What makes 'Thai-style democracy' globally palatable?

[rubl]

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.

On the other hand the half-empty glass has Thaksin magnanimously ordering his Pheu Thai party and the UDD leaders around. Like self-appointed elite in a royal mood orders forgive and forget. Democratically of course.

BTW BP lead story, at least on their website, has "voices from the ruins", but that's about the collapsed building, not about the NCPO trying to rebuild the country on more solid foundations.

Edited August 17, 2014 by rubl

[heybruce]

"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 ?

"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."

They were monitored and deemed legitimate. No elections are perfect, but these reflected the will of the people. Suggesting otherwise without evidence of fraud on a scale that would change the election results is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

"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."

BS. Unless you commit real libel (not the broadly defined "don't offend me" libel of Thailand), are conspiring in an illegal act, or presenting some kind of imminent threat you can write whatever you want in the USA, UK, and other nations in the free world. You are legally allowed to criticize the government, unlike in Thailand under junta control.

"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."

How do you determine the difference between criticism for criticism's sake and criticism based on democratic beliefs? No government likes criticism, authoritarian governments ban criticism with laws and guns. And yes, it's very obvious that people are allowed to criticize the government the military toppled, just as people were allowed to criticize that government when it was in power.

"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."

More BS. If Thailand had had any kind of government that defended established interests the coup would not have happened. For obvious reasons I can't be more specific. Much like Italy and Silvio Berlusconi, Thailand had the option of voting the PTP out of office and showed signs of being ready to do so.

"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 ?"

What specific pain and anguish that Europe suffered during it's long history do you think Thailand was going to suffer? At what time in Europe's history has internal military rule, as opposed to the external military occupation that followed World War II, promoted a better democracy?

[heybruce]

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.

"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'"

If you have evidence of this you should present it right away.

"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."

The Democrats were clogging the courts with charges under any pretext they could think of. They didn't file charges against Yingluck following her brother's advice because it wasn't illegal, and as I stated earlier, it is what the Thai people expected and a great many voted for.

"As for your last sentence, well so what you have that opinion."

It's a statement supported by history.

"This is the last chance Thailand has, make it work."

Thailand's last chance is a military government that, unlike all past military governments, will actually promote democracy? That's your opinion, and one not supported by history.

[heybruce]

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.

Ah, "the history is static" guy. Is that your way of saying that while good things have never come from military rule before, this time it will be different?

"The Military is well on the way down their strong interest path in reforming Thailand Roadmap..."

I do agree with that, I just don't think the "reform" the military is interested will be good for Thailand.

[Thai at Heart]

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 countrys 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

GDP in Bangkok is skewed even further by so much up country business having to be done in bangkok. Every major upcountry company maintains an office in bangkok for invoicing and taxes because it keeps it easy to deal with the authorities.

[Thai at Heart]

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.

The mere process of voting establishes the basis for change. Just look how Thailand started to move to policy based manifestos instead of charismatic leadership of old.

It certainly caught the democrats out, who largely had no policies or were simply tweaking PTP policies.

Once that is established, the problem starts that essentially the army and the establishment want to have the right of veto over any policy. For all of you who believe that the rice policy has bankrupted the country, relax, it has done nothing of the sort.

In comparison with disastrous political policies, the rice mess doesn't even figure in the top 20 on a value or damage basis. And yet the media had everyone believe that the sky was falling.

The big change will come when the people are able to listen to the candidates and analyse what they say. That will take about another 100 years because that doesn't even go on in the west. I mean honestly, the worlds biggest economy has been cutting taxes for business and the rich for the last 30 years and the wonder why they have an enormous defifict.

So expect the cycles of coup and election to continue.

[fab4]

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.

On the other hand the half-empty glass has Thaksin magnanimously ordering his Pheu Thai party and the UDD leaders around. Like self-appointed elite in a royal mood orders forgive and forget. Democratically of course.

BTW BP lead story, at least on their website, has "voices from the ruins", but that's about the collapsed building, not about the NCPO trying to rebuild the country on more solid foundations.

Well if you really want to act dumb and pretend I meant a story on the collapsed building was at all relevant to the antics of the junta, carry on. In light of your painful pedantry I will point out that I meant the other article on the front page.

[mikemac]

Someone forgot to take their nasty pills again I see !

[AnotherOneAmerican]

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.

You could say the same in any country in the world.

I can't think of one good thing Bush or Obama have done for the USA, and I voted for both of them.

Is it different in your country?

[rubl]

Just read an article in the NYTimes. reminds me of a few posters and their activity here.

"Web Trolls Winning as Incivility Increases

The Internet may be losing the war against trolls. At the very least, it isn’t winning. And unless social networks, media sites and governments come up with some innovative way of defeating online troublemakers, the digital world will never be free of the trolls’ collective sway."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/15/technology/web-trolls-winning-as-incivility-increases.html?_r=0

Even a Dutch uncle gets tired about this sometimes, but don't worry, 'over my dead body'.

Back after dinner,

uncle rubl

Edited August 17, 2014 by rubl

[tbthailand]

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.

the interim constitution and the process for the future constitution having only pro-junta involvement and approval supports your conclusion.

