What makes 'Thai-style democracy' globally palatable?

[rubl]

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.--George Santayana

"When I return and people see I'm not out for revenge, all will like me - Thaksin S."

Editing other people's posts again. You're developing quite a reputation for taking things out of context in a blatant manner.

I took the very last line of your post, unedited, the rest of it was nonsense.

If you feel that's against forum rules, please report me. If you just try to annoy or bait me, remember that's against forum rules as well.

As for reputations, I know yours by now. Clear and blatant insincere defender of the Thaksin democracy and crusader against all against him and his. IMHO of course, I may be wrong about your reputation, you might not even have one

[rubl]

All the talks about 'but what about just an election' seems to try to distract from the Thaksin controlled, Pheu Thai led machinations which in the Thai social setup leads to undemocratic figures being election after which the democratic rules are forgotten again. "blanket amnesty" was not for the good of the Thai population, but for Thaksin and his (puppet) sister's administration.

It's like allowing Silvio Berlusconi to enter politics again because that's democratic. Hey Bruce, grow up man.

In other words the PTP kept winning elections and that made them undemocratic. Just like Silvio Berlusconi. I never though Silvio B. was a good leader but I never advocated a military coup for Italy. He trying to get back into politics and seems to have gotten past many (all?) of the legal obstacles, and if he's the one the majority of Italian voters choose then he should be allowed back into office. Or do you think Italy would be better of with a coup and ruled by a military junta?

"...the Thai social setup leads to undemocratic figures being election..."

By that I assume you mean that wealth and power have traditionally been held in Bangkok, which left a wide open door for Thaksin to win votes by promising a better distribution of government services and spending http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/05/10/thailand-public-finance-management-review-report. Amazingly, 72% of government investment in Bangkok in 2012 represented a significant reduction, before 2000 the figure was closer to 90%. Here's the bad news, that wide open door is still wide open, the winners of the future elections will be those who promise a better distribution of government resources to the under-served minority. Since the Democrats and military want wealth and power to remain in Bangkok, they will do everything they can to prevent real democracy that serves all Thais.

"grow up"? Does using logic and facts from reference sources make me seem immature?

Using logic and facts out of context makes you seem insincere. talking about 'coup bad, return to democracy in Thailand' seem to show either immaturity or lack of knowledge or just plain utter stupidity and a program of returning Thailand to a state of chaos which the Thaksin controlled Pheu Thai led Yingluck Administration was fostering by trying to push through a blanket amnesty bill for Thaksin's last two years in/out of office and Yingluck's first two years. All for one, forget about the rest of Thailand.

BTW 'under-served minority' ?

PS any idea what percentage of GDP can be attributed to the regions outside Bangkok area, like NorthEast, Central Plains or South ?

Yes, I should have written "under-served majority". Thank you for catching that.

As far as out of context facts, the fact is that the state of chaos didn't begin until Suthep led his mob into the streets staging protests that exceeded all legal limits, and blocking elections using physical intimidation and force.

The amnesty bill was attempted, failed, and was dropped. You need a better reason than that for a coup.

"PS any idea what percentage of GDP can be attributed to the regions outside Bangkok area, like NorthEast, Central Plains or South ?"

Clearly you didn't look at the referenced link:

"Currently, 72 % of Thailand's general public expenditures are being spent in Bangkok, which is home to 17% of the country’s population and produces 26% of the GDP. In contrast, the Northeast, which holds 34 % of the country's population, receives 6% of the expenditures."

Also:

"Economic growth and a corresponding improvement in access to and quality of public services has been concentrated in Bangkok and the central region, leaving significant deficiencies in other parts of the country including the North and Northeast and contributing to unequal human development outcomes. Addressing these issues will be a key step in Thailand's continued development towards high-income country status."

GDP per capita in Bangkok is higher than in the rest of Thailand, but not high enough to warrant the gross disparities in government investment. Also, it was the greater government investment in schools, clinics, and modern infrastructure in general that boosted Bangkok's GDP. The rest of the country, with the majority of the Thai population, wants the same investment and benefits. As I wrote earlier, the parties Thaksin led or supported kept winning elections by shifting government spending where it was needed most, and future politicians will win elections in the same manner. No amount of military mandated education is going to change that.

The World Bank Report also provides links to interesting supporting documents, and I'm sure you'd agree the they are a more credible source than me. You can get a region by region answer to your question on page 32 at this link: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/06/20/000333038_20120620014639/Rendered/PDF/674860ESW0P1180019006020120RB0EDITS.pdf

The state of chaos started when the Yingluck government pushed through their sneakily amended blanket amnesty bill with two readings and two votes in slightly more than 24 hours. A bill which suddenly even covered Thaksin's last two years in/out of office and Yingluck's own first two years. The chaos mounted with the Yingluck government talking about anti-government protests being undemocratic, with police being used to take care of the protests, with Pheu Thai and UDD figures agitating.

The amnesty bill is not dropped, it stayed on for 180 days. If it's dropped now it's because those 180 days have elapsed without Thaksin having been able get a new government together.

As for "The rest of the country, with the majority of the Thai population, wants the same investment and benefits." a part already got 500 or 700++ billion of the taxpayers money, in only two and a half years as well. Of course that really helped, those investments and the clear benefits. It's the CentralPlain which seems to have to complain most, not the North or NorthEast. The NorthEast with 34% of population doesn't need handouts, doesn't need highspeed trains, but needs industry to help the population to be productive. Of course industry likes educated people, people who know how to think. Maybe start with education first?

Of course I'm interested to hear how Thailand could meaningfully invest billions in the poorer region in order to improve their taxpayers base. Most other countries in the world would surely follow since all seem to have poorer regions.

[heybruce]

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.--George Santayana

"When I return and people see I'm not out for revenge, all will like me - Thaksin S."

Editing other people's posts again. You're developing quite a reputation for taking things out of context in a blatant manner.

I took the very last line of your post, unedited, the rest of it was nonsense.

If you feel that's against forum rules, please report me. If you just try to annoy or bait me, remember that's against forum rules as well.

As for reputations, I know yours by now. Clear and blatant insincere defender of the Thaksin democracy and crusader against all against him and his. IMHO of course, I may be wrong about your reputation, you might not even have one

My above reply #202 to gingag's post was:

"You leave yourself so open I can't resist.

"Past army rule I do not give a fig about."

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.--George Santayana"

It was a short post, as easy to leave in context as to take out of context. You chose the latter.

As to the rest, I have not defended Thaksin, I have consistently defended the Thai people's right to choose their own leaders. You know that, but my real position is harder to argue against, so you misrepresent me as a redshirt. It's a common tactic employed by small minds.

[ginjag]

Well, reading a few posts here I can only conclude that for some democracy means for Thailand to go back to chaos again, have a Thaksin controlled Pheu Thai led government pushing whatever they like to push because they have a mandate and s.... the others. Reminds me of Westerns academics 50 years ago, trying to justify Stalin's atrocities because he was the legal and rightful leader of a workers paradise, allegedly.

Just like ginjag,you assume that either the military will rule or Thaksin will rule. I think the Shinwatra family was on a steep decline in influence, though no doubt outrage over the coup will give them new support. That's not really important, democracy means letting the people choose, even if you disagree with their choice.

Hey bruce, if you want to take this up another level, by including other posters names I have that ability but will refrain, if you want to use my name reply to me NOT though another poster, one of your clan has already done that dirty trick today----keep it clean eh.

democracy means letting the people choose---WHO ?? PTP--Thaksin /Shin style--is not democracy, get it. you use Thai people to get your agenda rolling to their loss--again.

I stated that you assume either the junta or Thaksin will rule Thailand, and you end your reply by saying the only alternative to the current junta is "PTP--Thaksin /Shin style". Does that mean you agree with me?

Thailand to progress only Thaksin is not of sound mind or PTP, so I give the army the benefit of doing the job.

[heybruce]

In other words the PTP kept winning elections and that made them undemocratic. Just like Silvio Berlusconi. I never though Silvio B. was a good leader but I never advocated a military coup for Italy. He trying to get back into politics and seems to have gotten past many (all?) of the legal obstacles, and if he's the one the majority of Italian voters choose then he should be allowed back into office. Or do you think Italy would be better of with a coup and ruled by a military junta?

