What makes 'Thai-style democracy' globally palatable?

[rubl]

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.

Why would my 'absolute faith' (your words, not mine) trouble you? Do you fear the 'bad' influence I may have? Don't you like the idea of the Thai population working together to define reforms and how to get them implemented?

Do you want to keep obstructing the NCPO to the point that neither NRC nor CDC can do it's work to the satisfaction of most Thai people. Are you secretly in favour of giving the NCPO reasons to stay on a bit longer?

[rubl]

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.

'if', 'if' and more 'if'. You forget to mention the possible negative effect of flocks of pigs flying past. Will that interrupt the NRC to the point they can't even write in Thai anymore?

As I wrote the NRC has the task to work together with Thai to come to reforms which are acceptable to most Thais. If that's impossible, if Thai can't agree on something, we may as well pragmatically ask the NCPO politely the stay on a bit longer while the Thai population continues the discussions. Or as Ms. Yingluck liked to say "please give us some time", she didn't like to be pressured either

[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.

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?

you are nuts, obtuse, and willfully misunderstand whatever a poster - all posters - write to you, adios, amigo.

[beautifulthailand99]

I found this TED Talk on China and it's approach to societal development under a one party state enlightening.

[heybruce]

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.

Yes, let's cut the crap. Way back on post 333 I replied to one of your posts with:

""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?"

Let's see, choose any country with a well established democracy, imagine the military of this country staging a coup to deposed a popular elected leader, then imagine the military junta charging this leader with corruption and a military installed government convicting him, and finally imagine the leader choosing to stay in exile while he publicly promotes political parties and policies similar to those that originally got him elected.

Under those circumstance I can see voters in a number of western democracies voting for this 'offshore criminal', in fact I can see people who normally wouldn't vote for him or his party doing so as a protest against the coup. As to the legality of it, I don't know about other countries, but it obviously was legal in Thailand or the Democrats would have been brought the matter up in the courts (we've been over that before, remember?).

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

First, don't assume you know what I want, and don't conjecture unless you can provide evidence to support your conjectures.

I don't want to return Thailand to the democracy it had, I want Thailand to have a democracy that isn't continually threatened by a military coup and isn't based on a constitution written by the military. 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."

Rather than address any of my statements in a substantive form, you retreated into nit-picking the words I used.

[heybruce]

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.

'if', 'if' and more 'if'. You forget to mention the possible negative effect of flocks of pigs flying past. Will that interrupt the NRC to the point they can't even write in Thai anymore?

As I wrote the NRC has the task to work together with Thai to come to reforms which are acceptable to most Thais. If that's impossible, if Thai can't agree on something, we may as well pragmatically ask the NCPO politely the stay on a bit longer while the Thai population continues the discussions. Or as Ms. Yingluck liked to say "please give us some time", she didn't like to be pressured either

And you stand by your claim that the NCPO should stay in charge if the reforms the NRC proposes aren't acceptable to the Thai people. However now you write it as if they will be doing the Thai people a favor by denying them democracy. You don't have a high opinion of Thai people do you?

[heybruce]

...

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?

"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?"

Freedom of press immediately comes to mind. A number of articles from the Economist have been blocked on the internet and corresponding issues not distributed in Thailand. I assume the same is true for other publications. The Thai press is sufficiently cowed to self-censor. Perhaps you think the editors of the Economist are a bunch of redshirt agitators intent on spreading lies and rumors.

In some circles it is considered a violation of human rights to hold people incommunicado without charges, and some people go so far as to consider elections and representative government a human right.

There may be other violations of human rights, but with the press censored it's difficult to know.

[rubl]

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.

Yes, let's cut the crap. Way back on post 333 I replied to one of your posts with:

""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?"

Let's see, choose any country with a well established democracy, imagine the military of this country staging a coup to deposed a popular elected leader, then imagine the military junta charging this leader with corruption and a military installed government convicting him, and finally imagine the leader choosing to stay in exile while he publicly promotes political parties and policies similar to those that originally got him elected.

