Thailand: Everything is broken

[Johpa]

Whereas Thais and the Thai media really have a handle on the situation in their nation which is creeping inexorably towards becoming a failed state.

Which begs the question as to why it is so common to see failed states. In the news these days is Nigeria, now noted as possesing the largest economy in Africa and yet Nigeria is in every sense of the term a failed state and has been so for decades. Thailand, frankly once the darling of Southeast Asia (aging academics get the reference), is slowly joining some of its neighbors as a failed state. And even the US, now in debt up to its ears, with a failing infrastructure, and an elite unwilling to fund the necessary repairs is slowly drifting in the same direction. I am not really sure of the various causes, but the great enabler seems to be the global capitalist financial network so willing to take in deposits from any source without questions. And or course one of the great predictors of failure is inequality. Google "Gini Index" or better yet read the book "The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger".

As for creepy, sure Thaksin and Yingluck were creepy. But then so are some Thai laws, example gratis the Thai libel laws, laws that are used for purely political purposes by all sides. And I find that pretty creepy. There are other aspects of Thais relationships with power that I also find creepy, not to mention eating cake out of a dog bowl. So yes, one can get a creepy feeling delving into not only just about any aspect of Thai politics, but by delving into the power politics and the political economy of just about any other nation. But wait, why bother talking about the political economy or just true politics, even where it is permitted, when the masses can be satiated for knowledge by endless and repetitive news about missing planes, Oscar, skanky celebrities, and the list goes on. For nothing is creepier than modern popular western culture.

[Greer]

The cable is broken. Since Suthep and his poodles spit on Democracy and a Constitutional Court downgrades an (HM) appointed care taker PM. Is any Court now investigating who occupied an Int. Airport in 2008 and punishes those fools? Yingluck is a few days PM off and foreigners get stranded at border (runs). Brace for extreme xenofobia next months......

Bear in mind that the extreme xenophobia is brought to you courtesy of the PTP, as these changes have not just been thought through in the last couple of days.

This is the sort of thing that her brother was coming out with as well, some time ago, but everyone's selective memory seems to have forgotten.

[Mrgk]

The Economist seems to believe that a democracy means once a politician is elected, the laws no longer apply to them.

Nah, rather they take a dim view of the honesty, democratic legitimacy and competence of the "Independent" agencies.

Sounds like the Constitutional Court got it right. imo

The "democratic legitimacy" part of my guess refers exactly to the post-coup drafting of the constitution that you are citing - it is designed to entrap the elected government (should it be hostile to the architects of the coup, that is, but I repeat myself...) through a combination of:

a) Arcane and widely interpretable statutes. (For some more obvious cases, see the surprise change in the requirements for passing a constitutional amendment)

b.) "Independent" agencies that the architects of the coup made sure to stack in their favor. In practice this means the NACC, the CC and the EC.

c) Making the senate dominated by appointed senators that have no democratic mandate (but rather have a mandate from the institutions that were beind the military coup, funny that).

Not being able to transfer a hostile national security advisor is exactly the kind of absurdity that can only work if enforcement of the law is selective (as is ensured by b.).

In practice this means that one side can sabotage an election outright, and then, rather than being punished for it, be rewarded for it by the CC, while transfering a single civil servant will be punished through the ouster of the premier and 9 ministers (to, through incredible coincidence, be followed by the double whammy from NACC the day after, funny that...), despite the "criminal" act having already been revoked following a normal court proceeding.

When examining the full history of Thai constitutional jurisprudence, the politicization of justice becomes not merely obvious, but ridiculously obvious.

The Economist is a fairly sophisticated outfit, hence they (along with virtually the entire world press, just plug "judicial coup" into Google News...) are able to see through the smokescreens outlined above.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Mrgk

[hawker9000]

This article also promulgates a Western fantasy. Yingluck did not receive a " landslide " victory in 2011. She received 48.41 % of the vote. That's not a landslide. Phue Thai received 265 seats out of a possible 500. That's not a landslide. Thaksin invited a number of party leaders to cobble together a buffer coalition for his sister, resulting in about 300 seats. That also is not a landslide. This point should be beyond opinion. It is fact.

