Academics hope Prayuth will stick with his soft approach as prime minister

[lvr181]

Until he cancel martial law, he is still authoritative and imposing his hard stance on the citizen who can't gather and express their opinion. Soft is never in his vocabulary as he answer to no one.

And the politicians before him answered to no one (except their financial backers) either! Eventually all will answer to someone.

Democracy should be for the good of all people, NOT just those who led the democracy at the expense of those who "voted" them into power.

[Eric Loh]

Until he cancel martial law, he is still authoritative and imposing his hard stance on the citizen who can't gather and express their opinion. Soft is never in his vocabulary as he answer to no one.

And the politicians before him answered to no one (except their financial backers) either! Eventually all will answer to someone.

Democracy should be for the good of all people, NOT just those who led the democracy at the expense of those who "voted" them into power.

I hope you realized that you contradict yourself in your two sentences.

[lvr181]

Until he cancel martial law, he is still authoritative and imposing his hard stance on the citizen who can't gather and express their opinion. Soft is never in his vocabulary as he answer to no one.

And the politicians before him answered to no one (except their financial backers) either! Eventually all will answer to someone.

Democracy should be for the good of all people, NOT just those who led the democracy at the expense of those who "voted" them into power.

I hope you realized that you contradict yourself in your two sentences.

Two separate statements.

The first answering to your "he answer to know one."

The second is about how democracy could/should work. I do not see any "contradiction".

[Eric Loh]

Until he cancel martial law, he is still authoritative and imposing his hard stance on the citizen who can't gather and express their opinion. Soft is never in his vocabulary as he answer to no one.

And the politicians before him answered to no one (except their financial backers) either! Eventually all will answer to someone.

Democracy should be for the good of all people, NOT just those who led the democracy at the expense of those who "voted" them into power.

I hope you realized that you contradict yourself in your two sentences.

Two separate statements.

The first answering to your "he answer to know one."

The second is about how democracy could/should work. I do not see any "contradiction".

You said that the previous government answered to one which you later admitted that they subject to those who voted them into power. That's a contradiction.

When the previous government dissolved Parliment, they are giving back the power to the people whom they are answerable to. The people mandate who they want as leaders. If they don't performed as it happened previously, citizens spoke out, attract and organize supporters and demand a re-election. That's the democratic process.

[h90]

And the politicians before him answered to no one (except their financial backers) either! Eventually all will answer to someone.

Democracy should be for the good of all people, NOT just those who led the democracy at the expense of those who "voted" them into power.

I hope you realized that you contradict yourself in your two sentences.

Two separate statements.

The first answering to your "he answer to know one."

The second is about how democracy could/should work. I do not see any "contradiction".

You said that the previous government answered to one which you later admitted that they subject to those who voted them into power. That's a contradiction.

When the previous government dissolved Parliment, they are giving back the power to the people whom they are answerable to. The people mandate who they want as leaders. If they don't performed as it happened previously, citizens spoke out, attract and organize supporters and demand a re-election. That's the democratic process.

Very theoretically. With uneducated people who get lied at. Vote buying and media control democracy doesn't work.

The absolute minimum would be free and critic media.

[Eric Loh]

And the politicians before him answered to no one (except their financial backers) either! Eventually all will answer to someone.

Democracy should be for the good of all people, NOT just those who led the democracy at the expense of those who "voted" them into power.

I hope you realized that you contradict yourself in your two sentences.

Two separate statements.

The first answering to your "he answer to know one."

The second is about how democracy could/should work. I do not see any "contradiction".

You said that the previous government answered to one which you later admitted that they subject to those who voted them into power. That's a contradiction.

When the previous government dissolved Parliment, they are giving back the power to the people whom they are answerable to. The people mandate who they want as leaders. If they don't performed as it happened previously, citizens spoke out, attract and organize supporters and demand a re-election. That's the democratic process.

Very theoretically. With uneducated people who get lied at. Vote buying and media control democracy doesn't work.

