Junta wants reforms done quickly

djjamie · July 12, 2014

'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.

democracy either
monitored elections
called for new elections
democratic societies
through their votes
address the elected offices

You do realize that there is more than one principle to democracy?

I would say I don't doubt the PTP adhere to that one principle, but after being found guilty of voter fraud TWICE in parliament in the last 3 years I see they don't even respect the one principle you strenuously focus on.

So with that said can you let me know the 14 other principles that the PTP adhere too, because elections ain't one of them.

And in the words of the last deputy PM of Thailand. You will get a convention centre when you vote for us. Is that what the DPM says in your country?

Is that democratic?

If it is I promise to behead myself which incidently is what another DPM from the PTP said.

Is that appropriate?

If it is I promise to never ever tell my friends what I did with the money they gave me.

Is that appropriate? Apparently it is because under the PTP the rice scheme figures were more secretive than the United States nuclear missile launch codes.

That is what was voted in by a perpetually poor lower class who don't care about the above because a carrot was dangled in front of them, but was never actually in reach.

I will stand by that.

And in regards to corruption.

Remember the 3 fingered salute. It stands for;

Reconciliation.
Reform.
Elections.

That is the road to not stopping corruption, but allowing those that engage in it to be more easily held accountable. Transparency is a good reform item…Unless of course forcing the PTP through a court order to have public water management hearings is what should be expected as transparent and the norm in Thailand.

If it is then reform is a waste of time.

Edited July 12, 2014 by djjamie

djjamie · July 12, 2014

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

The coups need to stop in Thailand

I agree. They will stop when governments start respecting the other 14 principles of democracy. They will stop when a militia stops daily terrorist attacks on innocent people. They will stop when an unelected accused mass murderer, accused terrorist, convicted criminal fugitive stops running the country. They will stop when the people are not held in contempt. They will stop when a government is able to adhere to democracy post ballot box instead of ignoring democracy post ballot box. That is when they will stop.

It is like saying "the arrest of criminals need to stop". Well, they will, if they stop committing the crime.

I see the link is regarding the one principle of democracy that the PTP was found guilty of again..

Remember there are 14 other principles.

I can send you 14 other links to show you why democracy fails.

Edited July 12, 2014 by djjamie

heybruce · July 12, 2014

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.

democracy either

monitored elections

called for new elections

democratic societies

through their votes

address the elected offices

You do realize that there is more than one principle to democracy?

I would say I don't doubt the PTP adhere to that one principle, but after being found guilty of voter fraud TWICE in parliament in the last 3 years I see they don't even respect the one principle you strenuously focus on.

So with that said can you let me know the 14 other principles that the PTP adhere too, because elections ain't one of them.

And in the words of the last deputy PM of Thailand. You will get a convention centre when you vote for us. Is that what the DPM says in your country?

Is that democratic?

If it is I promise to behead myself which incidently is what another DPM from the PTP said.

Is that appropriate?

If it is I promise to never ever tell my friends what I did with the money they gave me.

Is that appropriate? Apparently it is because under the PTP the rice scheme figures were more secretive than the United States nuclear missile launch codes.

That is what was voted in by a perpetually poor lower class who don't care about the above because a carrot was dangled in front of them, but was never actually in reach.

I will stand by that.

And in regards to corruption.

Remember the 3 fingered salute. It stands for;

Reconciliation.

Reform.

Elections.

That is the road to not stopping corruption, but allowing those that engage in it to be more easily held accountable. Transparency is a good reform item…Unless of course forcing the PTP through a court order to have public water management hearings is what should be expected as transparent and the norm in Thailand.

If it is then reform is a waste of time.

You didn't address anything that I posted, you just seem to be offering more of "the PTP is bad so the coup is good" logic. In so doing you used lots of unreferenced stuff. Provide some references and I'll address them.

You might also describe the democratic credentials of the junta. Just for fun, you can also tell us how transparent the military is.

heybruce · July 12, 2014

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

The coups need to stop in Thailand

I agree. They will stop when governments start respecting the other 14 principles of democracy. They will stop when a militia stops daily terrorist attacks on innocent people. They will stop when an unelected accused mass murderer, accused terrorist, convicted criminal fugitive stops running the country. They will stop when the people are not held in contempt. They will stop when a government is able to adhere to democracy post ballot box instead of ignoring democracy post ballot box. That is when they will stop.

It is like saying "the arrest of criminals need to stop". Well, they will, if they stop committing the crime.

I see the link is regarding the one principle of democracy that the PTP was found guilty of again..

Remember there are 14 other principles.

I can send you 14 other links to show you why democracy fails.

In other words, until there is a government that meets your standards on these 14 principles of democracy, you consider a military coup acceptable. Even though a coup is the antithesis of democracy.

I don't know how many democracies there are around the the world that need to be toppled for failing to meet your standards. but I'm sure there are many. I suspect that in most of them the people aren't even aware that they need a coup to straighten their government out.

heybruce · July 12, 2014

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

The coups need to stop in Thailand

I agree. They will stop when governments start respecting the other 14 principles of democracy. They will stop when a militia stops daily terrorist attacks on innocent people. They will stop when an unelected accused mass murderer, accused terrorist, convicted criminal fugitive stops running the country. They will stop when the people are not held in contempt. They will stop when a government is able to adhere to democracy post ballot box instead of ignoring democracy post ballot box. That is when they will stop.

It is like saying "the arrest of criminals need to stop". Well, they will, if they stop committing the crime.

I see the link is regarding the one principle of democracy that the PTP was found guilty of again..

Remember there are 14 other principles.

I can send you 14 other links to show you why democracy fails.

I just found this: http://www.dda.deliberating.org/images/pdf/principlesofdemocracyhandout.pdf. Are these the 14 principles you were referring to?

While I agree these are good ideas, a literal interpretation of some of the principles causes problems. For example I don't think the UK and some other first world Commonwealth nations have an explicit Bill of Rights. If true, does this warrant coups in these countries?

More to the point, do you think the military junta will incorporate these principles in their next constitution. I don't think they're too keen on transparency, and there is one aspect of Human Rights, the freedom of speech, that I'm sure they would forbid. It's in the subject area that can't be discussed here, but I think any government that attempted to grant the Thai people this much freedom would immediately be toppled in a military coup. Of course I think any government that tried to force an independent audit of the military, which falls under the Transparency principle, would face the same fate.

You seem to be advocating a Catch-22 situation; the military will not tolerate a government that tries to enforce the 14 Principles, but the military can topple any government that doesn't follow the 14 Principles.

