New Thai PM expected in week of Aug 18

[heybruce]

And that refers to Yingluck ? I Always thought Yingluck was voted in by 300 MP's in parliament.Which in turn where voted in by the electorate, either direct or in-direct via Party list. Speaking of Party list, Yingluck was number one on that list and her party received 48% of the votes.

One would think, anyone who would be voted in as PM could only hope to have such a mandate...

Well, since we don't have a PM currently, I assumed bender was complaining about the last one we had, the 'clone of Thaksin'. She is not a muppet and the real Ms. Piggy would surely be offended, at having a fellow female called names by mere males that is.

BTW the 'respect your vote' till it's counted and no longer needed Pheu Thai party had 43% of votes cast and 33% of the total electorate. Being Dutch you might also appreciate that even other parties had votes cast for them, like the Democrat party with 32% and 24% respectively.

Anyway, did you already look at the currently applicable interim constitution to check that the prime candidate for appointment is eligible according to that constitution?

As far as I know they received 48% of votes casts in the party list and 44% in constituent votes. Being Dutch indeed makes me appreciate it more, as the next biggest party (the democrats) trial by quite a gap. 48% in a multiple party democracy is unheard of in our home country. Of course people that don't turn up or voted invalid, are not considered, except to calculate the turnout. So not sure why this needs mentioning, apart from trying to downside their victory with irrelevant remarks.

As to looking at the interim constitution, I already said that one isn't worth the paper it is written on, considering the very same people drafted it, without any electoral mandate.

Indeed unheard of in the Netherlands as we have a functioning democracy where there is no need, force or money to induce people to only vote for a single party.

As for the details in percentage, I present them as there are too many who try to claim the Pheu Thai party got a majority of Thai behind them.

BTW the interim constitution is legal in this country. You may not value it, but here in Thailand it has legal value and your remarks can be construed as being somewhat impolite apart from being against the NCPO.

So, for a moment assuming you only complain about how the interim constitution got to be, do you have constructive comments on it's contents. Especially do you see any objection to Gen Prayuth being appointed PM considering the contents of the constitution?

"....your remarks can be construed as being somewhat impolite apart from being against the NCPO."

Are you reminding him that there is censorship, or threatening him with it?

[heybruce]

Anyone who bases their belief in democracy purely on democratic elections (there are a lot more bricks in that great house) deserves all the scorn he gets, and then some.

Sick and tired of hearing these lame and stupid arguments about the Shin regime being "democratically elected". Voted in via lies, bribes and intimidation. And then governed most undemocratically. You are pathetic, the lot of you red/PTP groupies.

"Voted in via lies, bribes and intimidation."

I've read this many times, I've asked for proof many times, I've yet to receive anything credible.

"And then governed most undemocratically."

This too is something people repeat over and over again in hopes it will be accepted as true. Can you explain what they did that qualified as governing undemocratically? Opinions about their policies and performance don't count, I want something that qualifies as a true democracy ending action, something on the same order of magnitude as a coup.

"You are pathetic, the lot of you red/PTP groupies."

And now the name calling, which I assume entitles me to call you one of many obedient servants and cheerleaders to the military strongman government. It's funny that you presume to lecture others on democracy.

[tbthailand]

It would come as no surprise that nothing stands in the way of Prayuth becoming PM fully in line with the interim constitution drafted by the military.

As I said earlier, the military is the law.

It is quite surprising that a Dutch citizen would not see the utter inconsistency, or more likely, is refusing to see it.

As you already stated yourself, there is no need in Thailand for people to vote for one party only, and in fact they didn't. It is however crystal clear that one party in particular seems to be quite popular amongst a large portion of the Thai population, as they have proved on all general elections starting from 2001.

Vote buying as such has little to do with it.

As to the majority of Thais voting for PT, no they didn't. However the majority of Thais who did vote (which is the only thing that counts, remember we cannot possibly know how people who didn't bother to show up, would have voted), voted by a clear majority for the five party coalition government that ran the country prior to the military staging a coup.

That coalition received a clear majority in percentage (53%) and a clear majority of seats in parliament (300) which in the great scheme of things, is the only thing that counts.

"Vote buying as such has little to do with it."

vote buying is a red herring. It had no effect and people use it to cast doubt on the election. In fact there was an extensive attempt of vote buying by Newin on behalf of supporting the anti-democrat forces, and it failed miserably. People just voted for the candidates they wanted. Like most places with democracy.

[rubl]

Well, since we don't have a PM currently, I assumed bender was complaining about the last one we had, the 'clone of Thaksin'. She is not a muppet and the real Ms. Piggy would surely be offended, at having a fellow female called names by mere males that is.

BTW the 'respect your vote' till it's counted and no longer needed Pheu Thai party had 43% of votes cast and 33% of the total electorate. Being Dutch you might also appreciate that even other parties had votes cast for them, like the Democrat party with 32% and 24% respectively.