Under those circumstance I can see voters in a number of western democracies voting for this 'offshore criminal', in fact I can see people who normally wouldn't vote for him or his party doing so as a protest against the coup. As to the legality of it, I don't know about other countries, but it obviously was legal in Thailand or the Democrats would have been brought the matter up in the courts (we've been over that before, remember?).

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

First, don't assume you know what I want, and don't conjecture unless you can provide evidence to support your conjectures.

I don't want to return Thailand to the democracy it had, I want Thailand to have a democracy that isn't continually threatened by a military coup and isn't based on a constitution written by the military. 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."

Rather than address any of my statements in a substantive form, you retreated into nit-picking the words I used.

I would also like a democracy which isn't constantly threatened by corrupt politicians or businessmen. A democracy which doesn't need the military to stop a stepped down ex-PM from corrupting parliament, senate, courts and institutions. A democracy which doesn't need to stop a clone PM who is controlled by a criminal fugitive abroad.

Maybe we have a chance now, assuming Thais can unite in reforms rathers than continuing the political bickering.

[tullynagardy]

I would also like a democracy which isn't constantly threatened by corrupt politicians or businessmen.

Yet you support a coup headed by a man who sits on the board of several different companies that are plagued with corruption.

Naive doesn`t begin to describe it. Or more likely just trolling to pass away your retired existence in rural Thailand.

[rubl]

 

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.

'if', 'if' and more 'if'. You forget to mention the possible negative effect of flocks of pigs flying past. Will that interrupt the NRC to the point they can't even write in Thai anymore?

As I wrote the NRC has the task to work together with Thai to come to reforms which are acceptable to most Thais. If that's impossible, if Thai can't agree on something, we may as well pragmatically ask the NCPO politely the stay on a bit longer while the Thai population continues the discussions. Or as Ms. Yingluck liked to say "please give us some time", she didn't like to be pressured either

And you stand by your claim that the NCPO should stay in charge if the reforms the NRC proposes aren't acceptable to the Thai people. However now you write it as if they will be doing the Thai people a favor by denying them democracy. You don't have a high opinion of Thai people do you?

 

I don't claim anything. I am just saying that the NRC has the task to formulate reforms with help from the Thai population and in such a way as to have those reforms acceptable by most Thais. If the NRC cannot complete their task they should say so and give reasons, to help improve and solve problems. While that is ongoing both NCPO and NLA will stay

So, in a way I'm saying that the Thai population should start to work together for Thailand and their own advancement. Democracy comes not only with rights but also with duties.

[rubl]

I would also like a democracy which isn't constantly threatened by corrupt politicians or businessmen.

Yet you support a coup headed by a man who sits on the board of several different companies that are plagued with corruption.

Naive doesn`t begin to describe it. Or more likely just trolling to pass away your retired existence in rural Thailand.

So? Are you trying to tell me reforms are really necessary?

BTW your assumptions on me are totally off the mark. Of course you might consider RamaIV Rd. in Bangkok part of the boondocks, and me still in the office there at 19:21 (aka 7.21PM) enjoying a retired existence

Edited August 22, 2014 by rubl

[rubl]

"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?"

Freedom of press immediately comes to mind. A number of articles from the Economist have been blocked on the internet and corresponding issues not distributed in Thailand. I assume the same is true for other publications. The Thai press is sufficiently cowed to self-censor. Perhaps you think the editors of the Economist are a bunch of redshirt agitators intent on spreading lies and rumors.

In some circles it is considered a violation of human rights to hold people incommunicado without charges, and some people go so far as to consider elections and representative government a human right.

There may be other violations of human rights, but with the press censored it's difficult to know.

Now your talking. Indeed a few more items' against human rights.

Mind you that's on par with Martial Law. Furthermore at first the normal political shenanigans were tried, with facebook warriors having fun and so, which had to be stopped. Yes, on purpose I write 'had to be stopped'. With stabilisation some of those measures have been relaxed already and no doubt more relaxation will follow.

