International alarm mounts over Thai coup

[fab4]

Is Prayuth giving us his interpretation of what it would be like under a Thaksin dictatorship?

No news yet on the meeting with the press today

You ought to try Twitter,no difficult questions or anything like that. Lt.Gen.Chaichalerm had some interesting things to say , like Thais think differently to the Foreign Media apparently, and that he had a different upbringing compared to the Journalists. I bet he did.........................

[rubl]

Well I clicked on the link (and I did so again just now) and I got the article. Maybe I registered a long time ago - but I certainly am not paying anything. (If you want to read more nitty-gritty reporting of the situation try this week's Economist online.)

Thanks, found an Economist article from the 25th. Full of 'jackboots', 'political hostages' and some remarks which may make posting a link here against temporary rules.

Anyway, by now most of those 'political' hostages have been let go, most non-political chaps are freed. The National Budget for 2014/2015 takes form and contents. Time for people to start of talking about reforms rather than simply condemning the coup and asking for elections.

You really don't like news sources that disagree with your preconceived notions, do you? I could point out that the Economist is one of the most respected and widely read news sources in the English language, and that days after the 2006 coup they accurately predicted the next seven years and eight months of events in Thailand, but I'm sure you wouldn't like that as well.

"most non-political chaps are freed." Right, we don't want people with political views running around loose.

Why should people talk about reforms? The military will decide what they will be. What are the chances these reforms will include things like transparency in government spending, all elected officials, civil servants and military officers with spending responsibility publicly declaring all assets and sources of income, people with conflicts of interest being barred from positions with spending responsibility, competitive bidding on all contracts, relaxing libel laws so reporters can report verifiable facts without fear of legal problems, etc.? These would be great corruption fighting reforms, do you think we'll see them?.

Well if the Economist 'accurately' predicted the next 7Y8M they are unique in world history and I can said that very accurately.

Most political chaps are freed as well, from all sides of the 'political' divide. All from the original May 22/23 meetings I think.

Why should people talk about reforms? Well, because the NCPO will need input. Do you really think they'll just write down some without involving the Thai population? Talk about naïve. As for what will be the changes, well till now only the PDRC started slowly to formulate a possible framework. They were afraid to put too much in it without getting cooperation from others. The NCPO is in the same situation. If they give details on reforms people will complain about lack of input, if they don't have details people complain about lack of details. Go figure.

[In Town]

Reuters: Most Thais support military coup

I think Reuters trumps the Myanmmar Journalists Network and the Myanmmar Journalists Association

Would you like to provide a link to the actual Reuters article that has that headline as opposed to the report that Reuters had said that. I used the search engine on the Reuters site - Nothing.

I can't find any reference to any Reuters article claiming that "Most Thais support coup", only the National News Bureau of Thailand article claiming that.

http://thainews.prd.go.th/centerweb/newsen/NewsDetail?NT01_NewsID=WNPOL5705290010006

Perhaps you can help me, you must have seen it to post it here, surely - might lend some credence to your claim....................

Don't lots of News Agencies report articles from other sources while acknowledging the origin?

What you seem to look for is an 'editorial', the interpretation of a sourced article.

No, I said what I was looking for, it's not hard to understand - I did not mention an editorial, I'm not looking for an editorial, I want to see the original Reuters article headlined "Most Thais support the coup", how hard can that be - if it exists.

You like tangible news, I know. Well, maybe tomorrow on the Reuters site.

Maybe this will help to pass the time

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/28/us-thailand-politics-coup-supporters-idUSKBN0E80J520140528

I guess this is the article they are referring to, but it doesn't say anywhere that most Thais agree with the coup. They do mention visiting a pro-coup demonstration where participants expressed support for the coup.

[rubl]

You like tangible news, I know. Well, maybe tomorrow on the Reuters site.

Maybe this will help to pass the time

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/28/us-thailand-politics-coup-supporters-idUSKBN0E80J520140528

Ah, of course, when I say I want to see the original Reuters article stating that "Most Thais support the coup" you come up with a link that says nothing of the sort, save one Facebook user who states that millions of Thais support the coup..................Yeah, OK.

One Facebook user calling herself "The People’s News" said "millions of Thais are happy to see the coup", and that anti-coup protesters were trying to discredit the military.

If you find the article I actually asked for, do let me know. Curious that the original poster hasn't produced the link................

The NNT article in Thailand Live Thursday #34 mentions

"Reuters reported that despite anti-coup movements and public backlash from a number of foreign countries, many people in Bangkok have felt that the coup was the perfect solution to end the seven-month long political deadlock."

and even has that facebook stuff

"The news agency also said that there were a lot of groups on Facebook and other social media sites who were in favor of the Army.

A Facebook user mentioned that: “We could care less if some foreigners say the coup was the equivalent of a military dictatorship, because many of them are not well-informed about the level of corruption in Thailand.”

The Reuters article I provided a link to has

"One Facebook user calling herself "The People’s News" said "millions of Thais are happy to see the coup", and that anti-coup protesters were trying to discredit the military.

Others dismiss foreign criticism of the coup and say Thailand’s crisis is one that outsiders simply don’t understand.""

So, it would seem I gave you the link to the article you asked for. Only it would seem you don't like it's contents.

[fab4]

Ah, of course, when I say I want to see the original Reuters article stating that "Most Thais support the coup" you come up with a link that says nothing of the sort, save one Facebook user who states that millions of Thais support the coup..................Yeah, OK.

One Facebook user calling herself "The People’s News" said "millions of Thais are happy to see the coup", and that anti-coup protesters were trying to discredit the military.

If you find the article I actually asked for, do let me know. Curious that the original poster hasn't produced the link................