You are talking nonsense.In every democracy election results tend to be split more or less evenly, certainly the experience of the Uk and the US.PTP won 265 seats as you say and the Dems (from memory) about 140.Small parties picked up the rest but none more than about 30 seats.That's an easy victory for the PTP and if the Democrats had achieved that level of margin you would not have made this foolish post.

265 to 159 seems like a landslide to me.

Well, it's simply and quite obviously not. 48.4% is not a landslide; it's not even a majority. Electoral boundaries simply turn that into a disproportionate number of seats. 'Not saying it wasn't a clear electoral victory for the PTP. It was. But hardly a landslide. And if the shoe were on the other foot you'd be stating exactly the same thing.

Edited May 10, 2014 by hawker9000

[evercurious]

"The Economist seems to believe that a democracy means once a politician is elected, the laws no longer apply to them. "

This point is very much about the essence of what happens in western democracies as well as here - once elected, their status becomes

harder to question and, rarely are mass actions taken against elected governments in the way they have been in Thailand

recently.

As Kerry noted, judicial underpinning is essential to help elected parties become truly accepted and a part of the society's fabric.

However, things pointed out by the critics of Yinluck and her brother's former governments are things rarely pointed out in Western

democracies, even though they happen there too (people not informed about the true nature of what they vote for, receiving unequal

shares of social benefits like healthcare, education, corruption in choice of candidates)

In the West the discrimination is more finely tuned, subtle and difficult to identify, but still more difficult to speak against on levels such as

that happening in Thailand at present.

It is clearly not an option to make a schematic style compromise as suggested by The Economist, when polarisation is a genuine representation

of differing points of view and compromise would indicate simply 'taking the guts out of politics' as they really are here.

Edited May 10, 2014 by evercurious

[Torrens54]

Does The Economist allow a full reprint of its editorials? Just wondering for future reference, so I will know what is allowable.

Well he/she did "credit" The Economist but quite frankly, I would much prefer some "Original" thoughts and perhaps just a link to the story in the other publication.

But I only spent some 50 years in the News Business as a journalist and much of that time, in senior management, so I probably wouldn't have a clue!

Edited May 10, 2014 by Torrens54

[Trouble]

Economist has always been pro Business Thaksin, never mind the rest of his indiscretions, it doesn't matter, as long as money is being made.

The Economist reports on business and economic conditions worldwide. It is written with the idea of giving investors, business, etc. further insight into conditions around the globe. Thaksin is a footnote in the big scheme of things. If you don't believe that the purpose of people and businesses investing money in things isn't to make money and you have some altruistic idea that business should somehow make the plight of the world better you got lost somewhere along the way. That's the way the world works, like it or not.

[sumtingwong]

So The Economist sides with those that violate the constitution. Good to know.

[Mrgk]

So The Economist sides with those that violate the constitution. Good to know.

Given that the current constitution is the product of a military junta, enforced by the loyalists of a military junta, them (along with pretty much all international press and commentary) being sceptical of Thai constitutional jurisprudence is perhaps not that surprising...

Edited May 10, 2014 by Mrgk

[sumtingwong]

So The Economist sides with those that violate the constitution. Good to know.

Given that the current constitution is the product of a military junta, enforced by the loyalists of a military junta, them (along with pretty much all international press and commentary) being sceptical of Thai constitutional jurisprudence is perhaps not that surprising...

The majority of the international press is left leaning, so no surprise there. The article in the constitution that was violated applies to all political stripes to prevent corruption. How is that a bad thing?

[Trembly]

No one claiming that Thaksin has bought the exonomist ?

Well. That's novel.

