Tanasak tells UN why Thai Army took control of the country

[jayboy]

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.

The subject was a foolish suggestion that recent electoral victories were the result of feudalism, specifically peasants in the NE being instructed to vote in a particular way by village headmen.

The influence of Thaksin is obvious but that's hardly the point.Rightly or wrongly Thais voted for Thaksin because they thought it was in their interests to do so.

I'm not impressed by your yokel like disdain for " book learning".Only a dope would fail to understand that comprehension is based on wide reading.Then there is a need to make up ones own mind.

[AleG]

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.

The subject was a foolish suggestion that recent electoral victories were the result of feudalism, specifically peasants in the NE being instructed to vote in a particular way by village headmen.

The influence of Thaksin is obvious but that's hardly the point.Rightly or wrongly Thais voted for Thaksin because they thought it was in their interests to do so.

I'm not impressed by your yokel like disdain for " book learning".Only a dope would fail to understand that comprehension is based on wide reading.Then there is a need to make up ones own mind.

You simply cannot move past insulting other people, can you? Looks like you have unresolved self esteem issues and need to constantly portray yourself as an intellectually superior individual to cope with it. Guess what, I don't find that very impressing.

Books are not a replacement for actual facts in the real world, specially because people that write books are not beyond bias.

My GFs father in law, a village puyai, during the last election also acted on his best interest, his best interest being to follow the suggestions from "influential people" on what candidate the village should chose he received attached to a death threat.

[jayboy]

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.

The subject was a foolish suggestion that recent electoral victories were the result of feudalism, specifically peasants in the NE being instructed to vote in a particular way by village headmen.

The influence of Thaksin is obvious but that's hardly the point.Rightly or wrongly Thais voted for Thaksin because they thought it was in their interests to do so.

I'm not impressed by your yokel like disdain for " book learning".Only a dope would fail to understand that comprehension is based on wide reading.Then there is a need to make up ones own mind.

You simply cannot move past insulting other people, can you? Looks like you have unresolved self esteem issues and need to constantly portray yourself as an intellectually superior individual to cope with it. Guess what, I don't find that very impressing.

Books are not a replacement for actual facts in the real world, specially because people that write books are not beyond bias.

My GFs father in law, a village puyai, during the last election also acted on his best interest, his best interest being to follow the suggestions from "influential people" on what candidate the village should chose he received attached to a death threat.

You cannot construct a case from a particular incident.Equally one cannot rely on a particular author or piece of research.It takes wide reading and then some personal thought and analysis.Of course personal observation forms part of this.

Your comments on the issue fall into the usual " my girl friend told me" variety- entertaining bar talk perhaps but not worth taking that seriously - though I'm sure you will find a receptive if unlettered audience in this forum.

[Jai Dee]

A number of personal insults and flames have been deleted from this topic.

Please keep the discussion civil.

[WtFugarwe]

Tanasak asked for a meeting with Ban ki Moon and was denied. His speaking slot was set for Saturday afternoon--usually dead time, even moreso because it conflicted with the Climate Change summit in NYC, so he spoke to an empty hall.

He also sought a meeting with Secretary of State Kerry, but was only granted an audience with the assistant undrsecretary for Asia.

The only plus to this trip was that democracy loving Thais were not outside protesting his speech.

[whybother]

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.

The subject was a foolish suggestion that recent electoral victories were the result of feudalism, specifically peasants in the NE being instructed to vote in a particular way by village headmen.

The influence of Thaksin is obvious but that's hardly the point.Rightly or wrongly Thais voted for Thaksin because they thought it was in their interests to do so.

I'm not impressed by your yokel like disdain for " book learning".Only a dope would fail to understand that comprehension is based on wide reading.Then there is a need to make up ones own mind.

The people voted for the same families as they have for decades. The only difference was that the families had been bought under Thaksin's umbrella.

[Ertiga]

Tanasak asked for a meeting with Ban ki Moon and was denied. His speaking slot was set for Saturday afternoon--usually dead time, even moreso because it conflicted with the Climate Change summit in NYC, so he spoke to an empty hall.

He also sought a meeting with Secretary of State Kerry, but was only granted an audience with the assistant undrsecretary for Asia.

The only plus to this trip was that democracy loving Thais were not outside protesting his speech.

The truth is difficult for some.

Change your news sources.

You're wrong about more than one thing.

Foreign Minister Tanasak meeting with USA Secretary of State John Kerry

Foreign Minister Tanasak also met the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

http://www.unmultimedia.org/photo/detail.jsp?id=604/604980&key=6&query=*〈=&sf=

[fab4]

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.

