Appointment of Thai military allies hints at concern about security

[billd766]

What I learned from the Thai CEO of a big bank who gave a guest lecture at my university is that Thai leaders do not ask their subordinates for input; they go into a meeting knowing 85% of the answers to not lose face and be able to lead the group.

Knowing that, it is really worrying that at least 10 of the new cabinet ministers have about zero to none specific knowledge of their portfolio ( i assume that the general doing the defense portfolio will know a bit about the military). If he wanted to really change the country for the good, why didn't he pick people who are right for the job instead of people who he owes?

The first group consists of those who deserve his gratitude (...)

The second group consists of Prayuth's close friends who he believes deserve rewards and important posts (...)

The third group consists of his trusted subordinates who are to act as his "limbs" in his Cabinet (...)

Could you then please explain how a woman with zero political experience was elected by her brother to be the Prime Minister of Thailand?

When you have done with that can you please explain how a woman with zero experience of the military elected herself as Defence Minister of Thailand?

Both ridiculously easy questions.She was nominated by her party and them elected by the people of Thailand.Though like Obama, Cameron and Merkel she had no military experience, as a legitimate democratically elected leader (like the others mentioned) took on responsibility for oversight of the armed forces.

Did Obama, Cameron and Merkel have any political experience before being elected as leaders of the respective countries. In the USA I believe the President is elected by a popular vote in their party after spending many millions of $ to get there. In the UK the PM is elected by a popular party vote and I confess I have no idea how it is done in Germany. AFAIR remember none of those 3 were also Defence minister at the the same time and the only oversight they have is that of being the leader and not the actual Minister of Defence.

[billd766]

What I learned from the Thai CEO of a big bank who gave a guest lecture at my university is that Thai leaders do not ask their subordinates for input; they go into a meeting knowing 85% of the answers to not lose face and be able to lead the group.

Knowing that, it is really worrying that at least 10 of the new cabinet ministers have about zero to none specific knowledge of their portfolio ( i assume that the general doing the defense portfolio will know a bit about the military). If he wanted to really change the country for the good, why didn't he pick people who are right for the job instead of people who he owes?

The first group consists of those who deserve his gratitude (...)

The second group consists of Prayuth's close friends who he believes deserve rewards and important posts (...)

The third group consists of his trusted subordinates who are to act as his "limbs" in his Cabinet (...)

Could you then please explain how a woman with zero political experience was elected by her brother to be the Prime Minister of Thailand?

When you have done with that can you please explain how a woman with zero experience of the military elected herself as Defence Minister of Thailand?

Both ridiculously easy questions.She was nominated by her party and them elected by the people of Thailand.Though like Obama, Cameron and Merkel she had no military experience, as a legitimate democratically elected leader (like the others mentioned) took on responsibility for oversight of the armed forces.

Actually Yingluck was not nominated by the people of Thailand but by the party leadership as was in point a party lisy MP and not a constituent MP who actually went out on the streets and represenented actual people.

[Alwyn]

The inmates are running the asylum

[Bob12345]

But DID you shout and scream about the corruption, nepotism and cronyism when the PTP were in power.

It is an easy question with a simple yes or no answer.

If you did then I admire you and if you didn't wuy are you whining about the Army now. Double standards perhaps?

Answer to your easy question: yes.

But i am not sure if that should be worth your admiration as the general consensus of almost everybody coming from the west is that corruption, nepotism, and cronyism are not good for any economy or country. I have barely seen anybody here posting on ThaiVisa, in at least the past couple of years, that corruption, nepotism, and cronyism are a good thing for Thailand. Maybe some people joked about it when they paid off a cop to avoid a ticket, but I don't think you should take such remarks too serious.

And I do not think that even if the answer was "no" to your question that it would be double standards. The previous government did not come into power promising to end corruption, nepotism, and cronyism, heck, you have to be blind to not see that the previous government was almost encouraging corruption, nepotism, and cronyism. But the current government took power with the promise to limit corruption (, nepotism, and cronyism). If that is the promise they make, then that it on what they should be judged. So not really double standards there.

[Bob12345]

What I learned from the Thai CEO of a big bank who gave a guest lecture at my university is that Thai leaders do not ask their subordinates for input; they go into a meeting knowing 85% of the answers to not lose face and be able to lead the group.

Knowing that, it is really worrying that at least 10 of the new cabinet ministers have about zero to none specific knowledge of their portfolio ( i assume that the general doing the defense portfolio will know a bit about the military). If he wanted to really change the country for the good, why didn't he pick people who are right for the job instead of people who he owes?