"The Economist itself sits among the corporate membership of large Wall Street-London policy think-tanks like the Chatham House, right along side these lobbying firms.

In their latest article, “Political crisis in Thailand: You go your way, I’ll go mine,” one of these lobbying firms comes to mind - fellow Chatham House corporate member Amsterdam & Partners."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/towards-the-destabilization-and-breakup-of-thailand/5366193

[Thai at Heart]

No one claiming that Thaksin has bought the exonomist ?

Well. That's novel.

"The Economist itself sits among the corporate membership of large Wall Street-London policy think-tanks like the Chatham House, right along side these lobbying firms.

In their latest article, Political crisis in Thailand: You go your way, Ill go mine, one of these lobbying firms comes to mind - fellow Chatham House corporate member Amsterdam & Partners."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/towards-the-destabilization-and-breakup-of-thailand/5366193

You hold up Tony Cartalucci as a respectable source to critique the Economist?

Sorry, but please. We are now entering the realm of the absurd of debate. I might as well start quoting The China Daily to describe democracy progress on China.

Have u got any independent source to back up his rather outlandish claims of paid for editorial, and paid up connection with Chatham house.

[Skywalker69]

"Everything Is Broken"

Broken lines broken strings

Broken threads broken springs

Broken idols broken heads

People sleeping in broken beds

Ain't no use jiving

Ain't no use joking

Everything is broken.

Broken bottles broken plates

Broken switches broken gates

Broken dishes broken parts

Streets are filled with broken hearts

Broken words never meant to be spoken

Everything is broken.

Seem like every time you stop and turn around

Something else just hit the ground

Broken cutters broken saws

Broken buckles broken laws

Broken bodies broken bones

Broken voices on broken phones

Take a deep breath feel like you're chokin'

Everything is broken.

Everytime you leave and go off someplace

Things fall to pieces in my face

Broken hands on broken ploughs

Broken treaties broken vows

Broken pipes broken tools

People bending broken rules

Hound dog howling bullfrog croaking

Everything is broken.

Respect.

[sumtingwong]

No one claiming that Thaksin has bought the exonomist ?

Well. That's novel.

"The Economist itself sits among the corporate membership of large Wall Street-London policy think-tanks like the Chatham House, right along side these lobbying firms.

In their latest article, Political crisis in Thailand: You go your way, Ill go mine, one of these lobbying firms comes to mind - fellow Chatham House corporate member Amsterdam & Partners."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/towards-the-destabilization-and-breakup-of-thailand/5366193

You hold up Tony Cartalucci as a respectable source to critique the Economist?

Sorry, but please. We are now entering the realm of the absurd of debate. I might as well start quoting The China Daily to describe democracy progress on China.

Have u got any independent source to back up his rather outlandish claims of paid for editorial, and paid up connection with Chatham house.

How The Economist explains itself

[The Economist’s political stance. We like free enterprise and tend to favour deregulation and privatisation. But we also like gay marriage, want to legalise drugs and disapprove of monarchy.]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-0

[sumtingwong]

"Everything Is Broken"

Broken lines broken strings

Broken threads broken springs

Broken idols broken heads

People sleeping in broken beds

Ain't no use jiving

Ain't no use joking

Everything is broken.

Broken bottles broken plates

Broken switches broken gates

Broken dishes broken parts

Streets are filled with broken hearts

Broken words never meant to be spoken

Everything is broken.

Seem like every time you stop and turn around

Something else just hit the ground

Broken cutters broken saws

Broken buckles broken laws

Broken bodies broken bones

Broken voices on broken phones

Take a deep breath feel like you're chokin'

Everything is broken.

Everytime you leave and go off someplace

Things fall to pieces in my face

Broken hands on broken ploughs

Broken treaties broken vows

Broken pipes broken tools

People bending broken rules

Hound dog howling bullfrog croaking

Everything is broken.

Respect.

Bob Dylan rocks

http://vimeo.com/75113425

[Trembly]

No one claiming that Thaksin has bought the exonomist ?