Anyway, did you already look at the currently applicable interim constitution to check that the prime candidate for appointment is eligible according to that constitution?

As far as I know they received 48% of votes casts in the party list and 44% in constituent votes. Being Dutch indeed makes me appreciate it more, as the next biggest party (the democrats) trial by quite a gap. 48% in a multiple party democracy is unheard of in our home country. Of course people that don't turn up or voted invalid, are not considered, except to calculate the turnout. So not sure why this needs mentioning, apart from trying to downside their victory with irrelevant remarks.

As to looking at the interim constitution, I already said that one isn't worth the paper it is written on, considering the very same people drafted it, without any electoral mandate.

Indeed unheard of in the Netherlands as we have a functioning democracy where there is no need, force or money to induce people to only vote for a single party.

As for the details in percentage, I present them as there are too many who try to claim the Pheu Thai party got a majority of Thai behind them.

BTW the interim constitution is legal in this country. You may not value it, but here in Thailand it has legal value and your remarks can be construed as being somewhat impolite apart from being against the NCPO.

So, for a moment assuming you only complain about how the interim constitution got to be, do you have constructive comments on it's contents. Especially do you see any objection to Gen Prayuth being appointed PM considering the contents of the constitution?

"....your remarks can be construed as being somewhat impolite apart from being against the NCPO."

Are you reminding him that there is censorship, or threatening him with it?

Not that it really matters in this discussion, but of course I'm just reminding him.

So, till now it seems the interim constitution doesn't bar Gen. Prayuth from being appointed PM. That has nothing to do with how one looks upon such appointment, nor does it have anything to do with some thinking the interim constitution to be 'of lesser worth'.

[brucec64]

Not that it really matters in this discussion, but of course I'm just reminding him.

So, till now it seems the interim constitution doesn't bar Gen. Prayuth from being appointed PM. That has nothing to do with how one looks upon such appointment, nor does it have anything to do with some thinking the interim constitution to be 'of lesser worth'.

It seems that there is a fundamental conflict of interest.

The premise behind the reform process is that all involved in creating the new constitution are not allowed to be involved in downstream politics for a period of time to avoid allegations of conflict of interest and self-serving. It seems that this philosophy should have been integrated into the interim constitution process - those involved in the creation of the interim constitution should be barred from participating downstream to avoid allegations of conflict of interest and self-serving.

The previous government was vilified for acts that were illegal, but also to a great extent for acts that were not illegal but ethically dubious. One would hope to see an ethical approach as well as a legal approach during the reform process. To simply say it is legal because the recently created law makes it legal does not necessarily make it right.

[fab4]

Well, since we don't have a PM currently, I assumed bender was complaining about the last one we had, the 'clone of Thaksin'. She is not a muppet and the real Ms. Piggy would surely be offended, at having a fellow female called names by mere males that is.

BTW the 'respect your vote' till it's counted and no longer needed Pheu Thai party had 43% of votes cast and 33% of the total electorate. Being Dutch you might also appreciate that even other parties had votes cast for them, like the Democrat party with 32% and 24% respectively.

Anyway, did you already look at the currently applicable interim constitution to check that the prime candidate for appointment is eligible according to that constitution?

As far as I know they received 48% of votes casts in the party list and 44% in constituent votes. Being Dutch indeed makes me appreciate it more, as the next biggest party (the democrats) trial by quite a gap. 48% in a multiple party democracy is unheard of in our home country. Of course people that don't turn up or voted invalid, are not considered, except to calculate the turnout. So not sure why this needs mentioning, apart from trying to downside their victory with irrelevant remarks.

As to looking at the interim constitution, I already said that one isn't worth the paper it is written on, considering the very same people drafted it, without any electoral mandate.

Indeed unheard of in the Netherlands as we have a functioning democracy where there is no need, force or money to induce people to only vote for a single party.

As for the details in percentage, I present them as there are too many who try to claim the Pheu Thai party got a majority of Thai behind them.

BTW the interim constitution is legal in this country. You may not value it, but here in Thailand it has legal value and your remarks can be construed as being somewhat impolite apart from being against the NCPO.

So, for a moment assuming you only complain about how the interim constitution got to be, do you have constructive comments on it's contents. Especially do you see any objection to Gen Prayuth being appointed PM considering the contents of the constitution?

Are you not even the slightest bit concerned about Section 44, rubl, not to mention 47 & 48? Actually, don't bother answering , I think I can guess.

Edited August 13, 2014 by fab4

[sjaak327]

Not that it really matters in this discussion, but of course I'm just reminding him.

So, till now it seems the interim constitution doesn't bar Gen. Prayuth from being appointed PM. That has nothing to do with how one looks upon such appointment, nor does it have anything to do with some thinking the interim constitution to be 'of lesser worth'.