"...the Thai social setup leads to undemocratic figures being election..."

By that I assume you mean that wealth and power have traditionally been held in Bangkok, which left a wide open door for Thaksin to win votes by promising a better distribution of government services and spending http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/05/10/thailand-public-finance-management-review-report. Amazingly, 72% of government investment in Bangkok in 2012 represented a significant reduction, before 2000 the figure was closer to 90%. Here's the bad news, that wide open door is still wide open, the winners of the future elections will be those who promise a better distribution of government resources to the under-served minority. Since the Democrats and military want wealth and power to remain in Bangkok, they will do everything they can to prevent real democracy that serves all Thais.

"grow up"? Does using logic and facts from reference sources make me seem immature?

Using logic and facts out of context makes you seem insincere. talking about 'coup bad, return to democracy in Thailand' seem to show either immaturity or lack of knowledge or just plain utter stupidity and a program of returning Thailand to a state of chaos which the Thaksin controlled Pheu Thai led Yingluck Administration was fostering by trying to push through a blanket amnesty bill for Thaksin's last two years in/out of office and Yingluck's first two years. All for one, forget about the rest of Thailand.

BTW 'under-served minority' ?

PS any idea what percentage of GDP can be attributed to the regions outside Bangkok area, like NorthEast, Central Plains or South ?

Yes, I should have written "under-served majority". Thank you for catching that.

As far as out of context facts, the fact is that the state of chaos didn't begin until Suthep led his mob into the streets staging protests that exceeded all legal limits, and blocking elections using physical intimidation and force.

The amnesty bill was attempted, failed, and was dropped. You need a better reason than that for a coup.

"PS any idea what percentage of GDP can be attributed to the regions outside Bangkok area, like NorthEast, Central Plains or South ?"

Clearly you didn't look at the referenced link:

"Currently, 72 % of Thailand's general public expenditures are being spent in Bangkok, which is home to 17% of the country’s population and produces 26% of the GDP. In contrast, the Northeast, which holds 34 % of the country's population, receives 6% of the expenditures."

Also:

"Economic growth and a corresponding improvement in access to and quality of public services has been concentrated in Bangkok and the central region, leaving significant deficiencies in other parts of the country including the North and Northeast and contributing to unequal human development outcomes. Addressing these issues will be a key step in Thailand's continued development towards high-income country status."

GDP per capita in Bangkok is higher than in the rest of Thailand, but not high enough to warrant the gross disparities in government investment. Also, it was the greater government investment in schools, clinics, and modern infrastructure in general that boosted Bangkok's GDP. The rest of the country, with the majority of the Thai population, wants the same investment and benefits. As I wrote earlier, the parties Thaksin led or supported kept winning elections by shifting government spending where it was needed most, and future politicians will win elections in the same manner. No amount of military mandated education is going to change that.

The World Bank Report also provides links to interesting supporting documents, and I'm sure you'd agree the they are a more credible source than me. You can get a region by region answer to your question on page 32 at this link: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/06/20/000333038_20120620014639/Rendered/PDF/674860ESW0P1180019006020120RB0EDITS.pdf

The state of chaos started when the Yingluck government pushed through their sneakily amended blanket amnesty bill with two readings and two votes in slightly more than 24 hours. A bill which suddenly even covered Thaksin's last two years in/out of office and Yingluck's own first two years. The chaos mounted with the Yingluck government talking about anti-government protests being undemocratic, with police being used to take care of the protests, with Pheu Thai and UDD figures agitating.

The amnesty bill is not dropped, it stayed on for 180 days. If it's dropped now it's because those 180 days have elapsed without Thaksin having been able get a new government together.

As for "The rest of the country, with the majority of the Thai population, wants the same investment and benefits." a part already got 500 or 700++ billion of the taxpayers money, in only two and a half years as well. Of course that really helped, those investments and the clear benefits. It's the CentralPlain which seems to have to complain most, not the North or NorthEast. The NorthEast with 34% of population doesn't need handouts, doesn't need highspeed trains, but needs industry to help the population to be productive. Of course industry likes educated people, people who know how to think. Maybe start with education first?

Of course I'm interested to hear how Thailand could meaningfully invest billions in the poorer region in order to improve their taxpayers base. Most other countries in the world would surely follow since all seem to have poorer regions.

Once again, you don't indicate how the attempt to approve an amnesty bill was illegal or unconstitutional. It wasn't pretty, but politics rarely is. Does this justify a coup?

Yingluck called a bunch of protesters trying to topple an elected government undemocratic. The police tried to contain the protests when they overstepped the legal bounds Agitators from both sides eventually got involved, most notably when they illegally obstructed an election. Does this justify a coup?

Did you look at my reference showing the distribution of government resources? Do you disagree that the majority are under-served? Do you disagree that this majority will vote for the candidates that promise a better distribution of government resources?

[ginjag]

Oh dear. Your advanced years must be getting to your memory. Read some recent history, and let me know what kind of record the army has when in power here. Once you've done that, read some Plato and learn for yourself why a tyranny is more degraded system of government than a democracy.

You've been ridiculed by all and sundry in this thread for basing your arguments on mere falsehoods and refusing to answer pertinent questions that refute your position. You seem to slavishly follow one side, asking no questions of it, and accepting a censored version of the news as the truth, whereas a free press caused you to vilify the other side in the first place.

Now you are clutching at what appears to be your only friend here for support - someone who has openly renounced the free society that allowed him to survive a great tyranny perpetrated against his mother land not long before he was born. The defeat of this tyranny by those who value freedom allowed his parents to survive, and for him to be born, and to travel abroad and express this views here freely, albeit paradoxically in support of a political system that would have prevented him from being born in the first place.

The beauty of democracy is that it allows us to have conversations like this. Think how boring it will be when we are prohibited from doing so.

All of 33 years you say you've been here, and yet you think the army is clean? I don't believe you are who you say you are.

What a flaming saga, cut out the personal bits, my age is not your business.

Because of this my reply is short and sweet---- Past army rule I do not give a fig about.

Your agenda I do not give a fig about.

Your bad manners I give a fig about.

Your stupid comment about one and only friend for support JOKE. look how many support you and your rhetoric, and look how many are quite calm about how Thailand is at this minute. You have a strange % view of who is who.

in a few months we here on TVF are just being hit by pro Thaksin -anti army rhetoric, and it is spoiling the fun on this forum. You don't care you along with the few are relentless. Soon you will be on the forum alone with no one to argue with. So many are not here, the good ones that very rarely touched political topics are drifting away, an opinion is fine, but attacking people that are not being bothered by the army is crazy.

Do not bother any more, you can hog it with your agenda I'm out of here sick to hell with your clan.

I hold the view now that most persons in Thailand are comfortable with things now more than the last 3 years speaks volumes, if you think different you are a lost soul.

You leave yourself so open I can't resist.

"Past army rule I do not give a fig about."

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.--George Santayana

Sorry for you silly reply--I don't give a toss about George S, or your attitude, stick to your lost agenda. PTP have left themselves wide open that's why I cannot resist.

[Eric Loh]

Oh dear. Your advanced years must be getting to your memory. Read some recent history, and let me know what kind of record the army has when in power here. Once you've done that, read some Plato and learn for yourself why a tyranny is more degraded system of government than a democracy.

You've been ridiculed by all and sundry in this thread for basing your arguments on mere falsehoods and refusing to answer pertinent questions that refute your position. You seem to slavishly follow one side, asking no questions of it, and accepting a censored version of the news as the truth, whereas a free press caused you to vilify the other side in the first place.

Now you are clutching at what appears to be your only friend here for support - someone who has openly renounced the free society that allowed him to survive a great tyranny perpetrated against his mother land not long before he was born. The defeat of this tyranny by those who value freedom allowed his parents to survive, and for him to be born, and to travel abroad and express this views here freely, albeit paradoxically in support of a political system that would have prevented him from being born in the first place.

The beauty of democracy is that it allows us to have conversations like this. Think how boring it will be when we are prohibited from doing so.

