What makes 'Thai-style democracy' globally palatable?

[heybruce]

Oh come on, fabs. Even if it offends what you think is right or wrong, the NCPO must make sure than the political zealots of any side of the fence and other unsavory elements cannot obstruct the reform selection and definition program.

Of course you may think it a good idea to have some of the more outspoken UDD and PDRC/PCAD leaders in the NRC. As valid representatives of 'the people' or so?

I think the point was that you talk about 'input from the Thai people' which is clearly excluded via the selection process used by the "NCPO" to select the NRC and the process is clearly designed for the "NCPO" to control the NRC - not to mention that the "NCPO" gets to approve or disapprove any NRC recommendations which just means 'give the NCPO what the NCPO wants'.

Oh come on, TB, the NRC already in part comprises of people suggested by other Thai. Also you need a commission which can work, rather than just another 'voted in' parliament with politicians.

The Thai people get their chance to offer input. Suggestions as to reforms, which, what, how and so.

The NCPO of course needs to approve, but if they would only allow reforms they like than either they cannot step down or the moment they do someone will start modifying reforms again.

The reforms must be acceptable to most Thais, found doable, workable and it's up to the Thai to find such reforms, procedures, guidelines. If Thais cannot cooperate even in this, we might as well ask the NCPO to stay on. If Thai find that they need more time, they need to convince the NCPO to stay on for a bit longer.

"The reforms must be acceptable to most Thais..."

So if the reforms include permanent restrictions on criticism of the government, permanent bans on political gatherings, permanent censorship well beyond the standard censorship the pre-dates the coup, and other elements of martial law (purely in the interests of peace and happiness, of course) and most Thais don't accept them, then the junta lives on. Is that how it will work?

[rubl]

All excellent ideas. The military should lead by example and impose all these reforms on itself (substitute 'generals' for 'politicians'). In fact it should have done that before the coup.

Military lead by example in military matters. In a real democracy politicians lead in reforms and Ministers with their ministries apparatus formulate how to implement reforms or sometimes even formulate the reforms when parliament is a bit vague in it's direction giving.

Anyway, better that the NRC formulates reforms with input from the Thai population rather than have the military push a few, wouldn't you say?

Where to begin? First:

"Military lead by example in military matters."

Did you notice that the military is running the nation now?

You also distinguish between the NRC and the military, I don't. Also, with Thailand's history of coups, do you think a civilian government will dare to reform the military? Can you provide any evidence that the military is ready to reform itself?

Zig, zag, zig, zag.

You read in my answers what you want to read and ask further questions based and what you want I would have written.

Why would I provide evidence the military is ready to reform itself? Did I say they were?

Did you see the "in a real democracy" I wrote?

As for NRC and NCPO, well if you don't want to see the difference, I'm afraid we better end our pleasant discussion here. Even this Dutch uncle knows when to stop trying, there are better and more rewarding ways of spending an evening than with a sewing machine.

[rubl]

"As for English, you seem to confuse 'democracy' with 'government'."

Are you playing dumb now? The original sentence I wrote was:

"I want a Thailand to have a democracy very unlike the government (it remains to be seen how democratic it will be) that will come out of this mess."

You claimed to have trouble with that so I suggested you read the sentence without the phrase in parentheses:

"I want Thailand to have a democracy very unlike the government that will come out of this mess."

Now you claim you don't understand that. Let me try it one more time for you:

I want Thailand to have a democratic government, not whatever kind of government the military imposes on the country.

Is that clear? Also, do you think you are enhancing your credibility as a poster with this verbal nit-picking?

Brucy, you replaced 'democracy' by 'democratic government' as if that was your idea. You seem to forget that I told you the 'democracy = government' sounded a wee bit strange and you might consider rephrasing.

Now you did so, but accuse me of misunderstanding. Is it so difficult to just write "yes, you're right, let me rephrase" ?

In informal English, 'a democracy' and 'a democratic government' are often used interchangeably. Since you didn't seem to understand that I changed the sentence wording for you. Although I think you understood what I wrote originally, you just didn't have a substantive counter-argument so you picked at the wording.

That's manure of an exquisite kind, my dear Brucy.

In a discussion where we talk about democracy in 'real' or 'failed', or 'Thai special' form you clearly do not interchange democracy and government. Even 'democracy' and 'democratic government' as not interchangeble when struggling with definitions and concepts.

[tbthailand]

Remember that we are - at least I am - living under a military dict...ship which makes up the rules as it sees fit.

Wearing the wrong t-shirt while selling fish gets you harassed by the army.

eating a sandwich or reading a book or listening to music can get an invitation for attitude adjustment

talking to your taxi fare about "inequality in Thailand" in January could get you arrested in May and sentenced to 2 1/2 years in August

participating in a play in 2013 could get you charged with LM in August 2014 and refused bail

hundreds of people (that we know of) have been invited to week-long retreats and some have been 'happier than words can say' and decided to extend their time for meditation.

It is not legal to say or do anything that could cause "conflict" and the people who come to arrest you are the same ones who decide what causes conflict.

