International alarm mounts over Thai coup

[AleG]

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.

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

It occurred while a PM "too rich to be corrupt" was suing for up to half a billion Baht newspapers that dared try to expose corruption in his government, bought up the only independent TV channel in the country and used a mix of financial threats and incentives to ensure news were positive towards his government.

Perceptions under that climate are to be taken with a barrel of salt.

[Artisi]

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.

Of course he has influence on the PTP, he owned , funded and controlled every aspect of it.

[Chris Lawrence]

?.

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.

The other problem to go with all of this is an inexperienced group running a country. There is the need to develop good will via spending. Look at the car industry reducing production in the country? The junta needs to talk and communicate with international business groups.

For instance the water mitigation works around Bangkok; Abhisit didn't follow thru on this work, which came from a report done about 2007 from a Thai specialist. Abhisit is part of the Thai elite and therefor does not attract the same criticism that Yingluck does? Is Abhisit a Ferrari driver? If its anyone's fault I would be having a good look at how Abhisit mismanaged this program. The need for transparency.

At some point someone will have to pay for this spending. This is usually called TAXATION. Do you think the elite will roll over to pay extra?

Although International concern is a problem, to galvanise the country the junta needs to deliver to the people in the country areas

[djjamie]

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.

We can speculate all we want. The NACC will make the failures very clear when they finish their investigation into the scheme.

And as sure as the PTP supporters hang off every word from "latest reports" that offer a glimmer of good news (if under 500 billion is good news right!) they will denounce the very same reports when the NACC offer their findings.

If the "reports" suit the PTP agenda they need to be highlighted. As above. If the "reports" do not suit the PTP agenda they need to be denounced.

Next they will say there is not corruption in the scheme. I have heard that one more than once on TVF.

[Crushdepth]

"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.

Look if you want to pretend Thaksin isn't corrupt or the rice scheme wasn't riddled with corruption, or see the amnesty bill farce for what it was then you just aren't worth talking too. Did you just arrive recently or are you sitting in a dimly lit boiler room somewhere?

Transparency International, Jezuz!

[NCFC]

I wonder how long long it will be until some "unknown hand" starts firing at those peaceful anti-coup protesters. I reckon before the weekend is over, personally.

Now all those who claimed Suthep's hired hands were peaceful protesters (and we know they were because the courts said so), hopefully will come out and support the rights of those at the Democracy monument to protest against the coup..

[Luger2]

Asia-Sentinel is blocked since yesterday...

Accessing it without any difficulty whatsoever.

[Luger2]

Interesting that the article you provide a link to start with

"In todays 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 Thailands 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

Its not hard to see where the big fall in Thailands 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".

2011 was ranked 80.

Every year of Yingluck was worse and worse corruption culminating in the worse 3-digit figure.

Yingluck was the most corrupt administration in the past 15 years.

Congratulations, Poo.

[In Town]

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.

Look if you want to pretend Thaksin isn't corrupt or the rice scheme wasn't riddled with corruption, or see the amnesty bill farce for what it was then you just aren't worth talking too. Did you just arrive recently or are you sitting in a dimly lit boiler room somewhere?

Transparency International, Jezuz!

I feel so sorry for all you fellows so focused on Thaksin. Do you honestly believe he is the root of all problems in Thailand, that all corruption emanates from his mysterious desert lair? This is called projection by psychiatrists. You cannot justify in your own mind your support for violence and coups and so you strap on your blinders and repeat, over and over "Its Thaksin's fault". The Cambodians do that to when they say "Pol Pot killed my family" when actually it was a guy living down the street. Its a coping mechanism. At some point to get well you will have to admit there are other sources of problems in Thailand, and if Thaksin disappeared tomorrow, they would remain. The road to recovery begins with the first step.

By the way; by any objective measure Thaksin was the most effective and loved PM in the history of Thailand.

[Luger2]

Look if you want to pretend Thaksin isn't corrupt or the rice scheme wasn't riddled with corruption, or see the amnesty bill farce for what it was then you just aren't worth talking too. Did you just arrive recently or are you sitting in a dimly lit boiler room somewhere?

