Tanasak tells UN why Thai Army took control of the country

[tbthailand]

link to the good general's (AKA "His Excellency General Tanasak Patlmapragorn, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of Thailand") speech at the UN

http://www.un.org/en/ga/69/meetings/gadebate/pdf/TH_en.pdf

[tbthailand]

At the very end of his speech, he states:

It is because of Thailand's commitment to the United Nations that we have

submitted our candidature for a seat in the Human Rights Council for the

term 2015-2017 and the Security Council for the term 2017-2018. We hope

that our friends will give us, once again, their trust and allow us to serve

amazing Thailand...

[clued]

Just one of many similar posts that are wrong.

In fact, the PTP government were fulfilling their election promises, which included the rice pledging and to bring back TS. As well as these, they carried through with the tablet scheme, high-speed rail, minimum-wage increase,.... They were elected on these platforms & they were in the process of delivering them. The fact that some of the policies were economically misguided is something for the voters to decide, not the army. There has also been no cases of the government 'ripping of the country' as you say. Please show the evidence of a PTP MP financially benefiting from a government policy.

The only real support the PRDC ever got was for the amnesty bill. After that issue died down their numbers dwindled quickly until they were down to a few thousand.

As Suthep stated after the coup, he had been in regular contact with Prayuth since PT's election victory. They had laid their plans & were simply waiting for an opportunity to rock the boat enough for the army to use it as an excuse. Their was absolutely no possibility of a civil war as has been bandied around. The explicit support of the PRDC by the army was evident before & after the coup. Their agendas are identical and people aren't falling for the junta's weak attempts at justifying their actions.

Just one of many similar posts that are wrong.

BTW bringing back Thaksin wasn't an election promise, neither mentioned in PM Yingluck speech in parliament in August 2011. Actually apart from that admirably frank Dept. PM Pol. Chalerm who said he would bring back Thaksin, no one really mentioned in clear terms.

They were delivering indeed, like that passport from flooded office when everybody else was somewhat distracted by floodwaters. Delivering a 33% reduction in Corporate tax as first action, losing 700++ as next important item. Outside the NationalBudget, a non-revolving funds, guaranteed by the Yingluck Government and to be repaid by thankful taxpayers over the next seven years, first instalment in 2014/2015 National Budget. That 700++ could have paid for the two double track 160km/h train links now planned in a seven year project with again first instalment in the National Budget.

As Suthep stated after the coup, while soldiers accompanied him to acknowledge charges at the Criminal Court, the military listened to him and did his bidding.

Anyway, strange that the NCPO suppresses all parties including those who allegedly control them. Maybe I should spent a day in Dusit Zoo and see the bears ?

Very wrong, indeed.

Full of lies and mistruths.

Yingluck was failing one election pledge after another.

.

[clued]

At the very end of his speech, he states:

It is because of Thailand's commitment to the United Nations that we have

submitted our candidature for a seat in the Human Rights Council for the

term 2015-2017 and the Security Council for the term 2017-2018. We hope

that our friends will give us, once again, their trust and allow us to serve

amazing Thailand...

On the audio, the closing remarks received a good amount of applause from the assembled representatives present at the United Nations General Assembly.

[jayboy]

At the very end of his speech, he states:

It is because of Thailand's commitment to the United Nations that we have

submitted our candidature for a seat in the Human Rights Council for the

term 2015-2017 and the Security Council for the term 2017-2018. We hope

that our friends will give us, once again, their trust and allow us to serve

amazing Thailand...

On the audio, the closing remarks received a good amount of applause from the assembled representatives present at the United Nations General Assembly.

One ought to be grateful for the occasional shaft of humour in these strange times.The ludicrous comment above satisfies that need although of course the genius penning the thought is whistling in the dark.

[tbthailand]

At the very end of his speech, he states:

It is because of Thailand's commitment to the United Nations that we have

submitted our candidature for a seat in the Human Rights Council for the

term 2015-2017 and the Security Council for the term 2017-2018. We hope

that our friends will give us, once again, their trust and allow us to serve

amazing Thailand...

