Decline in tourist arrivals?

[hml367]

Are you proposing that Thailand should reject the democratic principle of one person, one vote? I do not know enough of Thai politics to express any view at all but please remember that the "clique" you refer were elected by a large majority of the population.

In my opinion, hugh2121, most of the foreigners in Chiang Mai have no idea what is really happening in Thai politics (and most everything else, for that matter). If a person cannot speak, read, and understand Thai, they cannot even start to understand how Thais think, in my opinion. Furthermore, I can appreciate that the longer one lives in Chiang Mai, they may understand more than before living here, but still I don't think non-Thais will ever fully understand.

I am amazed at the people that are here for a relatively short time (compared to a local native) and think they understand the thinking and appropriateness of all that goes on. I have asked before how long one has to live here to be an "old-timer" or not a "new comer". I have never gotten an answer.

Many people come from Western countries saying they like the Thai life style, then wish for amenities and pleasures that are available where they came from. Then wonder why the prices go up.

Most posters that I personally consider having been here a long time (much longer than me) do not espouse the views posted by people living here 2, 4, 6, 10 years, for example. I enjoy reading the posts from these "old timers".

Of course there are posters that understand that they do not understand.

Maybe I am just having a slow morning...... again.

[Ulysses G.]

I am amazed at the people that are here for a relatively short time (compared to a local native) and think they understand the thinking and appropriateness of all that goes on. I have asked before how long one has to live here to be an "old-timer" or not a "new comer". I have never gotten an answer.

When I first got here, some old hand - I think it was David Unkovich - told me that the longer that you are here, the more you realize that we will never understand the Thai mind. After 20 years, I agree with him completely.

[hml367]

I am amazed at the people that are here for a relatively short time (compared to a local native) and think they understand the thinking and appropriateness of all that goes on. I have asked before how long one has to live here to be an "old-timer" or not a "new comer". I have never gotten an answer.

When I first got here, some old hand - I think it was David Unkovich - told me that the longer that you are here, the more you realize that we will never understand the Thai mind. After 20 years, I agree with him completely.

In my limited time here, UG, I have seen the TV posters that do continue living here and posting from shortly after arriving and continuing, change attitudes almost to a person.

Those that have been here through the past 6 months or so, and arriving within the last 7 or 8 years, will almost certainly have all the answers of what a coup in Thailand is and what it accomplishes.

Edited June 4, 2014 by hml367

[cmsally]

Maybe we should have a survey as to which nationalities "get" sarcasm.

[Ulysses G.]

It is often hard to discern on an Internet forum, no matter what nationality you are.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Are you proposing that Thailand should reject the democratic principle of one person, one vote?

"Rejecting one-man-one-vote" makes it sound very harsh. It can be structured in many different ways.

For example there are countries in Western Europe where (almost) every election results in one of two parties becoming the biggest, and forming a government just by themselves. For example, the UK. And then there are other countries -that also have one-person-one-vote- where this *NEVER* happens, and elections are guaranteed to result in many smaller (but significant) parties needing to form a coalition government.

Pre-2000 Thailand used to be the latter, i.e. many small parties, weak governments and changing coalitions. No government ever lasted the full term. This worked very well for the uppermost establishment in the military, civil service, etc. : divide and conquer; it guarantees the overall weakness of elected government. And if it ever went awry then the military would simply pull the plug. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Fast forward to the year 2000. Thaksin Shinawatra comes along, and unifies pretty much the lot of the small regional parties and cliques in the North and North East into one big party. And secondly he starts making promises to the electorate in those parts of the country that he actually keeps. So instead of individual family based cliques that hand out some of their money for votes prior to an election, he moves to the Western model of promising other people's (tax) money and then making good on that promise.. (As well as his own business interests) Result: huge and repeated electoral success for him and the end of fractured, weak elected government. When he then also seems to think that elected government can tell the military / upper echelons what to do instead fo the other way around, the military is asked to pull the plug. (2006)

The problem, unlike the past, is that the electorate in the North and North East have now sniffed at a system where their vote directly translates into benefits for them. So merely pulling the plug is no longer sufficient, as the same block gets voted in again and again.

