Decentralised Thai administration discussed at PDRC forum

[HonestQuietBob]

OK, one last time.

I know that the populist policies were clearly there to garner votes to gain power and then return Thaksin back to Thailand a free man. It was obvious to me and many other Dem leaning posters that this was the case and we collectively disapprove of such actions.

In the early days (I don't know about now BTW as it does seem that Yingluck has decided to appoint some of her own people to Thaksin's consternation) that, due to the fact that Yingluck was a TOTAL novice (and shouldn't have been there) Thaksin appointed his relations , police buddies and serfs to look after HIS interests. One of the first things that happened was for him to have a new Thai passport delivered to him by hand (despite this being illegal). To most of his appointee ministry chiefs, their job entailed working for Thaksin (not Thailand, but Thaksin).

Anyway. what I have laid out above describes the dangers and folly of this evil dictator. He had to be stopped as he was playing his own game of politics that stretched/ignored/sneered at the old constitution for his own benefit and towards gaining huge personal financial gains.

The army saw the dangers of a 'dictator in action' with no signs of never wanting to stop. They had no alternative other than to take him out and alter/reform the constitution to keep him and his string of newly formed parties in check. They dismantled some of the tools and mechanisms that he was exploiting to carry out his illegal activities such as the fully elected senate packed with 'his people' and made it more accountable and difficult to pass bills and laws in order to stymy his rampant corruption due to the appointed element.

This had some stalling effect and when he wanted lots of money to play with to pay for his populist policy disasters (all of them) and tried to get Yingluck out of the mess she found herself in, he tried to bypass parliamentary law that obstructed him getting his filthy hands on the money by passing bills early in the morning (4.00 AM) and all sorts of other devious tricks and practices so that 2.3 trillion baht could be used as he wished in the guise of massive projects such as the high speed railway. Because these had to go through feasibility and environmental impact studies and had to be scrutinised and approved by parliament, all which takes time, he decided that he wanted them done in secrecy without any form of justification for them to be assessed as to their worthiness and value for money taking place.

This, like so many things that Yingluck has been told by him to do has, on the whole, involved plenty of illegal and unethical goings on that have broken the law and fallen foul of the present constitutional laws.

I haven't even mentioned the ILLEGAL amnesty bill and only brushed upon his planned reverting of the senate back to a fully elected chamber in order for him to ram any bill he wants through without any transparency or checks and balances ie: ruling in dictatorial fashion in bypassing government (enabling secretive corruption to thrive).

To answer your question, these changes/reforms to the constitution are indeed essential and necessary as parliamentary behaviour MUST BE accountable, transparent, and the electoral process (which is extremely flawed) needs to be cleaned up. As to the resultant changes to the constitution favouring the Democrats I think they almost certainly will as everyone will be playing by the book and these populist schemes that are used to the full by Thaksin will be outlawed or at least effectively costed out to ensure that they wont become too burdensome on the government finances (like the rice scam and to a lesser extent, the others).

Again, there appears to be a lot in your post that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

1. Populist policies are by definition policies favoured by a majority of the population. If a political party were to present a set of policies that were not favoured by the majority of the population, they would surely lose the election. In fact such a party would probably never win an election and find themselves only being able to attain power through illegal means. Sound familiar (hint - Democrats). Populist policies are found in every country and are part of the platform of parties right across the political spectrum. The days of un-populist policies that favour and line the pockets of the tiny elite in this country are over. Democrats should listen to Charlie Darwin - adapt to the changed environment or die out.

2. Yingluck a total novice? Checkout the Wikileaks cables regarding Yingluck prior to the 2011 election. No doubt she was new to the spotlight, but she had been very active behind the scenes for quite a while.

3. Thaksin was no "evil dictator" he was a less than perfect man who's administration bought about a drastic improvement in the living standards of a great many people whilst at the same time pissing of the old moneyed elite in the country (mainly by just being so much more popular than they ever were or ever could be - jealous and envious prats that they are).

4. "The army saw saw the dangers of a dictator in action". No. The army saw the end of their days running the country as their own little fiefdom and a future of being accountable to a civilian government and didn't like it.

5. The army and those aligned with them did everything they could to twist and distort democracy to try and somehow turn a minority of supporters into a parliamentary majority. Surely in this day and age no self respecting, enlightened individual can support their crass attempts to derail democracy. Funny how all the fingers are pointed at the Reds for cheating the system when all, repeat all, the changes to the system that reduce democracy have been done by the Yellows to favour the Yellows.

6. The changes to the constitution favoured one section of society over another. The 1997 constitution was widely acclaimed and held in esteem by pretty much all Thais. The changes, those made already and those to be proposed by the Suthepstas move the document away from fairness and equality. The Yellows aren't interested in an even playing field because the fairer the rules are...... the more they lose by.

Summing up,

You not only support a rigged system, you favour further rigging of the system to ensure a movement with a minority of supporters can win a parliamentary majority. Why, because in your opinion the majority side are "bad" people who can't be trusted and the minority are"good" people who can be trusted. Sorry, the world doesn't work like that anymore.

What does the future hold?

The Democrats are history, the best they can hope for in the next 20 or so years are extremely brief periods of unelected rule.

The Constitution is going to be changed for the better - i.e. back towards fairness and equality, including an elected senate and an end to the gerrymandering of the lower house districts.

The old establishment families will have a much reduced role in society and will no longer be able to live a life of luxury at the expense of the ordinary citizens. They are actually going to have to work for a living and compete in open markets to earn a quid.

And finally, Thaksin will one day return to a heroes welcome

[djjamie]

I followed the events of 2010. I remember that the reason the whole deal fell through was that reds didn't believe Abhisit was sincere in his promise to hold elections. All the had to go on was Abhisit's word that he would dissolve parliament and call elections (and the reds already had reason to mistrust Abhisit, since the honest thing to do when you come into power in a backroom deal is to hold an election so no-one can question your mandate. In my home country even certain politicians who I consider extremely slimy have done this).

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I have read his book 'The Simple Truth' and his sincerity and righteousness come across in spades. Him and Korn are the only honest and trustworthy politicians around.