As an aside, I'm surprised that freedom of the press isn't on the list. Of course the junta isn't too keen on that either.

The Deerhunter · July 13, 2014

of course they want these reforms done as soon as possible, as they can run not their joke/circus/comedy any longer,

within a few months this country will be completely broke...

Like it wasn't heading there anyway because of the SHINanigans???

northernjohn · July 13, 2014

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.

I am well aware of the fact that Thailand has a coup government. It is not a Democracy.

You on the other hand are unaware that it is far better than what you call a Democracy. You pay absolutely no attention to what is going on. You are oblivious to the fact that the junta has laid down a time schedule for returning the country to an elected government.

You are unaware that it is making changes to give people a choice in governing Thailand. You are unaware that it has paid off huge debts to rice farmers that the previous government refused to pay. Instead of paying them they closed down the government causing all kinds off hardship on the rice growers one of the leading exports of the country in fact took them from world leaders to third place and incurred massive debts.

You are unaware that they are taking steps to better the Thai education system. Some of which I disagree but they are better than what Thailand. had. Which of these things did the Burmese do when they had their coup in 1988?

From what you have posted you have no idea of what Democracy is 48% is a cold hard fact. It is a minority and that is what we had running Thailand. defiantly not a democracy.

If you are not pro Thaksin why so much vehemence over the fact that he is not in power any more?

Skywalker69 · July 13, 2014

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

Go back to sleep.

djjamie · July 13, 2014

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.

democracy either

monitored elections

called for new elections

democratic societies

through their votes

address the elected offices

You do realize that there is more than one principle to democracy?

I would say I don't doubt the PTP adhere to that one principle, but after being found guilty of voter fraud TWICE in parliament in the last 3 years I see they don't even respect the one principle you strenuously focus on.

So with that said can you let me know the 14 other principles that the PTP adhere too, because elections ain't one of them.

And in the words of the last deputy PM of Thailand. You will get a convention centre when you vote for us. Is that what the DPM says in your country?

Is that democratic?

If it is I promise to behead myself which incidently is what another DPM from the PTP said.

Is that appropriate?

If it is I promise to never ever tell my friends what I did with the money they gave me.

Is that appropriate? Apparently it is because under the PTP the rice scheme figures were more secretive than the United States nuclear missile launch codes.

That is what was voted in by a perpetually poor lower class who don't care about the above because a carrot was dangled in front of them, but was never actually in reach.

I will stand by that.

And in regards to corruption.

Remember the 3 fingered salute. It stands for;

Reconciliation.

Reform.

Elections.

That is the road to not stopping corruption, but allowing those that engage in it to be more easily held accountable. Transparency is a good reform item…Unless of course forcing the PTP through a court order to have public water management hearings is what should be expected as transparent and the norm in Thailand.

If it is then reform is a waste of time.

You didn't address anything that I posted, you just seem to be offering more of "the PTP is bad so the coup is good" logic. In so doing you used lots of unreferenced stuff. Provide some references and I'll address them.

You might also describe the democratic credentials of the junta. Just for fun, you can also tell us how transparent the military is.

I think you have caught the Fab4 disease.

You dismiss what I say because they don't address your post and because I have not googled the references and added links they don't excist or deserve a reply in your mind and ensure that unless I conform to your terms of referencing everything I said you won't reply. Fab4 written all over it. Next you say I need 5 sources for each item or it is propaganda and simply not true. Then the cherry on the cake is that not only do I have to go back and reference everything before you will reply, but you have gig en me "homework" with your last comment.

All my points above that are not referenced, but are common knowledge ( google it ) highlight that corruption was not addressed through the voting process. Though I will add that through voting it was pretty clear that corruption was not addressed at the last election. The NACC budget was slashed by 60% and 2 anti corruption committees were dissolved by the PTP. Why? The carrot.

So to play your game - You might like to describe to me the non democratic credentials of a Junta that are bringing reform to ensure the 14 other principles of democracy are not abused as shown from my unreferenced ( google it mate) comments above that the PTP did abuse.

Also tell me how the Junta are not as transparent as the PTP. I love it when some defend the previous regime run by an unelected criminal as democratic that showed anything but transparency yet denounce the Junta as not transparent when they have shown nothing BUT transparency. That is PTP logic right there. One needs court orders to be transparent while the other has invited the NACC to investigate all projects and in fact shelved the 4G auctions due to transparency issues.

If you disagree or this goes agents your agenda then remember "My post is fake and is a figment of your imagination" Just as inflation was under the PTP. There is that transparency thing again!!

djjamie · July 13, 2014

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

The coups need to stop in Thailand

I agree. They will stop when governments start respecting the other 14 principles of democracy. They will stop when a militia stops daily terrorist attacks on innocent people. They will stop when an unelected accused mass murderer, accused terrorist, convicted criminal fugitive stops running the country. They will stop when the people are not held in contempt. They will stop when a government is able to adhere to democracy post ballot box instead of ignoring democracy post ballot box. That is when they will stop.

It is like saying "the arrest of criminals need to stop". Well, they will, if they stop committing the crime.

I see the link is regarding the one principle of democracy that the PTP was found guilty of again..

Remember there are 14 other principles.

I can send you 14 other links to show you why democracy fails.

In other words, until there is a government that meets your standards on these 14 principles of democracy, you consider a military coup acceptable. Even though a coup is the antithesis of democracy.

I don't know how many democracies there are around the the world that need to be toppled for failing to meet your standards. but I'm sure there are many. I suspect that in most of them the people aren't even aware that they need a coup to straighten their government out.

My standards? No, democratic standards mate. Democratic.

Unless all the points that I didn't reference ( google it mate) in my previous post are democratic to your standards?

No transparency in water hearings. So your standards say that is democratic?

No transparency in rice scheme. So your standards say that is democratic?

Threatening to behead yourself if an accused terrorist, accused mass murderer, convicted criminal unelected fugitive is not back in Thailand. So your standards say that is democratic?

That unelected man running the PTP. So your standards say that is democratic?

Vote for us or we won't give you what you want. Essentially saying "I won't advance Thailand because you support the other guys" So your standards say that is democratic?

It goes on and on and on.

Democracy was not lost because it was never there so the Junta did not remove democracy. They are restorers of it.