Well. That's novel.

"The Economist itself sits among the corporate membership of large Wall Street-London policy think-tanks like the Chatham House, right along side these lobbying firms.

In their latest article, Political crisis in Thailand: You go your way, Ill go mine, one of these lobbying firms comes to mind - fellow Chatham House corporate member Amsterdam & Partners."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/towards-the-destabilization-and-breakup-of-thailand/5366193

You hold up Tony Cartalucci as a respectable source to critique the Economist?

Sorry, but please. We are now entering the realm of the absurd of debate. I might as well start quoting The China Daily to describe democracy progress on China.

Have u got any independent source to back up his rather outlandish claims of paid for editorial, and paid up connection with Chatham house.

1. This summary of ownership should be self explanatory :

"The Economist Group is 50% owned by Pearson PLC via The Financial Times Limited. The bulk of the remaining shares are held by individual shareholders including the Cadbury, Rothschild, Schroder, Agnelli and other family interests as well as a number of staff and former staff shareholders. The Economist Group operates as a separate and independent business."

2. Chatham House : Corporate Membership

Edited May 10, 2014 by Trembly

[cybertigrou]

we just need heineken and thai pussy

[Tokay]

Thailand: Everything is broken

Most accurate news headline ever posted on this board.

[Thai at Heart]

No one claiming that Thaksin has bought the exonomist ?

Well. That's novel.

"The Economist itself sits among the corporate membership of large Wall Street-London policy think-tanks like the Chatham House, right along side these lobbying firms.

In their latest article, Political crisis in Thailand: You go your way, Ill go mine, one of these lobbying firms comes to mind - fellow Chatham House corporate member Amsterdam & Partners."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/towards-the-destabilization-and-breakup-of-thailand/5366193

You hold up Tony Cartalucci as a respectable source to critique the Economist?

Sorry, but please. We are now entering the realm of the absurd of debate. I might as well start quoting The China Daily to describe democracy progress on China.

Have u got any independent source to back up his rather outlandish claims of paid for editorial, and paid up connection with Chatham house.

How The Economist explains itself

[The Economists political stance. We like free enterprise and tend to favour deregulation and privatisation. But we also like gay marriage, want to legalise drugs and disapprove of monarchy.]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-0

Oh really.

That statement affirms that it makes paid for editorial?

It is a free market, pro democracy newspaper. It takes that view because largely free markets and democracy have been proven to bring greater economic prosperity.

I have subscribed to it for years. Never has it had planted editorial and it holds itself to very high standards often printing corrections and apologies .

So where it can be implied that it is in the pay of Thaksin is beyond me. You think Kim dong wouldn't like to pay or possibly Castro or any other despot?

It is a c**p accusation to suggest that it is in the pay of anyone for editorial. If it is a right wing small govt supporter how come it doesn't support Abhisit?

U have to understand that the reason something is read as widely and as long as this is precisely because it has integrity.

I read that list of names on both. Mr. Amsterdam is a notable missing name. You overestimate his pull completely

Edited May 10, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[DivinGuy]

we just need heineken and thai pussy

I don't like Heineken.

[Mrgk]

So The Economist sides with those that violate the constitution. Good to know.

Given that the current constitution is the product of a military junta, enforced by the loyalists of a military junta, them (along with pretty much all international press and commentary) being sceptical of Thai constitutional jurisprudence is perhaps not that surprising...

The majority of the international press is left leaning, so no surprise there. The article in the constitution that was violated applies to all political stripes to prevent corruption. How is that a bad thing?

1.) Right-leaning outlets have been about as critical of the Yellows as the left-leaning ones, as far as I can tell. Two examples:

The American Interest:

"Royalists Oust Shinawatra in Judicial Coup"

http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/05/07/royalists-oust-shinawatra-in-judicial-coup/

The Wall Street Journal opinion pages:

"Thailand's Aristocratic Dead-Enders

"The royalists who can't win an election stage a judicial coup."