These two are like 'Batman and Robin' in how they act and in their beliefs of right and wrong and we should treasure them as a rare commodity in the LOS.

I too have read the book "The SImple Truth" and found it to be just "Simple".

It is a one sided whitewash of events in which he takes absolutely zero responsibility for his actions and the deaths that he is at the very least partly responsible for.

Batman and Robin?

Again with the delusional line a thinking that Thaksin is pure evil and those opposed to him are pure as the driven snow.

Abhisit is no more than a presentable face shown to the rest of world to cover for an unseemly machine seeking to overthrow democracy in the LOS.

He is not a saviour - he is just a naughty boy!

I too have read the book "The SImple Truth" and found it to be just "Simple".

You truly are a fan of logical fallacy aren't you or in the above case abusive ad hominem. Inferring a trait or a characteristic of someone as a means to invalidate their argument. I too have read the book and found it was written for the average Thai to understand. It really shone some facts (you may know now that I hold facts very highly Bob) on the situation in 2010. Facts of a similar nature that had Akeyuth Anchanbutr assassinated by the regime. Truly recommended read and available at all good book stores.

The fact that the voters in 2014 made it very clear that they want reforms before elections does not suit your agenda so you make some quant stories up to suit what you believe. The referendum unequivocally showed that 60% of Thai's wanted the constitution. Even that does not suit a PTP agenda and that majority is manipulated into some whimsical story that no one ones it. The majority did not want the amnesty bill, but again it does not suit the agenda so it is ignored. Now 43% of people 3 years ago voted for PTP and that is staunchly defended as an overwhelming majority without question. steadfast in there believe why? Because that figure suits there agenda.

Accusations mean nothing without convictions? What rubbish. Accusations are always precipitated by convictions. Tahksin was accused of abuse of power and the conviction precipitated that accusation. I could call you accused as well though I won't because you there is nothing to base it off. Accusations have to be based on someone more than thin air.

I think your last statement was about the PDRC boycotting elections. (not yellows. The PAD, like the 2011 election results are no longer relevant let alone an entity anymore)

The only principle of democracy that the PTP adhere too is these 2014 elections and it is always refurred back too. Never the other principles of democracy like "rule of law" or "freedom of speech", freedom of beliefs" or "equal protection under the law" Why? Because the PTP don't adhere to those principles. So in a way you can definitely say the PTP are democratic. 1/15th democratic. I am 1/15^th Irish and know a few Irish jokes, but I know nothing about Ireland and their culture. So one could postulate that the PTP know as much about democracy as Suropong Tovichakchaikul does about foreign relations. Nothing! So in regards to the boycotting one could also say the PDRC are democratic. 15/15 democratic though with one principle being held off so the other principles are not abused in the future through a framework of reform which Suthep is doing a fine job of I may add through his seminars. Elections are a gateway to allow the winner to practice democracy for 4 years and that is where democracy starts. As has been proven the PTP believe elections are were democracy finishes. Wrong. Time for that to change.

I see that you are one of those esteemed forum member that just itch to get the last word in which signifies to you that you have won the debate even though your argument is based on a platform of substituting "facts" for your "beliefs" which I will keep repeating, by the way, if people keep substituting them.

​Enjoy the last word………….AGAIN!

Cheers.

[SICHONSTEVE]

I followed the events of 2010. I remember that the reason the whole deal fell through was that reds didn't believe Abhisit was sincere in his promise to hold elections. All the had to go on was Abhisit's word that he would dissolve parliament and call elections (and the reds already had reason to mistrust Abhisit, since the honest thing to do when you come into power in a backroom deal is to hold an election so no-one can question your mandate. In my home country even certain politicians who I consider extremely slimy have done this).

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I have read his book 'The Simple Truth' and his sincerity and righteousness come across in spades. Him and Korn are the only honest and trustworthy politicians around.

These two are like 'Batman and Robin' in how they act and in their beliefs of right and wrong and we should treasure them as a rare commodity in the LOS.

I too have read the book "The SImple Truth" and found it to be just "Simple".

It is a one sided whitewash of events in which he takes absolutely zero responsibility for his actions and the deaths that he is at the very least partly responsible for.

Batman and Robin?

Again with the delusional line a thinking that Thaksin is pure evil and those opposed to him are pure as the driven snow.

Abhisit is no more than a presentable face shown to the rest of world to cover for an unseemly machine seeking to overthrow democracy in the LOS.

He is not a saviour - he is just a naughty boy!

Oh!! come on. Be honest with yourself for once!!!

"delusional line of Thaksin being evil" - does that mean that you think he is virtuous and has done no wrong in his life.

Give me a break - you put the 'big' in bigoted with your nonsense!!

[SICHONSTEVE]

I followed the events of 2010. I remember that the reason the whole deal fell through was that reds didn't believe Abhisit was sincere in his promise to hold elections. All the had to go on was Abhisit's word that he would dissolve parliament and call elections (and the reds already had reason to mistrust Abhisit, since the honest thing to do when you come into power in a backroom deal is to hold an election so no-one can question your mandate. In my home country even certain politicians who I consider extremely slimy have done this).

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I have read his book 'The Simple Truth' and his sincerity and righteousness come across in spades. Him and Korn are the only honest and trustworthy politicians around.

These two are like 'Batman and Robin' in how they act and in their beliefs of right and wrong and we should treasure them as a rare commodity in the LOS.

I too have read the book "The SImple Truth" and found it to be just "Simple".

It is a one sided whitewash of events in which he takes absolutely zero responsibility for his actions and the deaths that he is at the very least partly responsible for.

Batman and Robin?

Again with the delusional line a thinking that Thaksin is pure evil and those opposed to him are pure as the driven snow.

Abhisit is no more than a presentable face shown to the rest of world to cover for an unseemly machine seeking to overthrow democracy in the LOS.

He is not a saviour - he is just a naughty boy!

I too have read the book "The SImple Truth" and found it to be just "Simple".

You truly are a fan of logical fallacy aren't you or in the above case abusive ad hominem. Inferring a trait or a characteristic of someone as a means to invalidate their argument. I too have read the book and found it was written for the average Thai to understand. It really shone some facts (you may know now that I hold facts very highly Bob) on the situation in 2010. Facts of a similar nature that had Akeyuth Anchanbutr assassinated by the regime. Truly recommended read and available at all good book stores.

