Most people happy with the junta

[halloween]

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.

I also wrote "do your own homework" but since you persist in displaying your ignorance, I did it for you.

"If the Senate does not agree to the bill as proposed by the House of Representatives, it may amend the bill, and return the bill, as amended, to the House of Representatives for consideration. If the House does not agree with the amendment, the two bodies appoint a committee to try to resolve the differences. If this is not possible, the House of Representatives may enact the bill, without the Senate's amendments, after a lengthy period of time (six months or more) has passed. It is then submitted, through the Prime Minister, to the King, for his consideration. "

http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/briggsgov.html

[whybother]

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.

*Proposed* amnesty? That's already been done and dusted.

If the current administration were to go too far beyond their proposed timeframe, I believe that there would be protests. The large majority in the middle (neither red nor yellow shirts) wouldn't stand for them hanging around too long whether they accepted (not supported) the coup or not.

[tim armstrong]

I think the government is doing a good job. It will take years, and a few significant events to really change the deep seated problems here. This government knows it, and the population knows it. ..And they don't need to read much, as word of mouth, local radio, and a few much watched tv channels give them all the info they need.

[khunjamesjohnson]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/10/03/junta-suppression-academic-talk-democracy-exposes-cracks-in-thailand-peaceful/

[whybother]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/10/03/junta-suppression-academic-talk-democracy-exposes-cracks-in-thailand-peaceful/

You do understand the difference between criticism of the government's policies and criticism of the coup, don't you?

People are able to say that they don't like the government's progress without mentioning that they don't think that they should be there in the first place.

[heybruce]

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.

I also wrote "do your own homework" but since you persist in displaying your ignorance, I did it for you.

"If the Senate does not agree to the bill as proposed by the House of Representatives, it may amend the bill, and return the bill, as amended, to the House of Representatives for consideration. If the House does not agree with the amendment, the two bodies appoint a committee to try to resolve the differences. If this is not possible, the House of Representatives may enact the bill, without the Senate's amendments, after a lengthy period of time (six months or more) has passed. It is then submitted, through the Prime Minister, to the King, for his consideration. "

http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/briggsgov.html

So there was a legislative process for a second attempt, though different from the initial process. However after the outrage expressed from both redshirts and yellowshirts I seriously doubt that any further attempt would have been made to pass the bill. However in the unlikely attempt that there had been, and it followed the constitutional process and succeeded, it would have been constitutional and no excuse for illegal protests shutting down government and elections, or an excuse for a coup.

[heybruce]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/10/03/junta-suppression-academic-talk-democracy-exposes-cracks-in-thailand-peaceful/

You do understand the difference between criticism of the government's policies and criticism of the coup, don't you?

People are able to say that they don't like the government's progress without mentioning that they don't think that they should be there in the first place.

There is a lot more to the article than that. Insight into the mind of the PM can be gained from:

"The coup leader, Prayuth Chan-ocha, has been unapologetic. He views criticism of the junta as divisive and unhelpful. He said any group that wants to hold such seminars must get approval first, so the content can be screened — because "if it's about democracy or elections, or how the government is today, this they can't discuss.""

[heybruce]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/10/03/junta-suppression-academic-talk-democracy-exposes-cracks-in-thailand-peaceful/

Very interesting link, thank you. To be honest I never would have thought Fox News would take that much interest in the world outside the US.

[halloween]

I also wrote "do your own homework" but since you persist in displaying your ignorance, I did it for you.

"If the Senate does not agree to the bill as proposed by the House of Representatives, it may amend the bill, and return the bill, as amended, to the House of Representatives for consideration. If the House does not agree with the amendment, the two bodies appoint a committee to try to resolve the differences. If this is not possible, the House of Representatives may enact the bill, without the Senate's amendments, after a lengthy period of time (six months or more) has passed. It is then submitted, through the Prime Minister, to the King, for his consideration. "

http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/briggsgov.html

So there was a legislative process for a second attempt, though different from the initial process. However after the outrage expressed from both redshirts and yellowshirts I seriously doubt that any further attempt would have been made to pass the bill. However in the unlikely attempt that there had been, and it followed the constitutional process and succeeded, it would have been constitutional and no excuse for illegal protests shutting down government and elections, or an excuse for a coup.

You really are something else, aren't you? Despite unanimous rejection by the senate forcing through legislation which would have completely undermined the legal system, and which involved a massive conflict of interest, absolving not just political crimes but corruption, murder, arson, theft, and terrorism, is fine by you. Well it wasn't fine by the Thai people. Even the government realised they had made a huge mistake, and were begging forgiveness and for trust, AS IF.