It seems that there is a fundamental conflict of interest.

The premise behind the reform process is that all involved in creating the new constitution are not allowed to be involved in downstream politics for a period of time to avoid allegations of conflict of interest and self-serving. It seems that this philosophy should have been integrated into the interim constitution process - those involved in the creation of the interim constitution should be barred from participating downstream to avoid allegations of conflict of interest and self-serving.

The previous government was vilified for acts that were illegal, but also to a great extent for acts that were not illegal but ethically dubious. One would hope to see an ethical approach as well as a legal approach during the reform process. To simply say it is legal because the recently created law makes it legal does not necessarily make it right.

The only legal and democratically correct way to reform is to reinstate the 1997 constitution, hold elections with parties clarifying to the electorate what reforms they have in mind. Carry out these reforms with a parliament and government that have a clear mandate.

This will never happen, not because it isn't the right thing to do, but because the people concerned would loose control.

[fish fingers]

anyone who wants a better thailand for all to benefit from, rather than just what they can get out of Thailand for themselves, should applaud what is happening now.

PS Most of the foreigners slagging off the junta on Bangkok Post FB page look like drunks, perverts or crooks but that doesn't surprise me

Edited August 13, 2014 by fish fingers

[Ricardo]

Anyone who bases their belief in democracy purely on democratic elections (there are a lot more bricks in that great house) deserves all the scorn he gets, and then some.

Sick and tired of hearing these lame and stupid arguments about the Shin regime being "democratically elected". Voted in via lies, bribes and intimidation. And then governed most undemocratically. You are pathetic, the lot of you red/PTP groupies.

Is the unelected Suthep/Abhisit clan any better? The first is an accomplished crook who brought down in 1995 the only time in the 20th. century Democrats were elected to government. Why? While Minister of Agriculture he gave 11 rich families of his party titles of lands that were scheduled for poor landless farmers.

The as of late converted "monk", resigned to avoid being indicted for a variety of charge ranging from malfeasance to fraud and favoritism.

Fast forward to the Abhisit/Suthep "elected" by appointed assembly after the 2006 coup. Both cranked up first the rubber scam and lastly, the palm oil scam. Were they ever tried and/or investigated?

Of course that the lily white critics of the Shin clan (I wonder how much money they lost because of the Shin clan) are not sick and tired of this traditionally appointed gang after military coups?

Can anyone guess what makes the color yellow better than the red? Same same,no difference. TIT

"Fast forward to the Abhisit/Suthep "elected" by appointed assembly after the 2006 coup."

In your haste to 'fast forward', you appear to be forgetting a few IMO-relevant things ?

There was an election in December-2007, from which assembly emerged not one but two elected PPP-led coalition-governments, led by the late PM-Samak & then by former-PM Somchai, which held on until December-2008 when former-PM Abhisit's Democrat-led coalition was elected from the assembly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Power_Party_(Thailand)

So the assembly which elected Abhisit to power was in no way "appointed", as you suggest, nor did it follow immediately "after the 2006 coup".

Perhaps you're confusing the Democrat-led coalition-government of former-PM Abhisit, from December-2008 to early-July-2011, with the earlier unelected junta-appointed government of former-PM Surayud, from October-2006 to December-2007 ? Abhisit & Suthep were not in that government.

For simplicity, I am ignoring the two-week interim acting PM Chaovarat in December 2008, and times when other PMs were only in an acting/caretaker role, while a new government was formed and approved. Full details appear on Wiki :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Thailand

[rubl]

Not that it really matters in this discussion, but of course I'm just reminding him.

So, till now it seems the interim constitution doesn't bar Gen. Prayuth from being appointed PM. That has nothing to do with how one looks upon such appointment, nor does it have anything to do with some thinking the interim constitution to be 'of lesser worth'.

It seems that there is a fundamental conflict of interest.

The premise behind the reform process is that all involved in creating the new constitution are not allowed to be involved in downstream politics for a period of time to avoid allegations of conflict of interest and self-serving. It seems that this philosophy should have been integrated into the interim constitution process - those involved in the creation of the interim constitution should be barred from participating downstream to avoid allegations of conflict of interest and self-serving.

The previous government was vilified for acts that were illegal, but also to a great extent for acts that were not illegal but ethically dubious. One would hope to see an ethical approach as well as a legal approach during the reform process. To simply say it is legal because the recently created law makes it legal does not necessarily make it right.

The only legal and democratically correct way to reform is to reinstate the 1997 constitution, hold elections with parties clarifying to the electorate what reforms they have in mind. Carry out these reforms with a parliament and government that have a clear mandate.

This will never happen, not because it isn't the right thing to do, but because the people concerned would loose control.

Correct, this will never happen. Apart from not being Utopia Thailand isn't and wasn't a real democracy either.