All of 33 years you say you've been here, and yet you think the army is clean? I don't believe you are who you say you are.

What a flaming saga, cut out the personal bits, my age is not your business.

Because of this my reply is short and sweet---- Past army rule I do not give a fig about.

Your agenda I do not give a fig about.

Your bad manners I give a fig about.

Your stupid comment about one and only friend for support JOKE. look how many support you and your rhetoric, and look how many are quite calm about how Thailand is at this minute. You have a strange % view of who is who.

in a few months we here on TVF are just being hit by pro Thaksin -anti army rhetoric, and it is spoiling the fun on this forum. You don't care you along with the few are relentless. Soon you will be on the forum alone with no one to argue with. So many are not here, the good ones that very rarely touched political topics are drifting away, an opinion is fine, but attacking people that are not being bothered by the army is crazy.

Do not bother any more, you can hog it with your agenda I'm out of here sick to hell with your clan.

I hold the view now that most persons in Thailand are comfortable with things now more than the last 3 years speaks volumes, if you think different you are a lost soul.

You leave yourself so open I can't resist.

"Past army rule I do not give a fig about."

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.--George Santayana

Sorry for you silly reply--I don't give a toss about George S, or your attitude, stick to your lost agenda. PTP have left themselves wide open that's why I cannot resist.

I don't think anyone here really care or bother about your attacks on PTP, previous government, Taksin or Yingluck. The topic is what will made Thai style democracy more globally palatable and a coup is simply not democratic and should not even be considered in the discussion.

[rubl]

As to the rest, I have not defended Thaksin, I have consistently defended the Thai people's right to choose their own leaders. You know that, but my real position is harder to argue against, so you misrepresent me as a redshirt. It's a common tactic employed by small minds.

Hey Bruce, since you insist on getting personal, let me give you my opinion on you.

Your 'real position' seems to be to be as negative as possible about NCPO and what they try to do, only restricted by forum and other rules. Furthermore you position yourself as 'defender of democracy' and advocate a return to the failed state Thailand was under Yingluck's Administration. In a way you sound somewhat reactionair, maybe Ms. thida was thinking of you when she spoke about wiping them out.

As for 'small minds', well there you let some of your unsavory character treats shine through I fear.

Luckily you have no say in things in Thailand, so next week we'll have a new PM, appointed. Almost similar to Ms. Yingluck's appointment, only in her case because a criminal fugitive said so.

[rubl]

Once again, you don't indicate how the attempt to approve an amnesty bill was illegal or unconstitutional. It wasn't pretty, but politics rarely is. Does this justify a coup?

Yingluck called a bunch of protesters trying to topple an elected government undemocratic. The police tried to contain the protests when they overstepped the legal bounds Agitators from both sides eventually got involved, most notably when they illegally obstructed an election. Does this justify a coup?

Did you look at my reference showing the distribution of government resources? Do you disagree that the majority are under-served? Do you disagree that this majority will vote for the candidates that promise a better distribution of government resources?

I'm terribly sorry if me not countering all your irrelevant or distracting questions bothers you. Learn to live with it, or try to stick to topic and relevant issues.

I agree with you in one thing. With the Thai democracy as it was no doubt lots of Thai will vote for anyone who promises them a better distribution of government resources (also known as taxpayer's donations). Now pray tell, did the Yingluck Administrations donation of 700++ billion Baht really help structurally? Are those who voted Pheu Thai bettter of because the BAAC still has this government guaranteed debt ?

You just give good reasons why Thailand needs reforms, education and the like. A return to the pre-coup state would be disastrous.

Edited August 16, 2014 by rubl

[ginjag]

What a flaming saga, cut out the personal bits, my age is not your business.

Because of this my reply is short and sweet---- Past army rule I do not give a fig about.

Your agenda I do not give a fig about.

Your bad manners I give a fig about.

Your stupid comment about one and only friend for support JOKE. look how many support you and your rhetoric, and look how many are quite calm about how Thailand is at this minute. You have a strange % view of who is who.

in a few months we here on TVF are just being hit by pro Thaksin -anti army rhetoric, and it is spoiling the fun on this forum. You don't care you along with the few are relentless. Soon you will be on the forum alone with no one to argue with. So many are not here, the good ones that very rarely touched political topics are drifting away, an opinion is fine, but attacking people that are not being bothered by the army is crazy.

Do not bother any more, you can hog it with your agenda I'm out of here sick to hell with your clan.

I hold the view now that most persons in Thailand are comfortable with things now more than the last 3 years speaks volumes, if you think different you are a lost soul.

You leave yourself so open I can't resist.

"Past army rule I do not give a fig about."

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.--George Santayana

Sorry for you silly reply--I don't give a toss about George S, or your attitude, stick to your lost agenda. PTP have left themselves wide open that's why I cannot resist.

I don't think anyone here really care or bother about your attacks on PTP, previous government, Taksin or Yingluck. The topic is what will made Thai style democracy more globally palatable and a coup is simply not democratic and should not even be considered in the discussion.

I just do not give a fig about the defunct PTP/Yingluck. Your clan are obsessed with their style of democracy but most on Forum are not impressed.

I am trying in my mind to move forward with the people I live with. Your anti army agenda, pro PTP stance brings PTP into all discussions haven't you clicked on to that reason.

Your idea about the army is your problem -if it wasn't the army in power it wouldn't suit your rhetoric. PTP have been caught with fingers in the till and have disgraced Thailands reputation, we have the army cleaning up and most are pleased apart from your splinter on TVF.

Weather they are not elected or the past history was not good is now History.

[heybruce]

Oh dear. Your advanced years must be getting to your memory. Read some recent history, and let me know what kind of record the army has when in power here. Once you've done that, read some Plato and learn for yourself why a tyranny is more degraded system of government than a democracy.

You've been ridiculed by all and sundry in this thread for basing your arguments on mere falsehoods and refusing to answer pertinent questions that refute your position. You seem to slavishly follow one side, asking no questions of it, and accepting a censored version of the news as the truth, whereas a free press caused you to vilify the other side in the first place.

Now you are clutching at what appears to be your only friend here for support - someone who has openly renounced the free society that allowed him to survive a great tyranny perpetrated against his mother land not long before he was born. The defeat of this tyranny by those who value freedom allowed his parents to survive, and for him to be born, and to travel abroad and express this views here freely, albeit paradoxically in support of a political system that would have prevented him from being born in the first place.

The beauty of democracy is that it allows us to have conversations like this. Think how boring it will be when we are prohibited from doing so.

All of 33 years you say you've been here, and yet you think the army is clean? I don't believe you are who you say you are.

What a flaming saga, cut out the personal bits, my age is not your business.

Because of this my reply is short and sweet---- Past army rule I do not give a fig about.

Your agenda I do not give a fig about.

Your bad manners I give a fig about.

Your stupid comment about one and only friend for support JOKE. look how many support you and your rhetoric, and look how many are quite calm about how Thailand is at this minute. You have a strange % view of who is who.

in a few months we here on TVF are just being hit by pro Thaksin -anti army rhetoric, and it is spoiling the fun on this forum. You don't care you along with the few are relentless. Soon you will be on the forum alone with no one to argue with. So many are not here, the good ones that very rarely touched political topics are drifting away, an opinion is fine, but attacking people that are not being bothered by the army is crazy.

Do not bother any more, you can hog it with your agenda I'm out of here sick to hell with your clan.

I hold the view now that most persons in Thailand are comfortable with things now more than the last 3 years speaks volumes, if you think different you are a lost soul.

You leave yourself so open I can't resist.

"Past army rule I do not give a fig about."

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.--George Santayana

Sorry for you silly reply--I don't give a toss about George S, or your attitude, stick to your lost agenda. PTP have left themselves wide open that's why I cannot resist.

Yes ginjag, knowledge is your enemy, avoid it! Don't give a toss about anything that might open your mind.

[heybruce]

As to the rest, I have not defended Thaksin, I have consistently defended the Thai people's right to choose their own leaders. You know that, but my real position is harder to argue against, so you misrepresent me as a redshirt. It's a common tactic employed by small minds.