You weren't even here at the time, or you would have known of the arguments against the amnesty, and the ability of a government to force through legislation. Developed a real taste for the Red Kool-Aid though, haven't you?

[heybruce]

I also wrote "do your own homework" but since you persist in displaying your ignorance, I did it for you.

"If the Senate does not agree to the bill as proposed by the House of Representatives, it may amend the bill, and return the bill, as amended, to the House of Representatives for consideration. If the House does not agree with the amendment, the two bodies appoint a committee to try to resolve the differences. If this is not possible, the House of Representatives may enact the bill, without the Senate's amendments, after a lengthy period of time (six months or more) has passed. It is then submitted, through the Prime Minister, to the King, for his consideration. "

http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/briggsgov.html

So there was a legislative process for a second attempt, though different from the initial process. However after the outrage expressed from both redshirts and yellowshirts I seriously doubt that any further attempt would have been made to pass the bill. However in the unlikely attempt that there had been, and it followed the constitutional process and succeeded, it would have been constitutional and no excuse for illegal protests shutting down government and elections, or an excuse for a coup.

You really are something else, aren't you? Despite unanimous rejection by the senate forcing through legislation which would have completely undermined the legal system, and which involved a massive conflict of interest, absolving not just political crimes but corruption, murder, arson, theft, and terrorism, is fine by you. Well it wasn't fine by the Thai people. Even the government realised they had made a huge mistake, and were begging forgiveness and for trust, AS IF.

You weren't even here at the time, or you would have known of the arguments against the amnesty, and the ability of a government to force through legislation. Developed a real taste for the Red Kool-Aid though, haven't you?

"Even the government realised they had made a huge mistake, and were begging forgiveness and for trust, AS IF."

Wasn't your original point that the government had to be toppled to keep them from making another attempt at the amnesty bill? You seem to contradict yourself here.

I never said the amnesty bill was fine, I said that if a bill had been passed constitutionally it would have provided no excuse for a coup. It would have been a legitimate issue in the next election, but election plans are now on indefinite hold.

[halloween]

You really are something else, aren't you? Despite unanimous rejection by the senate forcing through legislation which would have completely undermined the legal system, and which involved a massive conflict of interest, absolving not just political crimes but corruption, murder, arson, theft, and terrorism, is fine by you. Well it wasn't fine by the Thai people. Even the government realised they had made a huge mistake, and were begging forgiveness and for trust, AS IF.

You weren't even here at the time, or you would have known of the arguments against the amnesty, and the ability of a government to force through legislation. Developed a real taste for the Red Kool-Aid though, haven't you?

"Even the government realised they had made a huge mistake, and were begging forgiveness and for trust, AS IF."

Wasn't your original point that the government had to be toppled to keep them from making another attempt at the amnesty bill? You seem to contradict yourself here.

I never said the amnesty bill was fine, I said that if a bill had been passed constitutionally it would have provided no excuse for a coup. It would have been a legitimate issue in the next election, but election plans are now on indefinite hold.

Where is the contradiction? The government had lost the trust of the people with their attempt at a corrupt and self-serving whitewash. But all you can see is elections as the sum total of democracy. A democratic government is accountable to the people they represent, and when they lose that trust they lose the right to govern.

i don't know why I am wasting my time with a Thaksinist stooge who wants to argue about historical events about which you have at best superficial knowledge and views on democracy equally as shallow.

[fab4]

You really are something else, aren't you? Despite unanimous rejection by the senate forcing through legislation which would have completely undermined the legal system, and which involved a massive conflict of interest, absolving not just political crimes but corruption, murder, arson, theft, and terrorism, is fine by you. Well it wasn't fine by the Thai people. Even the government realised they had made a huge mistake, and were begging forgiveness and for trust, AS IF.

You weren't even here at the time, or you would have known of the arguments against the amnesty, and the ability of a government to force through legislation. Developed a real taste for the Red Kool-Aid though, haven't you?

"Even the government realised they had made a huge mistake, and were begging forgiveness and for trust, AS IF."

Wasn't your original point that the government had to be toppled to keep them from making another attempt at the amnesty bill? You seem to contradict yourself here.

I never said the amnesty bill was fine, I said that if a bill had been passed constitutionally it would have provided no excuse for a coup. It would have been a legitimate issue in the next election, but election plans are now on indefinite hold.

Where is the contradiction? The government had lost the trust of the people with their attempt at a corrupt and self-serving whitewash. But all you can see is elections as the sum total of democracy. A democratic government is accountable to the people they represent, and when they lose that trust they lose the right to govern.

i don't know why I am wasting my time with a Thaksinist stooge who wants to argue about historical events about which you have at best superficial knowledge and views on democracy equally as shallow.