The NNT article in Thailand Live Thursday #34 mentions

"Reuters reported that despite anti-coup movements and public backlash from a number of foreign countries, many people in Bangkok have felt that the coup was the perfect solution to end the seven-month long political deadlock."

and even has that facebook stuff

"The news agency also said that there were a lot of groups on Facebook and other social media sites who were in favor of the Army.

A Facebook user mentioned that: “We could care less if some foreigners say the coup was the equivalent of a military dictatorship, because many of them are not well-informed about the level of corruption in Thailand.”

The Reuters article I provided a link to has

"One Facebook user calling herself "The People’s News" said "millions of Thais are happy to see the coup", and that anti-coup protesters were trying to discredit the military.

Others dismiss foreign criticism of the coup and say Thailand’s crisis is one that outsiders simply don’t understand.""

So, it would seem I gave you the link to the article you asked for. Only it would seem you don't like it's contents.

Your quotes from that article do not point to the headline "Most Thais support the coup"

What you have is

many people in Bangkok have felt that the coup was the perfect solution,

lot of groups on Facebook and other social media sites who were in favor of the Army,

and the one Facebook user who takes it upon herself to speak for "millions"

That does not say to me Most Thais support the Coup otherwise Reuters would have used that as a headline instead of

In divided Thailand, some welcome coup as necessary medicine

You're quite wrong to say I don't like it's contents, but I'm not allowed to say why because that would be seen as contrary to the party line on here.

Edited May 29, 2014 by fab4

[heybruce]

You really don't like news sources that disagree with your preconceived notions, do you? I could point out that the Economist is one of the most respected and widely read news sources in the English language, and that days after the 2006 coup they accurately predicted the next seven years and eight months of events in Thailand, but I'm sure you wouldn't like that as well.

"most non-political chaps are freed." Right, we don't want people with political views running around loose.

Why should people talk about reforms? The military will decide what they will be. What are the chances these reforms will include things like transparency in government spending, all elected officials, civil servants and military officers with spending responsibility publicly declaring all assets and sources of income, people with conflicts of interest being barred from positions with spending responsibility, competitive bidding on all contracts, relaxing libel laws so reporters can report verifiable facts without fear of legal problems, etc.? These would be great corruption fighting reforms, do you think we'll see them?.

........................"These would be great corruption fighting reforms, do you think we'll see them?"......................

You list some good ideas regarding reforms, let's hope that one day we will see at least some of them enacted.

As long as a Shin regime associated party is in power you will see none of them, it would not be their modus operandi to operate "transparently".

At times like this I am reminded of the old saying - " All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing "

You dodged the question. I can envision voters in a democracy tiring of corruption and demanding an end to it. I can't envision a military government doing so. For obvious reasons I won't comment specifically about this particular military.

[mikemac]

Reuters: Most Thais support military coup

I think Reuters trumps the Myanmmar Journalists Network and the Myanmmar Journalists Association

Would you like to provide a link to the actual Reuters article that has that headline as opposed to the report that Reuters had said that. I used the search engine on the Reuters site - Nothing.

I can't find any reference to any Reuters article claiming that "Most Thais support coup", only the National News Bureau of Thailand article claiming that.

http://thainews.prd.go.th/centerweb/newsen/NewsDetail?NT01_NewsID=WNPOL5705290010006

Perhaps you can help me, you must have seen it to post it here, surely - might lend some credence to your claim....................

Don't lots of News Agencies report articles from other sources while acknowledging the origin?

What you seem to look for is an 'editorial', the interpretation of a sourced article.

No, I said what I was looking for, it's not hard to understand - I did not mention an editorial, I'm not looking for an editorial, I want to see the original Reuters article headlined "Most Thais support the coup", how hard can that be - if it exists.

You like tangible news, I know. Well, maybe tomorrow on the Reuters site.

Maybe this will help to pass the time

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/28/us-thailand-politics-coup-supporters-idUSKBN0E80J520140528

I guess this is the article they are referring to, but it doesn't say anywhere that most Thais agree with the coup. They do mention visiting a pro-coup demonstration where participants expressed support for the coup.

I bet the people who matter, the struggling rice farmers who were ripped off by the PTP, only to be looked after by the junta, "expressed support for the coup".

[Valentine]

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

"Under his (Thaiksin's) leadership..."? Are you that ignorant of the history of Thailand or are you attempting to rewrite history? Thailand was at least as corrupt before Thaksin as it has been since he was first elected. Also, what makes you think the military will make fighting a corruption a priority? Do you think they have a squeaky clean reputation?

What amazes and disturbs me most is the attitude of many people that any kind of government is better than a democracy they don't like. They actually think a military dictatorship is a good idea.

Nobody would deny that corruption was well installed before the paymaster entered politics.

Nobody with any morals would deny that he ramped it up to new heights, much of it quite open and with no conscience, plus serious intimidation of any journalists who tried to report the details.

But hey you don't mention any the other factors involved: human rights abuses, massive rice scam, abuse of power, attempts to pass unethical bills to white wash / amnesty the paymasters legitimate conviction and give amnesty to all people (some 2,500) on corruption charges at 3.00 am n the morning when the country is sleeping, and ...................................................................

Where do you get your information? Certainly not here, http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/07/09/thailands-corruption-record/, which indicates a slight fall in corruption after Thaksin took office, and a significant jump after the 2006 coup. And not here http://assassinationthaksin.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/thaksin-corruption-what-transparency-international-says-vs-what-elite-thai-establishment-says/ where it states:

"On comparing Thaksin to other people, to see if he is more or less corrupt, please check out Transparency International data. The fact is, Transparency International data, sees Thaksin’s government, as less corrupt than the 2006 coup government, or the military installed Abhisit government. In fact, for the past 10 years or so, Thaksin’s government, according to Transparency International, is least corrupt of all."