The first group consists of those who deserve his gratitude (...)

The second group consists of Prayuth's close friends who he believes deserve rewards and important posts (...)

The third group consists of his trusted subordinates who are to act as his "limbs" in his Cabinet (...)

Could you then please explain how a woman with zero political experience was elected by her brother to be the Prime Minister of Thailand?

When you have done with that can you please explain how a woman with zero experience of the military elected herself as Defence Minister of Thailand?

You seem to make the incorrect assumption, as many anti-red shirt people here do, that whoever is critical of the current government is automatically a supporter of the previous government.

Unfortunately for you I do not, and did not, support the previous government. I do not think that the women you are referring to was a good PM nor that her brother should try to influence Thai politics the way he did. I also do not agree with a person having multiple roles as prime minister and as minister of another portfolio.

So now I ask you, why do you want me to explain these two things?

Are you genuinely interested in my take on how those things happened or were you assuming I was a red-shirt supporter because I am not blindly trusting the words of your favorite general and you thought you had me cornered with those questions?

Let me assume the latter....

(p.s. the answers to your questions are quite simple as you ask "how" which can be easily explained by reference to the procedures how elections take place and how ministers are appointed. I think the question "why" and "why nobody complained about it at the time" are much more interesting questions to look at).

Another simple question then. Were had I said or implied in those two questions that you are a supporter of ANY side? Where did I say that I was a supporter of any side and the General was my favourite General?

Now you are trying to be a smartass because you were calling me out earlier and my reaction was not the reaction you hoped for. Too bad for you, take your loss and stop trying to defend your post by nitpicking.

No, you did not explicitly say that you thought i was a red-shirt supporter nor that the current PM is your favorite general. But you did assume i was a red-shirt supporter as you thought you could corner me by asking about the previous government. Or you ask everybody here if they can explain things about the previous government? Your clear goal was to destroy the logic behind my post by pointing out it wasn't better with the previous government.

And I assumed the current PM was your favorite general as you seem to support him blindly. Maybe there are more generals you like even better, I don't know and that is not the point. With my remark i tried to indicate that you don't apply any critical analysis when the current PM is speaking and just believe things blindly (very similar to red-shirt supporters who trusted Taksin blindly).

[jayboy]

What I learned from the Thai CEO of a big bank who gave a guest lecture at my university is that Thai leaders do not ask their subordinates for input; they go into a meeting knowing 85% of the answers to not lose face and be able to lead the group.

Knowing that, it is really worrying that at least 10 of the new cabinet ministers have about zero to none specific knowledge of their portfolio ( i assume that the general doing the defense portfolio will know a bit about the military). If he wanted to really change the country for the good, why didn't he pick people who are right for the job instead of people who he owes?

The first group consists of those who deserve his gratitude (...)

The second group consists of Prayuth's close friends who he believes deserve rewards and important posts (...)

The third group consists of his trusted subordinates who are to act as his "limbs" in his Cabinet (...)

Could you then please explain how a woman with zero political experience was elected by her brother to be the Prime Minister of Thailand?

When you have done with that can you please explain how a woman with zero experience of the military elected herself as Defence Minister of Thailand?

Both ridiculously easy questions.She was nominated by her party and them elected by the people of Thailand.Though like Obama, Cameron and Merkel she had no military experience, as a legitimate democratically elected leader (like the others mentioned) took on responsibility for oversight of the armed forces.

Did Obama, Cameron and Merkel have any political experience before being elected as leaders of the respective countries. In the USA I believe the President is elected by a popular vote in their party after spending many millions of $ to get there. In the UK the PM is elected by a popular party vote and I confess I have no idea how it is done in Germany. AFAIR remember none of those 3 were also Defence minister at the the same time and the only oversight they have is that of being the leader and not the actual Minister of Defence.

No you are wrong.The President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.He does not tolerate insubordinate generals with ideas above their station challenging the elected civilian authorities - and if necessary (Obama and Truman did exactly this) will throw the bums out. That is how a proper democracy works.

Edited September 2, 2014 by jayboy

[englishoak]

Garbage in ( feeding trough ) garbage out, garbage in ( feeding trough ) garbage out etc etc

[halloween]

No you are wrong.The President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.He does not tolerate insubordinate generals with ideas above their station challenging the elected civilian authorities - and if necessary (Obama and Truman did exactly this) will throw the bums out. That is how a proper democracy works.