The fact that the voters in 2014 made it very clear that they want reforms before elections does not suit your agenda so you make some quant stories up to suit what you believe. The referendum unequivocally showed that 60% of Thai's wanted the constitution. Even that does not suit a PTP agenda and that majority is manipulated into some whimsical story that no one ones it. The majority did not want the amnesty bill, but again it does not suit the agenda so it is ignored. Now 43% of people 3 years ago voted for PTP and that is staunchly defended as an overwhelming majority without question. steadfast in there believe why? Because that figure suits there agenda.

Accusations mean nothing without convictions? What rubbish. Accusations are always precipitated by convictions. Tahksin was accused of abuse of power and the conviction precipitated that accusation. I could call you accused as well though I won't because you there is nothing to base it off. Accusations have to be based on someone more than thin air.

I think your last statement was about the PDRC boycotting elections. (not yellows. The PAD, like the 2011 election results are no longer relevant let alone an entity anymore)

The only principle of democracy that the PTP adhere too is these 2014 elections and it is always refurred back too. Never the other principles of democracy like "rule of law" or "freedom of speech", freedom of beliefs" or "equal protection under the law" Why? Because the PTP don't adhere to those principles. So in a way you can definitely say the PTP are democratic. 1/15th democratic. I am 1/15^th Irish and know a few Irish jokes, but I know nothing about Ireland and their culture. So one could postulate that the PTP know as much about democracy as Suropong Tovichakchaikul does about foreign relations. Nothing! So in regards to the boycotting one could also say the PDRC are democratic. 15/15 democratic though with one principle being held off so the other principles are not abused in the future through a framework of reform which Suthep is doing a fine job of I may add through his seminars. Elections are a gateway to allow the winner to practice democracy for 4 years and that is where democracy starts. As has been proven the PTP believe elections are were democracy finishes. Wrong. Time for that to change.

I see that you are one of those esteemed forum member that just itch to get the last word in which signifies to you that you have won the debate even though your argument is based on a platform of substituting "facts" for your "beliefs" which I will keep repeating, by the way, if people keep substituting them.

​Enjoy the last word………….AGAIN!

Cheers.

Thanks for putting the time in to pen that.

One of the best posts I have read in ages!!!!

[HonestQuietBob]

I followed the events of 2010. I remember that the reason the whole deal fell through was that reds didn't believe Abhisit was sincere in his promise to hold elections. All the had to go on was Abhisit's word that he would dissolve parliament and call elections (and the reds already had reason to mistrust Abhisit, since the honest thing to do when you come into power in a backroom deal is to hold an election so no-one can question your mandate. In my home country even certain politicians who I consider extremely slimy have done this).

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I have read his book 'The Simple Truth' and his sincerity and righteousness come across in spades. Him and Korn are the only honest and trustworthy politicians around.

These two are like 'Batman and Robin' in how they act and in their beliefs of right and wrong and we should treasure them as a rare commodity in the LOS.

I too have read the book "The SImple Truth" and found it to be just "Simple".

It is a one sided whitewash of events in which he takes absolutely zero responsibility for his actions and the deaths that he is at the very least partly responsible for.

Batman and Robin?

Again with the delusional line a thinking that Thaksin is pure evil and those opposed to him are pure as the driven snow.

Abhisit is no more than a presentable face shown to the rest of world to cover for an unseemly machine seeking to overthrow democracy in the LOS.

He is not a saviour - he is just a naughty boy!

Oh!! come on. Be honest with yourself for once!!!

"delusional line of Thaksin being evil" - does that mean that you think he is virtuous and has done no wrong in his life.

Give me a break - you put the 'big' in bigoted with your nonsense!!

Thaksin is a less than perfect individual.

He has his fair share of flaws as we all do.

What he is not, is some sort of comic book Super-vilian.

These over the top ridiculous claims of Thaksin's evilness are nothing but a line fed to the gullible by their manipulators to garner their support for a cause that would otherwise be completely abhorred by the community at large.

The PDRC mantra is Shinawatras are so evil we have to get rid of them and then rig the system so that they can never return.

This tripe is swallowed by a few true believers, not too many, but unfortunately enough (appx 4,000) to cause the havoc we currently see in the streets.

What the men behind the PDRC really want is simply to rig the system so that they can continue on with their parasitic existence.

It's a hard sell - Hey, lets change the system so we can live like gods while the masses slave away in the fields with no rights.

So they throw in the red herring - Thaksin is evil, he teases puppy dogs and pulls the wings of faeries - lets change the system.

And amazingly, some fools follow them.

[SICHONSTEVE]

OK, one last time.

I know that the populist policies were clearly there to garner votes to gain power and then return Thaksin back to Thailand a free man. It was obvious to me and many other Dem leaning posters that this was the case and we collectively disapprove of such actions.

In the early days (I don't know about now BTW as it does seem that Yingluck has decided to appoint some of her own people to Thaksin's consternation) that, due to the fact that Yingluck was a TOTAL novice (and shouldn't have been there) Thaksin appointed his relations , police buddies and serfs to look after HIS interests. One of the first things that happened was for him to have a new Thai passport delivered to him by hand (despite this being illegal). To most of his appointee ministry chiefs, their job entailed working for Thaksin (not Thailand, but Thaksin).

Anyway. what I have laid out above describes the dangers and folly of this evil dictator. He had to be stopped as he was playing his own game of politics that stretched/ignored/sneered at the old constitution for his own benefit and towards gaining huge personal financial gains.

The army saw the dangers of a 'dictator in action' with no signs of never wanting to stop. They had no alternative other than to take him out and alter/reform the constitution to keep him and his string of newly formed parties in check. They dismantled some of the tools and mechanisms that he was exploiting to carry out his illegal activities such as the fully elected senate packed with 'his people' and made it more accountable and difficult to pass bills and laws in order to stymy his rampant corruption due to the appointed element.