I feel so sorry for all you fellows so focused on Thaksin. Do you honestly believe he is the root of all problems in Thailand, that all corruption emanates from his mysterious desert lair? This is called projection by psychiatrists.

Look up what they say about denial.

Your strawman fails also. No one is stating that all problems are rooted in him.

They ARE saying that he is responsible for a lot of it.

As for corruption, his cloned proxy's unparalleled corruption ranking of 102 is unrivaled.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Luger2

[northernjohn]

heybruce

You really should check amnesty international. It shows a slight rise in corruption after the army took over. Then when it was returned to Thaksin it took off like a sky rocket. Abhist came in and managed to stop the rise and one year even slow it down. He did that with a minority government. Thaksin came back in and the corruption rate started sky rocketing again. in 2013 it jumped 2% When you are talking trillions of baht's that is a lot of money. Thailand was about 87 in the world for corruption in 2012 up from about 80 in 2011 in 2013m it was 101. That is some serious corruption. Curtsey of your friendly condemned convict illegally running from the law.

all so you were wrong on the Army installing Abhist he won his seat the same way Yingluck and Abhist two predecessors did. The house voted him in the same as they did Thaksin and his sister. No difference what so ever.

Get over it the Shinawatra dynasty has fallen what ever you were getting out of it is bye bye. Their is a new no nonsense sheriff in town.

here is your post in case you forgot it.

"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 Thaksins government, as less corrupt than the 2006 coup government, or the military installed Abhisit government. In fact, for the past 10 years or so, Thaksins 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.

[heybruce]

heybruce

You really should check amnesty international. It shows a slight rise in corruption after the army took over. Then when it was returned to Thaksin it took off like a sky rocket. Abhist came in and managed to stop the rise and one year even slow it down. He did that with a minority government. Thaksin came back in and the corruption rate started sky rocketing again. in 2013 it jumped 2% When you are talking trillions of baht's that is a lot of money. Thailand was about 87 in the world for corruption in 2012 up from about 80 in 2011 in 2013m it was 101. That is some serious corruption. Curtsey of your friendly condemned convict illegally running from the law.

all so you were wrong on the Army installing Abhist he won his seat the same way Yingluck and Abhist two predecessors did. The house voted him in the same as they did Thaksin and his sister. No difference what so ever.

Get over it the Shinawatra dynasty has fallen what ever you were getting out of it is bye bye. Their is a new no nonsense sheriff in town.

here is your post in case you forgot it.

"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 Thaksins government, as less corrupt than the 2006 coup government, or the military installed Abhisit government. In fact, for the past 10 years or so, Thaksins 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.

I looked at the Transparency International numbers and came to a different conclusion from you. See my next post. I also don't know why so many people are confidant the military wants to reduce corruption. Where does this confidence come from?

[heybruce]

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".

It's funny, a few years ago I posted on this forum and pointed out that corruption as measured by Transparency International went up after the coup, and received many replies stating it's not possible to draw that conclusion based on two or three years data. Now people are reading great significance into two years worth of data. I'm flexible, we can either agree corruption went up significantly after both the military coup and Yingluck's election, or we can be more cautious and simply agree that corruption as measured by Transparency International has gone up significantly under the 2007 constitution, the one written at the direction of the military junta and then "approved" in a "take this or live under military rule" referendum. Regardless, I don't have any confidence that eliminating corruption is important to the military, I think they have other priorities. In fact I think the people who believe fighting corruption is a top priority for the military are deluding themselves.

In regards to "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"." I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that Yingluck's government broke promises made during the campaign? If so, can you provide examples? If not, can you clarify?

Finally, I don't care how much control Thaksin exerted on Yingluck's government, the voters knew or should have known that would be the case and voted for PTP anyway. I actually think the Shinawatra's influence and the PTP's popularity were declining and this would have been demonstrated had their been another election. Of course we'll never know now. No doubt the coup has given the Shinawatra's a tremendous boost in support, just as the 2006 coup made Thaksin a martyr in the eyes of many Thais. That's one of the problems with coups, the unintended consequences.

[triffid]

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.

