Most people happy with the junta

[tbthailand]

"By law it would remain visible for 180 days after which a simple majority (50% + 1 vote) could have voted it in."

I looks like she dropped the bill as much as the law allowed. What would you have had her do?

"Really democratic, obviously a state we really need to go back to."

Compared to a military junta, you bet.

She dropped the bill as mouch as the law allowed ? You mean she just obfuscated, told all 'the amnesty bill has been dropped, we won't take it up again' while OTHER bills were dropped and by law she don't do anything about the Senate reacted bill.

BTW regarding the topic, the NCPO is starting to do its best to make people less happy

"Tax revenue for fiscal 2014, which runs through September, was below target by as much as 132 billion baht ($4.14 billion) as of the end of July. The shortfall for the whole fiscal year is expected to reach 150 billion baht.

As a measure to produce immediate results, the ministry has dispatched officials to large traditional markets across the country to grasp the income of stalls and other street vendors. In Thailand, workers have to pay income tax if their monthly income surpasses an average of 18,000 baht. But few cash-only street vendors report their incomes to tax authority. The ministry is seeking to capture as many of the estimated 5 million tax-evading street vendors as possible with its stricter tax collection.

...

Much of the blame for the nation's deteriorating fiscal health should be placed on the previous government of Yingluck Shinawatra, who engaged in a spending spree to finance a raft of measures to please voters. These actions included corporate tax cuts, purchases of rice from farmers at high prices and massive tax breaks for consumers buying automobiles and houses. The military government has ruled out any such giveaway of taxpayer money, but it has no choice but to increase public investment to restart the foundering economy."

http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Economy/Thai-military-junta-pushes-tax-hikes

"She dropped the bill as mouch as the law allowed ? You mean she just obfuscated, told all 'the amnesty bill has been dropped, we won't take it up again' while OTHER bills were dropped and by law she don't do anything about the Senate reacted bill."

Ok, explain it. How could she have legally dropped the bill any more than she did?

Regarding the rest, yeah, more rigorous tax collection always brings happiness to people.

the bill was dead - that is the reality of the situation - and everyone knew it (well, among the Thai population, at least).

Antidotally, I had a Thai friend who supported and attended the protests. She talked about corruption and rice farmers, but not once did she mention amnesty.

The PDRC also stopped railing against the amnesty bill and moved on to corruption; etc.

And as you point out, what more could have been done to 'kill' the bill?

It was dead.

[jerry921]

My reaction to this is a bit of a waffle.

I'd find the poll more convincing if it reported the number of no answer/refuse to answer/chose not to answer responses. However I don't think one can necessarily assume all of those, if reported would be negative, in any poll there are going to be a lot of people asked who just don't want to stop and be bothered by answering a bunch of questions to somebody with a clip-board.

On the other hand, even if you take the result with a large grain of salt, it's difficult to imagine that fewer than half the people, if honestly answering, would answer negatively. The true result, seems to me, has to lie somewhere between 50% and 96%, not below 50%, because to discount the result by 40% is truely an epic grain of salt, more like simply choosing to believe what one wants and ignoring the poll altogether..

I've managed to forget whatever it was I allegedly learned in statistics classes in college, but I do know that in the US the pollsters are doing poll after poll on the different senate races which will be voted on in November, and their margins of error are typically +/- 4% or so, and most are polling fewer than 1000 people. Generally at least 600, sometimes 1600 or so. I beleive the number of people polled for this Thai opinion poll is very reasonable. Doubling the number of people polled would probably not increase the accuracy very much. There are some of you who appear to be arguing both that the number of poeople polled makes the result unreliable and that nobody would answer honestly. Well if 1600 people aren't being honest, what makes you think asking 3200 would fix that problem?

And for all those saying only an election will do, I thought part of the problem with the Shin era was that they had elections but they weren't free fair and untainted by vote buying, ballot box stuffing, strong arming and all the other forms of manipulation. At least that's what the ones who lost the election were claiming. An election really isn't useful unless the loser admits to being defeated reasonably fairly and squarely. Better to not have an election than to have a crooked one.

Just my 2 baht worth.

[halloween]

the bill was dead - that is the reality of the situation - and everyone knew it (well, among the Thai population, at least).

Antidotally, I had a Thai friend who supported and attended the protests. She talked about corruption and rice farmers, but not once did she mention amnesty.

