International alarm mounts over Thai coup

[Roadman]

Dear The Nation Delete the big line of debate posts Team (and the Army’s supposed to be the control freak?)

I am trying harder to be nice to all including those with the red eye tint as the Junta has requested so please don’t delete my post/s.

A few short term cancelled war games with the Yankees is no big deal for the trade-off in Thai leadership development that is taking place. Besides their serviceman will be the biggest losers without their junket in Pattaya and a broad

From the Sunday Live (now that we do not get to abuse each other side on countless daily political threads we have to be the editors of our own destiny in front of the ever seeing Junta I guess. So spooning from Live into this one thread)

Borrowed, abbreviated and abused quotes from the very informative (and with no opposing posters) peacefully read Live -

"the first chin wag with the ASEAN cousie bro's was friendly with mutual understanding of the reality of Thailand's situation". - At least those closer to the action understand. And none more so than Thaksin's ex buddy it would seem now that Robert's government in exile final squeal was quashed before it even got started. If one was not brain washed to "history is static" negativity, one could be optimistic to reconsider Thailand's fortunate leading into ASEAN as having a glimmer of positive influence and opportunity.

Again from Nation Live Sunday -

Again borrowed, abbreviated and abused

"Meetings with ASEAN chair today to present time frames and measures to present normality and democracy back to Thailand".

As the Junta indicated very early in the piece that this is the path that would be taken and is working extremely effectively to this timetable. Impressive leadership.

And again from the Nation Live Sunday and again borrow....etc. etc.

"Three former Ambassadors to Washington DC" .. (perhaps the Yankee servicemen won't be missing out on playing with their toys 'n' Pattaya leave for long)..."appointed to liaise and restore the country’s image with ASEAN neighbour’s and countries which show understanding of Thailand's political reality.

The Junta and the development of his ever increasing team from all avenues of Thailand's moral heart is pleasing. Correct process's being set out, transparently presented and followed. Diplomacy in action from a profession team. Many important diplomatic and economic boxes being ticked. Sure is currently making an ass out of all ‘coups are bad’ type thinking. What the Junta and his team have achieved to date deserves top marks.

Perhaps the biggest lesson to learn now is how to play Facebook Cat n Mouse. And who were all the slanderers of Facebook slaying its importance last week when the Thai world was possibly about to go into a meltdown - or was that the coup Currently it’s compatible to a bump when you intentionally run over a rat on the road.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Roadman

[inutil]

Sumtinwong a landslide is a landslide and the two biggest in thai history were both by first thaksin and the second by yinglucknd that's a fact!

Like it or not it's just that simple and another dose will be handed out at the next election.

Facxt: less than 50% is not a majority, like it or not. So the majority of the Thais did not vote for the Shinawatra dictatorship, fact.

Fact: You dont understand the difference between direct democracy and representative democracy, fact. You should probably go take a politics course.

Edited June 2, 2014 by inutil

[sumtingwong]

I know they have multiple parties, I know they got more votes than the other parties, but they did not get the majority of the Thai votes, so when you say that the majority of the Thai voter voted for them, that is flat out not true.Even under a multiparty system, you can get the majority of the votes of the voters, then say that the majority of the voter voted for you. Otherwise you can only say that a minority of the voters voted for you, but you got more than any other party, nothing more. Got it.

[sumtingwong]

Sumtinwong a landslide is a landslide and the two biggest in thai history were both by first thaksin and the second by yinglucknd that's a fact!

Like it or not it's just that simple and another dose will be handed out at the next election.

Facxt: less than 50% is not a majority, like it or not. So the majority of the Thais did not vote for the Shinawatra dictatorship, fact.

Fact: You dont understand the difference between direct democracy and representative democracy, fact. You should probably go take a politics course.

I understand it just fine, I also understand that you can not say the majority of the voters voted for your party when they did not. As simple as that. Yes you can win the election with a minority vote, that does not mean the majority of the voters voted for you.l Got it. So when you get thrown out of office for your crimes, don't whine and say, but, but, the majority of the voters want me to stay in office when you only got a minority of the actual votes.