Now if only all that energy to 'fight' the NCPO would be put in helping the NRC and CDC to build a more solid base for democracy Thailand could be on it's way there within a year.

[tbthailand]

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?

"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?"

Freedom of press immediately comes to mind. A number of articles from the Economist have been blocked on the internet and corresponding issues not distributed in Thailand. I assume the same is true for other publications. The Thai press is sufficiently cowed to self-censor. Perhaps you think the editors of the Economist are a bunch of redshirt agitators intent on spreading lies and rumors.

In some circles it is considered a violation of human rights to hold people incommunicado without charges, and some people go so far as to consider elections and representative government a human right.

There may be other violations of human rights, but with the press censored it's difficult to know.

The Junta has denied torturing Kritsuda. The reports from Kritsuda were censored on prachatai and FT. The denials from the junta on those 2 sites were not censored.

Is not being tortured a human right? I've forgotten.

[fab4]

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.

Why would my 'absolute faith' (your words, not mine) trouble you? Do you fear the 'bad' influence I may have? Don't you like the idea of the Thai population working together to define reforms and how to get them implemented?

Do you want to keep obstructing the NCPO to the point that neither NRC nor CDC can do it's work to the satisfaction of most Thai people. Are you secretly in favour of giving the NCPO reasons to stay on a bit longer?

Well, I actually explained what troubled me about your absolute faith - it was spelt out at the beginning of the sentence. I can't help you more than that other than to say "fearing your bad influence" or disliking "the idea of the Thai population working together to define reforms and how to get them implemented" has nothing to do with what troubles me - it's your naivety / denial that does.

As for your assertion that I want to keep obstructing the NCPO etc. - Do you fear the bad influence I may have?

Grow up, rubl, and open your eyes.

[rubl]

Why would my 'absolute faith' (your words, not mine) trouble you? Do you fear the 'bad' influence I may have? Don't you like the idea of the Thai population working together to define reforms and how to get them implemented?

Do you want to keep obstructing the NCPO to the point that neither NRC nor CDC can do it's work to the satisfaction of most Thai people. Are you secretly in favour of giving the NCPO reasons to stay on a bit longer?

Well, I actually explained what troubled me about your absolute faith - it was spelt out at the beginning of the sentence. I can't help you more than that other than to say "fearing your bad influence" or disliking "the idea of the Thai population working together to define reforms and how to get them implemented" has nothing to do with what troubles me - it's your naivety / denial that does.

As for your assertion that I want to keep obstructing the NCPO etc. - Do you fear the bad influence I may have?

Grow up, rubl, and open your eyes.

Gen Prayuth was on television again tonight. He sounded much more reasonable and convincing than Ms. Yingluck ever managed to sound.

Some of his remarks seemed to be taken from my comments here, imagine. Co-operation rather than obstruction. Work for Thailand and thereby for the people. Don't try political games which will hinder progress, which will hinder NRC and CDC. Give them your support and input. Make it work.

Anyway, I've grow up in a time when democracy meant rights and duties, whereas nowadays some seem to think it to mean freedom for self and duties for the government.

Edited August 22, 2014 by rubl

[rubl]

The Junta has denied torturing Kritsuda. The reports from Kritsuda were censored on prachatai and FT. The denials from the junta on those 2 sites were not censored.

Is not being tortured a human right? I've forgotten.

The way you phrase your sentence is somewhat suggestive. Is not being listened to a human right?

[fab4]

Why would my 'absolute faith' (your words, not mine) trouble you? Do you fear the 'bad' influence I may have? Don't you like the idea of the Thai population working together to define reforms and how to get them implemented?

Do you want to keep obstructing the NCPO to the point that neither NRC nor CDC can do it's work to the satisfaction of most Thai people. Are you secretly in favour of giving the NCPO reasons to stay on a bit longer?