The subject was a foolish suggestion that recent electoral victories were the result of feudalism, specifically peasants in the NE being instructed to vote in a particular way by village headmen.

The influence of Thaksin is obvious but that's hardly the point.Rightly or wrongly Thais voted for Thaksin because they thought it was in their interests to do so.

I'm not impressed by your yokel like disdain for " book learning".Only a dope would fail to understand that comprehension is based on wide reading.Then there is a need to make up ones own mind.

The people voted for the same families as they have for decades. The only difference was that the families had been bought under Thaksin's umbrella.

I'll try again. Try reading this: http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/walker-2008.pdf

[whybother]

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.

The subject was a foolish suggestion that recent electoral victories were the result of feudalism, specifically peasants in the NE being instructed to vote in a particular way by village headmen.

The influence of Thaksin is obvious but that's hardly the point.Rightly or wrongly Thais voted for Thaksin because they thought it was in their interests to do so.

I'm not impressed by your yokel like disdain for " book learning".Only a dope would fail to understand that comprehension is based on wide reading.Then there is a need to make up ones own mind.

The people voted for the same families as they have for decades. The only difference was that the families had been bought under Thaksin's umbrella.

I'll try again. Try reading this: http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/walker-2008.pdf

I am not saying that people were paid to vote for Thaksin. I am saying that the people vote for the same families. The same families were getting elected before Thaksin came along. The only difference was that Thaksin bought these families under one umbrella.

[rubl]

I'll try again. Try reading this: http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/walker-2008.pdf

I am not saying that people were paid to vote for Thaksin. I am saying that the people vote for the same families. The same families were getting elected before Thaksin came along. The only difference was that Thaksin bought these families under one umbrella.

Personally I think the Walker book unreadable as it tends to zigzag along.

Mind you, Andrew seems to confirm what you say about local families with his

"One mayoral candidate, Dr Tanet, had distributed aprons advertising one of his

businesses to vendors in the market. When I asked one of the small restaurant

owners if her apron signalled support for Tanet she responded: ‘‘He came and gave

them out so we decided to wear them. He is standing for election to be mayor. But I

don’t know if he will get elected. He is not a local. He has lived here for 20 years.

Most people know him. But he is from somewhere else.’’"

BTW in the begin of the book Walkers mentions a few other researchers and continues with "what can the rural people do to shake of this persistent image (of willing accomplices of the electocrats in the systematic corruption of electoral ‘‘democracy.).

Following Walker gives his idea and opinion without even a hint of a scientific approach. He seems just full of himself only. IMHO.

Edited October 1, 2014 by rubl

[ThailandNoob]

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!

I am no fan of military coups nor this returning happiness, but in this case I think the army had to act. The PT govt was no longer following democratic procedures and was subverting rule for the people into rule for our clique. And yes the PDRC was no better. That's why the military had to act. Democracy had been abandoned long before May 22nd.

The PT government had called an election. Isn't that the ultimate example of "following democratic procedures"?

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[jayboy]

I'll try again. Try reading this: http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/walker-2008.pdf

I am not saying that people were paid to vote for Thaksin. I am saying that the people vote for the same families. The same families were getting elected before Thaksin came along. The only difference was that Thaksin bought these families under one umbrella.

Personally I think the Walker book unreadable as it tends to zigzag along.

Mind you, Andrew seems to confirm what you say about local families with his

"One mayoral candidate, Dr Tanet, had distributed aprons advertising one of his

businesses to vendors in the market. When I asked one of the small restaurant

owners if her apron signalled support for Tanet she responded: ‘‘He came and gave

them out so we decided to wear them. He is standing for election to be mayor. But I

don’t know if he will get elected. He is not a local. He has lived here for 20 years.

Most people know him. But he is from somewhere else.’’"

BTW in the begin of the book Walkers mentions a few other researchers and continues with "what can the rural people do to shake of this persistent image (of willing accomplices of the electocrats in the systematic corruption of electoral ‘‘democracy.).

Following Walker gives his idea and opinion without even a hint of a scientific approach. He seems just full of himself only. IMHO.

Your unwittingly revealing comments suggest that this kind of analysis is either beyond your powers of comprehension or you are unable to deal with the clear evidence that demolished your position.I suspect the former but there's nothing to be ashamed of.Not everybody can be a clever clogs and you will always be able to find a similarly minded chap to chat with.And I mean that caringly.

