Most people happy with the junta

[heybruce]

No election anywhere is perfect. ANFREL stated the 2011 election was legitimate http://www.voanews.com/content/asian-observer-group-commends-thai-election-cites-minor-flaws--125003034/141777.html. Do you have any evidence that the irregularities you mentioned put the election results in doubt?

Oh, the elections were legitimate. I agree.

The behaviour of the political parties and especially Pheu Thai is a different matter. You once wrote not to see any problem with that criminal fugitive Thaksin being involved in the 2011 elections. Now of course your entitled to your opinion, but it does sound a bit funny coming from a 'defender of democracy'.

Now as for the topic, most people in Thailand seem happy. Not a handful of TVF posters, but it would seem none of them live and work in Thailand. If they did they might have agreed with the OP. People in Bangkok seem happy enough although I suspect some couldn't care less as long as it doesn't interfere with what they are doing.

"You once wrote not to see any problem with that criminal fugitive Thaksin being involved in the 2011 elections."

If this is the post I'm thinking of, I wrote that Yingluck and Thaksin made no secret of the relationship, and indeed made it a big part of the PTP campaign. Since the PTP won the largest block of votes campaigning on this arrangement, then I think their vote should have been respected. If the voters grew tired of the arrangement they could have voted differently in the next election, if there had been a next election. Besides, in a society with endemic corruption, there are only politicians who have been convicted after losing a power struggle, and the politicians who have not yet been convicted.

I do agree that most Thai people have little interest in politics, they just want to get on with there lives. However I have no doubt the junta doesn't allow calls for elections because they know the elections won't turn out the way they want them to.

Nice that in a democracy a political party is allowed to 'bring in' a criminal fugitive and people think that should be respected. Rule of law anyone ?

He wasn't brought in, he stayed outside the country. The voters indicated they were happy with that situation. If laws were broken I'm sure charges would have been filed.

[rubl]

Nice that in a democracy a political party is allowed to 'bring in' a criminal fugitive and people think that should be respected. Rule of law anyone ?

He wasn't brought in, he stayed outside the country. The voters indicated they were happy with that situation. If laws were broken I'm sure charges would have been filed.

He was 'brought in' as in 'brought into the picture', 'involved' or actually he masterminded from abroad.

In the mean time people who complain about 'amart', 'unelected elite' want to go back to 'democracy', the version which allows a criminal fugitive to run a country from abroad. Go back to a PM and cabinet doing whatever necessary to fulfill their oversea master's commands. New passport from flooded offices? No problem, no one looking as lots of Thai wading through floodwaters. MoFA lying and denying he did such? No problem. All totally acceptable in the democracy some would like to go back to.

No wonder most Thai are happy with the NCPO

[rubl]

With so many people happy with the NCPO and PM Prayut it seems a few other word leaders are getting somewhat annoyed. A PM finding the time to write songs and sing them himself as well, write his own speeches, movie/soap scripts, etc., etc.

It seems that one of Democracies great leaders PM David Cameron didn't want to be outdone by a mere general. He made suggestions for improving the British Education Curriculum.

"Schools should teach pupils mainly in imperial and not metric measurements, David Cameron has said. "

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/30/david-cameron-schools-should-teach-mainly-in-imperial-measurements

Edited October 2, 2014 by rubl

[heybruce]

Nice that in a democracy a political party is allowed to 'bring in' a criminal fugitive and people think that should be respected. Rule of law anyone ?

He wasn't brought in, he stayed outside the country. The voters indicated they were happy with that situation. If laws were broken I'm sure charges would have been filed.

He was 'brought in' as in 'brought into the picture', 'involved' or actually he masterminded from abroad.

In the mean time people who complain about 'amart', 'unelected elite' want to go back to 'democracy', the version which allows a criminal fugitive to run a country from abroad. Go back to a PM and cabinet doing whatever necessary to fulfill their oversea master's commands. New passport from flooded offices? No problem, no one looking as lots of Thai wading through floodwaters. MoFA lying and denying he did such? No problem. All totally acceptable in the democracy some would like to go back to.