But this is Thailand, which has never been a proper democracy and certainly not a republic, thankfully. Here, the generals throw the bums out.

[Stan7444]

Smutcakes post # 4

So the decision of who would be cabinet members depends on 3 things:

1) Those who deserve his gratitude

2) Close friends who deserve rewards

3) His trusted subordinates

Well this really seems like a step up! So much for good Governance, no cronyism etc!

And that is better than removing a sitting PM and 9 of her associates for transferring a distant relative to a position?

Exactly the same as when a new Prime Minister is put into place in the U.K or a newly elected American President , in fact it's the same all over the world politically and business wise.

Corrupt individuals are removed by one process or another and replaced by those who will try to improve matters and in fact actually do seem to be trying to improve matters too..

The big difference is that in the US or UK the ones in power consult their teams of advisers on how to tackle certain problems. They put someone at the top who knows how to get proposals through the system and the actual proposals and policies are written by teams of experts. Those experts are often in their place longer than leaders (and not re-appointed after every election).

In Thailand this is totally different as the leader is supposed to take the lead and tell the rest what to do. If you are lucky you have people below you who will point out your mistakes, if you are unlucky you have a bunch of Thai educated people who will nod to whatever you say so you don't lose face.

So very true. Just look at the daily TV showing of his other generals and they say nothing to him, only listen. So much for Thai education.

[jayboy]

No you are wrong.The President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.He does not tolerate insubordinate generals with ideas above their station challenging the elected civilian authorities - and if necessary (Obama and Truman did exactly this) will throw the bums out. That is how a proper democracy works.

But this is Thailand, which has never been a proper democracy and certainly not a republic, thankfully. Here, the generals throw the bums out.

Whether or not a country is a republic is irrelevant.The US is a republic but the UK,Japan,Holland,Norway,Denmark,Sweden,Spain and Begium are constitutional monarchies.In all these countries the military is completely subordinate to elected politicians.

In Thailand as you say the generals reserve the right to "throw the bums out", though strangely one of the recommendations of a functioning democracy is that the electorate can do just that.

[Chris Lawrence]

"All four of these officers, who are to retire at the end of this month, are Prayuth's former classmates at the Armed Forces Academies Preparatory School."

I wonder who use to short sheet who at the prepartory school?

Old boys network? So after picking your mates to come in and help, who is going to pick the reward each one will recieve in their new position? Maybe the will get a new Polo to keep once their new gig is finished?

The positions each mate gets. I wonder what life's work has given the experience to act in the positions of Government? Is this what is called nepotism?

[Bob12345]

No you are wrong.The President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.He does not tolerate insubordinate generals with ideas above their station challenging the elected civilian authorities - and if necessary (Obama and Truman did exactly this) will throw the bums out. That is how a proper democracy works.

But this is Thailand, which has never been a proper democracy and certainly not a republic, thankfully. Here, the generals throw the bums out.

Maybe Thailand has never had a proper democracy because the generals keep throwing "bums" out.

A democracy is not something you can install overnight. It takes time to work properly and for everyone to see the value of it. But if generals keep interfering it will never reach a stage where it works.

[halloween]

No you are wrong.The President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.He does not tolerate insubordinate generals with ideas above their station challenging the elected civilian authorities - and if necessary (Obama and Truman did exactly this) will throw the bums out. That is how a proper democracy works.

But this is Thailand, which has never been a proper democracy and certainly not a republic, thankfully. Here, the generals throw the bums out.

Whether or not a country is a republic is irrelevant.The US is a republic but the UK,Japan,Holland,Norway,Denmark,Sweden,Spain and Begium are constitutional monarchies.In all these countries the military is completely subordinate to elected politicians.

In Thailand as you say the generals reserve the right to "throw the bums out", though strangely one of the recommendations of a functioning democracy is that the electorate can do just that.

Exactly, the US is a republic with a completely different system of government, and irrelevant as a comparison. Yet you continually use it as an example.

In Thailand there are many facets of a functioning democracy that need improving before military oversight is removed, and IMO they are more likely to be improved under the current system than the previous kleptocracies.

[halloween]

No you are wrong.The President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.He does not tolerate insubordinate generals with ideas above their station challenging the elected civilian authorities - and if necessary (Obama and Truman did exactly this) will throw the bums out. That is how a proper democracy works.

