What makes 'Thai-style democracy' globally palatable?

[fab4]

You assume and continue from those assumptions.

The NCPO has provided details on how NRC / CDC are to be set up. Those commissions will work with Thai of all social strata, education and regions, use input from all to come to meaningful reforms and a new / renewed constitution.

It is clear from your post you do not believe in any of that. Well, that's fine, but just shows your opinion (or what seemingly is your opinion).

BTW the chaos came from the blanket amnesty bill absolving Thaksin and Ms. Yingluck of all 'political' crimes and so. It even included Abhisit/Suthep much to the disappointment of red-shirts who saw one of their UDD leader voting in favour together with almost two dozen other red-shirt Pheu Thai party list MPs (and Dr. weng, Nattawut only abstaining). Something to be forgotten and buried together with distracting into "our government is being obstructed". Chaos with cowardly night attacks, gunshots and grenades against anti-government protesters. And you accuse them of the chaos as if they willingly sat there to be shot at only to create chaos by dying?

It would seem foreign posters have more problems accepting reality than the Thai.

It would seem foreign posters have more problems accepting reality than the Thai.

As you so readily demonstrate, rubl. Even The Nation is publishing articles indicating that the honeymoon is over and the blinkers are off.

[ginjag]

You assume and continue from those assumptions.

The NCPO has provided details on how NRC / CDC are to be set up. Those commissions will work with Thai of all social strata, education and regions, use input from all to come to meaningful reforms and a new / renewed constitution.

It is clear from your post you do not believe in any of that. Well, that's fine, but just shows your opinion (or what seemingly is your opinion).

BTW the chaos came from the blanket amnesty bill absolving Thaksin and Ms. Yingluck of all 'political' crimes and so. It even included Abhisit/Suthep much to the disappointment of red-shirts who saw one of their UDD leader voting in favour together with almost two dozen other red-shirt Pheu Thai party list MPs (and Dr. weng, Nattawut only abstaining). Something to be forgotten and buried together with distracting into "our government is being obstructed". Chaos with cowardly night attacks, gunshots and grenades against anti-government protesters. And you accuse them of the chaos as if they willingly sat there to be shot at only to create chaos by dying?

It would seem foreign posters have more problems accepting reality than the Thai.

It would seem foreign posters have more problems accepting reality than the Thai.

As you so readily demonstrate, rubl. Even The Nation is publishing articles indicating that the honeymoon is over and the blinkers are off.

Oh yes, And my dog has clogs on....................everyone is thinking the same as you, hoping-the honeymoon is over??

[tbthailand]

what is annoying/amusing is that people think PTP/Thaksin are the problem. They are just actors on the stage.

Ooops, better be careful about theatre references. Like eating sandwiches, reading books, or making bird-shapes, that could get an invitation to a week (or longer) of meditation.

What is annoying is all those posters who just want to go back to the chaos of three months ago and deny the Thai a chance to get real reforms.

The theatre we had with PM Yingluck being motherly and seemingly reasonable and at the same time have Pheu Thai MPs threaten, demand, accuse. The price of the ticket was high though.

alright, then. Let's let you lay out your list of reforms. Please be specific about your version of "Thai-style democracy" and then we can use that for further discussion.

[Aree Wongwanlee]

Let's put aside, for the moment, all these meaningless labels about being a democracy or a dictatorship or whatever. What, let's ask ourselves, is government supposed to do? Why, in the first place, do we even need a government?

Isn't it because our society has so large that we need to have some kind of manager to keep things moving along in an orderly manner? Isn't a government just a servant of the people? Surely we didn't elect a government so that it can lord over us or abuse us or cheat us of our rights, our money and our future? So what if it's a one-man show? So long as the government aka manager gets the job done viz the people can go about their lives in a peaceful and orderly manner, the people can live comfortably and bring up their children in a safe environment, why bother with labels like 'democracy' or 'dictatorship'?

So if Prayuth can do the job, let him do it. Never mind about the elections. The last I heard, a general election costs lots and lots of money. And spending all that money doesn't prove anything except that we have spent all that money. So if we already have a manager who gets the job done, let him do it. More power to him.

[jayboy]

You assume and continue from those assumptions.

The NCPO has provided details on how NRC / CDC are to be set up. Those commissions will work with Thai of all social strata, education and regions, use input from all to come to meaningful reforms and a new / renewed constitution.

It is clear from your post you do not believe in any of that. Well, that's fine, but just shows your opinion (or what seemingly is your opinion).

BTW the chaos came from the blanket amnesty bill absolving Thaksin and Ms. Yingluck of all 'political' crimes and so. It even included Abhisit/Suthep much to the disappointment of red-shirts who saw one of their UDD leader voting in favour together with almost two dozen other red-shirt Pheu Thai party list MPs (and Dr. weng, Nattawut only abstaining). Something to be forgotten and buried together with distracting into "our government is being obstructed". Chaos with cowardly night attacks, gunshots and grenades against anti-government protesters. And you accuse them of the chaos as if they willingly sat there to be shot at only to create chaos by dying?

It would seem foreign posters have more problems accepting reality than the Thai.

It would seem foreign posters have more problems accepting reality than the Thai.

As you so readily demonstrate, rubl. Even The Nation is publishing articles indicating that the honeymoon is over and the blinkers are off.

Oh yes, And my dog has clogs on....................everyone is thinking the same as you, hoping-the honeymoon is over??

You seem so wrapped up in your quisling ignorance

that you have overlooked the lessons of Thai history.Check up in a year's time whether the honeymoon is still quite so passionate.

[ginjag]

You assume and continue from those assumptions.

The NCPO has provided details on how NRC / CDC are to be set up. Those commissions will work with Thai of all social strata, education and regions, use input from all to come to meaningful reforms and a new / renewed constitution.

It is clear from your post you do not believe in any of that. Well, that's fine, but just shows your opinion (or what seemingly is your opinion).

BTW the chaos came from the blanket amnesty bill absolving Thaksin and Ms. Yingluck of all 'political' crimes and so. It even included Abhisit/Suthep much to the disappointment of red-shirts who saw one of their UDD leader voting in favour together with almost two dozen other red-shirt Pheu Thai party list MPs (and Dr. weng, Nattawut only abstaining). Something to be forgotten and buried together with distracting into "our government is being obstructed". Chaos with cowardly night attacks, gunshots and grenades against anti-government protesters. And you accuse them of the chaos as if they willingly sat there to be shot at only to create chaos by dying?

It would seem foreign posters have more problems accepting reality than the Thai.

It would seem foreign posters have more problems accepting reality than the Thai.

As you so readily demonstrate, rubl. Even The Nation is publishing articles indicating that the honeymoon is over and the blinkers are off.

Oh yes, And my dog has clogs on....................everyone is thinking the same as you, hoping-the honeymoon is over??

You seem so wrapped up in your quisling ignorance

that you have overlooked the lessons of Thai history.Check up in a year's time whether the honeymoon is still quite so passionate.

And you ??? using Suthep/army as scapegoats, your the one with your other splinter group members that are only going on military past,

get up to date we learn from history but unlike you we do not all want to get bogged down. I will never forget the Thaksin era only not to have the Family back. The army on reflection we had this or civil war that Thaksin wanted to then blame everyone for a sad failed government.