No, my ideas are not extreme, but neither is it legal or safe for me to express them.

Come on, TB, you tell you can't say much while complaining in detail.

BTW I am now at home in Khet Dusit, Bangkok. I expressed my view on possible reforms which I think would be good for the country. Do you want to suggest I should now pack my things and move? Should I expect a knock on the door tonight?

When you're in Thailand you use a Thai Internet connection like me (I'm on trueWIFI at the moment) and anything you write down could be scrutinized. As an American you know that

you are pro-junta, I am not.

we don't get treated the same.

book reading is illegal depending on how you do it.

anti-american protesting in front of the embassy is not protesting, just 'expressing your opinion'

wearing red-colored t-shirt and selling fish in Chiang Mai leaves you shirtless

wearing shutdown bangkok t-shirts in the south is a fashion statement.

the rules of this forum have been made stricter to comply with the NCPO's directives. You might have missed it, but I have not overlooked the fact that some of my posts are deleted because they don't comply correctly with the rules. That in and of itself is not a problem. It is just another example which is closer to home.

I'm pro-junta? I deeply regret it's necessary, but being somewhat pragmatic I can see that with help Thailand can become a real democracy. The politicians didn't really seem interested. One party too small to get changes done and depending on other parties 'goodwill' and maybe not too interested in getting real changes done, another party just interested in one person only.

Even if you are anti-junta, you only have a problem when you publicly express your anti-junta opinions. Just like politicians are requested to shut up for a moment so work can be done.

BTW book reading can get you into problems in more countries. In the USA Down South a bit of colour may be seen as confrontational by the police. The government even asked the army to step in.

Anyway, a few posts from you I've seen asked for removal. Spreading rumours for instance. Again in any country you can be held accountable for your posts on social media.

PS 'get treated' ? More like we both get ignored as being legal 'aliens' only.

spreading rumours? I don't think so.

Let's not go down the 'crazy trail' and try to compare Thailand's military 'event' and current 'NCPO' with the US - please, that is just off the chart nutters

[rubl]

Oh come on, fabs. Even if it offends what you think is right or wrong, the NCPO must make sure than the political zealots of any side of the fence and other unsavory elements cannot obstruct the reform selection and definition program.

Of course you may think it a good idea to have some of the more outspoken UDD and PDRC/PCAD leaders in the NRC. As valid representatives of 'the people' or so?

I think the point was that you talk about 'input from the Thai people' which is clearly excluded via the selection process used by the "NCPO" to select the NRC and the process is clearly designed for the "NCPO" to control the NRC - not to mention that the "NCPO" gets to approve or disapprove any NRC recommendations which just means 'give the NCPO what the NCPO wants'.

Oh come on, TB, the NRC already in part comprises of people suggested by other Thai. Also you need a commission which can work, rather than just another 'voted in' parliament with politicians.

The Thai people get their chance to offer input. Suggestions as to reforms, which, what, how and so.

The NCPO of course needs to approve, but if they would only allow reforms they like than either they cannot step down or the moment they do someone will start modifying reforms again.

The reforms must be acceptable to most Thais, found doable, workable and it's up to the Thai to find such reforms, procedures, guidelines. If Thais cannot cooperate even in this, we might as well ask the NCPO to stay on. If Thai find that they need more time, they need to convince the NCPO to stay on for a bit longer.

"The reforms must be acceptable to most Thais..."

So if the reforms include permanent restrictions on criticism of the government, permanent bans on political gatherings, permanent censorship well beyond the standard censorship the pre-dates the coup, and other elements of martial law (purely in the interests of peace and happiness, of course) and most Thais don't accept them, then the junta lives on. Is that how it will work?

My excuses. Seems a common mistake non-native English speakers sometimes make. That should have been

"The reforms should be of a kind acceptable to most Thais..."

If the reforms presented by the NRC after nearly a year hard work are not acceptable to most Thai they haven't done their homework. They need to make sure that with sufficient input the reforms they will propose as conclusion of their work will be acceptable. If they cannot get reforms formulated so that most Thai will find them acceptable I fear that no one will be able to do such. In that case Thailand condemns itself to a continued NCPO rule, till they can.

I believe that the Thai will be able to come with reforms acceptable to most and which will better the country, give democracy a second start.

Edited August 21, 2014 by rubl

[heybruce]

"As for English, you seem to confuse 'democracy' with 'government'."

Are you playing dumb now? The original sentence I wrote was:

"I want a Thailand to have a democracy very unlike the government (it remains to be seen how democratic it will be) that will come out of this mess."

You claimed to have trouble with that so I suggested you read the sentence without the phrase in parentheses:

"I want Thailand to have a democracy very unlike the government that will come out of this mess."

Now you claim you don't understand that. Let me try it one more time for you:

I want Thailand to have a democratic government, not whatever kind of government the military imposes on the country.

Is that clear? Also, do you think you are enhancing your credibility as a poster with this verbal nit-picking?

Brucy, you replaced 'democracy' by 'democratic government' as if that was your idea. You seem to forget that I told you the 'democracy = government' sounded a wee bit strange and you might consider rephrasing.