"in name only" is probably the best case scenario if it continues on the current path.

[ginjag]

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.

You could say the same in any country in the world.

I can't think of one good thing Bush or Obama have done for the USA, and I voted for both of them.

Is it different in your country?

Your answer mate has nothing to do with my post---Thailand PTP government ---you see---not USA--OR UK. you care to answer about the achievements of PTP in the 3 years of rule--That's all my post said.

[brucec64]

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.

The mere process of voting establishes the basis for change. Just look how Thailand started to move to policy based manifestos instead of charismatic leadership of old.

It certainly caught the democrats out, who largely had no policies or were simply tweaking PTP policies.

Once that is established, the problem starts that essentially the army and the establishment want to have the right of veto over any policy. For all of you who believe that the rice policy has bankrupted the country, relax, it has done nothing of the sort.

In comparison with disastrous political policies, the rice mess doesn't even figure in the top 20 on a value or damage basis. And yet the media had everyone believe that the sky was falling.

The big change will come when the people are able to listen to the candidates and analyse what they say. That will take about another 100 years because that doesn't even go on in the west. I mean honestly, the worlds biggest economy has been cutting taxes for business and the rich for the last 30 years and the wonder why they have an enormous defifict.

So expect the cycles of coup and election to continue.

I agree with the statement about the rice subsidy being blown out of proportion. It accounted for about only 7 percent of total government spending on a yearly basis and did not even come close to bankrupting the country. The energy subsidy, which has been around long before thaksin, accounts for at least what the rice subsidy costs, but is never an issue because it has been shown to benefit the rich much more than the poor.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/The-long-term-effects-of-energy-subsidies-lessons--30196787.html

[rubl]

"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."

They were monitored and deemed legitimate. No elections are perfect, but these reflected the will of the people. Suggesting otherwise without evidence of fraud on a scale that would change the election results is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

"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."

BS. Unless you commit real libel (not the broadly defined "don't offend me" libel of Thailand), are conspiring in an illegal act, or presenting some kind of imminent threat you can write whatever you want in the USA, UK, and other nations in the free world. You are legally allowed to criticize the government, unlike in Thailand under junta control.

"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."

How do you determine the difference between criticism for criticism's sake and criticism based on democratic beliefs? No government likes criticism, authoritarian governments ban criticism with laws and guns. And yes, it's very obvious that people are allowed to criticize the government the military toppled, just as people were allowed to criticize that government when it was in power.

"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."

More BS. If Thailand had had any kind of government that defended established interests the coup would not have happened. For obvious reasons I can't be more specific. Much like Italy and Silvio Berlusconi, Thailand had the option of voting the PTP out of office and showed signs of being ready to do so.

"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 ?"

What specific pain and anguish that Europe suffered during it's long history do you think Thailand was going to suffer? At what time in Europe's history has internal military rule, as opposed to the external military occupation that followed World War II, promoted a better democracy?

Elections monitored and deemed legitimate. Well, that's OK then. Mind you, do you have anything tangible to prove that that conclusion was correct? Any indication that voters were being 'socially' forced to vote what they were told to, is just as 'deemed' true.

As for internet surveillance, well no BS, ask Snowdon.

The Yingluck government was really into banning critisism, democratically of course.

Again the reference 'I can't be more specific'. Well that was the same under the Yingluck government. Thailand didn't have a chance to vote out the Thaksin clan. Too much old-fashioned patronage systems left from the past and taken over by thaksin for his own advantage.

As for Europe, we could have peace in our time according to some politician. If only the military and generals had co-operated. Each with their own politicians that is.

Anyway, you only give more and more arguments why Thailand didn't have a democracy and why we need a break from it all. Is it optimal to have the military try it? No, but leaving it to either politicians or the Thai voters within that same broken mold wouldn't get anything done either, or maybe even worse. Politicians sidestepped, good. Corruption tackled, good. Start to work on reforms, good.

[rubl]

"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'"

If you have evidence of this you should present it right away.

"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."

The Democrats were clogging the courts with charges under any pretext they could think of. They didn't file charges against Yingluck following her brother's advice because it wasn't illegal, and as I stated earlier, it is what the Thai people expected and a great many voted for.

"As for your last sentence, well so what you have that opinion."

It's a statement supported by history.

"This is the last chance Thailand has, make it work."

Thailand's last chance is a military government that, unlike all past military governments, will actually promote democracy? That's your opinion, and one not supported by history.

1. financing militants to harass anti-government protesters

--> see the other topic on this.

2. Democrats clogging up courts

--> see topic on Thaksin ordering his Pheu Thai and UDD to drop all charges filed.

--> Yingluck didn't follow her brothers advise. In parliament to stated that she was the boss and made the decisions.

--> 'the Thai people' ?

3. opinion

--> supprted by history? Go buy a bigger hat.

4. last chance

knowledge of history helps, but shouldn't lead to condemning all that doesn't fit.

Written from an HP EliteBook 840 which defies history

[rubl]

On the other hand the half-empty glass has Thaksin magnanimously ordering his Pheu Thai party and the UDD leaders around. Like self-appointed elite in a royal mood orders forgive and forget. Democratically of course.

