Junta wants reforms done quickly

[heybruce]

Bit unlucky remark there, maybe Gen Prayuth is practising to become a politician

The Reuters article also has

"Myanmar's junta stepped aside in 2011 after nearly five decades of repressive rule and a nominally civilian government full of former military people has pushed through political reforms, freeing hundreds of political prisoners and unmuzzling the press."

Now the 'confirmed' plan calls for new general elections September/October 2015. That leaves the NCPO only 15 months total to equal the Myanmar nearly five decades of repressive rule. Five weeks let go by without brutal crackdowns, Bangkok it's normal self, farmers paid. Someone should tell the general some would rather he live up to their expectations

No, I think it's more than an unlucky remark. I think it reveals a mentality that values stability and maintaining a traditional status quo above all else, a mentality in which this thinking is so deeply engrained that it doesn't realize it is out of sync with the rest of the world.

Elections in 15 months, if they occur, will only be meaningful if the constitution results in meaningful democracy. Since the junta considers democracy a source of instability, I assume the constitution will only allow a veneer of democracy. I suspect the elections will be for positions in impotent talk-shops, with all real power held behind the scenes. Of course if the elected talk-shops actually attempt to accomplish something, the military will be there ready to stage another coup.

Why is it that I suspect that what you assume is of course not much more than crystal ball gazing?

Might it be because of your interesting way of using those very words 'assume', 'suggest' and 'of course' ?

My assumption about the nature of the constitution the junta will produce is an educated guess--the military greatly restricted democracy in their last constitution and decided the result led to an unstable government (at least that's their justification for the coup). Do you think they will try to increase stability by creating a more democratic government?

My 'of course' statement is based on Thailand's sad history of coups. I didn't use the word 'suggest', where did you find that?

[rubl]

Bit unlucky remark there, maybe Gen Prayuth is practising to become a politician

The Reuters article also has

"Myanmar's junta stepped aside in 2011 after nearly five decades of repressive rule and a nominally civilian government full of former military people has pushed through political reforms, freeing hundreds of political prisoners and unmuzzling the press."

Now the 'confirmed' plan calls for new general elections September/October 2015. That leaves the NCPO only 15 months total to equal the Myanmar nearly five decades of repressive rule. Five weeks let go by without brutal crackdowns, Bangkok it's normal self, farmers paid. Someone should tell the general some would rather he live up to their expectations

No, I think it's more than an unlucky remark. I think it reveals a mentality that values stability and maintaining a traditional status quo above all else, a mentality in which this thinking is so deeply engrained that it doesn't realize it is out of sync with the rest of the world.

Elections in 15 months, if they occur, will only be meaningful if the constitution results in meaningful democracy. Since the junta considers democracy a source of instability, I assume the constitution will only allow a veneer of democracy. I suspect the elections will be for positions in impotent talk-shops, with all real power held behind the scenes. Of course if the elected talk-shops actually attempt to accomplish something, the military will be there ready to stage another coup.

Why is it that I suspect that what you assume is of course not much more than crystal ball gazing?

Might it be because of your interesting way of using those very words 'assume', 'suggest' and 'of course' ?

My assumption about the nature of the constitution the junta will produce is an educated guess--the military greatly restricted democracy in their last constitution and decided the result led to an unstable government (at least that's their justification for the coup). Do you think they will try to increase stability by creating a more democratic government?

My 'of course' statement is based on Thailand's sad history of coups. I didn't use the word 'suggest', where did you find that?

Excuses, the 'suggest' should have been 'suspect' of course.

- assumption an 'educated guess'

- the last,constitution (i.e. the 2007 version) was not much different from the 1997 version with some clarifications.

- the 'unstable' government of Ms. Yingluck had the opportunity to do good for the Nation, but was too pre-occupied with helping big brother and themselves

- the justification of the coup was primarily the total mess the politicians made of things and the seven months of violence mainly at anti-government protesters

- 'of course' you compare coups by the word 'coup' only it would seem.

May I assume that the total mess has lead to an NCPO really cleaning up, with mostly support of the Thai population. A Tjhai population growing almost fond of the NCPO and requesting it tackles this issue and that issue, almost as if implicitly accepting that they ask the NCPO to stay just a little bit longer?

May I assume that a larger part of the Thai population is really fed up with politics and wants issues approached and solved in a consistent manner ?

In other words, "Junta wants reforms done quickly" to be able to return to the barracks as soon as possible in order to no longer annoy foreign posters on TVF.

Edited July 9, 2014 by rubl

[englishoak]

Thailand will be doomed to repeat coups and stay second tier until it realises the military is there to serve the people and let them make the mistakes and fix them properly even if it means taking decades, not control them.

As to the population being fed up with politics thats a flaw in itself and exactly what the establishment wants, only an informed and involved public that cares can effect real change.

Thailand culture is far too used to deferring its future and decisions to the few and has no clue as to the real power people have... not surprisingly.

This is how it ended up with PTP in the first place, by being aware of power voting but no political interest as to what was being promised was impossible to deliver.

It can be summed up in one word or three

Education, education, education.

[heybruce]

No, I think it's more than an unlucky remark. I think it reveals a mentality that values stability and maintaining a traditional status quo above all else, a mentality in which this thinking is so deeply engrained that it doesn't realize it is out of sync with the rest of the world.

Elections in 15 months, if they occur, will only be meaningful if the constitution results in meaningful democracy. Since the junta considers democracy a source of instability, I assume the constitution will only allow a veneer of democracy. I suspect the elections will be for positions in impotent talk-shops, with all real power held behind the scenes. Of course if the elected talk-shops actually attempt to accomplish something, the military will be there ready to stage another coup.

Why is it that I suspect that what you assume is of course not much more than crystal ball gazing?

Might it be because of your interesting way of using those very words 'assume', 'suggest' and 'of course' ?

My assumption about the nature of the constitution the junta will produce is an educated guess--the military greatly restricted democracy in their last constitution and decided the result led to an unstable government (at least that's their justification for the coup). Do you think they will try to increase stability by creating a more democratic government?

My 'of course' statement is based on Thailand's sad history of coups. I didn't use the word 'suggest', where did you find that?

Excuses, the 'suggest' should have been 'suspect' of course.

- assumption an 'educated guess'

- the last,constitution (i.e. the 2007 version) was not much different from the 1997 version with some clarifications.

- the 'unstable' government of Ms. Yingluck had the opportunity to do good for the Nation, but was too pre-occupied with helping big brother and themselves

- the justification of the coup was primarily the total mess the politicians made of things and the seven months of violence mainly at anti-government protesters

- 'of course' you compare coups by the word 'coup' only it would seem.

May I assume that the total mess has lead to an NCPO really cleaning up, with mostly support of the Thai population. A Tjhai population growing almost fond of the NCPO and requesting it tackles this issue and that issue, almost as if implicitly accepting that they ask the NCPO to stay just a little bit longer?

May I assume that a larger part of the Thai population is really fed up with politics and wants issues approached and solved in a consistent manner ?

In other words, "Junta wants reforms done quickly" to be able to return to the barracks as soon as possible in order to no longer annoy foreign posters on TVF.

You are not challenging my assumption that the new constitution will be significantly less democratic than the last constitution, which was less democratic than the 1997 constitution. My new assumption is that you are conceding the point. On the subject of constitutions and other statements of yours:

"the last,constitution (i.e. the 2007 version) was not much different from the 1997 version with some clarifications."

The 2007 constitution changed the Senate from fully elected to half appointed. That alone was a significant difference, but wasn't the only one.

"the 'unstable' government of Ms. Yingluck had the opportunity to do good for the Nation, but was too pre-occupied with helping big brother and themselves"

The correct response to this was an election; the Thai people should have been allowed to decide if they wanted the PTP to continue in government. If the majority decided that's what they wanted, then the PTP should have remained. That's how democracy works.

"the justification of the coup was primarily the total mess the politicians made of things and the seven months of violence mainly at anti-government protesters"

The protests greatly exceeded the bounds of legal, peaceful protest, and the violence was not limited to the anti-protest side. These protests, and the resulting violence, only continued because the protesters wanted a coup and the military would not rule one out. If the military had stated that there would be no coup the protests would have quickly fizzled and the protest related violence would have ended. Did you not notice that the military tolerated six months of violence but then staged a coup two weeks after the courts declined to remove the PTP from government?

"May I assume that the total mess has lead to an NCPO really cleaning up, with mostly support of the Thai population. A Tjhai population growing almost fond of the NCPO and requesting it tackles this issue and that issue, almost as if implicitly accepting that they ask the NCPO to stay just a little bit longer?

May I assume that a larger part of the Thai population is really fed up with politics and wants issues approached and solved in a consistent manner ?"

You may assume that, but you have no credible evidence to support the assumption. The junta makes no secret of the fact that it is censoring the press and on the look-out for criticism. Under these circumstances the press is only printing feel-good stories about the junta's actions. If the junta were truly confident about their popularity they wouldn't have banned talk of elections.

"In other words, "Junta wants reforms done quickly" to be able to return to the barracks as soon as possible in order to no longer annoy foreign posters on TVF."

The troops will go back to the barracks. The generals hope the constitution they are writing will limit democracy enough to prevent any change to the established order, but will remain in the background of government ready to stage another coup if they don't like the government the people elect. The military's mentality is illustrated by the news link I provided earlier: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/04/thailand-politics-idUSL4N0PE17F20140704

Edited July 10, 2014 by heybruce

[rubl]

My assumption about the nature of the constitution the junta will produce is an educated guess--the military greatly restricted democracy in their last constitution and decided the result led to an unstable government (at least that's their justification for the coup). Do you think they will try to increase stability by creating a more democratic government?

My 'of course' statement is based on Thailand's sad history of coups. I didn't use the word 'suggest', where did you find that?

Excuses, the 'suggest' should have been 'suspect' of course.

- assumption an 'educated guess'

- the last,constitution (i.e. the 2007 version) was not much different from the 1997 version with some clarifications.

- the 'unstable' government of Ms. Yingluck had the opportunity to do good for the Nation, but was too pre-occupied with helping big brother and themselves

- the justification of the coup was primarily the total mess the politicians made of things and the seven months of violence mainly at anti-government protesters

- 'of course' you compare coups by the word 'coup' only it would seem.

May I assume that the total mess has lead to an NCPO really cleaning up, with mostly support of the Thai population. A Tjhai population growing almost fond of the NCPO and requesting it tackles this issue and that issue, almost as if implicitly accepting that they ask the NCPO to stay just a little bit longer?

May I assume that a larger part of the Thai population is really fed up with politics and wants issues approached and solved in a consistent manner ?

In other words, "Junta wants reforms done quickly" to be able to return to the barracks as soon as possible in order to no longer annoy foreign posters on TVF.

You are not challenging my assumption that the new constitution will be significantly less democratic than the last constitution, which was less democratic than the 1997 constitution. My new assumption is that you are conceding the point. On the subject of constitutions and other statements of yours:

"the last,constitution (i.e. the 2007 version) was not much different from the 1997 version with some clarifications."