This is where we are now, and have been since 2006.

They tried a senate that's half appointed, and tried an additional layer in the judiciary to facilitate removing governments without needing tanks and soldiers, but the same block just gets voted in again with different names and different people.

And the rural poor still think they are entitled to elect a government that works only for them. Elected government needs to be weakened and fractured again to prevent a single party to call the shots all by themselves.

And there are plenty ways to do that while still giving everyone a vote, and the rest of the world the impression that it's a democracy. This coup is a necessary first step towards that, so let them get on with it before the rural poor get an even bigger sense of entitlement.

I do not know enough of Thai politics to express any view at all but please remember that the "clique" you refer were elected by a large majority of the population.

Small majority. A very small majority in actual votes, so this can easily be fixed.

Edited June 4, 2014 by WinnieTheKhwai

[northernjohn]

Equality is not the problem. In the voting system all are equal. One person one vote. The problem is in the understanding of the consequences of your vote.

The people in the north for the most part do not realize that the money they get paid for their vote and the promises they get will lead to nothing but turmoil. They had the money in their hand for their votes in the last election they had the promise of a golden era for them and they failed to realize it was just smoke and mirrors they had. Look at the results of their choices.

If they had been able to understand the consequences as many people did they would not have choose the people they did.

Democracy in principal is a great thing to have but when it is used as a tool to serve just the rulers it is not a great thing. We now have a military coup running the country. This is not a Democracy it how ever is far better than what we had which was a minority of the population 48% dictating to 52% of the population. With the 48% coming up on the short end of the stick. The 52% can afford the cost of living and the rise in household debt far better than the 48% can.

With the military junta running the country all are being called on the carpet and asked to explain their actions. No longer do we have one man living in Dubai dictating to us through his hired underlings that the 48% elected. The people on all sides of the question are being called in and having their part in the mess examined.

In a about a year give or take there will be another election. This time it will not be full of criminals who are out of jail on bail. People seeking office because if they are in office they can not be charged with there crimes. There will be a whole lot of new faces and the people will be given a choice between people who are far more honest than they have now and more interested in the welfare of Thailand. There will be no more marches on the government howling for the money they promised to pay them if elected.

The people will be given a new chance. Thaksin will no longer control the government. Hopefully the people will have learned by then that smoke and mirrors has not given them any thing in the past and it will not give them any thing in the future. They will realize that in the past 14 years Thaksin has ruled for 9 of them and they are still poor.

Although I appreciate your post, I disagree with the rumors of "cash in hand" vote buying. I've seen no proof of such. I have seen documents of Thaksin getting moneies to communities for their needs, and those communities empowered to disperse it,...to the chagrin of the Bangkok elite who feel the monies, which normally went to them, were now going to the North. By the way....although I spent countless hours trying to understand Suthep, I have never heard an accurate thing from his mouth. If Yingluck was Thaksin's puppet, show me some proof,...not Gobbelsian rhetoric.

However, your points on majority and minority is very important here, and around the World, as people have become more and more divisive, usually by way of media-tion from those seeking to cash-in on hate...ie...Fox News vs NBC News.

As I under it,...in the past 8 years, a land-slide elected Thai government has been destroyed by an unhappy Minority,...in this case, a Minority that controls the Court's and has support of the Military.

My primary Nationality is American,...and in America it is ridiculous how many people believe the County there is under Majority Rule. The fact however is this....America used to be (prior to the Christian take-over in the 1950's) one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. In a Constitutional Democracy the majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion.

Although in America, the Minority does all they can to obstruct the likes of the Obama Administration,...that is, at the expense of regular American's,...in Thailand they go further to destroy Democracy. Perhaps "hate" should be a crime in the Constitution,...if that was so in Thailand, the gangster Suthep would have not made it past last August, and I'd be looking forward to my first ride on High Speed Rail.

You are correct about America not being under Majority rule.

Then again America is not a Democracy it is a Republic. Remember the pledge of allegiance.