This had some stalling effect and when he wanted lots of money to play with to pay for his populist policy disasters (all of them) and tried to get Yingluck out of the mess she found herself in, he tried to bypass parliamentary law that obstructed him getting his filthy hands on the money by passing bills early in the morning (4.00 AM) and all sorts of other devious tricks and practices so that 2.3 trillion baht could be used as he wished in the guise of massive projects such as the high speed railway. Because these had to go through feasibility and environmental impact studies and had to be scrutinised and approved by parliament, all which takes time, he decided that he wanted them done in secrecy without any form of justification for them to be assessed as to their worthiness and value for money taking place.

This, like so many things that Yingluck has been told by him to do has, on the whole, involved plenty of illegal and unethical goings on that have broken the law and fallen foul of the present constitutional laws.

I haven't even mentioned the ILLEGAL amnesty bill and only brushed upon his planned reverting of the senate back to a fully elected chamber in order for him to ram any bill he wants through without any transparency or checks and balances ie: ruling in dictatorial fashion in bypassing government (enabling secretive corruption to thrive).

To answer your question, these changes/reforms to the constitution are indeed essential and necessary as parliamentary behaviour MUST BE accountable, transparent, and the electoral process (which is extremely flawed) needs to be cleaned up. As to the resultant changes to the constitution favouring the Democrats I think they almost certainly will as everyone will be playing by the book and these populist schemes that are used to the full by Thaksin will be outlawed or at least effectively costed out to ensure that they wont become too burdensome on the government finances (like the rice scam and to a lesser extent, the others).

Again, there appears to be a lot in your post that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

1. Populist policies are by definition policies favoured by a majority of the population. If a political party were to present a set of policies that were not favoured by the majority of the population, they would surely lose the election. In fact such a party would probably never win an election and find themselves only being able to attain power through illegal means. Sound familiar (hint - Democrats). Populist policies are found in every country and are part of the platform of parties right across the political spectrum. The days of un-populist policies that favour and line the pockets of the tiny elite in this country are over. Democrats should listen to Charlie Darwin - adapt to the changed environment or die out.

2. Yingluck a total novice? Checkout the Wikileaks cables regarding Yingluck prior to the 2011 election. No doubt she was new to the spotlight, but she had been very active behind the scenes for quite a while.

3. Thaksin was no "evil dictator" he was a less than perfect man who's administration bought about a drastic improvement in the living standards of a great many people whilst at the same time pissing of the old moneyed elite in the country (mainly by just being so much more popular than they ever were or ever could be - jealous and envious prats that they are).

4. "The army saw saw the dangers of a dictator in action". No. The army saw the end of their days running the country as their own little fiefdom and a future of being accountable to a civilian government and didn't like it.

5. The army and those aligned with them did everything they could to twist and distort democracy to try and somehow turn a minority of supporters into a parliamentary majority. Surely in this day and age no self respecting, enlightened individual can support their crass attempts to derail democracy. Funny how all the fingers are pointed at the Reds for cheating the system when all, repeat all, the changes to the system that reduce democracy have been done by the Yellows to favour the Yellows.

6. The changes to the constitution favoured one section of society over another. The 1997 constitution was widely acclaimed and held in esteem by pretty much all Thais. The changes, those made already and those to be proposed by the Suthepstas move the document away from fairness and equality. The Yellows aren't interested in an even playing field because the fairer the rules are...... the more they lose by.

Summing up,

You not only support a rigged system, you favour further rigging of the system to ensure a movement with a minority of supporters can win a parliamentary majority. Why, because in your opinion the majority side are "bad" people who can't be trusted and the minority are"good" people who can be trusted. Sorry, the world doesn't work like that anymore.

What does the future hold?

The Democrats are history, the best they can hope for in the next 20 or so years are extremely brief periods of unelected rule.

The Constitution is going to be changed for the better - i.e. back towards fairness and equality, including an elected senate and an end to the gerrymandering of the lower house districts.

The old establishment families will have a much reduced role in society and will no longer be able to live a life of luxury at the expense of the ordinary citizens. They are actually going to have to work for a living and compete in open markets to earn a quid.

And finally, Thaksin will one day return to a heroes welcome

There is nothing wrong with affordable and realistically costed out 'populist policies' as they are what the parties should be aiming for.

I somehow don't think that the rice scam, tablets debacle, debt causing first car scheme etc: qualify in this respect - they are to buy votes only!!

Yingluck had zero political experience when she was thrust into the PM's chair to look after Thaksin's interests - zero has never been a very high number in my book!!

The next one is so laughable that I won't comment on it - I'll just take a short extract that reflects the comedy of that submission.

"he was a less than perfect man who........." nuff said on that one methinks!!!

What's next? Oh!! the armies role - they were worried that Thaksin was going to retire them all and do away with them. OK............!!

Plain silly and absurd - I'm not sure that I'm going to make it to number 6 as I can't type due to my laughing so much.

I've managed to control myself now so what little gem of your intellect have saved up for me for the last one?

I was right, I should have stuck to my initial instincts and not read it as it is equally as tosh as the previous garbage!!!

I can imagine that even the other fervent 'red brigade' have doubts about your sanity following that heap of crap.

I have worked out what you are trying to do - you are trying to wind me up!! - in truth, you have simply wasted 10 minutes of my time for which I DON"T thank you!!!!!

[HonestQuietBob]

I followed the events of 2010. I remember that the reason the whole deal fell through was that reds didn't believe Abhisit was sincere in his promise to hold elections. All the had to go on was Abhisit's word that he would dissolve parliament and call elections (and the reds already had reason to mistrust Abhisit, since the honest thing to do when you come into power in a backroom deal is to hold an election so no-one can question your mandate. In my home country even certain politicians who I consider extremely slimy have done this).

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I have read his book 'The Simple Truth' and his sincerity and righteousness come across in spades. Him and Korn are the only honest and trustworthy politicians around.

These two are like 'Batman and Robin' in how they act and in their beliefs of right and wrong and we should treasure them as a rare commodity in the LOS.

I too have read the book "The SImple Truth" and found it to be just "Simple".

It is a one sided whitewash of events in which he takes absolutely zero responsibility for his actions and the deaths that he is at the very least partly responsible for.

Batman and Robin?