[rubl]

Not that it really matters in this discussion, but of course I'm just reminding him.

So, till now it seems the interim constitution doesn't bar Gen. Prayuth from being appointed PM. That has nothing to do with how one looks upon such appointment, nor does it have anything to do with some thinking the interim constitution to be 'of lesser worth'.

It seems that there is a fundamental conflict of interest.

The premise behind the reform process is that all involved in creating the new constitution are not allowed to be involved in downstream politics for a period of time to avoid allegations of conflict of interest and self-serving. It seems that this philosophy should have been integrated into the interim constitution process - those involved in the creation of the interim constitution should be barred from participating downstream to avoid allegations of conflict of interest and self-serving.

The previous government was vilified for acts that were illegal, but also to a great extent for acts that were not illegal but ethically dubious. One would hope to see an ethical approach as well as a legal approach during the reform process. To simply say it is legal because the recently created law makes it legal does not necessarily make it right.

You have to start somewhere, therefor you need an interim constitution.

Now of course if you think we only need Martial Law while others struggle with an 'interim constitution forming process' and avoiding 'conflict of interest' and 'self-serving', that's fine. Mind you, a few years with only martial law might be a bit of overkill.

[rubl]

Well, since we don't have a PM currently, I assumed bender was complaining about the last one we had, the 'clone of Thaksin'. She is not a muppet and the real Ms. Piggy would surely be offended, at having a fellow female called names by mere males that is.

BTW the 'respect your vote' till it's counted and no longer needed Pheu Thai party had 43% of votes cast and 33% of the total electorate. Being Dutch you might also appreciate that even other parties had votes cast for them, like the Democrat party with 32% and 24% respectively.

Anyway, did you already look at the currently applicable interim constitution to check that the prime candidate for appointment is eligible according to that constitution?

As far as I know they received 48% of votes casts in the party list and 44% in constituent votes. Being Dutch indeed makes me appreciate it more, as the next biggest party (the democrats) trial by quite a gap. 48% in a multiple party democracy is unheard of in our home country. Of course people that don't turn up or voted invalid, are not considered, except to calculate the turnout. So not sure why this needs mentioning, apart from trying to downside their victory with irrelevant remarks.

As to looking at the interim constitution, I already said that one isn't worth the paper it is written on, considering the very same people drafted it, without any electoral mandate.

Indeed unheard of in the Netherlands as we have a functioning democracy where there is no need, force or money to induce people to only vote for a single party.

As for the details in percentage, I present them as there are too many who try to claim the Pheu Thai party got a majority of Thai behind them.

BTW the interim constitution is legal in this country. You may not value it, but here in Thailand it has legal value and your remarks can be construed as being somewhat impolite apart from being against the NCPO.

So, for a moment assuming you only complain about how the interim constitution got to be, do you have constructive comments on it's contents. Especially do you see any objection to Gen Prayuth being appointed PM considering the contents of the constitution?

Are you not even the slightest bit concerned about Section 44, rubl, not to mention 47 & 48? Actually, don't bother answering , I think I can guess.

With the head of NCPO the same as the PM why should I be concerned ? You might see the NLA as a way to bridge the time till the 2015 general elections under a new, formal constitution.

More important is the working of the NCR and the CDC, and the results, but that is outside the scope of this topic.

[Robby nz]

Anyone who bases their belief in democracy purely on democratic elections (there are a lot more bricks in that great house) deserves all the scorn he gets, and then some.

Sick and tired of hearing these lame and stupid arguments about the Shin regime being "democratically elected". Voted in via lies, bribes and intimidation. And then governed most undemocratically. You are pathetic, the lot of you red/PTP groupies.

Is the unelected Suthep/Abhisit clan any better? The first is an accomplished crook who brought down in 1995 the only time in the 20th. century Democrats were elected to government. Why? While Minister of Agriculture he gave 11 rich families of his party titles of lands that were scheduled for poor landless farmers.

The as of late converted "monk", resigned to avoid being indicted for a variety of charge ranging from malfeasance to fraud and favoritism.

Fast forward to the Abhisit/Suthep "elected" by appointed assembly after the 2006 coup. Both cranked up first the rubber scam and lastly, the palm oil scam. Were they ever tried and/or investigated?

Of course that the lily white critics of the Shin clan (I wonder how much money they lost because of the Shin clan) are not sick and tired of this traditionally appointed gang after military coups?

Can anyone guess what makes the color yellow better than the red? Same same,no difference. TIT

"Fast forward to the Abhisit/Suthep "elected" by appointed assembly after the 2006 coup."

In your haste to 'fast forward', you appear to be forgetting a few IMO-relevant things ?

There was an election in December-2007, from which assembly emerged not one but two elected PPP-led coalition-governments, led by the late PM-Samak & then by former-PM Somchai, which held on until December-2008 when former-PM Abhisit's Democrat-led coalition was elected from the assembly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Power_Party_(Thailand)

So the assembly which elected Abhisit to power was in no way "appointed", as you suggest, nor did it follow immediately "after the 2006 coup".