The 2007 constitution changed the Senate from fully elected to half appointed. That alone was a significant difference, but wasn't the only one.

"the 'unstable' government of Ms. Yingluck had the opportunity to do good for the Nation, but was too pre-occupied with helping big brother and themselves"

The correct response to this was an election; the Thai people should have been allowed to decide if they wanted the PTP to continue in government. If the majority decided that's what they wanted, then the PTP should have remained. That's how democracy works.

"the justification of the coup was primarily the total mess the politicians made of things and the seven months of violence mainly at anti-government protesters"

The protests greatly exceeded the bounds of legal, peaceful protest, and the violence was not limited to the anti-protest side. These protests, and the resulting violence, only continued because the protesters wanted a coup and the military would not rule one out. If the military had stated that there would be no coup the protests would have quickly fizzled and the protest related violence would have ended. Did you not notice that the military tolerated six months of violence but then staged a coup two weeks after the courts declined to remove the PTP from government?

"May I assume that the total mess has lead to an NCPO really cleaning up, with mostly support of the Thai population. A Tjhai population growing almost fond of the NCPO and requesting it tackles this issue and that issue, almost as if implicitly accepting that they ask the NCPO to stay just a little bit longer?

May I assume that a larger part of the Thai population is really fed up with politics and wants issues approached and solved in a consistent manner ?"

You may assume that, but you have no credible evidence to support the assumption. The junta makes no secret of the fact that it is censoring the press and on the look-out for criticism. Under these circumstances the press is only printing feel-good stories about the junta's actions. If the junta were truly confident about their popularity they wouldn't have banned talk of elections.

"In other words, "Junta wants reforms done quickly" to be able to return to the barracks as soon as possible in order to no longer annoy foreign posters on TVF."

The troops will go back to the barracks. The generals hope the constitution they are writing will limit democracy enough to prevent any change to the established order, but will remain in the background of government ready to stage another coup if they don't like the government the people elect. The military's mentality is illustrated by the news link I provided earlier: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/04/thailand-politics-idUSL4N0PE17F20140704

Where you go wrong, IMHO that is, is in assuming we had a democratic system and a functioning democracy in Thailand. Now for a moment assume that that is not correct. Most of your remarks are now invalidated as no longer based on those assumptions.

Furthermore you're still full of stating what others will do as if you're in possession of a fully functioning crystal ball.

PS for some long weekend reading

"Deconstructing Thailand's (New) Eighteenth Constitution"

http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html

Edited July 10, 2014 by rubl

[heybruce]

My assumption about the nature of the constitution the junta will produce is an educated guess--the military greatly restricted democracy in their last constitution and decided the result led to an unstable government (at least that's their justification for the coup). Do you think they will try to increase stability by creating a more democratic government?

My 'of course' statement is based on Thailand's sad history of coups. I didn't use the word 'suggest', where did you find that?

Excuses, the 'suggest' should have been 'suspect' of course.

- assumption an 'educated guess'

- the last,constitution (i.e. the 2007 version) was not much different from the 1997 version with some clarifications.

- the 'unstable' government of Ms. Yingluck had the opportunity to do good for the Nation, but was too pre-occupied with helping big brother and themselves

- the justification of the coup was primarily the total mess the politicians made of things and the seven months of violence mainly at anti-government protesters

- 'of course' you compare coups by the word 'coup' only it would seem.

May I assume that the total mess has lead to an NCPO really cleaning up, with mostly support of the Thai population. A Tjhai population growing almost fond of the NCPO and requesting it tackles this issue and that issue, almost as if implicitly accepting that they ask the NCPO to stay just a little bit longer?

May I assume that a larger part of the Thai population is really fed up with politics and wants issues approached and solved in a consistent manner ?

In other words, "Junta wants reforms done quickly" to be able to return to the barracks as soon as possible in order to no longer annoy foreign posters on TVF.

You are not challenging my assumption that the new constitution will be significantly less democratic than the last constitution, which was less democratic than the 1997 constitution. My new assumption is that you are conceding the point. On the subject of constitutions and other statements of yours:

"the last,constitution (i.e. the 2007 version) was not much different from the 1997 version with some clarifications."

The 2007 constitution changed the Senate from fully elected to half appointed. That alone was a significant difference, but wasn't the only one.

"the 'unstable' government of Ms. Yingluck had the opportunity to do good for the Nation, but was too pre-occupied with helping big brother and themselves"

The correct response to this was an election; the Thai people should have been allowed to decide if they wanted the PTP to continue in government. If the majority decided that's what they wanted, then the PTP should have remained. That's how democracy works.

"the justification of the coup was primarily the total mess the politicians made of things and the seven months of violence mainly at anti-government protesters"

The protests greatly exceeded the bounds of legal, peaceful protest, and the violence was not limited to the anti-protest side. These protests, and the resulting violence, only continued because the protesters wanted a coup and the military would not rule one out. If the military had stated that there would be no coup the protests would have quickly fizzled and the protest related violence would have ended. Did you not notice that the military tolerated six months of violence but then staged a coup two weeks after the courts declined to remove the PTP from government?

"May I assume that the total mess has lead to an NCPO really cleaning up, with mostly support of the Thai population. A Tjhai population growing almost fond of the NCPO and requesting it tackles this issue and that issue, almost as if implicitly accepting that they ask the NCPO to stay just a little bit longer?

May I assume that a larger part of the Thai population is really fed up with politics and wants issues approached and solved in a consistent manner ?"

You may assume that, but you have no credible evidence to support the assumption. The junta makes no secret of the fact that it is censoring the press and on the look-out for criticism. Under these circumstances the press is only printing feel-good stories about the junta's actions. If the junta were truly confident about their popularity they wouldn't have banned talk of elections.

"In other words, "Junta wants reforms done quickly" to be able to return to the barracks as soon as possible in order to no longer annoy foreign posters on TVF."

The troops will go back to the barracks. The generals hope the constitution they are writing will limit democracy enough to prevent any change to the established order, but will remain in the background of government ready to stage another coup if they don't like the government the people elect. The military's mentality is illustrated by the news link I provided earlier: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/04/thailand-politics-idUSL4N0PE17F20140704

Where you go wrong, IMHO that is, is in assuming we had a democratic system and a functioning democracy in Thailand. Now for a moment assume that that is not correct. Most of your remarks are now invalidated as no longer based on those assumptions.

Furthermore you're still full of stating what others will do as if you're in possession of a fully functioning crystal ball.

PS for some long weekend reading

"Deconstructing Thailand's (New) Eighteenth Constitution"

http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html

Thailand had a government that was elected in monitored elections that were deemed legitimate, and when faced with significant protests called for more elections. Like it or not, it was a democratic government. It was flawed, but there are no perfect democracies. It was toppled in an unnecessary coup and replaced with a military junta that is definitely not democratic. Do you think retreating from democracy will somehow make the government better?

You keep bringing up crystal balls to avoid addressing the obvious, the military doesn't trust democracy and will make the next constitution even less democratic than the last one. Do you doubt this?

I've been through the link already. Are you trying to divert attention from the fact that by making the Senate half appointed the 2007 constitution is less democratic than its predecessor?

[rubl]

Where you go wrong, IMHO that is, is in assuming we had a democratic system and a functioning democracy in Thailand. Now for a moment assume that that is not correct. Most of your remarks are now invalidated as no longer based on those assumptions.

Furthermore you're still full of stating what others will do as if you're in possession of a fully functioning crystal ball.

PS for some long weekend reading

"Deconstructing Thailand's (New) Eighteenth Constitution"

http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html

Thailand had a government that was elected in monitored elections that were deemed legitimate, and when faced with significant protests called for more elections. Like it or not, it was a democratic government. It was flawed, but there are no perfect democracies. It was toppled in an unnecessary coup and replaced with a military junta that is definitely not democratic. Do you think retreating from democracy will somehow make the government better?

You keep bringing up crystal balls to avoid addressing the obvious, the military doesn't trust democracy and will make the next constitution even less democratic than the last one. Do you doubt this?

I've been through the link already. Are you trying to divert attention from the fact that by making the Senate half appointed the 2007 constitution is less democratic than its predecessor?

'of course' it's clear you are against the coup. Purely out of principle, nothing to do with a possible favorable attitude towards the Yingluck government, of course. You also keep on suggesting, suspecting the worst and are confident enough to ask confirmation of your 'fears'. No doubts there.

Well, pragmatically, we had a coup and try to make the best of it, including making reforms which should make politicians accountable for their actions, make vote buying through ridiculous election promises impossible, set the first steps in education reforms to make people more self conscious, self reliant, aware of rights and duties. Etc., etc.

PS look in the mirror and tell yourself not to try to divert.

[ginjag]

"go to the people again ???"

Yes! It's their country, let them choose who is in charge. Also, let them decide what kind of government they want by letting them choose between proposed constitutions drafted by groups other than the military.

The PTP was flawed, but it was certainly more democratic than a military government.

So you still say go to the people, and what give them PTP again ??? it went against the laws of Thailand.

So let the Thai people choose between proposed constitutions, they have no idea, this is why all these reforms will have to be sorted FOR the Thai people.

Your last sentence --the first 4 words were correct--I agree, the rest of the sentence is not correct, PTP were not democratic, we already have seen the general has not been elected but proved that you do not have to be elected to be democratic.

If the people of Thailand choose the PTP again, then yes, let the PTP lead the government. "It went against all the laws of Thailand." is a ridiculous exaggeration.

Yes, let the Thai people choose the new constitution. Do you think a military that makes it clear it doesn't serve the people of Thailand, that has a long history of coups, and that thinks the 1988 coup in Myanmar was necessary is qualified to write the constitution?

Explain this too me: "we already have seen the general has not been elected but proved that you do not have to be elected to be democratic." Are you saying the junta is democratic?

You seam to have this strange idea that when democratically elected it therefore gives the elected government the right to rule UN democratically.

List the scams the government were involved in ??

When a government governs undemocratically, (this is being in fact unfolding in the courts) it shall be removed, no elections as it would be banned for ever from any involvement.

The only reason governments get another chance is when they fall out of favour with the electorate/etc.

You speak about the history of coup's, and how wrong they are, but here we have Thaksin running a government from his runaway hideaway, you approve ?? Hence the reason no elections for PTP.

How does the people have their say on the constitution, with PTP re writing it when back in power ??? never in a million years.

[heybruce]

Where you go wrong, IMHO that is, is in assuming we had a democratic system and a functioning democracy in Thailand. Now for a moment assume that that is not correct. Most of your remarks are now invalidated as no longer based on those assumptions.

Furthermore you're still full of stating what others will do as if you're in possession of a fully functioning crystal ball.

PS for some long weekend reading

"Deconstructing Thailand's (New) Eighteenth Constitution"

http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html

Thailand had a government that was elected in monitored elections that were deemed legitimate, and when faced with significant protests called for more elections. Like it or not, it was a democratic government. It was flawed, but there are no perfect democracies. It was toppled in an unnecessary coup and replaced with a military junta that is definitely not democratic. Do you think retreating from democracy will somehow make the government better?