[jayboy]

You assume and continue from those assumptions.

The NCPO has provided details on how NRC / CDC are to be set up. Those commissions will work with Thai of all social strata, education and regions, use input from all to come to meaningful reforms and a new / renewed constitution.

It is clear from your post you do not believe in any of that. Well, that's fine, but just shows your opinion (or what seemingly is your opinion).

BTW the chaos came from the blanket amnesty bill absolving Thaksin and Ms. Yingluck of all 'political' crimes and so. It even included Abhisit/Suthep much to the disappointment of red-shirts who saw one of their UDD leader voting in favour together with almost two dozen other red-shirt Pheu Thai party list MPs (and Dr. weng, Nattawut only abstaining). Something to be forgotten and buried together with distracting into "our government is being obstructed". Chaos with cowardly night attacks, gunshots and grenades against anti-government protesters. And you accuse them of the chaos as if they willingly sat there to be shot at only to create chaos by dying?

It would seem foreign posters have more problems accepting reality than the Thai.

It would seem foreign posters have more problems accepting reality than the Thai.

As you so readily demonstrate, rubl. Even The Nation is publishing articles indicating that the honeymoon is over and the blinkers are off.

Oh yes, And my dog has clogs on....................everyone is thinking the same as you, hoping-the honeymoon is over??

You seem so wrapped up in your quisling ignorance

that you have overlooked the lessons of Thai history.Check up in a year's time whether the honeymoon is still quite so passionate.

And you ??? using Suthep/army as scapegoats, your the one with your other splinter group members that are only going on military past,

get up to date we learn from history but unlike you we do not all want to get bogged down. I will never forget the Thaksin era only not to have the Family back. The army on reflection we had this or civil war that Thaksin wanted to then blame everyone for a sad failed government.

I'm afraid I don't understand this gibberish.If you can clarify your views in a more coherent manner I will attempt a response - though I suspect just another simple minded rant.

[ginjag]

You assume and continue from those assumptions.

The NCPO has provided details on how NRC / CDC are to be set up. Those commissions will work with Thai of all social strata, education and regions, use input from all to come to meaningful reforms and a new / renewed constitution.

It is clear from your post you do not believe in any of that. Well, that's fine, but just shows your opinion (or what seemingly is your opinion).

BTW the chaos came from the blanket amnesty bill absolving Thaksin and Ms. Yingluck of all 'political' crimes and so. It even included Abhisit/Suthep much to the disappointment of red-shirts who saw one of their UDD leader voting in favour together with almost two dozen other red-shirt Pheu Thai party list MPs (and Dr. weng, Nattawut only abstaining). Something to be forgotten and buried together with distracting into "our government is being obstructed". Chaos with cowardly night attacks, gunshots and grenades against anti-government protesters. And you accuse them of the chaos as if they willingly sat there to be shot at only to create chaos by dying?

It would seem foreign posters have more problems accepting reality than the Thai.

It would seem foreign posters have more problems accepting reality than the Thai.

As you so readily demonstrate, rubl. Even The Nation is publishing articles indicating that the honeymoon is over and the blinkers are off.

Oh yes, And my dog has clogs on....................everyone is thinking the same as you, hoping-the honeymoon is over??

You seem so wrapped up in your quisling ignorance

that you have overlooked the lessons of Thai history.Check up in a year's time whether the honeymoon is still quite so passionate.

And you ??? using Suthep/army as scapegoats, your the one with your other splinter group members that are only going on military past,

get up to date we learn from history but unlike you we do not all want to get bogged down. I will never forget the Thaksin era only not to have the Family back. The army on reflection we had this or civil war that Thaksin wanted to then blame everyone for a sad failed government.

I'm afraid I don't understand this gibberish.If you can clarify your views in a more coherent manner I will attempt a response - though I suspect just another simple minded rant.

Do not try to put others down claiming that their posts do not make sense.

The amnesty was no good -full stop do not use it to let off others, you are crazy to have people believe it was for all, GET REAL. PTPs agenda through Thaksin for over 2 years was to let him off the hook. did that make sense ???

You and your splinter group on here are a sad bunch using everything you can to side track the culprit of all the chaos-Thaksin.

[jayboy]

I'm on record as criticising the umbrella amnesty and indeed supporting the popular movement against it.However that isn't the thread subject matter.

[ginjag]

I'm on record as criticising the umbrella amnesty and indeed supporting the popular movement against it.However that isn't the thread subject matter.

So what is your problem then ?? Thaksins style of democracy you think then that PTP ran a democratic/good governance ??once they were elected they suddenly went into bad governance mode.

The present man at the helm seems more honest than near all in Yinglucks admin, even if he was not democratically elected. Sod that if PTP is what you get.

Edited August 20, 2014 by ginjag

[Mark Thaiford]

Let's put aside, for the moment, all these meaningless labels about being a democracy or a dictatorship or whatever. What, let's ask ourselves, is government supposed to do? Why, in the first place, do we even need a government?

Isn't it because our society has so large that we need to have some kind of manager to keep things moving along in an orderly manner? Isn't a government just a servant of the people? Surely we didn't elect a government so that it can lord over us or abuse us or cheat us of our rights, our money and our future? So what if it's a one-man show? So long as the government aka manager gets the job done viz the people can go about their lives in a peaceful and orderly manner, the people can live comfortably and bring up their children in a safe environment, why bother with labels like 'democracy' or 'dictatorship'?

So if Prayuth can do the job, let him do it. Never mind about the elections. The last I heard, a general election costs lots and lots of money. And spending all that money doesn't prove anything except that we have spent all that money. So if we already have a manager who gets the job done, let him do it. More power to him.

I am afraid that the labels democracy and dictatorship are not at all meaningless. People have not strived and died for democracy for centuries to obtain just a meaningless label. A political leader is not just some manager who tries to steer a steady ship for the benefit of all as you claim. A leader will always look after the constituency that supports his power whether he be democratically elected or a dictator. The only difference is that a dictatorship allows a leader to give preferential treatment to a tiny minority while a democracy means a leader has to broaden his appeal.

When black people in America gained the right to vote after the US Civil War white people saw it as a threat and they set up the Ku Klux Klan to ensure that black people would never be able to use their rights at the ballot box. If black people had the right to vote then politicians would have to treat them as equals, listen to their concerns and adjust policies accordingly. White people could no longer maintain their privileges just because they were white. If you think this is unimportant then I suppose you would not mind living the life of a black man in Mississippi in the year 1890? In your view of the World this black man can go about his life in a "peaceful and orderly" manner knowing he has a government that "gets the job done"?

The same story applies to women. Until women gained the right to vote the law was heavily biased against them. Married women did not have the right to divorce or the right to own property. A man had the right to rape and beat up his wife as if she was property. But in your view women in the year 1900 could go about their life peacefully and orderly with a government that "gets the job done".

It is not just the fact of dictatorship that is dangerous - equally dangerous is seemingly innocent posts like yours which is nothing more than an attempt to justify dictatorship and make people close their eyes to reality. Anyone with a knowledge of history should know the falsehood of what you are claiming.