Hey Bruce, since you insist on getting personal, let me give you my opinion on you.

Your 'real position' seems to be to be as negative as possible about NCPO and what they try to do, only restricted by forum and other rules. Furthermore you position yourself as 'defender of democracy' and advocate a return to the failed state Thailand was under Yingluck's Administration. In a way you sound somewhat reactionair, maybe Ms. thida was thinking of you when she spoke about wiping them out.

As for 'small minds', well there you let some of your unsavory character treats shine through I fear.

Luckily you have no say in things in Thailand, so next week we'll have a new PM, appointed. Almost similar to Ms. Yingluck's appointment, only in her case because a criminal fugitive said so.

"Your 'real position' seems to be to be as negative as possible about NCPO and what they try to do, only restricted by forum and other rules."

We finally agree on something.

The "failed state" was the work of Suthep and others who just couldn't accept an elected government.

[heybruce]

Once again, you don't indicate how the attempt to approve an amnesty bill was illegal or unconstitutional. It wasn't pretty, but politics rarely is. Does this justify a coup?

Yingluck called a bunch of protesters trying to topple an elected government undemocratic. The police tried to contain the protests when they overstepped the legal bounds Agitators from both sides eventually got involved, most notably when they illegally obstructed an election. Does this justify a coup?

Did you look at my reference showing the distribution of government resources? Do you disagree that the majority are under-served? Do you disagree that this majority will vote for the candidates that promise a better distribution of government resources?

I'm terribly sorry if me not countering all your irrelevant or distracting questions bothers you. Learn to live with it, or try to stick to topic and relevant issues.

I agree with you in one thing. With the Thai democracy as it was no doubt lots of Thai will vote for anyone who promises them a better distribution of government resources (also known as taxpayer's donations). Now pray tell, did the Yingluck Administrations donation of 700++ billion Baht really help structurally? Are those who voted Pheu Thai bettter of because the BAAC still has this government guaranteed debt ?I'm terribly sorry if me not countering all your irrelevant or distracting questions bothers you.

You just give good reasons why Thailand needs reforms, education and the like. A return to the pre-coup state would be disastrous.

"I'm terribly sorry if me not countering all your irrelevant or distracting questions bothers you."

Is that it? I just figured you had no answers to reasonable questions challenging your statements. That's still what I think.

"Now pray tell, did the Yingluck Administrations donation of 700++ billion Baht really help structurally? Are those who voted Pheu Thai bettter of because the BAAC still has this government guaranteed debt ?"

That should have been left to the voters to decide.

"You just give good reasons why Thailand needs reforms, education and the like."

My knowledge of history gives me little reason for confidence in the military's ability or desire for proper reforms. Democracy isn't perfect, but it's better than military rule.

[rubl]

As to the rest, I have not defended Thaksin, I have consistently defended the Thai people's right to choose their own leaders. You know that, but my real position is harder to argue against, so you misrepresent me as a redshirt. It's a common tactic employed by small minds.

Hey Bruce, since you insist on getting personal, let me give you my opinion on you.

Your 'real position' seems to be to be as negative as possible about NCPO and what they try to do, only restricted by forum and other rules. Furthermore you position yourself as 'defender of democracy' and advocate a return to the failed state Thailand was under Yingluck's Administration. In a way you sound somewhat reactionair, maybe Ms. thida was thinking of you when she spoke about wiping them out.

As for 'small minds', well there you let some of your unsavory character treats shine through I fear.

Luckily you have no say in things in Thailand, so next week we'll have a new PM, appointed. Almost similar to Ms. Yingluck's appointment, only in her case because a criminal fugitive said so.

"Your 'real position' seems to be to be as negative as possible about NCPO and what they try to do, only restricted by forum and other rules."

We finally agree on something.

The "failed state" was the work of Suthep and others who just couldn't accept an elected government.

Terribly sorry and all that, dear Brucy, but it would seem we do not agree unless it's that Suthep showed the nature of the failed state and the Thaksin controlled Pheu Thai led Yingluck government.

Mind you, General Prayuth had enough of both sides (or maybe even all sides) after today of bickering. Now for the NRC/CDC with input from Thai (sorry, excludes both you and me) to help make coups a thing of the past by giving Thailand the right restart to become a real democracy.

[tbthailand]

As to the rest, I have not defended Thaksin, I have consistently defended the Thai people's right to choose their own leaders. You know that, but my real position is harder to argue against, so you misrepresent me as a redshirt. It's a common tactic employed by small minds.

Hey Bruce, since you insist on getting personal, let me give you my opinion on you.

Your 'real position' seems to be to be as negative as possible about NCPO and what they try to do, only restricted by forum and other rules. Furthermore you position yourself as 'defender of democracy' and advocate a return to the failed state Thailand was under Yingluck's Administration. In a way you sound somewhat reactionair, maybe Ms. thida was thinking of you when she spoke about wiping them out.

As for 'small minds', well there you let some of your unsavory character treats shine through I fear.

Luckily you have no say in things in Thailand, so next week we'll have a new PM, appointed. Almost similar to Ms. Yingluck's appointment, only in her case because a criminal fugitive said so.

"Your 'real position' seems to be to be as negative as possible about NCPO and what they try to do, only restricted by forum and other rules."

We finally agree on something.

The "failed state" was the work of Suthep and others who just couldn't accept an elected government.

absolutely. Suthep and the general even did coordinated the end-game on Line. According to Suthep, that is.

[tbthailand]

Once again, you don't indicate how the attempt to approve an amnesty bill was illegal or unconstitutional. It wasn't pretty, but politics rarely is. Does this justify a coup?

Yingluck called a bunch of protesters trying to topple an elected government undemocratic. The police tried to contain the protests when they overstepped the legal bounds Agitators from both sides eventually got involved, most notably when they illegally obstructed an election. Does this justify a coup?

Did you look at my reference showing the distribution of government resources? Do you disagree that the majority are under-served? Do you disagree that this majority will vote for the candidates that promise a better distribution of government resources?

I'm terribly sorry if me not countering all your irrelevant or distracting questions bothers you. Learn to live with it, or try to stick to topic and relevant issues.

I agree with you in one thing. With the Thai democracy as it was no doubt lots of Thai will vote for anyone who promises them a better distribution of government resources (also known as taxpayer's donations). Now pray tell, did the Yingluck Administrations donation of 700++ billion Baht really help structurally? Are those who voted Pheu Thai bettter of because the BAAC still has this government guaranteed debt ?I'm terribly sorry if me not countering all your irrelevant or distracting questions bothers you.

You just give good reasons why Thailand needs reforms, education and the like. A return to the pre-coup state would be disastrous.

"I'm terribly sorry if me not countering all your irrelevant or distracting questions bothers you."

Is that it? I just figured you had no answers to reasonable questions challenging your statements. That's still what I think.

"Now pray tell, did the Yingluck Administrations donation of 700++ billion Baht really help structurally? Are those who voted Pheu Thai bettter of because the BAAC still has this government guaranteed debt ?"

That should have been left to the voters to decide.

"You just give good reasons why Thailand needs reforms, education and the like."

My knowledge of history gives me little reason for confidence in the military's ability or desire for proper reforms. Democracy isn't perfect, but it's better than military rule.

Speaking of history, the level of "control" in the interim constitution has been compared with Thailand from 40-50 years ago, and that is not a pretty comparison.

[rubl]

Once again, you don't indicate how the attempt to approve an amnesty bill was illegal or unconstitutional. It wasn't pretty, but politics rarely is. Does this justify a coup?

Yingluck called a bunch of protesters trying to topple an elected government undemocratic. The police tried to contain the protests when they overstepped the legal bounds Agitators from both sides eventually got involved, most notably when they illegally obstructed an election. Does this justify a coup?

Did you look at my reference showing the distribution of government resources? Do you disagree that the majority are under-served? Do you disagree that this majority will vote for the candidates that promise a better distribution of government resources?

I'm terribly sorry if me not countering all your irrelevant or distracting questions bothers you. Learn to live with it, or try to stick to topic and relevant issues.