You keep bringing up crystal balls to avoid addressing the obvious, the military doesn't trust democracy and will make the next constitution even less democratic than the last one. Do you doubt this?

I've been through the link already. Are you trying to divert attention from the fact that by making the Senate half appointed the 2007 constitution is less democratic than its predecessor?

'of course' it's clear you are against the coup. Purely out of principle, nothing to do with a possible favorable attitude towards the Yingluck government, of course. You also keep on suggesting, suspecting the worst and are confident enough to ask confirmation of your 'fears'. No doubts there.

Well, pragmatically, we had a coup and try to make the best of it, including making reforms which should make politicians accountable for their actions, make vote buying through ridiculous election promises impossible, set the first steps in education reforms to make people more self conscious, self reliant, aware of rights and duties. Etc., etc.

PS look in the mirror and tell yourself not to try to divert.

Are you giving up on refuting my arguments? Imagine how difficult it would be if I weren't limited by censorship.

Yes, I am opposed to the coup, both as a matter of principal and for pragmatic reasons. Flawed democracies often evolve into better democracies, but only after they have evolved to the point where an elected government can change the constitution without fear of a coup. That's how every functioning democracy I can think of arrived at its current state. Are you from a stable, democratic country? What has its history of military coups been like?

Coups never lead to a better government; if they military leaves voluntarily it is after writing a flawed and self-serving constitution (what do you think happened next door in Burma? or after the last coup in Thailand?). If they abandon government involuntarily it is after demonstrating such incompetence it lead to rebellion. That's the biggest problem with a junta, there is no way to remove it except through rebellion. Start reading objective news stories and histories written outside of Thailand, and take a look at reality.

As I've written before, all "reform" will address the elected offices, none will address the entrenched conflict of interests and opacity in the bureaucracy and military that is the foundation of corruption in this country. Do you think these people will eliminate their privileged, lucrative, "above the law" position in society, or risk a true democracy that might remove it?

[heybruce]

"go to the people again ???"

Yes! It's their country, let them choose who is in charge. Also, let them decide what kind of government they want by letting them choose between proposed constitutions drafted by groups other than the military.

The PTP was flawed, but it was certainly more democratic than a military government.

So you still say go to the people, and what give them PTP again ??? it went against the laws of Thailand.

So let the Thai people choose between proposed constitutions, they have no idea, this is why all these reforms will have to be sorted FOR the Thai people.

Your last sentence --the first 4 words were correct--I agree, the rest of the sentence is not correct, PTP were not democratic, we already have seen the general has not been elected but proved that you do not have to be elected to be democratic.

If the people of Thailand choose the PTP again, then yes, let the PTP lead the government. "It went against all the laws of Thailand." is a ridiculous exaggeration.

Yes, let the Thai people choose the new constitution. Do you think a military that makes it clear it doesn't serve the people of Thailand, that has a long history of coups, and that thinks the 1988 coup in Myanmar was necessary is qualified to write the constitution?

Explain this too me: "we already have seen the general has not been elected but proved that you do not have to be elected to be democratic." Are you saying the junta is democratic?

You seam to have this strange idea that when democratically elected it therefore gives the elected government the right to rule UN democratically.

List the scams the government were involved in ??

When a government governs undemocratically, (this is being in fact unfolding in the courts) it shall be removed, no elections as it would be banned for ever from any involvement.

The only reason governments get another chance is when they fall out of favour with the electorate/etc.

You speak about the history of coup's, and how wrong they are, but here we have Thaksin running a government from his runaway hideaway, you approve ?? Hence the reason no elections for PTP.

How does the people have their say on the constitution, with PTP re writing it when back in power ??? never in a million years.

"The only reason governments get another chance is when they fall out of favour with the electorate/etc."

That's when they should go. Too bad the electorate wasn't given a choice. Allowing the courts to remove the government is a poor second choice, but even that wasn't allowed.

I do agree that when a government rules undemocratically it should be removed. That's why the junta should go.

[rubl]

If the statement "if government rules undemocratically it should be removed." is given as reason why the Junta should go, it gives an implicit acceptance of the Junta as government.

Interesting really, historically speaking that is.

What reforms the Junta and it's taskforces will really come of with is still unclear, but assuming they really ask input from the population in order to apply and incorporate that input, we can only hope the input will be a bit more than just 'we want elections'.

[opalred]

i think army doing good job if run out of money for funding i think shin corp will loan money at good rate

[ginjag]

Just announced Thai elderly to be given 9,000 bht per month, the general has realized their hardship.

[rubl]

Where you go wrong, IMHO that is, is in assuming we had a democratic system and a functioning democracy in Thailand. Now for a moment assume that that is not correct. Most of your remarks are now invalidated as no longer based on those assumptions.

Furthermore you're still full of stating what others will do as if you're in possession of a fully functioning crystal ball.

PS for some long weekend reading

"Deconstructing Thailand's (New) Eighteenth Constitution"

http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html

Thailand had a government that was elected in monitored elections that were deemed legitimate, and when faced with significant protests called for more elections. Like it or not, it was a democratic government. It was flawed, but there are no perfect democracies. It was toppled in an unnecessary coup and replaced with a military junta that is definitely not democratic. Do you think retreating from democracy will somehow make the government better?

You keep bringing up crystal balls to avoid addressing the obvious, the military doesn't trust democracy and will make the next constitution even less democratic than the last one. Do you doubt this?

I've been through the link already. Are you trying to divert attention from the fact that by making the Senate half appointed the 2007 constitution is less democratic than its predecessor?

'of course' it's clear you are against the coup. Purely out of principle, nothing to do with a possible favorable attitude towards the Yingluck government, of course. You also keep on suggesting, suspecting the worst and are confident enough to ask confirmation of your 'fears'. No doubts there.

Well, pragmatically, we had a coup and try to make the best of it, including making reforms which should make politicians accountable for their actions, make vote buying through ridiculous election promises impossible, set the first steps in education reforms to make people more self conscious, self reliant, aware of rights and duties. Etc., etc.

PS look in the mirror and tell yourself not to try to divert.

Are you giving up on refuting my arguments? Imagine how difficult it would be if I weren't limited by censorship.

Yes, I am opposed to the coup, both as a matter of principal and for pragmatic reasons. Flawed democracies often evolve into better democracies, but only after they have evolved to the point where an elected government can change the constitution without fear of a coup. That's how every functioning democracy I can think of arrived at its current state. Are you from a stable, democratic country? What has its history of military coups been like?

Coups never lead to a better government; if they military leaves voluntarily it is after writing a flawed and self-serving constitution (what do you think happened next door in Burma? or after the last coup in Thailand?). If they abandon government involuntarily it is after demonstrating such incompetence it lead to rebellion. That's the biggest problem with a junta, there is no way to remove it except through rebellion. Start reading objective news stories and histories written outside of Thailand, and take a look at reality.

As I've written before, all "reform" will address the elected offices, none will address the entrenched conflict of interests and opacity in the bureaucracy and military that is the foundation of corruption in this country. Do you think these people will eliminate their privileged, lucrative, "above the law" position in society, or risk a true democracy that might remove it?

I just watched Gen. Prayuth on Channel 3, 5, 7, ... ..., so I feel up to it again

The continuous reference to 'objective' news stories seems to ignore that at the moment those tend to concentrate on the acting 'government' whereas similar stories could be written about the previous government. If you want to condemn the Junta for being undemocratic, self-interested, etc., , please be so open minded as to say that the other side with similar backing is not interested in democracy either.

The best chance Thailand seems to have is the NCPO forcing through reforms which the politicians never contemplated or only voiced to be in favour of without doing anything about it. The NCPO may need more pressure from abroad to get the reforms in the 'right' direction, but certainly the input of Thai people is just as important.

The only other feasible alternative seems a 15-year UN occupation to foster the education of the Thai generation which is now in kindergarten.

[ginjag]

Just announced Thai elderly to be given 9,000 bht per month, the general has realized their hardship.

I hope I read this right, 20-30 pm TV.

[heybruce]

Thailand had a government that was elected in monitored elections that were deemed legitimate, and when faced with significant protests called for more elections. Like it or not, it was a democratic government. It was flawed, but there are no perfect democracies. It was toppled in an unnecessary coup and replaced with a military junta that is definitely not democratic. Do you think retreating from democracy will somehow make the government better?

You keep bringing up crystal balls to avoid addressing the obvious, the military doesn't trust democracy and will make the next constitution even less democratic than the last one. Do you doubt this?

I've been through the link already. Are you trying to divert attention from the fact that by making the Senate half appointed the 2007 constitution is less democratic than its predecessor?

'of course' it's clear you are against the coup. Purely out of principle, nothing to do with a possible favorable attitude towards the Yingluck government, of course. You also keep on suggesting, suspecting the worst and are confident enough to ask confirmation of your 'fears'. No doubts there.

Well, pragmatically, we had a coup and try to make the best of it, including making reforms which should make politicians accountable for their actions, make vote buying through ridiculous election promises impossible, set the first steps in education reforms to make people more self conscious, self reliant, aware of rights and duties. Etc., etc.

PS look in the mirror and tell yourself not to try to divert.

Are you giving up on refuting my arguments? Imagine how difficult it would be if I weren't limited by censorship.

Yes, I am opposed to the coup, both as a matter of principal and for pragmatic reasons. Flawed democracies often evolve into better democracies, but only after they have evolved to the point where an elected government can change the constitution without fear of a coup. That's how every functioning democracy I can think of arrived at its current state. Are you from a stable, democratic country? What has its history of military coups been like?

Coups never lead to a better government; if they military leaves voluntarily it is after writing a flawed and self-serving constitution (what do you think happened next door in Burma? or after the last coup in Thailand?). If they abandon government involuntarily it is after demonstrating such incompetence it lead to rebellion. That's the biggest problem with a junta, there is no way to remove it except through rebellion. Start reading objective news stories and histories written outside of Thailand, and take a look at reality.

As I've written before, all "reform" will address the elected offices, none will address the entrenched conflict of interests and opacity in the bureaucracy and military that is the foundation of corruption in this country. Do you think these people will eliminate their privileged, lucrative, "above the law" position in society, or risk a true democracy that might remove it?

I just watched Gen. Prayuth on Channel 3, 5, 7, ... ..., so I feel up to it again

The continuous reference to 'objective' news stories seems to ignore that at the moment those tend to concentrate on the acting 'government' whereas similar stories could be written about the previous government. If you want to condemn the Junta for being undemocratic, self-interested, etc., , please be so open minded as to say that the other side with similar backing is not interested in democracy either.

The best chance Thailand seems to have is the NCPO forcing through reforms which the politicians never contemplated or only voiced to be in favour of without doing anything about it. The NCPO may need more pressure from abroad to get the reforms in the 'right' direction, but certainly the input of Thai people is just as important.

The only other feasible alternative seems a 15-year UN occupation to foster the education of the Thai generation which is now in kindergarten.

"please be so open minded as to say that the other side with similar backing is not interested in democracy either."