On the audio, the closing remarks received a good amount of applause from the assembled representatives present at the United Nations General Assembly.

One ought to be grateful for the occasional shaft of humour in these strange times.The ludicrous comment above satisfies that need although of course the genius penning the thought is whistling in the dark.

humor is a good thing... Along those lines, another jewel from the speech

Let there be no doubt that Thailand is not retreating from democracy.

But we do need time and space to bring about reconciliation; to undertake

political reform; and to strengthen our democratic institutions. We do not

wish for a repeat of what happened on May 22 .

[rubl]

Can the PTP afford to break any laws when you have an establishment friendly judiciary? In this environment, it's the minority with the help of the courts that seem to be above the law.

ignoring/breaking laws and 'ruling undemocratically' are just TV urban legends that should be thrown in the propaganda garbage can just like 'buying elections'

your point about the courts is so obvious that it boggles the mind to see people ignore it

All and any of the above is manure of the finest quality, allegedly that is.

Mind you, already just saying "can the Pheu Thai afford to break laws ..." suggests that they would if only someone would let them. Democratically of course.

The mind boggles

you could say that but then that would be a completely inaccurate interpretation.

So, how to interpret "Can the PTP afford to break any laws when you have an establishment friendly judiciary?"

A rhetorical question? Just a friendly warning from Eric? Just some 'establishment friendly' obfuscation? Or indeed the suggestion that Pheu Thai would if only they could get away with it?

[rubl]

The blanket amnesty bill was rejected by the Senate and would remain 'inactive' for 180 days after which a simple majority in parliament (50% + 1 vote) would suffice to active it.

So, stop trolling, or lying and start to accept what is the truth.

funny that you accuse someone of trolling.

the technical details of the legislative process are clear and have been stated before. The point which you insist on ignoring is the reality that the legislation was politically dead and gone.

Even the PDRC knew that which is why they changed the focus for the protests.

The 'blanket amnesty bill' was inactive for 180 days and could be picked up again, voted on. That's not dead, and Pheu Thai certainly didn't acknowledge it being political dead as they obfuscated with stating to have dropped the amnesty bills, but only meant the other six which hadn't progress in parliament yet.

So, tell me again, who is trolling, having comprehension problems, etc., etc.?

Mind you, it would seem that by now the bill is scrapped. No blanket amnesty, no coverage for Thaksin's last two years in/out of office, no coverage for Ms. Yingluck's first two years.

[rubl]

At the very end of his speech, he states:

It is because of Thailand's commitment to the United Nations that we have

submitted our candidature for a seat in the Human Rights Council for the

term 2015-2017 and the Security Council for the term 2017-2018. We hope

that our friends will give us, once again, their trust and allow us to serve

amazing Thailand...

On the audio, the closing remarks received a good amount of applause from the assembled representatives present at the United Nations General Assembly.

One ought to be grateful for the occasional shaft of humour in these strange times.The ludicrous comment above satisfies that need although of course the genius penning the thought is whistling in the dark.

To be fair, the UN delegates would probably applaud anyone who stopped talking in their sleep and/or avoided dragging the gathering past the planned 'social hour'

Edited September 30, 2014 by rubl

[rubl]

humor is a good thing... Along those lines, another jewel from the speech

Let there be no doubt that Thailand is not retreating from democracy.

But we do need time and space to bring about reconciliation; to undertake

political reform; and to strengthen our democratic institutions. We do not

wish for a repeat of what happened on May 22 .

Tjeez, it's almost as if you like coups

[whybother]

But he failed to explain that the army failed to support the elected government making it powerless.

If a government is acting in a manner contrary to the needs of the nation, following their own narrow self serving agenda, and against the democratic procedures of that country, then an army should not support it.

And who have the right to judge the governments acts: The army and its political wing the Democrats?

Not a fan of the Shins, but it is a dangerous path!

As for the "returning happiness to the people" BS, This was never about the people, but about keeping the existing feudal system in place!

It's Thaksin that uses the feudal system in the north east for his support. He doesn't want to get rid of it. He would lose most of his support if the people voted how they wanted instead of voting how the village heads want.