No wonder most Thai are happy with the NCPO

Too bad PM's can't grant themselves amnesty for their actions the way coup leaders do, right?

You have written nothing that justified the coup. And as I've repeatedly stated, polls taken under martial law and censorship by government sponsored organizations have no credibility.

[khunjamesjohnson]

I think an immediate vote is in order. The democrats should win by a landslide if we are to believe The Nation.

Where does Thailand rank on the freedom of the press?

[Suriya4]

I have been ordered to tell you people that since prayuth return happiness to me, I am very happy. Thank you prayuth.

[khunjamesjohnson]

No election anywhere is perfect. ANFREL stated the 2011 election was legitimate http://www.voanews.com/content/asian-observer-group-commends-thai-election-cites-minor-flaws--125003034/141777.html. Do you have any evidence that the irregularities you mentioned put the election results in doubt?

Oh, the elections were legitimate. I agree.

The behaviour of the political parties and especially Pheu Thai is a different matter. You once wrote not to see any problem with that criminal fugitive Thaksin being involved in the 2011 elections. Now of course your entitled to your opinion, but it does sound a bit funny coming from a 'defender of democracy'.

Now as for the topic, most people in Thailand seem happy. Not a handful of TVF posters, but it would seem none of them live and work in Thailand. If they did they might have agreed with the OP. People in Bangkok seem happy enough although I suspect some couldn't care less as long as it doesn't interfere with what they are doing.

"You once wrote not to see any problem with that criminal fugitive Thaksin being involved in the 2011 elections."

If this is the post I'm thinking of, I wrote that Yingluck and Thaksin made no secret of the relationship, and indeed made it a big part of the PTP campaign. Since the PTP won the largest block of votes campaigning on this arrangement, then I think their vote should have been respected. If the voters grew tired of the arrangement they could have voted differently in the next election, if there had been a next election. Besides, in a society with endemic corruption, there are only politicians who have been convicted after losing a power struggle, and the politicians who have not yet been convicted.

I do agree that most Thai people have little interest in politics, they just want to get on with there lives. However I have no doubt the junta doesn't allow calls for elections because they know the elections won't turn out the way they want them to.

Nice that in a democracy a political party is allowed to 'bring in' a criminal fugitive and people think that should be respected. Rule of law anyone ?

Criminal?

You do know the Army rewrote the constitution & stacked the Senate then they stacked the court with Thaksins enemies?

.

[maxme]

53.6 per cent were "quite satisfied" while 39 per cent said they are "very satisfied" - this added up to 91.6 per cent who are at least "satisfied" with the performance over the past four months

Very impressive numbers.

Not surprising, then, that the Shin apologists are scrambling to feebly dispute and rebut.

Tsk... Tsk... The world of the indoctrinated must be a fabulous one.

[whybother]

"Name me one country outside of your head that has complete freedom of the press."

None. But I can name a lot of countries that allow criticism of the government. Do you think it is acceptable to sharply curtail freedom of the press just because no country is perfect in this area?

I know enough of the history of Thailand to know that corruption did not begin with Thaksin, and didn't disappear during the frequent periods of military rule. As far as the military cleaning up corruption, I think they will see to it that the civilian government is no more corrupt than the military. I don't think anyone will notice a difference.

"But I can name a lot of countries that allow criticism of the government."

Is Thailand on your list? Did you read the BP today?

"Critics slam freebie for farmers"

I haven't heard of the journalist or the critics being dragged off to jail. Maybe you've got those reports.

[rubl]

Nice that in a democracy a political party is allowed to 'bring in' a criminal fugitive and people think that should be respected. Rule of law anyone ?

Criminal?

You do know the Army rewrote the constitution & stacked the Senate then they stacked the court with Thaksins enemies?

Obviously and clearly for all to see Thaksin is innocent. He's just too rich to need to be corrupt anyway.

'conflict of interest' as in too greedy and still doing business while PM.

[rubl]

Nice that in a democracy a political party is allowed to 'bring in' a criminal fugitive and people think that should be respected. Rule of law anyone ?