The absolute minimum would be free and critic media.

Hard to argue with those who belittle the uneducated as gullible and lacking intelligence on voting decision. Get use to the fact vote buying has very little influence on results. Media control? Happening now.

[h90]

And the politicians before him answered to no one (except their financial backers) either! Eventually all will answer to someone.

Democracy should be for the good of all people, NOT just those who led the democracy at the expense of those who "voted" them into power.

I hope you realized that you contradict yourself in your two sentences.

Two separate statements.

The first answering to your "he answer to know one."

The second is about how democracy could/should work. I do not see any "contradiction".

You said that the previous government answered to one which you later admitted that they subject to those who voted them into power. That's a contradiction.

When the previous government dissolved Parliment, they are giving back the power to the people whom they are answerable to. The people mandate who they want as leaders. If they don't performed as it happened previously, citizens spoke out, attract and organize supporters and demand a re-election. That's the democratic process.

Very theoretically. With uneducated people who get lied at. Vote buying and media control democracy doesn't work.

The absolute minimum would be free and critic media.

Hard to argue with those who belittle the uneducated as gullible and lacking intelligence on voting decision. Get use to the fact vote buying has very little influence on results. Media control? Happening now.

Reality check:

Where do I say lack of intelligence?

Vote buying has very little influence: yes, Mr. Thaksin is wasting billions because no one has told him that vote buying doesn't work....I doubt that.

Media control happened under Thaksin and happens now......

And with Thaksin saying "Democracy is not my goal" And his openly speaking about a one party system. Will bring democracy like in North Korea (yes they are a democracy and have elections....just not too much choice).

[katana]

"Soft" approach? The daily speeches I can deal with. The rounding up of political opponents and sentencing to lengthy prison sentences I don't consider to be a soft approach.

How many have been rounded up and sentenced so far? Not seen any examples of political show trials yet as you seem to suggest,

Yingluck, her sister, Chalerm, Tharit, Jatuporn, Nat, Arisman and his missus, - all been treated softly, not banged up.

Sure some were called in and told to behave or else. Stopped the daily attacks and killings didn't it.

Who. apart from Sondhi (hardly one of Big T's lackeys), has been given a lengthy sentence so far?

Wonder what happened to this Thai woman after she made a three-finger sign signalling her opposition to the military coup near Asoke BTS station back in June of this year.

[tbthailand]

You said that the previous government answered to one which you later admitted that they subject to those who voted them into power. That's a contradiction.

When the previous government dissolved Parliment, they are giving back the power to the people whom they are answerable to. The people mandate who they want as leaders. If they don't performed as it happened previously, citizens spoke out, attract and organize supporters and demand a re-election. That's the democratic process.

Very theoretically. With uneducated people who get lied at. Vote buying and media control democracy doesn't work.

The absolute minimum would be free and critic media.

not theoretically, practically.

people are not stupid

vote buying doesn't work

the media prior to the coup was very robust

[Baerboxer]

"Soft" approach? The daily speeches I can deal with. The rounding up of political opponents and sentencing to lengthy prison sentences I don't consider to be a soft approach.

How many have been rounded up and sentenced so far? Not seen any examples of political show trials yet as you seem to suggest,

Yingluck, her sister, Chalerm, Tharit, Jatuporn, Nat, Arisman and his missus, - all been treated softly, not banged up.

Sure some were called in and told to behave or else. Stopped the daily attacks and killings didn't it.

Who. apart from Sondhi (hardly one of Big T's lackeys), has been given a lengthy sentence so far?

Wonder what happened to this Thai woman after she made a three-finger sign signalling her opposition to the military coup near Asoke BTS station back in June of this year.

Hopefully she is still safe and healthy. Unlike those poor children murdered by Shin supporters. They never opposed anything. Too young.

[Eric Loh]

"Soft" approach? The daily speeches I can deal with. The rounding up of political opponents and sentencing to lengthy prison sentences I don't consider to be a soft approach.