(Pay link, but is available in full if you arrive via Google.)

I read a fair enough of western right-wing publications, and I would peg yellow support at very, very low levels among the western right.

2.) Your proposition that there is eqivalent justice under the constitution is highly debatable. The opposition was allowed to actively sabotage an election by physically preventing people from voting. The CC reacted by... rewarding the opposition by nullifying the election. Meanwhile they crush the government for the already-rescinded act of transferring a civil servant. You have to be blind to believe that there is equal justice in Thailand.

3.) ...which brings us to the constitution itself, which was designed exactly to thwart democracy, designed and railroaded through under a military junta. The reason people in some countries have reverence for their constitution is that it is seen as having democratic legitimacy, and as intended to protect democracy against encroachment by those that currently control the reigns of power.

In Thailand, the constitution plays the opposite role: It is an instrument of anti-democracy and oligarchy. Just as it was intended to be.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Mrgk

[icare999]

what a load of one sided BS

[anteater]

" There is something creepy about the way that the exiled, unelected Mr Thaksin has been calling the shots from Dubai. "

Indeed, there is something very creepy about it. This is the best sentence of this opinion article. There is something profoundly creepy about Thaksin calling the shots from Dubai. There is also something profoundly unconstitutional about it, as well. He was not elected. Therefore, he has no business directing this administration. He has no constitutional business receiving Pheu Thai cabinet ministers on a frequent basis to hone policy points. He has no constitutional business directing cabinet meetings through sykpe. To be sure, there is no parallel to this in the West. The West - it is true - do not have an " agenda " regarding the political climate in Thailand. The problem - understandably - is that it simply can't be fit into a thirty-second soundbite, and as such corners get tapered for more immediate Western consumption and recognition. It is naturally understandable that the West would immediately see elections as the be-all and end-all of the solving of all problems. The reasons for that are simple. Elections generally do a cracking good job of that, and when they don't, there are a reasonable number of stringent checks and balances through the courts to help ensure that it does. But for that to occur, there has to be a bedrock of unquestioned support for the judicial system. In Western countries - by and large - there is. Therefore it works, as it is supposed to. Secretary of State John Kerry was right when he said that elections were only one component of a democracy - a vital part, to be sure - but only one part. He also was quick to stress that their has to be a judicial underpinning, as indeed there does in every civilized society. Democracy cannot act independently of that, although Pheu Thai and the UDD would have us believe that it can. Mr. Kerry also assumes naturally that the elections must also be free and fair. The West assumes that all that is in place already. But the problem is that the mechanisms that protect the sanctity of the electoral system are not enforced, and have in fact been abused, promulgating a cycle of corruption that enters a kind of perpetual loop year after year. Quite a number of foreign journalists concur with this, but they are still hamstrung by the condensing of the reports, and that keeps their audience from the complex historical perspectives that are ultimately key to understanding it and how it has evolved.

The other point that is well raised in the article is the question of decentralization. And yet here again, that does not in itself guarantee a break with corrupt practices, either in the run up to elections, or after them. Ethics therefore must remain first and foremost the first line of business in the area of free and fair elections. And for that, there has to be respect for the vigilance of the independent agencies. Or in other words, all the things Pheu Thai and the UDD want to dismantle.

This article also promulgates a Western fantasy. Yingluck did not receive a " landslide " victory in 2011. She received 48.41 % of the vote. That's not a landslide. Phue Thai received 265 seats out of a possible 500. That's not a landslide. Thaksin invited a number of party leaders to cobble together a buffer coalition for his sister, resulting in about 300 seats. That also is not a landslide. This point should be beyond opinion. It is fact.