Of course 'reforms' will be as heybruce 'predicts', that is they will be designed to cap the power of a democratically elected government subjugate it to institutions whose members are appointed and not answerable to the electorate. In other words to have a castrated democracy with power back where it traditionally used to be. However the populace is politically less ignorant or subservient than it used to be, so trouble will brew once again.

[bigbamboo]

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.

Look if you want to pretend Thaksin isn't corrupt or the rice scheme wasn't riddled with corruption, or see the amnesty bill farce for what it was then you just aren't worth talking too. Did you just arrive recently or are you sitting in a dimly lit boiler room somewhere?

Transparency International, Jezuz!

I feel so sorry for all you fellows so focused on Thaksin. Do you honestly believe he is the root of all problems in Thailand, that all corruption emanates from his mysterious desert lair? This is called projection by psychiatrists. You cannot justify in your own mind your support for violence and coups and so you strap on your blinders and repeat, over and over "Its Thaksin's fault". The Cambodians do that to when they say "Pol Pot killed my family" when actually it was a guy living down the street. Its a coping mechanism. At some point to get well you will have to admit there are other sources of problems in Thailand, and if Thaksin disappeared tomorrow, they would remain. The road to recovery begins with the first step.

By the way; by any objective measure Thaksin was the most effective and loved PM in the history of Thailand.

Ironically Thaksin could be the catalyst for the salvation of Thailand. Had he not been such a greedy megalomaniac he would probably still be in power now but as it the way with such people enough is never enough.

Now several years and two coups later there seems a real chance that the kingdom can achieve a remarkable win double of ridding itself of endemic corruption and that peculiarly Asian trait, political nepotism. Of course it may yet prove to be a false dawn but as Hughie Green used to say...... opportunity knocks.

[citizen33]

Of course it may yet prove to be a false dawn but as Hughie Green used to say...... opportunity knocks.

... for a bamboo curtain?

Edited May 29, 2014 by citizen33

[heybruce]

"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.

Look if you want to pretend Thaksin isn't corrupt or the rice scheme wasn't riddled with corruption, or see the amnesty bill farce for what it was then you just aren't worth talking too. Did you just arrive recently or are you sitting in a dimly lit boiler room somewhere?

Transparency International, Jezuz!

That's fine with me, you don't strike me as someone who wants to engage in a rational debate using referenced sources about democracy versus the established vote-coup-vote-coup pattern.

By the way, eight years in the north of Thailand, quite a few Thai friends that I spend more time with than western friends, and while I avoid discussing politics with them I'm confident the Thai people are just as capable of democracy as any other democracy I've seen.

Edited May 29, 2014 by heybruce

[Crushdepth]

"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.

Look if you want to pretend Thaksin isn't corrupt or the rice scheme wasn't riddled with corruption, or see the amnesty bill farce for what it was then you just aren't worth talking too. Did you just arrive recently or are you sitting in a dimly lit boiler room somewhere?

Transparency International, Jezuz!

That's fine with me, you don't strike me as someone who wants to engage in a rational debate using referenced sources about democracy versus the established vote-coup-vote-coup pattern.

You are not rational, and a debate is impossible. Selectively drawing on "references" to support a ridiculous argument does lend it credibility. Particularly when the argument flies in the face of real world Thailand.

No corruption eh? Very convincing, carry on.

Sent from somewhere in the Pacific

[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".

It's funny, a few years ago I posted on this forum and pointed out that corruption as measured by Transparency International went up after the coup, and received many replies stating it's not possible to draw that conclusion based on two or three years data. Now people are reading great significance into two years worth of data. I'm flexible, we can either agree corruption went up significantly after both the military coup and Yingluck's election, or we can be more cautious and simply agree that corruption as measured by Transparency International has gone up significantly under the 2007 constitution, the one written at the direction of the military junta and then "approved" in a "take this or live under military rule" referendum. Regardless, I don't have any confidence that eliminating corruption is important to the military, I think they have other priorities. In fact I think the people who believe fighting corruption is a top priority for the military are deluding themselves.

In regards to "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"." I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that Yingluck's government broke promises made during the campaign? If so, can you provide examples? If not, can you clarify?