Your morality statement is interesting; am I immoral for relying on referenced facts as opposed to "heard in a bar" claims?

What human rights were abused under Yingluck? Why do you call the rice subsidies a scam when they were implemented openly? They may have been bad policy but they weren't a scam. The "abuse of power" that had her removed from office was her re-assigning a minister appointed by Abhisit, a routine thing in most countries. The amnesty bill was debated and reported on, proved unpopular, and discarded. Whatever Yingluck did wrong should have been rectified with an election.

Yingluck recognized her fall in popularity and attempted to let the Thai people choose to keep her or remove her from office. We know what happened with that attempt. Her successor tried to have an election so Thailand could have a democratically elected government, and then....

Clearly you don't like the choice the Thai people made in the 2011 election. Tough, democracy only works if the people who lose an election accept that they lost and try to make themselves more appealing in the next election. Someone should explain that to Suthep and the Democrats, it's not a democracy if there are no elections.

PTP corruption has not been proved yet. Watch this space as if the army guys are truly serious about corruption probes I think you will find it to be staggering. I do not think Abhisit assigned family members to powerful positions & remember he not only had to grapple with outside forces ranged against him he was quite hamstrung by certain dinosaur elements in his coalition. Quoting a Wordpress blog seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel as blogs are opinion pieces much like what is written here.

[mikemac]

You really don't like news sources that disagree with your preconceived notions, do you? I could point out that the Economist is one of the most respected and widely read news sources in the English language, and that days after the 2006 coup they accurately predicted the next seven years and eight months of events in Thailand, but I'm sure you wouldn't like that as well.

"most non-political chaps are freed." Right, we don't want people with political views running around loose.

Why should people talk about reforms? The military will decide what they will be. What are the chances these reforms will include things like transparency in government spending, all elected officials, civil servants and military officers with spending responsibility publicly declaring all assets and sources of income, people with conflicts of interest being barred from positions with spending responsibility, competitive bidding on all contracts, relaxing libel laws so reporters can report verifiable facts without fear of legal problems, etc.? These would be great corruption fighting reforms, do you think we'll see them?.

........................"These would be great corruption fighting reforms, do you think we'll see them?"......................

You list some good ideas regarding reforms, let's hope that one day we will see at least some of them enacted.

As long as a Shin regime associated party is in power you will see none of them, it would not be their modus operandi to operate "transparently".

At times like this I am reminded of the old saying - " All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing "

You dodged the question. I can envision voters in a democracy tiring of corruption and demanding an end to it. I can't envision a military government doing so. For obvious reasons I won't comment specifically about this particular military.

Sorry, did not mean to dodge your question.

If the question you are referring to is - .................."These would be great corruption fighting reforms, do you think we'll see them?.".....................

then yes, I do think we will see them one day, as long as the influence of crooked political dynasties is completely removed from the Thai political machine.

If not, it will be more of the same, then more of the same..................................................................

[heybruce]

You really don't like news sources that disagree with your preconceived notions, do you? I could point out that the Economist is one of the most respected and widely read news sources in the English language, and that days after the 2006 coup they accurately predicted the next seven years and eight months of events in Thailand, but I'm sure you wouldn't like that as well.

"most non-political chaps are freed." Right, we don't want people with political views running around loose.

Why should people talk about reforms? The military will decide what they will be. What are the chances these reforms will include things like transparency in government spending, all elected officials, civil servants and military officers with spending responsibility publicly declaring all assets and sources of income, people with conflicts of interest being barred from positions with spending responsibility, competitive bidding on all contracts, relaxing libel laws so reporters can report verifiable facts without fear of legal problems, etc.? These would be great corruption fighting reforms, do you think we'll see them?.

........................"These would be great corruption fighting reforms, do you think we'll see them?"......................

You list some good ideas regarding reforms, let's hope that one day we will see at least some of them enacted.

As long as a Shin regime associated party is in power you will see none of them, it would not be their modus operandi to operate "transparently".

At times like this I am reminded of the old saying - " All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing "

You dodged the question. I can envision voters in a democracy tiring of corruption and demanding an end to it. I can't envision a military government doing so. For obvious reasons I won't comment specifically about this particular military.

Sorry, did not mean to dodge your question.

If the question you are referring to is - .................."These would be great corruption fighting reforms, do you think we'll see them?.".....................

then yes, I do think we will see them one day, as long as the influence of crooked political dynasties is completely removed from the Thai political machine.

If not, it will be more of the same, then more of the same..................................................................

Yes, but the cycle of election-coup-election-coup has not eliminated crooked political dynasties, has it? The proper way to eliminate them is too allow democracy to stay in place long enough for voters to recognize their self-serving nature and then vote them out. Removing them by force makes them into martyrs, as happened with Thaksin.

[In Town]

I guess this is the article they are referring to, but it doesn't say anywhere that most Thais agree with the coup. They do mention visiting a pro-coup demonstration where participants expressed support for the coup.

I bet the people who matter, the struggling rice farmers who were ripped off by the PTP, only to be looked after by the junta, "expressed support for the coup".

I guess. But it used to be Thaksin buying votes. Now it is buying good will. Still the same Thaksin program though, that some people used to complain about.

By the way, was it not the ECT that refused permission for Yingluck to pay the farmers? And didn't the banks at that time refuse to extend loans to the gov't?

[rubl]

I bet the people who matter, the struggling rice farmers who were ripped off by the PTP, only to be looked after by the junta, "expressed support for the coup".

I guess. But it used to be Thaksin buying votes. Now it is buying good will. Still the same Thaksin program though, that some people used to complain about.

By the way, was it not the ECT that refused permission for Yingluck to pay the farmers? And didn't the banks at that time refuse to extend loans to the gov't?

Buying goodwill? Do you mean to imply that the NCPO shouldn't have started paying those many month old bills ?