If, as you say, the government had lost the trust of the people and therefore lost the right to govern, why do you endorse a coup as a solution whilst ignoring the obvious and more democratic solution - an election?

Why was suthep and his backers so set against contesting an election? (the answer's obvious and it doesn't include the hackneyed excuse "vote buying")

Don't give me any bull about the need for reforms - the election process in 2014 was the same as it was in 2011 and abhisit himself endorsed the election then

Abhisit conceded defeat. "I would like to congratulate the Puea Thai Party for the right to form a government,"

[tbthailand]

I also wrote "do your own homework" but since you persist in displaying your ignorance, I did it for you.

"If the Senate does not agree to the bill as proposed by the House of Representatives, it may amend the bill, and return the bill, as amended, to the House of Representatives for consideration. If the House does not agree with the amendment, the two bodies appoint a committee to try to resolve the differences. If this is not possible, the House of Representatives may enact the bill, without the Senate's amendments, after a lengthy period of time (six months or more) has passed. It is then submitted, through the Prime Minister, to the King, for his consideration. "

http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/briggsgov.html

So there was a legislative process for a second attempt, though different from the initial process. However after the outrage expressed from both redshirts and yellowshirts I seriously doubt that any further attempt would have been made to pass the bill. However in the unlikely attempt that there had been, and it followed the constitutional process and succeeded, it would have been constitutional and no excuse for illegal protests shutting down government and elections, or an excuse for a coup.

You really are something else, aren't you? Despite unanimous rejection by the senate forcing through legislation which would have completely undermined the legal system, and which involved a massive conflict of interest, absolving not just political crimes but corruption, murder, arson, theft, and terrorism, is fine by you. Well it wasn't fine by the Thai people. Even the government realised they had made a huge mistake, and were begging forgiveness and for trust, AS IF.

You weren't even here at the time, or you would have known of the arguments against the amnesty, and the ability of a government to force through legislation. Developed a real taste for the Red Kool-Aid though, haven't you?

"Even the government realised they had made a huge mistake, and were begging forgiveness and for trust, AS IF."

Wasn't your original point that the government had to be toppled to keep them from making another attempt at the amnesty bill? You seem to contradict yourself here.

I never said the amnesty bill was fine, I said that if a bill had been passed constitutionally it would have provided no excuse for a coup. It would have been a legitimate issue in the next election, but election plans are now on indefinite hold.

halloween is ignoring that the bill was dead even IF it was technically possible to resuscitate it - even the 'PRDC' knew this and changed the theme of the protest to rice and corruption.

amnesty was never an excuse for a coup, it was just an excuse for the pre-coup protests to start

[tbthailand]

You really are something else, aren't you? Despite unanimous rejection by the senate forcing through legislation which would have completely undermined the legal system, and which involved a massive conflict of interest, absolving not just political crimes but corruption, murder, arson, theft, and terrorism, is fine by you. Well it wasn't fine by the Thai people. Even the government realised they had made a huge mistake, and were begging forgiveness and for trust, AS IF.

You weren't even here at the time, or you would have known of the arguments against the amnesty, and the ability of a government to force through legislation. Developed a real taste for the Red Kool-Aid though, haven't you?

"Even the government realised they had made a huge mistake, and were begging forgiveness and for trust, AS IF."

Wasn't your original point that the government had to be toppled to keep them from making another attempt at the amnesty bill? You seem to contradict yourself here.

I never said the amnesty bill was fine, I said that if a bill had been passed constitutionally it would have provided no excuse for a coup. It would have been a legitimate issue in the next election, but election plans are now on indefinite hold.

Where is the contradiction? The government had lost the trust of the people with their attempt at a corrupt and self-serving whitewash. But all you can see is elections as the sum total of democracy. A democratic government is accountable to the people they represent, and when they lose that trust they lose the right to govern.

i don't know why I am wasting my time with a Thaksinist stooge who wants to argue about historical events about which you have at best superficial knowledge and views on democracy equally as shallow.

correction, in a democracy they 'lose the right to govern' in the next election.

Those elections were blocked by the anti-democracy protestors, ... remember? I do.

[heybruce]

You really are something else, aren't you? Despite unanimous rejection by the senate forcing through legislation which would have completely undermined the legal system, and which involved a massive conflict of interest, absolving not just political crimes but corruption, murder, arson, theft, and terrorism, is fine by you. Well it wasn't fine by the Thai people. Even the government realised they had made a huge mistake, and were begging forgiveness and for trust, AS IF.