The real coup happened in 2011. 1 second after the PTP won the election. The Junta are reversing that coup and putting Thailand back on the road to democracy.

jpeg · July 13, 2014

You can take the 'monkey' out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the 'monkey'.

djjamie · July 13, 2014

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

The coups need to stop in Thailand

I agree. They will stop when governments start respecting the other 14 principles of democracy. They will stop when a militia stops daily terrorist attacks on innocent people. They will stop when an unelected accused mass murderer, accused terrorist, convicted criminal fugitive stops running the country. They will stop when the people are not held in contempt. They will stop when a government is able to adhere to democracy post ballot box instead of ignoring democracy post ballot box. That is when they will stop.

It is like saying "the arrest of criminals need to stop". Well, they will, if they stop committing the crime.

I see the link is regarding the one principle of democracy that the PTP was found guilty of again..

Remember there are 14 other principles.

I can send you 14 other links to show you why democracy fails.

I just found this: http://www.dda.deliberating.org/images/pdf/principlesofdemocracyhandout.pdf. Are these the 14 principles you were referring to?

While I agree these are good ideas, a literal interpretation of some of the principles causes problems. For example I don't think the UK and some other first world Commonwealth nations have an explicit Bill of Rights. If true, does this warrant coups in these countries?

More to the point, do you think the military junta will incorporate these principles in their next constitution. I don't think they're too keen on transparency, and there is one aspect of Human Rights, the freedom of speech, that I'm sure they would forbid. It's in the subject area that can't be discussed here, but I think any government that attempted to grant the Thai people this much freedom would immediately be toppled in a military coup. Of course I think any government that tried to force an independent audit of the military, which falls under the Transparency principle, would face the same fate.

You seem to be advocating a Catch-22 situation; the military will not tolerate a government that tries to enforce the 14 Principles, but the military can topple any government that doesn't follow the 14 Principles.

As an aside, I'm surprised that freedom of the press isn't on the list. Of course the junta isn't too keen on that either.

This is not the UK. It is Thailand. The UK is not run by an unelected criminal. The UK government were not brought to power by a violent UDD militia run by 2 accused terrorist and an ex communist that subsequently were ( with no surprises) responsible for the near daily terrorist attacks in Bangkok and Trat. This is Thailand. If you want to compare Thai democracy then compare it to countries like Chad, Liberia or Grenada. Interesting, the USA have removed or supported coups in those countries too because they wanted a US sympathetic government.

Don't think the Junta are too keen on transparency? Read my previous post I wrote to you. PTP have shown no transparency yet you defend them. The Junta have shown nothing but transparency yet you say they are not transparent. AGAIN. PTP logic right there folks.

You seem to be advocating a Catch-22 situation; the military will not tolerate a government that tries to enforce the 14 Principles, but the military can topple any government that doesn't follow the 14 Principles.

What?? When did the Junta remove a government that tried to enforce 14 principles. The PTP certainly didn't and this is the crux of my argument. It is central to what I am talking about.

The Junta are restoring a democracy that the PTP removed for 3 years.

opalred · July 13, 2014

reading some of these posts i thnk some are over stepping the mark remember you are only a guest in this country cheers

ginjag · July 13, 2014

reading some of these posts i thnk some are over stepping the mark remember you are only a guest in this country cheers

It's a forum, interested persons to comment, latest news, information, exchange views, Your comment reads that we do not do things like this, as we can suffer the WHAT ??? I will give myself a reprimand and have to repeat to myself---" I am only a guest---I am only a guest-I am only a guest.

I would call it expressing an opinion--if anyone goes way over the top they are dealt with accordingly, but thanks for your input. cheers.

Thailand · July 13, 2014

reading some of these posts i thnk some are over stepping the mark remember you are only a guest in this country cheers

Check out the number of posts many make, they obviously have nothing better to do.

As for overstepping the mark, can't do that here in Land Of Happyness at the moment without severe penalties.

ginjag · July 13, 2014

reading some of these posts i thnk some are over stepping the mark remember you are only a guest in this country cheers

Check out the number of posts many make, they obviously have nothing better to do.

As for overstepping the mark, can't do that here in Land Of Happyness at the moment without severe penalties.

How often are you on TVF --once a month ???

Your second over the top remark is typical of sour grapes. severe penalties ??? what ???? you must be hurting bad.

Just carry on army steamroller forward roll over the deadwood.

Edited July 13, 2014 by ginjag

rubl · July 13, 2014

"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

Well, in my universe and timeline THai democracy didn't fail with the coup on April 22nd, 2014, but if it failed it would be on May 22nd, 2014.

The rest of your post keep on condemning Thailand for the faulty democracy they have/had and the current attempt to make corrections. The continue saying, but that shouldn't be in this way, history tells us it's no good, i don't like it, etc., etc. is nice as opinion, but doesn't help Thailand at all. Just like the undemocratic activities of the Yingluck administration didn't help with seemingly condoning violence against the anti-government protesters. Now that's democracy as you may like it.

The Junta wants reforms done quickly and the more you and similar minded people condemn any of their actions the more reason you seem to give for the NCPO to stay on a bit longer. Even Thai people seem to like the NCPO activities, with the exception maybe of those who lost their (War) weapons for personel use only.

Pragmatically Thailand has a chance to leapfrog into the 21st century and make / pass all those reforms which took Western Style democracies many generations. The most important part seems to be proper input from the Thai population, not from TVF posters with their head in the sky or elsewhere.

rubl · July 13, 2014

reading some of these posts i thnk some are over stepping the mark remember you are only a guest in this country cheers

Check out the number of posts many make, they obviously have nothing better to do.

As for overstepping the mark, can't do that here in Land Of Happyness at the moment without severe penalties.

I made about three times as many posts in the same time as you, 11-1/2 years. Is that too many? Furthermore how does that reflect on the topic at hand, "Junta wants reforms" ?

As for opalred's remark on over stepping the mark, I'll discuss that with heybruce. I think we will finally agree about something, agree that that was a meaningless statement.

northernjohn · July 13, 2014

"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

Well, in my universe and timeline THai democracy didn't fail with the coup on April 22nd, 2014, but if it failed it would be on May 22nd, 2014.

The rest of your post keep on condemning Thailand for the faulty democracy they have/had and the current attempt to make corrections. The continue saying, but that shouldn't be in this way, history tells us it's no good, i don't like it, etc., etc. is nice as opinion, but doesn't help Thailand at all. Just like the undemocratic activities of the Yingluck administration didn't help with seemingly condoning violence against the anti-government protesters. Now that's democracy as you may like it.