BTW the ECT didn't refuse permission for the caretaker government to pay bills. They didn't give permission to the caretaker government to seek loans which would mean financial obligations to be honoured by a new government. That's according to the law. Now if only the Yingluck government hadn't lied when they said that only 270 billion was needed for the 2013/2014 RPPs period and that funding was available.

Edited May 29, 2014 by rubl

[heybruce]

Well I clicked on the link (and I did so again just now) and I got the article. Maybe I registered a long time ago - but I certainly am not paying anything. (If you want to read more nitty-gritty reporting of the situation try this week's Economist online.)

Thanks, found an Economist article from the 25th. Full of 'jackboots', 'political hostages' and some remarks which may make posting a link here against temporary rules.

Anyway, by now most of those 'political' hostages have been let go, most non-political chaps are freed. The National Budget for 2014/2015 takes form and contents. Time for people to start of talking about reforms rather than simply condemning the coup and asking for elections.

You really don't like news sources that disagree with your preconceived notions, do you? I could point out that the Economist is one of the most respected and widely read news sources in the English language, and that days after the 2006 coup they accurately predicted the next seven years and eight months of events in Thailand, but I'm sure you wouldn't like that as well.

"most non-political chaps are freed." Right, we don't want people with political views running around loose.

Why should people talk about reforms? The military will decide what they will be. What are the chances these reforms will include things like transparency in government spending, all elected officials, civil servants and military officers with spending responsibility publicly declaring all assets and sources of income, people with conflicts of interest being barred from positions with spending responsibility, competitive bidding on all contracts, relaxing libel laws so reporters can report verifiable facts without fear of legal problems, etc.? These would be great corruption fighting reforms, do you think we'll see them?.

Well if the Economist 'accurately' predicted the next 7Y8M they are unique in world history and I can said that very accurately.

Most political chaps are freed as well, from all sides of the 'political' divide. All from the original May 22/23 meetings I think.

Why should people talk about reforms? Well, because the NCPO will need input. Do you really think they'll just write down some without involving the Thai population? Talk about naïve. As for what will be the changes, well till now only the PDRC started slowly to formulate a possible framework. They were afraid to put too much in it without getting cooperation from others. The NCPO is in the same situation. If they give details on reforms people will complain about lack of input, if they don't have details people complain about lack of details. Go figure.

From the Economist, September 21, 2006:

"The generals' error is to assume that a coup will solve anything. Whenever an election is held, Mr Thaksin's rural, populist Thai Rak Thai party will surely do well, whether or not he is allowed back into the country to lead it. And the principle of changing governments by street protest and military putsch has been re-established, undoing all the progress of the past decade, which had seen Thailand slowly emerge from the shadow of the barracks.... More instability, not less, is the likely outcome. Nor is turmoil likely to help clean up political life. Corruption flourished under a succession of military-favoured prime ministers and was bad, too, under the opposition Democrats in the late 1990s."

Granted they didn't predict to the level of identifying court rulings and party name changes, but I think they did a pretty good job.

Regarding input to reforms, how to people provide those? Keep in mind that people are not allowed to state anything inflammatory. What would happen to people who insisted that the military should be subservient to an elected government?

[heybruce]

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

"Under his (Thaiksin's) leadership..."? Are you that ignorant of the history of Thailand or are you attempting to rewrite history? Thailand was at least as corrupt before Thaksin as it has been since he was first elected. Also, what makes you think the military will make fighting a corruption a priority? Do you think they have a squeaky clean reputation?

What amazes and disturbs me most is the attitude of many people that any kind of government is better than a democracy they don't like. They actually think a military dictatorship is a good idea.

Nobody would deny that corruption was well installed before the paymaster entered politics.

Nobody with any morals would deny that he ramped it up to new heights, much of it quite open and with no conscience, plus serious intimidation of any journalists who tried to report the details.

But hey you don't mention any the other factors involved: human rights abuses, massive rice scam, abuse of power, attempts to pass unethical bills to white wash / amnesty the paymasters legitimate conviction and give amnesty to all people (some 2,500) on corruption charges at 3.00 am n the morning when the country is sleeping, and ...................................................................

Where do you get your information? Certainly not here, http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/07/09/thailands-corruption-record/, which indicates a slight fall in corruption after Thaksin took office, and a significant jump after the 2006 coup. And not here http://assassinationthaksin.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/thaksin-corruption-what-transparency-international-says-vs-what-elite-thai-establishment-says/ where it states:

"On comparing Thaksin to other people, to see if he is more or less corrupt, please check out Transparency International data. The fact is, Transparency International data, sees Thaksin’s government, as less corrupt than the 2006 coup government, or the military installed Abhisit government. In fact, for the past 10 years or so, Thaksin’s government, according to Transparency International, is least corrupt of all."

Your morality statement is interesting; am I immoral for relying on referenced facts as opposed to "heard in a bar" claims?

What human rights were abused under Yingluck? Why do you call the rice subsidies a scam when they were implemented openly? They may have been bad policy but they weren't a scam. The "abuse of power" that had her removed from office was her re-assigning a minister appointed by Abhisit, a routine thing in most countries. The amnesty bill was debated and reported on, proved unpopular, and discarded. Whatever Yingluck did wrong should have been rectified with an election.

Yingluck recognized her fall in popularity and attempted to let the Thai people choose to keep her or remove her from office. We know what happened with that attempt. Her successor tried to have an election so Thailand could have a democratically elected government, and then....

Clearly you don't like the choice the Thai people made in the 2011 election. Tough, democracy only works if the people who lose an election accept that they lost and try to make themselves more appealing in the next election. Someone should explain that to Suthep and the Democrats, it's not a democracy if there are no elections.

