Sound of ticking time bombs is getting louder for Yingluck

[heybruce]

who dominates the senate?

So the writer is saying that those opposed to Suthep and the Democrat Party must now prevent the senate elections from happening, therefore without a senate it will be impossible to relieve the caretaker government of their power.

That, I think, will not be talked about yet, however if the EC refuses to hold by-elections to fill the 95% of seats then there will be a mass boycott and disruption of the senate elections end of March.

Tit for tat as they say.

The senate is not a real democratic institution anyway. Following the coup it went from 100% elected (truly democratic) to being 50% elected with the other 50% appointed without any elections. Of course the big problem was PTP wanted to return the senate to being fully elected and this is what kicked off the protests (in reality but hidden behind the agenda of amnesty).

So therefore, given the senate is not truly a democratic institution it would well be that the Senate elections (which unsurprisingly the EC want to hold without problems) might get totally disrupted - we may see the inverse of the general election, in that the senate election can be held in the South and Bangkok but will be stopped in the North and Northeast.

The most obvious thing would be to hold the by-elections for parliament at the same time as the senate elections - 2 in 1.

But it appears the anti-election EC do not want this as it might lead to a successful parliamentary election as the forces against the government want the senate election to go without problem. Its no surprise to therefore see Somchai of the EC saying it would "confuse" people to hold the senate and parliamentary elections at the same time and so it cannot be done, yes, we know what your agenda is matey in my opinion.

All in my opinion of course.

This is a constitutional monarchy. Hearing the word 'democratic' again and again just sounds like a marketing ploy- it works on some locals here I know. Hopefully posters on here can recognize the system is far from democratic. I agree a lot of your examples are more like winner-take-all. Seems like thats part of the real problem here that replay over and over again.

You mean a constitutional monarchy can't be democratic? Gee, I totally misunderstood what kind of government the UK has.

I agree the system here isn't fully democratic, I just think it should be. Apparently many, but not all, Thai people agree. I worry when it heads in the opposite direction.

[rubl]

You seem to operate under the assumption that Thailand is a functional democracy. Furthermore you seem to forget that the topic is on 'ticking timebombs for Yingluck', the dear lady who always seems soo reasonable in 'please wait', 'please give us time', 'please let's talk', 'please go home' while her fellow Pheu Thai members and MPs put up a more forceful stand. Democracy and a pushed through 'blanket amesty bill'. Protests and "it's up to the senate'. Farmers not paid, and 'delay because of protests'. "I'm the boss' followed by Thaksin' interview about 'guiding his sister'.

You're right in one thing though the Thai people have a right to real democracy. If the consequence is getting rid of Thaksin c.s., so be it.

BTW Thaksin regularly says he wants to stay away from politics and Ms. Yingluck wanted a life in peace and to be left alone. Well, that would be a nice first step.

No, I operate on the assumption that Thailand should progress towards a functional democracy. That requires changing the constitution to strengthen democratic institutions, a serious effort to eliminate corruption (I don't believe either side is truly interested in eliminating corruption), and most important, developing the mindset that elected officials should be allowed to finish their terms. This last part requires that losing parties accept that they lost and focus their energies on making themselves more electable the next time, not on overthrowing the government through any undemocratic means possible.

The last also requires that 'winning' parties do 'respect my vote' and don't start along the line 'We have a mandate, we can do what we want, get Thaksin back'.

Where did you get the idea that in a democracy winning parties aren't allowed to do anything that upsets the losing parties?

Where did you get the idea that 'winning' parties are allowed to do anything that breaks laws, increases corruption, loses hundreds of billions of Baht, upsets their own voters, and in general behave undemocratic and 'Thaksin first' rather than for the country?

BTW

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/703325-thailand-in-need-of-a-strong-civics-education-programme-says-educator/

"Democracy is far more than voting in elections. It is a way of life requiring knowledge, skills and values to be an active democratic citizen. A good civic education programme will enable people to acquire that knowledge, skills and values."

[Thaddeus]

Where did you get the idea that in a democracy winning parties aren't allowed to do anything that upsets the losing parties?

Where did you get the idea that 'winning' parties are allowed to do anything that breaks laws, increases corruption, loses hundreds of billions of Baht, upsets their own voters, and in general behave undemocratic and 'Thaksin first' rather than for the country?

BTW

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/703325-thailand-in-need-of-a-strong-civics-education-programme-says-educator/

"Democracy is far more than voting in elections. It is a way of life requiring knowledge, skills and values to be an active democratic citizen. A good civic education programme will enable people to acquire that knowledge, skills and values."

Add to that.

Who says that every single MP in the main party and its coalition partners have to vote the way one man tells them, or else.

That is not a democracy, MP's should make judgements on what is best for their constituency, not bend to the will of the chap holding the resignation letters.

[kikoman]

Nothernjohn posted

If Thailand was to have a real election with the Democrats involved it would lead to a Minority Government. Which at this time in my opinion would not be a bad idea. That is what Abhist had and there was nothing any where near the corruption level that is being forced on us by this majority government.

In fact even though Abhist had a very slim majority of backers the government did manage to stop the rise in corruption. From the time the Army turned the government back over to the people.(Thaksin) the corruption was on a sharp rise. Under Abhist with his minority government it stopped rising and remained the same.

In a nut shell she is clueless and a disgrace to Thailand. I admit a nice looking one. But looks won't get the job done when they are just a front for corruption.

Kikoman,

Where on earth did you get your facts from, Abhisit's mother!

According to an article titled "What Transparency International say's about Thaksin will shock you." by thai intelligentnews dated 3-26-2013.

Which comments on Thailand being corrupted by Thai Politics and mentions the Great Divide,

That divide resulted in the following:

"Since then, courts have voided an election won by Thasin.s party, disbanded two parties linked to him. disqualified about 200 of his allies, sentenced him to jail and seized 46 billion baht ($1.6 billion) of his wealth.

In fact, the Thai Elite establishment, did all of the above, because it sees Thaksin as "Evil" that is "Corrupt to the Core" To the Elite, Thaksin is the most corrupt politician in Thai History.

The question is, who is the "Just and Fair Watch Dog?

Take B. P., with a board filled with proi Abhisit and pro Elite Establishment people,m its report on corruption under Yingluck, is 100% anti Yingluck propaganda..

Case in point: a few months ago Transparency International came out with its annual corruption perception report. The bare number, still saw Thailand fell in overall ranking in the globe.