[Eric Loh]

You assume and continue from those assumptions.

The NCPO has provided details on how NRC / CDC are to be set up. Those commissions will work with Thai of all social strata, education and regions, use input from all to come to meaningful reforms and a new / renewed constitution.

It is clear from your post you do not believe in any of that. Well, that's fine, but just shows your opinion (or what seemingly is your opinion).

BTW the chaos came from the blanket amnesty bill absolving Thaksin and Ms. Yingluck of all 'political' crimes and so. It even included Abhisit/Suthep much to the disappointment of red-shirts who saw one of their UDD leader voting in favour together with almost two dozen other red-shirt Pheu Thai party list MPs (and Dr. weng, Nattawut only abstaining). Something to be forgotten and buried together with distracting into "our government is being obstructed". Chaos with cowardly night attacks, gunshots and grenades against anti-government protesters. And you accuse them of the chaos as if they willingly sat there to be shot at only to create chaos by dying?

It would seem foreign posters have more problems accepting reality than the Thai.

It would seem foreign posters have more problems accepting reality than the Thai.

As you so readily demonstrate, rubl. Even The Nation is publishing articles indicating that the honeymoon is over and the blinkers are off.

Oh yes, And my dog has clogs on....................everyone is thinking the same as you, hoping-the honeymoon is over??

You seem so wrapped up in your quisling ignorance

that you have overlooked the lessons of Thai history.Check up in a year's time whether the honeymoon is still quite so passionate.

And you ??? using Suthep/army as scapegoats, your the one with your other splinter group members that are only going on military past,

get up to date we learn from history but unlike you we do not all want to get bogged down. I will never forget the Thaksin era only not to have the Family back. The army on reflection we had this or civil war that Thaksin wanted to then blame everyone for a sad failed government.

I'm afraid I don't understand this gibberish.If you can clarify your views in a more coherent manner I will attempt a response - though I suspect just another simple minded rant.

Do not try to put others down claiming that their posts do not make sense.

The amnesty was no good -full stop do not use it to let off others, you are crazy to have people believe it was for all, GET REAL. PTPs agenda through Thaksin for over 2 years was to let him off the hook. did that make sense ???

You and your splinter group on here are a sad bunch using everything you can to side track the culprit of all the chaos-Thaksin.

Can't blame that sometimes we just don't understand you.

You against amnesty yet you say nothing about the military granting themself amnesty.

You said previous government was undemocratic, yet you seem agreeable with the coup which is undemocratic.

Then you rant about PT abusing their majority and now what we have is exactly that, a majority in the NLA with no voice but just a rubber stamp law makers.

[ginjag]

You assume and continue from those assumptions.

The NCPO has provided details on how NRC / CDC are to be set up. Those commissions will work with Thai of all social strata, education and regions, use input from all to come to meaningful reforms and a new / renewed constitution.

It is clear from your post you do not believe in any of that. Well, that's fine, but just shows your opinion (or what seemingly is your opinion).

BTW the chaos came from the blanket amnesty bill absolving Thaksin and Ms. Yingluck of all 'political' crimes and so. It even included Abhisit/Suthep much to the disappointment of red-shirts who saw one of their UDD leader voting in favour together with almost two dozen other red-shirt Pheu Thai party list MPs (and Dr. weng, Nattawut only abstaining). Something to be forgotten and buried together with distracting into "our government is being obstructed". Chaos with cowardly night attacks, gunshots and grenades against anti-government protesters. And you accuse them of the chaos as if they willingly sat there to be shot at only to create chaos by dying?

It would seem foreign posters have more problems accepting reality than the Thai.

It would seem foreign posters have more problems accepting reality than the Thai.

As you so readily demonstrate, rubl. Even The Nation is publishing articles indicating that the honeymoon is over and the blinkers are off.

Oh yes, And my dog has clogs on....................everyone is thinking the same as you, hoping-the honeymoon is over??

You seem so wrapped up in your quisling ignorance

that you have overlooked the lessons of Thai history.Check up in a year's time whether the honeymoon is still quite so passionate.

And you ??? using Suthep/army as scapegoats, your the one with your other splinter group members that are only going on military past,

get up to date we learn from history but unlike you we do not all want to get bogged down. I will never forget the Thaksin era only not to have the Family back. The army on reflection we had this or civil war that Thaksin wanted to then blame everyone for a sad failed government.

I'm afraid I don't understand this gibberish.If you can clarify your views in a more coherent manner I will attempt a response - though I suspect just another simple minded rant.

Do not try to put others down claiming that their posts do not make sense.

The amnesty was no good -full stop do not use it to let off others, you are crazy to have people believe it was for all, GET REAL. PTPs agenda through Thaksin for over 2 years was to let him off the hook. did that make sense ???

You and your splinter group on here are a sad bunch using everything you can to side track the culprit of all the chaos-Thaksin.

Can't blame that sometimes we just don't understand you.

You against amnesty yet you say nothing about the military granting themself amnesty.

You said previous government was undemocratic, yet you seem agreeable with the coup which is undemocratic.

Then you rant about PT abusing their majority and now what we have is exactly that, a majority in the NLA with no voice but just a rubber stamp law makers.

After all your usual B/S post about what ??

It boils down then, both the same. PTP has had 3 years to do what ??? mega achievements please.

Now it's the army's time to show us what it can do.-------------------------------from your lot woh - that's not fair- their record from donkey's years ago is no good--not elected---junta ? you sorry losers. What record has Thaksin had ??? thrown out because of super style democracy ?? NEVER. even convicted, and 15 other alleged crimes to face. But as you say elections are the answers they give you democracy ??

Edited August 20, 2014 by ginjag

[Aree Wongwanlee]

Let's put aside, for the moment, all these meaningless labels about being a democracy or a dictatorship or whatever. What, let's ask ourselves, is government supposed to do? Why, in the first place, do we even need a government?

Isn't it because our society has so large that we need to have some kind of manager to keep things moving along in an orderly manner? Isn't a government just a servant of the people? Surely we didn't elect a government so that it can lord over us or abuse us or cheat us of our rights, our money and our future? So what if it's a one-man show? So long as the government aka manager gets the job done viz the people can go about their lives in a peaceful and orderly manner, the people can live comfortably and bring up their children in a safe environment, why bother with labels like 'democracy' or 'dictatorship'?

So if Prayuth can do the job, let him do it. Never mind about the elections. The last I heard, a general election costs lots and lots of money. And spending all that money doesn't prove anything except that we have spent all that money. So if we already have a manager who gets the job done, let him do it. More power to him.

I am afraid that the labels democracy and dictatorship are not at all meaningless. People have not strived and died for democracy for centuries to obtain just a meaningless label. A political leader is not just some manager who tries to steer a steady ship for the benefit of all as you claim. A leader will always look after the constituency that supports his power whether he be democratically elected or a dictator. The only difference is that a dictatorship allows a leader to give preferential treatment to a tiny minority while a democracy means a leader has to broaden his appeal.