He wasn't brought in, he stayed outside the country. The voters indicated they were happy with that situation. If laws were broken I'm sure charges would have been filed.

He was 'brought in' as in 'brought into the picture', 'involved' or actually he masterminded from abroad.

In the mean time people who complain about 'amart', 'unelected elite' want to go back to 'democracy', the version which allows a criminal fugitive to run a country from abroad. Go back to a PM and cabinet doing whatever necessary to fulfill their oversea master's commands. New passport from flooded offices? No problem, no one looking as lots of Thai wading through floodwaters. MoFA lying and denying he did such? No problem. All totally acceptable in the democracy some would like to go back to.

No wonder most Thai are happy with the NCPO

Too bad PM's can't grant themselves amnesty for their actions the way coup leaders do, right?

You have written nothing that justified the coup. And as I've repeatedly stated, polls taken under martial law and censorship by government sponsored organizations have no credibility.

Too bad indeed, but the topic is not Ms. Yingluck nor amnesty, but most people happy with the NCPO.

What you've stated I know, what you've proven while far, far away from events here is nil (at least you seem to reside in another country, timezone and maybe even universe).

[halloween]

Too bad PM's can't grant themselves amnesty for their actions the way coup leaders do, right?

You have written nothing that justified the coup. And as I've repeatedly stated, polls taken under martial law and censorship by government sponsored organizations have no credibility.

But Bruce, that's exactly what Yingluk tried to do, grant an amnesty to her brother, his red shirt thugs and her own government for the crimes they were committing against the Thai people, like the G2G fraud, and the massive debt she was running up with the rice scam.

Don't you remember, that's what sparked the protests that led to the coup. And why not? Is it democratic for a government to whitewash their own crimes and those of their supporters?

You criticise the junta, who don't claim to be democratic, for granting themselves amnesty, and ignore that the government they replaced was attempting to do the same.

[heybruce]

Too bad PM's can't grant themselves amnesty for their actions the way coup leaders do, right?

You have written nothing that justified the coup. And as I've repeatedly stated, polls taken under martial law and censorship by government sponsored organizations have no credibility.

But Bruce, that's exactly what Yingluk tried to do, grant an amnesty to her brother, his red shirt thugs and her own government for the crimes they were committing against the Thai people, like the G2G fraud, and the massive debt she was running up with the rice scam.

Don't you remember, that's what sparked the protests that led to the coup. And why not? Is it democratic for a government to whitewash their own crimes and those of their supporters?

You criticise the junta, who don't claim to be democratic, for granting themselves amnesty, and ignore that the government they replaced was attempting to do the same.

"But Bruce, that's exactly what Yingluk tried to do, grant an amnesty to her brother,"

But she didn't, did she? Or rather she followed the law and dropped the issue when it didn't make it through the Senate. Did the generals follow the law in granting amnesty for themselves?

[heybruce]

He wasn't brought in, he stayed outside the country. The voters indicated they were happy with that situation. If laws were broken I'm sure charges would have been filed.

He was 'brought in' as in 'brought into the picture', 'involved' or actually he masterminded from abroad.

In the mean time people who complain about 'amart', 'unelected elite' want to go back to 'democracy', the version which allows a criminal fugitive to run a country from abroad. Go back to a PM and cabinet doing whatever necessary to fulfill their oversea master's commands. New passport from flooded offices? No problem, no one looking as lots of Thai wading through floodwaters. MoFA lying and denying he did such? No problem. All totally acceptable in the democracy some would like to go back to.

No wonder most Thai are happy with the NCPO

Too bad PM's can't grant themselves amnesty for their actions the way coup leaders do, right?

You have written nothing that justified the coup. And as I've repeatedly stated, polls taken under martial law and censorship by government sponsored organizations have no credibility.

Too bad indeed, but the topic is not Ms. Yingluck nor amnesty, but most people happy with the NCPO.

What you've stated I know, what you've proven while far, far away from events here is nil (at least you seem to reside in another country, timezone and maybe even universe).