"B.P. reported on the reports findings, and alleged that Thai corruption was getting worse as the global ranking fell.B. P. did not say the raw data was improving,"or did it say, "Yingluck's raw data was better that Abhisit's data. (IE: Yinglucks Government was less corrupt than Abhisit government") findings of Transparency International

"That report by B.P. was clearly "Propaganda" against Yingluck. In journalism "Propaganda" equates to "Corruption". What I am trying to point out, is not about Yingluck's corruption, but that corruption is a very "Sensitive and Subtle" subject, that is about everything people are involved in.,"

The article goes in to an in-depth look at Thaksin and, will be a surprise to all, Thaksin was less corrupt on a global scale, Whom ever is interested in the current, Elite Establishment assault on Yingluck government and the issue of Corruption in Thai politics should read it and come to your own conclusion.

Peace

Edited February 10, 2014 by kikoman

[kikoman]

So if new laws come into play to really punish corruption the real winners are the Thai people and the losers the corrupt politicians. That is what the anti government is about. Most would not want Suthep as a dictator.. they want meaningful changes in the laws so politicians cant steal.

I agree with the first part, I don't believe that the anti-government leaders are serious about fighting corruption. What new laws are Suthep proposing? Transparent government spending? Competitive bidding on contracts? Rewriting Thailand's libel laws so the press can name and shame when they have verifiable facts? Will the fight against corruption extend to the military? A young man I know told me that the price to be exempted from the draft was 30k baht to the local military commander. Of course there is no paper trail to prove this, but since he was a middle class man approaching draft age I think he knew what he was talking about.

Suthep railing against corruption reminds me of a staunchly anit-Thaksin expat bar owner I know. He opposed Thaksin because he was corrupt, but also bragged that he paid his bribes directly to the chief of police. I have no doubt that in Suthep's mind the only bad corruption is that which PT commits. Corruption endemic to his own party is just the normal way of doing business.

By the way, do you think Suthep's fight against corruption extends to a proper investigation and prosecution of his past misdeeds?

Could not agree with you more, I know a well to do family contacted the military about having their son deferred from military service the price was quoted at 60,000 baht!

No one doubts that corruption exist in Thailand, and I would not doubt that somewhere in the rice story some form of corruption exist, as it prevalent in all of Thailand, all corruption needs to be addressed political corruption, deferment of the wealthy sons from military service, all bribes big and small, buying a placement into the best universities and schools, buying good jobs, judiciary corruption working for the interest of rich and not for the good of Thailand, the list is endless, all corruption needs to be addressed!

[heybruce]

No, I operate on the assumption that Thailand should progress towards a functional democracy. That requires changing the constitution to strengthen democratic institutions, a serious effort to eliminate corruption (I don't believe either side is truly interested in eliminating corruption), and most important, developing the mindset that elected officials should be allowed to finish their terms. This last part requires that losing parties accept that they lost and focus their energies on making themselves more electable the next time, not on overthrowing the government through any undemocratic means possible.

The last also requires that 'winning' parties do 'respect my vote' and don't start along the line 'We have a mandate, we can do what we want, get Thaksin back'.

Where did you get the idea that in a democracy winning parties aren't allowed to do anything that upsets the losing parties?

Where did you get the idea that 'winning' parties are allowed to do anything that breaks laws, increases corruption, loses hundreds of billions of Baht, upsets their own voters, and in general behave undemocratic and 'Thaksin first' rather than for the country?

BTW

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/703325-thailand-in-need-of-a-strong-civics-education-programme-says-educator/

"Democracy is far more than voting in elections. It is a way of life requiring knowledge, skills and values to be an active democratic citizen. A good civic education programme will enable people to acquire that knowledge, skills and values."

I think that the majority of the laws that they may have broken are the result of a flawed constitution and a judicial system packed with traditionalists that are hostile to the PT. That's why I wrote "change the constitution to strengthen democratic institutions" above. Also as I indicated above, I think the voters are forced to choose between corrupt parties, there are no clean ones. Regarding Thaksin, if that's what the voters want, that's what they should get. I don't like Thaksin, Suthep, the policies of PT or the arrogance of the misnamed Democrats, I just think democracy needs to be given a chance in Thailand.

Many of the PT senators campaigned with the promise to make the Senate fully elected, as it was before the 2007 constitution, and once elected tried hard to full-fill that promise. That is what has most caused the Democrats to scream "illegal" and "unconstitutional", but I don't recall them calling it undemocratic. Is that what you are calling undemocratic?

I'm all for a civic education program to instill the knowledge and values to participate in a democratic society. It's desperately needed, especially among many of the country's leaders and wanna-be leaders.

[heybruce]

Where did you get the idea that in a democracy winning parties aren't allowed to do anything that upsets the losing parties?

Where did you get the idea that 'winning' parties are allowed to do anything that breaks laws, increases corruption, loses hundreds of billions of Baht, upsets their own voters, and in general behave undemocratic and 'Thaksin first' rather than for the country?

BTW

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/703325-thailand-in-need-of-a-strong-civics-education-programme-says-educator/

"Democracy is far more than voting in elections. It is a way of life requiring knowledge, skills and values to be an active democratic citizen. A good civic education programme will enable people to acquire that knowledge, skills and values."

Add to that.

Who says that every single MP in the main party and its coalition partners have to vote the way one man tells them, or else.

That is not a democracy, MP's should make judgements on what is best for their constituency, not bend to the will of the chap holding the resignation letters.

I didn't write about MP's and how much loyalty they owe their parties. I'm sure that is a popular subject for debate in all parliamentarian democracies, but I don't think it needs to be debated here.

[scorecard]

Sorry Pipkins, Suthep got far more votes than Yingluck.

He told people not to vote and 53%of the electorate didn't.

That's about 23 million people!

I would be ashamed to come up with a foolish statement like this.For an honest and intelligent analysis Chis Baker has done a first class summary.Google it.

On the broader front the New York Times has an interesting article including reference to a damning indictment of the Suthep mob by Virabongsa Ramangkura, and an interesting take on the army/coup option.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/world/asia/petition-to-nullify-thai-election-is-rejected-in-setback-for-opposition.html?ref=world&_r=0

Well I would be ashamed to submit many things you have submitted.

As always in your posts you go for belittling the writer rather than constructive discussion.

[jayboy]

Sorry Pipkins, Suthep got far more votes than Yingluck.

He told people not to vote and 53%of the electorate didn't.

That's about 23 million people!

I would be ashamed to come up with a foolish statement like this.For an honest and intelligent analysis Chis Baker has done a first class summary.Google it.

On the broader front the New York Times has an interesting article including reference to a damning indictment of the Suthep mob by Virabongsa Ramangkura, and an interesting take on the army/coup option.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/world/asia/petition-to-nullify-thai-election-is-rejected-in-setback-for-opposition.html?ref=world&_r=0

Well I would be ashamed to submit many things you have submitted.

As always in your posts you go for belittling the writer rather than constructive discussion.