Again with the delusional line a thinking that Thaksin is pure evil and those opposed to him are pure as the driven snow.

Abhisit is no more than a presentable face shown to the rest of world to cover for an unseemly machine seeking to overthrow democracy in the LOS.

He is not a saviour - he is just a naughty boy!

I too have read the book "The SImple Truth" and found it to be just "Simple".

You truly are a fan of logical fallacy aren't you or in the above case abusive ad hominem. Inferring a trait or a characteristic of someone as a means to invalidate their argument. I too have read the book and found it was written for the average Thai to understand. It really shone some facts (you may know now that I hold facts very highly Bob) on the situation in 2010. Facts of a similar nature that had Akeyuth Anchanbutr assassinated by the regime. Truly recommended read and available at all good book stores.

The fact that the voters in 2014 made it very clear that they want reforms before elections does not suit your agenda so you make some quant stories up to suit what you believe. The referendum unequivocally showed that 60% of Thai's wanted the constitution. Even that does not suit a PTP agenda and that majority is manipulated into some whimsical story that no one ones it. The majority did not want the amnesty bill, but again it does not suit the agenda so it is ignored. Now 43% of people 3 years ago voted for PTP and that is staunchly defended as an overwhelming majority without question. steadfast in there believe why? Because that figure suits there agenda.

Accusations mean nothing without convictions? What rubbish. Accusations are always precipitated by convictions. Tahksin was accused of abuse of power and the conviction precipitated that accusation. I could call you accused as well though I won't because you there is nothing to base it off. Accusations have to be based on someone more than thin air.

I think your last statement was about the PDRC boycotting elections. (not yellows. The PAD, like the 2011 election results are no longer relevant let alone an entity anymore)

The only principle of democracy that the PTP adhere too is these 2014 elections and it is always refurred back too. Never the other principles of democracy like "rule of law" or "freedom of speech", freedom of beliefs" or "equal protection under the law" Why? Because the PTP don't adhere to those principles. So in a way you can definitely say the PTP are democratic. 1/15th democratic. I am 1/15^th Irish and know a few Irish jokes, but I know nothing about Ireland and their culture. So one could postulate that the PTP know as much about democracy as Suropong Tovichakchaikul does about foreign relations. Nothing! So in regards to the boycotting one could also say the PDRC are democratic. 15/15 democratic though with one principle being held off so the other principles are not abused in the future through a framework of reform which Suthep is doing a fine job of I may add through his seminars. Elections are a gateway to allow the winner to practice democracy for 4 years and that is where democracy starts. As has been proven the PTP believe elections are were democracy finishes. Wrong. Time for that to change.

I see that you are one of those esteemed forum member that just itch to get the last word in which signifies to you that you have won the debate even though your argument is based on a platform of substituting "facts" for your "beliefs" which I will keep repeating, by the way, if people keep substituting them.

​Enjoy the last word………….AGAIN!

Cheers.

Dj, mate - you google / wiki all these terms and ideas (logical fallacy, reality perception...) and then use them in your posts, ussually out of context, without anything more than a superficial understanding of them - it really shows. Please stop, I'm honestly embarrassed for you.

To the subject at hand,

2014 voters didn't make it clear that they want reforms before elections despite your desperate desire to believe that they did. Your constant harping of this refrain won't change the fact that you cannot just assume and then claim as fact that anyone who did not cast a vote for PTP is pro Suthep. It is just wrong. Finito.

The 2007 referendum on the constitution was coerced and far from free and fair - as such the results can't honestly be held as evidence of anything and must be taken with a grain of salt. This to is fact. It is also your white knight Abhisits view.

Accusations are always "precipitated" by convictions.

????

Does that include false accusations?

Seeing as though I accused you in the previous post, I guess you shall shortly be convicted (remember accusations are always "precipitated" by convictions)

Again, nothing but silliness here.

Accusations have to be based on something more than thin air.

Agreed.

To bad that's not the case from the minority Yellows when it comes to Thaksin, his family and his political organisations.

Any old garbage spewed from the mouths of the Yellow leadership is regurgitated as fact by an adoring bunch of imbeciles.

(BTW - I assume Yingluck will be shortly convicted of rigging the lottery because, you know, accusations have been made and accusations are always "precipitated" by convictions).

True democracy, real democracy, absolute democracy.......yada, yada, yada

1 man, 1 vote is the starting point of any democracy.

Without this principle you have nothing.

This being the case, one thing we know for certain is that the Reds are at least one step ahead of the Yellows when it comes to promoting actual democracy in Thailand.

And the fact that the Yellows are against 1 man 1 vote (because they will lose any election with it) means as far as democracy is concerned - whatever they put forward is essentially stillborn.

All the nonsense about respect my vote, even after the election is utter crap from the mouths of hypocrites .

How about respecting the vote of the majority of the voters that have elected the government of their choice 5 (soon to be 6) times - or don't their votes deserve respect in the Yellows' half assed system of absolute democracy.

Wake up sunshine - you're being used and treated as a fool just like the poor folk camped out in Lumpini (excluding the guards that are giving the local prostitutes a good working over and not paying).

You know nothing about Ireland and their culture.

I bet this list is quite a bit longer than "Ireland and their culture".

Finally,

As far as being an "esteemed member that has to get the last word in"

Not so.

I see myself more as an "esteemed member that doesn't let nonsense go unanswered"

That's why I'm busy as a bee in this thread.

It really is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Correction.

It really is like shooting yellow fish in a barrel.

Over to you sonny boy.

[HonestQuietBob]

OK, one last time.

I know that the populist policies were clearly there to garner votes to gain power and then return Thaksin back to Thailand a free man. It was obvious to me and many other Dem leaning posters that this was the case and we collectively disapprove of such actions.

In the early days (I don't know about now BTW as it does seem that Yingluck has decided to appoint some of her own people to Thaksin's consternation) that, due to the fact that Yingluck was a TOTAL novice (and shouldn't have been there) Thaksin appointed his relations , police buddies and serfs to look after HIS interests. One of the first things that happened was for him to have a new Thai passport delivered to him by hand (despite this being illegal). To most of his appointee ministry chiefs, their job entailed working for Thaksin (not Thailand, but Thaksin).