I agree with you in one thing. With the Thai democracy as it was no doubt lots of Thai will vote for anyone who promises them a better distribution of government resources (also known as taxpayer's donations). Now pray tell, did the Yingluck Administrations donation of 700++ billion Baht really help structurally? Are those who voted Pheu Thai bettter of because the BAAC still has this government guaranteed debt ?I'm terribly sorry if me not countering all your irrelevant or distracting questions bothers you.

You just give good reasons why Thailand needs reforms, education and the like. A return to the pre-coup state would be disastrous.

"I'm terribly sorry if me not countering all your irrelevant or distracting questions bothers you."

Is that it? I just figured you had no answers to reasonable questions challenging your statements. That's still what I think.

"Now pray tell, did the Yingluck Administrations donation of 700++ billion Baht really help structurally? Are those who voted Pheu Thai bettter of because the BAAC still has this government guaranteed debt ?"

That should have been left to the voters to decide.

"You just give good reasons why Thailand needs reforms, education and the like."

My knowledge of history gives me little reason for confidence in the military's ability or desire for proper reforms. Democracy isn't perfect, but it's better than military rule.

Oh boy, failed democracy and let voters decide. That's why Thaksin/Yingluck/Pheu Thai really wanted a new election because they thought they could just continue with their voter based solidly controlled by all those who had profitted from 2-1/2 years Yingluck Administration and the carrot of 'blanket amnesty' still dangling in front of them.

A failed democracy with no intentions to come to reforms is definitively worse than the coup we had.

Oh, about reasonable questions, please ask them when they're relevant.

[heybruce]

As to the rest, I have not defended Thaksin, I have consistently defended the Thai people's right to choose their own leaders. You know that, but my real position is harder to argue against, so you misrepresent me as a redshirt. It's a common tactic employed by small minds.

Hey Bruce, since you insist on getting personal, let me give you my opinion on you.

Your 'real position' seems to be to be as negative as possible about NCPO and what they try to do, only restricted by forum and other rules. Furthermore you position yourself as 'defender of democracy' and advocate a return to the failed state Thailand was under Yingluck's Administration. In a way you sound somewhat reactionair, maybe Ms. thida was thinking of you when she spoke about wiping them out.

As for 'small minds', well there you let some of your unsavory character treats shine through I fear.

Luckily you have no say in things in Thailand, so next week we'll have a new PM, appointed. Almost similar to Ms. Yingluck's appointment, only in her case because a criminal fugitive said so.

"Your 'real position' seems to be to be as negative as possible about NCPO and what they try to do, only restricted by forum and other rules."

We finally agree on something.

The "failed state" was the work of Suthep and others who just couldn't accept an elected government.

Terribly sorry and all that, dear Brucy, but it would seem we do not agree unless it's that Suthep showed the nature of the failed state and the Thaksin controlled Pheu Thai led Yingluck government.

Mind you, General Prayuth had enough of both sides (or maybe even all sides) after today of bickering. Now for the NRC/CDC with input from Thai (sorry, excludes both you and me) to help make coups a thing of the past by giving Thailand the right restart to become a real democracy.

I assume you are aware that the voters knew that Yingluck would be taking advice from her brother, if not taking direction from him, when they voted for her party. The voters wanted a PM who took advice/direction from a PM deposed by a coup, charged by a junta and convicted by a government installed by the junta. There were no laws against this and her party came in first in a monitored election. This brother-sister team was the voters choice and I'm not presuming to tell them I know better. Others are that presumptuous, obviously.

[heybruce]

Once again, you don't indicate how the attempt to approve an amnesty bill was illegal or unconstitutional. It wasn't pretty, but politics rarely is. Does this justify a coup?

Yingluck called a bunch of protesters trying to topple an elected government undemocratic. The police tried to contain the protests when they overstepped the legal bounds Agitators from both sides eventually got involved, most notably when they illegally obstructed an election. Does this justify a coup?

Did you look at my reference showing the distribution of government resources? Do you disagree that the majority are under-served? Do you disagree that this majority will vote for the candidates that promise a better distribution of government resources?

I'm terribly sorry if me not countering all your irrelevant or distracting questions bothers you. Learn to live with it, or try to stick to topic and relevant issues.

I agree with you in one thing. With the Thai democracy as it was no doubt lots of Thai will vote for anyone who promises them a better distribution of government resources (also known as taxpayer's donations). Now pray tell, did the Yingluck Administrations donation of 700++ billion Baht really help structurally? Are those who voted Pheu Thai bettter of because the BAAC still has this government guaranteed debt ?I'm terribly sorry if me not countering all your irrelevant or distracting questions bothers you.

You just give good reasons why Thailand needs reforms, education and the like. A return to the pre-coup state would be disastrous.

"I'm terribly sorry if me not countering all your irrelevant or distracting questions bothers you."

Is that it? I just figured you had no answers to reasonable questions challenging your statements. That's still what I think.

"Now pray tell, did the Yingluck Administrations donation of 700++ billion Baht really help structurally? Are those who voted Pheu Thai bettter of because the BAAC still has this government guaranteed debt ?"

That should have been left to the voters to decide.

"You just give good reasons why Thailand needs reforms, education and the like."

My knowledge of history gives me little reason for confidence in the military's ability or desire for proper reforms. Democracy isn't perfect, but it's better than military rule.

Oh boy, failed democracy and let voters decide. That's why Thaksin/Yingluck/Pheu Thai really wanted a new election because they thought they could just continue with their voter based solidly controlled by all those who had profitted from 2-1/2 years Yingluck Administration and the carrot of 'blanket amnesty' still dangling in front of them.

A failed democracy with no intentions to come to reforms is definitively worse than the coup we had.

Oh, about reasonable questions, please ask them when they're relevant.

"That's why Thaksin/Yingluck/Pheu Thai really wanted a new election because they thought they could just continue with their voter based solidly controlled by all those who had profitted from 2-1/2 years Yingluck Administration and the carrot of 'blanket amnesty' still dangling in front of them."

Huh? As I've repeatedly said, indications are that the PTP would have taken a beating in the election, and might have lost their first place status. They alienated many in their red base with the amnesty attempt and pissed off a lot of voters in the northeast with the rice subsidy fiasco. A July election would have been the perfect means to weaken the Shinawatra influence democratically. It also would have allowed Thailand to mature as a democracy. If you truly want democracy for Thailand why would you oppose that?

As to reforms, I'm limited in what I can write. I'll just state that true reforms will have to apply to the top in all of the government, including the military, and will involve taking down some very important people. I don't see that, I just see window dressing that will amount to nothing.

[rubl]

Hey Bruce, since you insist on getting personal, let me give you my opinion on you.

Your 'real position' seems to be to be as negative as possible about NCPO and what they try to do, only restricted by forum and other rules. Furthermore you position yourself as 'defender of democracy' and advocate a return to the failed state Thailand was under Yingluck's Administration. In a way you sound somewhat reactionair, maybe Ms. thida was thinking of you when she spoke about wiping them out.

As for 'small minds', well there you let some of your unsavory character treats shine through I fear.

Luckily you have no say in things in Thailand, so next week we'll have a new PM, appointed. Almost similar to Ms. Yingluck's appointment, only in her case because a criminal fugitive said so.

"Your 'real position' seems to be to be as negative as possible about NCPO and what they try to do, only restricted by forum and other rules."

We finally agree on something.

The "failed state" was the work of Suthep and others who just couldn't accept an elected government.

Terribly sorry and all that, dear Brucy, but it would seem we do not agree unless it's that Suthep showed the nature of the failed state and the Thaksin controlled Pheu Thai led Yingluck government.

Mind you, General Prayuth had enough of both sides (or maybe even all sides) after today of bickering. Now for the NRC/CDC with input from Thai (sorry, excludes both you and me) to help make coups a thing of the past by giving Thailand the right restart to become a real democracy.

I assume you are aware that the voters knew that Yingluck would be taking advice from her brother, if not taking direction from him, when they voted for her party. The voters wanted a PM who took advice/direction from a PM deposed by a coup, charged by a junta and convicted by a government installed by the junta. There were no laws against this and her party came in first in a monitored election. This brother-sister team was the voters choice and I'm not presuming to tell them I know better. Others are that presumptuous, obviously.