I provided a credible authority for an election analysis and an interesting link.You provided a pointless personal comment.I have no objection to being taken to task if done with intelligence and wit, qualities manifestly absent from your post .

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[rubl]

The last also requires that 'winning' parties do 'respect my vote' and don't start along the line 'We have a mandate, we can do what we want, get Thaksin back'.

Where did you get the idea that in a democracy winning parties aren't allowed to do anything that upsets the losing parties?

Where did you get the idea that 'winning' parties are allowed to do anything that breaks laws, increases corruption, loses hundreds of billions of Baht, upsets their own voters, and in general behave undemocratic and 'Thaksin first' rather than for the country?

BTW

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/703325-thailand-in-need-of-a-strong-civics-education-programme-says-educator/

"Democracy is far more than voting in elections. It is a way of life requiring knowledge, skills and values to be an active democratic citizen. A good civic education programme will enable people to acquire that knowledge, skills and values."

I think that the majority of the laws that they may have broken are the result of a flawed constitution and a judicial system packed with traditionalists that are hostile to the PT. That's why I wrote "change the constitution to strengthen democratic institutions" above. Also as I indicated above, I think the voters are forced to choose between corrupt parties, there are no clean ones. Regarding Thaksin, if that's what the voters want, that's what they should get. I don't like Thaksin, Suthep, the policies of PT or the arrogance of the misnamed Democrats, I just think democracy needs to be given a chance in Thailand.

Many of the PT senators campaigned with the promise to make the Senate fully elected, as it was before the 2007 constitution, and once elected tried hard to full-fill that promise. That is what has most caused the Democrats to scream "illegal" and "unconstitutional", but I don't recall them calling it undemocratic. Is that what you are calling undemocratic?

I'm all for a civic education program to instill the knowledge and values to participate in a democratic society. It's desperately needed, especially among many of the country's leaders and wanna-be leaders.

The 'flawed' 2007 constitution was 'flawed' as it was based on what publicus described as the 'flawed' 1997 constitution.

Of course none of that justifies the breaking of laws by Pheu Thai or the Pheu Thai majority led government.

As for 'if the voters want Thaksin', well there is a certain diminishing group of voters who want Thaksin the Saviour as they are still in need of that 'democracy awareness' program it would seem. I mean protesting against 'unelected elite' and at the same time wanting the criminal fugitive and undemocratic Thaksin back seems to reflect the double standards we try to get rid of.

[rubl]

Sorry Pipkins, Suthep got far more votes than Yingluck.

He told people not to vote and 53%of the electorate didn't.

That's about 23 million people!

I would be ashamed to come up with a foolish statement like this.For an honest and intelligent analysis Chis Baker has done a first class summary.Google it.

On the broader front the New York Times has an interesting article including reference to a damning indictment of the Suthep mob by Virabongsa Ramangkura, and an interesting take on the army/coup option.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/world/asia/petition-to-nullify-thai-election-is-rejected-in-setback-for-opposition.html?ref=world&_r=0

Well I would be ashamed to submit many things you have submitted.

As always in your posts you go for belittling the writer rather than constructive discussion.

I provided a credible authority for an election analysis and an interesting link.You provided a pointless personal comment.I have no objection to being taken to task if done with intelligence and wit, qualities manifestly absent from your post .

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Jayboy, when you continue to describe the anti-government protests as 'Suthep's mob' you lose credibility.

Furthermore the NYTIMES article fails to mention the reason why these protests started (blanket amnesty bill' and k. Veerapong just stating there's an agreement to stage a coup d'état. Well, we had that a half dozen times from k. Jatuporn already.

[heybruce]

Where did you get the idea that 'winning' parties are allowed to do anything that breaks laws, increases corruption, loses hundreds of billions of Baht, upsets their own voters, and in general behave undemocratic and 'Thaksin first' rather than for the country?

BTW

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/703325-thailand-in-need-of-a-strong-civics-education-programme-says-educator/

"Democracy is far more than voting in elections. It is a way of life requiring knowledge, skills and values to be an active democratic citizen. A good civic education programme will enable people to acquire that knowledge, skills and values."

I think that the majority of the laws that they may have broken are the result of a flawed constitution and a judicial system packed with traditionalists that are hostile to the PT. That's why I wrote "change the constitution to strengthen democratic institutions" above. Also as I indicated above, I think the voters are forced to choose between corrupt parties, there are no clean ones. Regarding Thaksin, if that's what the voters want, that's what they should get. I don't like Thaksin, Suthep, the policies of PT or the arrogance of the misnamed Democrats, I just think democracy needs to be given a chance in Thailand.

Many of the PT senators campaigned with the promise to make the Senate fully elected, as it was before the 2007 constitution, and once elected tried hard to full-fill that promise. That is what has most caused the Democrats to scream "illegal" and "unconstitutional", but I don't recall them calling it undemocratic. Is that what you are calling undemocratic?

I'm all for a civic education program to instill the knowledge and values to participate in a democratic society. It's desperately needed, especially among many of the country's leaders and wanna-be leaders.

The 'flawed' 2007 constitution was 'flawed' as it was based on what publicus described as the 'flawed' 1997 constitution.

Of course none of that justifies the breaking of laws by Pheu Thai or the Pheu Thai majority led government.

As for 'if the voters want Thaksin', well there is a certain diminishing group of voters who want Thaksin the Saviour as they are still in need of that 'democracy awareness' program it would seem. I mean protesting against 'unelected elite' and at the same time wanting the criminal fugitive and undemocratic Thaksin back seems to reflect the double standards we try to get rid of.

Based upon but still quite different. If you can stand to do a little fact checking, look at this link:

http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html

The majority of voters clearly wanted a Thaksin related government in the 2010 election. Who knows what they will choose in the next election, if one is allowed.

If PT broke the law the place to settle it is in the courts, not the streets.

The Thaksin supporters aren't the ones protesting and obstructing government and the last election, that's the Democrats. I assume that the Deomocrats have concluded that after years of referring to northern and north-eastern voters as buffaloes and working to topple elected governments, the majority of voters will never trust them. That's why they are pursuing undemocratic shortcuts to power.

Once again you keep throwing the word "undemocratic" in the direction of Thaksin, PT, and related parties. That's the side that has won every election since 2001. The Democrats, military, and courts are the ones that have toppled elected governments. Which side do you think is undemocratic?

[rubl]

Where did you get the idea that 'winning' parties are allowed to do anything that breaks laws, increases corruption, loses hundreds of billions of Baht, upsets their own voters, and in general behave undemocratic and 'Thaksin first' rather than for the country?

BTW

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/703325-thailand-in-need-of-a-strong-civics-education-programme-says-educator/

"Democracy is far more than voting in elections. It is a way of life requiring knowledge, skills and values to be an active democratic citizen. A good civic education programme will enable people to acquire that knowledge, skills and values."