When black people in America gained the right to vote after the US Civil War white people saw it as a threat and they set up the Ku Klux Klan to ensure that black people would never be able to use their rights at the ballot box. If black people had the right to vote then politicians would have to treat them as equals, listen to their concerns and adjust policies accordingly. White people could no longer maintain their privileges just because they were white. If you think this is unimportant then I suppose you would not mind living the life of a black man in Mississippi in the year 1890? In your view of the World this black man can go about his life in a "peaceful and orderly" manner knowing he has a government that "gets the job done"?

The same story applies to women. Until women gained the right to vote the law was heavily biased against them. Married women did not have the right to divorce or the right to own property. A man had the right to rape and beat up his wife as if she was property. But in your view women in the year 1900 could go about their life peacefully and orderly with a government that "gets the job done".

It is not just the fact of dictatorship that is dangerous - equally dangerous is seemingly innocent posts like yours which is nothing more than an attempt to justify dictatorship and make people close their eyes to reality. Anyone with a knowledge of history should know the falsehood of what you are claiming.

I see. That's rather illuminating. So the black people in America got the right to vote and today they have a black president who still doesn't know what to do with what happened in Ferguson? That's progress, right? Sure, that's a whole lot better than being called 'ya n*gg*r boy, learn to respect your bettahs'.

Seriously speaking, I have never lived in America so all I know about America is what I read in the media. Maybe the media is anti-America because what I learned through the media reinforced the theory that democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority, that democracy is just another ruse for the rich to oppress the poor.

You said a dictatorship serves only the interests of a tiny majority. So when did any leader elected democratically ever neglect to serve the interests of the tiny majority who financed his election and put him where he is?

And what happened after women got the vote? Women got voted in a leaders of their countries, right? That's why America is going to get its first woman president, right? If that happens, it wouldn't be a world first anyway. Anyhow, with all their democratically empowered rights, what percentage of women in America are being paid the same wages as their male counterparts? What percentage of women in America are promoted to positions befitting their experience and expertise? Maybe you know otherwise but I read in the media that it's not an encouraging picture.

So I am being dangerous? And my post is seemingly innocent? No, sir. I am not trying to sugarcoat anything. I simply don't care what you want to call it but I only care about a government that takes care of the people, which is what the government is paid to do. Or isn't that what you think a government is all about, to take care of the people?

Do you or do you not agree that the government, in the final analysis, is the paid servant of the people?

[Mark Thaiford]

I see. That's rather illuminating. So the black people in America got the right to vote and today they have a black president who still doesn't know what to do with what happened in Ferguson? That's progress, right? Sure, that's a whole lot better than being called 'ya n*gg*r boy, learn to respect your bettahs'.

Seriously speaking, I have never lived in America so all I know about America is what I read in the media. Maybe the media is anti-America because what I learned through the media reinforced the theory that democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority, that democracy is just another ruse for the rich to oppress the poor.

You said a dictatorship serves only the interests of a tiny majority. So when did any leader elected democratically ever neglect to serve the interests of the tiny majority who financed his election and put him where he is?

And what happened after women got the vote? Women got voted in a leaders of their countries, right? That's why America is going to get its first woman president, right? If that happens, it wouldn't be a world first anyway. Anyhow, with all their democratically empowered rights, what percentage of women in America are being paid the same wages as their male counterparts? What percentage of women in America are promoted to positions befitting their experience and expertise? Maybe you know otherwise but I read in the media that it's not an encouraging picture.

So I am being dangerous? And my post is seemingly innocent? No, sir. I am not trying to sugarcoat anything. I simply don't care what you want to call it but I only care about a government that takes care of the people, which is what the government is paid to do. Or isn't that what you think a government is all about, to take care of the people?

Do you or do you not agree that the government, in the final analysis, is the paid servant of the people?

Both of your points regarding black people and women do not really serve your overall argument very well. You are somehow trying to say that black people and women still have problems in a democratic society but the "problems" you point to are so much smaller than the problems they had when they were truly inferior - before they had democratic rights. Equality is historically linked to the right to vote and influence government - no rights are ever "given" out of the kindness of rulers. Give me an example of an autocratic government ever working for the benefit of the majority and I shall give you a donkey who can speak Latin.

You say the government is "paid" to serve the people. I don't see government as "paid" to do anything. Almost everyone who is in government the world over do not go into government to get a paycheck. Government is about power and about how power should be distributed. A dictatorship can enforce laws and regulations that are totally skewed in favour of the elite and if people do not like it they have zero rights to protest. Yes, most democracies also have elites and most democracies also favour elites. So what? I am not equating democracy to communism. But in all known cases democracies DO promote more fairness and equality and DO promote greater access to social advancement for the less privileged. Unfairness may exist and does exist in democratic societies no doubt, but if it gets too blatant then we have the right to protest and we can vote the government out of office. If people choose to vote for parties sponsored by the elite then that is their democratic right. In the West we have been lucky that at crucial turning points in history our elites chose to go along with modernization as they saw how it could benefit themselves. Sadly, in Thailand the elites seem to have chosen a reactionary path which may enshrine their privileges for a few more decades, but the cost of this will be borne by Thailand as a whole which will sadly have a slower economic development than its neighbours. Feudalism just has no place in the modern world - Feudalism is for static societies not for dynamic ones.

[tbthailand]

Let's put aside, for the moment, all these meaningless labels about being a democracy or a dictatorship or whatever. What, let's ask ourselves, is government supposed to do? Why, in the first place, do we even need a government?

Isn't it because our society has so large that we need to have some kind of manager to keep things moving along in an orderly manner? Isn't a government just a servant of the people? Surely we didn't elect a government so that it can lord over us or abuse us or cheat us of our rights, our money and our future? So what if it's a one-man show? So long as the government aka manager gets the job done viz the people can go about their lives in a peaceful and orderly manner, the people can live comfortably and bring up their children in a safe environment, why bother with labels like 'democracy' or 'dictatorship'?

So if Prayuth can do the job, let him do it. Never mind about the elections. The last I heard, a general election costs lots and lots of money. And spending all that money doesn't prove anything except that we have spent all that money. So if we already have a manager who gets the job done, let him do it. More power to him.

I am afraid that the labels democracy and dictatorship are not at all meaningless. People have not strived and died for democracy for centuries to obtain just a meaningless label. A political leader is not just some manager who tries to steer a steady ship for the benefit of all as you claim. A leader will always look after the constituency that supports his power whether he be democratically elected or a dictator. The only difference is that a dictatorship allows a leader to give preferential treatment to a tiny minority while a democracy means a leader has to broaden his appeal.

When black people in America gained the right to vote after the US Civil War white people saw it as a threat and they set up the Ku Klux Klan to ensure that black people would never be able to use their rights at the ballot box. If black people had the right to vote then politicians would have to treat them as equals, listen to their concerns and adjust policies accordingly. White people could no longer maintain their privileges just because they were white. If you think this is unimportant then I suppose you would not mind living the life of a black man in Mississippi in the year 1890? In your view of the World this black man can go about his life in a "peaceful and orderly" manner knowing he has a government that "gets the job done"?

The same story applies to women. Until women gained the right to vote the law was heavily biased against them. Married women did not have the right to divorce or the right to own property. A man had the right to rape and beat up his wife as if she was property. But in your view women in the year 1900 could go about their life peacefully and orderly with a government that "gets the job done".