[rabas]

The Shinawatra dictatorship won the election but they did not win it with the majority of the Thai people voting for them. To say the majority of the Thai people want a Shinawatra dictatorship is not true.

if theres 100 and out of that 100% only 50% decide to cast a vote and the results come out 30% for one 20% for the other the one with 30% will still win, its called the voting majority, thats how elections work

that is why its important to cast a vote, or you dont have a say in who wins and cannot complain.

The old fallacy of its not a majority of a people is irrelevent it IS the majority of the voting population and that is all that counts.. seeing as there will always be some that wont vote for anyone or care or cannot be bothered. Thats pretty much how it works or didnt you study politics and election systems at school.?

The facts is, not only did the eligible voting Thais not vote for Shinawatra dictatorship in the majority, but also the voting Thais did not vote for the Shinawatra dictatorship in the majority.

[ In reality, of the 74% of Thais that turned out to vote on July 3, 2011, only 48% actually cast votes for Peua Thai (PTP). Of all eligible voters, that is a tenuous 35% mandate, hardly what can be called “decisively backed.” ]

Look it dosnt matter it is actually considered a landslide at 48%, seriously you need to become a little more familiar with how the voting process works and what they mean by a landslide. lets take your figures there ok and ill walk you through it

48% out of 74% total voters actually represents a big majority swing when you look at all the partys of choice running ...its absolutely huge in fact on electoral scales, it equates to 2/3 support of the voting poulation... thats 2 thirds wanted them or if you prefer 66% of all voters or in another word its a decisive majority....

you still dont get it do you ?

PS i dont have a horse in the race btw im just trying to get you to understand what a voting majority is and how it equates.

PPs and dont ask about first past the post system as the UK has, that'll really fry your brain to attempt to follow.

englishoak. I don't have a problem with 48% in a multi horse race being a landslide. I just have a question about your math. How do you get 2/3 of the voting population from 100% eligible voters, 74% of 100% voted, and 48% of 74% voted for PT?

BTW, I couple of your recent long posts were absolute gems, it seems you understand both Thailand and life well. It was enjoyable to see someone express their thoughts so well.

[inutil]

Then if you understand this as you claim, youre making an arbitrary semantic point that all the grown ups can ignore. This isnt a direct democracy. We cant just suddenly decide that majority has to infer 50.1% of the entire possible voting public. Thats not how the term is used. It is used in the first instance to refer to the candidate with the most votes in their designated region. This is First Past the Post. You have a majority of votes when youre the person with the most votes.

This is important to note because its from this (Thailand isnt STV after all), we receive the discrepancy between votes as a % in the population as a whole versus votes as a % in parliament. Thus, one party will have 4x% of eligible voters (who turned up and cast their vote - which realistically brings it down to around the mid-high 30s of TOTAL eligible voters), BUT because we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy this means they have 5x%+ of seats in a parliament.

This means they have an absolute majority in parliament. And this is the figure that matters because it means that legislation can be passed. Without this majority nothing would be done, or overwhelming power would be in the hands of minority and fringe parties working in coalition with the main party of government. Swings and roundabouts. Some people want this, some dont. But its going to take a referendum (or a coup) to bring it about.

Now, if a party has not only the numbers required in parliament for an absolute majority, but a SIGNIFICANT number to spare on top of this, then it is argued that they have a MANDATE to govern. This means that the people themselves are calling for a change in direction and overwhelmingly have returned enough people to the house to make sure that legislation is passed without any interruption.

Now lets see: absolute majority in parliament? Check

Overwhelming majority in parliament? Check.

Thats pretty conclusive by every check in representative democracy. They not only had a MAJORITY (in parliament), they had an overwhelming majority and thus a mandate to govern. Hope this helps.

Edited June 2, 2014 by inutil

[sumtingwong]

Yes, I know all that. And as you say, they did that with a minority of the votes of the Thai voters. So they can not say that the majority of the Thai voters voted for them, because the majority of the Thai votes]rs did not vote for them. It is simply not true. But had they actually got over 50% of the Thais voting for their party, then they can say the majority of the Thai voters voted for them. It can happen even in a multiparty system.

[djjamie]

"But the Thaksin hasn't been in power for 8 years"

He was in power until the 9th of December 2013 and then in a caretaker unelectable leader capacity until the 22nd of May when the democracy restoration team came in to remove the unelected dictator.

Now he has been removed he is trying to set up HIS government in exile in Cambodia.