Anyway. what I have laid out above describes the dangers and folly of this evil dictator. He had to be stopped as he was playing his own game of politics that stretched/ignored/sneered at the old constitution for his own benefit and towards gaining huge personal financial gains.

The army saw the dangers of a 'dictator in action' with no signs of never wanting to stop. They had no alternative other than to take him out and alter/reform the constitution to keep him and his string of newly formed parties in check. They dismantled some of the tools and mechanisms that he was exploiting to carry out his illegal activities such as the fully elected senate packed with 'his people' and made it more accountable and difficult to pass bills and laws in order to stymy his rampant corruption due to the appointed element.

This had some stalling effect and when he wanted lots of money to play with to pay for his populist policy disasters (all of them) and tried to get Yingluck out of the mess she found herself in, he tried to bypass parliamentary law that obstructed him getting his filthy hands on the money by passing bills early in the morning (4.00 AM) and all sorts of other devious tricks and practices so that 2.3 trillion baht could be used as he wished in the guise of massive projects such as the high speed railway. Because these had to go through feasibility and environmental impact studies and had to be scrutinised and approved by parliament, all which takes time, he decided that he wanted them done in secrecy without any form of justification for them to be assessed as to their worthiness and value for money taking place.

This, like so many things that Yingluck has been told by him to do has, on the whole, involved plenty of illegal and unethical goings on that have broken the law and fallen foul of the present constitutional laws.

I haven't even mentioned the ILLEGAL amnesty bill and only brushed upon his planned reverting of the senate back to a fully elected chamber in order for him to ram any bill he wants through without any transparency or checks and balances ie: ruling in dictatorial fashion in bypassing government (enabling secretive corruption to thrive).

To answer your question, these changes/reforms to the constitution are indeed essential and necessary as parliamentary behaviour MUST BE accountable, transparent, and the electoral process (which is extremely flawed) needs to be cleaned up. As to the resultant changes to the constitution favouring the Democrats I think they almost certainly will as everyone will be playing by the book and these populist schemes that are used to the full by Thaksin will be outlawed or at least effectively costed out to ensure that they wont become too burdensome on the government finances (like the rice scam and to a lesser extent, the others).

Again, there appears to be a lot in your post that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

1. Populist policies are by definition policies favoured by a majority of the population. If a political party were to present a set of policies that were not favoured by the majority of the population, they would surely lose the election. In fact such a party would probably never win an election and find themselves only being able to attain power through illegal means. Sound familiar (hint - Democrats). Populist policies are found in every country and are part of the platform of parties right across the political spectrum. The days of un-populist policies that favour and line the pockets of the tiny elite in this country are over. Democrats should listen to Charlie Darwin - adapt to the changed environment or die out.

2. Yingluck a total novice? Checkout the Wikileaks cables regarding Yingluck prior to the 2011 election. No doubt she was new to the spotlight, but she had been very active behind the scenes for quite a while.

3. Thaksin was no "evil dictator" he was a less than perfect man who's administration bought about a drastic improvement in the living standards of a great many people whilst at the same time pissing of the old moneyed elite in the country (mainly by just being so much more popular than they ever were or ever could be - jealous and envious prats that they are).

4. "The army saw saw the dangers of a dictator in action". No. The army saw the end of their days running the country as their own little fiefdom and a future of being accountable to a civilian government and didn't like it.

5. The army and those aligned with them did everything they could to twist and distort democracy to try and somehow turn a minority of supporters into a parliamentary majority. Surely in this day and age no self respecting, enlightened individual can support their crass attempts to derail democracy. Funny how all the fingers are pointed at the Reds for cheating the system when all, repeat all, the changes to the system that reduce democracy have been done by the Yellows to favour the Yellows.

6. The changes to the constitution favoured one section of society over another. The 1997 constitution was widely acclaimed and held in esteem by pretty much all Thais. The changes, those made already and those to be proposed by the Suthepstas move the document away from fairness and equality. The Yellows aren't interested in an even playing field because the fairer the rules are...... the more they lose by.

Summing up,

You not only support a rigged system, you favour further rigging of the system to ensure a movement with a minority of supporters can win a parliamentary majority. Why, because in your opinion the majority side are "bad" people who can't be trusted and the minority are"good" people who can be trusted. Sorry, the world doesn't work like that anymore.

What does the future hold?

The Democrats are history, the best they can hope for in the next 20 or so years are extremely brief periods of unelected rule.

The Constitution is going to be changed for the better - i.e. back towards fairness and equality, including an elected senate and an end to the gerrymandering of the lower house districts.

The old establishment families will have a much reduced role in society and will no longer be able to live a life of luxury at the expense of the ordinary citizens. They are actually going to have to work for a living and compete in open markets to earn a quid.

And finally, Thaksin will one day return to a heroes welcome

There is nothing wrong with affordable and realistically costed out 'populist policies' as they are what the parties should be aiming for.

I somehow don't think that the rice scam, tablets debacle, debt causing first car scheme etc: qualify in this respect - they are to buy votes only!!

Yingluck had zero political experience when she was thrust into the PM's chair to look after Thaksin's interests - zero has never been a very high number in my book!!

The next one is so laughable that I won't comment on it - I'll just take a short extract that reflects the comedy of that submission.

"he was a less than perfect man who........." nuff said on that one methinks!!!

What's next? Oh!! the armies role - they were worried that Thaksin was going to retire them all and do away with them. OK............!!

Plain silly and absurd - I'm not sure that I'm going to make it to number 6 as I can't type due to my laughing so much.

I've managed to control myself now so what little gem of your intellect have saved up for me for the last one?

I was right, I should have stuck to my initial instincts and not read it as it is equally as tosh as the previous garbage!!!

I can imagine that even the other fervent 'red brigade' have doubts about your sanity following that heap of crap.

I have worked out what you are trying to do - you are trying to wind me up!! - in truth, you have simply wasted 10 minutes of my time for which I DON"T thank you!!!!!

So here it ends, with your refusal to respond to a solid opposition against your polemics and your reluctant, deflated concession.

For the record - I wasn't trying to wind you up, just rebutting your propositions with logic and reason.