Perhaps you're confusing the Democrat-led coalition-government of former-PM Abhisit, from December-2008 to early-July-2011, with the earlier unelected junta-appointed government of former-PM Surayud, from October-2006 to December-2007 ? Abhisit & Suthep were not in that government.

For simplicity, I am ignoring the two-week interim acting PM Chaovarat in December 2008, and times when other PMs were only in an acting/caretaker role, while a new government was formed and approved. Full details appear on Wiki :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Thailand

He has posted exactly the same thing before Ricardo and knows very well it is a lie.

Why he persists ?

pisico, on 11 Aug 2014 - 18:20, said:

Fast forward to the Abhisit/Suthep "elected" by appointed assembly after the 2006 coup. Both cranked up first the rubber scam and lastly, the palm oil scam. Were they ever tried and/or investigated?

Of course that the lily white critics of the Shin clan (I wonder how much money they lost because of the Shin clan) are not sick and tired of this traditionally appointed gang after military coups?

Can anyone guess what makes the color yellow better than the red? Same same,no difference. TIT

[metisdead]

A post containing an aberrant and derogatory nickname of a former PM has been removed. If you do not want your post(s) removed, spell people's names correctly. Posts replying to that post have been removed as well.

[heybruce]

Not that it really matters in this discussion, but of course I'm just reminding him.

So, till now it seems the interim constitution doesn't bar Gen. Prayuth from being appointed PM. That has nothing to do with how one looks upon such appointment, nor does it have anything to do with some thinking the interim constitution to be 'of lesser worth'.

It seems that there is a fundamental conflict of interest.

The premise behind the reform process is that all involved in creating the new constitution are not allowed to be involved in downstream politics for a period of time to avoid allegations of conflict of interest and self-serving. It seems that this philosophy should have been integrated into the interim constitution process - those involved in the creation of the interim constitution should be barred from participating downstream to avoid allegations of conflict of interest and self-serving.

The previous government was vilified for acts that were illegal, but also to a great extent for acts that were not illegal but ethically dubious. One would hope to see an ethical approach as well as a legal approach during the reform process. To simply say it is legal because the recently created law makes it legal does not necessarily make it right.

The only legal and democratically correct way to reform is to reinstate the 1997 constitution, hold elections with parties clarifying to the electorate what reforms they have in mind. Carry out these reforms with a parliament and government that have a clear mandate.

This will never happen, not because it isn't the right thing to do, but because the people concerned would loose control.

Correct, this will never happen. Apart from not being Utopia Thailand isn't and wasn't a real democracy either.

"...Thailand isn't and wasn't a real democracy either."

And now Thailand has little chance of becoming a real democracy.

[The Deerhunter]

Anyone who bases their belief in democracy purely on democratic elections (there are a lot more bricks in that great house) deserves all the scorn he gets, and then some.

Sick and tired of hearing these lame and stupid arguments about the Shin regime being "democratically elected". Voted in via lies, bribes and intimidation. And then governed most undemocratically. You are pathetic, the lot of you red/PTP groupies.

As I said on another thread a few days ago, Hitler was democratically voted in by a huge majority after populist speeches & promises. At one stage he looked like the saviour of modern Germany. He may have been democratically elected but he did not live up to the tenets of democratic government. Britain and her commonwealth followed by the USA were the biggest protestors. The difference between Hitlers Germany and Thaksin's Thailand is one of consideable degree but the parallels are clear. Hitler had his brownshits intimidating & killing to order. In is now clear that similar agencies were operating here. If democracy was not working, do not get hung up on elections too soon. What most Thais really want is a safe country with fair administration and minimal corruption. "Respect my vote"??? Yeah, right. "Respect my bribe" just does not ring the right bells!!!! Thais need to understand that and take it on board.

[mikemac]

I'm afraid that remarks like that are what causes many readers simply to 'turn off'. Why do you believe you are the fountain of all knowledge and can make throwaway remarks about red/PTP groupies as a blanket to cover anyone who might disagree with you?.

Where you are correct is that democracy - as we westerners understand it - can be imperfect. It may be Thailand is best governed by a benign ........ship. Who knows?. If so, please don't pose as a democracy, whatever the shortcomings.

I would point you to Egypt as a good template as to where things may well be going. However, that's up to the Thai's and the military to decide and I, as I suspect many others, do not know what is best for the people of this country. That's yet to be decided.What I do know is that we are still subject to martial law, censorship and other things. Because I'm concerned about this, it does not make me a 'groupie' for one side or the others. Just an observer who has concerns.

You have every right to voice your opinion on this forum but get your facts right before engaging your typing finger.