PTP corruption has not been proved yet. Watch this space as if the army guys are truly serious about corruption probes I think you will find it to be staggering. I do not think Abhisit assigned family members to powerful positions & remember he not only had to grapple with outside forces ranged against him he was quite hamstrung by certain dinosaur elements in his coalition. Quoting a Wordpress blog seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel as blogs are opinion pieces much like what is written here.

Yeah, military juntas are good at getting corruption convictions against the government they toppled. Imagine if the elected government could have got away with investigating the military for corruption. Not that there's any corruption in the Thai military (have to be careful about what we post).

Ok, feel free to disregard the blog reference. What about the other one http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/07/09/thailands-corruption-record/? Keep in mind I am referencing my information, unlike most posters. For example, I have yet to see a credible reference supporting the often stated claim that the 2011 election was undemocratic.

[rubl]

Thanks, found an Economist article from the 25th. Full of 'jackboots', 'political hostages' and some remarks which may make posting a link here against temporary rules.

Anyway, by now most of those 'political' hostages have been let go, most non-political chaps are freed. The National Budget for 2014/2015 takes form and contents. Time for people to start of talking about reforms rather than simply condemning the coup and asking for elections.

You really don't like news sources that disagree with your preconceived notions, do you? I could point out that the Economist is one of the most respected and widely read news sources in the English language, and that days after the 2006 coup they accurately predicted the next seven years and eight months of events in Thailand, but I'm sure you wouldn't like that as well.

"most non-political chaps are freed." Right, we don't want people with political views running around loose.

Why should people talk about reforms? The military will decide what they will be. What are the chances these reforms will include things like transparency in government spending, all elected officials, civil servants and military officers with spending responsibility publicly declaring all assets and sources of income, people with conflicts of interest being barred from positions with spending responsibility, competitive bidding on all contracts, relaxing libel laws so reporters can report verifiable facts without fear of legal problems, etc.? These would be great corruption fighting reforms, do you think we'll see them?.

Well if the Economist 'accurately' predicted the next 7Y8M they are unique in world history and I can said that very accurately.

Most political chaps are freed as well, from all sides of the 'political' divide. All from the original May 22/23 meetings I think.

Why should people talk about reforms? Well, because the NCPO will need input. Do you really think they'll just write down some without involving the Thai population? Talk about naïve. As for what will be the changes, well till now only the PDRC started slowly to formulate a possible framework. They were afraid to put too much in it without getting cooperation from others. The NCPO is in the same situation. If they give details on reforms people will complain about lack of input, if they don't have details people complain about lack of details. Go figure.

From the Economist, September 21, 2006:

"The generals' error is to assume that a coup will solve anything. Whenever an election is held, Mr Thaksin's rural, populist Thai Rak Thai party will surely do well, whether or not he is allowed back into the country to lead it. And the principle of changing governments by street protest and military putsch has been re-established, undoing all the progress of the past decade, which had seen Thailand slowly emerge from the shadow of the barracks.... More instability, not less, is the likely outcome. Nor is turmoil likely to help clean up political life. Corruption flourished under a succession of military-favoured prime ministers and was bad, too, under the opposition Democrats in the late 1990s."

Granted they didn't predict to the level of identifying court rulings and party name changes, but I think they did a pretty good job.

Regarding input to reforms, how to people provide those? Keep in mind that people are not allowed to state anything inflammatory. What would happen to people who insisted that the military should be subservient to an elected government?

Missing in the prediction is the 700++ billiions mislaid in the RPPS, the failed blanket amnesty bill, the Thaksin passport and some other minor things. Did they predict the "flooding well done'?

Regarding reforms, you ask more questions than currently can be answered. Even the Yingluck government when really pressed only managed a feeble 'after the elections'.

[rubl]

PTP corruption has not been proved yet. Watch this space as if the army guys are truly serious about corruption probes I think you will find it to be staggering. I do not think Abhisit assigned family members to powerful positions & remember he not only had to grapple with outside forces ranged against him he was quite hamstrung by certain dinosaur elements in his coalition. Quoting a Wordpress blog seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel as blogs are opinion pieces much like what is written here.

Yeah, military juntas are good at getting corruption convictions against the government they toppled. Imagine if the elected government could have got away with investigating the military for corruption. Not that there's any corruption in the Thai military (have to be careful about what we post).

Ok, feel free to disregard the blog reference. What about the other one http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/07/09/thailands-corruption-record/? Keep in mind I am referencing my information, unlike most posters. For example, I have yet to see a credible reference supporting the often stated claim that the 2011 election was undemocratic.

Interesting that the article you provide a link to start with

"In today’s Sydney Morning Herald article, William Pesek (Bloomberg) has some interesting observations about the challenges faced by Yingluck in the coming months"

Sadly Ms. Yingluck failed. Big brother a new passport while the rest of the Nation was wading through floodwaters, 700++ billion misliad in a wonderful Rice Price Pledging Scheme, failed tabletPC project, undemocratic push for a suddenly blanket amnesty bill even including THaksin's last two years in/out of office and the first two years of Yingluck administration.

Failed, miserably,

PS the 2011 elections saw a political party owned and controlled by a criminal fugitive. In most countries that a democratic 'no-no'.

Edited May 29, 2014 by rubl

[mikemac]

I guess. But it used to be Thaksin buying votes. Now it is buying good will.

bs, it is not buying anything, it is simply giving the farmers what is rightfully theirs, payment for their rice crops.

Still the same Thaksin program though, that some people used to complain about.

They complained about it when rice was handed over to the government but no money was given in return. "Some people" had every right to complain about it.

You sound like you are giving Thaksin credit for this program. Good luck with that.