I think that the majority of the laws that they may have broken are the result of a flawed constitution and a judicial system packed with traditionalists that are hostile to the PT. That's why I wrote "change the constitution to strengthen democratic institutions" above. Also as I indicated above, I think the voters are forced to choose between corrupt parties, there are no clean ones. Regarding Thaksin, if that's what the voters want, that's what they should get. I don't like Thaksin, Suthep, the policies of PT or the arrogance of the misnamed Democrats, I just think democracy needs to be given a chance in Thailand.

Many of the PT senators campaigned with the promise to make the Senate fully elected, as it was before the 2007 constitution, and once elected tried hard to full-fill that promise. That is what has most caused the Democrats to scream "illegal" and "unconstitutional", but I don't recall them calling it undemocratic. Is that what you are calling undemocratic?

I'm all for a civic education program to instill the knowledge and values to participate in a democratic society. It's desperately needed, especially among many of the country's leaders and wanna-be leaders.

The 'flawed' 2007 constitution was 'flawed' as it was based on what publicus described as the 'flawed' 1997 constitution.

Of course none of that justifies the breaking of laws by Pheu Thai or the Pheu Thai majority led government.

As for 'if the voters want Thaksin', well there is a certain diminishing group of voters who want Thaksin the Saviour as they are still in need of that 'democracy awareness' program it would seem. I mean protesting against 'unelected elite' and at the same time wanting the criminal fugitive and undemocratic Thaksin back seems to reflect the double standards we try to get rid of.

Based upon but still quite different. If you can stand to do a little fact checking, look at this link:

http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html

The majority of voters clearly wanted a Thaksin related government in the 2010 election. Who knows what they will choose in the next election, if one is allowed.

If PT broke the law the place to settle it is in the courts, not the streets.

The Thaksin supporters aren't the ones protesting and obstructing government and the last election, that's the Democrats. I assume that the Deomocrats have concluded that after years of referring to northern and north-eastern voters as buffaloes and working to topple elected governments, the majority of voters will never trust them. That's why they are pursuing undemocratic shortcuts to power.

Once again you keep throwing the word "undemocratic" in the direction of Thaksin, PT, and related parties. That's the side that has won every election since 2001. The Democrats, military, and courts are the ones that have toppled elected governments. Which side do you think is undemocratic?

Well, nice you like the link, I provided it here probably a half-dozen times already.

The majority of UDD / red-shirts in Bangkok wanted a Thaksin related government in 2010. That's why then PM Abhisit's offer of elections later that year were refused (by Thaksin's phonecall). Of course if you meant the 2011 elections, well that was 48% of the popular vote of 82% of the voters voting.

If Pheu Thai government breaks laws and keeps on condemning court whenever a ruling is not to their liking, democracy is violated. Better get rid of the government which is trying it's best to get a single individual back in the sadle rather than working for the whole population. Billions in lost money on rice scheme, a blanket amnesty bill, manipulations with voting in parliament, etc., etc.

The Thaksin supporters are only anti-anti-government-protesters at the moment, why would they obstruct the caretaker government? Even the UDD managed to forget the 'blanket amnesty bill' with amnesty for all who caused their 2010 deaths. The Democrat party obstructed the 'current, ongoing' election by choosing not to participate, how's that for democracy? As for the 'majority' of voters, well, even with those in North and NorthEast who bothered Pheu Thai lost.

Once again you keep saying you're for democracy, but in reality your for Thkasin it would seem. The 20001 result with a tearful Thaksin and his honest mistake followed by a judge saying "he won the election, how could we find him guilty" only shows the sorry state the democracy in Thailand is in. Elections will not help.

As for toppling governments, sticking to this century, it has only been undemocratic governments with either a CEO style PM taking care of his business or PM's appointed by him as for his MPs to vote for. Yingluck is not better than that, her golf caddy has the power, she just looks good on TV and her platitudes sound good to foreign media which not always dig deeper.

[scorecard]

Sorry Pipkins, Suthep got far more votes than Yingluck.

He told people not to vote and 53%of the electorate didn't.

That's about 23 million people!

I would be ashamed to come up with a foolish statement like this.For an honest and intelligent analysis Chis Baker has done a first class summary.Google it.

On the broader front the New York Times has an interesting article including reference to a damning indictment of the Suthep mob by Virabongsa Ramangkura, and an interesting take on the army/coup option.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/world/asia/petition-to-nullify-thai-election-is-rejected-in-setback-for-opposition.html?ref=world&_r=0

Well I would be ashamed to submit many things you have submitted.

As always in your posts you go for belittling the writer rather than constructive discussion.

I provided a credible authority for an election analysis and an interesting link.You provided a pointless personal comment.I have no objection to being taken to task if done with intelligence and wit, qualities manifestly absent from your post .

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

You call it an 'credible authority' and that's your prerogative.

I call it an article which is strongly and obviously lacking in balance and totally omits factual / critical points.

Edited February 10, 2014 by scorecard

[kikoman]

Sorry Pipkins, Suthep got far more votes than Yingluck.

He told people not to vote and 53%of the electorate didn't.

That's about 23 million people!

I would be ashamed to come up with a foolish statement like this.For an honest and intelligent analysis Chis Baker has done a first class summary.Google it.

On the broader front the New York Times has an interesting article including reference to a damning indictment of the Suthep mob by Virabongsa Ramangkura, and an interesting take on the army/coup option.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/world/asia/petition-to-nullify-thai-election-is-rejected-in-setback-for-opposition.html?ref=world&_r=0

Well I would be ashamed to submit many things you have submitted.

As always in your posts you go for belittling the writer rather than constructive discussion.

I provided a credible authority for an election analysis and an interesting link.You provided a pointless personal comment.I have no objection to being taken to task if done with intelligence and wit, qualities manifestly absent from your post .

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Jay Boy

You are correct 47,7% of the eligible voters voted in the election that the protesters and the Democrats actively boycotted and vowed not to allow the election, period.

That left around more than 20 million that did not vote, Historically Thailand has around 10 million habitual non voters in every election that left 10 million + that did not show up to vote, all may not have been boycotting the election but 20 million + that backed the Democratic process and voted, 10 million+ that may have boycotted the election, not great figures for the Democrats. I can not see how some one can claim a great yellow showing!

Cheers

[heybruce]

I think that the majority of the laws that they may have broken are the result of a flawed constitution and a judicial system packed with traditionalists that are hostile to the PT. That's why I wrote "change the constitution to strengthen democratic institutions" above. Also as I indicated above, I think the voters are forced to choose between corrupt parties, there are no clean ones. Regarding Thaksin, if that's what the voters want, that's what they should get. I don't like Thaksin, Suthep, the policies of PT or the arrogance of the misnamed Democrats, I just think democracy needs to be given a chance in Thailand.