But this is Thailand, which has never been a proper democracy and certainly not a republic, thankfully. Here, the generals throw the bums out.

Maybe Thailand has never had a proper democracy because the generals keep throwing "bums" out.

A democracy is not something you can install overnight. It takes time to work properly and for everyone to see the value of it. But if generals keep interfering it will never reach a stage where it works.

A functioning democracy was never the aim of Thaksin and his stooges. Gangs of mercenary thugs killing those with opposing views was hardly democratic was it? So is stopping that moving towards or away from democracy?

[15Peter20]

Having got to the top of the system they are now ostensibly trying to eradicate (well, I guess Gorbachev did it with communism), these old boys that command all the guns and just want a quiet retirement feel they can afford to burn a few bridges with some of the corruption they tolerated earlier. Give it a go and see what happens - they'll still have the Benzes and homes around the country and abroad when power shifts away from them.

But let no-one think this 'government' is anything but another half-arsed gesture towards the kind of confidence and integrity Thais yearn for in their leadership. They've got the PR machine working almost as well as PTP and its predecessors had. They're picking the rather low-hanging fruit of beaches and motoring laws to trumpet their ambition, but in a land where the police, judiciary and political class all are controlled with money there is only one genuine test of a government's sincerity:

Rich people in jail, or it's all BS.

[jayboy]

No you are wrong.The President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.He does not tolerate insubordinate generals with ideas above their station challenging the elected civilian authorities - and if necessary (Obama and Truman did exactly this) will throw the bums out. That is how a proper democracy works.

But this is Thailand, which has never been a proper democracy and certainly not a republic, thankfully. Here, the generals throw the bums out.

Maybe Thailand has never had a proper democracy because the generals keep throwing "bums" out.

A democracy is not something you can install overnight. It takes time to work properly and for everyone to see the value of it. But if generals keep interfering it will never reach a stage where it works.

A functioning democracy was never the aim of Thaksin and his stooges. Gangs of mercenary thugs killing those with opposing views was hardly democratic was it? So is stopping that moving towards or away from democracy?

I would have thought your key priority should be to " move towards" a quiet spot for some serious reflection on what is reality and what is not.

[wave]

No you are wrong.The President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.He does not tolerate insubordinate generals with ideas above their station challenging the elected civilian authorities - and if necessary (Obama and Truman did exactly this) will throw the bums out. That is how a proper democracy works.

But this is Thailand, which has never been a proper democracy and certainly not a republic, thankfully. Here, the generals throw the bums out.

Whether or not a country is a republic is irrelevant.The US is a republic but the UK,Japan,Holland,Norway,Denmark,Sweden,Spain and Begium are constitutional monarchies.In all these countries the military is completely subordinate to elected politicians.

In Thailand as you say the generals reserve the right to "throw the bums out", though strangely one of the recommendations of a functioning democracy is that the electorate can do just that.

Exactly, the US is a republic with a completely different system of government, and irrelevant as a comparison. Yet you continually use it as an example.

In Thailand there are many facets of a functioning democracy that need improving before military oversight is removed, and IMO they are more likely to be improved under the current system than the previous kleptocracies.

The very lack of any civilian oversight of the military has allowed constant curtailment of the democratic process by the military, and is the one and only reason why Thailand doesn't have a "functioning democracy"

When you consider that there have been 18 military coups in Thailand since 1932 and all have failed to deliver a "functioning democracy" it's somewhat optimistic to assume that this one may be any different.

[jayboy]

No you are wrong.The President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.He does not tolerate insubordinate generals with ideas above their station challenging the elected civilian authorities - and if necessary (Obama and Truman did exactly this) will throw the bums out. That is how a proper democracy works.

But this is Thailand, which has never been a proper democracy and certainly not a republic, thankfully. Here, the generals throw the bums out.

Whether or not a country is a republic is irrelevant.The US is a republic but the UK,Japan,Holland,Norway,Denmark,Sweden,Spain and Begium are constitutional monarchies.In all these countries the military is completely subordinate to elected politicians.

In Thailand as you say the generals reserve the right to "throw the bums out", though strangely one of the recommendations of a functioning democracy is that the electorate can do just that.

Exactly, the US is a republic with a completely different system of government, and irrelevant as a comparison. Yet you continually use it as an example.

In Thailand there are many facets of a functioning democracy that need improving before military oversight is removed, and IMO they are more likely to be improved under the current system than the previous kleptocracies.