If you read somewhere in my post that I believed I was "the fountain of all knowledge" then you have a vivid imagination. And if you look up the meaning of a throwaway remark you may not use the term so freely when describing my comments.

Believe me, anything I say about "red/PTP groupies" are not throwaway remarks, I believe them wholeheartedly and put a lot of thought into them. Also I do not try to blanket cover anyone who dares to disagree with me by sh#tcanning the red/PTP fan, I just really don't like that particular group of people and have no problem saying so.

And to quote Charles Bukowski - "

"The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting."

Charles Bukowski was a cynic who was talking <deleted>.

It takes one to know one.

[mikemac]

You have every right to voice your opinion on this forum but get your facts right before engaging your typing finger.

If you read somewhere in my post that I believed I was "the fountain of all knowledge" then you have a vivid imagination. And if you look up the meaning of a throwaway remark you may not use the term so freely when describing my comments.

Believe me, anything I say about "red/PTP groupies" are not throwaway remarks, I believe them wholeheartedly and put a lot of thought into them. Also I do not try to blanket cover anyone who dares to disagree with me by sh#tcanning the red/PTP fan, I just really don't like that particular group of people and have no problem saying so.

And to quote Charles Bukowski - "

"The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting."

Reading your painful babble worries me, to think we come from the same set of Isles too. Just proves a good secondary modern education is wasted.

We all have a quote or two as well, "We are here to defend democracy, not practice it" - Clint.

I'm sorry, I was not aware that Australia was a "set of Isles". You learn something new every day !

[rubl]

The only legal and democratically correct way to reform is to reinstate the 1997 constitution, hold elections with parties clarifying to the electorate what reforms they have in mind. Carry out these reforms with a parliament and government that have a clear mandate.

This will never happen, not because it isn't the right thing to do, but because the people concerned would loose control.

Correct, this will never happen. Apart from not being Utopia Thailand isn't and wasn't a real democracy either.

"...Thailand isn't and wasn't a real democracy either."

And now Thailand has little chance of becoming a real democracy.

That's your (negative) opinion.

Others try to cooperate to ensure the NRC and CDC have all input required to get Thailand a proper restart to real democracy, even if in 'Thai style' at first.

As I wrote a few days ago, to think that Western democracy and style can be transplanted as-is seems close to wishful thinking. Both Western Democracy AND population grew up together and it took a few centuries. To keep on hammering on 'democracy now' is like displaying naivity, ignorance or deconstructive feelings.

Still the topic is having a new Thai PM next week, with or without TVF foreign posters approval.

Edited August 14, 2014 by rubl

[JAG]

anyone who wants a better thailand for all to benefit from, rather than just what they can get out of Thailand for themselves, should applaud what is happening now.

PS Most of the foreigners slagging off the junta on Bangkok Post FB page look like drunks, perverts or crooks but that doesn't surprise me

I don't do Facebook - far too complicated for a simple soul like me - but on the odd occasion that I have seen it everyone looks like a drunk, a crook or a pervert, sometimes all three!

[heybruce]

The only legal and democratically correct way to reform is to reinstate the 1997 constitution, hold elections with parties clarifying to the electorate what reforms they have in mind. Carry out these reforms with a parliament and government that have a clear mandate.

This will never happen, not because it isn't the right thing to do, but because the people concerned would loose control.

Correct, this will never happen. Apart from not being Utopia Thailand isn't and wasn't a real democracy either.

"...Thailand isn't and wasn't a real democracy either."

And now Thailand has little chance of becoming a real democracy.

That's your (negative) opinion.

Others try to cooperate to ensure the NRC and CDC have all input required to get Thailand a proper restart to real democracy, even if in 'Thai style' at first.

As I wrote a few days ago, to think that Western democracy and style can be transplanted as-is seems close to wishful thinking. Both Western Democracy AND population grew up together and it took a few centuries. To keep on hammering on 'democracy now' is like displaying naivity, ignorance or deconstructive feelings.

Still the topic is having a new Thai PM next week, with or without TVF foreign posters approval.

Shouldn't your closing statement been "Still the topic is having a new Thai PM next week, without the Thai voters approval."?

[ginjag]

Correct, this will never happen. Apart from not being Utopia Thailand isn't and wasn't a real democracy either.

"...Thailand isn't and wasn't a real democracy either."

And now Thailand has little chance of becoming a real democracy.

That's your (negative) opinion.

Others try to cooperate to ensure the NRC and CDC have all input required to get Thailand a proper restart to real democracy, even if in 'Thai style' at first.

As I wrote a few days ago, to think that Western democracy and style can be transplanted as-is seems close to wishful thinking. Both Western Democracy AND population grew up together and it took a few centuries. To keep on hammering on 'democracy now' is like displaying naivity, ignorance or deconstructive feelings.