Now you did so, but accuse me of misunderstanding. Is it so difficult to just write "yes, you're right, let me rephrase" ?

In informal English, 'a democracy' and 'a democratic government' are often used interchangeably. Since you didn't seem to understand that I changed the sentence wording for you. Although I think you understood what I wrote originally, you just didn't have a substantive counter-argument so you picked at the wording.

That's manure of an exquisite kind, my dear Brucy.

In a discussion where we talk about democracy in 'real' or 'failed', or 'Thai special' form you clearly do not interchange democracy and government. Even 'democracy' and 'democratic government' as not interchangeble when struggling with definitions and concepts.

Let's go back to the original sentence you had problems with:

"I want a Thailand to have a democracy very unlike the government (it remains to be seen how democratic it will be) that will come out of this mess."

What part of that do you not understand?

[heybruce]

I think the point was that you talk about 'input from the Thai people' which is clearly excluded via the selection process used by the "NCPO" to select the NRC and the process is clearly designed for the "NCPO" to control the NRC - not to mention that the "NCPO" gets to approve or disapprove any NRC recommendations which just means 'give the NCPO what the NCPO wants'.

Oh come on, TB, the NRC already in part comprises of people suggested by other Thai. Also you need a commission which can work, rather than just another 'voted in' parliament with politicians.

The Thai people get their chance to offer input. Suggestions as to reforms, which, what, how and so.

The NCPO of course needs to approve, but if they would only allow reforms they like than either they cannot step down or the moment they do someone will start modifying reforms again.

The reforms must be acceptable to most Thais, found doable, workable and it's up to the Thai to find such reforms, procedures, guidelines. If Thais cannot cooperate even in this, we might as well ask the NCPO to stay on. If Thai find that they need more time, they need to convince the NCPO to stay on for a bit longer.

"The reforms must be acceptable to most Thais..."

So if the reforms include permanent restrictions on criticism of the government, permanent bans on political gatherings, permanent censorship well beyond the standard censorship the pre-dates the coup, and other elements of martial law (purely in the interests of peace and happiness, of course) and most Thais don't accept them, then the junta lives on. Is that how it will work?

My excuses. Seems a common mistake non-native English speakers sometimes make. That should have been

"The reforms should be of a kind acceptable to most Thais..."

If the reforms presented by the NRC after nearly a year hard work are not acceptable to most Thai they haven't done their homework. They need to make sure that with sufficient input the reforms they will propose as conclusion of their work will be acceptable. If they cannot get reforms formulated so that most Thai will find them acceptable I fear that no one will be able to do such. In that case Thailand condemns itself to a continued NCPO rule, till they can.

I believe that the Thai will be able to come with reforms acceptable to most and which will better the country, give democracy a second start.

Just to be clear, you wrote:

"If they cannot get reforms formulated so that most Thai will find them acceptable I fear that no one will be able to do such. In that case Thailand condemns itself to a continued NCPO rule, till they can."

So if most Thai's are unhappy with the reforms the NCPO comes up with, the NCPO continues to rule. Correct?

[rubl]

In informal English, 'a democracy' and 'a democratic government' are often used interchangeably. Since you didn't seem to understand that I changed the sentence wording for you. Although I think you understood what I wrote originally, you just didn't have a substantive counter-argument so you picked at the wording.

That's manure of an exquisite kind, my dear Brucy.

In a discussion where we talk about democracy in 'real' or 'failed', or 'Thai special' form you clearly do not interchange democracy and government. Even 'democracy' and 'democratic government' as not interchangeble when struggling with definitions and concepts.

Let's go back to the original sentence you had problems with:

"I want a Thailand to have a democracy very unlike the government (it remains to be seen how democratic it will be) that will come out of this mess."

What part of that do you not understand?

The part where you "want a democracy unlike the government" as I already told you.

[rubl]

That's manure of an exquisite kind, my dear Brucy.

In a discussion where we talk about democracy in 'real' or 'failed', or 'Thai special' form you clearly do not interchange democracy and government. Even 'democracy' and 'democratic government' as not interchangeble when struggling with definitions and concepts.

Let's go back to the original sentence you had problems with:

"I want a Thailand to have a democracy very unlike the government (it remains to be seen how democratic it will be) that will come out of this mess."

What part of that do you not understand?

'had problems with' and 'do not understand'

The part were you 'want a democracy unlike the government'.

Do you really read my replies or do you just like to troll around and ask stupid questions?

[rubl]

My excuses. Seems a common mistake non-native English speakers sometimes make. That should have been

"The reforms should be of a kind acceptable to most Thais..."

If the reforms presented by the NRC after nearly a year hard work are not acceptable to most Thai they haven't done their homework. They need to make sure that with sufficient input the reforms they will propose as conclusion of their work will be acceptable. If they cannot get reforms formulated so that most Thai will find them acceptable I fear that no one will be able to do such. In that case Thailand condemns itself to a continued NCPO rule, till they can.

I believe that the Thai will be able to come with reforms acceptable to most and which will better the country, give democracy a second start.