[icare999]

what alarm theirs just a few silly folk like takins Amsterdam most are not alarmed at all

In fact well done Army (and Suphet) you seem to be well on way of totally destroying Takin and his evil clan etc as well at last getting rid of reg shirt thugs. Sure some of hard core will try and continue but they will be rounded up and locked up

well done about time

And likes of Taksin supporters and red shirt lot well just to bad isn't it live with it or if your an ex pat go back home

[fab4]

Missing in the prediction is the 700++ billiions mislaid in the RPPS, the failed blanket amnesty bill, the Thaksin passport and some other minor things. Did they predict the "flooding well done'?

Regarding reforms, you ask more questions than currently can be answered. Even the Yingluck government when really pressed only managed a feeble 'after the elections'.

Latest reports (yesterday) are that "losses" / subsidy cost (my words) are below 500 billion baht but if you wish to peddle the 700++ billion figure carry on, I'm sure you will.

[rubl]

Missing in the prediction is the 700++ billiions mislaid in the RPPS, the failed blanket amnesty bill, the Thaksin passport and some other minor things. Did they predict the "flooding well done'?

Regarding reforms, you ask more questions than currently can be answered. Even the Yingluck government when really pressed only managed a feeble 'after the elections'.

Latest reports (yesterday) are that "losses" / subsidy cost (my words) are below 500 billion baht but if you wish to peddle the 700++ billion figure carry on, I'm sure you will.

Well, since we already moved from 'profitable project' via minor losses, hardly 60 billion a year, less than 100 billion a year, under 300 billion over two years to now 500 billion losses without even that single A4 page with 'details' I think I'll continue to 'peddle' my 700++ especially as it's unclear if the current 50, 70, 90, 130 billion or so are included and repayment to BAAC and payment of interest seems to be forgotten.

[Valentine]

Missing in the prediction is the 700++ billiions mislaid in the RPPS, the failed blanket amnesty bill, the Thaksin passport and some other minor things. Did they predict the "flooding well done'?

Regarding reforms, you ask more questions than currently can be answered. Even the Yingluck government when really pressed only managed a feeble 'after the elections'.

Latest reports (yesterday) are that "losses" / subsidy cost (my words) are below 500 billion baht but if you wish to peddle the 700++ billion figure carry on, I'm sure you will.

Well, since we already moved from 'profitable project' via minor losses, hardly 60 billion a year, less than 100 billion a year, under 300 billion over two years to now 500 billion losses without even that single A4 page with 'details' I think I'll continue to 'peddle' my 700++ especially as it's unclear if the current 50, 70, 90, 130 billion or so are included and repayment to BAAC and payment of interest seems to be forgotten.

And storage costs, losses from rotting rice which will take a while to become clear, farmers losses to loan sharks, all the extra money farmers had to pay for fertilizer when the prices went up as soon as the rice scheme came into effect & probably a host of things related to the scheme.

[dundee48]

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

Thailand's political chaos has severely damaged the country's economy and social order and led to casualties. At least, the coup has brought back peace temporarily. It is not the military's seizure of power, but a compulsory end to the domestic political turmoil.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/862154.shtml

AIA aims to make Kingdom its biggest market, group CEO says

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/AIA-aims-to-make-Kingdom-its-biggest-market-group--30234873.html

I could give many more examples but I guess I have made a point.

You could but i`m afraid there are some on here who are unable or unwilling to see the woods for the trees.

[Mentors]

Asia-Sentinel is blocked since yesterday...

[heybruce]

You really don't like news sources that disagree with your preconceived notions, do you? I could point out that the Economist is one of the most respected and widely read news sources in the English language, and that days after the 2006 coup they accurately predicted the next seven years and eight months of events in Thailand, but I'm sure you wouldn't like that as well.

"most non-political chaps are freed." Right, we don't want people with political views running around loose.

Why should people talk about reforms? The military will decide what they will be. What are the chances these reforms will include things like transparency in government spending, all elected officials, civil servants and military officers with spending responsibility publicly declaring all assets and sources of income, people with conflicts of interest being barred from positions with spending responsibility, competitive bidding on all contracts, relaxing libel laws so reporters can report verifiable facts without fear of legal problems, etc.? These would be great corruption fighting reforms, do you think we'll see them?.

Well if the Economist 'accurately' predicted the next 7Y8M they are unique in world history and I can said that very accurately.

Most political chaps are freed as well, from all sides of the 'political' divide. All from the original May 22/23 meetings I think.

Why should people talk about reforms? Well, because the NCPO will need input. Do you really think they'll just write down some without involving the Thai population? Talk about naïve. As for what will be the changes, well till now only the PDRC started slowly to formulate a possible framework. They were afraid to put too much in it without getting cooperation from others. The NCPO is in the same situation. If they give details on reforms people will complain about lack of input, if they don't have details people complain about lack of details. Go figure.

From the Economist, September 21, 2006:

"The generals' error is to assume that a coup will solve anything. Whenever an election is held, Mr Thaksin's rural, populist Thai Rak Thai party will surely do well, whether or not he is allowed back into the country to lead it. And the principle of changing governments by street protest and military putsch has been re-established, undoing all the progress of the past decade, which had seen Thailand slowly emerge from the shadow of the barracks.... More instability, not less, is the likely outcome. Nor is turmoil likely to help clean up political life. Corruption flourished under a succession of military-favoured prime ministers and was bad, too, under the opposition Democrats in the late 1990s."

Granted they didn't predict to the level of identifying court rulings and party name changes, but I think they did a pretty good job.

Regarding input to reforms, how to people provide those? Keep in mind that people are not allowed to state anything inflammatory. What would happen to people who insisted that the military should be subservient to an elected government?

Missing in the prediction is the 700++ billiions mislaid in the RPPS, the failed blanket amnesty bill, the Thaksin passport and some other minor things. Did they predict the "flooding well done'?