Still the topic is having a new Thai PM next week, with or without TVF foreign posters approval.

Shouldn't your closing statement been "Still the topic is having a new Thai PM next week, without the Thai voters approval."?

[sjaak327]

Not that it really matters in this discussion, but of course I'm just reminding him.

So, till now it seems the interim constitution doesn't bar Gen. Prayuth from being appointed PM. That has nothing to do with how one looks upon such appointment, nor does it have anything to do with some thinking the interim constitution to be 'of lesser worth'.

It seems that there is a fundamental conflict of interest.

The premise behind the reform process is that all involved in creating the new constitution are not allowed to be involved in downstream politics for a period of time to avoid allegations of conflict of interest and self-serving. It seems that this philosophy should have been integrated into the interim constitution process - those involved in the creation of the interim constitution should be barred from participating downstream to avoid allegations of conflict of interest and self-serving.

The previous government was vilified for acts that were illegal, but also to a great extent for acts that were not illegal but ethically dubious. One would hope to see an ethical approach as well as a legal approach during the reform process. To simply say it is legal because the recently created law makes it legal does not necessarily make it right.

The only legal and democratically correct way to reform is to reinstate the 1997 constitution, hold elections with parties clarifying to the electorate what reforms they have in mind. Carry out these reforms with a parliament and government that have a clear mandate.

This will never happen, not because it isn't the right thing to do, but because the people concerned would loose control.

Correct, this will never happen. Apart from not being Utopia Thailand isn't and wasn't a real democracy either.

No-one is claiming Thailand is utopia. You are constantly pointing out how the interim constitution isn't preventing Prayuth from becoming PM, yet you seem to have forgotten how that interim constitution came to be. It dates all the way back to 2006 when the military pulled their version of the amnesty law out of their hat by abolishing a perfectly valid constitution, which actually did ensure Thailand was a real democracy.

Of course, I can't remember you pointing out how abolishing a constitution cannot possibly be legal. And how the 2007 constitution made sure the coup mongers couldn't ever be held accountable.

Thaksin must have thought along the lines of, what they can do, I can do. It is strange how people like you had no problem with the military's version of the amnesty law, yet screamed bloody murder when PT tried to even suggest amending the constitution with a undisputed mandate to boot !

Thailand most certainly was a real democracy prior to the 2006 coup. Blame the military for the rest, after all they were the ones that drafted the 2007 constitution.

[sjaak327]

That's your (negative) opinion.

Others try to cooperate to ensure the NRC and CDC have all input required to get Thailand a proper restart to real democracy, even if in 'Thai style' at first.

As I wrote a few days ago, to think that Western democracy and style can be transplanted as-is seems close to wishful thinking. Both Western Democracy AND population grew up together and it took a few centuries. To keep on hammering on 'democracy now' is like displaying naivity, ignorance or deconstructive feelings.

Still the topic is having a new Thai PM next week, with or without TVF foreign posters approval.

And with or without the approval of any elected MP as well, hence the term foreign isn't necessary. Even Thai nationals that are eligible to vote have no chance of approving it.

The military decides, no-one else.

The proper restart at real democracy will no doubt just bring the same people back in power. Either directly or indirectly. One doesn't need to be Einstein or psychic to see that one coming from miles and miles away. When will they ever learn ?

[fab4]

Indeed unheard of in the Netherlands as we have a functioning democracy where there is no need, force or money to induce people to only vote for a single party.

As for the details in percentage, I present them as there are too many who try to claim the Pheu Thai party got a majority of Thai behind them.

BTW the interim constitution is legal in this country. You may not value it, but here in Thailand it has legal value and your remarks can be construed as being somewhat impolite apart from being against the NCPO.

So, for a moment assuming you only complain about how the interim constitution got to be, do you have constructive comments on it's contents. Especially do you see any objection to Gen Prayuth being appointed PM considering the contents of the constitution?

Are you not even the slightest bit concerned about Section 44, rubl, not to mention 47 & 48? Actually, don't bother answering , I think I can guess.

With the head of NCPO the same as the PM why should I be concerned ? You might see the NLA as a way to bridge the time till the 2015 general elections under a new, formal constitution.

More important is the working of the NCR and the CDC, and the results, but that is outside the scope of this topic.

Why should you be concerned? Oh , I don't know, what did HRW have to say now? Oh yes,here it is,

“The interim constitution attempts to give legal justification to the sweeping and unaccountable power taken by the military junta,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Instead of paving the way for a return to democratic, civilian rule, the Thai junta has granted itself unchecked authority to do almost anything it wants, including committing rights abuses with impunity.”