The PDRC also stopped railing against the amnesty bill and moved on to corruption; etc.

And as you point out, what more could have been done to 'kill' the bill?

It was dead.

According to my army instructors, you should never assume something is dead until you put a 7.62 through its head.

You assume it is dead because Yingluk and PTP said so. But they weren't running that little autocracy, the prime beneficiary was.

And some night 6 months later he decides he wants his amnesty, the zombie is resurrected, PTP is instructed to take a quick vote, and his amnesty is law. The Thai people know nothing about it until the dirty deed is done.

The safety shot, the wooden stake through the heart, was getting PTP out of government. Admittedly a bit messy, but now death is certain. Job well done.

[tbthailand]

the bill was dead - that is the reality of the situation - and everyone knew it (well, among the Thai population, at least).

Antidotally, I had a Thai friend who supported and attended the protests. She talked about corruption and rice farmers, but not once did she mention amnesty.

The PDRC also stopped railing against the amnesty bill and moved on to corruption; etc.

And as you point out, what more could have been done to 'kill' the bill?

It was dead.

According to my army instructors, you should never assume something is dead until you put a 7.62 through its head.

You assume it is dead because Yingluk and PTP said so. But they weren't running that little autocracy, the prime beneficiary was.

And some night 6 months later he decides he wants his amnesty, the zombie is resurrected, PTP is instructed to take a quick vote, and his amnesty is law. The Thai people know nothing about it until the dirty deed is done.

The safety shot, the wooden stake through the heart, was getting PTP out of government. Admittedly a bit messy, but now death is certain. Job well done.

elections could have done that too had the people been permitted to express their preferences for their government.

And I 'assume' that it was dead not because of the PTP and Yingluck, but because everyone including the PDRC and the Democrats behaved as if it was dead.

[ThailandNoob]

I wonder what happens to poll results that show the opposite, and I wonder whether these results are 'adjusted for clarity'?

With a censored media, we'll never know the truth, I guess.

With polls in Thailand I doubt we ever knew the truth independent of who was in government.

Mind you, you being Thai you probably didn't notice.

One type of poll tells "the truth", and that is elections judged free and fair by international observers.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[maxme]

When I read the headline, I knew this story was in The Nation.

"Most people happy with the junta. "

What kind of legitimate paper would say that?

A real newspaper would be outraged they circumvented democracy & forced their way in.

A newspaper that reports the news, rather than the your hurt feelings. Or a newspaper prepared to allow time for badly needed reform rather than try to start a civil war. Are you still getting your "Voice of Thaksin"?

Here we go again, if you don't like the junta or the yellow, you're a Thaksin sympathizer. Freedom of opinion is not allowed, me wonder do you spew this kind of drivel back home as well or did you move to Thailand to force upon others your autocratic dogma?

[rubl]

"She dropped the bill as mouch as the law allowed ? You mean she just obfuscated, told all 'the amnesty bill has been dropped, we won't take it up again' while OTHER bills were dropped and by law she don't do anything about the Senate reacted bill."

Ok, explain it. How could she have legally dropped the bill any more than she did?

Regarding the rest, yeah, more rigorous tax collection always brings happiness to people.

Since Ms. Yingluck couldn't do anything it is a bit of obfuscation to say she dropped the bill as much as she could.

As for the tax collection making people happy, well at least the NCPO not only targets 'normal' people but also the upper classes with their 'property and inheritance law'. Still as the Nikkei article wrote

"Much of the blame for the nation's deteriorating fiscal health should be placed on the previous government of Yingluck Shinawatra, who engaged in a spending spree to finance a raft of measures to please voters."

[rubl]

"She dropped the bill as mouch as the law allowed ? You mean she just obfuscated, told all 'the amnesty bill has been dropped, we won't take it up again' while OTHER bills were dropped and by law she don't do anything about the Senate reacted bill."

Ok, explain it. How could she have legally dropped the bill any more than she did?

Regarding the rest, yeah, more rigorous tax collection always brings happiness to people.

the bill was dead - that is the reality of the situation - and everyone knew it (well, among the Thai population, at least).

Antidotally, I had a Thai friend who supported and attended the protests. She talked about corruption and rice farmers, but not once did she mention amnesty.

The PDRC also stopped railing against the amnesty bill and moved on to corruption; etc.