" I have seen documents of Thaksin getting moneies to communities for their needs, and those communities empowered to disperse it,..."

but I notice you don't mention what happened to that money. Was he getting money from them or giving money to them. LOL

This is off topic, but I keep seeing the statement "America is not a Democracy it is a Republic." Well:

re·pub·lic

riˈpəblik/

noun

noun: republic; plural noun: republics

1. a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

   • archaic

     a group with a certain equality between its members.

Ok, maybe not exactly the same thing, but...

Perhaps someone can explain why a democracy is not a republic.

I would think that maybe the fact that each state has two Senators. No matter if they have a population of 6 million or 20 million. they still only have two Senators. That is not Democratic.

Just my opinion as to the reason. But it is defiantly not Democratic.

[northernjohn]

I am amazed at the people that are here for a relatively short time (compared to a local native) and think they understand the thinking and appropriateness of all that goes on. I have asked before how long one has to live here to be an "old-timer" or not a "new comer". I have never gotten an answer.

When I first got here, some old hand - I think it was David Unkovich - told me that the longer that you are here, the more you realize that we will never understand the Thai mind. After 20 years, I agree with him completely.

I also agree on that statement.

But that does not mean we are stupid and can not see corruption and understand the greed for money and power or the lack of a decent education.

Along those lines. I was told long ago that you can never really learn a foreign language until you can understand the culture. I also agree with that. some of the logic the wife comes up with I just keep my mouth shut and shake my head.

[northernjohn]

Are you proposing that Thailand should reject the democratic principle of one person, one vote?

"Rejecting one-man-one-vote" makes it sound very harsh. It can be structured in many different ways.

For example there are countries in Western Europe where (almost) every election results in one of two parties becoming the biggest, and forming a government just by themselves. For example, the UK. And then there are other countries -that also have one-person-one-vote- where this *NEVER* happens, and elections are guaranteed to result in many smaller (but significant) parties needing to form a coalition government.

Pre-2000 Thailand used to be the latter, i.e. many small parties, weak governments and changing coalitions. No government ever lasted the full term. This worked very well for the uppermost establishment in the military, civil service, etc. : divide and conquer; it guarantees the overall weakness of elected government. And if it ever went awry then the military would simply pull the plug. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Fast forward to the year 2000. Thaksin Shinawatra comes along, and unifies pretty much the lot of the small regional parties and cliques in the North and North East into one big party. And secondly he starts making promises to the electorate in those parts of the country that he actually keeps. So instead of individual family based cliques that hand out some of their money for votes prior to an election, he moves to the Western model of promising other people's (tax) money and then making good on that promise.. (As well as his own business interests) Result: huge and repeated electoral success for him and the end of fractured, weak elected government. When he then also seems to think that elected government can tell the military / upper echelons what to do instead fo the other way around, the military is asked to pull the plug. (2006)

The problem, unlike the past, is that the electorate in the North and North East have now sniffed at a system where their vote directly translates into benefits for them. So merely pulling the plug is no longer sufficient, as the same block gets voted in again and again.

This is where we are now, and have been since 2006.

They tried a senate that's half appointed, and tried an additional layer in the judiciary to facilitate removing governments without needing tanks and soldiers, but the same block just gets voted in again with different names and different people.

And the rural poor still think they are entitled to elect a government that works only for them. Elected government needs to be weakened and fractured again to prevent a single party to call the shots all by themselves.

And there are plenty ways to do that while still giving everyone a vote, and the rest of the world the impression that it's a democracy. This coup is a necessary first step towards that, so let them get on with it before the rural poor get an even bigger sense of entitlement.

I do not know enough of Thai politics to express any view at all but please remember that the "clique" you refer were elected by a large majority of the population.

Small majority. A very small majority in actual votes, so this can easily be fixed.

I missed the 2006 coup but was not part of the reason that Thaksin was trying to take away some of the influence of a certain individual whose name I cannot mention?

[mesquite]

wife ?

logic?

Edited June 4, 2014 by mesquite

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Are you proposing that Thailand should reject the democratic principle of one person, one vote?

"Rejecting one-man-one-vote" makes it sound very harsh. It can be structured in many different ways.

For example there are countries in Western Europe where (almost) every election results in one of two parties becoming the biggest, and forming a government just by themselves. For example, the UK. And then there are other countries -that also have one-person-one-vote- where this *NEVER* happens, and elections are guaranteed to result in many smaller (but significant) parties needing to form a coalition government.