If you had put forward a valid argument, it would have stood up to scrutiny.

That you have so spectacularly wilted cannot be held against me.

Who to blame if not me (or Thaksin)?

Here is one possibility.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves....

[SICHONSTEVE]

OK, one last time.

I know that the populist policies were clearly there to garner votes to gain power and then return Thaksin back to Thailand a free man. It was obvious to me and many other Dem leaning posters that this was the case and we collectively disapprove of such actions.

In the early days (I don't know about now BTW as it does seem that Yingluck has decided to appoint some of her own people to Thaksin's consternation) that, due to the fact that Yingluck was a TOTAL novice (and shouldn't have been there) Thaksin appointed his relations , police buddies and serfs to look after HIS interests. One of the first things that happened was for him to have a new Thai passport delivered to him by hand (despite this being illegal). To most of his appointee ministry chiefs, their job entailed working for Thaksin (not Thailand, but Thaksin).

Anyway. what I have laid out above describes the dangers and folly of this evil dictator. He had to be stopped as he was playing his own game of politics that stretched/ignored/sneered at the old constitution for his own benefit and towards gaining huge personal financial gains.

The army saw the dangers of a 'dictator in action' with no signs of never wanting to stop. They had no alternative other than to take him out and alter/reform the constitution to keep him and his string of newly formed parties in check. They dismantled some of the tools and mechanisms that he was exploiting to carry out his illegal activities such as the fully elected senate packed with 'his people' and made it more accountable and difficult to pass bills and laws in order to stymy his rampant corruption due to the appointed element.

This had some stalling effect and when he wanted lots of money to play with to pay for his populist policy disasters (all of them) and tried to get Yingluck out of the mess she found herself in, he tried to bypass parliamentary law that obstructed him getting his filthy hands on the money by passing bills early in the morning (4.00 AM) and all sorts of other devious tricks and practices so that 2.3 trillion baht could be used as he wished in the guise of massive projects such as the high speed railway. Because these had to go through feasibility and environmental impact studies and had to be scrutinised and approved by parliament, all which takes time, he decided that he wanted them done in secrecy without any form of justification for them to be assessed as to their worthiness and value for money taking place.

This, like so many things that Yingluck has been told by him to do has, on the whole, involved plenty of illegal and unethical goings on that have broken the law and fallen foul of the present constitutional laws.

I haven't even mentioned the ILLEGAL amnesty bill and only brushed upon his planned reverting of the senate back to a fully elected chamber in order for him to ram any bill he wants through without any transparency or checks and balances ie: ruling in dictatorial fashion in bypassing government (enabling secretive corruption to thrive).

To answer your question, these changes/reforms to the constitution are indeed essential and necessary as parliamentary behaviour MUST BE accountable, transparent, and the electoral process (which is extremely flawed) needs to be cleaned up. As to the resultant changes to the constitution favouring the Democrats I think they almost certainly will as everyone will be playing by the book and these populist schemes that are used to the full by Thaksin will be outlawed or at least effectively costed out to ensure that they wont become too burdensome on the government finances (like the rice scam and to a lesser extent, the others).

Again, there appears to be a lot in your post that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

1. Populist policies are by definition policies favoured by a majority of the population. If a political party were to present a set of policies that were not favoured by the majority of the population, they would surely lose the election. In fact such a party would probably never win an election and find themselves only being able to attain power through illegal means. Sound familiar (hint - Democrats). Populist policies are found in every country and are part of the platform of parties right across the political spectrum. The days of un-populist policies that favour and line the pockets of the tiny elite in this country are over. Democrats should listen to Charlie Darwin - adapt to the changed environment or die out.

2. Yingluck a total novice? Checkout the Wikileaks cables regarding Yingluck prior to the 2011 election. No doubt she was new to the spotlight, but she had been very active behind the scenes for quite a while.

3. Thaksin was no "evil dictator" he was a less than perfect man who's administration bought about a drastic improvement in the living standards of a great many people whilst at the same time pissing of the old moneyed elite in the country (mainly by just being so much more popular than they ever were or ever could be - jealous and envious prats that they are).

4. "The army saw saw the dangers of a dictator in action". No. The army saw the end of their days running the country as their own little fiefdom and a future of being accountable to a civilian government and didn't like it.

5. The army and those aligned with them did everything they could to twist and distort democracy to try and somehow turn a minority of supporters into a parliamentary majority. Surely in this day and age no self respecting, enlightened individual can support their crass attempts to derail democracy. Funny how all the fingers are pointed at the Reds for cheating the system when all, repeat all, the changes to the system that reduce democracy have been done by the Yellows to favour the Yellows.

6. The changes to the constitution favoured one section of society over another. The 1997 constitution was widely acclaimed and held in esteem by pretty much all Thais. The changes, those made already and those to be proposed by the Suthepstas move the document away from fairness and equality. The Yellows aren't interested in an even playing field because the fairer the rules are...... the more they lose by.

Summing up,

You not only support a rigged system, you favour further rigging of the system to ensure a movement with a minority of supporters can win a parliamentary majority. Why, because in your opinion the majority side are "bad" people who can't be trusted and the minority are"good" people who can be trusted. Sorry, the world doesn't work like that anymore.

What does the future hold?

The Democrats are history, the best they can hope for in the next 20 or so years are extremely brief periods of unelected rule.

The Constitution is going to be changed for the better - i.e. back towards fairness and equality, including an elected senate and an end to the gerrymandering of the lower house districts.

The old establishment families will have a much reduced role in society and will no longer be able to live a life of luxury at the expense of the ordinary citizens. They are actually going to have to work for a living and compete in open markets to earn a quid.

And finally, Thaksin will one day return to a heroes welcome

There is nothing wrong with affordable and realistically costed out 'populist policies' as they are what the parties should be aiming for.

I somehow don't think that the rice scam, tablets debacle, debt causing first car scheme etc: qualify in this respect - they are to buy votes only!!

Yingluck had zero political experience when she was thrust into the PM's chair to look after Thaksin's interests - zero has never been a very high number in my book!!

The next one is so laughable that I won't comment on it - I'll just take a short extract that reflects the comedy of that submission.