Just to be clear, you wrote:

"If they cannot get reforms formulated so that most Thai will find them acceptable I fear that no one will be able to do such. In that case Thailand condemns itself to a continued NCPO rule, till they can."

So if most Thai's are unhappy with the reforms the NCPO comes up with, the NCPO continues to rule. Correct?

Unlike you I recognise that NCPO and NRC are two different entities.

I wrote about the NRC presenting reforms after nearly a years hard work.

Read before you reply and stop trolling around.

[Mark Thaiford]

This question of how Thai "democracy" is to be made palatable to the rest of the wolrd needs to make a distinction between the Western World and Asia.

The Western World (America and Europe) will play a much smaller role in Thailand in the 21st century compared to the major role they played in the 20th Century. It is only the West who finds Thai "democracy" unpalatable - China applauds Thai "democracy".

The Junta has made no secret of how they are orienting themselves more towards China and they seem to have the Thais on their side in this. A June Poll showed that 30% of Thais thought China had Thailand's best interests at heart and only 3% believed America was a benign influence on Thailand. If you look at the billionaires of Thailand most of them have a Chinese background. There seems to be very littel obstacles to Thailand becoming a modern "tributary" state of China - in fact it is hard to believe it will not be.

I this sense I find it funny we have so many Western expats cheering on the Junta as long-term it could impair their presence in the kingdom. I doubt very many of them have been thinking that far. What about the tightening of visa rules mainly affecting westerners while visa rules for Chinese are relaxed? Do you think this is a coincidence? This could be just the beginning.

I know the pro-junta people here will say that we in the West should just accept the junta and try to be friendly with them. That is naive. Thailand's re-orientation towards China will not be changed by the West trying to appease the junta.

The best outcome for the West would have been a Thailand committed to traditional democracy and a Thailand that would have allowed the democratic process to decide the outcome of its social conflicts. A democratic Thailand is more likely to be a friend of the West than an undemocratic Thailand.

All that being said I am sure that the gentlemen in this thread who argue so passionately in favour of Junta-prescribed Thai "democracy" will be screaming their support from the top of their lungs even if they would one day be forcibly deported from the Land of Smiles.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Mark Thaiford

[rubl]

... and of course a 'real' democracy under Thaksin c.s. would be much friendlier towards the West. Thaksin is 'known' for being less in favour of Chinese and China.

It's dark , so I didn't see them, but I could hear a flock of pigs wing past.

[heybruce]

In informal English, 'a democracy' and 'a democratic government' are often used interchangeably. Since you didn't seem to understand that I changed the sentence wording for you. Although I think you understood what I wrote originally, you just didn't have a substantive counter-argument so you picked at the wording.

That's manure of an exquisite kind, my dear Brucy.

In a discussion where we talk about democracy in 'real' or 'failed', or 'Thai special' form you clearly do not interchange democracy and government. Even 'democracy' and 'democratic government' as not interchangeble when struggling with definitions and concepts.

Let's go back to the original sentence you had problems with:

"I want a Thailand to have a democracy very unlike the government (it remains to be seen how democratic it will be) that will come out of this mess."

What part of that do you not understand?

The part where you "want a democracy unlike the government" as I already told you.

You are quoting a sentence fragment, which generally don't have stand-alone meaning. I've stated and restated the sentence three different ways for you, if you still don't understand it you shouldn't be posting on and English language forum.

[heybruce]

My excuses. Seems a common mistake non-native English speakers sometimes make. That should have been

"The reforms should be of a kind acceptable to most Thais..."

If the reforms presented by the NRC after nearly a year hard work are not acceptable to most Thai they haven't done their homework. They need to make sure that with sufficient input the reforms they will propose as conclusion of their work will be acceptable. If they cannot get reforms formulated so that most Thai will find them acceptable I fear that no one will be able to do such. In that case Thailand condemns itself to a continued NCPO rule, till they can.

I believe that the Thai will be able to come with reforms acceptable to most and which will better the country, give democracy a second start.

Just to be clear, you wrote:

"If they cannot get reforms formulated so that most Thai will find them acceptable I fear that no one will be able to do such. In that case Thailand condemns itself to a continued NCPO rule, till they can."

So if most Thai's are unhappy with the reforms the NCPO comes up with, the NCPO continues to rule. Correct?

Unlike you I recognise that NCPO and NRC are two different entities.

I wrote about the NRC presenting reforms after nearly a years hard work.

Read before you reply and stop trolling around.

Two different entities reporting to the same individual. However if you insist on drawing a distinction, how's this:

So if most Thai's are unhappy with the reforms the NRC comes up with, the NCPO continues to rule. That is what your original posts stated, isn't it?

[gk10002000]

It really is simple. Democracy and self government takes WORK! It takes work to achieve a democracy. It takes work to maintain a democracy. Dictatorship and Juntas succeed because people get complacent, and therefore the aggressors win.

[JAG]

Nice that "I'm and we have".

Anyway I already noticed that short attention span, as I already wrote to you asking why I would have a list of reforms, especially in relation to reforms for Thailand .

You even replied to that already

Attention span and memory aren't the same thing Rubl.