The 'other side' came to power through monitored elections deemed legitimate, and called for new elections. Democracy served them well.

"The best chance Thailand seems to have is the NCPO forcing through reforms which the politicians never contemplated or only voiced to be in favour of without doing anything about it."

Entrenched corruption is sometimes greatly reduced in democratic societies when the people make it clear through their votes that that's what they want. Not always, but sometimes. Can you name one autocratic government that has eliminated corruption? Not just re-arrange it to benefit its own, like Putin's done, but successfully fought all forms of corruption?

I will correct an earlier statement, I should not have used 'opacity'. What I meant to write was:

As I've written before, all "reform" will address the elected offices, none will address the entrenched conflict of interests and opaqueness in the bureaucracy and military that is the foundation of corruption in this country.

I'll stand by that.

[Thanet]

Junta blah blah blah .... talk's cheap.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Thanet

[northernjohn]

Thailand had a government that was elected in monitored elections that were deemed legitimate, and when faced with significant protests called for more elections. Like it or not, it was a democratic government. It was flawed, but there are no perfect democracies. It was toppled in an unnecessary coup and replaced with a military junta that is definitely not democratic. Do you think retreating from democracy will somehow make the government better?

You keep bringing up crystal balls to avoid addressing the obvious, the military doesn't trust democracy and will make the next constitution even less democratic than the last one. Do you doubt this?

I've been through the link already. Are you trying to divert attention from the fact that by making the Senate half appointed the 2007 constitution is less democratic than its predecessor?

'of course' it's clear you are against the coup. Purely out of principle, nothing to do with a possible favorable attitude towards the Yingluck government, of course. You also keep on suggesting, suspecting the worst and are confident enough to ask confirmation of your 'fears'. No doubts there.

Well, pragmatically, we had a coup and try to make the best of it, including making reforms which should make politicians accountable for their actions, make vote buying through ridiculous election promises impossible, set the first steps in education reforms to make people more self conscious, self reliant, aware of rights and duties. Etc., etc.

PS look in the mirror and tell yourself not to try to divert.

Are you giving up on refuting my arguments? Imagine how difficult it would be if I weren't limited by censorship.

Yes, I am opposed to the coup, both as a matter of principal and for pragmatic reasons. Flawed democracies often evolve into better democracies, but only after they have evolved to the point where an elected government can change the constitution without fear of a coup. That's how every functioning democracy I can think of arrived at its current state. Are you from a stable, democratic country? What has its history of military coups been like?

Coups never lead to a better government; if they military leaves voluntarily it is after writing a flawed and self-serving constitution (what do you think happened next door in Burma? or after the last coup in Thailand?). If they abandon government involuntarily it is after demonstrating such incompetence it lead to rebellion. That's the biggest problem with a junta, there is no way to remove it except through rebellion. Start reading objective news stories and histories written outside of Thailand, and take a look at reality.

As I've written before, all "reform" will address the elected offices, none will address the entrenched conflict of interests and opacity in the bureaucracy and military that is the foundation of corruption in this country. Do you think these people will eliminate their privileged, lucrative, "above the law" position in society, or risk a true democracy that might remove it?

I just watched Gen. Prayuth on Channel 3, 5, 7, ... ..., so I feel up to it again

The continuous reference to 'objective' news stories seems to ignore that at the moment those tend to concentrate on the acting 'government' whereas similar stories could be written about the previous government. If you want to condemn the Junta for being undemocratic, self-interested, etc., , please be so open minded as to say that the other side with similar backing is not interested in democracy either.

The best chance Thailand seems to have is the NCPO forcing through reforms which the politicians never contemplated or only voiced to be in favour of without doing anything about it. The NCPO may need more pressure from abroad to get the reforms in the 'right' direction, but certainly the input of Thai people is just as important.

The only other feasible alternative seems a 15-year UN occupation to foster the education of the Thai generation which is now in kindergarten.

You are wasting your time here. Any one that thinks a government that is not wanted by 52% of the people is democratic will never understand what democracy is. In his senseless need to have a corrupt government in power he fails to notice that the people are happier corruption is down and the baht is still at the same as it was before the coup. In fact worth more than it was a year ago. Thailand has been given a time schedule on what it's intentions are. None of that give me 6 months crap. Things are changing and it is going to be a new Thailand. They now have a government in that unlike him does not live in the past. It has seen the mistakes of past coups and elections and is taking steps to see that they are not repeated.

There will always be the Shinawatra fans. He did spread a lot of crumbs at his feet but that source is now cut off.

I wonder if heybruce thinks that is democracy when you have a Prime Minister flying around Thailand in a helicopter that is not equipped for night flying so she has her brother a convicted criminal on the run from the law call into the cabinet meetings to relay instructions to them?

Some people are just plain resistant to change no matter how good it is. But the funny thing is when things are going down hill they are OK with that. Go figure.

[rubl]

Are you giving up on refuting my arguments? Imagine how difficult it would be if I weren't limited by censorship.

Yes, I am opposed to the coup, both as a matter of principal and for pragmatic reasons. Flawed democracies often evolve into better democracies, but only after they have evolved to the point where an elected government can change the constitution without fear of a coup. That's how every functioning democracy I can think of arrived at its current state. Are you from a stable, democratic country? What has its history of military coups been like?

Coups never lead to a better government; if they military leaves voluntarily it is after writing a flawed and self-serving constitution (what do you think happened next door in Burma? or after the last coup in Thailand?). If they abandon government involuntarily it is after demonstrating such incompetence it lead to rebellion. That's the biggest problem with a junta, there is no way to remove it except through rebellion. Start reading objective news stories and histories written outside of Thailand, and take a look at reality.

As I've written before, all "reform" will address the elected offices, none will address the entrenched conflict of interests and opacity in the bureaucracy and military that is the foundation of corruption in this country. Do you think these people will eliminate their privileged, lucrative, "above the law" position in society, or risk a true democracy that might remove it?

I just watched Gen. Prayuth on Channel 3, 5, 7, ... ..., so I feel up to it again

The continuous reference to 'objective' news stories seems to ignore that at the moment those tend to concentrate on the acting 'government' whereas similar stories could be written about the previous government. If you want to condemn the Junta for being undemocratic, self-interested, etc., , please be so open minded as to say that the other side with similar backing is not interested in democracy either.

The best chance Thailand seems to have is the NCPO forcing through reforms which the politicians never contemplated or only voiced to be in favour of without doing anything about it. The NCPO may need more pressure from abroad to get the reforms in the 'right' direction, but certainly the input of Thai people is just as important.

The only other feasible alternative seems a 15-year UN occupation to foster the education of the Thai generation which is now in kindergarten.

"please be so open minded as to say that the other side with similar backing is not interested in democracy either."

The 'other side' came to power through monitored elections deemed legitimate, and called for new elections. Democracy served them well.

"The best chance Thailand seems to have is the NCPO forcing through reforms which the politicians never contemplated or only voiced to be in favour of without doing anything about it."

Entrenched corruption is sometimes greatly reduced in democratic societies when the people make it clear through their votes that that's what they want. Not always, but sometimes. Can you name one autocratic government that has eliminated corruption? Not just re-arrange it to benefit its own, like Putin's done, but successfully fought all forms of corruption?

I will correct an earlier statement, I should not have used 'opacity'. What I meant to write was:

As I've written before, all "reform" will address the elected offices, none will address the entrenched conflict of interests and opaqueness in the bureaucracy and military that is the foundation of corruption in this country.

I'll stand by that.

My dear Bruce, you're entitled to your opinion. It's just that you state it in such 'fact like' fashion which makes it annoying.

A government which respects the vote till it's counted only and declares a mandate following which it tries to ignore and obstruct the opposition, does it's best to help big brother to the point of issuing him a passport while the Nation is preoccupied by the floodwaters running through their livingroom, a government which tries to push through a blanket amnesty bill which absolves their boss' last two years in and out of office AND their own two years in office, can hardly be called democratic. The push for renewed elections to do the same trick and the expectation that it would work again shows Thailand a failed democracy.

The constant posting of what others THINK the Junta will do and then STATE that as what the Junta will do, suggests that reforms may be a threat to those who like to misuse, corrupt a democracy for their own use.

An NCPO with help of the Thai population can finally set this country of it's course to democracy. To wish for the 'old' system is close to wishing Thailand stays in the Dark Ages.

IMHO of course.

[heybruce]

'of course' it's clear you are against the coup. Purely out of principle, nothing to do with a possible favorable attitude towards the Yingluck government, of course. You also keep on suggesting, suspecting the worst and are confident enough to ask confirmation of your 'fears'. No doubts there.

Well, pragmatically, we had a coup and try to make the best of it, including making reforms which should make politicians accountable for their actions, make vote buying through ridiculous election promises impossible, set the first steps in education reforms to make people more self conscious, self reliant, aware of rights and duties. Etc., etc.

PS look in the mirror and tell yourself not to try to divert.

Are you giving up on refuting my arguments? Imagine how difficult it would be if I weren't limited by censorship.

Yes, I am opposed to the coup, both as a matter of principal and for pragmatic reasons. Flawed democracies often evolve into better democracies, but only after they have evolved to the point where an elected government can change the constitution without fear of a coup. That's how every functioning democracy I can think of arrived at its current state. Are you from a stable, democratic country? What has its history of military coups been like?

Coups never lead to a better government; if they military leaves voluntarily it is after writing a flawed and self-serving constitution (what do you think happened next door in Burma? or after the last coup in Thailand?). If they abandon government involuntarily it is after demonstrating such incompetence it lead to rebellion. That's the biggest problem with a junta, there is no way to remove it except through rebellion. Start reading objective news stories and histories written outside of Thailand, and take a look at reality.

As I've written before, all "reform" will address the elected offices, none will address the entrenched conflict of interests and opacity in the bureaucracy and military that is the foundation of corruption in this country. Do you think these people will eliminate their privileged, lucrative, "above the law" position in society, or risk a true democracy that might remove it?

I just watched Gen. Prayuth on Channel 3, 5, 7, ... ..., so I feel up to it again

The continuous reference to 'objective' news stories seems to ignore that at the moment those tend to concentrate on the acting 'government' whereas similar stories could be written about the previous government. If you want to condemn the Junta for being undemocratic, self-interested, etc., , please be so open minded as to say that the other side with similar backing is not interested in democracy either.

The best chance Thailand seems to have is the NCPO forcing through reforms which the politicians never contemplated or only voiced to be in favour of without doing anything about it. The NCPO may need more pressure from abroad to get the reforms in the 'right' direction, but certainly the input of Thai people is just as important.

The only other feasible alternative seems a 15-year UN occupation to foster the education of the Thai generation which is now in kindergarten.

You are wasting your time here. Any one that thinks a government that is not wanted by 52% of the people is democratic will never understand what democracy is. In his senseless need to have a corrupt government in power he fails to notice that the people are happier corruption is down and the baht is still at the same as it was before the coup. In fact worth more than it was a year ago. Thailand has been given a time schedule on what it's intentions are. None of that give me 6 months crap. Things are changing and it is going to be a new Thailand. They now have a government in that unlike him does not live in the past. It has seen the mistakes of past coups and elections and is taking steps to see that they are not repeated.