It is not just the fact of dictatorship that is dangerous - equally dangerous is seemingly innocent posts like yours which is nothing more than an attempt to justify dictatorship and make people close their eyes to reality. Anyone with a knowledge of history should know the falsehood of what you are claiming.

I see. That's rather illuminating. So the black people in America got the right to vote and today they have a black president who still doesn't know what to do with what happened in Ferguson? That's progress, right? Sure, that's a whole lot better than being called 'ya n*gg*r boy, learn to respect your bettahs'.

Seriously speaking, I have never lived in America so all I know about America is what I read in the media. Maybe the media is anti-America because what I learned through the media reinforced the theory that democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority, that democracy is just another ruse for the rich to oppress the poor.

You said a dictatorship serves only the interests of a tiny majority. So when did any leader elected democratically ever neglect to serve the interests of the tiny majority who financed his election and put him where he is?

And what happened after women got the vote? Women got voted in a leaders of their countries, right? That's why America is going to get its first woman president, right? If that happens, it wouldn't be a world first anyway. Anyhow, with all their democratically empowered rights, what percentage of women in America are being paid the same wages as their male counterparts? What percentage of women in America are promoted to positions befitting their experience and expertise? Maybe you know otherwise but I read in the media that it's not an encouraging picture.

So I am being dangerous? And my post is seemingly innocent? No, sir. I am not trying to sugarcoat anything. I simply don't care what you want to call it but I only care about a government that takes care of the people, which is what the government is paid to do. Or isn't that what you think a government is all about, to take care of the people?

Do you or do you not agree that the government, in the final analysis, is the paid servant of the people?

so with all of that, what do you want? A government that is based on the sovereignty of the people or a dictatorship or something in between, or does the foundation of the government not matter?

[rubl]

what is annoying/amusing is that people think PTP/Thaksin are the problem. They are just actors on the stage.

Ooops, better be careful about theatre references. Like eating sandwiches, reading books, or making bird-shapes, that could get an invitation to a week (or longer) of meditation.

What is annoying is all those posters who just want to go back to the chaos of three months ago and deny the Thai a chance to get real reforms.

The theatre we had with PM Yingluck being motherly and seemingly reasonable and at the same time have Pheu Thai MPs threaten, demand, accuse. The price of the ticket was high though.

alright, then. Let's let you lay out your list of reforms. Please be specific about your version of "Thai-style democracy" and then we can use that for further discussion.

My list of reforms? I'm a foreigner just like you (I assume). Who am I to 'dictate' 'my' reforms.

Wait for the NRC to start it's work, collect input (from Thai), etc., etc. Probably early next year the first indications on ideas floating, issues to be discussed and solved and so.

[rubl]

Do not try to put others down claiming that their posts do not make sense.

The amnesty was no good -full stop do not use it to let off others, you are crazy to have people believe it was for all, GET REAL. PTPs agenda through Thaksin for over 2 years was to let him off the hook. did that make sense ???

You and your splinter group on here are a sad bunch using everything you can to side track the culprit of all the chaos-Thaksin.

Can't blame that sometimes we just don't understand you.

You against amnesty yet you say nothing about the military granting themself amnesty.

You said previous government was undemocratic, yet you seem agreeable with the coup which is undemocratic.

Then you rant about PT abusing their majority and now what we have is exactly that, a majority in the NLA with no voice but just a rubber stamp law makers.

Oh boy, apples and peaches come to mind.

BTW the Yingluck government was supposed to be democratic and work democratically. No such requirement for the junta. To keep on suggesting that they are not democratic like a government is supposed to be is a bit hilarious.

[rubl]

I see. That's rather illuminating. So the black people in America got the right to vote and today they have a black president who still doesn't know what to do with what happened in Ferguson? That's progress, right? Sure, that's a whole lot better than being called 'ya n*gg*r boy, learn to respect your bettahs'.

Seriously speaking, I have never lived in America so all I know about America is what I read in the media. Maybe the media is anti-America because what I learned through the media reinforced the theory that democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority, that democracy is just another ruse for the rich to oppress the poor.

You said a dictatorship serves only the interests of a tiny majority. So when did any leader elected democratically ever neglect to serve the interests of the tiny majority who financed his election and put him where he is?

And what happened after women got the vote? Women got voted in a leaders of their countries, right? That's why America is going to get its first woman president, right? If that happens, it wouldn't be a world first anyway. Anyhow, with all their democratically empowered rights, what percentage of women in America are being paid the same wages as their male counterparts? What percentage of women in America are promoted to positions befitting their experience and expertise? Maybe you know otherwise but I read in the media that it's not an encouraging picture.

So I am being dangerous? And my post is seemingly innocent? No, sir. I am not trying to sugarcoat anything. I simply don't care what you want to call it but I only care about a government that takes care of the people, which is what the government is paid to do. Or isn't that what you think a government is all about, to take care of the people?

Do you or do you not agree that the government, in the final analysis, is the paid servant of the people?

Both of your points regarding black people and women do not really serve your overall argument very well. You are somehow trying to say that black people and women still have problems in a democratic society but the "problems" you point to are so much smaller than the problems they had when they were truly inferior - before they had democratic rights. Equality is historically linked to the right to vote and influence government - no rights are ever "given" out of the kindness of rulers. Give me an example of an autocratic government ever working for the benefit of the majority and I shall give you a donkey who can speak Latin.

You say the government is "paid" to serve the people. I don't see government as "paid" to do anything. Almost everyone who is in government the world over do not go into government to get a paycheck. Government is about power and about how power should be distributed. A dictatorship can enforce laws and regulations that are totally skewed in favour of the elite and if people do not like it they have zero rights to protest. Yes, most democracies also have elites and most democracies also favour elites. So what? I am not equating democracy to communism. But in all known cases democracies DO promote more fairness and equality and DO promote greater access to social advancement for the less privileged. Unfairness may exist and does exist in democratic societies no doubt, but if it gets too blatant then we have the right to protest and we can vote the government out of office. If people choose to vote for parties sponsored by the elite then that is their democratic right. In the West we have been lucky that at crucial turning points in history our elites chose to go along with modernization as they saw how it could benefit themselves. Sadly, in Thailand the elites seem to have chosen a reactionary path which may enshrine their privileges for a few more decades, but the cost of this will be borne by Thailand as a whole which will sadly have a slower economic development than its neighbours. Feudalism just has no place in the modern world - Feudalism is for static societies not for dynamic ones.

Interesting ideas of what a government is supposed to be.

In Thailand people like to be part of the government as that used to be lucrative. Steady job with certain 'extra income' possibilities. The government as in politicians in parliament are not better, in many cases even worse.

As for 'elites', that seems like an easy label to indicate all those who do not share your ideas or those you are against.

In Thailand there are still lots of people who are almost in a serfdom relation to local bosses as part of Thailands history. Thaksin made use of that, the UDD makes use of that. There is no indication that either want to abolish that nice and easy structure which helps getting the votes necessary to make a bit of extra money for self and cronies.

[Mark Thaiford]

Interesting ideas of what a government is supposed to be.