Well, I actually explained what troubled me about your absolute faith - it was spelt out at the beginning of the sentence. I can't help you more than that other than to say "fearing your bad influence" or disliking "the idea of the Thai population working together to define reforms and how to get them implemented" has nothing to do with what troubles me - it's your naivety / denial that does.

As for your assertion that I want to keep obstructing the NCPO etc. - Do you fear the bad influence I may have?

Grow up, rubl, and open your eyes.

Gen Prayuth was on television again tonight. He sounded much more reasonable and convincing than Ms. Yingluck ever managed to sound.

Some of his remarks seemed to be taken from my comments here, imagine. Co-operation rather than obstruction. Work for Thailand and thereby for the people. Don't try political games which will hinder progress, which will hinder NRC and CDC. Give them your support and input. Make it work.

Anyway, I've grow up in a time when democracy meant rights and duties, whereas nowadays some seem to think it to mean freedom for self and duties for the government.

Anyway, I've grow up in a time when democracy meant rights and duties, whereas nowadays some seem to think it to mean freedom for self and duties for the government.

Did you learn anything about coups?

[rubl]

Why would my 'absolute faith' (your words, not mine) trouble you? Do you fear the 'bad' influence I may have? Don't you like the idea of the Thai population working together to define reforms and how to get them implemented?

Do you want to keep obstructing the NCPO to the point that neither NRC nor CDC can do it's work to the satisfaction of most Thai people. Are you secretly in favour of giving the NCPO reasons to stay on a bit longer?

Well, I actually explained what troubled me about your absolute faith - it was spelt out at the beginning of the sentence. I can't help you more than that other than to say "fearing your bad influence" or disliking "the idea of the Thai population working together to define reforms and how to get them implemented" has nothing to do with what troubles me - it's your naivety / denial that does.

As for your assertion that I want to keep obstructing the NCPO etc. - Do you fear the bad influence I may have?

Grow up, rubl, and open your eyes.

Gen Prayuth was on television again tonight. He sounded much more reasonable and convincing than Ms. Yingluck ever managed to sound.

Some of his remarks seemed to be taken from my comments here, imagine. Co-operation rather than obstruction. Work for Thailand and thereby for the people. Don't try political games which will hinder progress, which will hinder NRC and CDC. Give them your support and input. Make it work.

Anyway, I've grow up in a time when democracy meant rights and duties, whereas nowadays some seem to think it to mean freedom for self and duties for the government.

Anyway, I've grow up in a time when democracy meant rights and duties, whereas nowadays some seem to think it to mean freedom for self and duties for the government.

Did you learn anything about coups?

Yes, that In a functioning democracy coups are not needed.

And what about you, did you learn anything ?

Edited August 22, 2014 by rubl

[Publicus]

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.

Why would my 'absolute faith' (your words, not mine) trouble you? Do you fear the 'bad' influence I may have? Don't you like the idea of the Thai population working together to define reforms and how to get them implemented?

Do you want to keep obstructing the NCPO to the point that neither NRC nor CDC can do it's work to the satisfaction of most Thai people. Are you secretly in favour of giving the NCPO reasons to stay on a bit longer?

Well, I actually explained what troubled me about your absolute faith - it was spelt out at the beginning of the sentence. I can't help you more than that other than to say "fearing your bad influence" or disliking "the idea of the Thai population working together to define reforms and how to get them implemented" has nothing to do with what troubles me - it's your naivety / denial that does.

As for your assertion that I want to keep obstructing the NCPO etc. - Do you fear the bad influence I may have?

Grow up, rubl, and open your eyes.

When hell freezes over.

[Eric Loh]

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.

Yes, let's cut the crap. Way back on post 333 I replied to one of your posts with:

""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?"

Let's see, choose any country with a well established democracy, imagine the military of this country staging a coup to deposed a popular elected leader, then imagine the military junta charging this leader with corruption and a military installed government convicting him, and finally imagine the leader choosing to stay in exile while he publicly promotes political parties and policies similar to those that originally got him elected.