There will always be the Shinawatra fans. He did spread a lot of crumbs at his feet but that source is now cut off.

I wonder if heybruce thinks that is democracy when you have a Prime Minister flying around Thailand in a helicopter that is not equipped for night flying so she has her brother a convicted criminal on the run from the law call into the cabinet meetings to relay instructions to them?

Some people are just plain resistant to change no matter how good it is. But the funny thing is when things are going down hill they are OK with that. Go figure.

I think you're smart enough to know that your 52% number is crap, but I'm not certain. You seem oblivious to the fact that Thailand currently doesn't have a democracy. Also, much like many of the shallow thinkers who post here, you seem incapable of accepting that a person can be anti-coup without being pro-Shinawatra.

Were you aware of the fact that the current junta felt Thailand needed a coup for the same reason Myanmar needed a coup in 1988? Perhaps your new Thailand will look like the old Myanmar.

[rubl]

I just watched Gen. Prayuth on Channel 3, 5, 7, ... ..., so I feel up to it again

The continuous reference to 'objective' news stories seems to ignore that at the moment those tend to concentrate on the acting 'government' whereas similar stories could be written about the previous government. If you want to condemn the Junta for being undemocratic, self-interested, etc., , please be so open minded as to say that the other side with similar backing is not interested in democracy either.

The best chance Thailand seems to have is the NCPO forcing through reforms which the politicians never contemplated or only voiced to be in favour of without doing anything about it. The NCPO may need more pressure from abroad to get the reforms in the 'right' direction, but certainly the input of Thai people is just as important.

The only other feasible alternative seems a 15-year UN occupation to foster the education of the Thai generation which is now in kindergarten.

You are wasting your time here. Any one that thinks a government that is not wanted by 52% of the people is democratic will never understand what democracy is. In his senseless need to have a corrupt government in power he fails to notice that the people are happier corruption is down and the baht is still at the same as it was before the coup. In fact worth more than it was a year ago. Thailand has been given a time schedule on what it's intentions are. None of that give me 6 months crap. Things are changing and it is going to be a new Thailand. They now have a government in that unlike him does not live in the past. It has seen the mistakes of past coups and elections and is taking steps to see that they are not repeated.

There will always be the Shinawatra fans. He did spread a lot of crumbs at his feet but that source is now cut off.

I wonder if heybruce thinks that is democracy when you have a Prime Minister flying around Thailand in a helicopter that is not equipped for night flying so she has her brother a convicted criminal on the run from the law call into the cabinet meetings to relay instructions to them?

Some people are just plain resistant to change no matter how good it is. But the funny thing is when things are going down hill they are OK with that. Go figure.

I think you're smart enough to know that your 52% number is crap, but I'm not certain. You seem oblivious to the fact that Thailand currently doesn't have a democracy. Also, much like many of the shallow thinkers who post here, you seem incapable of accepting that a person can be anti-coup without being pro-Shinawatra.

Were you aware of the fact that the current junta felt Thailand needed a coup for the same reason Myanmar needed a coup in 1988? Perhaps your new Thailand will look like the old Myanmar.

Swallow thinkers seem to compare easily

[heybruce]

Are you giving up on refuting my arguments? Imagine how difficult it would be if I weren't limited by censorship.

Yes, I am opposed to the coup, both as a matter of principal and for pragmatic reasons. Flawed democracies often evolve into better democracies, but only after they have evolved to the point where an elected government can change the constitution without fear of a coup. That's how every functioning democracy I can think of arrived at its current state. Are you from a stable, democratic country? What has its history of military coups been like?

Coups never lead to a better government; if they military leaves voluntarily it is after writing a flawed and self-serving constitution (what do you think happened next door in Burma? or after the last coup in Thailand?). If they abandon government involuntarily it is after demonstrating such incompetence it lead to rebellion. That's the biggest problem with a junta, there is no way to remove it except through rebellion. Start reading objective news stories and histories written outside of Thailand, and take a look at reality.

As I've written before, all "reform" will address the elected offices, none will address the entrenched conflict of interests and opacity in the bureaucracy and military that is the foundation of corruption in this country. Do you think these people will eliminate their privileged, lucrative, "above the law" position in society, or risk a true democracy that might remove it?

I just watched Gen. Prayuth on Channel 3, 5, 7, ... ..., so I feel up to it again

The continuous reference to 'objective' news stories seems to ignore that at the moment those tend to concentrate on the acting 'government' whereas similar stories could be written about the previous government. If you want to condemn the Junta for being undemocratic, self-interested, etc., , please be so open minded as to say that the other side with similar backing is not interested in democracy either.

The best chance Thailand seems to have is the NCPO forcing through reforms which the politicians never contemplated or only voiced to be in favour of without doing anything about it. The NCPO may need more pressure from abroad to get the reforms in the 'right' direction, but certainly the input of Thai people is just as important.

The only other feasible alternative seems a 15-year UN occupation to foster the education of the Thai generation which is now in kindergarten.

"please be so open minded as to say that the other side with similar backing is not interested in democracy either."

The 'other side' came to power through monitored elections deemed legitimate, and called for new elections. Democracy served them well.

"The best chance Thailand seems to have is the NCPO forcing through reforms which the politicians never contemplated or only voiced to be in favour of without doing anything about it."

Entrenched corruption is sometimes greatly reduced in democratic societies when the people make it clear through their votes that that's what they want. Not always, but sometimes. Can you name one autocratic government that has eliminated corruption? Not just re-arrange it to benefit its own, like Putin's done, but successfully fought all forms of corruption?

I will correct an earlier statement, I should not have used 'opacity'. What I meant to write was:

As I've written before, all "reform" will address the elected offices, none will address the entrenched conflict of interests and opaqueness in the bureaucracy and military that is the foundation of corruption in this country.

I'll stand by that.

My dear Bruce, you're entitled to your opinion. It's just that you state it in such 'fact like' fashion which makes it annoying.

A government which respects the vote till it's counted only and declares a mandate following which it tries to ignore and obstruct the opposition, does it's best to help big brother to the point of issuing him a passport while the Nation is preoccupied by the floodwaters running through their livingroom, a government which tries to push through a blanket amnesty bill which absolves their boss' last two years in and out of office AND their own two years in office, can hardly be called democratic. The push for renewed elections to do the same trick and the expectation that it would work again shows Thailand a failed democracy.

The constant posting of what others THINK the Junta will do and then STATE that as what the Junta will do, suggests that reforms may be a threat to those who like to misuse, corrupt a democracy for their own use.

An NCPO with help of the Thai population can finally set this country of it's course to democracy. To wish for the 'old' system is close to wishing Thailand stays in the Dark Ages.

IMHO of course.

Once again, everything you mentioned in your second paragraph should have been resolved by the voters in an election or by the courts, not by a coup.

A coup is not a threat to democracy, it is the death of democracy. My assumptions on the reforms is based on the history of the military opposing democracy. On what do you base your hope that the reforms will improve democracy?

BTW, are you equally annoyed when people state as a fact their opinion that the coup saved the country from a civil war? Or is it only informed, rational opinions that stand a good chance of being proven correct, but which you don't like, that annoy you?

[rubl]

I just watched Gen. Prayuth on Channel 3, 5, 7, ... ..., so I feel up to it again

The continuous reference to 'objective' news stories seems to ignore that at the moment those tend to concentrate on the acting 'government' whereas similar stories could be written about the previous government. If you want to condemn the Junta for being undemocratic, self-interested, etc., , please be so open minded as to say that the other side with similar backing is not interested in democracy either.

The best chance Thailand seems to have is the NCPO forcing through reforms which the politicians never contemplated or only voiced to be in favour of without doing anything about it. The NCPO may need more pressure from abroad to get the reforms in the 'right' direction, but certainly the input of Thai people is just as important.

The only other feasible alternative seems a 15-year UN occupation to foster the education of the Thai generation which is now in kindergarten.

"please be so open minded as to say that the other side with similar backing is not interested in democracy either."

The 'other side' came to power through monitored elections deemed legitimate, and called for new elections. Democracy served them well.

"The best chance Thailand seems to have is the NCPO forcing through reforms which the politicians never contemplated or only voiced to be in favour of without doing anything about it."

Entrenched corruption is sometimes greatly reduced in democratic societies when the people make it clear through their votes that that's what they want. Not always, but sometimes. Can you name one autocratic government that has eliminated corruption? Not just re-arrange it to benefit its own, like Putin's done, but successfully fought all forms of corruption?

I will correct an earlier statement, I should not have used 'opacity'. What I meant to write was:

As I've written before, all "reform" will address the elected offices, none will address the entrenched conflict of interests and opaqueness in the bureaucracy and military that is the foundation of corruption in this country.

I'll stand by that.

My dear Bruce, you're entitled to your opinion. It's just that you state it in such 'fact like' fashion which makes it annoying.

A government which respects the vote till it's counted only and declares a mandate following which it tries to ignore and obstruct the opposition, does it's best to help big brother to the point of issuing him a passport while the Nation is preoccupied by the floodwaters running through their livingroom, a government which tries to push through a blanket amnesty bill which absolves their boss' last two years in and out of office AND their own two years in office, can hardly be called democratic. The push for renewed elections to do the same trick and the expectation that it would work again shows Thailand a failed democracy.

The constant posting of what others THINK the Junta will do and then STATE that as what the Junta will do, suggests that reforms may be a threat to those who like to misuse, corrupt a democracy for their own use.

An NCPO with help of the Thai population can finally set this country of it's course to democracy. To wish for the 'old' system is close to wishing Thailand stays in the Dark Ages.

IMHO of course.

Once again, everything you mentioned in your second paragraph should have been resolved by the voters in an election or by the courts, not by a coup.

A coup is not a threat to democracy, it is the death of democracy. My assumptions on the reforms is based on the history of the military opposing democracy. On what do you base your hope that the reforms will improve democracy?

BTW, are you equally annoyed when people state as a fact their opinion that the coup saved the country from a civil war? Or is it only informed, rational opinions that stand a good chance of being proven correct, but which you don't like, that annoy you?

Everything I wrote in my second paragraph should have been resolved by the voters in an election or by courts. Correct. In Thailand with it's disfunctional democracy that would be courts rather than voters. Mind you, some seem to have the 'informed, rational' opinion that courts in Thailand are biased, imagine.

With the pro-government UDD getting 'somewhat' militant, with cowardly night attacks on anti-government protesters only increasing it should be clear to informed and rational posters that to continue on the same route would only lead to more violence and no changes except maybe a civil war. The 'if you're not for us you're against us and we'll fight you' attitude, the threats to courts, the CAPO's 'warnings' against 'not right' decisions were not a threat to democracy, but slowly and expressly the death of it.

My assumptions? I only expressed the hope of reforms with input of the Thai people, lots of whom seems equally annoyed with the old shenanigans.