Finally, I don't care how much control Thaksin exerted on Yingluck's government, the voters knew or should have known that would be the case and voted for PTP anyway. I actually think the Shinawatra's influence and the PTP's popularity were declining and this would have been demonstrated had their been another election. Of course we'll never know now. No doubt the coup has given the Shinawatra's a tremendous boost in support, just as the 2006 coup made Thaksin a martyr in the eyes of many Thais. That's one of the problems with coups, the unintended consequences.

"take this or live under military rule" referendum.

So according to your logic up to 75% of the people in the North and the North East and in fact most PTP strong holds that voted against the referendum wanted to live under military rule? They gave a reverberating NO to the referendum and what allowed it to pass was the reverberating YES in the central and Southern provinces.

In fact if you look at the Yes and No vote map for the referendum it is eerily a reverse map of the 2011 election results on the right. So the 2011 election voting was respected because it suited the PTP agenda, but the referendum voting was not respected because it did not suit the agenda.

the voters knew or should have known that would be the case and voted for PTP anyway. So this result will be respected.

The referendum voters knew or should have known that they would have lived under military rule if they voted NO and they voted NO anyway. But this result won't be respected.

PTP logic right there. Only respect the majority when it suits the PTP agenda.

Edited May 29, 2014 by djjamie

[heybruce]

"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.

Look if you want to pretend Thaksin isn't corrupt or the rice scheme wasn't riddled with corruption, or see the amnesty bill farce for what it was then you just aren't worth talking too. Did you just arrive recently or are you sitting in a dimly lit boiler room somewhere?

Transparency International, Jezuz!

That's fine with me, you don't strike me as someone who wants to engage in a rational debate using referenced sources about democracy versus the established vote-coup-vote-coup pattern.

You are not rational, and a debate is impossible. Selectively drawing on "references" to support a ridiculous argument does lend it credibility. Particularly when the argument flies in the face of real world Thailand.

No corruption eh? Very convincing, carry on.

Sent from somewhere in the Pacific

Do you read? Where did I say there was no corruption?

Do you debate? In what rational debate do participants not use selective references?

[heybruce]

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".

It's funny, a few years ago I posted on this forum and pointed out that corruption as measured by Transparency International went up after the coup, and received many replies stating it's not possible to draw that conclusion based on two or three years data. Now people are reading great significance into two years worth of data. I'm flexible, we can either agree corruption went up significantly after both the military coup and Yingluck's election, or we can be more cautious and simply agree that corruption as measured by Transparency International has gone up significantly under the 2007 constitution, the one written at the direction of the military junta and then "approved" in a "take this or live under military rule" referendum. Regardless, I don't have any confidence that eliminating corruption is important to the military, I think they have other priorities. In fact I think the people who believe fighting corruption is a top priority for the military are deluding themselves.

In regards to "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"." I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that Yingluck's government broke promises made during the campaign? If so, can you provide examples? If not, can you clarify?

Finally, I don't care how much control Thaksin exerted on Yingluck's government, the voters knew or should have known that would be the case and voted for PTP anyway. I actually think the Shinawatra's influence and the PTP's popularity were declining and this would have been demonstrated had their been another election. Of course we'll never know now. No doubt the coup has given the Shinawatra's a tremendous boost in support, just as the 2006 coup made Thaksin a martyr in the eyes of many Thais. That's one of the problems with coups, the unintended consequences.

"take this or live under military rule" referendum.

So according to your logic up to 75% of the people in the North and the North East and in fact most PTP strong holds that voted against the referendum wanted to live under military rule? They gave a reverberating NO to the referendum and what allowed it to pass was the reverberating YES in the central and Southern provinces.

In fact if you look at the Yes and No vote map for the referendum it is eerily a reverse map of the 2011 election results on the right. So the 2011 election voting was respected because it suited the PTP agenda, but the referendum voting was not respected because it did not suit the agenda.

the voters knew or should have known that would be the case and voted for PTP anyway. So this result will be respected.

The referendum voters knew or should have known that they would have lived under military rule if they voted NO and they voted NO anyway. But this result won't be respected.

PTP logic right there. Only respect the majority when it suits the PTP agenda.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, it was a flawed constitution approved as the lesser of the two evils given. Perhaps you're just trying to take the topic off on some kind of tangent. If so, I decline to participate.