Pre-2000 Thailand used to be the latter, i.e. many small parties, weak governments and changing coalitions. No government ever lasted the full term. This worked very well for the uppermost establishment in the military, civil service, etc. : divide and conquer; it guarantees the overall weakness of elected government. And if it ever went awry then the military would simply pull the plug. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Fast forward to the year 2000. Thaksin Shinawatra comes along, and unifies pretty much the lot of the small regional parties and cliques in the North and North East into one big party. And secondly he starts making promises to the electorate in those parts of the country that he actually keeps. So instead of individual family based cliques that hand out some of their money for votes prior to an election, he moves to the Western model of promising other people's (tax) money and then making good on that promise.. (As well as his own business interests) Result: huge and repeated electoral success for him and the end of fractured, weak elected government. When he then also seems to think that elected government can tell the military / upper echelons what to do instead fo the other way around, the military is asked to pull the plug. (2006)

The problem, unlike the past, is that the electorate in the North and North East have now sniffed at a system where their vote directly translates into benefits for them. So merely pulling the plug is no longer sufficient, as the same block gets voted in again and again.

This is where we are now, and have been since 2006.

They tried a senate that's half appointed, and tried an additional layer in the judiciary to facilitate removing governments without needing tanks and soldiers, but the same block just gets voted in again with different names and different people.

And the rural poor still think they are entitled to elect a government that works only for them. Elected government needs to be weakened and fractured again to prevent a single party to call the shots all by themselves.

And there are plenty ways to do that while still giving everyone a vote, and the rest of the world the impression that it's a democracy. This coup is a necessary first step towards that, so let them get on with it before the rural poor get an even bigger sense of entitlement.

I do not know enough of Thai politics to express any view at all but please remember that the "clique" you refer were elected by a large majority of the population.

Small majority. A very small majority in actual votes, so this can easily be fixed.

I missed the 2006 coup but was not part of the reason that Thaksin was trying to take away some of the influence of a certain individual whose name I cannot mention?

No; more the upper echelons in general. Also note that in a democracy, influence on government is by the people (direct or through parliament), by definition.

He may have thought -somewhat foolishly in hindsight- that democracy had broken out and that elected government and parliament now called the shots. Either way he knows better now. Along with everyone else in Thailand with their eyes open.

Now if all factions and specifically the PTP and the red shirts would just accept that, then all will be fine. It does look encouraging as there haven't been any *organized* protests or disturbances from the red corner so far. Which would mean an end to the curfew, and fully back to normal for expats and tourists: back to the bars, the temples.. massage parlors.

Edited June 4, 2014 by WinnieTheKhwai

[thailiketoo]

I do not know enough of Thai politics to express any view at all but please remember that the "clique" you refer were elected by a large majority of the population.

Small majority. A very small majority in actual votes, so this can easily be fixed.

How many votes did the winner get? How many votes did 2nd place get?

Yingluck 15,744,190 Other party 11,433,762 Percentage 48.41% to 35.15%

So Winnie you lied. It was more than 4 million votes 8%. Why did you lie Winnie?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011

Edited June 4, 2014 by thailiketoo

[WinnieTheKhwai]

^ Right. 48% versus 35%. That's totally fixable. Especially since the goal is to balance it to the point that you get weaker multi-party governments again, the goal is not to completely swing it around.

So just some changes in the way elections are held and votes are counted would go a long way.

And there is always a plan B, which would be some carrots & sticks for factions within PTP that can be pried away in the same way that Newin's party was bought in 2008.

All of the above doesn't even require the Democrat party to get their act together. If they can also re-establish themselves as a parliamentary political party with a positive vision and agenda (I.e. anything other than saying 'nyet' to elections and cheerleading military rule / appointed 'people council' rule) then it'll be even easier to break the Red/PTP stranglehold.