Regarding reforms, you ask more questions than currently can be answered. Even the Yingluck government when really pressed only managed a feeble 'after the elections'.

I meant they did a good job of predicting Thailand's political future, not specific events and natural disasters. I thought that was obvious, apparently not. In any event, all issues mentioned should have been factors in the proposed election, not dealt with by a military coup.

I'll now make a prediction on reforms--there will be no serious attempt to eliminate corruption, there will be a serious attempt to strengthen traditional institutions and secure them against loss of power to future democracies. Do you predict something different?

One final thought; people who support this coup think it will provide a quick fix to Thailand's problems, just as people who supported the last coup thought it would provide a quick fix, and people who will support the next coup will think the same thing. Past, present and future, they are wrong. There is no quick fix, democracy has to be given a chance to establish itself, voters a chance to learn what democracy can provide and how to demand it during elections, and losers in the elections have to accept their losses and attempt to do a better job of appealing to the majority in the next election.

[rubl]

I meant they did a good job of predicting Thailand's political future, not specific events and natural disasters. I thought that was obvious, apparently not. In any event, all issues mentioned should have been factors in the proposed election, not dealt with by a military coup.

I'll now make a prediction on reforms--there will be no serious attempt to eliminate corruption, there will be a serious attempt to strengthen traditional institutions and secure them against loss of power to future democracies. Do you predict something different?

One final thought; people who support this coup think it will provide a quick fix to Thailand's problems, just as people who supported the last coup thought it would provide a quick fix, and people who will support the next coup will think the same thing. Past, present and future, they are wrong. There is no quick fix, democracy has to be given a chance to establish itself, voters a chance to learn what democracy can provide and how to demand it during elections, and losers in the elections have to accept their losses and attempt to do a better job of appealing to the majority in the next election.

I may have taken your "accurately predicted" a bit too literal.

As for reforms I'm not involved, but can only hope we get some real ones now, binding to ALL. As I mentioned a while ago in another topic that maybe something some of the old guard do not realize yet.

I don't think there is an easy, painless solution for a problem which has only escalated the last few years and with people on all sides having been somewhat indoctrinated on being 'right'. A change in social structure, peoples mindset, constitution, laws and enforcement is something which any society tends to resist.

Elections? Come back next year, now we still have the "respect a vote till its counted" mentality to fight against. Not that I think next year Thailand will be much more ready to be 'democratic', but I don't think the Junta or even an 'appointed government' should stay longer than absolutely necessary to get a few changes done and others sufficiently in progress.

Edited May 29, 2014 by rubl

[heybruce]

PTP corruption has not been proved yet. Watch this space as if the army guys are truly serious about corruption probes I think you will find it to be staggering. I do not think Abhisit assigned family members to powerful positions & remember he not only had to grapple with outside forces ranged against him he was quite hamstrung by certain dinosaur elements in his coalition. Quoting a Wordpress blog seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel as blogs are opinion pieces much like what is written here.

Yeah, military juntas are good at getting corruption convictions against the government they toppled. Imagine if the elected government could have got away with investigating the military for corruption. Not that there's any corruption in the Thai military (have to be careful about what we post).

Ok, feel free to disregard the blog reference. What about the other one http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/07/09/thailands-corruption-record/? Keep in mind I am referencing my information, unlike most posters. For example, I have yet to see a credible reference supporting the often stated claim that the 2011 election was undemocratic.

Interesting that the article you provide a link to start with

"In today’s Sydney Morning Herald article, William Pesek (Bloomberg) has some interesting observations about the challenges faced by Yingluck in the coming months"

Sadly Ms. Yingluck failed. Big brother a new passport while the rest of the Nation was wading through floodwaters, 700++ billion misliad in a wonderful Rice Price Pledging Scheme, failed tabletPC project, undemocratic push for a suddenly blanket amnesty bill even including THaksin's last two years in/out of office and the first two years of Yingluck administration.

Failed, miserably,

PS the 2011 elections saw a political party owned and controlled by a criminal fugitive. In most countries that a democratic 'no-no'.

I provided that reference because it provided a convenient year-by-year summary:

"Here are Thailand’s rankings from 1999 to 2010 (a lower ranking is better):

• 1999: 68
• 2000: 60
• 2001: 61
• 2002: 64
• 2003: 70
• 2004: 64
• 2005: 59
• 2006: 63
• 2007: 84
• 2008: 80
• 2009: 84
• 2010: 78

It’s not hard to see where the big fall in Thailand’s international corruption perceptions ranking occurred"

If you want to pick them out one year at a time you can go here: http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview

Happy?

Once again you reference issues that should have been part of an election.

"owned and controlled", you are genuinely Orwellian in your choice of words. Thaksin certainly had significant influence on the PTP, but the voters knew that. You don't have to agree with the voters choices, but if you believe in democracy you have to respect them.

[Valentine]

PTP corruption has not been proved yet. Watch this space as if the army guys are truly serious about corruption probes I think you will find it to be staggering. I do not think Abhisit assigned family members to powerful positions & remember he not only had to grapple with outside forces ranged against him he was quite hamstrung by certain dinosaur elements in his coalition. Quoting a Wordpress blog seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel as blogs are opinion pieces much like what is written here.

Yeah, military juntas are good at getting corruption convictions against the government they toppled. Imagine if the elected government could have got away with investigating the military for corruption. Not that there's any corruption in the Thai military (have to be careful about what we post).

Ok, feel free to disregard the blog reference. What about the other one http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/07/09/thailands-corruption-record/? Keep in mind I am referencing my information, unlike most posters. For example, I have yet to see a credible reference supporting the often stated claim that the 2011 election was undemocratic.