And as you point out, what more could have been done to 'kill' the bill?

It was dead.

You're just as much into obfuscation as Brucy.

One saying Ms. Yingluck dropped the bill as much as by law she could, which translates into "she did nothing as she could do nothing".

You declaring the bill was dead, and assuming that therefor that is so. Well, the bill wasn't dead legally and could have been picked up as is to be voted on again. Normally without activity the bill would automatically 'expire' after 180 days which would be end of April 2014 or so. That means by now the bill is dead as in expired.

[rubl]

I wonder what happens to poll results that show the opposite, and I wonder whether these results are 'adjusted for clarity'?

With a censored media, we'll never know the truth, I guess.

With polls in Thailand I doubt we ever knew the truth independent of who was in government.

Mind you, you being Thai you probably didn't notice.

One type of poll tells "the truth", and that is elections judged free and fair by international observers.

since in Thailand we have had those 'interesting' election promises which put a real financial burder on the current government and since the vote doesn't show the patronage system corrupting the vote, such elections cannot be deemed democratic.

They also only tell the truth as far as listeners are able to hear.

Edited October 5, 2014 by rubl

[ThailandNoob]

I wonder what happens to poll results that show the opposite, and I wonder whether these results are 'adjusted for clarity'?

With a censored media, we'll never know the truth, I guess.

With polls in Thailand I doubt we ever knew the truth independent of who was in government.

Mind you, you being Thai you probably didn't notice.

One type of poll tells "the truth", and that is elections judged free and fair by international observers.

since in Thailand we have had those 'interesting' election promises which put a real financial burder on the current government and since the vote doesn't show the patronage system corrupting the vote, such elections cannot be deemed democratic.

They also only tell the truth as far as listeners are able to hear.

Every democracy has politicians that make expensive election promises. And your comment about the "patronage system corrupting the vote" is pure hot air. During the 2011 election period I was in in a Red Shirt village in Northern Thailand. I speak fluent Thai. I saw absolutely nothing untoward.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[hughben]

The Jet Ski operators are happy with them.

[rubl]

since in Thailand we have had those 'interesting' election promises which put a real financial burder on the current government and since the vote doesn't show the patronage system corrupting the vote, such elections cannot be deemed democratic.

They also only tell the truth as far as listeners are able to hear.

Every democracy has politicians that make expensive election promises. And your comment about the "patronage system corrupting the vote" is pure hot air. During the 2011 election period I was in in a Red Shirt village in Northern Thailand. I speak fluent Thai. I saw absolutely nothing untoward.

There was nothing to be seen as I wrote. The patronage systems with rewards afterswards isn't easily visible. It's only sometimes remarked on, like when Banharn talks about his provice and means it literally.

Anyway soon a topic about 'most people no longer happy as they must pay taxes since the current government has to shoulder the financial burden left by the Yingluck Administration.

""Much of the blame for the nation's deteriorating fiscal health should be placed on the previous government of Yingluck Shinawatra, who engaged in a spending spree to finance a raft of measures to please voters.""

http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Economy/Thai-military-junta-pushes-tax-hikes

[khunjamesjohnson]

Name the last Administration that had a surplus and what happened after that?

[tbthailand]

"She dropped the bill as mouch as the law allowed ? You mean she just obfuscated, told all 'the amnesty bill has been dropped, we won't take it up again' while OTHER bills were dropped and by law she don't do anything about the Senate reacted bill."

Ok, explain it. How could she have legally dropped the bill any more than she did?

Regarding the rest, yeah, more rigorous tax collection always brings happiness to people.

the bill was dead - that is the reality of the situation - and everyone knew it (well, among the Thai population, at least).

Antidotally, I had a Thai friend who supported and attended the protests. She talked about corruption and rice farmers, but not once did she mention amnesty.

The PDRC also stopped railing against the amnesty bill and moved on to corruption; etc.

And as you point out, what more could have been done to 'kill' the bill?

It was dead.

You're just as much into obfuscation as Brucy.

One saying Ms. Yingluck dropped the bill as much as by law she could, which translates into "she did nothing as she could do nothing".

You declaring the bill was dead, and assuming that therefor that is so. Well, the bill wasn't dead legally and could have been picked up as is to be voted on again. Normally without activity the bill would automatically 'expire' after 180 days which would be end of April 2014 or so. That means by now the bill is dead as in expired.