You seem incapable of processing information.I specifically referred to parliamentary democracies which are constitutional monarchies,very similar to Thailand.

In any event the point was about the military being subordinate to civilian authorities in democracies.Actually that is also the case in most authoritarian or ersatz "democracies" - China, Russia etc.

[Bob12345]

No you are wrong.The President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.He does not tolerate insubordinate generals with ideas above their station challenging the elected civilian authorities - and if necessary (Obama and Truman did exactly this) will throw the bums out. That is how a proper democracy works.

But this is Thailand, which has never been a proper democracy and certainly not a republic, thankfully. Here, the generals throw the bums out.

Whether or not a country is a republic is irrelevant.The US is a republic but the UK,Japan,Holland,Norway,Denmark,Sweden,Spain and Begium are constitutional monarchies.In all these countries the military is completely subordinate to elected politicians.

In Thailand as you say the generals reserve the right to "throw the bums out", though strangely one of the recommendations of a functioning democracy is that the electorate can do just that.

Exactly, the US is a republic with a completely different system of government, and irrelevant as a comparison. Yet you continually use it as an example.

In Thailand there are many facets of a functioning democracy that need improving before military oversight is removed, and IMO they are more likely to be improved under the current system than the previous kleptocracies.

If you read Jayboy's post again you will see he states that the system does not matter as in every developed country the military is subordinated to elected politicians, something which is true and therefore his reasoning makes sense. You do not give any reasoning why the US, as a republic, is different and therefore irrelevant as a comparison. Please provide some reasoning if you want people to agree with you.

To have a strong democracy you need other institutions that are strong also to give some counterbalance to politicians, I agree with you there for the full 100%. For example the media should have considerable freedom to question what politicians are doing and the courts (rule of law) should be strong enough to prosecute rogue politicians who break the law. But also the education system should be good enough to teach people to be critical of promises made and be able to grasp the long term implications of policies.

Lets analyse how these three institutions have done in the past 2 months:

Media: the media is not allowed to criticize the junta meaning they are rendered useless for analyzing policies and proposals at the moment. A weaker media means a weaker democracy in the long term.

Courts: the rule of law does not apply to the junta as they have changed the constitution in such a way that they cannot be held responsible for their actions. If leaders of a country place themselves above laws then they are not accountable anymore which will lead to a weaker democracy in the long term.

Education: the focus of the junta is promoting nationalism instead of critical thinking. Students who do question the action of the junta and start reading certain books out of protest are being arrested. This will only lead to more group thinking which will result in a weaker democracy in the long term. With the visa crackdown for English teachers it also becomes less likely that kids upcountry will have a decent English education. Being able to fully understand the english language can help build a strong democracy as it enables people to read about other countries and inform themselves how democracy developed around the world. It gives them free access to information which is almost impossible to get in Thai language as writers of Thai textbooks only promote Thailand.

So how do you exactly think that the media, rule of law, and education will be improved under the current government that will lead to a stronger democracy in the long term?

[Bob12345]

No you are wrong.The President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.He does not tolerate insubordinate generals with ideas above their station challenging the elected civilian authorities - and if necessary (Obama and Truman did exactly this) will throw the bums out. That is how a proper democracy works.

But this is Thailand, which has never been a proper democracy and certainly not a republic, thankfully. Here, the generals throw the bums out.

Maybe Thailand has never had a proper democracy because the generals keep throwing "bums" out.

A democracy is not something you can install overnight. It takes time to work properly and for everyone to see the value of it. But if generals keep interfering it will never reach a stage where it works.

A functioning democracy was never the aim of Thaksin and his stooges. Gangs of mercenary thugs killing those with opposing views was hardly democratic was it? So is stopping that moving towards or away from democracy?

A functioning democracy was never the aim of Taksin, I agree with you there. He used democracy to enrich himself. Democracy was just a means and not a goal.

But keep in mind that democracy was in its first years of existence when Taksin won the election, and that is exactly the point I am trying to make. He won the first election under the new 1997 consitution and therefore it was unknown to many what the possible consequences could be. Maybe people didn't mind voting for someone who they knew couldn't be trusted because they had never experienced a government that was not removed before the end of its term. Why not take a risk to see if it works as there is no downside anyways?

By 2001 Thai democracy should have been 69 years old already (since 1932), not just born (as this was the first election under the new constitution). After 69 years political parties should have created policies that benefit every layer of the population in the country already, they should know how to be in the opposition already, and they should have learned how to come up with better policies to win the next election already.