'the voters'? All of the 33.57% of the electorate who voted Pheu Thai you mean I guess.

This brother/sister team raping the country seems a good excuse to stage a coup, but the violence against all against seems another good reason. As I wrote before reforms and education seems a must for Thailand to become a real democracy.

Of course in your country of origin such brother/sister teams may be perfectly legal and a normal part of democracy as you see fit

Edited August 16, 2014 by rubl

[rubl]

Oh boy, failed democracy and let voters decide. That's why Thaksin/Yingluck/Pheu Thai really wanted a new election because they thought they could just continue with their voter based solidly controlled by all those who had profitted from 2-1/2 years Yingluck Administration and the carrot of 'blanket amnesty' still dangling in front of them.

A failed democracy with no intentions to come to reforms is definitively worse than the coup we had.

Oh, about reasonable questions, please ask them when they're relevant.

"That's why Thaksin/Yingluck/Pheu Thai really wanted a new election because they thought they could just continue with their voter based solidly controlled by all those who had profitted from 2-1/2 years Yingluck Administration and the carrot of 'blanket amnesty' still dangling in front of them."

Huh? As I've repeatedly said, indications are that the PTP would have taken a beating in the election, and might have lost their first place status. They alienated many in their red base with the amnesty attempt and pissed off a lot of voters in the northeast with the rice subsidy fiasco. A July election would have been the perfect means to weaken the Shinawatra influence democratically. It also would have allowed Thailand to mature as a democracy. If you truly want democracy for Thailand why would you oppose that?

As to reforms, I'm limited in what I can write. I'll just state that true reforms will have to apply to the top in all of the government, including the military, and will involve taking down some very important people. I don't see that, I just see window dressing that will amount to nothing.

Your timeline seems a bit bent, or just contains some loops. The beating Pheu Thai allegedly received was only obvious AFTER the Feb2 elections and consistently denied by a few posters here. Or explained as 'voters afraid of violence and intimidation', especially the ones in North and NorthEast it would seem.

Still Pheu Thai kept pushing for extended election period, new by elections, keeping the Emergency Decree, lambasting disliked court decisions, etc., etc. Oh and a few posters here kept agitating "voter respect' forgetting that Pheu Thai stpos that after the vote is counted.

As for reforms, of course you are limited in what you can write. Even in other countries the government keeps track of forums and what people write. Mind you, it is no problem to write that you hope for a reform which keeps independent watchdog organisations independent and out of the clutches of politicians and other unsavory figures. You can write you hope for reforms which explain democracy and what values it should encompass, what rights and duties, what self-entitlement can mean to people, that equal by law should mean in practise as well.

From behind my window just dressed with new curtains,

uncle rubl

[heybruce]

Oh boy, failed democracy and let voters decide. That's why Thaksin/Yingluck/Pheu Thai really wanted a new election because they thought they could just continue with their voter based solidly controlled by all those who had profitted from 2-1/2 years Yingluck Administration and the carrot of 'blanket amnesty' still dangling in front of them.

A failed democracy with no intentions to come to reforms is definitively worse than the coup we had.

Oh, about reasonable questions, please ask them when they're relevant.

"That's why Thaksin/Yingluck/Pheu Thai really wanted a new election because they thought they could just continue with their voter based solidly controlled by all those who had profitted from 2-1/2 years Yingluck Administration and the carrot of 'blanket amnesty' still dangling in front of them."

Huh? As I've repeatedly said, indications are that the PTP would have taken a beating in the election, and might have lost their first place status. They alienated many in their red base with the amnesty attempt and pissed off a lot of voters in the northeast with the rice subsidy fiasco. A July election would have been the perfect means to weaken the Shinawatra influence democratically. It also would have allowed Thailand to mature as a democracy. If you truly want democracy for Thailand why would you oppose that?

As to reforms, I'm limited in what I can write. I'll just state that true reforms will have to apply to the top in all of the government, including the military, and will involve taking down some very important people. I don't see that, I just see window dressing that will amount to nothing.

Your timeline seems a bit bent, or just contains some loops. The beating Pheu Thai allegedly received was only obvious AFTER the Feb2 elections and consistently denied by a few posters here. Or explained as 'voters afraid of violence and intimidation', especially the ones in North and NorthEast it would seem.

Still Pheu Thai kept pushing for extended election period, new by elections, keeping the Emergency Decree, lambasting disliked court decisions, etc., etc. Oh and a few posters here kept agitating "voter respect' forgetting that Pheu Thai stpos that after the vote is counted.

As for reforms, of course you are limited in what you can write. Even in other countries the government keeps track of forums and what people write. Mind you, it is no problem to write that you hope for a reform which keeps independent watchdog organisations independent and out of the clutches of politicians and other unsavory figures. You can write you hope for reforms which explain democracy and what values it should encompass, what rights and duties, what self-entitlement can mean to people, that equal by law should mean in practise as well.

From behind my window just dressed with new curtains,

uncle rubl

I'm not sure what you are writing about in your first paragraph, I had written about the beating the PTP probably would have taken in a July election. Sadly we'll now never know, but indications were that they would have suffered.

Strangely enough, the PTP pushing for elections is taken by some posters as undemocratic. They're not clear on their logic, I think they define an election as undemocratic if a party they don't like has a chance of doing well.

I'm well aware that in other countries (China comes to mind) forums are monitored. Perhaps this forum was monitored before the coup, but people were allowed to criticize the government, and many did with great enthusiasm. That's no longer the case, and since I see freedom of speech as an essential component of true democracy, I see the censorship as a bad thing. Don't you?

[heybruce]

"Your 'real position' seems to be to be as negative as possible about NCPO and what they try to do, only restricted by forum and other rules."

We finally agree on something.

The "failed state" was the work of Suthep and others who just couldn't accept an elected government.

Terribly sorry and all that, dear Brucy, but it would seem we do not agree unless it's that Suthep showed the nature of the failed state and the Thaksin controlled Pheu Thai led Yingluck government.

Mind you, General Prayuth had enough of both sides (or maybe even all sides) after today of bickering. Now for the NRC/CDC with input from Thai (sorry, excludes both you and me) to help make coups a thing of the past by giving Thailand the right restart to become a real democracy.

I assume you are aware that the voters knew that Yingluck would be taking advice from her brother, if not taking direction from him, when they voted for her party. The voters wanted a PM who took advice/direction from a PM deposed by a coup, charged by a junta and convicted by a government installed by the junta. There were no laws against this and her party came in first in a monitored election. This brother-sister team was the voters choice and I'm not presuming to tell them I know better. Others are that presumptuous, obviously.

'the voters'? All of the 33.57% of the electorate who voted Pheu Thai you mean I guess.

This brother/sister team raping the country seems a good excuse to stage a coup, but the violence against all against seems another good reason. As I wrote before reforms and education seems a must for Thailand to become a real democracy.

Of course in your country of origin such brother/sister teams may be perfectly legal and a normal part of democracy as you see fit

33.57%, that puts their percentage at about the same as those who voted for the 2007 constitution (60% turnout, 58% for constitution = 34% in favor). Or course people had many choices for political parties, their only choice in the 2007 referendum was to approve the draft constitution or let the military implement any constitution they chose. Regardless, PTP was clearly the voters top choice.

"raping the country"--I agree they had some bad policies, but your hyperbole is ridiculous. As I stated before, the violence was on both sides; Suthep's people didn't politely ask people not to vote, did they? The brother-sister team was obviously unusual, but if it had been illegal I'm sure the Democrats would have filed charges against it.

As I wrote before, I don't consider the military qualified or interested in implementing the kind of reform that will lead to real democracy.

[rubl]

"That's why Thaksin/Yingluck/Pheu Thai really wanted a new election because they thought they could just continue with their voter based solidly controlled by all those who had profitted from 2-1/2 years Yingluck Administration and the carrot of 'blanket amnesty' still dangling in front of them."

Huh? As I've repeatedly said, indications are that the PTP would have taken a beating in the election, and might have lost their first place status. They alienated many in their red base with the amnesty attempt and pissed off a lot of voters in the northeast with the rice subsidy fiasco. A July election would have been the perfect means to weaken the Shinawatra influence democratically. It also would have allowed Thailand to mature as a democracy. If you truly want democracy for Thailand why would you oppose that?