Interesting that the article you provide a link to start with

"In today’s Sydney Morning Herald article, William Pesek (Bloomberg) has some interesting observations about the challenges faced by Yingluck in the coming months"

Sadly Ms. Yingluck failed. Big brother a new passport while the rest of the Nation was wading through floodwaters, 700++ billion misliad in a wonderful Rice Price Pledging Scheme, failed tabletPC project, undemocratic push for a suddenly blanket amnesty bill even including THaksin's last two years in/out of office and the first two years of Yingluck administration.

Failed, miserably,

PS the 2011 elections saw a political party owned and controlled by a criminal fugitive. In most countries that a democratic 'no-no'.

I provided that reference because it provided a convenient year-by-year summary:

"Here are Thailand’s rankings from 1999 to 2010 (a lower ranking is better):

• 1999: 68
• 2000: 60
• 2001: 61
• 2002: 64
• 2003: 70
• 2004: 64
• 2005: 59
• 2006: 63
• 2007: 84
• 2008: 80
• 2009: 84
• 2010: 78

It’s not hard to see where the big fall in Thailand’s international corruption perceptions ranking occurred"

If you want to pick them out one year at a time you can go here: http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview

Happy?

Once again you reference issues that should have been part of an election.

"owned and controlled", you are genuinely Orwellian in your choice of words. Thaksin certainly had significant influence on the PTP, but the voters knew that. You don't have to agree with the voters choices, but if you believe in democracy you have to respect them.

Not disputing the numbers but what 11, 12 & 13?

[scorecard]

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

fab4 post # 235.

The Army spokesman said the NCPO were not involved. Army spokesmen say lots of things, up to you as to whether you believe them

Exactly the same M.O. as the P.T.P. and your posts fab4

Don't edit my posts. Comment on the post not the poster. Understand?

Well then why don't you post something of substance, something constructive, then maybe...........

[rubl]

Interesting that the article you provide a link to start with

"In today’s Sydney Morning Herald article, William Pesek (Bloomberg) has some interesting observations about the challenges faced by Yingluck in the coming months"

Sadly Ms. Yingluck failed. Big brother a new passport while the rest of the Nation was wading through floodwaters, 700++ billion misliad in a wonderful Rice Price Pledging Scheme, failed tabletPC project, undemocratic push for a suddenly blanket amnesty bill even including THaksin's last two years in/out of office and the first two years of Yingluck administration.

Failed, miserably,

PS the 2011 elections saw a political party owned and controlled by a criminal fugitive. In most countries that a democratic 'no-no'.

I provided that reference because it provided a convenient year-by-year summary:

"Here are Thailand’s rankings from 1999 to 2010 (a lower ranking is better):

• 1999: 68
• 2000: 60
• 2001: 61
• 2002: 64
• 2003: 70
• 2004: 64
• 2005: 59
• 2006: 63
• 2007: 84
• 2008: 80
• 2009: 84
• 2010: 78

It’s not hard to see where the big fall in Thailand’s international corruption perceptions ranking occurred"

If you want to pick them out one year at a time you can go here: http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview

Happy?

Once again you reference issues that should have been part of an election.

"owned and controlled", you are genuinely Orwellian in your choice of words. Thaksin certainly had significant influence on the PTP, but the voters knew that. You don't have to agree with the voters choices, but if you believe in democracy you have to respect them.

And the last few years:

2011 ??

2012 88

2013 102

Election anyone, the solution to all problems. At least some seem to suggest that. "respect the vote till its counted, say 'thank you, go home' and assume you have a mandate to do what you like".

"owned and controlled" I wrote, and that's what I meant. I could have added the "skyped-in into meetings of his cabinet to pass orders on what to do with his country".

[djjamie]

Interesting that the article you provide a link to start with

"In today’s Sydney Morning Herald article, William Pesek (Bloomberg) has some interesting observations about the challenges faced by Yingluck in the coming months"

Sadly Ms. Yingluck failed. Big brother a new passport while the rest of the Nation was wading through floodwaters, 700++ billion misliad in a wonderful Rice Price Pledging Scheme, failed tabletPC project, undemocratic push for a suddenly blanket amnesty bill even including THaksin's last two years in/out of office and the first two years of Yingluck administration.

Failed, miserably,

PS the 2011 elections saw a political party owned and controlled by a criminal fugitive. In most countries that a democratic 'no-no'.

I provided that reference because it provided a convenient year-by-year summary:

"Here are Thailand’s rankings from 1999 to 2010 (a lower ranking is better):

• 1999: 68
• 2000: 60
• 2001: 61
• 2002: 64
• 2003: 70
• 2004: 64
• 2005: 59
• 2006: 63
• 2007: 84
• 2008: 80
• 2009: 84
• 2010: 78

It’s not hard to see where the big fall in Thailand’s international corruption perceptions ranking occurred"

If you want to pick them out one year at a time you can go here: http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview

Happy?

Once again you reference issues that should have been part of an election.

"owned and controlled", you are genuinely Orwellian in your choice of words. Thaksin certainly had significant influence on the PTP, but the voters knew that. You don't have to agree with the voters choices, but if you believe in democracy you have to respect them.

And the last few years:

2011 ??

2012 88

2013 102

Election anyone, the solution to all problems. At least some seem to suggest that. "respect the vote till its counted, say 'thank you, go home' and assume you have a mandate to do what you like".

"owned and controlled" I wrote, and that's what I meant. I could have added the "skyped-in into meetings of his cabinet to pass orders on what to do with his country".

The UDD are already grooming there excuses if they lose the next election.

Rest assured they will not respect the majority if they lose and demonize and blame. Heck they didn't respect the majority when they won!!!

Retweeted by RedThroughoutTheLand

1h

‪@MrMCos ‪@Nganadeeleg ‪@FelixQui ‪@UDD_English Have no fear: junta will hold elections but only after they sit down w/Dems to rig results.