I remember your reply, without any response. Just a dodge.

If you want to argue that the recently overthrown form of government was bad and that the reforms from the current military dictatorship will lead to improvements in democracy and self-governance in Thailand - an idea I find very improbable - then you might also be able to express some ideas about which reforms will achieve this and indicate why they might come from a military dictatorship's rule and control.

I do have a list of changes I would like to see in Thailand and beyond general hand-waving about democratic systems, I cannot be more specific, because in Thailand today that would be illegal for me to tell you, even in private, much less on a public forum.

That is a fact which does underscore my general point regarding dictatorships and the current direction of Thailand's system of governance.

14 pages of this and still at the same position, questions to Rube near the same, same badgering, attacking, seeking information to attack at anything that doesn't suit.

3-4-5 of the same people I have spoken about re--my doubts about individual separate views. It's a good job Rube has the nice calm attitude to tolerate daily question time. He is doing something that Yingluck NEVER did.

I note that it was pointed out that you have a list of reforms that are unprintable---if they are that bad they must be extreme and most people are not in favour of extremist views.

You ask Rube about his list of reforms ?? why to tear that to shreds like all his other answers. He is not on the reform council.

Some of you hard liners have told me to give it a rest, well take a leaf out of your own book and do the same.

agenda

You think so? I'd suggest obsession!

[Suriya4]

Farang are so think and can't understand that thailand just had a (army) general election, and general Prayuth have won more than 97 % of the vote.

[rubl]

You are quoting a sentence fragment, which generally don't have stand-alone meaning. I've stated and restated the sentence three different ways for you, if you still don't understand it you shouldn't be posting on and English language forum.

So, which part of this didn't you understand, my dear chap?

Your original had "democracy unlike the government" which I suggested you rephrase. Then you tried a few times and still insert "In informal English, 'a democracy' and 'a democratic government' are often used interchangeably."

Following my "In a discussion where we talk about democracy in 'real' or 'failed', or 'Thai special' form you clearly do not interchange democracy and government. Even 'democracy' and 'democratic government' as not interchangeble when struggling with definitions and concepts."

And then your " now let's go back, what didn't you understand".

So, to be completely clear

I have a problem with your "democracy unlike this government" and the "in informal English democracy and government are interchangable".

Well, of course if you feel that in this discussion on "Thai style democracy" we can interchange that with "government" as the NCPO/NLA are also called, I wonder why you object to the Thai government so much?

[rubl]

Unlike you I recognise that NCPO and NRC are two different entities.

I wrote about the NRC presenting reforms after nearly a years hard work.

Read before you reply and stop trolling around.

Two different entities reporting to the same individual. However if you insist on drawing a distinction, how's this:

So if most Thai's are unhappy with the reforms the NRC comes up with, the NCPO continues to rule. That is what your original posts stated, isn't it?

So, you go on and on. Well, so will the NCPO if the Thai would not be able to come up with meaningful reforms and be able to agree on how to implement them. The whole idea is for the NCPO to step down the moment acceptable reforms and constitution are set. If Thais fail to be able to do so, the NCPO must stay on till they can. 'obviously' without changes and NCPO we would be back to square one.

As I wrote:

"If the reforms presented by the NRC after nearly a year hard work are not acceptable to most Thai they haven't done their homework. They need to make sure that with sufficient input the reforms they will propose as conclusion of their work will be acceptable. If they cannot get reforms formulated so that most Thai will find them acceptable I fear that no one will be able to do such. In that case Thailand condemns itself to a continued NCPO rule, till they can."

"The NCPO of course needs to approve, but if they would only allow reforms they like than either they cannot step down or the moment they do someone will start modifying reforms again.

The reforms must should be acceptable to most Thais, found doable, workable and it's up to the Thai to find such reforms, procedures, guidelines. If Thais cannot cooperate even in this, we might as well ask the NCPO to stay on. If Thai find that they need more time, they need to convince the NCPO to stay on for a bit longer."

[fab4]

Unlike you I recognise that NCPO and NRC are two different entities.

I wrote about the NRC presenting reforms after nearly a years hard work.

Read before you reply and stop trolling around.

Two different entities reporting to the same individual. However if you insist on drawing a distinction, how's this:

So if most Thai's are unhappy with the reforms the NRC comes up with, the NCPO continues to rule. That is what your original posts stated, isn't it?

So, you go on and on. Well, so will the NCPO if the Thai would not be able to come up with meaningful reforms and be able to agree on how to implement them. The whole idea is for the NCPO to step down the moment acceptable reforms and constitution are set. If Thais fail to be able to do so, the NCPO must stay on till they can. 'obviously' without changes and NCPO we would be back to square one.

As I wrote:

"If the reforms presented by the NRC after nearly a year hard work are not acceptable to most Thai they haven't done their homework. They need to make sure that with sufficient input the reforms they will propose as conclusion of their work will be acceptable. If they cannot get reforms formulated so that most Thai will find them acceptable I fear that no one will be able to do such. In that case Thailand condemns itself to a continued NCPO rule, till they can."