Edited October 1, 2014 by jayboy

[rubl]

I am no fan of military coups nor this returning happiness, but in this case I think the army had to act. The PT govt was no longer following democratic procedures and was subverting rule for the people into rule for our clique. And yes the PDRC was no better. That's why the military had to act. Democracy had been abandoned long before May 22nd.

The PT government had called an election. Isn't that the ultimate example of "following democratic procedures"?

The PT government had sneakily modified an amnesty bill to become a blanket amnesty bill covering Thaksin's last two years in/out of office and the Yinglucks Administration's first two years. Furthermore obstructing the opposition they pushed through in slightly more than 24 hours two readings and two votes. Next with 100,000 or more anti-government protesters, Ms. Yingluck said "please go home, its not final", promised not to pressure the Senate, had a Senate speaker trying to move the Senate discussion forward" and said "its not my fault, its up to the Senate". In the mean time Pheu Thai members in parliament started to voice condemnation of these 'obviously' undemocratic anti-government protests and the first accusations of "terrorists" could be heard. Now all of that was before Ms. Yingluck finally dissolved the House.

All just a days work for a real democratic PM, cabinet and party, wouldn't you say ?

[rubl]

I am not saying that people were paid to vote for Thaksin. I am saying that the people vote for the same families. The same families were getting elected before Thaksin came along. The only difference was that Thaksin bought these families under one umbrella.

Personally I think the Walker book unreadable as it tends to zigzag along.

Mind you, Andrew seems to confirm what you say about local families with his

"One mayoral candidate, Dr Tanet, had distributed aprons advertising one of his

businesses to vendors in the market. When I asked one of the small restaurant

owners if her apron signalled support for Tanet she responded: ‘‘He came and gave

them out so we decided to wear them. He is standing for election to be mayor. But I

don’t know if he will get elected. He is not a local. He has lived here for 20 years.

Most people know him. But he is from somewhere else.’’"

BTW in the begin of the book Walkers mentions a few other researchers and continues with "what can the rural people do to shake of this persistent image (of willing accomplices of the electocrats in the systematic corruption of electoral ‘‘democracy.).

Following Walker gives his idea and opinion without even a hint of a scientific approach. He seems just full of himself only. IMHO.

Your unwittingly revealing comments suggest that this kind of analysis is either beyond your powers of comprehension or you are unable to deal with the clear evidence that demolished your position.I suspect the former but there's nothing to be ashamed of.Not everybody can be a clever clogs and you will always be able to find a similarly minded chap to chat with.And I mean that caringly.

You seem incapable to accept that you might be wrong. Following you are unable to refute my quotes and interpretation except by suggesting I might not have the required intellectual capabilities to agree with you.

As for your 'caring' attitude, you show to be condescending and insulting at the same time.

[jayboy]

I am not saying that people were paid to vote for Thaksin. I am saying that the people vote for the same families. The same families were getting elected before Thaksin came along. The only difference was that Thaksin bought these families under one umbrella.

Personally I think the Walker book unreadable as it tends to zigzag along.

Mind you, Andrew seems to confirm what you say about local families with his

"One mayoral candidate, Dr Tanet, had distributed aprons advertising one of his

businesses to vendors in the market. When I asked one of the small restaurant

owners if her apron signalled support for Tanet she responded: ‘‘He came and gave

them out so we decided to wear them. He is standing for election to be mayor. But I

don’t know if he will get elected. He is not a local. He has lived here for 20 years.

Most people know him. But he is from somewhere else.’’"

BTW in the begin of the book Walkers mentions a few other researchers and continues with "what can the rural people do to shake of this persistent image (of willing accomplices of the electocrats in the systematic corruption of electoral ‘‘democracy.).

Following Walker gives his idea and opinion without even a hint of a scientific approach. He seems just full of himself only. IMHO.

Your unwittingly revealing comments suggest that this kind of analysis is either beyond your powers of comprehension or you are unable to deal with the clear evidence that demolished your position.I suspect the former but there's nothing to be ashamed of.Not everybody can be a clever clogs and you will always be able to find a similarly minded chap to chat with.And I mean that caringly.

You seem incapable to accept that you might be wrong. Following you are unable to refute my quotes and interpretation except by suggesting I might not have the required intellectual capabilities to agree with you.

As for your 'caring' attitude, you show to be condescending and insulting at the same time.

I can be wrong and frankly I often am.However it's a different point that was made - I thought politely - namely that Walker's article demolishing your stated position went completely over your head - at least judging by your naive and ignorant comments on it.