"Democracy restoration team...unelected dictator,"

Never too soon to start rewriting history I suppose.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Hence the references to 1984; as George Orwell clearly explained, if you want to control how people think you must control the language they use. It's amazing how people will do it to themselves. Soon the "goodthinkers" will be writing "Thaksin double ungood." Big Brother will be pleased.

Your right and that is why they had the UDD indoctrination schools that was set up and funded by 2 accused terrorists and an ex communist and her husband Dr Weng.

The eager young communist, Dr Weng, was in Thailand's underground movement 20 years ago now plays a major role in the UDD and was taught that propaganda should be blunt, simple and repeated incessantly to be effective. The UDD have shunned hard policy debates in favor of simple credos of justice denied and the hypocrisy of elites. Your narrative feeds into that.

A tactic he uses is to keep saying that "we are a peace-loving people". The many factions folded into the UDD organization are not told what the real strategy is because they might not agree and they might not act their part convincingly. The UDD supporters will feed upon this rhetoric like a new born baby on his mothers nipple, but rest assured Dr Weng being highly educated and thoroughly knowledgable on Maoist theory produces this narrative in line with his teachings.

So when you say "Big Brother" will be pleased. Unfortunately I have to agree with you going by your post.

[inutil]

You keep agreeing with me and then repeating exactly what you said as if it has any bearing on anything. Are you trolling me?

Edited June 2, 2014 by inutil

[sumtingwong]

Yes I agree with you, they won the election, yes they got a majority in parliament, you can say all that and it is true. What you can not say is that the majority of the Thai votes voted for them unless they get over 50% of the vote. Had they got over 50% of the vote, then I would say that yes, the majority of the Thai voters voted for them. But they did not get that so the majority of the voters did not vote for them. No, I am not trolling.

[ABCer]

It is a funny feeling. I know there are some Thai people here on TV, but I thought the majority is Farangs.

Yet somehow I see almost all members wearing same-same colours - RED or YELLOW.

Well, I have news for you all - There will never be Democracy in Thailand!

Let me repeat: - There will never be Democracy in Thailand!

And for those deaf or blind: - There will never be Democracy in Thailand!

You may continue your arguing. Have fun. But stop talking about things non-existent. NO conciliation! NO Democracy!

We might get some kind of "normality" back. But that is all.

[inutil]

And who on earth is saying THAT except you?

No one, except perhaps people aggrieved at the vagaries of a first past the post system (and that their party was crushed), will insist on the ludicrous bar of 50.1% of ALL eligible voters being a requirement to claim a mandate.

When people use the term majority of thai voters, theyre not using it unreasonably. Theyre using it exactly how its been used in every parliamentary democratic system since representative democracy existed. It is those trying to alter the meaning of 'majority' to infer an absolute majority of voters (rather than seats in parliament) who are misusing the conventional understanding of the term to further their own ends.

So here, let me be middle ground. I agree to never again mean an absolute majority of Thai voters voted for PTP if you agree that an overwhelming parliamentary majority of votes legitimised her claims of a mandate to govern.

Peace at last! peace at last!

[inutil]

It is a funny feeling. I know there are some Thai people here on TV, but I thought the majority is Farangs.

Yet somehow I see almost all members wearing same-same colours - RED or YELLOW.

Well, I have news for you all - There will never be Democracy in Thailand!

Let me repeat: - There will never be Democracy in Thailand!

And for those deaf or blind: - There will never be Democracy in Thailand!

You may continue your arguing. Have fun. But stop talking about things non-existent. NO conciliation! NO Democracy!

We might get some kind of "normality" back. But that is all.

Simple question: Why not?

[sumtingwong]

Thank goodness Thailand is not a democracy. And for the record, neither is the USA. It is a Republic, not a democracy.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville

“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville

From Webster's dictionary: so·cial·ism: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism.

[inutil]

So im to infer from that youd prefer to drop the matter?

[heybruce]

"It is what happens when military dictatorship tries and suppress the wishes of millions of its citizens for nefarious and transparent reasons."

or more accurately you mean:

"It is what happens when a Shinawatra dictatorship tries and suppress the wishes of millions of its citizens for nefarious and transparent reasons."

An elected dictatorship. Refer to the "1984" reference in post #653.