BTW BP lead story, at least on their website, has "voices from the ruins", but that's about the collapsed building, not about the NCPO trying to rebuild the country on more solid foundations.

Well if you really want to act dumb and pretend I meant a story on the collapsed building was at all relevant to the antics of the junta, carry on. In light of your painful pedantry I will point out that I meant the other article on the front page.

The 'other' article on 'Gen. Prayuth explaining things to foreign investors' you mean ? Nothing funny about that either.

So, if you mean yet another article than at least have the manners to describe the article in such a way we know which one you mean.

BTW antics of the junta?

[tbthailand]

"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."

They were monitored and deemed legitimate. No elections are perfect, but these reflected the will of the people. Suggesting otherwise without evidence of fraud on a scale that would change the election results is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

"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."

BS. Unless you commit real libel (not the broadly defined "don't offend me" libel of Thailand), are conspiring in an illegal act, or presenting some kind of imminent threat you can write whatever you want in the USA, UK, and other nations in the free world. You are legally allowed to criticize the government, unlike in Thailand under junta control.

"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."

How do you determine the difference between criticism for criticism's sake and criticism based on democratic beliefs? No government likes criticism, authoritarian governments ban criticism with laws and guns. And yes, it's very obvious that people are allowed to criticize the government the military toppled, just as people were allowed to criticize that government when it was in power.

"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."

More BS. If Thailand had had any kind of government that defended established interests the coup would not have happened. For obvious reasons I can't be more specific. Much like Italy and Silvio Berlusconi, Thailand had the option of voting the PTP out of office and showed signs of being ready to do so.

"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 ?"

What specific pain and anguish that Europe suffered during it's long history do you think Thailand was going to suffer? At what time in Europe's history has internal military rule, as opposed to the external military occupation that followed World War II, promoted a better democracy?

Elections monitored and deemed legitimate. Well, that's OK then. Mind you, do you have anything tangible to prove that that conclusion was correct? Any indication that voters were being 'socially' forced to vote what they were told to, is just as 'deemed' true.

As for internet surveillance, well no BS, ask Snowdon.

The Yingluck government was really into banning critisism, democratically of course.

Again the reference 'I can't be more specific'. Well that was the same under the Yingluck government. Thailand didn't have a chance to vote out the Thaksin clan. Too much old-fashioned patronage systems left from the past and taken over by thaksin for his own advantage.

As for Europe, we could have peace in our time according to some politician. If only the military and generals had co-operated. Each with their own politicians that is.

Anyway, you only give more and more arguments why Thailand didn't have a democracy and why we need a break from it all. Is it optimal to have the military try it? No, but leaving it to either politicians or the Thai voters within that same broken mold wouldn't get anything done either, or maybe even worse. Politicians sidestepped, good. Corruption tackled, good. Start to work on reforms, good.

You're from the prdc, aren't you?

I think that it is really demeaning to the Thai people the way you run them down as voters with your 'they need to be educated' before Thailand can have a democracy nonsense.

I think your rant about the "broken system" is disingenuous at best given that the "broken system" was given to us by the last set of generals, and that this "broken system" was used effectively by the anti-democrats in preparing the excuses for the military coup.

There were problems with the 2007 constitution, but they follow from the fact that the military wrote it in order to rig the system so that they could later pull the strings... which they did rather well during several governments after the Thai people went back to the polls and voted in the people the anti-democrats can't stand. The 2007 constitution was a step back from democracy, not towards it. The next is likely to be a great leap backwards. One wonders when the Thai people will be allowed to really have a voice in their own governance again.

PS, the 2011 elections were not only fair, but monitored too. It has been written that Newin also tried on behalf of the democrat coalition, to buy votes in his old back yard and failed would indicate that voters voted according to their own will and not according to someone's attempted vote-buying.

Edited August 17, 2014 by tbthailand

[rubl]

"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."

They were monitored and deemed legitimate. No elections are perfect, but these reflected the will of the people. Suggesting otherwise without evidence of fraud on a scale that would change the election results is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

"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."

BS. Unless you commit real libel (not the broadly defined "don't offend me" libel of Thailand), are conspiring in an illegal act, or presenting some kind of imminent threat you can write whatever you want in the USA, UK, and other nations in the free world. You are legally allowed to criticize the government, unlike in Thailand under junta control.

"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."

How do you determine the difference between criticism for criticism's sake and criticism based on democratic beliefs? No government likes criticism, authoritarian governments ban criticism with laws and guns. And yes, it's very obvious that people are allowed to criticize the government the military toppled, just as people were allowed to criticize that government when it was in power.

"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."

More BS. If Thailand had had any kind of government that defended established interests the coup would not have happened. For obvious reasons I can't be more specific. Much like Italy and Silvio Berlusconi, Thailand had the option of voting the PTP out of office and showed signs of being ready to do so.

"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 ?"

What specific pain and anguish that Europe suffered during it's long history do you think Thailand was going to suffer? At what time in Europe's history has internal military rule, as opposed to the external military occupation that followed World War II, promoted a better democracy?