Under those circumstance I can see voters in a number of western democracies voting for this 'offshore criminal', in fact I can see people who normally wouldn't vote for him or his party doing so as a protest against the coup. As to the legality of it, I don't know about other countries, but it obviously was legal in Thailand or the Democrats would have been brought the matter up in the courts (we've been over that before, remember?).

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

First, don't assume you know what I want, and don't conjecture unless you can provide evidence to support your conjectures.

I don't want to return Thailand to the democracy it had, I want Thailand to have a democracy that isn't continually threatened by a military coup and isn't based on a constitution written by the military. 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."

Rather than address any of my statements in a substantive form, you retreated into nit-picking the words I used.

I would also like a democracy which isn't constantly threatened by corrupt politicians or businessmen. A democracy which doesn't need the military to stop a stepped down ex-PM from corrupting parliament, senate, courts and institutions. A democracy which doesn't need to stop a clone PM who is controlled by a criminal fugitive abroad.

Maybe we have a chance now, assuming Thais can unite in reforms rathers than continuing the political bickering.

I also like a democracy which isn't constantly threatened by coups. A democracy which doesn't need the military to take side for vested interest and corrupting the country.

[rubl]

...

Grow up, rubl, and open your eyes.

When hell freezes over.

Greeting from Hell where one may type intelligent messages with eyes shut wide

[rubl]

I would also like a democracy which isn't constantly threatened by corrupt politicians or businessmen. A democracy which doesn't need the military to stop a stepped down ex-PM from corrupting parliament, senate, courts and institutions. A democracy which doesn't need to stop a clone PM who is controlled by a criminal fugitive abroad.

Maybe we have a chance now, assuming Thais can unite in reforms rathers than continuing the political bickering.

I also like a democracy which isn't constantly threatened by coups. A democracy which doesn't need the military to take side for vested interest and corrupting the country.

It would seem we agree. We both want a real democracy.

Let's hope the work to be done by the NRC / CDC will help establish a real one.

Growing up, still dreaming,

uncle rubl

Edited August 23, 2014 by rubl

[habvick]

...

Grow up, rubl, and open your eyes.

When hell freezes over.

Greeting from Hell where one may type intelligent messages with eyes shut wide

[heybruce]

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.

Yes, let's cut the crap. Way back on post 333 I replied to one of your posts with:

""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?"

Let's see, choose any country with a well established democracy, imagine the military of this country staging a coup to deposed a popular elected leader, then imagine the military junta charging this leader with corruption and a military installed government convicting him, and finally imagine the leader choosing to stay in exile while he publicly promotes political parties and policies similar to those that originally got him elected.

Under those circumstance I can see voters in a number of western democracies voting for this 'offshore criminal', in fact I can see people who normally wouldn't vote for him or his party doing so as a protest against the coup. As to the legality of it, I don't know about other countries, but it obviously was legal in Thailand or the Democrats would have been brought the matter up in the courts (we've been over that before, remember?).

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

First, don't assume you know what I want, and don't conjecture unless you can provide evidence to support your conjectures.

I don't want to return Thailand to the democracy it had, I want Thailand to have a democracy that isn't continually threatened by a military coup and isn't based on a constitution written by the military. 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."

Rather than address any of my statements in a substantive form, you retreated into nit-picking the words I used.

I would also like a democracy which isn't constantly threatened by corrupt politicians or businessmen. A democracy which doesn't need the military to stop a stepped down ex-PM from corrupting parliament, senate, courts and institutions. A democracy which doesn't need to stop a clone PM who is controlled by a criminal fugitive abroad.

Maybe we have a chance now, assuming Thais can unite in reforms rathers than continuing the political bickering.

I think reforms would have a much better chance of success if they were presented by elected leaders. Military governments, in Thailand and the rest of the world, have a poor history of eliminating corruption, economic stewardship, and of course democratic rule.

[heybruce]

 

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.