"The NCPO of course needs to approve, but if they would only allow reforms they like than either they cannot step down or the moment they do someone will start modifying reforms again.

The reforms must should be acceptable to most Thais, found doable, workable and it's up to the Thai to find such reforms, procedures, guidelines. If Thais cannot cooperate even in this, we might as well ask the NCPO to stay on. If Thai find that they need more time, they need to convince the NCPO to stay on for a bit longer."

The whole idea is for the NCPO to step down the moment acceptable reforms and constitution are set.

Really? And what about Section 44 - how does that fit in with the NCPO "stepping down"? Don't tell me that Section 44 or a variation on that theme will not feature as part of the, in your words, "acceptable constitution". Not exactly walking away is it, yet you honestly believe they will - that is what is troubling me about your absolute faith.

[Aree Wongwanlee]

Oh wow, so much has passed since my last post. I will not try to backtrack. Instead I will present another aspect of this issue. One of the interesting things I found about the Thai society is its structure. The very difference in the use of personal pronouns for men and women sets out right from the start where everyone is in the social structure. I can understand that people from the west may find such a notion abhorrent. However, since I am a Chinese, I do not find this matter too disturbing. In fact, I find it useful.

So what I am driving at (or driveling about, depending on your attitude towards mumbling old men)?

The point I am trying to make is that democracy, as I understand the west understands it, does not work with the Thai mentality. Thais, as far as I can make out, tend to keep things simple. So what if the Luk Phi has inherited his position from his father who inherited it from his father who inherited it from ... The main point is that the Luk Nong are being well taken care of. And that's basically all that the Luk Nong are really interested in.

Actually that's not exactly my personal opinion. I am just repeating what some Thais have told me about the present situation.

[tbthailand]

...

Let's not go down the 'crazy trail' and try to compare Thailand's military 'event' and current 'NCPO' with the US - please, that is just off the chart nutters

With excuses to my American friends

"On Monday night, police officers in helmets and body armor clutched large weapons. They stood close to armored vehicles parked in a tight cluster in the middle of a dark street, shining spotlights on the taunting crowd around them.

Several men bounded toward the officers with their hands in the air. One of them knelt. “Don’t shoot me!” they yelled.

“You must leave the area in a peaceful manner,” one officer barked over a loudspeaker.

“You are unlawfully assembled,” said another."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/us/in-ferguson-anger-hurt-and-moments-of-hope.html?emc=edit_th_20140821&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=39319653&_r=0

I'm well aware of what you would like to do, and it is still an absolutely CRAZY comparison for you or anyone to make.

Every democratic country, with the noble exception of the Netherlands, has had different crisis ... The US is a big country and has a lot of tensions between a very very wide range of people. But that in no way begs such a comparison.

Protecting human rights is a daily struggle around the globe. It is hard enough to avoid human rights abuses in relatively transparent, open, democratic societies. I have yet to hear of a military dictatorship in the history of the world which has not violated human rights willingly and knowingly.

[heybruce]

You are quoting a sentence fragment, which generally don't have stand-alone meaning. I've stated and restated the sentence three different ways for you, if you still don't understand it you shouldn't be posting on and English language forum.

So, which part of this didn't you understand, my dear chap?

Your original had "democracy unlike the government" which I suggested you rephrase. Then you tried a few times and still insert "In informal English, 'a democracy' and 'a democratic government' are often used interchangeably."

Following my "In a discussion where we talk about democracy in 'real' or 'failed', or 'Thai special' form you clearly do not interchange democracy and government. Even 'democracy' and 'democratic government' as not interchangeble when struggling with definitions and concepts."

And then your " now let's go back, what didn't you understand".

So, to be completely clear

I have a problem with your "democracy unlike this government" and the "in informal English democracy and government are interchangable".

Well, of course if you feel that in this discussion on "Thai style democracy" we can interchange that with "government" as the NCPO/NLA are also called, I wonder why you object to the Thai government so much?

Ok rubl, I'll dumb it down for you as far as it can be dumbed down. When I wrote:

"I want a Thailand to have a democracy very unlike the government (it remains to be seen how democratic it will be) that will come out of this mess."

I meant that I want Thailand to have a real democratic government, not whatever weak excuse for democracy that the junta is putting together.

If you still don't follow, find an English speaker to explain it to you.

[Eric Loh]

Oh wow, so much has passed since my last post. I will not try to backtrack. Instead I will present another aspect of this issue. One of the interesting things I found about the Thai society is its structure. The very difference in the use of personal pronouns for men and women sets out right from the start where everyone is in the social structure. I can understand that people from the west may find such a notion abhorrent. However, since I am a Chinese, I do not find this matter too disturbing. In fact, I find it useful.

So what I am driving at (or driveling about, depending on your attitude towards mumbling old men)?

The point I am trying to make is that democracy, as I understand the west understands it, does not work with the Thai mentality. Thais, as far as I can make out, tend to keep things simple. So what if the Luk Phi has inherited his position from his father who inherited it from his father who inherited it from ... The main point is that the Luk Nong are being well taken care of. And that's basically all that the Luk Nong are really interested in.