[djjamie]

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".

It's funny, a few years ago I posted on this forum and pointed out that corruption as measured by Transparency International went up after the coup, and received many replies stating it's not possible to draw that conclusion based on two or three years data. Now people are reading great significance into two years worth of data. I'm flexible, we can either agree corruption went up significantly after both the military coup and Yingluck's election, or we can be more cautious and simply agree that corruption as measured by Transparency International has gone up significantly under the 2007 constitution, the one written at the direction of the military junta and then "approved" in a "take this or live under military rule" referendum. Regardless, I don't have any confidence that eliminating corruption is important to the military, I think they have other priorities. In fact I think the people who believe fighting corruption is a top priority for the military are deluding themselves.

In regards to "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"." I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that Yingluck's government broke promises made during the campaign? If so, can you provide examples? If not, can you clarify?

Finally, I don't care how much control Thaksin exerted on Yingluck's government, the voters knew or should have known that would be the case and voted for PTP anyway. I actually think the Shinawatra's influence and the PTP's popularity were declining and this would have been demonstrated had their been another election. Of course we'll never know now. No doubt the coup has given the Shinawatra's a tremendous boost in support, just as the 2006 coup made Thaksin a martyr in the eyes of many Thais. That's one of the problems with coups, the unintended consequences.

"take this or live under military rule" referendum.

So according to your logic up to 75% of the people in the North and the North East and in fact most PTP strong holds that voted against the referendum wanted to live under military rule? They gave a reverberating NO to the referendum and what allowed it to pass was the reverberating YES in the central and Southern provinces.

In fact if you look at the Yes and No vote map for the referendum it is eerily a reverse map of the 2011 election results on the right. So the 2011 election voting was respected because it suited the PTP agenda, but the referendum voting was not respected because it did not suit the agenda.

the voters knew or should have known that would be the case and voted for PTP anyway. So this result will be respected.

The referendum voters knew or should have known that they would have lived under military rule if they voted NO and they voted NO anyway. But this result won't be respected.

PTP logic right there. Only respect the majority when it suits the PTP agenda.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, it was a flawed constitution approved as the lesser of the two evils given. Perhaps you're just trying to take the topic off on some kind of tangent. If so, I decline to participate.

International alarm mounts over Thai coup

That is the topic. You are talking about corruption. My post is as relevant to the OP as your posts.

I decline to participate.

What a surprise.

3rd person that I have highlight this inconvenient truth to and same reply.

Gotcha!

Edited May 29, 2014 by djjamie

[heybruce]

It's funny, a few years ago I posted on this forum and pointed out that corruption as measured by Transparency International went up after the coup, and received many replies stating it's not possible to draw that conclusion based on two or three years data. Now people are reading great significance into two years worth of data. I'm flexible, we can either agree corruption went up significantly after both the military coup and Yingluck's election, or we can be more cautious and simply agree that corruption as measured by Transparency International has gone up significantly under the 2007 constitution, the one written at the direction of the military junta and then "approved" in a "take this or live under military rule" referendum. Regardless, I don't have any confidence that eliminating corruption is important to the military, I think they have other priorities. In fact I think the people who believe fighting corruption is a top priority for the military are deluding themselves.

In regards to "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"." I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that Yingluck's government broke promises made during the campaign? If so, can you provide examples? If not, can you clarify?

Finally, I don't care how much control Thaksin exerted on Yingluck's government, the voters knew or should have known that would be the case and voted for PTP anyway. I actually think the Shinawatra's influence and the PTP's popularity were declining and this would have been demonstrated had their been another election. Of course we'll never know now. No doubt the coup has given the Shinawatra's a tremendous boost in support, just as the 2006 coup made Thaksin a martyr in the eyes of many Thais. That's one of the problems with coups, the unintended consequences.

"take this or live under military rule" referendum.

So according to your logic up to 75% of the people in the North and the North East and in fact most PTP strong holds that voted against the referendum wanted to live under military rule? They gave a reverberating NO to the referendum and what allowed it to pass was the reverberating YES in the central and Southern provinces.