'if', 'if' and more 'if'. You forget to mention the possible negative effect of flocks of pigs flying past. Will that interrupt the NRC to the point they can't even write in Thai anymore?

As I wrote the NRC has the task to work together with Thai to come to reforms which are acceptable to most Thais. If that's impossible, if Thai can't agree on something, we may as well pragmatically ask the NCPO politely the stay on a bit longer while the Thai population continues the discussions. Or as Ms. Yingluck liked to say "please give us some time", she didn't like to be pressured either

And you stand by your claim that the NCPO should stay in charge if the reforms the NRC proposes aren't acceptable to the Thai people. However now you write it as if they will be doing the Thai people a favor by denying them democracy. You don't have a high opinion of Thai people do you?

 

I don't claim anything. I am just saying that the NRC has the task to formulate reforms with help from the Thai population and in such a way as to have those reforms acceptable by most Thais. If the NRC cannot complete their task they should say so and give reasons, to help improve and solve problems. While that is ongoing both NCPO and NLA will stay

So, in a way I'm saying that the Thai population should start to work together for Thailand and their own advancement. Democracy comes not only with rights but also with duties.

You are running from your own words. The people accept the reforms chosen by the NRC, or the NCPO remains in charge. That's a summary of what you wrote.

[heybruce]

"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?"

Freedom of press immediately comes to mind. A number of articles from the Economist have been blocked on the internet and corresponding issues not distributed in Thailand. I assume the same is true for other publications. The Thai press is sufficiently cowed to self-censor. Perhaps you think the editors of the Economist are a bunch of redshirt agitators intent on spreading lies and rumors.

In some circles it is considered a violation of human rights to hold people incommunicado without charges, and some people go so far as to consider elections and representative government a human right.

There may be other violations of human rights, but with the press censored it's difficult to know.

Now your talking. Indeed a few more items' against human rights.

Mind you that's on par with Martial Law. Furthermore at first the normal political shenanigans were tried, with facebook warriors having fun and so, which had to be stopped. Yes, on purpose I write 'had to be stopped'. With stabilisation some of those measures have been relaxed already and no doubt more relaxation will follow.

Now if only all that energy to 'fight' the NCPO would be put in helping the NRC and CDC to build a more solid base for democracy Thailand could be on it's way there within a year.

"Now your talking. Indeed a few more items' against human rights.

Mind you that's on par with Martial Law."

Right, all acceptable if you accept the need for a coup. Of course I'm of the opinion that what Thailand needed, and still needs, is another properly monitored election that is free of violence.

[djjamie]

"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?"

Freedom of press immediately comes to mind. A number of articles from the Economist have been blocked on the internet and corresponding issues not distributed in Thailand. I assume the same is true for other publications. The Thai press is sufficiently cowed to self-censor. Perhaps you think the editors of the Economist are a bunch of redshirt agitators intent on spreading lies and rumors.

In some circles it is considered a violation of human rights to hold people incommunicado without charges, and some people go so far as to consider elections and representative government a human right.

There may be other violations of human rights, but with the press censored it's difficult to know.

Now your talking. Indeed a few more items' against human rights.

Mind you that's on par with Martial Law. Furthermore at first the normal political shenanigans were tried, with facebook warriors having fun and so, which had to be stopped. Yes, on purpose I write 'had to be stopped'. With stabilisation some of those measures have been relaxed already and no doubt more relaxation will follow.

Now if only all that energy to 'fight' the NCPO would be put in helping the NRC and CDC to build a more solid base for democracy Thailand could be on it's way there within a year.

"Now your talking. Indeed a few more items' against human rights.

Mind you that's on par with Martial Law."

Right, all acceptable if you accept the need for a coup. Of course I'm of the opinion that what Thailand needed, and still needs, is another properly monitored election that is free of violence.

"what Thailand needed, and still needs, is another properly monitored election that is free of violence."