PS I'll leave the stage at this time, 1:42AM and my wife and bed calling. Enjoy yourself.

[heybruce]

"please be so open minded as to say that the other side with similar backing is not interested in democracy either."

The 'other side' came to power through monitored elections deemed legitimate, and called for new elections. Democracy served them well.

"The best chance Thailand seems to have is the NCPO forcing through reforms which the politicians never contemplated or only voiced to be in favour of without doing anything about it."

Entrenched corruption is sometimes greatly reduced in democratic societies when the people make it clear through their votes that that's what they want. Not always, but sometimes. Can you name one autocratic government that has eliminated corruption? Not just re-arrange it to benefit its own, like Putin's done, but successfully fought all forms of corruption?

I will correct an earlier statement, I should not have used 'opacity'. What I meant to write was:

As I've written before, all "reform" will address the elected offices, none will address the entrenched conflict of interests and opaqueness in the bureaucracy and military that is the foundation of corruption in this country.

I'll stand by that.

My dear Bruce, you're entitled to your opinion. It's just that you state it in such 'fact like' fashion which makes it annoying.

A government which respects the vote till it's counted only and declares a mandate following which it tries to ignore and obstruct the opposition, does it's best to help big brother to the point of issuing him a passport while the Nation is preoccupied by the floodwaters running through their livingroom, a government which tries to push through a blanket amnesty bill which absolves their boss' last two years in and out of office AND their own two years in office, can hardly be called democratic. The push for renewed elections to do the same trick and the expectation that it would work again shows Thailand a failed democracy.

The constant posting of what others THINK the Junta will do and then STATE that as what the Junta will do, suggests that reforms may be a threat to those who like to misuse, corrupt a democracy for their own use.

An NCPO with help of the Thai population can finally set this country of it's course to democracy. To wish for the 'old' system is close to wishing Thailand stays in the Dark Ages.

IMHO of course.

Once again, everything you mentioned in your second paragraph should have been resolved by the voters in an election or by the courts, not by a coup.

A coup is not a threat to democracy, it is the death of democracy. My assumptions on the reforms is based on the history of the military opposing democracy. On what do you base your hope that the reforms will improve democracy?

BTW, are you equally annoyed when people state as a fact their opinion that the coup saved the country from a civil war? Or is it only informed, rational opinions that stand a good chance of being proven correct, but which you don't like, that annoy you?

Everything I wrote in my second paragraph should have been resolved by the voters in an election or by courts. Correct. In Thailand with it's disfunctional democracy that would be courts rather than voters. Mind you, some seem to have the 'informed, rational' opinion that courts in Thailand are biased, imagine.

With the pro-government UDD getting 'somewhat' militant, with cowardly night attacks on anti-government protesters only increasing it should be clear to informed and rational posters that to continue on the same route would only lead to more violence and no changes except maybe a civil war. The 'if you're not for us you're against us and we'll fight you' attitude, the threats to courts, the CAPO's 'warnings' against 'not right' decisions were not a threat to democracy, but slowly and expressly the death of it.

My assumptions? I only expressed the hope of reforms with input of the Thai people, lots of whom seems equally annoyed with the old shenanigans.

PS I'll leave the stage at this time, 1:42AM and my wife and bed calling. Enjoy yourself.

In your first paragraph you make it clear you think the military should be choosing the government for the Thai people, not the people themselves. You didn't like their choice in the last election so they didn't deserve another chance. You have a lot of company in this thinking, but I'm not part of that company.

As I've stated before, the civil war excuse was nonsense. The only thing keeping the protests alive was the military dangling the prospect of a coup if the protesters could keep the violence and chaos going. If the military had stated there would be no coup the protests would have fizzled.

[rubl]

Everything I wrote in my second paragraph should have been resolved by the voters in an election or by courts. Correct. In Thailand with it's disfunctional democracy that would be courts rather than voters. Mind you, some seem to have the 'informed, rational' opinion that courts in Thailand are biased, imagine.

With the pro-government UDD getting 'somewhat' militant, with cowardly night attacks on anti-government protesters only increasing it should be clear to informed and rational posters that to continue on the same route would only lead to more violence and no changes except maybe a civil war. The 'if you're not for us you're against us and we'll fight you' attitude, the threats to courts, the CAPO's 'warnings' against 'not right' decisions were not a threat to democracy, but slowly and expressly the death of it.

My assumptions? I only expressed the hope of reforms with input of the Thai people, lots of whom seems equally annoyed with the old shenanigans.

PS I'll leave the stage at this time, 1:42AM and my wife and bed calling. Enjoy yourself.

In your first paragraph you make it clear you think the military should be choosing the government for the Thai people, not the people themselves. You didn't like their choice in the last election so they didn't deserve another chance. You have a lot of company in this thinking, but I'm not part of that company.

As I've stated before, the civil war excuse was nonsense. The only thing keeping the protests alive was the military dangling the prospect of a coup if the protesters could keep the violence and chaos going. If the military had stated there would be no coup the protests would have fizzled.

Read again, please. I don't write that I think the military should be choosing the government for the Thai people. I only indicate that the way it should work and the way you keep describing as how it should work, doesn't work in Thailand.

Your "if the protesters could keep the violence and chaos going" seems to suggest that the anti-government protesters on purpose exposed themselves to cowardly attacks in the night or may be you even put the mere insinuation that they might have been behind that violence themselves. So much for conspiracy theories.

If the clinging to power Yingluck administration or what was left of it had whole heartedly agreed to participate and started to participate is discussions on reforms AND via it's Pheu Thai / UDD link had managed to call back the dogs of war a coup could have been avoided.

Note that the anti-government protests started largely as reaction to the Yingluck government push for a blanket amnesty bill with extended coverage, absolving Thaksin's last two years in/out of office and even the Yinglucks administration's first two years. Ms. Yingluck kept voicing meaningless statements while her Pheu Thai fellow members demanded all should continue as they had decided was good and proper, warning courts, people, the army, etc. Fizzled indeed.

Edited July 12, 2014 by rubl

[heybruce]

Everything I wrote in my second paragraph should have been resolved by the voters in an election or by courts. Correct. In Thailand with it's disfunctional democracy that would be courts rather than voters. Mind you, some seem to have the 'informed, rational' opinion that courts in Thailand are biased, imagine.

With the pro-government UDD getting 'somewhat' militant, with cowardly night attacks on anti-government protesters only increasing it should be clear to informed and rational posters that to continue on the same route would only lead to more violence and no changes except maybe a civil war. The 'if you're not for us you're against us and we'll fight you' attitude, the threats to courts, the CAPO's 'warnings' against 'not right' decisions were not a threat to democracy, but slowly and expressly the death of it.

My assumptions? I only expressed the hope of reforms with input of the Thai people, lots of whom seems equally annoyed with the old shenanigans.

PS I'll leave the stage at this time, 1:42AM and my wife and bed calling. Enjoy yourself.

In your first paragraph you make it clear you think the military should be choosing the government for the Thai people, not the people themselves. You didn't like their choice in the last election so they didn't deserve another chance. You have a lot of company in this thinking, but I'm not part of that company.

As I've stated before, the civil war excuse was nonsense. The only thing keeping the protests alive was the military dangling the prospect of a coup if the protesters could keep the violence and chaos going. If the military had stated there would be no coup the protests would have fizzled.

Read again, please. I don't write that I think the military should be choosing the government for the Thai people. I only indicate that the way it should work and the way you keep describing as how it should work, doesn't work in Thailand.

Your "if the protesters could keep the violence and chaos going" seems to suggest that the anti-government protesters on purpose exposed themselves to cowardly attacks in the night or may be you even put the mere insinuation that they might have been behind that violence themselves. So much for conspiracy theories.

If the clinging to power Yingluck administration or what was left of it had whole heartedly agreed to participate and started to participate is discussions on reforms AND via it's Pheu Thai / UDD link had managed to call back the dogs of war a coup could have been avoided.

Note that the anti-government protests started largely as reaction to the Yingluck government push for a blanket amnesty bill with extended coverage, absolving Thaksin's last two years in/out of office and even the Yinglucks administration's first two years. Ms. Yingluck kept voicing meaningless statements while her Pheu Thai fellow members demanded all should continue as they had decided was good and proper, warning courts, people, the army, etc. Fizzled indeed.

In the order presented:

"I only indicate that the way it should work and the way you keep describing as how it should work, doesn't work in Thailand."

The way it should work doesn't work in Thailand because Thailand rarely goes a decade without a coup. A new democracy needs time to mature, it is never given the chance in Thailand. For all of its flaws, so long as the government was elected and continued to be elected by impartially monitored elections deemed legitimate, it should have been allowed to continue. What I read on the TV forum are rationalizations from people who think that if their side loses it's legitimate to use illegal and undemocratic means to topple the government.

"Your "if the protesters could keep the violence and chaos going" seems to suggest that the anti-government protesters on purpose exposed themselves to cowardly attacks in the night or may be you even put the mere insinuation that they might have been behind that violence themselves. So much for conspiracy theories."

Violence was on both sides. It probably wasn't specifically planned by the leaders, but Suthep very intentionally created the incendiary situation that made it inevitable. He probably initially hoped that mass protests would lead to the collapse of the government, but when that didn't happen his only hope of toppling the government, and staying out of jail, was a military coup. The protests were losing steam, the only thing that kept them going was the military's pointed refusal to not rule out a coup.

Regarding the last two paragraphs, the government was willing to negotiate with Suthep, which was generous considering the protests had exceeded all bounds of legality. However the government wasn't willing to let Suthep dictate terms. Also, there was nothing about the process of pushing the amnesty bill that shouldn't have been dealt with by the courts and the voters (I keep repeating this, and people rationalizing the coup keep ignoring it).

[rubl]

In the order presented:

"I only indicate that the way it should work and the way you keep describing as how it should work, doesn't work in Thailand."

The way it should work doesn't work in Thailand because Thailand rarely goes a decade without a coup. A new democracy needs time to mature, it is never given the chance in Thailand. For all of its flaws, so long as the government was elected and continued to be elected by impartially monitored elections deemed legitimate, it should have been allowed to continue. What I read on the TV forum are rationalizations from people who think that if their side loses it's legitimate to use illegal and undemocratic means to topple the government.

"Your "if the protesters could keep the violence and chaos going" seems to suggest that the anti-government protesters on purpose exposed themselves to cowardly attacks in the night or may be you even put the mere insinuation that they might have been behind that violence themselves. So much for conspiracy theories."

Violence was on both sides. It probably wasn't specifically planned by the leaders, but Suthep very intentionally created the incendiary situation that made it inevitable. He probably initially hoped that mass protests would lead to the collapse of the government, but when that didn't happen his only hope of toppling the government, and staying out of jail, was a military coup. The protests were losing steam, the only thing that kept them going was the military's pointed refusal to not rule out a coup.

Regarding the last two paragraphs, the government was willing to negotiate with Suthep, which was generous considering the protests had exceeded all bounds of legality. However the government wasn't willing to let Suthep dictate terms. Also, there was nothing about the process of pushing the amnesty bill that shouldn't have been dealt with by the courts and the voters (I keep repeating this, and people rationalizing the coup keep ignoring it).

1. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

To blame lack of democratic development on coups is to blame the party you don't like without any attempt to understand circumstances.

2. Violence was on both sides

The anti-government protesters were attacked verbally from day one, with violence soon after. The 'incendiary' situation was created by the Yingluck government which was still busy helping their number one (i.e. Thaksin) without thoughts for the 67m - 1 Thai population. A blanket amnesty bill sneakily modified and with increased coverage period to include Thaksin's last two years in/out of office and Ms. Yingluck's government's first two years. That's what worked in an incendiary way. Calling those anti-government protesters illegal, secessionary, terrorists was incendiary. Having Ms. Yingluck seemingly willing to do anything, if only the law would allow her with Pheu Thai MPs and members demanding action, elections, the army to help them, that worked incendiary.

3. Talk

The government was first not willing to discuss or negotiate. Following Ms. Yingluck said she wanted to talk to Suthep and even had the police look for him to enable her little talk. The negotiating part never came to fruit as BOTH sides came with some ground rules.

Even when the Army called all involved together there was only the usual, accusing the others were to blame, were terrorists, were this, were that.

4. amnesty bill

Well, at least the daughter of the late Seh Daeng had the 'decency' to abstain from voting on the blanket amnesty bill, as did Dr. weng and k. Nattawut. Other UDD leaders and red-shirts turned Pheu Thai party list MPs voted for the bill. That's something to be forgotten, to be buried in Rayong, to be distracted from by accusing the others of trying to topple their darling's government.

Now if the Junta is not allowed to do reforms quickly then that would seem to indicate that people want the NCPO to take their time to properly do so.

[heybruce]

In the order presented:

"I only indicate that the way it should work and the way you keep describing as how it should work, doesn't work in Thailand."

The way it should work doesn't work in Thailand because Thailand rarely goes a decade without a coup. A new democracy needs time to mature, it is never given the chance in Thailand. For all of its flaws, so long as the government was elected and continued to be elected by impartially monitored elections deemed legitimate, it should have been allowed to continue. What I read on the TV forum are rationalizations from people who think that if their side loses it's legitimate to use illegal and undemocratic means to topple the government.

"Your "if the protesters could keep the violence and chaos going" seems to suggest that the anti-government protesters on purpose exposed themselves to cowardly attacks in the night or may be you even put the mere insinuation that they might have been behind that violence themselves. So much for conspiracy theories."

Violence was on both sides. It probably wasn't specifically planned by the leaders, but Suthep very intentionally created the incendiary situation that made it inevitable. He probably initially hoped that mass protests would lead to the collapse of the government, but when that didn't happen his only hope of toppling the government, and staying out of jail, was a military coup. The protests were losing steam, the only thing that kept them going was the military's pointed refusal to not rule out a coup.

Regarding the last two paragraphs, the government was willing to negotiate with Suthep, which was generous considering the protests had exceeded all bounds of legality. However the government wasn't willing to let Suthep dictate terms. Also, there was nothing about the process of pushing the amnesty bill that shouldn't have been dealt with by the courts and the voters (I keep repeating this, and people rationalizing the coup keep ignoring it).

1. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

To blame lack of democratic development on coups is to blame the party you don't like without any attempt to understand circumstances.

2. Violence was on both sides

The anti-government protesters were attacked verbally from day one, with violence soon after. The 'incendiary' situation was created by the Yingluck government which was still busy helping their number one (i.e. Thaksin) without thoughts for the 67m - 1 Thai population. A blanket amnesty bill sneakily modified and with increased coverage period to include Thaksin's last two years in/out of office and Ms. Yingluck's government's first two years. That's what worked in an incendiary way. Calling those anti-government protesters illegal, secessionary, terrorists was incendiary. Having Ms. Yingluck seemingly willing to do anything, if only the law would allow her with Pheu Thai MPs and members demanding action, elections, the army to help them, that worked incendiary.

3. Talk

The government was first not willing to discuss or negotiate. Following Ms. Yingluck said she wanted to talk to Suthep and even had the police look for him to enable her little talk. The negotiating part never came to fruit as BOTH sides came with some ground rules.

Even when the Army called all involved together there was only the usual, accusing the others were to blame, were terrorists, were this, were that.

4. amnesty bill

Well, at least the daughter of the late Seh Daeng had the 'decency' to abstain from voting on the blanket amnesty bill, as did Dr. weng and k. Nattawut. Other UDD leaders and red-shirts turned Pheu Thai party list MPs voted for the bill. That's something to be forgotten, to be buried in Rayong, to be distracted from by accusing the others of trying to topple their darling's government.

Now if the Junta is not allowed to do reforms quickly then that would seem to indicate that people want the NCPO to take their time to properly do so.

1. "chicken or egg"? Now you're getting ridiculous. Does Thailand have undeveloped democracy because there are too many coups, or are there too many coups because Thailand has undeveloped democracy. Answer: It doesn't matter! The voters in a democracy are under no obligation to elect an government that satisfies the military, and the military has no right to topple the elected government.

The only circumstances that warrant a military coup is a government acting in such a reckless manner as to pose an immediate threat to the nation and a military coup is the only practical solution. That was not the case, regardless of the claims of drama queens that the nation was on the verge of a civil war. All the military had to do was state that there would be no coup and the protesters should go home and the July elections would have taken place.

2 & 4. Once again, you mention nothing that could not, and should not, have been dealt with using elections and the courts. Name calling does not justify a coup. Neither does a failed attempt at amnesty.

3. The government was under no obligation to talk with the leader of an illegal protest that was obstructing government. They eventually agreed to talk, but not on Suthep's terms. So what? Once again, if the military had held off on the coup and allowed the July elections, the voters could have decided if this was a suitable approach to the protests.

Regarding the Army's "attempt" at reconciliation: They stood by for six months of often violent protest, then declared martial law two weeks after the courts declined to topple the PTP government. After two days of talks, a trivial amount of time for these kind of negotiations, they staged the coup. It almost seems like they had made up their mind that the government had to be toppled, they just waited to see if the courts would do it first. Of course that explanation doesn't support the claim that there was an emergency and the coup had to be staged immediately.

Consider what you are implicitly saying. You are stating that it is acceptable for the military to topple an elected government, write a new constitution, allow an election, then topple the next government if the military doesn't like the new elected government, and repeat the cycle. That's not how to get a democracy started.

Democracy only works if the people and parties that lose the election accept their loss and spend the time between elections preparing a better campaign for the next time. In Thailand the Democrats consistently lose elections then spend their time, in cooperation with allies in the military, working to topple the elected government by any means possible. Democracy will never take root in Thailand so long as that continues.

Edited July 12, 2014 by heybruce

[rubl]

In the order presented:

"I only indicate that the way it should work and the way you keep describing as how it should work, doesn't work in Thailand."

The way it should work doesn't work in Thailand because Thailand rarely goes a decade without a coup. A new democracy needs time to mature, it is never given the chance in Thailand. For all of its flaws, so long as the government was elected and continued to be elected by impartially monitored elections deemed legitimate, it should have been allowed to continue. What I read on the TV forum are rationalizations from people who think that if their side loses it's legitimate to use illegal and undemocratic means to topple the government.

"Your "if the protesters could keep the violence and chaos going" seems to suggest that the anti-government protesters on purpose exposed themselves to cowardly attacks in the night or may be you even put the mere insinuation that they might have been behind that violence themselves. So much for conspiracy theories."

Violence was on both sides. It probably wasn't specifically planned by the leaders, but Suthep very intentionally created the incendiary situation that made it inevitable. He probably initially hoped that mass protests would lead to the collapse of the government, but when that didn't happen his only hope of toppling the government, and staying out of jail, was a military coup. The protests were losing steam, the only thing that kept them going was the military's pointed refusal to not rule out a coup.

Regarding the last two paragraphs, the government was willing to negotiate with Suthep, which was generous considering the protests had exceeded all bounds of legality. However the government wasn't willing to let Suthep dictate terms. Also, there was nothing about the process of pushing the amnesty bill that shouldn't have been dealt with by the courts and the voters (I keep repeating this, and people rationalizing the coup keep ignoring it).

1. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

To blame lack of democratic development on coups is to blame the party you don't like without any attempt to understand circumstances.

2. Violence was on both sides

The anti-government protesters were attacked verbally from day one, with violence soon after. The 'incendiary' situation was created by the Yingluck government which was still busy helping their number one (i.e. Thaksin) without thoughts for the 67m - 1 Thai population. A blanket amnesty bill sneakily modified and with increased coverage period to include Thaksin's last two years in/out of office and Ms. Yingluck's government's first two years. That's what worked in an incendiary way. Calling those anti-government protesters illegal, secessionary, terrorists was incendiary. Having Ms. Yingluck seemingly willing to do anything, if only the law would allow her with Pheu Thai MPs and members demanding action, elections, the army to help them, that worked incendiary.

3. Talk

The government was first not willing to discuss or negotiate. Following Ms. Yingluck said she wanted to talk to Suthep and even had the police look for him to enable her little talk. The negotiating part never came to fruit as BOTH sides came with some ground rules.

Even when the Army called all involved together there was only the usual, accusing the others were to blame, were terrorists, were this, were that.

4. amnesty bill

Well, at least the daughter of the late Seh Daeng had the 'decency' to abstain from voting on the blanket amnesty bill, as did Dr. weng and k. Nattawut. Other UDD leaders and red-shirts turned Pheu Thai party list MPs voted for the bill. That's something to be forgotten, to be buried in Rayong, to be distracted from by accusing the others of trying to topple their darling's government.

Now if the Junta is not allowed to do reforms quickly then that would seem to indicate that people want the NCPO to take their time to properly do so.

1. "chicken or egg"? Now you're getting ridiculous. Does Thailand have undeveloped democracy because there are too many coups, or are there too many coups because Thailand has undeveloped democracy. Answer: It doesn't matter! The voters in a democracy are under no obligation to elect an government that satisfies the military, and the military has no right to topple the elected government.

The only circumstances that warrant a military coup is a government acting in such a reckless manner as to pose an immediate threat to the nation and a military coup is the only practical solution. That was not the case, regardless of the claims of drama queens that the nation was on the verge of a civil war. All the military had to do was state that there would be no coup and the protesters should go home and the July elections would have taken place.

2 & 4. Once again, you mention nothing that could not, and should not, have been dealt with using elections and the courts. Name calling does not justify a coup. Neither does a failed attempt at amnesty.

3. The government was under no obligation to talk with the leader of an illegal protest that was obstructing government. They eventually agreed to talk, but not on Suthep's terms. So what? Once again, if the military had held off on the coup and allowed the July elections, the voters could have decided if this was a suitable approach to the protests.

Regarding the Army's "attempt" at reconciliation: They stood by for six months of often violent protest, then declared martial law two weeks after the courts declined to topple the PTP government. After two days of talks, a trivial amount of time for these kind of negotiations, they staged the coup. It almost seems like they had made up their mind that the government had to be toppled, they just waited to see if the courts would do it first. Of course that explanation doesn't support the claim that there was an emergency and the coup had to be staged immediately.