Scamper, just give it a rest, why don't you? You have no knowledge or understanding of politics or its teminology. Allow me to contribute to your deficient education. The term "landslide" as applied to politics is vague, but generally refers to a victory by a margin of votes by 10% or so over one's main opponent. Thus both the victories of the British Labour Party in 1997 and 2001(?) were described as landslides, as I recall. Labour won by a margin of somewhere over 10% I believe in each case.

In 2011 Peua Thai beat the Democrats by over 13% (I just checked figures). The victory in terms of MPs was (as ever) even more conclusive: PT received 265 seats (an absolute majority), the Democrats got a mere 159. Thus PT beat the Democrats by over a hundred seats. It was a landslide. You got it?

I could repeat the examples in electoral results in the US where similar-margin popular vote victories are described as "landslides".

Thus PT's victory in 2011 was, according to normally accepted terminology, a landslide. This is "beyond opinion" (your words).

Of course, previous victories by Thaksin parties had been even more overwhelming, but then Thaksin himself was in charge and he was hugely popular with Thai voters.

Oh, sorry to offend your ears with that word "Thaksin".

[Thai at Heart]

" There is something creepy about the way that the exiled, unelected Mr Thaksin has been calling the shots from Dubai. "

Indeed, there is something very creepy about it. This is the best sentence of this opinion article. There is something profoundly creepy about Thaksin calling the shots from Dubai. There is also something profoundly unconstitutional about it, as well. He was not elected. Therefore, he has no business directing this administration. He has no constitutional business receiving Pheu Thai cabinet ministers on a frequent basis to hone policy points. He has no constitutional business directing cabinet meetings through sykpe. To be sure, there is no parallel to this in the West. The West - it is true - do not have an " agenda " regarding the political climate in Thailand. The problem - understandably - is that it simply can't be fit into a thirty-second soundbite, and as such corners get tapered for more immediate Western consumption and recognition. It is naturally understandable that the West would immediately see elections as the be-all and end-all of the solving of all problems. The reasons for that are simple. Elections generally do a cracking good job of that, and when they don't, there are a reasonable number of stringent checks and balances through the courts to help ensure that it does. But for that to occur, there has to be a bedrock of unquestioned support for the judicial system. In Western countries - by and large - there is. Therefore it works, as it is supposed to. Secretary of State John Kerry was right when he said that elections were only one component of a democracy - a vital part, to be sure - but only one part. He also was quick to stress that their has to be a judicial underpinning, as indeed there does in every civilized society. Democracy cannot act independently of that, although Pheu Thai and the UDD would have us believe that it can. Mr. Kerry also assumes naturally that the elections must also be free and fair. The West assumes that all that is in place already. But the problem is that the mechanisms that protect the sanctity of the electoral system are not enforced, and have in fact been abused, promulgating a cycle of corruption that enters a kind of perpetual loop year after year. Quite a number of foreign journalists concur with this, but they are still hamstrung by the condensing of the reports, and that keeps their audience from the complex historical perspectives that are ultimately key to understanding it and how it has evolved.

The other point that is well raised in the article is the question of decentralization. And yet here again, that does not in itself guarantee a break with corrupt practices, either in the run up to elections, or after them. Ethics therefore must remain first and foremost the first line of business in the area of free and fair elections. And for that, there has to be respect for the vigilance of the independent agencies. Or in other words, all the things Pheu Thai and the UDD want to dismantle.

This article also promulgates a Western fantasy. Yingluck did not receive a " landslide " victory in 2011. She received 48.41 % of the vote. That's not a landslide. Phue Thai received 265 seats out of a possible 500. That's not a landslide. Thaksin invited a number of party leaders to cobble together a buffer coalition for his sister, resulting in about 300 seats. That also is not a landslide. This point should be beyond opinion. It is fact.

Scamper, just give it a rest, why don't you? You have no knowledge or understanding of politics or its teminology. Allow me to contribute to your deficient education. The term "landslide" as applied to politics is vague, but generally refers to a victory by a margin of votes by 10% or so over one's main opponent. Thus both the victories of the British Labour Party in 1997 and 2001(?) were described as landslides, as I recall. Labour won by a margin of somewhere over 10% I believe in each case.