I would suggest that you are into 'denial'

[whybother]

Name the last Administration that had a surplus and what happened after that?

The Rudd administration delivered a surplus in 2008.

(disclaimer: names and dates may be incorrect)

[heybruce]

"She dropped the bill as mouch as the law allowed ? You mean she just obfuscated, told all 'the amnesty bill has been dropped, we won't take it up again' while OTHER bills were dropped and by law she don't do anything about the Senate reacted bill."

Ok, explain it. How could she have legally dropped the bill any more than she did?

Regarding the rest, yeah, more rigorous tax collection always brings happiness to people.

Since Ms. Yingluck couldn't do anything it is a bit of obfuscation to say she dropped the bill as much as she could.

As for the tax collection making people happy, well at least the NCPO not only targets 'normal' people but also the upper classes with their 'property and inheritance law'. Still as the Nikkei article wrote

"Much of the blame for the nation's deteriorating fiscal health should be placed on the previous government of Yingluck Shinawatra, who engaged in a spending spree to finance a raft of measures to please voters."

No, Yingluck dropped the bill as much as the law allowed, fact, no question mark required. It is obfuscation on your part to suggest that she was somehow holding it in reserve. I repeat, she dropped the bill as much as the law allowed.

[rubl]

"She dropped the bill as mouch as the law allowed ? You mean she just obfuscated, told all 'the amnesty bill has been dropped, we won't take it up again' while OTHER bills were dropped and by law she don't do anything about the Senate reacted bill."

Ok, explain it. How could she have legally dropped the bill any more than she did?

Regarding the rest, yeah, more rigorous tax collection always brings happiness to people.

Since Ms. Yingluck couldn't do anything it is a bit of obfuscation to say she dropped the bill as much as she could.

As for the tax collection making people happy, well at least the NCPO not only targets 'normal' people but also the upper classes with their 'property and inheritance law'. Still as the Nikkei article wrote

"Much of the blame for the nation's deteriorating fiscal health should be placed on the previous government of Yingluck Shinawatra, who engaged in a spending spree to finance a raft of measures to please voters."

No, Yingluck dropped the bill as much as the law allowed, fact, no question mark required. It is obfuscation on your part to suggest that she was somehow holding it in reserve. I repeat, she dropped the bill as much as the law allowed.

Ms. Yingluck did nothing as by law she could do nothing about the 'blanket amnesty bill'. To write 'she dropped it as much as by law she could' while by law she couldn't touch the bill is close to lying.

I also do not suggest she held the bill in reserve, I wrote she didn't do anything as she couldn't do anything about the bill within the law.

As such the bill was dormant and could have been picked up by any government after 180 days. Those days have expired and I can only hope the bill 'passed away' as well, legally that is.

[khunjamesjohnson]

"She dropped the bill as mouch as the law allowed ? You mean she just obfuscated, told all 'the amnesty bill has been dropped, we won't take it up again' while OTHER bills were dropped and by law she don't do anything about the Senate reacted bill."

Ok, explain it. How could she have legally dropped the bill any more than she did?

Regarding the rest, yeah, more rigorous tax collection always brings happiness to people.

Since Ms. Yingluck couldn't do anything it is a bit of obfuscation to say she dropped the bill as much as she could.

As for the tax collection making people happy, well at least the NCPO not only targets 'normal' people but also the upper classes with their 'property and inheritance law'. Still as the Nikkei article wrote

"Much of the blame for the nation's deteriorating fiscal health should be placed on the previous government of Yingluck Shinawatra, who engaged in a spending spree to finance a raft of measures to please voters."

No, Yingluck dropped the bill as much as the law allowed, fact, no question mark required. It is obfuscation on your part to suggest that she was somehow holding it in reserve. I repeat, she dropped the bill as much as the law allowed.

Ms. Yingluck did nothing as by law she could do nothing about the 'blanket amnesty bill'. To write 'she dropped it as much as by law she could' while by law she couldn't touch the bill is close to lying.

I also do not suggest she held the bill in reserve, I wrote she didn't do anything as she couldn't do anything about the bill within the law.

As such the bill was dormant and could have been picked up by any government after 180 days. Those days have expired and I can only hope the bill 'passed away' as well, legally that is.