Actually that's not exactly my personal opinion. I am just repeating what some Thais have told me about the present situation.

The best way to know if Thais care about democracy is by looking at election turn out and compare with our Asian peers and perhaps some western countries. Election turn out is a good barometer to gauge whether there are disenchantment, indiffences or contentment. A good turnout will mean that the electorate cherish and value their democratic freedom and will use election to express their political preference.

In a study recently between 1998-2011, Thailand rank second only to Indonesia at 69% and 81% respectively in voters turnout. Compare that to Singapore at 36%. Tells a lot don't they. Take Indonesia, since the last coup by Suharto, there is growing support for the newly established democratic institution despite of all the politician corruption and vote buying. That's a good example of allowing uninterrupted democracy to flourish and grow.

Thailand numbers are even better than the biggest democracy in the world, India. S Korea and Japan have the highest turnout and only single digit from Thailand.

Democracy works in Thailand despite of the reoccurring coups and the power of the establishment to try defranchised a segment of the society and putting barriers to stop political parties from becoming too electable. As the North and North East prosper from their huge potential and connectability, they will demand a bigger voice in choosing who they want as leaders.

[heybruce]

Unlike you I recognise that NCPO and NRC are two different entities.

I wrote about the NRC presenting reforms after nearly a years hard work.

Read before you reply and stop trolling around.

Two different entities reporting to the same individual. However if you insist on drawing a distinction, how's this:

So if most Thai's are unhappy with the reforms the NRC comes up with, the NCPO continues to rule. That is what your original posts stated, isn't it?

So, you go on and on. Well, so will the NCPO if the Thai would not be able to come up with meaningful reforms and be able to agree on how to implement them. The whole idea is for the NCPO to step down the moment acceptable reforms and constitution are set. If Thais fail to be able to do so, the NCPO must stay on till they can. 'obviously' without changes and NCPO we would be back to square one.

As I wrote:

"If the reforms presented by the NRC after nearly a year hard work are not acceptable to most Thai they haven't done their homework. They need to make sure that with sufficient input the reforms they will propose as conclusion of their work will be acceptable. If they cannot get reforms formulated so that most Thai will find them acceptable I fear that no one will be able to do such. In that case Thailand condemns itself to a continued NCPO rule, till they can."

"The NCPO of course needs to approve, but if they would only allow reforms they like than either they cannot step down or the moment they do someone will start modifying reforms again.

The reforms must should be acceptable to most Thais, found doable, workable and it's up to the Thai to find such reforms, procedures, guidelines. If Thais cannot cooperate even in this, we might as well ask the NCPO to stay on. If Thai find that they need more time, they need to convince the NCPO to stay on for a bit longer."

So my interpretation of your words was correct, if the NRC comes up with reforms that the Thai people don't accept, the NCPO stays in charge.

Of course the NRC will only come up with reforms that are acceptable to the NCPO, so if there is a sticking point, for example if the Thai people want more freedom of speech and media than the NCPO is comfortable with, then Thailand will have the NCPO in charge forever.

[heybruce]

Oh wow, so much has passed since my last post. I will not try to backtrack. Instead I will present another aspect of this issue. One of the interesting things I found about the Thai society is its structure. The very difference in the use of personal pronouns for men and women sets out right from the start where everyone is in the social structure. I can understand that people from the west may find such a notion abhorrent. However, since I am a Chinese, I do not find this matter too disturbing. In fact, I find it useful.

So what I am driving at (or driveling about, depending on your attitude towards mumbling old men)?

The point I am trying to make is that democracy, as I understand the west understands it, does not work with the Thai mentality. Thais, as far as I can make out, tend to keep things simple. So what if the Luk Phi has inherited his position from his father who inherited it from his father who inherited it from ... The main point is that the Luk Nong are being well taken care of. And that's basically all that the Luk Nong are really interested in.

Actually that's not exactly my personal opinion. I am just repeating what some Thais have told me about the present situation.

I suspect the Thai person who told you this benefited from a system where jobs and promotions are based on family connections, not ability.

[Eric Loh]

Oh wow, so much has passed since my last post. I will not try to backtrack. Instead I will present another aspect of this issue. One of the interesting things I found about the Thai society is its structure. The very difference in the use of personal pronouns for men and women sets out right from the start where everyone is in the social structure. I can understand that people from the west may find such a notion abhorrent. However, since I am a Chinese, I do not find this matter too disturbing. In fact, I find it useful.

So what I am driving at (or driveling about, depending on your attitude towards mumbling old men)?

The point I am trying to make is that democracy, as I understand the west understands it, does not work with the Thai mentality. Thais, as far as I can make out, tend to keep things simple. So what if the Luk Phi has inherited his position from his father who inherited it from his father who inherited it from ... The main point is that the Luk Nong are being well taken care of. And that's basically all that the Luk Nong are really interested in.

Actually that's not exactly my personal opinion. I am just repeating what some Thais have told me about the present situation.