And at the end of the day, elected government (no matter which party) will likely be made to understand very clearly what to do. In the past it may have been limited to what not to do. Like don't meddle in the military, or military budgets. And not bringing Thaksin back even though the full PTP electorate was screaming for it. No can do. But that's just the 'dont's, and government so far seems to not have been coached about the 'do's. Chances are the military will be a good influence there, too, which should result the very large part of the population in the South, Bangkok and other milddle-class/urban centers to feel included again and catered to. Just not sure if they'll do that behind the scenes, or that they plan to actually formalize some sort of role for an appointed advisory body to provide guidance.

And then there will be peace. No more protracted street protests by one side or the other.

Edited June 4, 2014 by WinnieTheKhwai

[cmsally]

I think you might be overestimating how easy it would be to squeeze the genie back into the bottle!

The genie has been out for a while and eaten a few too many big macs and other goodies on offer.

The genie might be a little large and cumbersome when it comes to trying to squeeze it back again.

[thailiketoo]

^ Right. 48% versus 35%. That's totally fixable. Especially since the goal is to balance it to the point that you get weaker multi-party governments again, the goal is not to completely swing it around.

So just some changes in the way elections are held and votes are counted would go a long way.

And there is always a plan B, which would be some carrots & sticks for factions within PTP that can be pried away in the same way that Newin's party was bought in 2008. (For reference on Wikipedia: "The defection of the powerful Friends of Newin Group came about due to the alleged coercion by Army Commander General Anupong Paochinda.")

All of the above doesn't even require the Democrat party to get their act together. If they can re-establish themselves as a parliamentary political party with a positive vision and agenda (I.e. anything other than saying 'nyet' to elections and cheerleading military rule / appointed 'people council' rule) then it'll be easier, still.

You wrote, "Small majority. A very small majority in actual votes, so this can easily be fixed." 48% to 35% is an overwhelming majority and was confirmed by all of the exit polls, not a small minority.

265 seats to 159 seats is an overwhelming majority, not a small minority.

Why did you lie? Simple question. 265 seats to 159 seats or 15,744,190 to 11,433,762 votes is not a small majority.

1 or 2% at the outside would be a small majority. 8% of the votes or 106 more seats than the closest rival is not a small percent it is a landslide. Why did you lie? Do you not know the difference between a small percent and a landslide?

[northernjohn]

^ Right. 48% versus 35%. That's totally fixable. Especially since the goal is to balance it to the point that you get weaker multi-party governments again, the goal is not to completely swing it around.

So just some changes in the way elections are held and votes are counted would go a long way.

And there is always a plan B, which would be some carrots & sticks for factions within PTP that can be pried away in the same way that Newin's party was bought in 2008. (For reference on Wikipedia: "The defection of the powerful Friends of Newin Group came about due to the alleged coercion by Army Commander General Anupong Paochinda.")

All of the above doesn't even require the Democrat party to get their act together. If they can re-establish themselves as a parliamentary political party with a positive vision and agenda (I.e. anything other than saying 'nyet' to elections and cheerleading military rule / appointed 'people council' rule) then it'll be easier, still.

You wrote, "Small majority. A very small majority in actual votes, so this can easily be fixed." 48% to 35% is an overwhelming majority and was confirmed by all of the exit polls, not a small minority.

265 seats to 159 seats is an overwhelming majority, not a small minority.

Why did you lie? Simple question. 265 seats to 159 seats or 15,744,190 to 11,433,762 votes is not a small majority.

1 or 2% at the outside would be a small majority. 8% of the votes or 106 more seats than the closest rival is not a small percent it is a landslide. Why did you lie? Do you not know the difference between a small percent and a landslide?

You are tilting at windmills. The final percentages were 48% for the PTP and 52% against them.

That translates to a 4% difference in votes. It was in favor of no Thaksin. Put you just keep on jousting Don

As for the PTP it was a larger percentage over the Democrats. But the democrats were not the only party with candidates.

Tilt on and when you are all worn out it will still be 52% the majority of the voters did not want Thaksin or Yingluck. don't forget to stop and drink water you could get dehydrated on your endless journey.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

^ Right. 48% versus 35%. That's totally fixable. Especially since the goal is to balance it to the point that you get weaker multi-party governments again, the goal is not to completely swing it around.

You wrote, "Small majority. A very small majority in actual votes, so this can easily be fixed." 48% to 35% is an overwhelming majority and was confirmed by all of the exit polls, not a small minority.