[fab4]

The blanket amnesty bill was rejected by the Senate and would remain 'inactive' for 180 days after which a simple majority in parliament (50% + 1 vote) would suffice to active it.

So, stop trolling, or lying and start to accept what is the truth.

funny that you accuse someone of trolling.

the technical details of the legislative process are clear and have been stated before. The point which you insist on ignoring is the reality that the legislation was politically dead and gone.

Even the PDRC knew that which is why they changed the focus for the protests.

The 'blanket amnesty bill' was inactive for 180 days and could be picked up again, voted on. That's not dead, and Pheu Thai certainly didn't acknowledge it being political dead as they obfuscated with stating to have dropped the amnesty bills, but only meant the other six which hadn't progress in parliament yet.

So, tell me again, who is trolling, having comprehension problems, etc., etc.?

Mind you, it would seem that by now the bill is scrapped. No blanket amnesty, no coverage for Thaksin's last two years in/out of office, no coverage for Ms. Yingluck's first two years.

That just leaves sections 47 and 48, the amnesty that you don't go on and on about..................

[jayboy]

But he failed to explain that the army failed to support the elected government making it powerless.

If a government is acting in a manner contrary to the needs of the nation, following their own narrow self serving agenda, and against the democratic procedures of that country, then an army should not support it.

And who have the right to judge the governments acts: The army and its political wing the Democrats?

Not a fan of the Shins, but it is a dangerous path!

As for the "returning happiness to the people" BS, This was never about the people, but about keeping the existing feudal system in place!

It's Thaksin that uses the feudal system in the north east for his support. He doesn't want to get rid of it. He would lose most of his support if the people voted how they wanted instead of voting how the village heads want.

It's amazing how someone apparently interested in Thai politics persists in this tired old lie.Have you actually done any reading at all on the subject?

[rubl]

The blanket amnesty bill was rejected by the Senate and would remain 'inactive' for 180 days after which a simple majority in parliament (50% + 1 vote) would suffice to active it.

So, stop trolling, or lying and start to accept what is the truth.

funny that you accuse someone of trolling.

the technical details of the legislative process are clear and have been stated before. The point which you insist on ignoring is the reality that the legislation was politically dead and gone.

Even the PDRC knew that which is why they changed the focus for the protests.

The 'blanket amnesty bill' was inactive for 180 days and could be picked up again, voted on. That's not dead, and Pheu Thai certainly didn't acknowledge it being political dead as they obfuscated with stating to have dropped the amnesty bills, but only meant the other six which hadn't progress in parliament yet.

So, tell me again, who is trolling, having comprehension problems, etc., etc.?

Mind you, it would seem that by now the bill is scrapped. No blanket amnesty, no coverage for Thaksin's last two years in/out of office, no coverage for Ms. Yingluck's first two years.

That just leaves sections 47 and 48, the amnesty that you don't go on and on about..................

Why should I comment on two sections in the "Interim Constitution"? I was correcting tbthailand on his wrong description of the "blanket amnesty bill", the one which suddenly covered Thaksin and Yingluck as well from mid-2004 to 2013-08-09. The one which did let anti-government protests erupt. Now that's a lesson in how a 'democratically' elected government shouldn't proceed.

[rubl]

It's Thaksin that uses the feudal system in the north east for his support. He doesn't want to get rid of it. He would lose most of his support if the people voted how they wanted instead of voting how the village heads want.

It's amazing how someone apparently interested in Thai politics persists in this tired old lie.Have you actually done any reading at all on the subject?

I wonder if you did.

[jayboy]

It's Thaksin that uses the feudal system in the north east for his support. He doesn't want to get rid of it. He would lose most of his support if the people voted how they wanted instead of voting how the village heads want.

It's amazing how someone apparently interested in Thai politics persists in this tired old lie.Have you actually done any reading at all on the subject?

I wonder if you did.

So putting your childish response to one side (the answer is yes, I have read much of the relevant literature) what is your view? Do you also maintain the view that the Thaksin influenced parties only achieved power through NE peasants being pressurised by village headmen?