In fact if you look at the Yes and No vote map for the referendum it is eerily a reverse map of the 2011 election results on the right. So the 2011 election voting was respected because it suited the PTP agenda, but the referendum voting was not respected because it did not suit the agenda.

the voters knew or should have known that would be the case and voted for PTP anyway. So this result will be respected.

The referendum voters knew or should have known that they would have lived under military rule if they voted NO and they voted NO anyway. But this result won't be respected.

PTP logic right there. Only respect the majority when it suits the PTP agenda.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, it was a flawed constitution approved as the lesser of the two evils given. Perhaps you're just trying to take the topic off on some kind of tangent. If so, I decline to participate.

International alarm mounts over Thai coup

That is the topic. You are talking about corruption. My post is as relevant to the OP as your posts.

I decline to participate.

What a surprise.

3rd person that I have highlight this inconvenient truth to and same reply.

Gotcha!

The international alarm was over a coup against a democratically elected government. People claimed the coup was necessary to fight corruption, I was arguing that corruption was neither the objective of the coup nor necessitated it. You came in with a demographic analysis of the referendum on the 2007 constitution. I don't see how that's pertinent to the discussion.

[Publicus]

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".

It's funny, a few years ago I posted on this forum and pointed out that corruption as measured by Transparency International went up after the coup, and received many replies stating it's not possible to draw that conclusion based on two or three years data. Now people are reading great significance into two years worth of data. I'm flexible, we can either agree corruption went up significantly after both the military coup and Yingluck's election, or we can be more cautious and simply agree that corruption as measured by Transparency International has gone up significantly under the 2007 constitution, the one written at the direction of the military junta and then "approved" in a "take this or live under military rule" referendum. Regardless, I don't have any confidence that eliminating corruption is important to the military, I think they have other priorities. In fact I think the people who believe fighting corruption is a top priority for the military are deluding themselves.

In regards to "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"." I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that Yingluck's government broke promises made during the campaign? If so, can you provide examples? If not, can you clarify?

Finally, I don't care how much control Thaksin exerted on Yingluck's government, the voters knew or should have known that would be the case and voted for PTP anyway. I actually think the Shinawatra's influence and the PTP's popularity were declining and this would have been demonstrated had their been another election. Of course we'll never know now. No doubt the coup has given the Shinawatra's a tremendous boost in support, just as the 2006 coup made Thaksin a martyr in the eyes of many Thais. That's one of the problems with coups, the unintended consequences.

"take this or live under military rule" referendum.

So according to your logic up to 75% of the people in the North and the North East and in fact most PTP strong holds that voted against the referendum wanted to live under military rule? They gave a reverberating NO to the referendum and what allowed it to pass was the reverberating YES in the central and Southern provinces.

In fact if you look at the Yes and No vote map for the referendum it is eerily a reverse map of the 2011 election results on the right. So the 2011 election voting was respected because it suited the PTP agenda, but the referendum voting was not respected because it did not suit the agenda.

the voters knew or should have known that would be the case and voted for PTP anyway. So this result will be respected.

The referendum voters knew or should have known that they would have lived under military rule if they voted NO and they voted NO anyway. But this result won't be respected.

PTP logic right there. Only respect the majority when it suits the PTP agenda.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, it was a flawed constitution approved as the lesser of the two evils given. Perhaps you're just trying to take the topic off on some kind of tangent. If so, I decline to participate.

He's certain in the absolute his mind produces only perfect logic and that all logic is necessarily and conclusively correct, accurate, true. His absolute reliance on logic and his complete dependency on his peculiar logic regularly takes him where no man has gone before.

Ever deeper and deeper away and into it.

I gave up on the guy sometime during February (don't know his Stardate for our February). I only and sometimes happen to see a post of his as a quote in another poster's post, such as above. What a relief. Highly effective approach that is highly recommended.

[sumtingwong]

- 'Unpredictable and volatile' - from the OP

Was what it was before the coup. It is much safer now that the commie red-shirt thugs have been removed.

Last time I checked, under a democracy, when politicians break the laws or violate the constitution, they are removed and sent to jail for their crimes. Even if they got 100% of the vote, a politician is not a dictator and does not have carte blanche to do anything they want. Getting elected under a Democracy is not a get out of jail free card, no matter how many people voted for you. And PTP got less than 50% of the vote, not even a majority.