As to reforms, I'm limited in what I can write. I'll just state that true reforms will have to apply to the top in all of the government, including the military, and will involve taking down some very important people. I don't see that, I just see window dressing that will amount to nothing.

Your timeline seems a bit bent, or just contains some loops. The beating Pheu Thai allegedly received was only obvious AFTER the Feb2 elections and consistently denied by a few posters here. Or explained as 'voters afraid of violence and intimidation', especially the ones in North and NorthEast it would seem.

Still Pheu Thai kept pushing for extended election period, new by elections, keeping the Emergency Decree, lambasting disliked court decisions, etc., etc. Oh and a few posters here kept agitating "voter respect' forgetting that Pheu Thai stpos that after the vote is counted.

As for reforms, of course you are limited in what you can write. Even in other countries the government keeps track of forums and what people write. Mind you, it is no problem to write that you hope for a reform which keeps independent watchdog organisations independent and out of the clutches of politicians and other unsavory figures. You can write you hope for reforms which explain democracy and what values it should encompass, what rights and duties, what self-entitlement can mean to people, that equal by law should mean in practise as well.

From behind my window just dressed with new curtains,

uncle rubl

I'm not sure what you are writing about in your first paragraph, I had written about the beating the PTP probably would have taken in a July election. Sadly we'll now never know, but indications were that they would have suffered.

Strangely enough, the PTP pushing for elections is taken by some posters as undemocratic. They're not clear on their logic, I think they define an election as undemocratic if a party they don't like has a chance of doing well.

I'm well aware that in other countries (China comes to mind) forums are monitored. Perhaps this forum was monitored before the coup, but people were allowed to criticize the government, and many did with great enthusiasm. That's no longer the case, and since I see freedom of speech as an essential component of true democracy, I see the censorship as a bad thing. Don't you?

You are too focussed on "let's have elections, that's democratic". You ignore the shenanigans around elections in Thailand. The vote buying (direct or indirect), the pressure on people to vote the 'right' party because the village boss says so, or his boss. The social structure with the families and bosses of old still ordering 'their' serfs around.

A determined selfish person with enough money can and does make use of the system in Thailand. To the point that as criminal fugitive he still controls his sister's government from abroad. Now defending that and democracy seems a bit hilarious.

As for monitoring and censorship, it would seem a trend. In the USA and the UK you better not write down some demented opinion and your too strong feelings about people because you can and will be prosecuted. Good or bad? As long as people do not automatically 'know' what is permissabel in a democratic society.

With Thailand being in a transition phase with the past year only seeing people accusing 'the others', with a nice lady talking about wiping out some 'others', it's clear that for a moment no critisism for critisisms sake is required. First reforms, input from all (Thai) for these reforms including critisism on the system we had before the coup.

If Thailand had a functioning democracy with a population educated and living in said democracy, the coup would not have been necessary. Unlike Italy Thailand could not get rid of it's 'Silvio' with the broken democratic system and part of the population still in a mindset we've last seen in Western Europe a century ago.

To continue about 'elections', 'winning' only means you wish the pain and anguish Europe had in growing up upon the Thai population. You seem to dislike Thai, don't you ?

Edited August 17, 2014 by rubl

[rubl]

33.57%, that puts their percentage at about the same as those who voted for the 2007 constitution (60% turnout, 58% for constitution = 34% in favor). Or course people had many choices for political parties, their only choice in the 2007 referendum was to approve the draft constitution or let the military implement any constitution they chose. Regardless, PTP was clearly the voters top choice.

"raping the country"--I agree they had some bad policies, but your hyperbole is ridiculous. As I stated before, the violence was on both sides; Suthep's people didn't politely ask people not to vote, did they? The brother-sister team was obviously unusual, but if it had been illegal I'm sure the Democrats would have filed charges against it.

As I wrote before, I don't consider the military qualified or interested in implementing the kind of reform that will lead to real democracy.

Bad policies aimed at getting a criminal fugitive who financed and otherwise supported a militant group to harass anti-(his sisters)-government protesters is a wee bit more than 'bad policies'. Even if you think it only unusual. The fact that not even the Democrat party requested for charges to be filed only shows pragmatism in a failed democratic system even they are part of.

As for your last sentence, well so what you have that opinion. Clearly neither the Democrat party nor the Thaksin led Pheu Thai party are qualified or really interested. Even the Democrat party still operates within the same system and moves too slowly because of it.

This is the last chance Thailand has, make it work. To deny this last chance through all old style politics simply means a Thailand lost for a few generations. You seem to have no problem with that.

Edited August 17, 2014 by rubl

[ginjag]

33.57%, that puts their percentage at about the same as those who voted for the 2007 constitution (60% turnout, 58% for constitution = 34% in favor). Or course people had many choices for political parties, their only choice in the 2007 referendum was to approve the draft constitution or let the military implement any constitution they chose. Regardless, PTP was clearly the voters top choice.

"raping the country"--I agree they had some bad policies, but your hyperbole is ridiculous. As I stated before, the violence was on both sides; Suthep's people didn't politely ask people not to vote, did they? The brother-sister team was obviously unusual, but if it had been illegal I'm sure the Democrats would have filed charges against it.

As I wrote before, I don't consider the military qualified or interested in implementing the kind of reform that will lead to real democracy.

Bad policies aimed at getting a criminal fugitive who financed and otherwise supported a militant group to harass anti-(his sisters)-government protesters is a wee bit more than 'bad policies'. Even if you think it only unusual. The fact that not even the Democrat party requested for charges to be filed only shows pragmatism in a failed democratic system even they are part of.

As for your last sentence, well so what you have that opinion. Clearly neither the Democrat party nor the Thaksin led Pheu Thai party are qualified or really interested. Even the Democrat party still operates within the same system and moves too slwly because of it.

This is the last chance Thailand has, make it work. To deny this last chance through all old style politics simply means a Thailand lost for a few generations. You seem to have no problem with that.

Not alone Rube, 1 amongst a splinter group, I asked them all if they condone the PTP government please give me a list of the mega achievements PTP made during their wasted 3 years of trying to bring back Thaksin. None of these so called agenda people have done this in 1 year of asking. Suppose it's too much to ask, OR embarrassing.

[Publicus]

Recommend a military dictatorship? Where did I do that?

Rube --it's a wind up, I went on a couple of threads to take the strain while you were busy and by god didn't I get them buzzing, you missed nothing, the same rhetoric. without you giving them fodder most would run out of customers.

Hope you typing fingers have rested and charged up for the next batch.

Oh dear. Your advanced years must be getting to your memory. Read some recent history, and let me know what kind of record the army has when in power here. Once you've done that, read some Plato and learn for yourself why a tyranny is more degraded system of government than a democracy.

You've been ridiculed by all and sundry in this thread for basing your arguments on mere falsehoods and refusing to answer pertinent questions that refute your position. You seem to slavishly follow one side, asking no questions of it, and accepting a censored version of the news as the truth, whereas a free press caused you to vilify the other side in the first place.

Now you are clutching at what appears to be your only friend here for support - someone who has openly renounced the free society that allowed him to survive a great tyranny perpetrated against his mother land not long before he was born. The defeat of this tyranny by those who value freedom allowed his parents to survive, and for him to be born, and to travel abroad and express this views here freely, albeit paradoxically in support of a political system that would have prevented him from being born in the first place.

The beauty of democracy is that it allows us to have conversations like this. Think how boring it will be when we are prohibited from doing so.

All of 33 years you say you've been here, and yet you think the army is clean? I don't believe you are who you say you are.

What a flaming saga, cut out the personal bits, my age is not your business.

Because of this my reply is short and sweet---- Past army rule I do not give a fig about.

Your agenda I do not give a fig about.

Your bad manners I give a fig about.