In 2011 Peua Thai beat the Democrats by over 13% (I just checked figures). The victory in terms of MPs was (as ever) even more conclusive: PT received 265 seats (an absolute majority), the Democrats got a mere 159. Thus PT beat the Democrats by over a hundred seats. It was a landslide. You got it?

I could repeat the examples in electoral results in the US where similar-margin popular vote victories are described as "landslides".

Thus PT's victory in 2011 was, according to normally accepted terminology, a landslide. This is "beyond opinion" (your words).

Of course, previous victories by Thaksin parties had been even more overwhelming, but then Thaksin himself was in charge and he was hugely popular with Thai voters.

Oh, sorry to offend your ears with that word "Thaksin".

It gets even further out of kilter when there isn't proportional representation.

Less than 50% of the popular vote can deliver a large parliamentary majority.

[anteater]

So The Economist sides with those that violate the constitution. Good to know.

Given that the current constitution is the product of a military junta, enforced by the loyalists of a military junta, them (along with pretty much all international press and commentary) being sceptical of Thai constitutional jurisprudence is perhaps not that surprising...

The majority of the international press is left leaning, so no surprise there. The article in the constitution that was violated applies to all political stripes to prevent corruption. How is that a bad thing?

1.) Right-leaning outlets have been about as critical of the Yellows as the left-leaning ones, as far as I can tell. Two examples:

The American Interest:

"Royalists Oust Shinawatra in Judicial Coup"

http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/05/07/royalists-oust-shinawatra-in-judicial-coup/

The Wall Street Journal opinion pages:

"Thailand's Aristocratic Dead-Enders

"The royalists who can't win an election stage a judicial coup."

(Pay link, but is available in full if you arrive via Google.)

I read a fair enough of western right-wing publications, and I would peg yellow support at very, very low levels among the western right.

2.) Your proposition that there is eqivalent justice under the constitution is highly debatable. The opposition was allowed to actively sabotage an election by physically preventing people from voting. The CC reacted by... rewarding the opposition by nullifying the election. Meanwhile they crush the government for the already-rescinded act of transferring a civil servant. You have to be blind to believe that there is equal justice in Thailand.

3.) ...which brings us to the constitution itself, which was designed exactly to thwart democracy, designed and railroaded through under a military junta. The reason people in some countries have reverence for their constitution is that it is seen as having democratic legitimacy, and as intended to protect democracy against encroachment by those that currently control the reigns of power.

In Thailand, the constitution plays the opposite role: It is an instrument of anti-democracy and oligarchy. Just as it was intended to be.

Excellent post.

Many people believe that the only hope for this country is to repeal the military junta Constitution of 2007 and return to the highly-regarded People's Constitution of 1997.

[Thai at Heart]

So The Economist sides with those that violate the constitution. Good to know.

Given that the current constitution is the product of a military junta, enforced by the loyalists of a military junta, them (along with pretty much all international press and commentary) being sceptical of Thai constitutional jurisprudence is perhaps not that surprising...

The majority of the international press is left leaning, so no surprise there. The article in the constitution that was violated applies to all political stripes to prevent corruption. How is that a bad thing?

1.) Right-leaning outlets have been about as critical of the Yellows as the left-leaning ones, as far as I can tell. Two examples:

The American Interest:

"Royalists Oust Shinawatra in Judicial Coup"

http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/05/07/royalists-oust-shinawatra-in-judicial-coup/

The Wall Street Journal opinion pages:

"Thailand's Aristocratic Dead-Enders

"The royalists who can't win an election stage a judicial coup."

(Pay link, but is available in full if you arrive via Google.)

I read a fair enough of western right-wing publications, and I would peg yellow support at very, very low levels among the western right.