Consider what you are implicitly saying. You are stating that it is acceptable for the military to topple an elected government, write a new constitution, allow an election, then topple the next government if the military doesn't like the new elected government, and repeat the cycle. That's not how to get a democracy started.

Democracy only works if the people and parties that lose the election accept their loss and spend the time between elections preparing a better campaign for the next time. In Thailand the Democrats consistently lose elections then spend their time, in cooperation with allies in the military, working to topple the elected government by any means possible. Democracy will never take root in Thailand so long as that continues.

You really like to zigzag around and twist the truth, now don't you ?

First "The way it should work doesn't work in Thailand because Thailand rarely goes a decade without a coup." and now "Answer: It doesn't matter!" followed by meaningless remarks ?

For your information I'm told NOTHING warrants a coup, so why do you state a situation you think that's not so? Don't you believe in democracy?

"All the military had to do was state that there would be no coup and the protesters should go home and the July elections would have taken place."

Why 'should' the anti-government protester go home? Because Ms. Yingluck asked them? Because she said more was to foloow? Because she said it was up to the senate? Because she made a wee bit of a miscalculation in the blanket amnesty bill and how people would see it? Allegedly of course, I probably should replace Yingluck by Thaksin.

Again you keep suggesting what in a functional democracy could or should have happened, completely ignoring the state of Thailand in that respect.

You brought up the government willing to negotiate and now they were under no obligation to talk with the leader of an illegal protest? Are we still trying to convince we're talking about a functioning democracy were anti-government protests are not pronounced illegal because it doesn't fit some criminal fugitives objectives?

BTW the EC made it clear that under the circumstances July elections were impossible, reasons security, timing, lack of new Royal Decree, minor things like that. To blame the Army seems a bit misguided, or just simply a twisting of the truth.

The army stood of till the courts decline to topple the government ? Oh boy, are we living in the same universe and timeline? Following you simply state as fact what you want to be seen as what you would like me to have said?

Well that's not how democracy gets started.

Following you simply sjhow not to understand elections or democracy as the very fact that consistently 25% to 35% of the Thai electorate voting Democrat party is described as losing an election. I'm originally from the Netherlands, a country where parties 'win' even if they get a single seat. That's democracy. Not a system where anyone not gaining a majority is deemed the loser and to be ignored.

Now for an explanation why the Junta wants reforms done quickly. That's simply because they do not have either the patience, or the time to deal with fools.

Edited July 12, 2014 by rubl

[heybruce]

In the order presented:

"I only indicate that the way it should work and the way you keep describing as how it should work, doesn't work in Thailand."

The way it should work doesn't work in Thailand because Thailand rarely goes a decade without a coup. A new democracy needs time to mature, it is never given the chance in Thailand. For all of its flaws, so long as the government was elected and continued to be elected by impartially monitored elections deemed legitimate, it should have been allowed to continue. What I read on the TV forum are rationalizations from people who think that if their side loses it's legitimate to use illegal and undemocratic means to topple the government.

"Your "if the protesters could keep the violence and chaos going" seems to suggest that the anti-government protesters on purpose exposed themselves to cowardly attacks in the night or may be you even put the mere insinuation that they might have been behind that violence themselves. So much for conspiracy theories."

Violence was on both sides. It probably wasn't specifically planned by the leaders, but Suthep very intentionally created the incendiary situation that made it inevitable. He probably initially hoped that mass protests would lead to the collapse of the government, but when that didn't happen his only hope of toppling the government, and staying out of jail, was a military coup. The protests were losing steam, the only thing that kept them going was the military's pointed refusal to not rule out a coup.

Regarding the last two paragraphs, the government was willing to negotiate with Suthep, which was generous considering the protests had exceeded all bounds of legality. However the government wasn't willing to let Suthep dictate terms. Also, there was nothing about the process of pushing the amnesty bill that shouldn't have been dealt with by the courts and the voters (I keep repeating this, and people rationalizing the coup keep ignoring it).

1. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

To blame lack of democratic development on coups is to blame the party you don't like without any attempt to understand circumstances.

2. Violence was on both sides

The anti-government protesters were attacked verbally from day one, with violence soon after. The 'incendiary' situation was created by the Yingluck government which was still busy helping their number one (i.e. Thaksin) without thoughts for the 67m - 1 Thai population. A blanket amnesty bill sneakily modified and with increased coverage period to include Thaksin's last two years in/out of office and Ms. Yingluck's government's first two years. That's what worked in an incendiary way. Calling those anti-government protesters illegal, secessionary, terrorists was incendiary. Having Ms. Yingluck seemingly willing to do anything, if only the law would allow her with Pheu Thai MPs and members demanding action, elections, the army to help them, that worked incendiary.

3. Talk

The government was first not willing to discuss or negotiate. Following Ms. Yingluck said she wanted to talk to Suthep and even had the police look for him to enable her little talk. The negotiating part never came to fruit as BOTH sides came with some ground rules.

Even when the Army called all involved together there was only the usual, accusing the others were to blame, were terrorists, were this, were that.

4. amnesty bill

Well, at least the daughter of the late Seh Daeng had the 'decency' to abstain from voting on the blanket amnesty bill, as did Dr. weng and k. Nattawut. Other UDD leaders and red-shirts turned Pheu Thai party list MPs voted for the bill. That's something to be forgotten, to be buried in Rayong, to be distracted from by accusing the others of trying to topple their darling's government.

Now if the Junta is not allowed to do reforms quickly then that would seem to indicate that people want the NCPO to take their time to properly do so.

1. "chicken or egg"? Now you're getting ridiculous. Does Thailand have undeveloped democracy because there are too many coups, or are there too many coups because Thailand has undeveloped democracy. Answer: It doesn't matter! The voters in a democracy are under no obligation to elect an government that satisfies the military, and the military has no right to topple the elected government.

The only circumstances that warrant a military coup is a government acting in such a reckless manner as to pose an immediate threat to the nation and a military coup is the only practical solution. That was not the case, regardless of the claims of drama queens that the nation was on the verge of a civil war. All the military had to do was state that there would be no coup and the protesters should go home and the July elections would have taken place.

2 & 4. Once again, you mention nothing that could not, and should not, have been dealt with using elections and the courts. Name calling does not justify a coup. Neither does a failed attempt at amnesty.

3. The government was under no obligation to talk with the leader of an illegal protest that was obstructing government. They eventually agreed to talk, but not on Suthep's terms. So what? Once again, if the military had held off on the coup and allowed the July elections, the voters could have decided if this was a suitable approach to the protests.

Regarding the Army's "attempt" at reconciliation: They stood by for six months of often violent protest, then declared martial law two weeks after the courts declined to topple the PTP government. After two days of talks, a trivial amount of time for these kind of negotiations, they staged the coup. It almost seems like they had made up their mind that the government had to be toppled, they just waited to see if the courts would do it first. Of course that explanation doesn't support the claim that there was an emergency and the coup had to be staged immediately.

Consider what you are implicitly saying. You are stating that it is acceptable for the military to topple an elected government, write a new constitution, allow an election, then topple the next government if the military doesn't like the new elected government, and repeat the cycle. That's not how to get a democracy started.

Democracy only works if the people and parties that lose the election accept their loss and spend the time between elections preparing a better campaign for the next time. In Thailand the Democrats consistently lose elections then spend their time, in cooperation with allies in the military, working to topple the elected government by any means possible. Democracy will never take root in Thailand so long as that continues.

You really like to zigzag around and twist the truth, now don't you ?

First "The way it should work doesn't work in Thailand because Thailand rarely goes a decade without a coup." and now "Answer: It doesn't matter!" followed by meaningless remarks ?

For your information I'm told NOTHING warrants a coup, so why do you state a situation you think that's not so? Don't you believe in democracy?

"All the military had to do was state that there would be no coup and the protesters should go home and the July elections would have taken place."

Why 'should' the anti-government protester go home? Because Ms. Yingluck asked them? Because she said more was to foloow? Because she said it was up to the senate? Because she made a wee bit of a miscalculation in the blanket amnesty bill and how people would see it? Allegedly of course, I probably should replace Yingluck by Thaksin.

Again you keep suggesting what in a functional democracy could or should have happened, completely ignoring the state of Thailand in that respect.

You brought up the government willing to negotiate and now they were under no obligation to talk with the leader of an illegal protest? Are we still trying to convince we're talking about a functioning democracy were anti-government protests are not pronounced illegal because it doesn't fit some criminal fugitives objectives?

BTW the EC made it clear that under the circumstances July elections were impossible, reasons security, timing, lack of new Royal Decree, minor things like that. To blame the Army seems a bit misguided, or just simply a twisting of the truth.

The army stood of till the courts decline to topple the government ? Oh boy, are we living in the same universe and timeline? Following you simply state as fact what you want to be seen as what you would like me to have said?

Well that's not how democracy gets started.

Following you simply sjhow not to understand elections or democracy as the very fact that consistently 25% to 35% of the Thai electorate voting Democrat party is described as losing an election. I'm originally from the Netherlands, a country where parties 'win' even if they get a single seat. That's democracy. Not a system where anyone not gaining a majority is deemed the loser and to be ignored.

Now for an explanation why the Junta wants reforms done quickly. That's simply because they do not have either the patience, nor the time to deal with fools.

"First "The way it should work doesn't work in Thailand because Thailand rarely goes a decade without a coup." and now "Answer: It doesn't matter!" followed by meaningless remarks ?"

You do struggle with English, don't you? I'll make it very simple--The coups need to stop in Thailand. Thailand will never have a functioning democracy until the coups stop. Democracy can not take root and mature until the coups stop. The only possible justification for a coup it is the only option that will prevent disaster. Thailand was no where near that point.

You think the protestors would have stayed on the street without the possibility of a coup. I think that's extremely unlikely, but let's say the military made it clear there would be no coup and the protesters stayed on the street. Then the government could have asked for the military's help, as Abhisit did in 2010, to clear the streets. The protests had long since passed the bounds of peaceful protest and had become lawless street mobs that had no right to obstruct government or elections. Once the streets were cleared the EC would have had no reason to object to an election. In case you're wondering why the military would support the government, its because that's what the military in a democracy does. Unless it's a military with no respect for democracy.

"The army stood of till the courts decline to topple the government ? Oh boy, are we living in the same universe and timeline?"

Let's see, the protests started in November, the election was disrupted in February, I think violence peaked around March, the court removed Yingluck from office on 7 April but left the PTP government in place, martial law was declared on 20 April, and the coup was on 22 April. It certainly seems like the army stood by until the courts declined to remove the PTP from government.

The Democrats 'lost' in the sense that they didn't control the government, and they wouldn't accept anything else. They certainly act like losers, and sore losers at that.

Here's some light reading for you on what makes democracy fail. You will recognize some of the culprits: http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21593419-varying-degrees-justification-election-boycotts-are-vogue-asia-trouble