265 seats to 159 seats is an overwhelming majority, not a small minority.

Why did you lie? Simple question. 265 seats to 159 seats or 15,744,190 to 11,433,762 votes is not a small majority.

From memory I thought it was actually a smaller difference. I was confused with the party list vote, which was a lot closer.

But overall you're right that it's a considerable gap. (And it wasn't a lie, which would be to intentionally deceive. I don't have a dog in this one, just observing what goes on. And as it turns out such as with this gap, sometimes observing/remembering inaccurately. )

I still think it can be tweaked/rigged to make it more likely that parties-other-than PTP will get their turn at the trough, which should reduce the chance of stifling protracted protests, election boycotts and long stalemates.

You are tilting at windmills. The final percentages were 48% for the PTP and 52% against them.

That translates to a 4% difference in votes. It was in favor of no Thaksin. Put you just keep on jousting

Tilt on and when you are all worn out it will still be 52% the majority of the voters did not want Thaksin or Yingluck.

That's an interesting point of view, but you're still playing 'democracy'. You're presenting election results in terms of what voters want or don't want; that's a democratic model. But it's time to catch up, because since the coup were past that model; it's completely irrelevant who voters may or may not have wanted, and if a vote for <small party X> constitutes a vote against someone or not.

It no longer matters: the powers that be will get another crack at writing a constitution / election process, and any previous percentages are no longer relevant.

Edited June 4, 2014 by WinnieTheKhwai

[thailiketoo]

^ Right. 48% versus 35%. That's totally fixable. Especially since the goal is to balance it to the point that you get weaker multi-party governments again, the goal is not to completely swing it around.

So just some changes in the way elections are held and votes are counted would go a long way.

And there is always a plan B, which would be some carrots & sticks for factions within PTP that can be pried away in the same way that Newin's party was bought in 2008. (For reference on Wikipedia: "The defection of the powerful Friends of Newin Group came about due to the alleged coercion by Army Commander General Anupong Paochinda.")

All of the above doesn't even require the Democrat party to get their act together. If they can re-establish themselves as a parliamentary political party with a positive vision and agenda (I.e. anything other than saying 'nyet' to elections and cheerleading military rule / appointed 'people council' rule) then it'll be easier, still.

You wrote, "Small majority. A very small majority in actual votes, so this can easily be fixed." 48% to 35% is an overwhelming majority and was confirmed by all of the exit polls, not a small minority.

265 seats to 159 seats is an overwhelming majority, not a small minority.

Why did you lie? Simple question. 265 seats to 159 seats or 15,744,190 to 11,433,762 votes is not a small majority.

1 or 2% at the outside would be a small majority. 8% of the votes or 106 more seats than the closest rival is not a small percent it is a landslide. Why did you lie? Do you not know the difference between a small percent and a landslide?

You are tilting at windmills. The final percentages were 48% for the PTP and 52% against them.

That translates to a 4% difference in votes. It was in favor of no Thaksin. Put you just keep on jousting Don

As for the PTP it was a larger percentage over the Democrats. But the democrats were not the only party with candidates.

Tilt on and when you are all worn out it will still be 52% the majority of the voters did not want Thaksin or Yingluck. don't forget to stop and drink water you could get dehydrated on your endless journey.

Thai General Election 2011, Yingluck 15,744,190 Other party 11,433,762 Percentage 48.41% to 35.15%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011

Northern John why are you lying too? You do know how elections are determined. A grade school child knows that.

If you can provide any evidence that what I have posted is a lie go ahead.

With a turnout of 75.03%, populist Pheu Thai Party won a majority with 265 seats. Its leader Yingluck Shinawatra became the first female prime minister in the history of Thailand. The Democrat Party therefore became the main opposition party with a total of 159 seats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011

You are in violation of Thai Visa rules posing false information. 2011 PTP won he election by a wide margin. You lying and trying to confuse the issue while I on the other hand have presented solid evidence to a recognized fact. There is not room for debate. One of us is lying. Yingluck won a legal election by a wide margin.