[rubl]

Wow, too many comments to read all, but let me at least praise one from heybruce with the "government didn't have to listen to Thaksin".

Now that will impress the International Community for sure.

[Fat Haggis]

What the Democrats should have done was to convince all these other parties to form a coalition to drive out the PTP/UDD through the ballot box, it's a red herring to state that Thaksin paid for these votes, he could never have bought 51% of the electorate, it's all these other parties that stand in elections you need to convince to vote AGAINST the PTP, the more horses you have in the race, the harder it is, cut down these political parties to just 3-4 and then you'l see if you have the majority.

What's also in favour of the PTP/UDD is demographics, it's against everyone else, due t the population distribution.

I keep reading this magical number of 75% of the population supports the coup, well considering that 90% of the country was NOT effected by the protests, and daily life continued unabated, as if there was no problems in the first place, then capitalising on this and saying that they all support the coup is fundamentally wrong, where does the consensus come from of the support for the coup come from?

The people who benefited most from the coup was the people of Bangkok, as there nowhere else seen the level of protests and disruption. as I said, pretty much everywhere outside of the Capital were going about their daily business and lives, oblivious to the protests !!

[heybruce]

There are some here that say a head of state can only be removed by an election, no matter what crime he commits.

So obviously, they would have been against a war/coup to remove Hitler as well.

There are also some people here who think it's legitimate to remove a prime minister for hosting a cooking show or re-assigning a minister appointed by her predecessor. I think there should be legal means to remove heads of state for serious crimes, but not trivial offenses.

It's the law that perjury and nepotism are offenses that can lead to a PM's dismissal.

If the various Thaksin governments that have ruled for the vast majority of the past 15 years felt these laws were unjust, they could have easily had them changed with their majority in Parliament.

p.s. Even though he perjured himself in court, the actual permanent removal of the aforementioned PM was effected when the Party Financier in Dubai decided unilaterally to not have proxy Samak return as PM, but instead selected proxy Somchai to be PM.

Are you new to this? The 2007 Constitution written at the directions of the military included conflict of interests rules for elected officials, but not for the civil service or military. It also made half the senate appointed, making changes to the constitution impossible without the approval of the traditional elites in these appointed positions.

[Mackie]

There are some here that say a head of state can only be removed by an election, no matter what crime he commits.

So obviously, they would have been against a war/coup to remove Hitler as well.

There are also some people here who think it's legitimate to remove a prime minister for hosting a cooking show or re-assigning a minister appointed by her predecessor. I think there should be legal means to remove heads of state for serious crimes, but not trivial offenses.

It's the law that perjury and nepotism are offenses that can lead to a PM's dismissal.

If the various Thaksin governments that have ruled for the vast majority of the past 15 years felt these laws were unjust, they could have easily had them changed with their majority in Parliament.

p.s. Even though he perjured himself in court, the actual permanent removal of the aforementioned PM was effected when the Party Financier in Dubai decided unilaterally to not have proxy Samak return as PM, but instead selected proxy Somchai to be PM.

Are you new to this? The 2007 Constitution written at the directions of the military included conflict of interests rules for elected officials, but not for the civil service or military. It also made half the senate appointed, making changes to the constitution impossible without the approval of the traditional elites in these appointed positions.

How convenient that you forgot to mention the most important part - there was a referendum with regard to the constitution and the majority of Thais voted yes. People who disagreed with it were given their democratic right to vote 'no'.

[Piichai]

Ten or so days on from the coup, and sanctions against Thailand have been largely inconsequential.

It seems international alarm is not as great as some would have us believe.

[Luger2]

The people who benefited most from the coup was the people of Bangkok, as there nowhere else seen the level of protests and disruption

The good people of Trat seems to have also benefitted following the disportionate level, for its size, of "disruption" that it encountered.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/728013-huge-illegal-firearms-seized-in-samut-sakhon/page-6#entry7917136

[Prbkk]

Ten or so days on from the coup, and sanctions against Thailand have been largely inconsequential.

It seems international alarm is not as great as some would have us believe.

The lack of sanctions does not lessen the opprobrium

[heybruce]

"But the Thaksin hasn't been in power for 8 years"

He was in power until the 9th of December 2013 and then in a caretaker unelectable leader capacity until the 22nd of May when the democracy restoration team came in to remove the unelected dictator.