Elections monitored and deemed legitimate. Well, that's OK then. Mind you, do you have anything tangible to prove that that conclusion was correct? Any indication that voters were being 'socially' forced to vote what they were told to, is just as 'deemed' true.

As for internet surveillance, well no BS, ask Snowdon.

The Yingluck government was really into banning critisism, democratically of course.

Again the reference 'I can't be more specific'. Well that was the same under the Yingluck government. Thailand didn't have a chance to vote out the Thaksin clan. Too much old-fashioned patronage systems left from the past and taken over by thaksin for his own advantage.

As for Europe, we could have peace in our time according to some politician. If only the military and generals had co-operated. Each with their own politicians that is.

Anyway, you only give more and more arguments why Thailand didn't have a democracy and why we need a break from it all. Is it optimal to have the military try it? No, but leaving it to either politicians or the Thai voters within that same broken mold wouldn't get anything done either, or maybe even worse. Politicians sidestepped, good. Corruption tackled, good. Start to work on reforms, good.

You're from the prdc, aren't you?

I think that it is really demeaning to the Thai people the way you run them down as voters with your 'they need to be educated' before Thailand can have a democracy nonsense.

I think your rant about the "broken system" is disingenuous at best given that the "broken system" was given to us by the last set of generals, and that this "broken system" was used effectively by the anti-democrats in preparing the excuses for the military coup.

There were problems with the 2007 constitution, but they follow from the fact that the military wrote it in order to rig the system so that they could later pull the strings... which they did rather well during several governments after the Thai people went back to the polls and voted in the people the anti-democrats can't stand. The 2007 constitution was a step back from democracy, not towards it. The next is likely to be a great leap backwards. One wonders when the Thai people will be allowed to really have a voice in their own governance again.

Of course I'm not from the PDRC. As legal alien I stay away from political parties and pressure groups whether they have red, yellow or pink colour shirts.

The broken system is confirmed again with Thaksin having ordered his Pheu Thai party and his UDD to drop cases filed against all others.

The problem with the 2007 constitution was mostly the more independent watchdog organisations. Someone didn't like that. Only the amnesty for the coup leaders was a bit of a black blob although understandable. Trying to help the country move forward one doesn't want the hassle of being legally condemned because of that.

One wonders when the Thai population will be allowed to voice their own governance rather than that of politicians and their non-elected criminal fugitive.

[Johpa]

One wonders when the Thai population will be allowed to voice their own governance rather than that of politicians and their non-elected criminal fugitive.

This is a period of uncertainty and the voices of the general Thai population will be muffled until the music stops and the various players make their end games for all the seats at the table. Someone will get the biggest seat, some will get to sit on smaller seats, and some will not get a seat. One player was pushing way too hard to maintain a favorable tactical position for the big seat and was collectively removed from play by the other players. This is just the way the game of musical chairs is played and the current players, I mean this is serious stuff here, don't want any interference from the onlookers.

[heybruce]

"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."

They were monitored and deemed legitimate. No elections are perfect, but these reflected the will of the people. Suggesting otherwise without evidence of fraud on a scale that would change the election results is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

"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."

BS. Unless you commit real libel (not the broadly defined "don't offend me" libel of Thailand), are conspiring in an illegal act, or presenting some kind of imminent threat you can write whatever you want in the USA, UK, and other nations in the free world. You are legally allowed to criticize the government, unlike in Thailand under junta control.

"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."

How do you determine the difference between criticism for criticism's sake and criticism based on democratic beliefs? No government likes criticism, authoritarian governments ban criticism with laws and guns. And yes, it's very obvious that people are allowed to criticize the government the military toppled, just as people were allowed to criticize that government when it was in power.

"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."

More BS. If Thailand had had any kind of government that defended established interests the coup would not have happened. For obvious reasons I can't be more specific. Much like Italy and Silvio Berlusconi, Thailand had the option of voting the PTP out of office and showed signs of being ready to do so.

"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 ?"

What specific pain and anguish that Europe suffered during it's long history do you think Thailand was going to suffer? At what time in Europe's history has internal military rule, as opposed to the external military occupation that followed World War II, promoted a better democracy?

Elections monitored and deemed legitimate. Well, that's OK then. Mind you, do you have anything tangible to prove that that conclusion was correct? Any indication that voters were being 'socially' forced to vote what they were told to, is just as 'deemed' true.

As for internet surveillance, well no BS, ask Snowdon.

The Yingluck government was really into banning critisism, democratically of course.

Again the reference 'I can't be more specific'. Well that was the same under the Yingluck government. Thailand didn't have a chance to vote out the Thaksin clan. Too much old-fashioned patronage systems left from the past and taken over by thaksin for his own advantage.

As for Europe, we could have peace in our time according to some politician. If only the military and generals had co-operated. Each with their own politicians that is.

Anyway, you only give more and more arguments why Thailand didn't have a democracy and why we need a break from it all. Is it optimal to have the military try it? No, but leaving it to either politicians or the Thai voters within that same broken mold wouldn't get anything done either, or maybe even worse. Politicians sidestepped, good. Corruption tackled, good. Start to work on reforms, good.