Many of the PT senators campaigned with the promise to make the Senate fully elected, as it was before the 2007 constitution, and once elected tried hard to full-fill that promise. That is what has most caused the Democrats to scream "illegal" and "unconstitutional", but I don't recall them calling it undemocratic. Is that what you are calling undemocratic?

I'm all for a civic education program to instill the knowledge and values to participate in a democratic society. It's desperately needed, especially among many of the country's leaders and wanna-be leaders.

The 'flawed' 2007 constitution was 'flawed' as it was based on what publicus described as the 'flawed' 1997 constitution.

Of course none of that justifies the breaking of laws by Pheu Thai or the Pheu Thai majority led government.

As for 'if the voters want Thaksin', well there is a certain diminishing group of voters who want Thaksin the Saviour as they are still in need of that 'democracy awareness' program it would seem. I mean protesting against 'unelected elite' and at the same time wanting the criminal fugitive and undemocratic Thaksin back seems to reflect the double standards we try to get rid of.

Based upon but still quite different. If you can stand to do a little fact checking, look at this link:

http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html

The majority of voters clearly wanted a Thaksin related government in the 2010 election. Who knows what they will choose in the next election, if one is allowed.

If PT broke the law the place to settle it is in the courts, not the streets.

The Thaksin supporters aren't the ones protesting and obstructing government and the last election, that's the Democrats. I assume that the Deomocrats have concluded that after years of referring to northern and north-eastern voters as buffaloes and working to topple elected governments, the majority of voters will never trust them. That's why they are pursuing undemocratic shortcuts to power.

Once again you keep throwing the word "undemocratic" in the direction of Thaksin, PT, and related parties. That's the side that has won every election since 2001. The Democrats, military, and courts are the ones that have toppled elected governments. Which side do you think is undemocratic?

Well, nice you like the link, I provided it here probably a half-dozen times already.

The majority of UDD / red-shirts in Bangkok wanted a Thaksin related government in 2010. That's why then PM Abhisit's offer of elections later that year were refused (by Thaksin's phonecall). Of course if you meant the 2011 elections, well that was 48% of the popular vote of 82% of the voters voting.

If Pheu Thai government breaks laws and keeps on condemning court whenever a ruling is not to their liking, democracy is violated. Better get rid of the government which is trying it's best to get a single individual back in the sadle rather than working for the whole population. Billions in lost money on rice scheme, a blanket amnesty bill, manipulations with voting in parliament, etc., etc.

The Thaksin supporters are only anti-anti-government-protesters at the moment, why would they obstruct the caretaker government? Even the UDD managed to forget the 'blanket amnesty bill' with amnesty for all who caused their 2010 deaths. The Democrat party obstructed the 'current, ongoing' election by choosing not to participate, how's that for democracy? As for the 'majority' of voters, well, even with those in North and NorthEast who bothered Pheu Thai lost.

Once again you keep saying you're for democracy, but in reality your for Thkasin it would seem. The 20001 result with a tearful Thaksin and his honest mistake followed by a judge saying "he won the election, how could we find him guilty" only shows the sorry state the democracy in Thailand is in. Elections will not help.

As for toppling governments, sticking to this century, it has only been undemocratic governments with either a CEO style PM taking care of his business or PM's appointed by him as for his MPs to vote for. Yingluck is not better than that, her golf caddy has the power, she just looks good on TV and her platitudes sound good to foreign media which not always dig deeper.

So you know the link. Did you notice that the 2007 constitution made almost half the Senate unelected, increased the power of the (unelected) judges, and protected the military, among other things. It may follow the structure of the preceding constitution, but it looks to me like it has some significant changes away from democracy.

Ok, I got the election year wrong. I shouldn't work from memory. Both "The Economist" http://www.economist.com/node/18925843 and Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011 put the 2011 turn-out at 75%, with PT gathering 44% of the vote and 204 seats to the Democrats 32% of the votes and 115 seats. With allied parties the vote favoring PT over the Democrats was so large Abhisit resigned as party chief after accepting responsibility for the loss.

The Democrats may have only declined to participate in the election, but Suthep and his followers, whatever you choose to call them, attempted to prevent candidates from registering and people from voting, with some success.

Once again, if PT broke the law, it should be settled in the courts, not on the streets.

Thaksin was undeniably corrupt, but so is Suthep, many other politicians, and the military that deposed Thaksin. Thaksin's conviction under the military junta was for window dressing, had the military government really been interested in eliminating corruption they would have pursued other politicians and many of their own.

"Undemocratic" implies a government that did not win an election or won through significant fraud. You can say many bad things about Thaksin and Yingluck, but you can not say that they didn't win their elections with significantly more votes than their opposition. And if the majority of voters want a CEO style PM or one fronting for an absent CEO, then that's democracy in action.

I don't support any politician or party in this country, I support the people's right to democracy. And I don't expect democracy to deliver perfect government in Thailand, I assume government will be really bad until the endemic corruption is greatly reduced. But I think democracy is better for the future of Thailand, and the results of elections must be respected for democracy to become established.

What is your democratic alternative to these elected governments?

[jayboy]

I would be ashamed to come up with a foolish statement like this.For an honest and intelligent analysis Chis Baker has done a first class summary.Google it.

On the broader front the New York Times has an interesting article including reference to a damning indictment of the Suthep mob by Virabongsa Ramangkura, and an interesting take on the army/coup option.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/world/asia/petition-to-nullify-thai-election-is-rejected-in-setback-for-opposition.html?ref=world&_r=0

Well I would be ashamed to submit many things you have submitted.

As always in your posts you go for belittling the writer rather than constructive discussion.

I provided a credible authority for an election analysis and an interesting link.You provided a pointless personal comment.I have no objection to being taken to task if done with intelligence and wit, qualities manifestly absent from your post .

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

You call it an 'credible authority' and that's your prerogative.

I call it an article which is strongly and obviously lacking in balance and totally omits factual / critical points.

All educated and intelligent people regard Chris Baker as a credible authority on Thai politics, and one notably free of partisan bias (though he is a trenchant critic of Thaksin).

Your ignorant comment categorises you in a way I suspect you do not fully comprehend.

[JAG]

The "ticking time bomb", may I suggest, will be the reaction of a very large part of the population if/when a government which they have chosen at the polls is removed by essentially the same establishment faction for what, the fourth time in 8 years?