The Junta wants reforms done quickly and the more you and similar minded people condemn any of their actions the more reason you seem to give for the NCPO to stay on a bit longer. Even Thai people seem to like the NCPO activities, with the exception maybe of those who lost their (War) weapons for personel use only.

Pragmatically Thailand has a chance to leapfrog into the 21st century and make / pass all those reforms which took Western Style democracies many generations. The most important part seems to be proper input from the Thai population, not from TVF posters with their head in the sky or elsewhere.

You forgot that they condoned the Finance minister lying to the public because it made them feel good.

Head in the sky or elsewhere. I prefer to look at it as feet firmly placed in mid air. Come to think of it they could have their head placed elsewhere there also.

Let us all rejoice in the fact that Thailand as you say has a chance to leapfrog into the 21st centaury.

Well said.

heybruce · July 13, 2014

"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.

democracy either

monitored elections

called for new elections

democratic societies

through their votes

address the elected offices

You do realize that there is more than one principle to democracy?

I would say I don't doubt the PTP adhere to that one principle, but after being found guilty of voter fraud TWICE in parliament in the last 3 years I see they don't even respect the one principle you strenuously focus on.

So with that said can you let me know the 14 other principles that the PTP adhere too, because elections ain't one of them.

And in the words of the last deputy PM of Thailand. You will get a convention centre when you vote for us. Is that what the DPM says in your country?

Is that democratic?

If it is I promise to behead myself which incidently is what another DPM from the PTP said.

Is that appropriate?

If it is I promise to never ever tell my friends what I did with the money they gave me.

Is that appropriate? Apparently it is because under the PTP the rice scheme figures were more secretive than the United States nuclear missile launch codes.

That is what was voted in by a perpetually poor lower class who don't care about the above because a carrot was dangled in front of them, but was never actually in reach.

I will stand by that.

And in regards to corruption.

Remember the 3 fingered salute. It stands for;

Reconciliation.

Reform.

Elections.

That is the road to not stopping corruption, but allowing those that engage in it to be more easily held accountable. Transparency is a good reform item…Unless of course forcing the PTP through a court order to have public water management hearings is what should be expected as transparent and the norm in Thailand.

If it is then reform is a waste of time.

You didn't address anything that I posted, you just seem to be offering more of "the PTP is bad so the coup is good" logic. In so doing you used lots of unreferenced stuff. Provide some references and I'll address them.

You might also describe the democratic credentials of the junta. Just for fun, you can also tell us how transparent the military is.

I think you have caught the Fab4 disease.

You dismiss what I say because they don't address your post and because I have not googled the references and added links they don't excist or deserve a reply in your mind and ensure that unless I conform to your terms of referencing everything I said you won't reply. Fab4 written all over it. Next you say I need 5 sources for each item or it is propaganda and simply not true. Then the cherry on the cake is that not only do I have to go back and reference everything before you will reply, but you have gig en me "homework" with your last comment.

All my points above that are not referenced, but are common knowledge ( google it ) highlight that corruption was not addressed through the voting process. Though I will add that through voting it was pretty clear that corruption was not addressed at the last election. The NACC budget was slashed by 60% and 2 anti corruption committees were dissolved by the PTP. Why? The carrot.

So to play your game - You might like to describe to me the non democratic credentials of a Junta that are bringing reform to ensure the 14 other principles of democracy are not abused as shown from my unreferenced ( google it mate) comments above that the PTP did abuse.

Also tell me how the Junta are not as transparent as the PTP. I love it when some defend the previous regime run by an unelected criminal as democratic that showed anything but transparency yet denounce the Junta as not transparent when they have shown nothing BUT transparency. That is PTP logic right there. One needs court orders to be transparent while the other has invited the NACC to investigate all projects and in fact shelved the 4G auctions due to transparency issues.

If you disagree or this goes agents your agenda then remember "My post is fake and is a figment of your imagination" Just as inflation was under the PTP. There is that transparency thing again!!

I see, 'common knowledge' statements. As credible as 'I heard in a bar' and 'everybody knows' statements. These are your statements that you are presenting as facts, it is your obligation to reference them. I'm not going to Google 'voter fraud Thailand' and go through pages of hits to try to verify your claims. I don't need five references per claim, one credible reference will do.

I am not denying that the PTP government had a lot of problems. I'm denying that a military with a long history of coups is qualified or interested in writing a constitution that can be the foundation of a democratic Thailand. I'm also doubt that the military will stand by if any government in Thailand threatens the military's interests.

heybruce · July 13, 2014

"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

The coups need to stop in Thailand

I agree. They will stop when governments start respecting the other 14 principles of democracy. They will stop when a militia stops daily terrorist attacks on innocent people. They will stop when an unelected accused mass murderer, accused terrorist, convicted criminal fugitive stops running the country. They will stop when the people are not held in contempt. They will stop when a government is able to adhere to democracy post ballot box instead of ignoring democracy post ballot box. That is when they will stop.

It is like saying "the arrest of criminals need to stop". Well, they will, if they stop committing the crime.

I see the link is regarding the one principle of democracy that the PTP was found guilty of again..

Remember there are 14 other principles.

I can send you 14 other links to show you why democracy fails.

In other words, until there is a government that meets your standards on these 14 principles of democracy, you consider a military coup acceptable. Even though a coup is the antithesis of democracy.

I don't know how many democracies there are around the the world that need to be toppled for failing to meet your standards. but I'm sure there are many. I suspect that in most of them the people aren't even aware that they need a coup to straighten their government out.

My standards? No, democratic standards mate. Democratic.

Unless all the points that I didn't reference ( google it mate) in my previous post are democratic to your standards?

No transparency in water hearings. So your standards say that is democratic?

No transparency in rice scheme. So your standards say that is democratic?

Threatening to behead yourself if an accused terrorist, accused mass murderer, convicted criminal unelected fugitive is not back in Thailand. So your standards say that is democratic?

That unelected man running the PTP. So your standards say that is democratic?

Vote for us or we won't give you what you want. Essentially saying "I won't advance Thailand because you support the other guys" So your standards say that is democratic?

It goes on and on and on.

Democracy was not lost because it was never there so the Junta did not remove democracy. They are restorers of it.

The real coup happened in 2011. 1 second after the PTP won the election. The Junta are reversing that coup and putting Thailand back on the road to democracy.

The PTP won a monitored election deemed legitimate. Something that no military junta can claim. For the rest I'll tell you what I've repeatedly told rubl, there is nothing on your list of PTP actions that could not, and should not, have been dealt with by the courts or by the voters in a new election.