You weren't even here at the time, or you would have known of the arguments against the amnesty, and the ability of a government to force through legislation. Developed a real taste for the Red Kool-Aid though, haven't you?

"Even the government realised they had made a huge mistake, and were begging forgiveness and for trust, AS IF."

Wasn't your original point that the government had to be toppled to keep them from making another attempt at the amnesty bill? You seem to contradict yourself here.

I never said the amnesty bill was fine, I said that if a bill had been passed constitutionally it would have provided no excuse for a coup. It would have been a legitimate issue in the next election, but election plans are now on indefinite hold.

Where is the contradiction? The government had lost the trust of the people with their attempt at a corrupt and self-serving whitewash. But all you can see is elections as the sum total of democracy. A democratic government is accountable to the people they represent, and when they lose that trust they lose the right to govern.

i don't know why I am wasting my time with a Thaksinist stooge who wants to argue about historical events about which you have at best superficial knowledge and views on democracy equally as shallow.

There have already been a couple of excellent replies to this, but I'll point out a glaring omission you made:

"A democratic government is accountable to the people they represent, and when they lose that trust they lose the right to govern." and should be voted out in the next election.

Regarding my superficial view of history, it's so superficial I can't think of any example of a military coup leading to a better government, in Thailand or anywhere else. Perhaps you could enlighten me in this regard.

I also don't claim to be an expert on democracy, but after a career in a military that protected the democratic government and never staged a coup, what this military has done repulses me.

Finally, I'm not a Thaksin supporter. I thought a July election was an excellent opportunity to reduce the influence of the Shinawatras, and possibly allow a party other than the PTP to form a new government, all done democratically. Obviously that opportunity has been lost.

[rubl]

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?

She did try, she did even try to convince the anti-government protesters to go home because it wasn't done yet. Pressure made her suggest "its not my fault, its up to the Senate'. Please go home and the Senate may conclude that no one seems against.

Sher didn't drop the issue, her fellow Pheu Thai lot started to accuse the anti-government protesters of obstructing democracy, of being terrorists. Of daring to be against big brothers amnesty (and the amnesty of her own two years of possible wrongdoings). Ms. Yingluck obfuscated again with the suggestion to have dropped 'the' amnesty bill, while only dropping five or six others which hadn't progressed in parliament yet and were deemed unimportant. The 'blanket amnesty bill' she could drop. By law it would remain visible for 180 days after which a simple majority (50% + 1 vote) could have voted it in. Of course Ms. Yingluck voiced the suggestion to have dropped things, she was preoccupied with her brother who had suffered so much. Even men drop things in such situations.

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

[Thanet]

I am happy with the Junta and I think the General has accomplished quite alot in a short time.

Many of the complaints from TV members have been amongst those accomplishments.

Its great to have an interim PM that is actually concerned for the Country of Thailand more than his and his cronies' wallets.

What have they actually accomplished, exactly?

And with the censored press, how on earth can you believe what you are reading?

[Thanet]

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.

[rubl]

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.

Well, welcome to Thailand where as far as I know we've never ever seen the details you ask for. Not with juntas, not with 'elected' government running around, just never ever. Why you think lots of people ( myself included) tend to ignore polls in Thailand ?

Of course, just now asking for those details seems like suggesting that now a holier than thou attitude MUST be displayed before anyone can believe anything. Democratically of course.

[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.

[rubl]

I am happy with the Junta and I think the General has accomplished quite alot in a short time.

Many of the complaints from TV members have been amongst those accomplishments.

Its great to have an interim PM that is actually concerned for the Country of Thailand more than his and his cronies' wallets.

What have they actually accomplished, exactly?

And with the censored press, how on earth can you believe what you are reading?

If you don't want to believe what you're reading, why do you ask on this particular forum what the NCPO has actually accomplished ?

[tbthailand]

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.

it's a self-censored media - they'll never ask the wrong questions.

[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.

it's a self-censored media - they'll never ask the wrong questions.

Thaksin taught them that asking the wrong questions would be very expensive for they and their employer.

[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?

She did try, she did even try to convince the anti-government protesters to go home because it wasn't done yet. Pressure made her suggest "its not my fault, its up to the Senate'. Please go home and the Senate may conclude that no one seems against.

Sher didn't drop the issue, her fellow Pheu Thai lot started to accuse the anti-government protesters of obstructing democracy, of being terrorists. Of daring to be against big brothers amnesty (and the amnesty of her own two years of possible wrongdoings). Ms. Yingluck obfuscated again with the suggestion to have dropped 'the' amnesty bill, while only dropping five or six others which hadn't progressed in parliament yet and were deemed unimportant. The 'blanket amnesty bill' she could drop. By law it would remain visible for 180 days after which a simple majority (50% + 1 vote) could have voted it in. Of course Ms. Yingluck voiced the suggestion to have dropped things, she was preoccupied with her brother who had suffered so much. Even men drop things in such situations.