At last I agree with you, but in typical PTP fashion they made assumptions that they simply couldn't follow through on when chalerm stated "Those who are thinking of going and shutting polling stations in the morning should think twice because the police will not allow them to," . Seems that the PTP got it wrong………AGAIN.

Thank god the Right Honorable General Preyuth has taken the reigns then to allow "properly monitored elections free of violence" to happen next year.

[rubl]

I would also like a democracy which isn't constantly threatened by corrupt politicians or businessmen. A democracy which doesn't need the military to stop a stepped down ex-PM from corrupting parliament, senate, courts and institutions. A democracy which doesn't need to stop a clone PM who is controlled by a criminal fugitive abroad.

Maybe we have a chance now, assuming Thais can unite in reforms rathers than continuing the political bickering.

I think reforms would have a much better chance of success if they were presented by elected leaders. Military governments, in Thailand and the rest of the world, have a poor history of eliminating corruption, economic stewardship, and of course democratic rule.

Indeed, reforms would probably have a much better chance of success if they were presented by a government in a democracy. Mind you, in a democracy reforms come in the form of gradual changes, evolution as it were.

It's in situations where for a long time nothing got really done that reforms are necessary. Such situation could have been created by a dictatorial government, an elected government, a dictatorship. The 1997 constitution may have been a step in the right direction, but it would seem some elected government only tried to get around a few parts or try to use them in their advantage, a situation made possible by the limited democracy in Thailand. Thaksin's attempts in 2006 to bring all under his control come to mind.

Military governments in Thailand may have a poor track record, but that doesn't mean this NCPO and NLA can't get the reforms set in motion through NRC and CDC. With real cooperation of all Thai reforms can be worked out, education programs set on the right path. People made aware of their own abilities.

What we'll have by the general elections in 2015 I don't know. Still the chances are still good even if history doesn't like it.

Edited August 24, 2014 by rubl

[rubl]

I don't claim anything. I am just saying that the NRC has the task to formulate reforms with help from the Thai population and in such a way as to have those reforms acceptable by most Thais. If the NRC cannot complete their task they should say so and give reasons, to help improve and solve problems. While that is ongoing both NCPO and NLA will stay

So, in a way I'm saying that the Thai population should start to work together for Thailand and their own advancement. Democracy comes not only with rights but also with duties.

You are running from your own words. The people accept the reforms chosen by the NRC, or the NCPO remains in charge. That's a summary of what you wrote.

You are a bit obdurate, my dear chap.

I wrote that the NRC with help of the Thai people will try to formulate reforms. Those reforms should be acceptable by most Thai. If the NRC is unable to formulate reforms acceptable by most Thai, we obviously have a problem.

Simply 'drop reforms' wouldn't do, as that would mean return to chaos. So the NRC would need to formulate the disagreements, get a few experts together and come with an approach to bridge the disagreements. Then Thai should again be invited to provide input, to help discuss and formulate and so on.

As long as we have no reform program which is acceptable to most Thai, the NCPO and NLA have the duty to stay on to keep the countries affairs running.

Now if all this you want to interpret as "take it or leave it" you seem to be negative on purpose.

Edited August 24, 2014 by rubl

[rubl]

Now your talking. Indeed a few more items' against human rights.

Mind you that's on par with Martial Law. Furthermore at first the normal political shenanigans were tried, with facebook warriors having fun and so, which had to be stopped. Yes, on purpose I write 'had to be stopped'. With stabilisation some of those measures have been relaxed already and no doubt more relaxation will follow.

Now if only all that energy to 'fight' the NCPO would be put in helping the NRC and CDC to build a more solid base for democracy Thailand could be on it's way there within a year.

"Now your talking. Indeed a few more items' against human rights.

Mind you that's on par with Martial Law."

Right, all acceptable if you accept the need for a coup. Of course I'm of the opinion that what Thailand needed, and still needs, is another properly monitored election that is free of violence.

Your wish is my command. Please keep your agenda free for September, October 2015.

Mind you, if all THai co-operate as much as you seem to do, there may be a need for a temporary postponement.