Your stupid comment about one and only friend for support JOKE. look how many support you and your rhetoric, and look how many are quite calm about how Thailand is at this minute. You have a strange % view of who is who.

in a few months we here on TVF are just being hit by pro Thaksin -anti army rhetoric, and it is spoiling the fun on this forum. You don't care you along with the few are relentless. Soon you will be on the forum alone with no one to argue with. So many are not here, the good ones that very rarely touched political topics are drifting away, an opinion is fine, but attacking people that are not being bothered by the army is crazy.

Do not bother any more, you can hog it with your agenda I'm out of here sick to hell with your clan.

I hold the view now that most persons in Thailand are comfortable with things now more than the last 3 years speaks volumes, if you think different you are a lost soul.

I think the military intends to preclude any further possible need of a coup, forever. I think the military means for this coup to be the last coup. The current military rulers and their "reform" councils are pursuing their unique and exclusive Thai ideology, which is the trilogy of Nation, Religion, King. A unique cultural ideology is nothing new in this region of the world, or anywhere for that matter.

http://www.nationreligionking.com/military/royalthaimarines/

The new Thai order that will emerge will present some kind of democracy, and almost any kind of democracy will appear to be legitimate as long as people can vote. This is what the OP writes about. While the OP says the purposeful result will, in the OP's opinion, be a glass that is half empty, I say in my own opinion the glass will be completely empty and here's why.

It's my opinion the current regime is in the process of producing a constitution that allows the easy first impression of a multi-party democracy, to include what will appear to be competitive elections. The elections will allow participation by one or more neutered but not puppet opposition parties. The reformers will then pronounce they have produced a Western style democracy and most casual observers will accept that pronouncement.

The new constitution will certainly not produce a totalitarian government nor will it produce an authoritarian one. It will not produce a one party state nor will it necessarily produce leaders from the military or the police, although having the latter appears to be inherent to Thai culture. All the same, the new constitution will appeal to enough of a broad and diverse electoral base (central and southern Thailand and some in the northern swath) to support claims it will be democratic.

I am certain the embryonic democracy being created would include the overarching fraternalism that the Thai trilogy commands. So the new constitution will produce a political and governing framework to implement the unique Thai social and cultural policy of solidarity and transcendentalism, a transcendental solidarity that goes beyond individual or temporary human concerns or interests, and which are beyond discussion.

In short, the new constitution will promote a new involuntary fraternity which is based on a constitution that will enforce an artificial social cohesion. It will have democratic features and characteristics but it will be democratic in name only. The new pseudo democracy will use camouflage rather than coups to present itself as legitimate.

[rubl]

I think the military intends to preclude any further possible need of a coup, forever. I think the military means for this coup to be the last coup. The current military rulers and their "reform" councils are pursuing their unique and exclusive Thai ideology, which is the trilogy of Nation, Religion, King. A unique cultural ideology is nothing new in this region of the world, or anywhere for that matter.

http://www.nationreligionking.com/military/royalthaimarines/

The new Thai order that will emerge will present some kind of democracy, and almost any kind of democracy will appear to be legitimate as long as people can vote. This is what the OP writes about. While the OP says the purposeful result will, in the OP's opinion, be a glass that is half empty, I say in my own opinion the glass will be completely empty and here's why.

It's my opinion the current regime is in the process of producing a constitution that allows the easy first impression of a multi-party democracy, to include what will appear to be competitive elections. The elections will allow participation by one or more neutered but not puppet opposition parties. The reformers will then pronounce they have produced a Western style democracy and most casual observers will accept that pronouncement.

The new constitution will certainly not produce a totalitarian government nor will it produce an authoritarian one. It will not produce a one party state nor will it necessarily produce leaders from the military or the police, although having the latter appears to be inherent to Thai culture. All the same, the new constitution will appeal to enough of a broad and diverse electoral base (central and southern Thailand and some in the northern swath) to support claims it will be democratic.

I am certain the embryonic democracy being created would include the overarching fraternalism that the Thai trilogy commands. So the new constitution will produce a political and governing framework to implement the unique Thai social and cultural policy of solidarity and transcendentalism, a transcendental solidarity that goes beyond individual or temporary human concerns or interests, and which are beyond discussion.

In short, the new constitution will promote a new involuntary fraternity which is based on a constitution that will enforce an artificial social cohesion. It will have democratic features and characteristics but it will be democratic in name only. The new pseudo democracy will use camouflage rather than coups to present itself as legitimate.

From 'I think' via 'in my opinion' to "will certainly", "I am certain", "will promote"

Your certainty seems based on what you think. Real solid foundation that.

Anyway let's hope sufficient Thai help the NRC / CDC to come to a reform and constitution both in line with 'wordwide acceptable' democracy implementation and with a certain Thai flavour. Seeing the various 'interesting' aspects of democracy in the Western World that shouldn't be a problem.

[Roadman]

33.57%, that puts their percentage at about the same as those who voted for the 2007 constitution (60% turnout, 58% for constitution = 34% in favor). Or course people had many choices for political parties, their only choice in the 2007 referendum was to approve the draft constitution or let the military implement any constitution they chose. Regardless, PTP was clearly the voters top choice.

"raping the country"--I agree they had some bad policies, but your hyperbole is ridiculous. As I stated before, the violence was on both sides; Suthep's people didn't politely ask people not to vote, did they? The brother-sister team was obviously unusual, but if it had been illegal I'm sure the Democrats would have filed charges against it.

As I wrote before, I don't consider the military qualified or interested in implementing the kind of reform that will lead to real democracy.

Bad policies aimed at getting a criminal fugitive who financed and otherwise supported a militant group to harass anti-(his sisters)-government protesters is a wee bit more than 'bad policies'. Even if you think it only unusual. The fact that not even the Democrat party requested for charges to be filed only shows pragmatism in a failed democratic system even they are part of.

As for your last sentence, well so what you have that opinion. Clearly neither the Democrat party nor the Thaksin led Pheu Thai party are qualified or really interested. Even the Democrat party still operates within the same system and moves too slowly because of it.

This is the last chance Thailand has, make it work. To deny this last chance through all old style politics simply means a Thailand lost for a few generations. You seem to have no problem with that.

Military are not interested in reforming towards democracy? Beats me why you keep debating with "the history is static" and "democracy is elections only" pessimists Rubi. The Military is well on the way down their strong interest path in reforming Thailand Roadmap and the pessimists still bleat on. The Junta's half fill glass of optimism is more appealing any day and is looking sweeter by the day.

[fab4]

33.57%, that puts their percentage at about the same as those who voted for the 2007 constitution (60% turnout, 58% for constitution = 34% in favor). Or course people had many choices for political parties, their only choice in the 2007 referendum was to approve the draft constitution or let the military implement any constitution they chose. Regardless, PTP was clearly the voters top choice.

"raping the country"--I agree they had some bad policies, but your hyperbole is ridiculous. As I stated before, the violence was on both sides; Suthep's people didn't politely ask people not to vote, did they? The brother-sister team was obviously unusual, but if it had been illegal I'm sure the Democrats would have filed charges against it.

As I wrote before, I don't consider the military qualified or interested in implementing the kind of reform that will lead to real democracy.

Bad policies aimed at getting a criminal fugitive who financed and otherwise supported a militant group to harass anti-(his sisters)-government protesters is a wee bit more than 'bad policies'. Even if you think it only unusual. The fact that not even the Democrat party requested for charges to be filed only shows pragmatism in a failed democratic system even they are part of.

As for your last sentence, well so what you have that opinion. Clearly neither the Democrat party nor the Thaksin led Pheu Thai party are qualified or really interested. Even the Democrat party still operates within the same system and moves too slowly because of it.

This is the last chance Thailand has, make it work. To deny this last chance through all old style politics simply means a Thailand lost for a few generations. You seem to have no problem with that.

Military are not interested in reforming towards democracy? Beats me why you keep debating with "the history is static" and "democracy is elections only" pessimists Rubi. The Military is well on the way down their strong interest path in reforming Thailand Roadmap and the pessimists still bleat on. The Junta's half fill glass of optimism is more appealing any day and is looking sweeter by the day.

Suggest you look at today's Bangkok Post lead story and think about whether you really want to drink from that allegedly half full glass, not that you,or anybody else, has a choice.

Edited August 17, 2014 by fab4