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

"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.

Edited October 3, 2014 by heybruce

[heybruce]

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.

Well, welcome to Thailand where as far as I know we've never ever seen the details you ask for. Not with juntas, not with 'elected' government running around, just never ever. Why you think lots of people ( myself included) tend to ignore polls in Thailand ?

Of course, just now asking for those details seems like suggesting that now a holier than thou attitude MUST be displayed before anyone can believe anything. Democratically of course.

I never take these polls seriously, I simply explained why to the people who can't understand my skepticism. I've long been a fan of rational skepticism, which is why I'm somewhat skeptical of promises of real democracy from a man who has made it clear that he has other priorities.

[whybother]

I never take these polls seriously, I simply explained why to the people who can't understand my skepticism. I've long been a fan of rational skepticism, which is why I'm somewhat skeptical of promises of real democracy from a man who has made it clear that he has other priorities.

It's understandable to be skeptical, given you don't know what questions were asked. Given it's a university, maybe they simply decided to do a poll off their own bat, as they do every time a new government has been in power for a few months. The methods and processes used by the university, who commissioned the poll, and the specific questions are all available for everyone to read ... if you can read Thai. The processes used aren't going to be reported in every article that discusses the poll, but they are available if you bother to look. But, some people would rather just complain about how much they don't know about it.

The major problem with many of these polls though, is how they are reported. The numbers don't usually add up, or the words used don't match what the numbers show. They often don't give enough information to get a proper understanding of what people are really saying. But that's normal in most countries. It sells "newspapers".

FWIW, I am skeptical about the poll too. The numbers seem way too high. But I don't know the exact wording of the questions either. I do think, though, that generally the people are happy with the performance of the government (well, up until the 1,000 baht per rai plan). That doesn't mean that they are happy that they are in government in the first place.

[rubl]

"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

[rubl]

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.

Well, welcome to Thailand where as far as I know we've never ever seen the details you ask for. Not with juntas, not with 'elected' government running around, just never ever. Why you think lots of people ( myself included) tend to ignore polls in Thailand ?

Of course, just now asking for those details seems like suggesting that now a holier than thou attitude MUST be displayed before anyone can believe anything. Democratically of course.

I never take these polls seriously, I simply explained why to the people who can't understand my skepticism. I've long been a fan of rational skepticism, which is why I'm somewhat skeptical of promises of real democracy from a man who has made it clear that he has other priorities.

It would seem you zigzag along again, my dear Brucy

First "skeptical of polls conducted under martial law and censorship by a lower tier government university"

then "I never take these polls seriously".

Your skepticism seems only to apply to anything NCPO related, but not to anything else. A case of "none so blind who don't want to see", I think.

[heybruce]

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.

Well, welcome to Thailand where as far as I know we've never ever seen the details you ask for. Not with juntas, not with 'elected' government running around, just never ever. Why you think lots of people ( myself included) tend to ignore polls in Thailand ?

Of course, just now asking for those details seems like suggesting that now a holier than thou attitude MUST be displayed before anyone can believe anything. Democratically of course.

I never take these polls seriously, I simply explained why to the people who can't understand my skepticism. I've long been a fan of rational skepticism, which is why I'm somewhat skeptical of promises of real democracy from a man who has made it clear that he has other priorities.

It would seem you zigzag along again, my dear Brucy

First "skeptical of polls conducted under martial law and censorship by a lower tier government university"

then "I never take these polls seriously".

Your skepticism seems only to apply to anything NCPO related, but not to anything else. A case of "none so blind who don't want to see", I think.

Give it a rest rubl.

There are long explanations and short explanations. I gave the short explanation above. I gave a longer explanation in post #86 on this thread on September 28:

"I never trust a poll conducted in a country under martial law with censorship.

Even under more benign circumstances, it's a lot easier to conduct an inaccurate, biased poll than an accurate, unbiased poll (post #16 gives an accurate illustration of one method to first determine the 'correct' poll result then design a poll to arrive at this result, but there are many others). That's why I only trust polls conducted by established companies in the business of polling; companies that have a reputation to maintain and that publish not only poll results but the poll itself, how participants were selected, and how the results were analyzed. How many polls in Thailand fit that description?"

So I am skeptical of polls conducted under marital law and censorship, and of all polls taken in Thailand that I've read about. Are you happy now?

[heybruce]

"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.