Section 44 provides the NCPO with wide discretion to issue orders and undertake acts the military authorities deem appropriate, regardless of the human rights implications. Specifically, “where the head of the NCPO is of opinion that it is necessary for the benefit of reforms in any field, or to strengthen public unity and harmony, or for the prevention, disruption or suppression of any act that undermines public peace and order or national security, the monarchy, national economics or administration of State affairs,” the head of the NCPO is empowered to “issue orders, suspend or act as deemed necessary. … Such actions are completely legal and constitutional.” This sweeping power is to be carried out without any judicial or other oversight. The NCPO head only needs to report his decisions and actions to the National Legislative Assembly and the prime minister immediately after they are taken.

Section 48 of the interim constitution provides that NCPO members and anyone carrying out actions on behalf of the NCPO, including the May 22 coup, “shall be absolutely exempted from any wrongdoing, responsibility and liabilities.” Despite this provision, international human rights law ensures the right to a remedy for human rights violations and places a duty on governments to investigate allegations of serious human rights violations and prosecute those responsible, Human Rights Watch said.

No, nothing to worry about here, nothing to see, keep on moving........

[LawrenceChee]

Let's hope it's another lady who dresses well ...it's tiring when you see all these photo ops of politicians in suits all the time

Sent from my iPod touch using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[ratcatcher]

about this appointed PMuppets

its like you can win a football game, without playing it,

or win lottery wihout buying ticket,

or have 9 babies without having a wife...

only in a bonanza country

Yes, Thailand, a bonanza country.

BTW congrats on your 1000th.

[Bender]

about this appointed PMuppets

its like you can win a football game, without playing it,

or win lottery wihout buying ticket,

or have 9 babies without having a wife...

only in a bonanza country

Yes, Thailand, a bonanza country.

BTW congrats on your 1000th.

thanks, but still i have a long way befofe i reach your 6140 post.

For my 1000 post, in another threads, i did advice a member who overstayed his visa 4 years, to get a job as an illegal teacher

[tbthailand]

Anyone who bases their belief in democracy purely on democratic elections (there are a lot more bricks in that great house) deserves all the scorn he gets, and then some.

Sick and tired of hearing these lame and stupid arguments about the Shin regime being "democratically elected". Voted in via lies, bribes and intimidation. And then governed most undemocratically. You are pathetic, the lot of you red/PTP groupies.

As I said on another thread a few days ago, Hitler was democratically voted in by a huge majority after populist speeches & promises. At one stage he looked like the saviour of modern Germany. He may have been democratically elected but he did not live up to the tenets of democratic government. Britain and her commonwealth followed by the USA were the biggest protestors. The difference between Hitlers Germany and Thaksin's Thailand is one of consideable degree but the parallels are clear. Hitler had his brownshits intimidating & killing to order. In is now clear that similar agencies were operating here. If democracy was not working, do not get hung up on elections too soon. What most Thais really want is a safe country with fair administration and minimal corruption. "Respect my vote"??? Yeah, right. "Respect my bribe" just does not ring the right bells!!!! Thais need to understand that and take it on board.

hitler, give it up

and re-read your German history - you have it wrong anyway.

[Bender]

Why should you be concerned? Oh , I don't know, what did HRW have to say now? Oh yes,here it is,

“The interim constitution attempts to give legal justification to the sweeping and unaccountable power taken by the military junta,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Instead of paving the way for a return to democratic, civilian rule, the Thai junta has granted itself unchecked authority to do almost anything it wants, including committing rights abuses with impunity.”

Section 44 provides the NCPO with wide discretion to issue orders and undertake acts the military authorities deem appropriate, regardless of the human rights implications. Specifically, “where the head of the NCPO is of opinion that it is necessary for the benefit of reforms in any field, or to strengthen public unity and harmony, or for the prevention, disruption or suppression of any act that undermines public peace and order or national security, the monarchy, national economics or administration of State affairs,” the head of the NCPO is empowered to “issue orders, suspend or act as deemed necessary. … Such actions are completely legal and constitutional.” This sweeping power is to be carried out without any judicial or other oversight. The NCPO head only needs to report his decisions and actions to the National Legislative Assembly and the prime minister immediately after they are taken.

Section 48 of the interim constitution provides that NCPO members and anyone carrying out actions on behalf of the NCPO, including the May 22 coup, “shall be absolutely exempted from any wrongdoing, responsibility and liabilities.” Despite this provision, international human rights law ensures the right to a remedy for human rights violations and places a duty on governments to investigate allegations of serious human rights violations and prosecute those responsible, Human Rights Watch said.

No, nothing to worry about here, nothing to see, keep on moving........

(Now lets go back to more interesting stuff.... i will just note ratcatcher, ginjag, rubl, nongkaikid and the others yellow were left speechless by your message as usual)

When Yingluck got elected, she was hold responsible for any of her action. But when the yellow do steal the power they do reject any responsability.

What a bunch of cowards and hypocrites.

No surprise that the yellow on this forum, keep quiet, because once again you (fab) did provide us again one more fact!

Edited August 14, 2014 by Bender