In Thailand people like to be part of the government as that used to be lucrative. Steady job with certain 'extra income' possibilities. The government as in politicians in parliament are not better, in many cases even worse.

As for 'elites', that seems like an easy label to indicate all those who do not share your ideas or those you are against.

In Thailand there are still lots of people who are almost in a serfdom relation to local bosses as part of Thailands history. Thaksin made use of that, the UDD makes use of that. There is no indication that either want to abolish that nice and easy structure which helps getting the votes necessary to make a bit of extra money for self and cronies.

I use the term elites as a purely socio-economic descriptor - it includes the groups who have amassed a large amount of money and power.

You seem to think Thaksin is somehow responsible for the endemic corruption that exists in Thailand. I see Thaksin as a product of his society just like the current government is. Unlike you I do not focus exclusively on individuals as a way to detract attention from the real issues. For me the issue is which institutions and principles Thailand should be founded upon. Any student of Thai history will know this has been a conflict in Thailand since 1932. For the past 82 years Thailand has consistently failed to develop a respect for democratic institutions and principles. The way the constitution is constantly revised and changed is the best example of this. In firmly entrenched democratic countries the constitution is one of the most sacrosanct elements of society. All other institutions and individuals have to adhere to it - but in Thailand a tradition has developed to disrespect the constitution.

Thaksin should have been removed democratically, but the real issue was not Thaksin - it was democracy itself. This is the part of this saga you wilfully ignore. Maybe you are a descendant of an Old Dutch aristocracy? Is that why you have such a love of feudalism? Otherwise I have a hard time comprehending why you are betraying your roots? You and I are products of democratic societies. If democracy had not developed in our countries over the past centuries then you and I would more than likely have grown up as serfs with as little prospects in life as the poorest Isarn peasant today. Why do you ignore this? Why do you betray your own roots?

[tbthailand]

what is annoying/amusing is that people think PTP/Thaksin are the problem. They are just actors on the stage.

Ooops, better be careful about theatre references. Like eating sandwiches, reading books, or making bird-shapes, that could get an invitation to a week (or longer) of meditation.

What is annoying is all those posters who just want to go back to the chaos of three months ago and deny the Thai a chance to get real reforms.

The theatre we had with PM Yingluck being motherly and seemingly reasonable and at the same time have Pheu Thai MPs threaten, demand, accuse. The price of the ticket was high though.

alright, then. Let's let you lay out your list of reforms. Please be specific about your version of "Thai-style democracy" and then we can use that for further discussion.

My list of reforms? I'm a foreigner just like you (I assume). Who am I to 'dictate' 'my' reforms.

Wait for the NRC to start it's work, collect input (from Thai), etc., etc. Probably early next year the first indications on ideas floating, issues to be discussed and solved and so.

that has to be the biggest cop-out I've seen in a long time.

[heybruce]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

It would seem you're the one who cannot accept the reality. You're the one who likes to go back to the failed democracy Thailand was. Why do you fear the current reality? You have nothing to fear personally, nor do you seem to have a stake in Thailand future or want the best for Thailand in the future.

The democracy was toppled by a coup, so in a sense it failed, but failure was forced on it.

The current reality, as I have stated repeatedly and you repeatedly ignore, is one of martial law, censorship, no freedom of speech, no freedom of association, no right to criticize the government, calls for elections banned, and rule by decree. The fact that you find this not only acceptable but comforting speaks volumes about you.

I've made many friends in Thailand. I want a better future for them in a better country. I want their government to achieve real democracy. You argue for the old facade of democracy in which the military is constantly behind the scenes ready to stage a coup if the generals or their buddies don't like where the voters are taking the country.

Now I eagerly await your reply in which you write "But, but, but Thaksin, Yingluck, PTP, redshirts!" No doubt you will make no attempt to defend all the restrictions imposed on the Thai people or explain how these restrictions on ideas and communication will lead to 'real democracy'. Obviously they won't.

As a 'but, but, Thaksin' ranting do-gooder coup-lover (as is obvious people tell me) I'm really surprised at all those posters who want to go back to the situation we had barely three months ago. A situation which got more and more violent and might have erupted into a civil war type of chaos.

To just say, but that's the fault of the others, is ignoring the other side of the story. To simply 'know' the NCPO will 'only' allow reforms which confirm the 'elite' in their position to the detriment of the 'poor, disenfrancised masses' is like hearing a political speech.

To continue to verbally obstruct the chance of reforms without political games but with the Thai people providing input is like agitating against progress. And for what? For a situation where politicians 'take care of' corruption? For politicians using pressure groups in coloutful shirts? For country where a criminal fugitive is said to legally order his Pheu Thai party's government and PM around as if that's normal in a democracy? A government which sneakily handed out a shiny new passport while the country was wading through floodwaters? A government trying to push through a sneakily modified blanket amnesty bill absolving Thaisin and even his little sisters two years in office?

Democracy anyone?

Now your argument is that the only two choices were a military coup or continuing to allow Suthep and his minions to create chaos in Bangkok and use violence and intimidation to prevent elections. I can see alternatives, can't you? As I've repeatedly stated, if Prayuth had made it clear there would be no coup then Suthep's protest would have quickly run out of steam and elections could have been held.

Even if you disagree with this, and it is now unprovable, there was always the 2010 solution--a violent, bloody street clearing crackdown by the military which left the government in place. This would have had the advantage of demonstrating the military's determination to maintain 'Peace and Order' in an apolitical manner. Of course you could argue that a bloodless coup is better than a bloody crackdown, but that same argument would apply to 2010 as well, wouldn't it?

As far as going back to where we were three months ago, the latest coup guarantees it. The military has shown the Democrats they don't have to win elections, which they have demonstrated they can't do, they just have to create chaos in the streets and the military will remove the elected government and replace it with one more to their liking.

As for present alternatives, I advocate democracy now. Use the 1997 constitution or randomly select any constitution from an established successful democracy and change the name of the country to Thailand. It's not ideal, but better than military rule and all the restrictions that definitely do not 'educate' people about 'real democracy'. If you disagree, perhaps you will finally take up my challenge and explain how censorship, bans on political gathering, bans on criticism of the government, bans on calls for an election, along with the example of a military coup that suspends the constitution and imposes martial law prepares people for democracy.

BTW, thanks for proving me right and returning to your "But, but, but Thaksin, Yingluck, PTP, redshirts!" argument.

[Mark Thaiford]

that has to be the biggest cop-out I've seen in a long time.

Yes - it is a question that the anti-democrats will always evade as answering it would mean that they would have to start thinking of the real issues and not their pet-hates against Thaksin. Fact is they do not care 2 bob about democracy in Thailand and will happily accept dictatorship indefinitely - as long as their own status as privileged farangs living the good life in Thailand will not be affected.

[Eric Loh]

that has to be the biggest cop-out I've seen in a long time.

Yes - it is a question that the anti-democrats will always evade as answering it would mean that they would have to start thinking of the real issues and not their pet-hates against Thaksin. Fact is they do not care 2 bob about democracy in Thailand and will happily accept dictatorship indefinitely - as long as their own status as privileged farangs living the good life in Thailand will not be affected.