[ThailandNoob]

I am no fan of military coups nor this returning happiness, but in this case I think the army had to act. The PT govt was no longer following democratic procedures and was subverting rule for the people into rule for our clique. And yes the PDRC was no better. That's why the military had to act. Democracy had been abandoned long before May 22nd.

The PT government had called an election. Isn't that the ultimate example of "following democratic procedures"?

The PT government had sneakily modified an amnesty bill to become a blanket amnesty bill covering Thaksin's last two years in/out of office and the Yinglucks Administration's first two years. Furthermore obstructing the opposition they pushed through in slightly more than 24 hours two readings and two votes. Next with 100,000 or more anti-government protesters, Ms. Yingluck said "please go home, its not final", promised not to pressure the Senate, had a Senate speaker trying to move the Senate discussion forward" and said "its not my fault, its up to the Senate". In the mean time Pheu Thai members in parliament started to voice condemnation of these 'obviously' undemocratic anti-government protests and the first accusations of "terrorists" could be heard. Now all of that was before Ms. Yingluck finally dissolved the House.

All just a days work for a real democratic PM, cabinet and party, wouldn't you say ?

Let's not kid ourselves, Pheu Thai voters knew that a vote for Yingluck was a vote for Thaksin. He / They won the election, so there was a mandate for the amnesty bill.

Suthep and co. were just sour losers, and by their actions, definitely showed themselves to be undemocratic terrorists.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[AleG]

The PT government had sneakily modified an amnesty bill to become a blanket amnesty bill covering Thaksin's last two years in/out of office and the Yinglucks Administration's first two years. Furthermore obstructing the opposition they pushed through in slightly more than 24 hours two readings and two votes. Next with 100,000 or more anti-government protesters, Ms. Yingluck said "please go home, its not final", promised not to pressure the Senate, had a Senate speaker trying to move the Senate discussion forward" and said "its not my fault, its up to the Senate". In the mean time Pheu Thai members in parliament started to voice condemnation of these 'obviously' undemocratic anti-government protests and the first accusations of "terrorists" could be heard. Now all of that was before Ms. Yingluck finally dissolved the House.

All just a days work for a real democratic PM, cabinet and party, wouldn't you say ?

Let's not kid ourselves, Pheu Thai voters knew that a vote for Yingluck was a vote for Thaksin. He / They won the election, so there was a mandate for the amnesty bill.

Suthep and co. were just sour losers, and by their actions, definitely showed themselves to be undemocratic terrorists.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Since noone, not even the Red Shirts at large, supported the "Amnesty" Bill so your argument is a non sequitur.

As for terrorism, that would be the group that carried out a systematic campaign of shooting and bombings against their political opponents, that was the work of Red Shirts, not Suthep and company; are you confussed or just projecting the sins of a group you support into the one you loathe to ease the pangs of your cognitive dissonance?

[ThailandNoob]

The PT government had sneakily modified an amnesty bill to become a blanket amnesty bill covering Thaksin's last two years in/out of office and the Yinglucks Administration's first two years. Furthermore obstructing the opposition they pushed through in slightly more than 24 hours two readings and two votes. Next with 100,000 or more anti-government protesters, Ms. Yingluck said "please go home, its not final", promised not to pressure the Senate, had a Senate speaker trying to move the Senate discussion forward" and said "its not my fault, its up to the Senate". In the mean time Pheu Thai members in parliament started to voice condemnation of these 'obviously' undemocratic anti-government protests and the first accusations of "terrorists" could be heard. Now all of that was before Ms. Yingluck finally dissolved the House.

All just a days work for a real democratic PM, cabinet and party, wouldn't you say ?

Let's not kid ourselves, Pheu Thai voters knew that a vote for Yingluck was a vote for Thaksin. He / They won the election, so there was a mandate for the amnesty bill.

Suthep and co. were just sour losers, and by their actions, definitely showed themselves to be undemocratic terrorists.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Since noone, not even the Red Shirts at large, supported the "Amnesty" Bill so your argument is a non sequitur.

As for terrorism, that would be the group that carried out a systematic campaign of shooting and bombings against their political opponents, that was the work of Red Shirts, not Suthep and company; are you confussed or just projecting the sins of a group you support into the one you loathe to ease the pangs of your cognitive dissonance?

If no-one supported the amnesty bill, then why was Pheu Thai going to win the February election?

Suthep's thugs used violence to intimidate participants in the election. That if nothing else is a clear cut example of "undemocratic terrorism". I would have rather seen the army clean them out (but of course we all know whose side they were on).