Now he has been removed he is trying to set up HIS government in exile in Cambodia.

"Democracy restoration team...unelected dictator,"

Never too soon to start rewriting history I suppose.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Hence the references to 1984; as George Orwell clearly explained, if you want to control how people think you must control the language they use. It's amazing how people will do it to themselves. Soon the "goodthinkers" will be writing "Thaksin double ungood." Big Brother will be pleased.

Your right and that is why they had the UDD indoctrination schools that was set up and funded by 2 accused terrorists and an ex communist and her husband Dr Weng.

The eager young communist, Dr Weng, was in Thailand's underground movement 20 years ago now plays a major role in the UDD and was taught that propaganda should be blunt, simple and repeated incessantly to be effective. The UDD have shunned hard policy debates in favor of simple credos of justice denied and the hypocrisy of elites. Your narrative feeds into that.

A tactic he uses is to keep saying that "we are a peace-loving people". The many factions folded into the UDD organization are not told what the real strategy is because they might not agree and they might not act their part convincingly. The UDD supporters will feed upon this rhetoric like a new born baby on his mothers nipple, but rest assured Dr Weng being highly educated and thoroughly knowledgable on Maoist theory produces this narrative in line with his teachings.

So when you say "Big Brother" will be pleased. Unfortunately I have to agree with you going by your post.

I'd be interested in knowing your sources. But, assuming for the moment you have presented and accurate and unbiased description of the UDD tactics, Dr Weng sounds like the equivalent of Carl Rove in the Republican Party of the US during the George W. Bush presidency. Except that the UDD was not in government in Thailand.

One difference between the UDD and the current government is that the UDD never seized control of all media in the country and imposed censorship. It can be difficult to say when marketing ends and propaganda begins, but once media has been seized and censorship imposed, I think the line has clearly been crossed. Of course Big Brother will use control of the media to assure the people that these controls are necessary to protect them.

[Luger2]

There are some here that say a head of state can only be removed by an election, no matter what crime he commits.

So obviously, they would have been against a war/coup to remove Hitler as well.

There are also some people here who think it's legitimate to remove a prime minister for hosting a cooking show or re-assigning a minister appointed by her predecessor. I think there should be legal means to remove heads of state for serious crimes, but not trivial offenses.

It's the law that perjury and nepotism are offenses that can lead to a PM's dismissal.

If the various Thaksin governments that have ruled for the vast majority of the past 15 years felt these laws were unjust, they could have easily had them changed with their majority in Parliament.

p.s. Even though he perjured himself in court, the actual permanent removal of the aforementioned PM was effected when the Party Financier in Dubai decided unilaterally to not have proxy Samak return as PM, but instead selected proxy Somchai to be PM.

Are you new to this? The 2007 Constitution written at the directions of the military included conflict of interests rules for elected officials, but not for the civil service or military. It also made half the senate appointed, making changes to the constitution impossible without the approval of the traditional elites in these appointed positions.

News Flash from 1997 for the astute heybruce:

The same conflict of interest law that Yingluck violated was also written in the "People's Constitution" of 1997.

Section 111

A member of the House of Representatives shall not, through the status or position of member of the House of Representatives, interfere or intervene in the recruitment, appointment, reshuffle, transfer, promotion and elevation of the salary scale of a Government official holding a permanent position or receiving salary and not being a political official, an official or employee of a State agency, State enterprise or local government organisation, or cause such persons to be removed from office.

Changes to the constitution are not impossible, just more difficult, but surely with the 87 posts in this thread detailing how and why PTP was the majority, it could have achieved what it set out to do.

Heck, they almost got something as utterly incredulous as a blanket amnesty passed.

However, in the end, perjury and nepotism (or conflict of interest, as you say), are viewed unfavorably and considered illegal in most countries besides Thailand and any government, even the ever-popular PTP, trying to remove those from the criminal code would be looked upon unfavorably, eg. trying to make perjury no longer illegal.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Luger2

[Piichai]

One difference between the UDD and the current government is that the UDD never seized control of all media in the country and imposed censorship. It can be difficult to say when marketing ends and propaganda begins, but once media has been seized and censorship imposed, I think the line has clearly been crossed. Of course Big Brother will use control of the media to assure the people that these controls are necessary to protect them.