"he was a less than perfect man who........." nuff said on that one methinks!!!

What's next? Oh!! the armies role - they were worried that Thaksin was going to retire them all and do away with them. OK............!!

Plain silly and absurd - I'm not sure that I'm going to make it to number 6 as I can't type due to my laughing so much.

I've managed to control myself now so what little gem of your intellect have saved up for me for the last one?

I was right, I should have stuck to my initial instincts and not read it as it is equally as tosh as the previous garbage!!!

I can imagine that even the other fervent 'red brigade' have doubts about your sanity following that heap of crap.

I have worked out what you are trying to do - you are trying to wind me up!! - in truth, you have simply wasted 10 minutes of my time for which I DON"T thank you!!!!!

So here it ends, with your refusal to respond to a solid opposition against your polemics and your reluctant, deflated concession.

For the record - I wasn't trying to wind you up, just rebutting your propositions with logic and reason.

If you had put forward a valid argument, it would have stood up to scrutiny.

That you have so spectacularly wilted cannot be held against me.

Who to blame if not me (or Thaksin)?

Here is one possibility.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves....

I'm not sure that you will be getting too many retorts from DJ and myself in the future as we have wised up to your silly childish games.

We'll just let someone else take over from answering you're weird nonsensical twaddle that has absolutely no substance or sensible comments within it!!!!

If I said that Abhisit has 2 legs you would insist that he has at least 3!!

Your arguments are baseless and bigoted rubbish, nothing else!!!

[HonestQuietBob]

So here it ends, with your refusal to respond to a solid opposition against your polemics and your reluctant, deflated concession.

For the record - I wasn't trying to wind you up, just rebutting your propositions with logic and reason.

If you had put forward a valid argument, it would have stood up to scrutiny.

That you have so spectacularly wilted cannot be held against me.

Who to blame if not me (or Thaksin)?

Here is one possibility.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves....

I'm not sure that you will be getting too many retorts from DJ and myself in the future as we have wised up to your silly childish games.

We'll just let someone else take over from answering you're weird nonsensical twaddle that has absolutely no substance or sensible comments within it!!!!

If I said that Abhisit has 2 legs you would insist that he has at least 3!!

Your arguments are baseless and bigoted rubbish, nothing else!!!

I could say:

It's more a case of you saying Abhisit has 3 legs and me pointing out that he only has 2 legs and then DJ then jumps in and claims Abhisit actually has 3 and 3/4 legs and I once again calmly state that he has only 2 legs and then you take your bat and ball and go home.

But I would rather leave you with 2 quotes from Marcus Aurelius' book Meditations:

1. If anyone can refute me - show me I'm making a mistake or looking at things from the wrong perspective - I'll gladly change. It's the truth I'm after, and the truth has never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in deceit and ignorance.

2. The only thing that isn't worthless: to live this life out truthfully and rightly. And to be patient with those who don't.

I honestly believe that the Yellow movement is on the wrong side of history.

The Reds aren't perfect, but at least they are the first step in the right direction.

If the facts show that I am wrong I am more than willing to stand corrected.

But almost everything I've encountered from those with an opposite view to me on this forum has been lacking.

To misquote our mutual friend the DJ "It's all belief (and hearsay) and no fact".

There also seems to be a lot more sense and reason in the posts of those with similar views to myself, both with issues that favour and those that don't favour our view.

[Thai at Heart]

Oh well then, here we go......

A. I am going to ignore all the crap about Thaksin and go straight to the election results

B. The turnout was low because the Democrats boycotted. It really is as simple as that. Why on earth would a labourer in Bangkok bother to travel all the way to his home provence to vote in an election that had only one significant candidate and was likely to get annulled by the biased "independent" agencies? Any political savvy person knows that the closer the expected result the more important the turnout - the reds had this one won before the first vote was even cast because the Democrats took all their toys and went home. They did what they had to do to win and no more.

C. Not voting was considered a sign of support for PDRC. What a silly thing to say. Please can you tell me who the 25% of voters who didn't vote in 2011 were sending a sign of support for? Maybe they were just ahead of their time and were "casting " the first ever non-votes for the PDRC. It is a foolish notion to claim that every eligible Thai voter who did not tick a box for PTP is a Suthepsta. If support has dropped off so significantly for PTP, why did the Democrats not contest the election and take the easy win? Why are they still trying to avoid an election and go for an appointed council? While neither of us knows the exact level of support for either faction only a very few diehard deluded true believers of the yellow cause actually think PTP are not by far the best supported political organisation in the nation.

D. Again I ignore all the crap about Thaksin

E. You believe that the majority of Thais want to voluntarily give up their right to decide who will govern them because:

1 - Thaksin is a bad man

2 - voter turn out in a boycotted election was lower than the turn out in the previous non-boycotted election.

Well,

1 - Thaksin was, is and remains the most popular politician on the Thai landscape.

2 - See B above

Nobody knows the exact level of support for "reforms before elections" but the dwindling numbers of Suthepsta's gives us all a fair indication of what the true state of affairs is.

E. The rest is all speculation you say, and you cannot base it on facts you say.

Interesting.

Interesting and wrong I say.

- Much like Suthep, the coup government of 2006 preached reforms then elections and who wins gets to govern. The constitution was altered, PPP won the elections and..... surprise, surprise - they were not left alone and allowed to govern. All of this is irrefutable fact. I can see why you avoided responding to this point - no amount of foolishness can get you around the obvious here.

- The alterations to the election system by the coup government and the Abhisit Democrat government are as I have stated and are again FACTS. All of this is irrefutable fact. I can see why you avoided responding to this point - no amount of foolishness can get you around the obvious here.

I think we're done here, unless your mate Steve has finally found his voice and has something to say.

Well, do ya punk?

I agree. Drawing these inferences that because turn out was low, it means support for PDRC is ridiculous. This is High school statistics, and the Thai media is full of these types of generalisations.

The last vote doesn't prove majority support for anyone, one way or another, because the Dems didn't pitch. Of course, they will have to pitch next time, or they will lose their party registration. The lets watch the sparks fly. I hope Abhsiti and Korn and the others come out swinging.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[SICHONSTEVE]

_Really??