You think the military is restoring democracy? Like they did after the 2006 coup?

djjamie · July 13, 2014

reading some of these posts i thnk some are over stepping the mark remember you are only a guest in this country cheers

Check out the number of posts many make, they obviously have nothing better to do.

As for overstepping the mark, can't do that here in Land Of Happyness at the moment without severe penalties.

How often are you on TVF --once a month ???

Your second over the top remark is typical of sour grapes. severe penalties ??? what ???? you must be hurting bad.

Just carry on army steamroller forward roll over the deadwood.

It is amusing how they simply dismiss facts now that the Junta have shown absolute success on the road to restoring democracy.

PTP have proven that they are not transparent and when a whistle is blown at thaksins ex wife the whistle blowers house is bombed. Yet they don't have severe penalties and they are completely transparent.

The Junta have shown nothing but transparency in fact holding of on a lot of projects until the NACC have scrutinized them as well as arresting, detaining then releasing people. Yet they are not transparent and severe penalties apply.

Next they will say all news stories are fake when it doesn't suit their agenda!!! Oh, hang on…Ok they will say the rice scheme has no corruption….Oh hang on. Ok they will say the reconciliation bill will restore peace…..Oh, hang on.

Is there anything they have said that has proven right yet?

heybruce · July 13, 2014

The coups need to stop in Thailand

"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

I agree. They will stop when governments start respecting the other 14 principles of democracy. They will stop when a militia stops daily terrorist attacks on innocent people. They will stop when an unelected accused mass murderer, accused terrorist, convicted criminal fugitive stops running the country. They will stop when the people are not held in contempt. They will stop when a government is able to adhere to democracy post ballot box instead of ignoring democracy post ballot box. That is when they will stop.

It is like saying "the arrest of criminals need to stop". Well, they will, if they stop committing the crime.

I see the link is regarding the one principle of democracy that the PTP was found guilty of again..

Remember there are 14 other principles.

I can send you 14 other links to show you why democracy fails.

I just found this: http://www.dda.deliberating.org/images/pdf/principlesofdemocracyhandout.pdf. Are these the 14 principles you were referring to?

While I agree these are good ideas, a literal interpretation of some of the principles causes problems. For example I don't think the UK and some other first world Commonwealth nations have an explicit Bill of Rights. If true, does this warrant coups in these countries?

More to the point, do you think the military junta will incorporate these principles in their next constitution. I don't think they're too keen on transparency, and there is one aspect of Human Rights, the freedom of speech, that I'm sure they would forbid. It's in the subject area that can't be discussed here, but I think any government that attempted to grant the Thai people this much freedom would immediately be toppled in a military coup. Of course I think any government that tried to force an independent audit of the military, which falls under the Transparency principle, would face the same fate.

You seem to be advocating a Catch-22 situation; the military will not tolerate a government that tries to enforce the 14 Principles, but the military can topple any government that doesn't follow the 14 Principles.

As an aside, I'm surprised that freedom of the press isn't on the list. Of course the junta isn't too keen on that either.

This is not the UK. It is Thailand. The UK is not run by an unelected criminal. The UK government were not brought to power by a violent UDD militia run by 2 accused terrorist and an ex communist that subsequently were ( with no surprises) responsible for the near daily terrorist attacks in Bangkok and Trat. This is Thailand. If you want to compare Thai democracy then compare it to countries like Chad, Liberia or Grenada. Interesting, the USA have removed or supported coups in those countries too because they wanted a US sympathetic government.

Don't think the Junta are too keen on transparency? Read my previous post I wrote to you. PTP have shown no transparency yet you defend them. The Junta have shown nothing but transparency yet you say they are not transparent. AGAIN. PTP logic right there folks.

You seem to be advocating a Catch-22 situation; the military will not tolerate a government that tries to enforce the 14 Principles, but the military can topple any government that doesn't follow the 14 Principles.

What?? When did the Junta remove a government that tried to enforce 14 principles. The PTP certainly didn't and this is the crux of my argument. It is central to what I am talking about.

The Junta are restoring a democracy that the PTP removed for 3 years.

I'll ignore the stuff where you object to the voters choice and make claims that should have been dealt with in the courts without a coup.

No, I don't think the military is keen on transparency. I don't think the bureaucracy in Thailand is keen on transparency. As I indicated, I think the military would stage a coup against any government that attempted a detailed independent audit of their accounts. Do you think the stories the military allows in the censored media of Thailand qualifies as transparency?

There has never been a government in Thailand that complied with the 14 principles of democracy. There has never been a military junta that did not do a much worse job of complying with the 14 principles. There has never been a constitution provided by a military junta that requires the government abide by the 14 principles. If you are looking to the military to bring about a government that complies with the 14 principles you are looking to the wrong people. Why would you even think that the military is that keen on democracy?

djjamie · July 13, 2014

democracy either

monitored elections

called for new elections

democratic societies

through their votes

address the elected offices

You do realize that there is more than one principle to democracy?

I would say I don't doubt the PTP adhere to that one principle, but after being found guilty of voter fraud TWICE in parliament in the last 3 years I see they don't even respect the one principle you strenuously focus on.

So with that said can you let me know the 14 other principles that the PTP adhere too, because elections ain't one of them.

And in the words of the last deputy PM of Thailand. You will get a convention centre when you vote for us. Is that what the DPM says in your country?

Is that democratic?

If it is I promise to behead myself which incidently is what another DPM from the PTP said.

Is that appropriate?

If it is I promise to never ever tell my friends what I did with the money they gave me.

Is that appropriate? Apparently it is because under the PTP the rice scheme figures were more secretive than the United States nuclear missile launch codes.

That is what was voted in by a perpetually poor lower class who don't care about the above because a carrot was dangled in front of them, but was never actually in reach.

I will stand by that.

And in regards to corruption.

Remember the 3 fingered salute. It stands for;

Reconciliation.

Reform.

Elections.

That is the road to not stopping corruption, but allowing those that engage in it to be more easily held accountable. Transparency is a good reform item…Unless of course forcing the PTP through a court order to have public water management hearings is what should be expected as transparent and the norm in Thailand.

If it is then reform is a waste of time.

You didn't address anything that I posted, you just seem to be offering more of "the PTP is bad so the coup is good" logic. In so doing you used lots of unreferenced stuff. Provide some references and I'll address them.

You might also describe the democratic credentials of the junta. Just for fun, you can also tell us how transparent the military is.

I think you have caught the Fab4 disease.