I can see you are passionate about Thai politics. Too bad you have relied on the Thai press to base your arguments.

The true history of Thailand is much more interesting.

[rubl]

Ms. Yingluck did nothing as by law she could do nothing about the 'blanket amnesty bill'. To write 'she dropped it as much as by law she could' while by law she couldn't touch the bill is close to lying.

I also do not suggest she held the bill in reserve, I wrote she didn't do anything as she couldn't do anything about the bill within the law.

As such the bill was dormant and could have been picked up by any government after 180 days. Those days have expired and I can only hope the bill 'passed away' as well, legally that is.

I can see you are passionate about Thai politics. Too bad you have relied on the Thai press to base your arguments.

The true history of Thailand is much more interesting.

Passionate about Thai politics? I only correct some members who try to suggest something which isn't true.

Now since you state its too bad I relied on the Thai press to base my arguments, maybe you want to tell me what the exact legal status was of the 'blanket amnesty bill' once it was rejected by the Senate.

Your last sentence seems too general to have much meaning in this aspect apart from suggesting that you might rather look at the broader picture than some 'minor' legal issues.

Edited October 6, 2014 by rubl

[MrJohnson]

Well, back on topic for just a moment. A bit too early to make a judgement on the new regime. One thing for sure. No freedom of the press, no open discussion of politics. this will go on for some time. The boys currently in charge will make sure that a TS never gets another chance to get elected. There is no way there will be an election next year and if there is, it will be in name only. A Singapore-style election, one party state. It will be like the old T-Model Ford. You can whatever colour your like -as long as it is black. The boys in green are not going to make the mistakes they did in 2006. Wait and see. Yes, some superficial clean-ups of the streets and beaches. Pure window dressing.

[khunjamesjohnson]

Well, back on topic for just a moment. A bit too early to make a judgement on the new regime. One thing for sure. No freedom of the press, no open discussion of politics. this will go on for some time. The boys currently in charge will make sure that a TS never gets another chance to get elected. There is no way there will be an election next year and if there is, it will be in name only. A Singapore-style election, one party state. It will be like the old T-Model Ford. You can whatever colour your like -as long as it is black. The boys in green are not going to make the mistakes they did in 2006. Wait and see. Yes, some superficial clean-ups of the streets and beaches. Pure window dressing.

I agree with everything you say.

One more item to add. A war with Cambodia over that Temple will set back the election date at some point.

[whybother]

Well, back on topic for just a moment. A bit too early to make a judgement on the new regime. One thing for sure. No freedom of the press, no open discussion of politics. this will go on for some time. The boys currently in charge will make sure that a TS never gets another chance to get elected. There is no way there will be an election next year and if there is, it will be in name only. A Singapore-style election, one party state. It will be like the old T-Model Ford. You can whatever colour your like -as long as it is black. The boys in green are not going to make the mistakes they did in 2006. Wait and see. Yes, some superficial clean-ups of the streets and beaches. Pure window dressing.

I have a crystal ball too. I reckon there will be an election in late 2015 or early 2016. It may be delayed but won't be delayed enough for people to say "I told you they wanted to keep power forever".

I reckon that PTP will win the most seats, but not a majority. They will probably be able to form a coalition government, but that may depend on how many trips the smaller parties make to Hong Kong or Dubai.

We'll just have to wait to see which prediction is right.

[MrJohnson]

Well, back on topic for just a moment. A bit too early to make a judgement on the new regime. One thing for sure. No freedom of the press, no open discussion of politics. this will go on for some time. The boys currently in charge will make sure that a TS never gets another chance to get elected. There is no way there will be an election next year and if there is, it will be in name only. A Singapore-style election, one party state. It will be like the old T-Model Ford. You can whatever colour your like -as long as it is black. The boys in green are not going to make the mistakes they did in 2006. Wait and see. Yes, some superficial clean-ups of the streets and beaches. Pure window dressing.

I have a crystal ball too. I reckon there will be an election in late 2015 or early 2016. It may be delayed but won't be delayed enough for people to say "I told you they wanted to keep power forever".

I reckon that PTP will win the most seats, but not a majority. They will probably be able to form a coalition government, but that may depend on how many trips the smaller parties make to Hong Kong or Dubai.

We'll just have to wait to see which prediction is right.

Indeed we will.

[Rimmer]

A baiting post has been removed