[tbthailand]

But he failed to explain that the army failed to support the elected government making it powerless.

If a government is acting in a manner contrary to the needs of the nation, following their own narrow self serving agenda, and against the democratic procedures of that country, then an army should not support it.

And who have the right to judge the governments acts: The army and its political wing the Democrats?

Not a fan of the Shins, but it is a dangerous path!

As for the "returning happiness to the people" BS, This was never about the people, but about keeping the existing feudal system in place!

It's Thaksin that uses the feudal system in the north east for his support. He doesn't want to get rid of it. He would lose most of his support if the people voted how they wanted instead of voting how the village heads want.

that is just nonsense.

people already vote how they want.

[tbthailand]

It's Thaksin that uses the feudal system in the north east for his support. He doesn't want to get rid of it. He would lose most of his support if the people voted how they wanted instead of voting how the village heads want.

It's amazing how someone apparently interested in Thai politics persists in this tired old lie.Have you actually done any reading at all on the subject?

I wonder if you did.

So putting your childish response to one side (the answer is yes, I have read much of the relevant literature) what is your view? Do you also maintain the view that the Thaksin influenced parties only achieved power through NE peasants being pressurised by village headmen?

it is amazing - many many posters persist in the fantasy that all voters in the north and northeast just vote however someone tells them to vote or for whoever gives them the most bhat.

And if it is not that line of nonsense, then it's 'they first need to understand "real" democracy'

it is pathetic the way that posters talk about Thai voters but it just proves they don't actually understand the world around them.

[tullynagardy]

It's Thaksin that uses the feudal system in the north east for his support. He doesn't want to get rid of it. He would lose most of his support if the people voted how they wanted instead of voting how the village heads want.

Who would they vote for then? On another note are all the observers who saw no vote rigging and free, fair elections wrong, because some lad on an internet forum says so?

I can see where you get your name from, afterall why bother to post such inane <deleted>.

[tbthailand]

The blanket amnesty bill was rejected by the Senate and would remain 'inactive' for 180 days after which a simple majority in parliament (50% + 1 vote) would suffice to active it.

So, stop trolling, or lying and start to accept what is the truth.

funny that you accuse someone of trolling.

the technical details of the legislative process are clear and have been stated before. The point which you insist on ignoring is the reality that the legislation was politically dead and gone.

Even the PDRC knew that which is why they changed the focus for the protests.

The 'blanket amnesty bill' was inactive for 180 days and could be picked up again, voted on. That's not dead, and Pheu Thai certainly didn't acknowledge it being political dead as they obfuscated with stating to have dropped the amnesty bills, but only meant the other six which hadn't progress in parliament yet.

So, tell me again, who is trolling, having comprehension problems, etc., etc.?

Mind you, it would seem that by now the bill is scrapped. No blanket amnesty, no coverage for Thaksin's last two years in/out of office, no coverage for Ms. Yingluck's first two years.

That just leaves sections 47 and 48, the amnesty that you don't go on and on about..................

he's just pretending that something that could have technically taken place was somehow in the realm of the possible and for that he thinks he needs to "correct" me.

According to Rubl's logic, the bill would never be dead. Technically, there is nothing stopping the current NLA to take up exactly the same amnesty bill that was killed at the start of the PRDC protests. Therefore, the bill is not dead, and maybe the PDRC should be on the streets to make sure that doesn't happen.

It's just horse-s...

The PDRC ran through a list of 'problems' to protest against over the 6 months. When a poster insists that somehow these protests were not just a prelude to the 'intervention' then they are either wilfully lying or oblivious to the basic events in Thai politics.

Your point is dead-on that the most recent amnesty doesn't get a peep from him, but I suppose that is because there are no street protests against it - although how could that be when the Thai people are so against amnesty??

[rubl]

That just leaves sections 47 and 48, the amnesty that you don't go on and on about..................

Well, if you insist.