You dismiss what I say because they don't address your post and because I have not googled the references and added links they don't excist or deserve a reply in your mind and ensure that unless I conform to your terms of referencing everything I said you won't reply. Fab4 written all over it. Next you say I need 5 sources for each item or it is propaganda and simply not true. Then the cherry on the cake is that not only do I have to go back and reference everything before you will reply, but you have gig en me "homework" with your last comment.

All my points above that are not referenced, but are common knowledge ( google it ) highlight that corruption was not addressed through the voting process. Though I will add that through voting it was pretty clear that corruption was not addressed at the last election. The NACC budget was slashed by 60% and 2 anti corruption committees were dissolved by the PTP. Why? The carrot.

So to play your game - You might like to describe to me the non democratic credentials of a Junta that are bringing reform to ensure the 14 other principles of democracy are not abused as shown from my unreferenced ( google it mate) comments above that the PTP did abuse.

Also tell me how the Junta are not as transparent as the PTP. I love it when some defend the previous regime run by an unelected criminal as democratic that showed anything but transparency yet denounce the Junta as not transparent when they have shown nothing BUT transparency. That is PTP logic right there. One needs court orders to be transparent while the other has invited the NACC to investigate all projects and in fact shelved the 4G auctions due to transparency issues.

If you disagree or this goes agents your agenda then remember "My post is fake and is a figment of your imagination" Just as inflation was under the PTP. There is that transparency thing again!!

I see, 'common knowledge' statements. As credible as 'I heard in a bar' and 'everybody knows' statements. These are your statements that you are presenting as facts, it is your obligation to reference them. I'm not going to Google 'voter fraud Thailand' and go through pages of hits to try to verify your claims. I don't need five references per claim, one credible reference will do.

I am not denying that the PTP government had a lot of problems. I'm denying that a military with a long history of coups is qualified or interested in writing a constitution that can be the foundation of a democratic Thailand. I'm also doubt that the military will stand by if any government in Thailand threatens the military's interests.

And this is where the circle starts. Why would you google voter fraud? I never said that. AGAIN. Words in my mouth, twisting posts and doing anything but facing the facts I present.

Next if I say "Yingluck won the 2011 election"I won't be able to get away without referencing that she actually did. You know she did. I know she did so no need to reference it. It is as common knowledge as the DPM Plodprasop stating that Phuket will get a conference centre when they vote PTP.

If you cannot accept these facts then simply ignore my post or google it and call me a liar if I am wrong.

Now I see you're just going around in circles which is not dissimilar to a broken washing machine stuck on the "spin" cycle.

rubl · July 13, 2014

My standards? No, democratic standards mate. Democratic.

Unless all the points that I didn't reference ( google it mate) in my previous post are democratic to your standards?

No transparency in water hearings. So your standards say that is democratic?

No transparency in rice scheme. So your standards say that is democratic?

Threatening to behead yourself if an accused terrorist, accused mass murderer, convicted criminal unelected fugitive is not back in Thailand. So your standards say that is democratic?

That unelected man running the PTP. So your standards say that is democratic?

Vote for us or we won't give you what you want. Essentially saying "I won't advance Thailand because you support the other guys" So your standards say that is democratic?

It goes on and on and on.

Democracy was not lost because it was never there so the Junta did not remove democracy. They are restorers of it.

The real coup happened in 2011. 1 second after the PTP won the election. The Junta are reversing that coup and putting Thailand back on the road to democracy.

The PTP won a monitored election deemed legitimate. Something that no military junta can claim. For the rest I'll tell you what I've repeatedly told rubl, there is nothing on your list of PTP actions that could not, and should not, have been dealt with by the courts or by the voters in a new election.

You think the military is restoring democracy? Like they did after the 2006 coup?

'respect my vote till it's counted' it's really democratic. Handing a criminal fugitive a passport while the rest of the Thai Nation wades through flood waters isn't really democratic. Losing the country 1,000,000,000,000 Baht in hardly 2-1/2 years without any accounting isn't really democratic. To suggest that 'things' could have been solved by a new election is simply head in (desert) sands ignoring the disfunctional democracy in Thailand.

To answer your last question, the plan is for a firmer foundation for democracy in Thailand, more and real independent watchdog organisations, Input from Thai of all social strata, political convictions, gender, etc., .etc.

To deny the Thai such last chance to get their house on order, seems to display an utter contempt for justice and democracy. You sir, are contemptible.

djjamie · July 13, 2014

The coups need to stop in Thailand

"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

I agree. They will stop when governments start respecting the other 14 principles of democracy. They will stop when a militia stops daily terrorist attacks on innocent people. They will stop when an unelected accused mass murderer, accused terrorist, convicted criminal fugitive stops running the country. They will stop when the people are not held in contempt. They will stop when a government is able to adhere to democracy post ballot box instead of ignoring democracy post ballot box. That is when they will stop.

It is like saying "the arrest of criminals need to stop". Well, they will, if they stop committing the crime.

I see the link is regarding the one principle of democracy that the PTP was found guilty of again..

Remember there are 14 other principles.

I can send you 14 other links to show you why democracy fails.

I just found this: http://www.dda.deliberating.org/images/pdf/principlesofdemocracyhandout.pdf. Are these the 14 principles you were referring to?

While I agree these are good ideas, a literal interpretation of some of the principles causes problems. For example I don't think the UK and some other first world Commonwealth nations have an explicit Bill of Rights. If true, does this warrant coups in these countries?

More to the point, do you think the military junta will incorporate these principles in their next constitution. I don't think they're too keen on transparency, and there is one aspect of Human Rights, the freedom of speech, that I'm sure they would forbid. It's in the subject area that can't be discussed here, but I think any government that attempted to grant the Thai people this much freedom would immediately be toppled in a military coup. Of course I think any government that tried to force an independent audit of the military, which falls under the Transparency principle, would face the same fate.

You seem to be advocating a Catch-22 situation; the military will not tolerate a government that tries to enforce the 14 Principles, but the military can topple any government that doesn't follow the 14 Principles.

As an aside, I'm surprised that freedom of the press isn't on the list. Of course the junta isn't too keen on that either.

This is not the UK. It is Thailand. The UK is not run by an unelected criminal. The UK government were not brought to power by a violent UDD militia run by 2 accused terrorist and an ex communist that subsequently were ( with no surprises) responsible for the near daily terrorist attacks in Bangkok and Trat. This is Thailand. If you want to compare Thai democracy then compare it to countries like Chad, Liberia or Grenada. Interesting, the USA have removed or supported coups in those countries too because they wanted a US sympathetic government.