You forgot that Yingluck tried to shut down Blue Sky but CC wouldn't have it.

[Luger2]

Ten or so days on from the coup, and sanctions against Thailand have been largely inconsequential.

It seems international alarm is not as great as some would have us believe.

The lack of sanctions does not lessen the opprobrium

Absolutely it does.

Actions speak louder than words... which, without action, become droning, and empty, diplomatic rhetoric of no great significance.

[djjamie]

"Democracy restoration team...unelected dictator,"

Never too soon to start rewriting history I suppose.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Hence the references to 1984; as George Orwell clearly explained, if you want to control how people think you must control the language they use. It's amazing how people will do it to themselves. Soon the "goodthinkers" will be writing "Thaksin double ungood." Big Brother will be pleased.

Your right and that is why they had the UDD indoctrination schools that was set up and funded by 2 accused terrorists and an ex communist and her husband Dr Weng.

The eager young communist, Dr Weng, was in Thailand's underground movement 20 years ago now plays a major role in the UDD and was taught that propaganda should be blunt, simple and repeated incessantly to be effective. The UDD have shunned hard policy debates in favor of simple credos of justice denied and the hypocrisy of elites. Your narrative feeds into that.

A tactic he uses is to keep saying that "we are a peace-loving people". The many factions folded into the UDD organization are not told what the real strategy is because they might not agree and they might not act their part convincingly. The UDD supporters will feed upon this rhetoric like a new born baby on his mothers nipple, but rest assured Dr Weng being highly educated and thoroughly knowledgable on Maoist theory produces this narrative in line with his teachings.

So when you say "Big Brother" will be pleased. Unfortunately I have to agree with you going by your post.

I'd be interested in knowing your sources. But, assuming for the moment you have presented and accurate and unbiased description of the UDD tactics, Dr Weng sounds like the equivalent of Carl Rove in the Republican Party of the US during the George W. Bush presidency. Except that the UDD was not in government in Thailand.

One difference between the UDD and the current government is that the UDD never seized control of all media in the country and imposed censorship. It can be difficult to say when marketing ends and propaganda begins, but once media has been seized and censorship imposed, I think the line has clearly been crossed. Of course Big Brother will use control of the media to assure the people that these controls are necessary to protect them.

OK. Did Carl Rove have to flee America and hide in a foreign country because he was going to be persecuted for communist activities in America? The in the communist country he went too, he learnt all about the tactics I described above. Interesting. I cannot see it anywhere though.

UDD didn't control the media because they never had the power too. Trust me if they had the power there would be red shirt radio only and red villages only all over Thailand. They were starting at the top and working down. They even wanted to paint the police stations UDD red. The only thing they won't be painting red anymore is the blood on the streets of bBangkok thanks to the General seizing power and stopping the senseless killings of innocent protestors.

Let's just say we are lucky the UDD movement make up a minority within Thailand or else this dream of total control would have materialized.

The General is up north talking to the people, paying the people, giving free health care. If the red shirts had that power the same generosity could not be said. And that goes for the PDRC as well.

Move forward and reconcile my friend or you will be left behind.

[marstons]

Ten or so days on from the coup, and sanctions against Thailand have been largely inconsequential.

It seems international alarm is not as great as some would have us believe.

We will never know what's going on behind closed doors, Thailand's exports are down significantly and inflation is rising.

Ironically the wanted criminal as he is called has more travel rights around the world now than the Coup leaders.

On a plus side the baht is falling and for the first time in years its over 55 to the £.

Many analysts predict Thailand falling into recession whilst all around boom.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-29/thailands-coup-may-send-investors-to-its-asian-neighbors

[Emptyset]

One difference between the UDD and the current government is that the UDD never seized control of all media in the country and imposed censorship. It can be difficult to say when marketing ends and propaganda begins, but once media has been seized and censorship imposed, I think the line has clearly been crossed. Of course Big Brother will use control of the media to assure the people that these controls are necessary to protect them.

You forgot that Yingluck tried to shut down Blue Sky but CC wouldn't have it.

Pretty sure that didn't happen. YL govt threatened to take action against backers of Blue Sky, not shut it down.