Did you notice that the 2014-07-24 translation ends with

"Countersigned by:

General Prayut Chan-O-Cha

Head of the National Council for Peace and Order"

http://thaicoup2014.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/translation-of-the-constitution-of-the-kingdom-of-thailand-interim/

Seems like some already used the correct form of writing the PM's name for more than two months

[rubl]

It's Thaksin that uses the feudal system in the north east for his support. He doesn't want to get rid of it. He would lose most of his support if the people voted how they wanted instead of voting how the village heads want.

It's amazing how someone apparently interested in Thai politics persists in this tired old lie.Have you actually done any reading at all on the subject?

I wonder if you did.

So putting your childish response to one side (the answer is yes, I have read much of the relevant literature) what is your view? Do you also maintain the view that the Thaksin influenced parties only achieved power through NE peasants being pressurised by village headmen?

No, more like being used to be told by their village headman what to do.

Not really much different from England in the 16th or 17th century in some ways. Even in the 18th century no real change, and remind me when were Marx and Engels complaining ?

[rubl]

I wonder if you did.

So putting your childish response to one side (the answer is yes, I have read much of the relevant literature) what is your view? Do you also maintain the view that the Thaksin influenced parties only achieved power through NE peasants being pressurised by village headmen?

it is amazing - many many posters persist in the fantasy that all voters in the north and northeast just vote however someone tells them to vote or for whoever gives them the most bhat.

And if it is not that line of nonsense, then it's 'they first need to understand "real" democracy'

it is pathetic the way that posters talk about Thai voters but it just proves they don't actually understand the world around them.

Well, not all vote as being told. Many though are still used to let others decide. That's not pathetic, that's just how it is and how it was in many other countries. Now of course that somehow suggests that they already understand the 'early days' democracy. The one were only people who paid taxes could be deemed to be interesting in running their country for them and the people they had to take care of.

[rubl]

That just leaves sections 47 and 48, the amnesty that you don't go on and on about..................

he's just pretending that something that could have technically taken place was somehow in the realm of the possible and for that he thinks he needs to "correct" me.

According to Rubl's logic, the bill would never be dead. Technically, there is nothing stopping the current NLA to take up exactly the same amnesty bill that was killed at the start of the PRDC protests. Therefore, the bill is not dead, and maybe the PDRC should be on the streets to make sure that doesn't happen.

It's just horse-s...

The PDRC ran through a list of 'problems' to protest against over the 6 months. When a poster insists that somehow these protests were not just a prelude to the 'intervention' then they are either wilfully lying or oblivious to the basic events in Thai politics.

Your point is dead-on that the most recent amnesty doesn't get a peep from him, but I suppose that is because there are no street protests against it - although how could that be when the Thai people are so against amnesty??

Anything incorrect needs correcting, I thought you'd agree with that

[clued]

At the very end of his speech, he states:

It is because of Thailand's commitment to the United Nations that we have

submitted our candidature for a seat in the Human Rights Council for the

term 2015-2017 and the Security Council for the term 2017-2018. We hope

that our friends will give us, once again, their trust and allow us to serve

amazing Thailand...

On the audio, the closing remarks received a good amount of applause from the assembled representatives present at the United Nations General Assembly.

One ought to be grateful for the occasional shaft of humour in these strange times.The ludicrous comment above satisfies that need although of course the genius penning the thought is whistling in the dark.

The informed comment you are posting about above reflects the truth.

Sorry if that fact bothers you, but that's what happened.

[jayboy]

At the very end of his speech, he states:

It is because of Thailand's commitment to the United Nations that we have

submitted our candidature for a seat in the Human Rights Council for the

term 2015-2017 and the Security Council for the term 2017-2018. We hope

that our friends will give us, once again, their trust and allow us to serve

amazing Thailand...

On the audio, the closing remarks received a good amount of applause from the assembled representatives present at the United Nations General Assembly.

One ought to be grateful for the occasional shaft of humour in these strange times.The ludicrous comment above satisfies that need although of course the genius penning the thought is whistling in the dark.

The informed comment you are posting about above reflects the truth.

Sorry if that fact bothers you, but that's what happened.