Don't think the Junta are too keen on transparency? Read my previous post I wrote to you. PTP have shown no transparency yet you defend them. The Junta have shown nothing but transparency yet you say they are not transparent. AGAIN. PTP logic right there folks.

You seem to be advocating a Catch-22 situation; the military will not tolerate a government that tries to enforce the 14 Principles, but the military can topple any government that doesn't follow the 14 Principles.

What?? When did the Junta remove a government that tried to enforce 14 principles. The PTP certainly didn't and this is the crux of my argument. It is central to what I am talking about.

The Junta are restoring a democracy that the PTP removed for 3 years.

I'll ignore the stuff where you object to the voters choice and make claims that should have been dealt with in the courts without a coup.

No, I don't think the military is keen on transparency. I don't think the bureaucracy in Thailand is keen on transparency. As I indicated, I think the military would stage a coup against any government that attempted a detailed independent audit of their accounts. Do you think the stories the military allows in the censored media of Thailand qualifies as transparency?

There has never been a government in Thailand that complied with the 14 principles of democracy. There has never been a military junta that did not do a much worse job of complying with the 14 principles. There has never been a constitution provided by a military junta that requires the government abide by the 14 principles. If you are looking to the military to bring about a government that complies with the 14 principles you are looking to the wrong people. Why would you even think that the military is that keen on democracy?

"I'll ignore the stuff where you object to the voters choice and make claims that should have been dealt with in the courts without a coup"

Putting words in my mouth again. Voters can vote for who ever they want to vote for. The party that one disrespected what the voters granted them. A democracy.

Courts don't stop daily terrorist attacks. This Junta did. This was why there was a coup. The courts will still decide.

You are simply going around in circles and dodging.

There has never been a government in Thailand that complied with the 14 principles of democracy.

You putting words in my mouth again. I didn't say there was!

Have rest and it might be time for you to board this reconciliation train. I have saved you a seat.

Toot, toot!

djjamie · July 13, 2014

The coups need to stop in Thailand

I agree. They will stop when governments start respecting the other 14 principles of democracy. They will stop when a militia stops daily terrorist attacks on innocent people. They will stop when an unelected accused mass murderer, accused terrorist, convicted criminal fugitive stops running the country. They will stop when the people are not held in contempt. They will stop when a government is able to adhere to democracy post ballot box instead of ignoring democracy post ballot box. That is when they will stop.

It is like saying "the arrest of criminals need to stop". Well, they will, if they stop committing the crime.

I see the link is regarding the one principle of democracy that the PTP was found guilty of again..

Remember there are 14 other principles.

I can send you 14 other links to show you why democracy fails.

In other words, until there is a government that meets your standards on these 14 principles of democracy, you consider a military coup acceptable. Even though a coup is the antithesis of democracy.

I don't know how many democracies there are around the the world that need to be toppled for failing to meet your standards. but I'm sure there are many. I suspect that in most of them the people aren't even aware that they need a coup to straighten their government out.

My standards? No, democratic standards mate. Democratic.

Unless all the points that I didn't reference ( google it mate) in my previous post are democratic to your standards?

No transparency in water hearings. So your standards say that is democratic?

No transparency in rice scheme. So your standards say that is democratic?

Threatening to behead yourself if an accused terrorist, accused mass murderer, convicted criminal unelected fugitive is not back in Thailand. So your standards say that is democratic?

That unelected man running the PTP. So your standards say that is democratic?

Vote for us or we won't give you what you want. Essentially saying "I won't advance Thailand because you support the other guys" So your standards say that is democratic?

It goes on and on and on.

Democracy was not lost because it was never there so the Junta did not remove democracy. They are restorers of it.

The real coup happened in 2011. 1 second after the PTP won the election. The Junta are reversing that coup and putting Thailand back on the road to democracy.

The PTP won a monitored election deemed legitimate. Something that no military junta can claim. For the rest I'll tell you what I've repeatedly told rubl, there is nothing on your list of PTP actions that could not, and should not, have been dealt with by the courts or by the voters in a new election.

You think the military is restoring democracy? Like they did after the 2006 coup?

there is nothing on your list of PTP actions that could not, and should not, have been dealt with by the courts or by the voters in a new election.

Agreed. The coup was to restore stability. It did that. I would say it will restore democracy, but for that to happen it must have been there before. The Junta will bring democracy to Thailand.

The courts will continue on with there job and the next election will follow next year.

Glad we can agree on one thing anyway.

heybruce · July 13, 2014

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.

I am well aware of the fact that Thailand has a coup government. It is not a Democracy.

You on the other hand are unaware that it is far better than what you call a Democracy. You pay absolutely no attention to what is going on. You are oblivious to the fact that the junta has laid down a time schedule for returning the country to an elected government.

You are unaware that it is making changes to give people a choice in governing Thailand. You are unaware that it has paid off huge debts to rice farmers that the previous government refused to pay. Instead of paying them they closed down the government causing all kinds off hardship on the rice growers one of the leading exports of the country in fact took them from world leaders to third place and incurred massive debts.

You are unaware that they are taking steps to better the Thai education system. Some of which I disagree but they are better than what Thailand. had. Which of these things did the Burmese do when they had their coup in 1988?

From what you have posted you have no idea of what Democracy is 48% is a cold hard fact. It is a minority and that is what we had running Thailand. defiantly not a democracy.

If you are not pro Thaksin why so much vehemence over the fact that he is not in power any more?

I am pro-democracy and anti-coup, I'm not pro-Thaksin. Are you truly incapable of recognizing the difference?

48% was the voter turn-out in the February election. A great many Thai's did not vote in an election they perceived as pointless since the Democrats dropped out. It was not a referendum on the government. You are twisting reality if to fit your views if you consider it as such.

I am aware that the junta has presented a schedule for a new constitution and election. The constitution will determine how democratic the election and new government will be. I suspect the new constitution will be a significant step back from the democracy allowed in the 2007 constitution, which was a significant step back from the democracy allowed in the 1997 constitution. What in the military's history leads you to believe the military supports democracy?

I am aware the junta has gone on a spending spree. I read uncensored news from outside Thailand. From July 5, 2014, 'The Economist':

"IT DID not take long for Thailand’s ruling junta to discover the first lesson of building popular goodwill: when in doubt, spend. The National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), the ruling junta led by General Prayuth Chan-ocha, has occupied itself in its first month in office airing out government coffers with a high-powered leafblower. It paid nearly 92.4 billion baht ($2.8 billion) to rice farmers under a subsidy scheme implemented by the deposed government of Yingluck Shinawatra. It is pondering ambitious transport schemes estimated to cost more than $72 billion.