2.) Your proposition that there is eqivalent justice under the constitution is highly debatable. The opposition was allowed to actively sabotage an election by physically preventing people from voting. The CC reacted by... rewarding the opposition by nullifying the election. Meanwhile they crush the government for the already-rescinded act of transferring a civil servant. You have to be blind to believe that there is equal justice in Thailand.

3.) ...which brings us to the constitution itself, which was designed exactly to thwart democracy, designed and railroaded through under a military junta. The reason people in some countries have reverence for their constitution is that it is seen as having democratic legitimacy, and as intended to protect democracy against encroachment by those that currently control the reigns of power.

In Thailand, the constitution plays the opposite role: It is an instrument of anti-democracy and oligarchy. Just as it was intended to be.

Excellent post.

Many people believe that the only hope for this country is to repeal the military junta Constitution of 2007 and return to the highly-regarded People's Constitution of 1997.

One thing is for sure.

A lopsided so called reform is not going to cut it.

[BugJackBaron]

the day that 7 stop selling ham and cheese toasties is the day that thailand will be called broken till then its just smoke and mirrors.

next.

My 7 has stopped sellin em

The sky is fallin....

[sumtingwong]

The 1997 constitution had anti corruption articles too.

Increase wealth while in office 5 times his original wealth spells corruption.

[ Thaksin and his wife had declared assets totaling 15.1 billion baht when he took office in 2001, although he had transferred many of his assets to his children and associates before taking office

The CNS-appointed Assets Examination Committee froze Thaksin and his family's assets in Thailand, totaling 76 billion baht ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shinawatra

[IMA_FARANG]

LOOK on and despair. A decade ago Thailand was a shining example—rare proof that in South-East Asia a vibrant democracy could go hand-in-hand with a thriving economy. Contrast that with Thailand on May 7th, left in disarray after the Constitutional Court demanded that the prime minister, Yingluck Shinawatra (pictured), step down with nine members of her cabinet over her decision to remove the country’s head of national security in 2011, in favour of a relative.

-------------------

Not true because:

1. Thailand was never a shining example or a vibrant democracy. The number of poor and second-class people in Thailand has always been high. Covering that fact up with political bull---t, as has been done for at least a decade is one of the problems in Thailand that can no longer be covered up, and THAT has been one of Thailand's real problems for years. It's just now become something the Thai apologists can no longer hide.
2. Anyone who has actually lived here for a few years knows very well the corrupt and self-serving nature of Thai politicians and the institutional Thai political parties. The two main Thai political parties (along with other smaller political parties) are self-serving cliques whose real concern is obtaining power and maintaining that status-quo for their own profit and corruption. "Democracy", as practiced Thai style, has been a farce for many years and has only pretended to "serve the people". Now, the cracks simply can't be papered over any longer.
3. Thirdly, anybody who isn't blind can see the real Political problems in Thailand actually derive from the all-pervading corruption and greed of ALL Thai politicians and their self-serving greed.
4. Everything else comes from that greed. Don't be blinded by the bull---t fed to you by BOTH major Political parties.
5. Wake up Thailand..... your being treated like a used condom by ALL Thai politicians.

And everything is NOT broken, it's simply time for a change.

Sometimes in order to build the new, first you have to tear down and remove the old and decaying.

That is what Thailand has to do,,

Edited May 10, 2014 by IMA_FARANG

[IMA_FARANG]

A "highly centralised system of governance" is what many so called democracies still suffer from today. Most of the money tends to find it's way to the elite whilst the rest of the regions suffer from inequality on many levels as well as being underfunded due to relocation of funds that should have stayed and been used directly within the communites in the first place. Having a core set of values and governance consistent throughout the entire country is the best way to a brighter future and peace for all. Stripping regions of wealth and linning the pockets of the few who feel they are deserving is what is rapidly eroding societies around the globe..

--------------------------------

Yes.

My opinion ...... I've referred to it as "The creeping cancer of Corporate Capitalism"

Just my opinion.