Well these anti-democratic have slightly more than a year to live life under dictatorship as even the good General has the wisdom to return democracy back to the people next year. Look even the General acknowledge that democracy is still the best system and global acceptance.

[rubl]

Interesting ideas of what a government is supposed to be.

In Thailand people like to be part of the government as that used to be lucrative. Steady job with certain 'extra income' possibilities. The government as in politicians in parliament are not better, in many cases even worse.

As for 'elites', that seems like an easy label to indicate all those who do not share your ideas or those you are against.

In Thailand there are still lots of people who are almost in a serfdom relation to local bosses as part of Thailands history. Thaksin made use of that, the UDD makes use of that. There is no indication that either want to abolish that nice and easy structure which helps getting the votes necessary to make a bit of extra money for self and cronies.

I use the term elites as a purely socio-economic descriptor - it includes the groups who have amassed a large amount of money and power.

You seem to think Thaksin is somehow responsible for the endemic corruption that exists in Thailand. I see Thaksin as a product of his society just like the current government is. Unlike you I do not focus exclusively on individuals as a way to detract attention from the real issues. For me the issue is which institutions and principles Thailand should be founded upon. Any student of Thai history will know this has been a conflict in Thailand since 1932. For the past 82 years Thailand has consistently failed to develop a respect for democratic institutions and principles. The way the constitution is constantly revised and changed is the best example of this. In firmly entrenched democratic countries the constitution is one of the most sacrosanct elements of society. All other institutions and individuals have to adhere to it - but in Thailand a tradition has developed to disrespect the constitution.

Thaksin should have been removed democratically, but the real issue was not Thaksin - it was democracy itself. This is the part of this saga you wilfully ignore. Maybe you are a descendant of an Old Dutch aristocracy? Is that why you have such a love of feudalism? Otherwise I have a hard time comprehending why you are betraying your roots? You and I are products of democratic societies. If democracy had not developed in our countries over the past centuries then you and I would more than likely have grown up as serfs with as little prospects in life as the poorest Isarn peasant today. Why do you ignore this? Why do you betray your own roots?

The faulty democracy that Thailand was didn't allow for Thaksin to be removed democratically. Not his fault, but part of that faulty democracy. Any 'socio-economical' Amply Rich fellow would have been equally difficult to remove democratically.

I already mentioned a few times that in the Western World democracy and population grew up together. To transplant the same democracy model, but without all of the education and experience necessary to the population to make it work, will simply mean it will not work. Actually it is only an invitation to disaster.

That's what makes it essential that reforms include education to make people self-aware, self-reliant and thereby able to withstand the influence of the those to try to take advantage of them. It might be that some of the PDRC people didn't realise that the reforms they want will also have effect on them.

[rubl]

alright, then. Let's let you lay out your list of reforms. Please be specific about your version of "Thai-style democracy" and then we can use that for further discussion.

My list of reforms? I'm a foreigner just like you (I assume). Who am I to 'dictate' 'my' reforms.

Wait for the NRC to start it's work, collect input (from Thai), etc., etc. Probably early next year the first indications on ideas floating, issues to be discussed and solved and so.

that has to be the biggest cop-out I've seen in a long time.

That has to be the dumbest question I'd seen in a long time, or were you just trolling? To even expect I fall for that shows some naivity from the side of this Dutch uncle.

[rubl]

that has to be the biggest cop-out I've seen in a long time.

Yes - it is a question that the anti-democrats will always evade as answering it would mean that they would have to start thinking of the real issues and not their pet-hates against Thaksin. Fact is they do not care 2 bob about democracy in Thailand and will happily accept dictatorship indefinitely - as long as their own status as privileged farangs living the good life in Thailand will not be affected.

Who am I to impose my possible ideas on reform on to Thai? Who are you to accuse me of evading an incorrect or even trolling question?

The NRC will work in Thailand with Thais and hopefully a lot of meaningful input from Thai to come to reform proposals and statements.

The rest of your post is just equally insulting.

[rubl]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

It would seem you're the one who cannot accept the reality. You're the one who likes to go back to the failed democracy Thailand was. Why do you fear the current reality? You have nothing to fear personally, nor do you seem to have a stake in Thailand future or want the best for Thailand in the future.

The democracy was toppled by a coup, so in a sense it failed, but failure was forced on it.

The current reality, as I have stated repeatedly and you repeatedly ignore, is one of martial law, censorship, no freedom of speech, no freedom of association, no right to criticize the government, calls for elections banned, and rule by decree. The fact that you find this not only acceptable but comforting speaks volumes about you.

I've made many friends in Thailand. I want a better future for them in a better country. I want their government to achieve real democracy. You argue for the old facade of democracy in which the military is constantly behind the scenes ready to stage a coup if the generals or their buddies don't like where the voters are taking the country.

Now I eagerly await your reply in which you write "But, but, but Thaksin, Yingluck, PTP, redshirts!" No doubt you will make no attempt to defend all the restrictions imposed on the Thai people or explain how these restrictions on ideas and communication will lead to 'real democracy'. Obviously they won't.

As a 'but, but, Thaksin' ranting do-gooder coup-lover (as is obvious people tell me) I'm really surprised at all those posters who want to go back to the situation we had barely three months ago. A situation which got more and more violent and might have erupted into a civil war type of chaos.

To just say, but that's the fault of the others, is ignoring the other side of the story. To simply 'know' the NCPO will 'only' allow reforms which confirm the 'elite' in their position to the detriment of the 'poor, disenfrancised masses' is like hearing a political speech.

To continue to verbally obstruct the chance of reforms without political games but with the Thai people providing input is like agitating against progress. And for what? For a situation where politicians 'take care of' corruption? For politicians using pressure groups in coloutful shirts? For country where a criminal fugitive is said to legally order his Pheu Thai party's government and PM around as if that's normal in a democracy? A government which sneakily handed out a shiny new passport while the country was wading through floodwaters? A government trying to push through a sneakily modified blanket amnesty bill absolving Thaisin and even his little sisters two years in office?

Democracy anyone?

Now your argument is that the only two choices were a military coup or continuing to allow Suthep and his minions to create chaos in Bangkok and use violence and intimidation to prevent elections. I can see alternatives, can't you? As I've repeatedly stated, if Prayuth had made it clear there would be no coup then Suthep's protest would have quickly run out of steam and elections could have been held.

Even if you disagree with this, and it is now unprovable, there was always the 2010 solution--a violent, bloody street clearing crackdown by the military which left the government in place. This would have had the advantage of demonstrating the military's determination to maintain 'Peace and Order' in an apolitical manner. Of course you could argue that a bloodless coup is better than a bloody crackdown, but that same argument would apply to 2010 as well, wouldn't it?

As far as going back to where we were three months ago, the latest coup guarantees it. The military has shown the Democrats they don't have to win elections, which they have demonstrated they can't do, they just have to create chaos in the streets and the military will remove the elected government and replace it with one more to their liking.

As for present alternatives, I advocate democracy now. Use the 1997 constitution or randomly select any constitution from an established successful democracy and change the name of the country to Thailand. It's not ideal, but better than military rule and all the restrictions that definitely do not 'educate' people about 'real democracy'. If you disagree, perhaps you will finally take up my challenge and explain how censorship, bans on political gathering, bans on criticism of the government, bans on calls for an election, along with the example of a military coup that suspends the constitution and imposes martial law prepares people for democracy.