It probably won't matter much if the regime which comes to power is a Suthep headed dictatorship, or some sort of Democrat government, masquerading as a government of national unity and led by the inevitable Abhisit. Although the latter will probably be less ruthless and savage than Sutheps council. Both will lack any legitimacy, especially if the current government is removed without the electoral process being completed, and without any results announced. Furthermore as this process is taking place in full view of the international press, ( who have commented) it will result in a government which lacks credibility both internally and internationally.

The Reds, to use their shorthand nickname, will be the wronged party, both within Thailand and internationally. Quite a good place to be, if you accept the inevitable fall of their government.

How will they react? Who knows. They were given a savage lesson in 2010 , and whilst many here will smack their lips in satisfaction remembering it, the Reds will also remember, and will not make the same mistake again. But they will react. I doubt that the new regime will have any real power throughout much of the country.

One thing I am sure of, whatever government emerges it will be something of a pariah. Spare parts for F16s and Saab Grippens may be hard to come by, Tourism and trade will continue, but I would be surprised if there will be any significant international investment.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[rametindallas]

Sorry Pipkins, Suthep got far more votes than Yingluck.

He told people not to vote and 53%of the electorate didn't.

That's about 23 million people!

I would be ashamed to come up with a foolish statement like this.For an honest and intelligent analysis Chis Baker has done a first class summary.Google it.

On the broader front the New York Times has an interesting article including reference to a damning indictment of the Suthep mob by Virabongsa Ramangkura, and an interesting take on the army/coup option.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/world/asia/petition-to-nullify-thai-election-is-rejected-in-setback-for-opposition.html?ref=world&_r=0

The New York Times is a mouthpiece for the Globalists of the Carlyle Group and Bilderburg Group for which Dr. Thaksin is their front man. New York banks seek control of the World, Thailand included. For my part, I would prefer Thai elites to exploit Thais rather than Global elites exploit Thais. Poor people the World over will always be exploited. This battle is to decide if Thais control Thailand's government and economy or Globalists do. The New York Times is good for wiping you ass if you have nothing else.

Yes that"s the Cartalucci line - not only crazy as a fruitcake but a conspiracy theorist gone ape.If you prefer to spout his demented output that's an entirely a matter for you but don't expect to be treated seriously.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Corporate-funded "People's" Movement http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/06/corporate-funded-peoples-movement.html

Thailand's Invisible Revolution http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/thailands-invisible-revol_b_4539979.html

[englishoak]

The first these links is tin foil hat rubbish.... especially the usual globalist blame the foreigners and pretending the British aim to effectively turn Thailand into a colony....

The second is the usual propaganda of heroes in their own lunchtime claims of 4.3 million protesters on the streets here etc is absolutely laughable. I got that far and that was it for me...

[heybruce]

I would be ashamed to come up with a foolish statement like this.For an honest and intelligent analysis Chis Baker has done a first class summary.Google it.

On the broader front the New York Times has an interesting article including reference to a damning indictment of the Suthep mob by Virabongsa Ramangkura, and an interesting take on the army/coup option.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/world/asia/petition-to-nullify-thai-election-is-rejected-in-setback-for-opposition.html?ref=world&_r=0

The New York Times is a mouthpiece for the Globalists of the Carlyle Group and Bilderburg Group for which Dr. Thaksin is their front man. New York banks seek control of the World, Thailand included. For my part, I would prefer Thai elites to exploit Thais rather than Global elites exploit Thais. Poor people the World over will always be exploited. This battle is to decide if Thais control Thailand's government and economy or Globalists do. The New York Times is good for wiping you ass if you have nothing else.

Yes that"s the Cartalucci line - not only crazy as a fruitcake but a conspiracy theorist gone ape.If you prefer to spout his demented output that's an entirely a matter for you but don't expect to be treated seriously.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Corporate-funded "People's" Movement http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/06/corporate-funded-peoples-movement.html

Thailand's Invisible Revolution http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/thailands-invisible-revol_b_4539979.html

And if you doubt Land Destroyer's credibility, check out this review of it: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Land_Destroyer

[rametindallas]

Yes that"s the Cartalucci line - not only crazy as a fruitcake but a conspiracy theorist gone ape.If you prefer to spout his demented output that's an entirely a matter for you but don't expect to be treated seriously.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Corporate-funded "People's" Movement http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/06/corporate-funded-peoples-movement.html

Thailand's Invisible Revolution http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/thailands-invisible-revol_b_4539979.html

And if you doubt Land Destroyer's credibility, check out this review of it: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Land_Destroyer

That's one reviewer's opinion. What about the Huffington Post?

[Thaddeus]

All educated and intelligent people regard Chris Baker as a credible authority on Thai politics, and one notably free of partisan bias (though he is a trenchant critic of Thaksin).

Do you think that is a good thing, or a bad thing?

[heybruce]

Yes that"s the Cartalucci line - not only crazy as a fruitcake but a conspiracy theorist gone ape.If you prefer to spout his demented output that's an entirely a matter for you but don't expect to be treated seriously.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Corporate-funded "People's" Movement http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/06/corporate-funded-peoples-movement.html

Thailand's Invisible Revolution http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/thailands-invisible-revol_b_4539979.html

And if you doubt Land Destroyer's credibility, check out this review of it: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Land_Destroyer

That's one reviewer's opinion. What about the Huffington Post?

Ridiculously one-sided.

[tilac2]

Corporate-funded "People's" Movement http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/06/corporate-funded-peoples-movement.html

Yes that"s the Cartalucci line - not only crazy as a fruitcake but a conspiracy theorist gone ape.If you prefer to spout his demented output that's an entirely a matter for you but don't expect to be treated seriously.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Thailand's Invisible Revolution http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/thailands-invisible-revol_b_4539979.html

And if you doubt Land Destroyer's credibility, check out this review of it: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Land_Destroyer

Cartalucci is a total nutcase. When I last accessed his crazy website he was saying that the US was endangered from nuclear fallout from Fukushima! No reputable scientist shares that opinion. This is a question of analysing data and calculating the specifics of radiation levels. Nuclear scientists have done so and find that there is minimal danger. Cartalucci hasn't done so because he knows nothing of particle physics or indeed of anything to do with science at all.

He supports the extreme royalists in Thailand, for reasons best known to his psychiatric assessment team.

[englishoak]

Yes that"s the Cartalucci line - not only crazy as a fruitcake but a conspiracy theorist gone ape.If you prefer to spout his demented output that's an entirely a matter for you but don't expect to be treated seriously.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Corporate-funded "People's" Movement http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/06/corporate-funded-peoples-movement.html

Thailand's Invisible Revolution http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/thailands-invisible-revol_b_4539979.html

And if you doubt Land Destroyer's credibility, check out this review of it: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Land_Destroyer

That's one reviewer's opinion. What about the Huffington Post?