Yes, and I, and a great many other people, are skeptical of polls conducted under martial law and censorship by a lower tier government university. It's not to me to prove the poll is accurate, it's the polling organizations responsibility to prove their poll is legitimate, by publishing all pertinent details of how the poll was conducted, why, and for whom.

[halloween]

Too bad PM's can't grant themselves amnesty for their actions the way coup leaders do, right?

You have written nothing that justified the coup. And as I've repeatedly stated, polls taken under martial law and censorship by government sponsored organizations have no credibility.

But Bruce, that's exactly what Yingluk tried to do, grant an amnesty to her brother, his red shirt thugs and her own government for the crimes they were committing against the Thai people, like the G2G fraud, and the massive debt she was running up with the rice scam.

Don't you remember, that's what sparked the protests that led to the coup. And why not? Is it democratic for a government to whitewash their own crimes and those of their supporters?

You criticise the junta, who don't claim to be democratic, for granting themselves amnesty, and ignore that the government they replaced was attempting to do the same.

"But Bruce, that's exactly what Yingluk tried to do, grant an amnesty to her brother,"

But she didn't, did she? Or rather she followed the law and dropped the issue when it didn't make it through the Senate. Did the generals follow the law in granting amnesty for themselves?

Are you new here? 180 days after the UNANIMOUS Senate rejection, the bill could be made law. The only thing stopping it was the promise of a known perjurer that she wouldn't absolve her own crimes and that of her criminal government. That was not good enough.

As the junta are writing the laws, yes.

BTW Do not cut my sentences to change the context. The sentence was pointing out that she was writing an amnesty for herself and government for crimes in commission at the time.

[khunjamesjohnson]

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.

[halloween]

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"?

[heybruce]

"Name me one country outside of your head that has complete freedom of the press."

None. But I can name a lot of countries that allow criticism of the government. Do you think it is acceptable to sharply curtail freedom of the press just because no country is perfect in this area?

I know enough of the history of Thailand to know that corruption did not begin with Thaksin, and didn't disappear during the frequent periods of military rule. As far as the military cleaning up corruption, I think they will see to it that the civilian government is no more corrupt than the military. I don't think anyone will notice a difference.

"But I can name a lot of countries that allow criticism of the government."

Is Thailand on your list? Did you read the BP today?

"Critics slam freebie for farmers"

I haven't heard of the journalist or the critics being dragged off to jail. Maybe you've got those reports.

So the junta allowed some criticism of one of the peripheral policies. Whoopee. China does the same. But neither China nor Thailand allow the press to question the government's legitimacy or call for elections. So Thailand seems to have approximately the same level of press freedom as China. Does that make you happy?

Let me know when you find a story showing these committees have been disbanded:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/26/thailand-politics-idUSL4N0P71F020140626

[whybother]

So the junta allowed some criticism of one of the peripheral policies. Whoopee. China does the same. But neither China nor Thailand allow the press to question the government's legitimacy or call for elections. So Thailand seems to have approximately the same level of press freedom as China. Does that make you happy?

Let me know when you find a story showing these committees have been disbanded:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/26/thailand-politics-idUSL4N0P71F020140626

You go on an on about how the government doesn't allow criticism, and whenever you're shown that they are being criticised you say "whoopee"???

The government CAN be criticised. Why would people be scared to answer a simple question on a survey?

[heybruce]

Too bad PM's can't grant themselves amnesty for their actions the way coup leaders do, right?

You have written nothing that justified the coup. And as I've repeatedly stated, polls taken under martial law and censorship by government sponsored organizations have no credibility.

But Bruce, that's exactly what Yingluk tried to do, grant an amnesty to her brother, his red shirt thugs and her own government for the crimes they were committing against the Thai people, like the G2G fraud, and the massive debt she was running up with the rice scam.

Don't you remember, that's what sparked the protests that led to the coup. And why not? Is it democratic for a government to whitewash their own crimes and those of their supporters?

You criticise the junta, who don't claim to be democratic, for granting themselves amnesty, and ignore that the government they replaced was attempting to do the same.