"Elections monitored and deemed legitimate. Well, that's OK then. Mind you, do you have anything tangible to prove that that conclusion was correct? Any indication that voters were being 'socially' forced to vote what they were told to, is just as 'deemed' true."

The accepted rule for someone saying a crime has been committed is to provide evidence, but your claim is so often repeated I'll make an exception. From http://www.voanews.com/content/asian-observer-group-commends-thai-election-cites-minor-flaws--125003034/141777.html:

"ANFREL issued a statement Tuesday noting there were some flaws in the election, including cases of violence, intimidation and vote-buying that it urged authorities to handle appropriately. But it said there were no major incidents that would call into question the results."

If you really want to dig into the details you can peruse this; http://anfrel.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ThaiEOMReport_Edit_4-final_edit.pdf

Now can you provide evidence the elections were stolen?

"As for internet surveillance, well no BS, ask Snowdon."

I didn't say internet surveillance didn't happen, I stated that in free societies people are allowed to criticize their government. The fact that you are dodging my clear statement says a lot.

By the way, please continue with your defense of censorship and your attempts to divert attention from that topic. It not only displays your true colors, it is amusing to people who believe in democracy and human rights.

"The Yingluck government was really into banning critisism, democratically of course."

I'm at a loss here, perhaps you can provide examples.

"Again the reference 'I can't be more specific'. Well that was the same under the Yingluck government. Thailand didn't have a chance to vote out the Thaksin clan. Too much old-fashioned patronage systems left from the past and taken over by thaksin for his own advantage."

Huh? The Thai people were given many opportunities to vote against Thaksin related parties, and declined to do so. At least your admission that the patronage system predates Thaksin shows that he worked with the established system. That doesn't speak well of him, but I haven't been putting him on a pedestal (unlike some Prayuth groupies). As to the "I can't be more specific", that clearly alludes to the restrictions of censorship that limits my posts, which you seem to accept.

"As for Europe, we could have peace in our time according to some politician. If only the military and generals had co-operated. Each with their own politicians that is."

I asked for specifics and you become increasingly more vague. Why is that?

Regarding your last paragraph, it's too ridiculous to dissect. Thailand had an imperfect democracy with loose limits on freedom of speech, press, and association, now it has a military government with strict limits on all of these things. You claim this will lead to a better democracy. I don't see how you arrived at that conclusion.

Edited August 17, 2014 by heybruce

[heybruce]

"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'"

If you have evidence of this you should present it right away.

"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."

The Democrats were clogging the courts with charges under any pretext they could think of. They didn't file charges against Yingluck following her brother's advice because it wasn't illegal, and as I stated earlier, it is what the Thai people expected and a great many voted for.

"As for your last sentence, well so what you have that opinion."

It's a statement supported by history.

"This is the last chance Thailand has, make it work."

Thailand's last chance is a military government that, unlike all past military governments, will actually promote democracy? That's your opinion, and one not supported by history.

1. financing militants to harass anti-government protesters

--> see the other topic on this.

2. Democrats clogging up courts

--> see topic on Thaksin ordering his Pheu Thai and UDD to drop all charges filed.

--> Yingluck didn't follow her brothers advise. In parliament to stated that she was the boss and made the decisions.

--> 'the Thai people' ?

3. opinion

--> supprted by history? Go buy a bigger hat.

4. last chance

knowledge of history helps, but shouldn't lead to condemning all that doesn't fit.

Written from an HP EliteBook 840 which defies history

1. I'm not going to look for sources that you claim exist. You made the accusation, now support it.

2. Same as 1., provide your evidence.

3. I think the claim that military rule doesn't make things better is supported by history. Before I start giving a long list of historical examples, perhaps you can provide an example that doesn't support the claim.

4. What doesn't fit? What is significantly different from this military coup and junta, with its martial law, censorship, limits on public gatherings, limits of freedom of speech, etc. than the past ones, other than the fact that it hasn't ended badly yet?

[MAJIC]

"Thai style democracy".

There is no such thing as Thai style Democracy,a Country either has Democracy or it doesn't

In my view a Country that allows Corruption and vote buying,as the norm to win Elections: is not a Democracy!

Edited August 17, 2014 by MAJIC

[Leung Falang]

Full Definition of DEMOCRACY

1

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

[rubl]

"Elections monitored and deemed legitimate. Well, that's OK then. Mind you, do you have anything tangible to prove that that conclusion was correct? Any indication that voters were being 'socially' forced to vote what they were told to, is just as 'deemed' true."

The accepted rule for someone saying a crime has been committed is to provide evidence, but your claim is so often repeated I'll make an exception. From http://www.voanews.com/content/asian-observer-group-commends-thai-election-cites-minor-flaws--125003034/141777.html:

"ANFREL issued a statement Tuesday noting there were some flaws in the election, including cases of violence, intimidation and vote-buying that it urged authorities to handle appropriately. But it said there were no major incidents that would call into question the results."

If you really want to dig into the details you can peruse this; http://anfrel.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ThaiEOMReport_Edit_4-final_edit.pdf

Now can you provide evidence the elections were stolen?