Its NOT the Huffington post try reading the bit that reads partnership, its dosnt legitimise something because it uses their .com address and its not from the Huffington post or by one of its reporters

and btw who said the Huffington post is a source of factual detail ? there isnt one source cited in that article its just a blog report

[rubl]

Based upon but still quite different. If you can stand to do a little fact checking, look at this link:

http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html

The majority of voters clearly wanted a Thaksin related government in the 2010 election. Who knows what they will choose in the next election, if one is allowed.

If PT broke the law the place to settle it is in the courts, not the streets.

The Thaksin supporters aren't the ones protesting and obstructing government and the last election, that's the Democrats. I assume that the Deomocrats have concluded that after years of referring to northern and north-eastern voters as buffaloes and working to topple elected governments, the majority of voters will never trust them. That's why they are pursuing undemocratic shortcuts to power.

Once again you keep throwing the word "undemocratic" in the direction of Thaksin, PT, and related parties. That's the side that has won every election since 2001. The Democrats, military, and courts are the ones that have toppled elected governments. Which side do you think is undemocratic?

Well, nice you like the link, I provided it here probably a half-dozen times already.

The majority of UDD / red-shirts in Bangkok wanted a Thaksin related government in 2010. That's why then PM Abhisit's offer of elections later that year were refused (by Thaksin's phonecall). Of course if you meant the 2011 elections, well that was 48% of the popular vote of 82% of the voters voting.

If Pheu Thai government breaks laws and keeps on condemning court whenever a ruling is not to their liking, democracy is violated. Better get rid of the government which is trying it's best to get a single individual back in the sadle rather than working for the whole population. Billions in lost money on rice scheme, a blanket amnesty bill, manipulations with voting in parliament, etc., etc.

The Thaksin supporters are only anti-anti-government-protesters at the moment, why would they obstruct the caretaker government? Even the UDD managed to forget the 'blanket amnesty bill' with amnesty for all who caused their 2010 deaths. The Democrat party obstructed the 'current, ongoing' election by choosing not to participate, how's that for democracy? As for the 'majority' of voters, well, even with those in North and NorthEast who bothered Pheu Thai lost.

Once again you keep saying you're for democracy, but in reality your for Thkasin it would seem. The 20001 result with a tearful Thaksin and his honest mistake followed by a judge saying "he won the election, how could we find him guilty" only shows the sorry state the democracy in Thailand is in. Elections will not help.

As for toppling governments, sticking to this century, it has only been undemocratic governments with either a CEO style PM taking care of his business or PM's appointed by him as for his MPs to vote for. Yingluck is not better than that, her golf caddy has the power, she just looks good on TV and her platitudes sound good to foreign media which not always dig deeper.

So you know the link. Did you notice that the 2007 constitution made almost half the Senate unelected, increased the power of the (unelected) judges, and protected the military, among other things. It may follow the structure of the preceding constitution, but it looks to me like it has some significant changes away from democracy.

Ok, I got the election year wrong. I shouldn't work from memory. Both "The Economist" http://www.economist.com/node/18925843 and Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011 put the 2011 turn-out at 75%, with PT gathering 44% of the vote and 204 seats to the Democrats 32% of the votes and 115 seats. With allied parties the vote favoring PT over the Democrats was so large Abhisit resigned as party chief after accepting responsibility for the loss.

The Democrats may have only declined to participate in the election, but Suthep and his followers, whatever you choose to call them, attempted to prevent candidates from registering and people from voting, with some success.

Once again, if PT broke the law, it should be settled in the courts, not on the streets.

Thaksin was undeniably corrupt, but so is Suthep, many other politicians, and the military that deposed Thaksin. Thaksin's conviction under the military junta was for window dressing, had the military government really been interested in eliminating corruption they would have pursued other politicians and many of their own.

"Undemocratic" implies a government that did not win an election or won through significant fraud. You can say many bad things about Thaksin and Yingluck, but you can not say that they didn't win their elections with significantly more votes than their opposition. And if the majority of voters want a CEO style PM or one fronting for an absent CEO, then that's democracy in action.

I don't support any politician or party in this country, I support the people's right to democracy. And I don't expect democracy to deliver perfect government in Thailand, I assume government will be really bad until the endemic corruption is greatly reduced. But I think democracy is better for the future of Thailand, and the results of elections must be respected for democracy to become established.

What is your democratic alternative to these elected governments?

Maybe you should check a bit more. Pheu Thai won 265 seats (out of 500) and could have formed a single party government. They choose to include some other parties (including that of coup leader MP Gen. Sonthi). Thaksin said he had learned that single party governments didn't work well in Thailand.

I keep hearing 'Thaksin was undeniable corrupt BUT so are others'. Of course that's nice but still doesn't justify a return of the criminal fugitive.

A democratic alternative? None that I see. A cabinet of (almost) non-political experts, panels to setup better guidelines, laws for real independent watchdogs with real power. A return to more-or-less normal after a year or so. Consistency in all of this. Most of all a Educational curriculum which can propel Thailand into the 21st century.

[robblok]

Maybe you should check a bit more. Pheu Thai won 265 seats (out of 500) and could have formed a single party government. They choose to include some other parties (including that of coup leader MP Gen. Sonthi). Thaksin said he had learned that single party governments didn't work well in Thailand.

I keep hearing 'Thaksin was undeniable corrupt BUT so are others'. Of course that's nice but still doesn't justify a return of the criminal fugitive.

A democratic alternative? None that I see. A cabinet of (almost) non-political experts, panels to setup better guidelines, laws for real independent watchdogs with real power. A return to more-or-less normal after a year or so. Consistency in all of this. Most of all a Educational curriculum which can propel Thailand into the 21st century.

Rubl

I really don't understand why people always say Taksin was corrupt and so were others.. just go after all of them its not an excuse not to do something. Seems to be for red supporters, i say go after all corruption whatever color. But right now that means go after PTP corruption because they are in government. Its only logical that the party in government is the one that has to be checked.

Just to illustrate how dumb the Taksin is corrupt but so are others is.

Suppose someone drives through a red light and others do too.. does that mean you should not go after any of them. That way you can make all the rules that you want but with nobody ever obeying them they are useless. That someone else also does it did not make the first red right jumper any less guilty. Its a favorite excuse of those who break the law.. point a finger but they....

People with morals see through these things..

I know you do too.. was just a remark in general.

[heybruce]

Well, nice you like the link, I provided it here probably a half-dozen times already.

The majority of UDD / red-shirts in Bangkok wanted a Thaksin related government in 2010. That's why then PM Abhisit's offer of elections later that year were refused (by Thaksin's phonecall). Of course if you meant the 2011 elections, well that was 48% of the popular vote of 82% of the voters voting.