BTW, thanks for proving me right and returning to your "But, but, but Thaksin, Yingluck, PTP, redshirts!" argument.

Oh, come on, Brucy. You may advocate whatever you want now, but you started with advocating to the 'good life' before the coup. You even suggest that the anti-government protesters were happy to be sitting ducks for cowardly night attacks from at that moment 'unknowns' who happen to be found to be UDD supporters or simple mercenaries paid by government supporters. The Yingluck government was just voicing their 'democratic values' while Pheu Thai MPs demanded, CAPO requested or demanded and suggested 'wrong' court decisions could lead to violence.

The Yingluck administration had no interest in reforms only in power and helping Thaksin. Sorry if that bothers you, but to not mention Yingluck or Thaksin while countering a return to a non-democracy advocated by some here, is impossible.

Now for the NRC to start work on formulating reforms helped with input from Thai of all social strata, education levels, regions.

[heybruce]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The democracy was toppled by a coup, so in a sense it failed, but failure was forced on it.

The current reality, as I have stated repeatedly and you repeatedly ignore, is one of martial law, censorship, no freedom of speech, no freedom of association, no right to criticize the government, calls for elections banned, and rule by decree. The fact that you find this not only acceptable but comforting speaks volumes about you.

I've made many friends in Thailand. I want a better future for them in a better country. I want their government to achieve real democracy. You argue for the old facade of democracy in which the military is constantly behind the scenes ready to stage a coup if the generals or their buddies don't like where the voters are taking the country.

Now I eagerly await your reply in which you write "But, but, but Thaksin, Yingluck, PTP, redshirts!" No doubt you will make no attempt to defend all the restrictions imposed on the Thai people or explain how these restrictions on ideas and communication will lead to 'real democracy'. Obviously they won't.

As a 'but, but, Thaksin' ranting do-gooder coup-lover (as is obvious people tell me) I'm really surprised at all those posters who want to go back to the situation we had barely three months ago. A situation which got more and more violent and might have erupted into a civil war type of chaos.

To just say, but that's the fault of the others, is ignoring the other side of the story. To simply 'know' the NCPO will 'only' allow reforms which confirm the 'elite' in their position to the detriment of the 'poor, disenfrancised masses' is like hearing a political speech.

To continue to verbally obstruct the chance of reforms without political games but with the Thai people providing input is like agitating against progress. And for what? For a situation where politicians 'take care of' corruption? For politicians using pressure groups in coloutful shirts? For country where a criminal fugitive is said to legally order his Pheu Thai party's government and PM around as if that's normal in a democracy? A government which sneakily handed out a shiny new passport while the country was wading through floodwaters? A government trying to push through a sneakily modified blanket amnesty bill absolving Thaisin and even his little sisters two years in office?

Democracy anyone?

Now your argument is that the only two choices were a military coup or continuing to allow Suthep and his minions to create chaos in Bangkok and use violence and intimidation to prevent elections. I can see alternatives, can't you? As I've repeatedly stated, if Prayuth had made it clear there would be no coup then Suthep's protest would have quickly run out of steam and elections could have been held.

Even if you disagree with this, and it is now unprovable, there was always the 2010 solution--a violent, bloody street clearing crackdown by the military which left the government in place. This would have had the advantage of demonstrating the military's determination to maintain 'Peace and Order' in an apolitical manner. Of course you could argue that a bloodless coup is better than a bloody crackdown, but that same argument would apply to 2010 as well, wouldn't it?

As far as going back to where we were three months ago, the latest coup guarantees it. The military has shown the Democrats they don't have to win elections, which they have demonstrated they can't do, they just have to create chaos in the streets and the military will remove the elected government and replace it with one more to their liking.

As for present alternatives, I advocate democracy now. Use the 1997 constitution or randomly select any constitution from an established successful democracy and change the name of the country to Thailand. It's not ideal, but better than military rule and all the restrictions that definitely do not 'educate' people about 'real democracy'. If you disagree, perhaps you will finally take up my challenge and explain how censorship, bans on political gathering, bans on criticism of the government, bans on calls for an election, along with the example of a military coup that suspends the constitution and imposes martial law prepares people for democracy.

BTW, thanks for proving me right and returning to your "But, but, but Thaksin, Yingluck, PTP, redshirts!" argument.

Oh, come on, Brucy. You may advocate whatever you want now, but you started with advocating to the 'good life' before the coup. You even suggest that the anti-government protesters were happy to be sitting ducks for cowardly night attacks from at that moment 'unknowns' who happen to be found to be UDD supporters or simple mercenaries paid by government supporters. The Yingluck government was just voicing their 'democratic values' while Pheu Thai MPs demanded, CAPO requested or demanded and suggested 'wrong' court decisions could lead to violence.

The Yingluck government was just voicing their 'democratic values' while Pheu Thai MPs demanded, CAPO requested or demanded and suggested 'wrong' court decisions could lead to violence.. Sorry if that bothers you, but to not mention Yingluck or Thaksin while countering a return to a non-democracy advocated by some here, is impossible.

Now for the NRC to start work on formulating reforms helped with input from Thai of all social strata, education levels, regions.

"Oh, come on, Brucy. You may advocate whatever you want now, but you started with advocating to the 'good life' before the coup."

Wrong.

"You even suggest that the anti-government protesters were happy to be sitting ducks for cowardly night attacks..."

Wrong.

"The Yingluck government was just voicing their 'democratic values' while Pheu Thai MPs demanded, CAPO requested or demanded and suggested 'wrong' court decisions could lead to violence."

What?

"but to not mention Yingluck or Thaksin while countering a return to a non-democracy advocated by some here, is impossible."

rubl, stop making stuff up! I'm advocating a return to democracy, you consistently argue against it, while insisting it wasn't really democracy because you didn't like the voters choices.

[rubl]

"Oh, come on, Brucy. You may advocate whatever you want now, but you started with advocating to the 'good life' before the coup."

Wrong.

"You even suggest that the anti-government protesters were happy to be sitting ducks for cowardly night attacks..."

Wrong.

"The Yingluck government was just voicing their 'democratic values' while Pheu Thai MPs demanded, CAPO requested or demanded and suggested 'wrong' court decisions could lead to violence."

What?

"but to not mention Yingluck or Thaksin while countering a return to a non-democracy advocated by some here, is impossible."

rubl, stop making stuff up! I'm advocating a return to democracy, you consistently argue against it, while insisting it wasn't really democracy because you didn't like the voters choices.

You want to return to the democracy Thailand had. That democracy was a flawed and failed one.

BTW don't say I said "while insisting it wasn't really democracy because you didn't like the voters choices." because I never said such thing. I said that a.o. with you saying that this criminal fugitive controlling the government of this country was not really illegal, showed that if true that was not really illegal, this country wasn't a functioning democracy.

Of course, it may be that in your country of origin no one would have a problem with an offshore criminal controlling your government and that not really illegally as well? Do you have political parties run by criminal fugitives and if yes can those parties participate in elections?