"As for internet surveillance, well no BS, ask Snowdon."

I didn't say internet surveillance didn't happen, I stated that in free societies people are allowed to criticize their government. The fact that you are dodging my clear statement says a lot.

By the way, please continue with your defense of censorship and your attempts to divert attention from that topic. It not only displays your true colors, it is amusing to people who believe in democracy and human rights.

"The Yingluck government was really into banning critisism, democratically of course."

I'm at a loss here, perhaps you can provide examples.

"Again the reference 'I can't be more specific'. Well that was the same under the Yingluck government. Thailand didn't have a chance to vote out the Thaksin clan. Too much old-fashioned patronage systems left from the past and taken over by thaksin for his own advantage."

Huh? The Thai people were given many opportunities to vote against Thaksin related parties, and declined to do so. At least your admission that the patronage system predates Thaksin shows that he worked with the established system. That doesn't speak well of him, but I haven't been putting him on a pedestal (unlike some Prayuth groupies). As to the "I can't be more specific", that clearly alludes to the restrictions of censorship that limits my posts, which you seem to accept.

"As for Europe, we could have peace in our time according to some politician. If only the military and generals had co-operated. Each with their own politicians that is."

I asked for specifics and you become increasingly more vague. Why is that?

Regarding your last paragraph, it's too ridiculous to dissect. Thailand had an imperfect democracy with loose limits on freedom of speech, press, and association, now it has a military government with strict limits on all of these things. You claim this will lead to a better democracy. I don't see how you arrived at that conclusion.

Elections monitored and deemed legitimate. With a criminal fugitive ordering his Pheu Thai party, his PM and his cabinet around. Perfectly normal, all democratic countries do the same. As for stolen elections, well that's what Pheu Thai and UDD frequently say, not me.

As for internet surveillance, less and less are people allowed to 'freely' critisise as governments are starting to enforce ' fairness', 'truthfulness' and so in what people write.

Now as for putting Thaksin on a pedestral, well you seem to have no problem with this criminal fugitive ordering his sister's cabinet around. Must be the special Thai version of democracy you like so much. The Thai population has no problem with it either, so the topic here seems all in favour of a 'Thai style democracy'. Doesn't mean all agree about the type of special though.

As for the rest, ridiculous indeed. Imagine someone defending a democracy in which it's normal that the PM listens to her brother and lies about herself being in charge.

BTW a big thanks to Thaksin. He can always be counted on to counter a few posters here.

[rubl]

Full Definition of DEMOCRACY

1

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

I always wondered how some could fit the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea into this definition, but I have the same question about Thailand.

Free elections sounds nice. Being able to vote for a political party which is controlled by a criminal fugitive seems a bit overdone though. Furthermore if the situation is perfectly legal and posters here have no problem with that it only means they seem to have a funny idea about what democracy is.

Maybe their messages are no longer tolerated in Western Europe and they are searching for other countries were they can still agitate with impunity.

In the Netherlands the government is implementing guidelines on how the government workers may use social media, companies start to have internal policies and a few chaps have been sacked already for 'too strong language'.

[heybruce]

"Elections monitored and deemed legitimate. Well, that's OK then. Mind you, do you have anything tangible to prove that that conclusion was correct? Any indication that voters were being 'socially' forced to vote what they were told to, is just as 'deemed' true."

The accepted rule for someone saying a crime has been committed is to provide evidence, but your claim is so often repeated I'll make an exception. From http://www.voanews.com/content/asian-observer-group-commends-thai-election-cites-minor-flaws--125003034/141777.html:

"ANFREL issued a statement Tuesday noting there were some flaws in the election, including cases of violence, intimidation and vote-buying that it urged authorities to handle appropriately. But it said there were no major incidents that would call into question the results."

If you really want to dig into the details you can peruse this; http://anfrel.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ThaiEOMReport_Edit_4-final_edit.pdf

Now can you provide evidence the elections were stolen?

"As for internet surveillance, well no BS, ask Snowdon."

I didn't say internet surveillance didn't happen, I stated that in free societies people are allowed to criticize their government. The fact that you are dodging my clear statement says a lot.

By the way, please continue with your defense of censorship and your attempts to divert attention from that topic. It not only displays your true colors, it is amusing to people who believe in democracy and human rights.

"The Yingluck government was really into banning critisism, democratically of course."

I'm at a loss here, perhaps you can provide examples.

"Again the reference 'I can't be more specific'. Well that was the same under the Yingluck government. Thailand didn't have a chance to vote out the Thaksin clan. Too much old-fashioned patronage systems left from the past and taken over by thaksin for his own advantage."

Huh? The Thai people were given many opportunities to vote against Thaksin related parties, and declined to do so. At least your admission that the patronage system predates Thaksin shows that he worked with the established system. That doesn't speak well of him, but I haven't been putting him on a pedestal (unlike some Prayuth groupies). As to the "I can't be more specific", that clearly alludes to the restrictions of censorship that limits my posts, which you seem to accept.

"As for Europe, we could have peace in our time according to some politician. If only the military and generals had co-operated. Each with their own politicians that is."