If Pheu Thai government breaks laws and keeps on condemning court whenever a ruling is not to their liking, democracy is violated. Better get rid of the government which is trying it's best to get a single individual back in the sadle rather than working for the whole population. Billions in lost money on rice scheme, a blanket amnesty bill, manipulations with voting in parliament, etc., etc.

The Thaksin supporters are only anti-anti-government-protesters at the moment, why would they obstruct the caretaker government? Even the UDD managed to forget the 'blanket amnesty bill' with amnesty for all who caused their 2010 deaths. The Democrat party obstructed the 'current, ongoing' election by choosing not to participate, how's that for democracy? As for the 'majority' of voters, well, even with those in North and NorthEast who bothered Pheu Thai lost.

Once again you keep saying you're for democracy, but in reality your for Thkasin it would seem. The 20001 result with a tearful Thaksin and his honest mistake followed by a judge saying "he won the election, how could we find him guilty" only shows the sorry state the democracy in Thailand is in. Elections will not help.

As for toppling governments, sticking to this century, it has only been undemocratic governments with either a CEO style PM taking care of his business or PM's appointed by him as for his MPs to vote for. Yingluck is not better than that, her golf caddy has the power, she just looks good on TV and her platitudes sound good to foreign media which not always dig deeper.

So you know the link. Did you notice that the 2007 constitution made almost half the Senate unelected, increased the power of the (unelected) judges, and protected the military, among other things. It may follow the structure of the preceding constitution, but it looks to me like it has some significant changes away from democracy.

Ok, I got the election year wrong. I shouldn't work from memory. Both "The Economist" http://www.economist.com/node/18925843 and Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011 put the 2011 turn-out at 75%, with PT gathering 44% of the vote and 204 seats to the Democrats 32% of the votes and 115 seats. With allied parties the vote favoring PT over the Democrats was so large Abhisit resigned as party chief after accepting responsibility for the loss.

The Democrats may have only declined to participate in the election, but Suthep and his followers, whatever you choose to call them, attempted to prevent candidates from registering and people from voting, with some success.

Once again, if PT broke the law, it should be settled in the courts, not on the streets.

Thaksin was undeniably corrupt, but so is Suthep, many other politicians, and the military that deposed Thaksin. Thaksin's conviction under the military junta was for window dressing, had the military government really been interested in eliminating corruption they would have pursued other politicians and many of their own.

"Undemocratic" implies a government that did not win an election or won through significant fraud. You can say many bad things about Thaksin and Yingluck, but you can not say that they didn't win their elections with significantly more votes than their opposition. And if the majority of voters want a CEO style PM or one fronting for an absent CEO, then that's democracy in action.

I don't support any politician or party in this country, I support the people's right to democracy. And I don't expect democracy to deliver perfect government in Thailand, I assume government will be really bad until the endemic corruption is greatly reduced. But I think democracy is better for the future of Thailand, and the results of elections must be respected for democracy to become established.

What is your democratic alternative to these elected governments?

Maybe you should check a bit more. Pheu Thai won 265 seats (out of 500) and could have formed a single party government. They choose to include some other parties (including that of coup leader MP Gen. Sonthi). Thaksin said he had learned that single party governments didn't work well in Thailand.

I keep hearing 'Thaksin was undeniable corrupt BUT so are others'. Of course that's nice but still doesn't justify a return of the criminal fugitive.

A democratic alternative? None that I see. A cabinet of (almost) non-political experts, panels to setup better guidelines, laws for real independent watchdogs with real power. A return to more-or-less normal after a year or so. Consistency in all of this. Most of all a Educational curriculum which can propel Thailand into the 21st century.

That's embarrassing, 204 constituency based seats and 61 party seats for a total of 265 seats, a majority without a coalition. I'm not familiar with parliamentary systems. But clearly PT was the choice of the majority of the Thai voters by a significant margin.

Referring to Thaksin as a criminal without any context to the conviction is misleading. As I wrote elsewhere, bigshots in Thailand are only charged with corruption when more important bigshots, a military junta in this case, need a scapegoat to cover up their crimes.

I'm advocating giving democracy in Thailand time to mature by allowing elected officials time to finish their terms unless they are removed legally through judicial process. The maturing process will be painful, the governments will be far from perfect as will the judicial process, and lots of people will be loudly complaining, just as in real democracies. The alternative is chaos, lawlessness, and possibly civil war.

[rubl]

Maybe you should check a bit more. Pheu Thai won 265 seats (out of 500) and could have formed a single party government. They choose to include some other parties (including that of coup leader MP Gen. Sonthi). Thaksin said he had learned that single party governments didn't work well in Thailand.

I keep hearing 'Thaksin was undeniable corrupt BUT so are others'. Of course that's nice but still doesn't justify a return of the criminal fugitive.

A democratic alternative? None that I see. A cabinet of (almost) non-political experts, panels to setup better guidelines, laws for real independent watchdogs with real power. A return to more-or-less normal after a year or so. Consistency in all of this. Most of all a Educational curriculum which can propel Thailand into the 21st century.

That's embarrassing, 204 constituency based seats and 61 party seats for a total of 265 seats, a majority without a coalition. I'm not familiar with parliamentary systems. But clearly PT was the choice of the majority of the Thai voters by a significant margin.

Referring to Thaksin as a criminal without any context to the conviction is misleading. As I wrote elsewhere, bigshots in Thailand are only charged with corruption when more important bigshots, a military junta in this case, need a scapegoat to cover up their crimes.

I'm advocating giving democracy in Thailand time to mature by allowing elected officials time to finish their terms unless they are removed legally through judicial process. The maturing process will be painful, the governments will be far from perfect as will the judicial process, and lots of people will be loudly complaining, just as in real democracies. The alternative is chaos, lawlessness, and possibly civil war.

Majority of voters:

Thailand General Elections 2011-07-03

Registered electorate: 46,904,823

Total votes cast, both valid/invalid*: 35,469,811 (75.62%, (* = no vote is invalid)

party votes % of cast, % of regist.

Pheu Thai party: 15,744,190 votes (44.38% of cast, 33.57% of regist.) 265 seats

Democrat party: 11,433,762 votes (32.24% of cast, 24.38% of regist.) 159 seats

Regarding thaksin, well, let's not rehash all his (alleged) crimes which await his return for a trial to start.

Democracy isn't given a chance in Thailand and certainly not by Thaksin with his Pheu Thai party, his cabinet, his PM, his money, his business. Now to exclude Thaksin and lots from any political colour may hurt, but may be the only way to let democracy in Thailand grow.

PS don't worry too much about the Pheu Thai politicians. In two years they siphoned off so much that the blanket amnesty bill was made to include the first two years of the Yingluck government.