Don't be so thick.It's not the polite applause given to any speech, even from nonentities,at the UN that is disputed.The joke is the ludicrous attribution of significance - grasping at straws.Reality is that the country is being treated politely but for obvious reasons Thailand's restoration of a decent international reputation must await a more legitimate government.

[fab4]

That just leaves sections 47 and 48, the amnesty that you don't go on and on about..................

Well, if you insist.

Did you notice that the 2014-07-24 translation ends with

"Countersigned by:

General Prayut Chan-O-Cha

Head of the National Council for Peace and Order"

http://thaicoup2014.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/translation-of-the-constitution-of-the-kingdom-of-thailand-interim/

Seems like some already used the correct form of writing the PM's name for more than two months

Wow that's amazing rubl. Makes one wonder how all those other people got it wrong before and after that document was signed and not a peep from the gen. Perhaps he was feeling all self righteous when penning his own amnesty?

[whybother]

It's Thaksin that uses the feudal system in the north east for his support. He doesn't want to get rid of it. He would lose most of his support if the people voted how they wanted instead of voting how the village heads want.

It's amazing how someone apparently interested in Thai politics persists in this tired old lie.Have you actually done any reading at all on the subject?

The people in the North East have voted for the same feudal families for years. When the families change allegiance, the people still vote for the same feudal families. The change that happened when Thaksin came along was that he gave these feudal families a "reason" to support him, and the people voted the same, but now it was for Thaksin.

[jayboy]

It's Thaksin that uses the feudal system in the north east for his support. He doesn't want to get rid of it. He would lose most of his support if the people voted how they wanted instead of voting how the village heads want.

It's amazing how someone apparently interested in Thai politics persists in this tired old lie.Have you actually done any reading at all on the subject?

The people in the North East have voted for the same feudal families for years. When the families change allegiance, the people still vote for the same feudal families. The change that happened when Thaksin came along was that he gave these feudal families a "reason" to support him, and the people voted the same, but now it was for Thaksin.

There's no point just repeating your lies.No intelligent or well informed source buys your nonsense.If you can reference this to an up to date source of information, then an intelligent discussion could possibly proceed.Clearly however you prefer to just repeat your outworn and tired cliches about the "feudal system" without any reference to reality.Perhaps you are inspired by Goebbels big lie theory - repeat an untruth often enough and fools will begin to believe it.I am fairly sure you won't bother but for those interested in the subject I recommend the volume of essays edited by Kevin Hewison "Political Change in Thailand - Democracy and Participation".

[AleG]

The people in the North East have voted for the same feudal families for years. When the families change allegiance, the people still vote for the same feudal families. The change that happened when Thaksin came along was that he gave these feudal families a "reason" to support him, and the people voted the same, but now it was for Thaksin.

There's no point just repeating your lies.No intelligent or well informed source buys your nonsense.If you can reference this to an up to date source of information, then an intelligent discussion could possibly proceed.Clearly however you prefer to just repeat your outworn and tired cliches about the "feudal system" without any reference to reality.Perhaps you are inspired by Goebbels big lie theory - repeat an untruth often enough and fools will begin to believe it.I am fairly sure you won't bother but for those interested in the subject I recommend the volume of essays edited by Kevin Hewison "Political Change in Thailand - Democracy and Participation".

Wow, you read a book, fantastic. Some people live here and see how things work.

BANGKOK: -- THAILAND HAS the world's highest ratio of MPs who are heirs or relatives of big political clans and families, a study unveiled yesterday by an academic shows.

I´m sure Yingluck, for example, was voted in not because she was Thaksin's sister, neither did Somchai for being his brother in law. All the long, long list of Thaksin/Demapong MPs and other political families, all a figment of the imagination, according to the intelligent and well informed Jayboy.

Things like Yaowapa's driver being elected MP for Chiang Mai, while she was banned from politics, has nothing to do with feudal style politics. Nothing at all, smart people don't think so.

No long running, provincially based political families here in Thailand, nope, none at all, thank you Jayboy, your sheer brilliance has pulled the wool from our eyes.