"But Bruce, that's exactly what Yingluk tried to do, grant an amnesty to her brother,"

But she didn't, did she? Or rather she followed the law and dropped the issue when it didn't make it through the Senate. Did the generals follow the law in granting amnesty for themselves?

Are you new here? 180 days after the UNANIMOUS Senate rejection, the bill could be made law. The only thing stopping it was the promise of a known perjurer that she wouldn't absolve her own crimes and that of her criminal government. That was not good enough.

As the junta are writing the laws, yes.

BTW Do not cut my sentences to change the context. The sentence was pointing out that she was writing an amnesty for herself and government for crimes in commission at the time.

Really? Please explain the constitutional process that would have allowed Yingluck to single-handedly turn the amnesty bill into law in six months.

The amnesty bill applied to crimes and alleged crimes going far back, but this is the first I've read of it applying to government debt and the rice scheme. Can you provide more details?

[heybruce]

So the junta allowed some criticism of one of the peripheral policies. Whoopee. China does the same. But neither China nor Thailand allow the press to question the government's legitimacy or call for elections. So Thailand seems to have approximately the same level of press freedom as China. Does that make you happy?

Let me know when you find a story showing these committees have been disbanded:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/26/thailand-politics-idUSL4N0P71F020140626

You go on an on about how the government doesn't allow criticism, and whenever you're shown that they are being criticised you say "whoopee"???

The government CAN be criticised. Why would people be scared to answer a simple question on a survey?

As I wrote, the government is now allowing some criticism of peripheral policies. That puts in on approximately the same level as China. I don't think that's very good. Do you?

[whybother]

So the junta allowed some criticism of one of the peripheral policies. Whoopee. China does the same. But neither China nor Thailand allow the press to question the government's legitimacy or call for elections. So Thailand seems to have approximately the same level of press freedom as China. Does that make you happy?

Let me know when you find a story showing these committees have been disbanded:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/26/thailand-politics-idUSL4N0P71F020140626

You go on an on about how the government doesn't allow criticism, and whenever you're shown that they are being criticised you say "whoopee"???

The government CAN be criticised. Why would people be scared to answer a simple question on a survey?

As I wrote, the government is now allowing some criticism of peripheral policies. That puts in on approximately the same level as China. I don't think that's very good. Do you?

The government have been allowing criticism since before the poll. Yet you've been consistently saying that people wouldn't answer in the negative because the government didn't allow criticism. There is plenty of evidence that they allow criticism. What excuses are you going to use to ignore the poll now?

[halloween]

Are you new here? 180 days after the UNANIMOUS Senate rejection, the bill could be made law. The only thing stopping it was the promise of a known perjurer that she wouldn't absolve her own crimes and that of her criminal government. That was not good enough.

As the junta are writing the laws, yes.

BTW Do not cut my sentences to change the context. The sentence was pointing out that she was writing an amnesty for herself and government for crimes in commission at the time.

Really? Please explain the constitutional process that would have allowed Yingluck to single-handedly turn the amnesty bill into law in six months.

The amnesty bill applied to crimes and alleged crimes going far back, but this is the first I've read of it applying to government debt and the rice scheme. Can you provide more details?

Really new here? Do your own homework. http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/yingluck-promises-pass-amnesty-bill-rejected-senate/

[tbthailand]

Inside of Thailand, that naturally only affects the sites that are still active. Examples include reporting from Prachatai and Khaosod. FT, BBC, and Youtube have all been blocked.

No censorship here.

Just checked.

Every one of those websites is up and running.

No blocking here.

you have never heard of blocking a page?

Just one example, FT pages reporting on Kritsuda were blocked, but the letter from the 'NCPO' to FT with their denial was not.

Also, both prachatai and khaosod have been down for periods of days during the summer.

Of course, just try to find nitirat...

Yes, blocking here.

[khunjamesjohnson]

Well, at Thai Visa there are 2 distinct camps discussing politics.

One side apparently reads the local papers and the other side has read the books and articles that are banned in Thailand.

I Know 3 authors that fled Thailand to publish their books.

Would they be jailed for lying or telling the truth?