[heybruce]

- 'Unpredictable and volatile' - from the OP

Was what it was before the coup. It is much safer now that the commie red-shirt thugs have been removed.

Last time I checked, under a democracy, when politicians break the laws or violate the constitution, they are removed and sent to jail for their crimes. Even if they got 100% of the vote, a politician is not a dictator and does not have carte blanche to do anything they want. Getting elected under a Democracy is not a get out of jail free card, no matter how many people voted for you. And PTP got less than 50% of the vote, not even a majority.

"commie red-shirt thugs".

Does that mean Thaksin is a communist? That will surprise a lot of people, especially those who consider him a tool of US imperialism.

"Last time I checked, under a democracy, when politicians break the laws or violate the constitution, they are removed and sent to jail for their crimes."

Did you know that in many first world democracies elected officials receive immunity from prosecution while they are in office? It's so they can continue to function without having to deal with a lot of nuisance charges. In the US the president has to commit "high crimes and misdemeanors" (it's vague what that means) before he can be impeached. And in Thailand a Prime Minister was removed from office for re-assigning a minister appointed by her predecessor. I think that is something that can only happen in Thailand.

By the way, even at the height of the protests I think the average person in Thailand was much more likely to die of dengue than political violence. Watch out for those mosquitoes.

Edited May 29, 2014 by heybruce

[englishoak]

Don't waste your time Bruce, trying to point out the bigger picture is pointless with these drama queens... to get beyond the flag waving nonsense hard going here to say the least, all youll get is Thaksin Baaaad .. army goood or yellow or the tooth fairy. Dosnt really matter about the early 2000's most wernt here in the 90s and dont have a clue.

[sumtingwong]

- 'Unpredictable and volatile' - from the OP

Was what it was before the coup. It is much safer now that the commie red-shirt thugs have been removed.

Last time I checked, under a democracy, when politicians break the laws or violate the constitution, they are removed and sent to jail for their crimes. Even if they got 100% of the vote, a politician is not a dictator and does not have carte blanche to do anything they want. Getting elected under a Democracy is not a get out of jail free card, no matter how many people voted for you. And PTP got less than 50% of the vote, not even a majority.

"commie red-shirt thugs".

Does that mean Thaksin is a communist? That will surprise a lot of people, especially those who consider him a tool of US imperialism.

"Last time I checked, under a democracy, when politicians break the laws or violate the constitution, they are removed and sent to jail for their crimes."

Did you know that in many first world democracies elected officials receive immunity from prosecution while they are in office? It's so they can continue to function without having to deal with a lot of nuisance charges. In the US the president has to commit "high crimes and misdemeanors" (it's vague what that means) before he can be impeached. And in Thailand a Prime Minister was removed from office for re-assigning a minister appointed by her predecessor. I think that is something that can only happen in Thailand.

By the way, even at the height of the protests I think the average person in Thailand was much more likely to die of dengue than political violence. Watch out for those mosquitoes.

According to you under a democracy, once elected a politician can break any law and violate the constitution all he wants, including having anybody he feels like executed, like the commies did in Cambodia. Must be why the commie red-shirt thugs fly the Cambodian flag at their raves. Good one. It does not sound like democracy to me. It sounds like communism. They have elections to.

[JAG]

Oh dear me. Perhaps someone with more patience than me could explain to what is apparently Senator McCarthy's backwards love child that the fact that the previous governments supporters have the colour red as their political colour does not mean that they are "commies". Nor does the fact that they may or may not have contacts in Cambodia make them "commies".

No doubt he will shortly be advocating "destroying the village in order to save it"1

Edited May 29, 2014 by JAG

[heybruce]

Don't waste your time Bruce, trying to point out the bigger picture is pointless with these drama queens... to get beyond the flag waving nonsense hard going here to say the least, all youll get is Thaksin Baaaad .. army goood or yellow or the tooth fairy. Dosnt really matter about the early 2000's most wernt here in the 90s and dont have a clue.

You're right. I sometimes succumb to the urge to take a shot at some poster making a fool of himself, but he'll just reply and make a fool of himself again. It's never ending.