The best way to know if Thais care about democracy is by looking at election turn out and compare with our Asian peers and perhaps some western countries. Election turn out is a good barometer to gauge whether there are disenchantment, indiffences or contentment. A good turnout will mean that the electorate cherish and value their democratic freedom and will use election to express their political preference.

In a study recently between 1998-2011, Thailand rank second only to Indonesia at 69% and 81% respectively in voters turnout. Compare that to Singapore at 36%. Tells a lot don't they. Take Indonesia, since the last coup by Suharto, there is growing support for the newly established democratic institution despite of all the politician corruption and vote buying. That's a good example of allowing uninterrupted democracy to flourish and grow.

Thailand numbers are even better than the biggest democracy in the world, India. S Korea and Japan have the highest turnout and only single digit from Thailand.

Democracy works in Thailand despite of the reoccurring coups and the power of the establishment to try defranchised a segment of the society and putting barriers to stop political parties from becoming too electable. As the North and North East prosper from their huge potential and connectability, they will demand a bigger voice in choosing who they want as leaders.

I missed out quoting some numbers for western countries. Most scored above 85% in voters turnout. Not suprise at all considering that they cherish their democractic rights for freedom of expression and who they mandate as leaders.

[Aree Wongwanlee]

Anyone knows what happens to a Thai who doesn't exercise his right to vote?

[rubl]

...

Let's not go down the 'crazy trail' and try to compare Thailand's military 'event' and current 'NCPO' with the US - please, that is just off the chart nutters

With excuses to my American friends

"On Monday night, police officers in helmets and body armor clutched large weapons. They stood close to armored vehicles parked in a tight cluster in the middle of a dark street, shining spotlights on the taunting crowd around them.

Several men bounded toward the officers with their hands in the air. One of them knelt. “Don’t shoot me!” they yelled.

“You must leave the area in a peaceful manner,” one officer barked over a loudspeaker.

“You are unlawfully assembled,” said another."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/us/in-ferguson-anger-hurt-and-moments-of-hope.html?emc=edit_th_20140821&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=39319653&_r=0

I'm well aware of what you would like to do, and it is still an absolutely CRAZY comparison for you or anyone to make.

Every democratic country, with the noble exception of the Netherlands, has had different crisis ... The US is a big country and has a lot of tensions between a very very wide range of people. But that in no way begs such a comparison.

Protecting human rights is a daily struggle around the globe. It is hard enough to avoid human rights abuses in relatively transparent, open, democratic societies. I have yet to hear of a military dictatorship in the history of the world which has not violated human rights willingly and knowingly.

So, what are you trying to tell me here? You have yet to hear about democratic governments willingly and knowingly violating human rights ? Grow up man.

As part of your program against the NCPO you mentioned a few things in post #352. Well, sounded a lot like this 'isolated' case in St. Louis "“You are unlawfully assembled,” said another."" Or is that just covered with your "hard enough to avoid human rights abuses in relatively transparent, open, democratic societies" ? Democratic countries never willfully and knowingly violate human rights? Please tell the UN, Amnesty International and HRW.

BTW apart from restrictions imposed on 'freedom of speech and gathering' ( to prevent rumour mongering, facebook lies and aggitation), what 'human rights' are willingly and knowingly violated? Didn't we have the Yingluck 'caretaking' government declare a Emergency Decree while still pressing on with general elections? In 2007 even the Military government lifted Martial Law in all remaining provinces when the E.C. set the date for the general elections.

Does all this cover the 'Thai special democracy' of the topic?

[rubl]

So, which part of this didn't you understand, my dear chap?

Your original had "democracy unlike the government" which I suggested you rephrase. Then you tried a few times and still insert "In informal English, 'a democracy' and 'a democratic government' are often used interchangeably."

Following my "In a discussion where we talk about democracy in 'real' or 'failed', or 'Thai special' form you clearly do not interchange democracy and government. Even 'democracy' and 'democratic government' as not interchangeble when struggling with definitions and concepts."

And then your " now let's go back, what didn't you understand".

So, to be completely clear

I have a problem with your "democracy unlike this government" and the "in informal English democracy and government are interchangable".

Well, of course if you feel that in this discussion on "Thai style democracy" we can interchange that with "government" as the NCPO/NLA are also called, I wonder why you object to the Thai government so much?

Ok rubl, I'll dumb it down for you as far as it can be dumbed down. When I wrote:

"I want a Thailand to have a democracy very unlike the government (it remains to be seen how democratic it will be) that will come out of this mess."

I meant that I want Thailand to have a real democratic government, not whatever weak excuse for democracy that the junta is putting together.

If you still don't follow, find an English speaker to explain it to you.

Come on, Heybruce , cut the crap.

you made a mistake, I suggested rephrasing, you voice some more BS, I counter with more explanations, you go back to square one and ask what's the matter.

Well let me tell you in very plain text

You suggest that democracy = government, interchangeble. Even in the post I reply to now you still do that "democratic government, not what weak excuse for democracy ...".

A government is not a democracy and a democracy is not a government. A government can function democratically and most do so mostly in a democracy.

If you want to discuss democracy Thai special style as part of the topic you should take more care in how you formulate your statements.