Edited June 4, 2014 by thailiketoo

[WinnieTheKhwai]

^ All of that is correct. You seem awfully agitated though.

I think what they're trying to fix is the regional political division in Thailand, with one side, the minority side, never having a chance to feel they're represented. (The division is primarily regional, and secondly along class/income lines)

Remember what Democracy easily turns into: Two wolves and a chicken voting on what's for dinner.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

You are tilting at windmills. The final percentages were 48% for the PTP and 52% against them.

That translates to a 4% difference in votes. It was in favor of no Thaksin. Put you just keep on jousting Don

I thought when you vote you were supposed to vote for the party you like.

In order for your idea to work every voting form would need a "no suitable applicant" box for the voter to tick.

Not many western democracies (as in NONE) would dare provide such a voting option on their ballot forms.

[Eliot Rosewater]

The World Bank says that the Bangkok elite have traditionally received 14 times more in services from Thailand's revenue than those in the North,...thus, the Bangkok elite (aka PDRC) may feel better if their votes were also 14 to one vote of those stupid Northerners looking for equality among all Thai people. And yes,...all politicians from the North with populous ideas for the Northern Thai should be Constitutionally banned.

Perhaps that should bring back tourism to pre-Suthep protest levels,...along with an unelected People's Council of Bangkok elite to run the Country.

Equality is not the problem. In the voting system all are equal. One person one vote. The problem is in the understanding of the consequences of your vote.

The people in the north for the most part do not realize that the money they get paid for their vote and the promises they get will lead to nothing but turmoil. They had the money in their hand for their votes in the last election they had the promise of a golden era for them and they failed to realize it was just smoke and mirrors they had. Look at the results of their choices.

If they had been able to understand the consequences as many people did they would not have choose the people they did.

Democracy in principal is a great thing to have but when it is used as a tool to serve just the rulers it is not a great thing. We now have a military coup running the country. This is not a Democracy it how ever is far better than what we had which was a minority of the population 48% dictating to 52% of the population. With the 48% coming up on the short end of the stick. The 52% can afford the cost of living and the rise in household debt far better than the 48% can.

With the military junta running the country all are being called on the carpet and asked to explain their actions. No longer do we have one man living in Dubai dictating to us through his hired underlings that the 48% elected. The people on all sides of the question are being called in and having their part in the mess examined.

In a about a year give or take there will be another election. This time it will not be full of criminals who are out of jail on bail. People seeking office because if they are in office they can not be charged with there crimes. There will be a whole lot of new faces and the people will be given a choice between people who are far more honest than they have now and more interested in the welfare of Thailand. There will be no more marches on the government howling for the money they promised to pay them if elected.

The people will be given a new chance. Thaksin will no longer control the government. Hopefully the people will have learned by then that smoke and mirrors has not given them any thing in the past and it will not give them any thing in the future. They will realize that in the past 14 years Thaksin has ruled for 9 of them and they are still poor.

Although I appreciate your post, I disagree with the rumors of "cash in hand" vote buying. I've seen no proof of such. I have seen documents of Thaksin getting moneies to communities for their needs, and those communities empowered to disperse it,...to the chagrin of the Bangkok elite who feel the monies, which normally went to them, were now going to the North. By the way....although I spent countless hours trying to understand Suthep, I have never heard an accurate thing from his mouth. If Yingluck was Thaksin's puppet, show me some proof,...not Gobbelsian rhetoric.

However, your points on majority and minority is very important here, and around the World, as people have become more and more divisive, usually by way of media-tion from those seeking to cash-in on hate...ie...Fox News vs NBC News.

As I under it,...in the past 8 years, a land-slide elected Thai government has been destroyed by an unhappy Minority,...in this case, a Minority that controls the Court's and has support of the Military.

My primary Nationality is American,...and in America it is ridiculous how many people believe the County there is under Majority Rule. The fact however is this....America used to be (prior to the Christian take-over in the 1950's) one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. In a Constitutional Democracy the majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion.

Although in America, the Minority does all they can to obstruct the likes of the Obama Administration,...that is, at the expense of regular American's,...in Thailand they go further to destroy Democracy. Perhaps "hate" should be a crime in the Constitution,...if that was so in Thailand, the gangster Suthep would have not made it past last August, and I'd be looking forward to my first ride on High Speed Rail.