I asked for specifics and you become increasingly more vague. Why is that?

Regarding your last paragraph, it's too ridiculous to dissect. Thailand had an imperfect democracy with loose limits on freedom of speech, press, and association, now it has a military government with strict limits on all of these things. You claim this will lead to a better democracy. I don't see how you arrived at that conclusion.

Elections monitored and deemed legitimate. With a criminal fugitive ordering his Pheu Thai party, his PM and his cabinet around. Perfectly normal, all democratic countries do the same. As for stolen elections, well that's what Pheu Thai and UDD frequently say, not me.

As for internet surveillance, less and less are people allowed to 'freely' critisise as governments are starting to enforce ' fairness', 'truthfulness' and so in what people write.

Now as for putting Thaksin on a pedestral, well you seem to have no problem with this criminal fugitive ordering his sister's cabinet around. Must be the special Thai version of democracy you like so much. The Thai population has no problem with it either, so the topic here seems all in favour of a 'Thai style democracy'. Doesn't mean all agree about the type of special though.

As for the rest, ridiculous indeed. Imagine someone defending a democracy in which it's normal that the PM listens to her brother and lies about herself being in charge.

BTW a big thanks to Thaksin. He can always be counted on to counter a few posters here.

First paragraph: Once again, the Thai people knew what they were voting for.

Second paragraph: You're doing your best to equate internet surveillance to censorship, and it's not working. People are not fee to criticize the government in Thailand, they are free to do so in real democracies.

Third paragraph: Same as the first, it's what the people voted for.

Fourth paragraph: Imagine someone defending a military coup, unelected government, censorship, bans of political gatherings, bans on criticizing the government, and bans on calling for elections, all in the name of 'real democracy'. Truly ridiculous.

Fifth paragraph,stop hiding behind your inflated bogeyman.

[rubl]

First paragraph: Once again, the Thai people knew what they were voting for.

Second paragraph: You're doing your best to equate internet surveillance to censorship, and it's not working. People are not fee to criticize the government in Thailand, they are free to do so in real democracies.

Third paragraph: Same as the first, it's what the people voted for.

Fourth paragraph: Imagine someone defending a military coup, unelected government, censorship, bans of political gatherings, bans on criticizing the government, and bans on calling for elections, all in the name of 'real democracy'. Truly ridiculous.

Fifth paragraph,stop hiding behind your inflated bogeyman.

I'm still surprised you are able to defend a 'Thai democracy' which allows a criminal fugitive to get his party and his sister registtered in a general election, have a larger part of the electorate vote for him and have foreign supporters who see nothing wrong with the situation.

Any reform is to be ridiculed, the army to be put in as bad light as possible. All about democracy. Well, my foot.

Stop hiding behind the concept of democracy as if it applied to Thailand. Stop insinuating the Thai population must be crazy because they legally could and did vote for a criminal fugitive abroad. Only education is missing, once Thai voters know about self-entitlement and self-reliance, know how to be independent of big bosses, only then the country can move forward. Sticking to the faulty and failed democracy Thailand had will only lead to chaos ... as history shows

Edited August 18, 2014 by rubl

[fab4]

On the other hand the half-empty glass has Thaksin magnanimously ordering his Pheu Thai party and the UDD leaders around. Like self-appointed elite in a royal mood orders forgive and forget. Democratically of course.

BTW BP lead story, at least on their website, has "voices from the ruins", but that's about the collapsed building, not about the NCPO trying to rebuild the country on more solid foundations.

Well if you really want to act dumb and pretend I meant a story on the collapsed building was at all relevant to the antics of the junta, carry on. In light of your painful pedantry I will point out that I meant the other article on the front page.

The 'other' article on 'Gen. Prayuth explaining things to foreign investors' you mean ? Nothing funny about that either.

So, if you mean yet another article than at least have the manners to describe the article in such a way we know which one you mean.

BTW antics of the junta?

Is it beyond the wit of man, or at least you, to look at the front page of the sunday bangkok post? Obviously it was. Two stories on the front page; one is about a building collapse - do you think that is relevant to the antics of the junta? The second story is about the racing certainty that prayuth will be "voted in" as PM. Do you think that may possibly be relevant to the antics of the junta? Mmm, let me think................

Sorry, by "antics of the junta" I thought you would realise I was talking about what makes Thai style democracy globally palatable, or not.

Unless of course you're baiting and trying to get me to say something bad about the junta, similar to your attempts on the other thread to raise the spectre of LM. I won't say what I think about that kind of attitude on this forum.

[heybruce]

First paragraph: Once again, the Thai people knew what they were voting for.

Second paragraph: You're doing your best to equate internet surveillance to censorship, and it's not working. People are not fee to criticize the government in Thailand, they are free to do so in real democracies.

Third paragraph: Same as the first, it's what the people voted for.

Fourth paragraph: Imagine someone defending a military coup, unelected government, censorship, bans of political gatherings, bans on criticizing the government, and bans on calling for elections, all in the name of 'real democracy'. Truly ridiculous.

Fifth paragraph,stop hiding behind your inflated bogeyman.

