the powers of the national human-rights commission. Public criticism forced the army to drop some egregiously undemocratic clauses, such as the provision for a “national crisis council”, including army officers, to take charge in any future political conflict. However, some dubious bits remain: almost half of the Senate will be appointed by a panel of judges and bureaucrats; and the coupmakers themselves are granted a blanket amnesty."

and:

"Built-in weakness

In May a constitutional tribunal created by the junta found the TRT guilty of electoral fraud and dissolved it. But the charter-drafters wanted to make it harder for any other dominant majority party to emerge in future. For that reason, the new constitution tweaks the voting system in favour of smaller parties. This is ironic: the whole point of Thailand's last democratic constitution, passed in 1997, was to free the country from the cycle of weak and unstable coalitions and frequent coups."

Perhaps the new constitution uses 90% of the same words, but clearly it is a different document, and an intentionally flawed one.

In case you want to bring up the vote approving the constitution, I will point out the the 2007 constitution was approved in a vote in which the choice was approving the constitution or continuing to live under military rule.

BTW, most people consider "The Economist" to be much more credible than an Iranian television station.

All that doesn't change the fact that it is nearly the same as the 1997 constitution.

The junta did make some changes, but it wasn't written from scratch. Most of it is exactly the same as the 1997 constitution.

Sent from my phone ...

Apparently you are now conceding that the junta wrote the current constitution. Regarding the difference between the 1997 and 2007 constitutions, perhaps there was too much reading for you. I'll make it very short and simple:

The 1997 constitution was written to promote lasting, stable government, the 2007 constitution was written to lead to ineffective, unstable government.

Don't you thing this is a significant change?

[heybruce]

And another NY Times article says the protests are undemocratic.

Am I missing something ?

Let's see, a mob attempts to topple a democratically elected government by illegally occupying government buildings, declines to participate in the election, and then illegally prevents candidates from registering for the election and people from voting.

Gee, how could anyone see that as undemocratic?

I take it you have overlooked I posted in December and long before some of the serious stuff started.

By December 19 the protests were already obstructing government and had rejected the election.

Are you now conceding the protests are blatantly undemocratic?

[MaxLee]

Thailand: Regime is not 'Democratically Elected'

Yep,... the majority was viciously bought in the name of THAKSIN-DEMO-CRACY

Any more questions????

[whybother]

Apparently you are now conceding that the junta wrote the current constitution. Regarding the difference between the 1997 and 2007 constitutions, perhaps there was too much reading for you. I'll make it very short and simple:

The 1997 constitution was written to promote lasting, stable government, the 2007 constitution was written to lead to ineffective, unstable government.

Don't you thing this is a significant change?

The Junta didn't write it. They copied it and made some changes. It is mostly the same as the previous constitution.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[Thai at Heart]

"So why is the West defending what is clearly a dysfunctional democracy, clearly abusing the mechanisms of real representative governance, to perpetuate a very undemocratic regime?"

That's easy, the alternative is to support a man with a history of corruption leading a lawless mob who is attempting to topple a democratically elected government. I also question the assumption that the current constitution, written by a military junta, allows adequate mechanisms for real representative governance, or the implication that Suthep or the Democrats are interested in a more democratic regime.

BTW, presstv.ir is an Iranian "news" network. The country isn't noted for free, unbiased news. Iran also isn't keen on true democracy.

The current constitution wasn't written by the military junta. It is 90% the same as the 1997 constitution, word for word.

Really? Who wrote the constitution if not the military installed government following the 2006 coup?

Regarding the 90% nonsense, do you really believe that or are you just spreading disinformation? For an informed summary of the changes, check: http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html.

If that's too much reading for you, consider the intent of the most undemocratic changes, summarized in the article "Not a vote for the generals" in the August 23, 2007 edition of "The Economist":

"The plan, it is assumed, was that after TRT's demise Thailand would return to the weak and short-lived coalition governments that had preceded its rise to power in 2001. Several changes in the new constitutionsuch as the merging of single-seat constituencies into larger ones in which the second- and third-placed candidates would also win seatsseem designed to give lesser parties more of a chance and thus increase the likelihood of unstable multi-party coalitions. If so, the royalist-military elite who staged the coup would be able to return to exerting influence behind the scenes, as they did in pre-Thaksin times."

or, from "The long march to the barracks" in the same issue:

"The charter is designed to prevent the re-emergence of an elected strongman like Mr Thaksin. To this end, it contains some unobjectionable measures, such as reducing the number of parliamentarians needed to call a vote of no confidence in the prime minister and strengthening the powers of the national human-rights commission. Public criticism forced the army to drop some egregiously undemocratic clauses, such as the provision for a national crisis council, including army officers, to take charge in any future political conflict. However, some dubious bits remain: almost half of the Senate will be appointed by a panel of judges and bureaucrats; and the coupmakers themselves are granted a blanket amnesty."

and:

"Built-in weakness

In May a constitutional tribunal created by the junta found the TRT guilty of electoral fraud and dissolved it. But the charter-drafters wanted to make it harder for any other dominant majority party to emerge in future. For that reason, the new constitution tweaks the voting system in favour of smaller parties. This is ironic: the whole point of Thailand's last democratic constitution, passed in 1997, was to free the country from the cycle of weak and unstable coalitions and frequent coups."

Perhaps the new constitution uses 90% of the same words, but clearly it is a different document, and an intentionally flawed one.

In case you want to bring up the vote approving the constitution, I will point out the the 2007 constitution was approved in a vote in which the choice was approving the constitution or continuing to live under military rule.

BTW, most people consider "The Economist" to be much more credible than an Iranian television station.

All that doesn't change the fact that it is nearly the same as the 1997 constitution.

The junta did make some changes, but it wasn't written from scratch. Most of it is exactly the same as the 1997 constitution.

Sent from my phone ...

That doesn't change the fact that what it does in action to the structure of the parliament insignificant.

This is like arguing if someone used copy/paste or typed something from scratch. Just look at the debate about the constitution court. Meaning of the changes makes them significant or not. One stroke of a pen can have big effects.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Thai at Heart