You are correct about America not being under Majority rule.

Then again America is not a Democracy it is a Republic. Remember the pledge of allegiance.

" I have seen documents of Thaksin getting moneies to communities for their needs, and those communities empowered to disperse it,..."

but I notice you don't mention what happened to that money. Was he getting money from them or giving money to them. LOL

This is off topic, but I keep seeing the statement "America is not a Democracy it is a Republic." Well:

re·pub·lic

riˈpəblik/

noun

noun: republic; plural noun: republics

• a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

• archaic

  a group with a certain equality between its members.

Ok, maybe not exactly the same thing, but...

Perhaps someone can explain why a democracy is not a republic.

In a true democracy, if the majority decided to kill the minority then that would be right.

That is why a pure democracy does not exist

Poly sci 101:)

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[thailiketoo]

Excuse me but some of you folks are just wacky. The topic is, Decline in tourist arrivals not Poly sci 101. The average college freshman would be laughing at most of the statements of late here. Democracy, Republic and Thailand's parliamentary democracy. Gee just google. Why argue about political definitions that are covered in high school civics class.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

Excuse me but some of you folks are just wacky. The topic is, Decline in tourist arrivals not Poly sci 101. The average college freshman would be laughing at most of the statements of late here. Democracy, Republic and Thailand's parliamentary democracy. Gee just google. Why argue about political definitions that are covered in high school civics class.

I think you need to remember many of the foreigners living in Thailand are senile, constantly drunk, or just plain crazy.

College freshmen have only just attained the 'constantly drunk' stage of their personal development.

[Thailand]

Are you proposing that Thailand should reject the democratic principle of one person, one vote? I do not know enough of Thai politics to express any view at all but please remember that the "clique" you refer were elected by a large majority of the population.

I think they just did. Unless there was a vote I missed putting the military in power?

[heybruce]

Are you proposing that Thailand should reject the democratic principle of one person, one vote? I do not know enough of Thai politics to express any view at all but please remember that the "clique" you refer were elected by a large majority of the population.

I think they just did. Unless there was a vote I missed putting the military in power?

No vote yet, but since I keep reading that the majority of Thai people support the coup the military should hold a referendum--something simple where people are given a choice between continued military rule or an immediate return to democracy. If it's true the majority support the coup the military should have no trouble winning.

[Thailand]

Are you proposing that Thailand should reject the democratic principle of one person, one vote? I do not know enough of Thai politics to express any view at all but please remember that the "clique" you refer were elected by a large majority of the population.

I think they just did. Unless there was a vote I missed putting the military in power?

No vote yet, but since I keep reading that the majority of Thai people support the coup the military should hold a referendum--something simple where people are given a choice between continued military rule or an immediate return to democracy. If it's true the majority support the coup the military should have no trouble winning.

I don't think choice is an option at the moment?

[eyecatcher]

Maybe we should have a survey as to which nationalities "get" sarcasm.

The Brits created sarcasm, so you have to be a Brit or closely related, like some Aussies.

Narrowing down even the southern English are slow to pick up on it.

It is unique and understood by so few. All my posts have sarcasm there that's why they fall on deaf ears, but its ok I make allowances as does everyone who starts a sentence "with respect"

Keep on topic guys

[pom66]

Hi we arrived yesterday at 2pm and the plane was totally full from Bangkok

my travel insurance from the uk informed me that it is valid as long as the gov warnings don't advise against travel

[amexpat]

Maybe we should have a survey as to which nationalities "get" sarcasm.

The Brits created sarcasm, so you have to be a Brit or closely related, like some Aussies.

Narrowing down even the southern English are slow to pick up on it.

It is unique and understood by so few. All my posts have sarcasm there that's why they fall on deaf ears, but its ok I make allowances as does everyone who starts a sentence "with respect"

Keep on topic guys

Absolutely have to be British. You certainly won't find any sarcasm or satire on American tv, or movies, or music. None at all.

Not even in books. Mark Twain would never stand for it.

[Ulysses G.]

“If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.”

-Mark Twain