It has also promised to clear a $21-billion backlog of projects awaiting approval from the Board of Investment (BOI)—of which Mr Prayuth has appointed himself chair. At the BOI’s first post-coup meeting, on June 18th, it approved 18 projects worth $4 billion. And after deposing a government founded on economic populism, the NCPO seems to have decided that sometimes mimickry is the better part of governance: it brokered a deal that brought World Cup matches to free TV channels." http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21606327-economy-cannot-shrug-thailands-political-problems-when-teflon-wears

I especially like the sentence: "And after deposing a government founded on economic populism, the NCPO seems to have decided that sometimes mimickry is the better part of governance:"

Where do you get your news from?

heybruce · July 13, 2014

You didn't address anything that I posted, you just seem to be offering more of "the PTP is bad so the coup is good" logic. In so doing you used lots of unreferenced stuff. Provide some references and I'll address them.

You might also describe the democratic credentials of the junta. Just for fun, you can also tell us how transparent the military is.

I think you have caught the Fab4 disease.

You dismiss what I say because they don't address your post and because I have not googled the references and added links they don't excist or deserve a reply in your mind and ensure that unless I conform to your terms of referencing everything I said you won't reply. Fab4 written all over it. Next you say I need 5 sources for each item or it is propaganda and simply not true. Then the cherry on the cake is that not only do I have to go back and reference everything before you will reply, but you have gig en me "homework" with your last comment.

All my points above that are not referenced, but are common knowledge ( google it ) highlight that corruption was not addressed through the voting process. Though I will add that through voting it was pretty clear that corruption was not addressed at the last election. The NACC budget was slashed by 60% and 2 anti corruption committees were dissolved by the PTP. Why? The carrot.

So to play your game - You might like to describe to me the non democratic credentials of a Junta that are bringing reform to ensure the 14 other principles of democracy are not abused as shown from my unreferenced ( google it mate) comments above that the PTP did abuse.

Also tell me how the Junta are not as transparent as the PTP. I love it when some defend the previous regime run by an unelected criminal as democratic that showed anything but transparency yet denounce the Junta as not transparent when they have shown nothing BUT transparency. That is PTP logic right there. One needs court orders to be transparent while the other has invited the NACC to investigate all projects and in fact shelved the 4G auctions due to transparency issues.

If you disagree or this goes agents your agenda then remember "My post is fake and is a figment of your imagination" Just as inflation was under the PTP. There is that transparency thing again!!

I see, 'common knowledge' statements. As credible as 'I heard in a bar' and 'everybody knows' statements. These are your statements that you are presenting as facts, it is your obligation to reference them. I'm not going to Google 'voter fraud Thailand' and go through pages of hits to try to verify your claims. I don't need five references per claim, one credible reference will do.

I am not denying that the PTP government had a lot of problems. I'm denying that a military with a long history of coups is qualified or interested in writing a constitution that can be the foundation of a democratic Thailand. I'm also doubt that the military will stand by if any government in Thailand threatens the military's interests.

And this is where the circle starts. Why would you google voter fraud? I never said that. AGAIN. Words in my mouth, twisting posts and doing anything but facing the facts I present.

Next if I say "Yingluck won the 2011 election"I won't be able to get away without referencing that she actually did. You know she did. I know she did so no need to reference it. It is as common knowledge as the DPM Plodprasop stating that Phuket will get a conference centre when they vote PTP.

If you cannot accept these facts then simply ignore my post or google it and call me a liar if I am wrong.

Now I see you're just going around in circles which is not dissimilar to a broken washing machine stuck on the "spin" cycle.

From your first post:

"I would say I don't doubt the PTP adhere to that one principle, but after being found guilty of voter fraud TWICE in parliament"

in you next post:

"All my points above that are not referenced, but are common knowledge ( google it )"

and your latest:

"Why would you google voter fraud? I never said that."

You made an unreferenced claims, you challenge me to google them, then ask why I would google them.

You're right, it begins again.

heybruce · July 13, 2014

My standards? No, democratic standards mate. Democratic.

Unless all the points that I didn't reference ( google it mate) in my previous post are democratic to your standards?

No transparency in water hearings. So your standards say that is democratic?

No transparency in rice scheme. So your standards say that is democratic?

Threatening to behead yourself if an accused terrorist, accused mass murderer, convicted criminal unelected fugitive is not back in Thailand. So your standards say that is democratic?

That unelected man running the PTP. So your standards say that is democratic?

Vote for us or we won't give you what you want. Essentially saying "I won't advance Thailand because you support the other guys" So your standards say that is democratic?

It goes on and on and on.

Democracy was not lost because it was never there so the Junta did not remove democracy. They are restorers of it.

The real coup happened in 2011. 1 second after the PTP won the election. The Junta are reversing that coup and putting Thailand back on the road to democracy.

The PTP won a monitored election deemed legitimate. Something that no military junta can claim. For the rest I'll tell you what I've repeatedly told rubl, there is nothing on your list of PTP actions that could not, and should not, have been dealt with by the courts or by the voters in a new election.

You think the military is restoring democracy? Like they did after the 2006 coup?

'respect my vote till it's counted' it's really democratic. Handing a criminal fugitive a passport while the rest of the Thai Nation wades through flood waters isn't really democratic. Losing the country 1,000,000,000,000 Baht in hardly 2-1/2 years without any accounting isn't really democratic. To suggest that 'things' could have been solved by a new election is simply head in (desert) sands ignoring the disfunctional democracy in Thailand.

To answer your last question, the plan is for a firmer foundation for democracy in Thailand, more and real independent watchdog organisations, Input from Thai of all social strata, political convictions, gender, etc., .etc.

To deny the Thai such last chance to get their house on order, seems to display an utter contempt for justice and democracy. You sir, are contemptible.

You didn't like the way the elected government performed, and you are happy about a coup that provided a quick fix. I believe the problems of the elected government should have been resolved in the courts and by the voters in elections, I'm appalled by coups, and don't think that quick fixes last.

You have great faith in the military's ability and desire to create a better democracy in Thailand, but can provide no evidence to support this faith beyond what comes out of the censored press. I have no faith in the military's ability and desire to create a better democracy in Thailand, and base this on their history of coups and the nature of the constitution they provided in 2007.

Sign In

Junta wants reforms done quickly

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US