I'm still surprised you are able to defend a 'Thai democracy' which allows a criminal fugitive to get his party and his sister registtered in a general election, have a larger part of the electorate vote for him and have foreign supporters who see nothing wrong with the situation.

Any reform is to be ridiculed, the army to be put in as bad light as possible. All about democracy. Well, my foot.

Stop hiding behind the concept of democracy as if it applied to Thailand. Stop insinuating the Thai population must be crazy because they legally could and did vote for a criminal fugitive abroad. Only education is missing, once Thai voters know about self-entitlement and self-reliance, know how to be independent of big bosses, only then the country can move forward. Sticking to the faulty and failed democracy Thailand had will only lead to chaos ... as history shows

Actually a larger part of the electorate voted for the PTP, and I'm confidant they knew what kind of government they were voting for. I don't presume to know better than the Thai voters, you do.

"the army to be put in as bad light as possible"

I'm just pointing out that they staged a coup, imposed martial law, imposed censorship, banned political protests, banned criticism of the junta, banned calls for elections, suspended the 2007 constitution written at their direction after their preceding coup, etc. I don't see these things as preparing Thailand for 'real democracy'. I'm amazed anyone would.

"Stop insinuating the Thai population must be crazy because they legally could and did vote for a criminal fugitive abroad."

That's a good one, please explain when and how I insinuated this.

"Only education is missing, once Thai voters know about self-entitlement and self-reliance, know how to be independent of big bosses,"

You think a military strongman government seeking to control people's access to information will accomplish this?

[tbthailand]

First paragraph: Once again, the Thai people knew what they were voting for.

Second paragraph: You're doing your best to equate internet surveillance to censorship, and it's not working. People are not fee to criticize the government in Thailand, they are free to do so in real democracies.

Third paragraph: Same as the first, it's what the people voted for.

Fourth paragraph: Imagine someone defending a military coup, unelected government, censorship, bans of political gatherings, bans on criticizing the government, and bans on calling for elections, all in the name of 'real democracy'. Truly ridiculous.

Fifth paragraph,stop hiding behind your inflated bogeyman.

I'm still surprised you are able to defend a 'Thai democracy' which allows a criminal fugitive to get his party and his sister registtered in a general election, have a larger part of the electorate vote for him and have foreign supporters who see nothing wrong with the situation.

Any reform is to be ridiculed, the army to be put in as bad light as possible. All about democracy. Well, my foot.

Stop hiding behind the concept of democracy as if it applied to Thailand. Stop insinuating the Thai population must be crazy because they legally could and did vote for a criminal fugitive abroad. Only education is missing, once Thai voters know about self-entitlement and self-reliance, know how to be independent of big bosses, only then the country can move forward. Sticking to the faulty and failed democracy Thailand had will only lead to chaos ... as history shows

Actually a larger part of the electorate voted for the PTP, and I'm confidant they knew what kind of government they were voting for. I don't presume to know better than the Thai voters, you do.

"the army to be put in as bad light as possible"

I'm just pointing out that they staged a coup, imposed martial law, imposed censorship, banned political protests, banned criticism of the junta, banned calls for elections, suspended the 2007 constitution written at their direction after their preceding coup, etc. I don't see these things as preparing Thailand for 'real democracy'. I'm amazed anyone would.

"Stop insinuating the Thai population must be crazy because they legally could and did vote for a criminal fugitive abroad."

That's a good one, please explain when and how I insinuated this.

"Only education is missing, once Thai voters know about self-entitlement and self-reliance, know how to be independent of big bosses,"

You think a military strongman government seeking to control people's access to information will accomplish this?

The insinuations come only from one side here.

The royalists know that the Thai people will vote for anyone who apportions the resources of the country more fairly and actually does something for the common man. (and let me add, as you pointed out not long ago). But like this poster, they also keep making the problem about one person because they have invested so much in making him a bogey man.

They talk about ridding Thailand of the Shinawatra influence completely, but they all know - or should know - that it is about putting the Genie of the 1997 constitution and broadly enfranchised democracy back in the bottle (noting that the 2007 constitution tried but failed to do this) so that the elites can go back to running the country without the inconvenience of democracy - that leaves them to fight out their own little battles among themselves which is the post-1932 story of Thailand (and pre-1932 for that matter).

Among their worn-out arguments - the same that this poster has - the Thai people have been duped to vote for a "bad man" or "bad people", they Thai voters need to be educated (and until they are, Thailand is not ready for democracy), all politicians are corrupt so Thailand needs to keep them under control (by good and moral people and definitely not "elected people").

These are arguments fabricated by the uber rich who can't stand a one person one vote system of governance. It is not unique to Thailand. In my country an uber rich idiot billionaire seriously suggested that votes should perhaps count in proportion to the taxes you pay. And one party has a faction which is hell-bent on keeping certain people from voting at all, meaning minorities, poor and elderly.

These arguments are all nonsense from anti-democrats. In Thailand it is clear which factions are anti-democrat and which are not. It has nothing to do with the Shinawatra family versus the rest of Thailand - that is just a silly fabrication.

Edited August 18, 2014 by tbthailand