How many have been rounded up and sentenced so far? Not seen any examples of political show trials yet as you seem to suggest,

Yingluck, her sister, Chalerm, Tharit, Jatuporn, Nat, Arisman and his missus, - all been treated softly, not banged up.

Sure some were called in and told to behave or else. Stopped the daily attacks and killings didn't it.

Who. apart from Sondhi (hardly one of Big T's lackeys), has been given a lengthy sentence so far?

Wonder what happened to this Thai woman after she made a three-finger sign signalling her opposition to the military coup near Asoke BTS station back in June of this year.

Hopefully she is still safe and healthy. Unlike those poor children murdered by Shin supporters. They never opposed anything. Too young.

The difference is that those poor children were killed by scoundrels and ought to be convicted by the full extend of the law and all are following the case. While the Asoke lady was taken in by the authority that has the law and we know nothing of it. Ain't this of serious concern to you?

[lvr181]

Posted by Eric Loh: You said that the previous government answered to one which you later admitted that they subject to those who voted them into power. That's a contradiction.

When the previous government dissolved Parliment, they are giving back the power to the people whom they are answerable to. The people mandate who they want as leaders. If they don't performed as it happened previously, citizens spoke out, attract and organize supporters and demand a re-election. That's the democratic process.

If you support democracy with blatant corruption that is your choice - but many Thai people did not like that and fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on ones point of view) it took a military coup to bring that to an end at this time.

[Eric Loh]

Posted by Eric Loh: You said that the previous government answered to one which you later admitted that they subject to those who voted them into power. That's a contradiction.

When the previous government dissolved Parliment, they are giving back the power to the people whom they are answerable to. The people mandate who they want as leaders. If they don't performed as it happened previously, citizens spoke out, attract and organize supporters and demand a re-election. That's the democratic process.

If you support democracy with blatant corruption that is your choice - but many Thai people did not like that and fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on ones point of view) it took a military coup to bring that to an end at this time.

Sorry to burst your bubble. I don't support blatant corruption and it should take an election not a military coup to put an end to this. I hope you are not saying this because you are align to the Dem Party and that they can't win an election in a straight fight.

[lvr181]

Posted by Eric Loh: You said that the previous government answered to one which you later admitted that they subject to those who voted them into power. That's a contradiction.

When the previous government dissolved Parliment, they are giving back the power to the people whom they are answerable to. The people mandate who they want as leaders. If they don't performed as it happened previously, citizens spoke out, attract and organize supporters and demand a re-election. That's the democratic process.

If you support democracy with blatant corruption that is your choice - but many Thai people did not like that and fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on ones point of view) it took a military coup to bring that to an end at this time.

Sorry to burst your bubble. I don't support blatant corruption and it should take an election not a military coup to put an end to this. I hope you are not saying this because you are align to the Dem Party and that they can't win an election in a straight fight.

Don't take out of context - the keyword is "if".

Secondly, I do not "support" any of their political parties because too many of them are corrupt in practicing "democracy". Buying votes by direct payments to voters is hardly my idea of democracy.

[rubl]

The difference is that those poor children were killed by scoundrels and ought to be convicted by the full extend of the law and all are following the case. While the Asoke lady was taken in by the authority that has the law and we know nothing of it. Ain't this of serious concern to you?

Scoundrels, you mean red-shirt fanatics who were paid to kill?

Anyway you contradict yourself by claiming to know nothing about the 'asoke lady' while writing about it. Now please do some searching about her and her fate. Does she feature high on the iLAW list?

BTW while you're at it, what about all other people who daily get taking in by the government, any progress on that?

PS for your information, in most countries people get taken in daily without any details provided automatically. In many cases only to those involved, and those asking.

Edited August 24, 2014 by rubl

[scorecard]

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

Until he cancel martial law, he is still authoritative and imposing his hard stance on the citizen who can't gather and express their opinion. Soft is never in his vocabulary as he answer to no one.

Sort of same same for last 10+ years.