Unfortunately no political party has ever learned anything like this because there hasn't been a political party in Thailand that completed a 4-year term till Taksin came along. At every chance the military jumped in to take power, change things, and try again. Its like teaching a baby 50 different ways to crawl but never letting it learn to walk.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Bob12345

[halloween]

The very lack of any civilian oversight of the military has allowed constant curtailment of the democratic process by the military, and is the one and only reason why Thailand doesn't have a "functioning democracy"

When you consider that there have been 18 military coups in Thailand since 1932 and all have failed to deliver a "functioning democracy" it's somewhat optimistic to assume that this one may be any different.

You might also add that lack of civilian oversight of the government has led to the corrupt imitations of government regularly foisted on the people of Thailand. Are you trying to tell me that the rice scam and the systematic murder and intimidation of opposition is what we should be aspiring to in the future? That no reform is required?

[h90]

Thailand has become the latest military joining many of African countries.

Which military in Africa is trying to remove a dictator clan and re-establish democracy?

[h90]

Having got to the top of the system they are now ostensibly trying to eradicate (well, I guess Gorbachev did it with communism), these old boys that command all the guns and just want a quiet retirement feel they can afford to burn a few bridges with some of the corruption they tolerated earlier. Give it a go and see what happens - they'll still have the Benzes and homes around the country and abroad when power shifts away from them.

But let no-one think this 'government' is anything but another half-arsed gesture towards the kind of confidence and integrity Thais yearn for in their leadership. They've got the PR machine working almost as well as PTP and its predecessors had. They're picking the rather low-hanging fruit of beaches and motoring laws to trumpet their ambition, but in a land where the police, judiciary and political class all are controlled with money there is only one genuine test of a government's sincerity:

Rich people in jail, or it's all BS.

For me: Yingluck visit Thaksin and comes back is a proof that an agreement about not going in jail was found already.

We'll see what the new government will do. Sure some good improvements, but I worry it will be too friendly, too much focus on happiness.....As you call it half-arsed.

[halloween]

A functioning democracy was never the aim of Thaksin and his stooges. Gangs of mercenary thugs killing those with opposing views was hardly democratic was it? So is stopping that moving towards or away from democracy?

I would have thought your key priority should be to " move towards" a quiet spot for some serious reflection on what is reality and what is not.

Were the questions a little awkward for you to answer? Sorry, I forgot, you don't answer questions.

[Thaimaishoe]

No you are wrong.The President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.He does not tolerate insubordinate generals with ideas above their station challenging the elected civilian authorities - and if necessary (Obama and Truman did exactly this) will throw the bums out. That is how a proper democracy works.

But this is Thailand, which has never been a proper democracy and certainly not a republic, thankfully. Here, the generals throw the bums out.

And THAT, not coruption, not vote buying, not nepotism, not anything else is what makes and keeps Thailand from having a proper democracy.

The will of the people can not be allowed to be overthrown.

[jayboy]

A functioning democracy was never the aim of Thaksin and his stooges. Gangs of mercenary thugs killing those with opposing views was hardly democratic was it? So is stopping that moving towards or away from democracy?

I would have thought your key priority should be to " move towards" a quiet spot for some serious reflection on what is reality and what is not.

Were the questions a little awkward for you to answer? Sorry, I forgot, you don't answer questions.

Actually I enjoy debating with intelligent people who hold different views.To answer a question requires a premise that makes some kind of sense.Yours doesn't.

However in an effort to be conciliatory even with the dimmer section I do agree that Thaksin's commitment to democracy was dubious.He exploited it as other authoritarian leaders have done.

[wave]

The very lack of any civilian oversight of the military has allowed constant curtailment of the democratic process by the military, and is the one and only reason why Thailand doesn't have a "functioning democracy"

When you consider that there have been 18 military coups in Thailand since 1932 and all have failed to deliver a "functioning democracy" it's somewhat optimistic to assume that this one may be any different.

You might also add that lack of civilian oversight of the government has led to the corrupt imitations of government regularly foisted on the people of Thailand. Are you trying to tell me that the rice scam and the systematic murder and intimidation of opposition is what we should be aspiring to in the future? That no reform is required?

Hmmm...There is civilian oversight of the government....That is what elections achieve, it gives the opportunity for the population to vote for there choice of representatives....

Sadly this particular cornerstone of democracy doesn't play to well historically with the military.

[belg]

the name saddam hussein comes to my mind after reading this article