Edited October 3, 2014 by khunjamesjohnson

[jpeg]

Really? Please explain the constitutional process that would have allowed Yingluck to single-handedly turn the amnesty bill into law in six months.

The amnesty bill applied to crimes and alleged crimes going far back, but this is the first I've read of it applying to government debt and the rice scheme. Can you provide more details?

Problem is, as woeful a maladministration as the previous government was, this piece of hubris was quickly discovered and routed. Could anyone hope for the same under an unaopposed military dictatorship?

[heybruce]

So the junta allowed some criticism of one of the peripheral policies. Whoopee. China does the same. But neither China nor Thailand allow the press to question the government's legitimacy or call for elections. So Thailand seems to have approximately the same level of press freedom as China. Does that make you happy?

Let me know when you find a story showing these committees have been disbanded:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/26/thailand-politics-idUSL4N0P71F020140626

You go on an on about how the government doesn't allow criticism, and whenever you're shown that they are being criticised you say "whoopee"???

The government CAN be criticised. Why would people be scared to answer a simple question on a survey?

As I wrote, the government is now allowing some criticism of peripheral policies. That puts in on approximately the same level as China. I don't think that's very good. Do you?

The government have been allowing criticism since before the poll. Yet you've been consistently saying that people wouldn't answer in the negative because the government didn't allow criticism. There is plenty of evidence that they allow criticism. What excuses are you going to use to ignore the poll now?

No, I have consistently written that a poll conducted under martial law and censorship by a government university isn't credible. That's quite different from:

"Yet you've been consistently saying that people wouldn't answer in the negative because the government didn't allow criticism."

You criticized me for copying an incomplete sentence of yours, then you completely misrepresent what I have repeatedly written.

Also, as my link clearly indicated, the government doesn't want criticism and makes an effort to eliminate it. They haven't eliminated all forms of criticism, but done a good job of eliminating hard hitting criticism.

[heybruce]

Are you new here? 180 days after the UNANIMOUS Senate rejection, the bill could be made law. The only thing stopping it was the promise of a known perjurer that she wouldn't absolve her own crimes and that of her criminal government. That was not good enough.

As the junta are writing the laws, yes.

BTW Do not cut my sentences to change the context. The sentence was pointing out that she was writing an amnesty for herself and government for crimes in commission at the time.

Really? Please explain the constitutional process that would have allowed Yingluck to single-handedly turn the amnesty bill into law in six months.

The amnesty bill applied to crimes and alleged crimes going far back, but this is the first I've read of it applying to government debt and the rice scheme. Can you provide more details?

Really new here? Do your own homework. http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/yingluck-promises-pass-amnesty-bill-rejected-senate/

That is a news article quoting Yingluck's promise not to resubmit the bill to senate. You wrote:

"180 days after the UNANIMOUS Senate rejection, the bill could be made law. The only thing stopping it was the promise of a known perjurer that she wouldn't absolve her own crimes and that of her criminal government. That was not good enough."

There was much more than the word of Yingluck preventing the amnesty bill from becoming law, there was the legislative process that stopped it originally.

[heybruce]

Really? Please explain the constitutional process that would have allowed Yingluck to single-handedly turn the amnesty bill into law in six months.

The amnesty bill applied to crimes and alleged crimes going far back, but this is the first I've read of it applying to government debt and the rice scheme. Can you provide more details?

Problem is, as woeful a maladministration as the previous government was, this piece of hubris was quickly discovered and routed. Could anyone hope for the same under an unaopposed military dictatorship?

Specifically, can the proposed amnesty for the coup leaders result in massive protests and toppling of the junta? Only if the protesters are very, very brave, and even then maybe not.

[whybother]

<snip>

There was much more than the word of Yingluck preventing the amnesty bill from becoming law, there was the legislative process that stopped it originally.

The legislative process didn't stop the bill. It being rejected by the senate put it on hold for 180 days, after which time it could be killed by parliament or voted through without further change.

What finally stopped the bill from becoming law was PTP not being in government when the 180 days from senate rejection was completed.