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited October 2, 2014 by ThailandNoob

[AleG]

If no-one supported the amnesty bill, then why was Pheu Thai going to win the February election?

Suthep's thugs used violence to intimidate participants in the election. That if nothing else is a clear cut example of "undemocratic terrorism". I would have rather seen the army clean them out (but of course we all know whose side they were on).

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

First paragraph another non sequitur. Well done.

Second, I don't think you know what terrorism is, let me check:

Is bombing and shooting at a political gathering, killing and maiming people in the process an act of terrorism yes or no?

[mikemac]

I am no fan of military coups nor this returning happiness, but in this case I think the army had to act. The PT govt was no longer following democratic procedures and was subverting rule for the people into rule for our clique. And yes the PDRC was no better. That's why the military had to act. Democracy had been abandoned long before May 22nd.

The PT government had called an election. Isn't that the ultimate example of "following democratic procedures"?

The PT government had sneakily modified an amnesty bill to become a blanket amnesty bill covering Thaksin's last two years in/out of office and the Yinglucks Administration's first two years. Furthermore obstructing the opposition they pushed through in slightly more than 24 hours two readings and two votes. Next with 100,000 or more anti-government protesters, Ms. Yingluck said "please go home, its not final", promised not to pressure the Senate, had a Senate speaker trying to move the Senate discussion forward" and said "its not my fault, its up to the Senate". In the mean time Pheu Thai members in parliament started to voice condemnation of these 'obviously' undemocratic anti-government protests and the first accusations of "terrorists" could be heard. Now all of that was before Ms. Yingluck finally dissolved the House.

All just a days work for a real democratic PM, cabinet and party, wouldn't you say ?

Well put Uncle rubl, but unfortunately any red fan who read it would have neither the mentality to understand what you said, nor the guts to admit to it.

[anselpixel]

Consider the career of Suthep Thaugsaban without prejudice for a few minutes, and you will understand all one needs to understand about politics in Thailand.

The collapse of democracy here was an orchestrated goal, not the result of actual bloodletting, weapons caches, shadowy puppet masters, or corruption.

This is what any outside observer sees when they look at what transpired here, and no amount of groveling before the UN will ever change that.

Thailand is necessary in the great scheme of things, however, and will be permitted the occasional indiscretion.

All the world can do now is move along. Show's over. The country is once again under control by the right people, and they're going to clean this place up nicely while they sell it and keep all the money for themselves.

After a few years, the disenfranchised will probably once again start making noise, but in the meantime it's a country filled with happiness and an uncorrupted business climate. It's the happy ending every country hopes for, but only Thailand can pull off. Amazing, really.

[rubl]

Your unwittingly revealing comments suggest that this kind of analysis is either beyond your powers of comprehension or you are unable to deal with the clear evidence that demolished your position.I suspect the former but there's nothing to be ashamed of.Not everybody can be a clever clogs and you will always be able to find a similarly minded chap to chat with.And I mean that caringly.

You seem incapable to accept that you might be wrong. Following you are unable to refute my quotes and interpretation except by suggesting I might not have the required intellectual capabilities to agree with you.

As for your 'caring' attitude, you show to be condescending and insulting at the same time.

I can be wrong and frankly I often am.However it's a different point that was made - I thought politely - namely that Walker's article demolishing your stated position went completely over your head - at least judging by your naive and ignorant comments on it.

Oh come on, jayboy. Politely telling someone things go over his head, he's naive and has ignorant comments? You continue to be insulting. You seem incapable to offer objective arguments as to why you disagree with what I wrote, you seem unable to accept someone in his right mind would disagree with you and therefor you just continue on the condescending track.

In a way you're just as narrow minded as Walker who asks ""what can the rural people do to shake of this persistent image (of willing accomplices of the electocrats in the systematic corruption of electoral ‘‘democracy.)." as if the image is all important.

[rubl]

The PT government had sneakily modified an amnesty bill to become a blanket amnesty bill covering Thaksin's last two years in/out of office and the Yinglucks Administration's first two years. Furthermore obstructing the opposition they pushed through in slightly more than 24 hours two readings and two votes. Next with 100,000 or more anti-government protesters, Ms. Yingluck said "please go home, its not final", promised not to pressure the Senate, had a Senate speaker trying to move the Senate discussion forward" and said "its not my fault, its up to the Senate". In the mean time Pheu Thai members in parliament started to voice condemnation of these 'obviously' undemocratic anti-government protests and the first accusations of "terrorists" could be heard. Now all of that was before Ms. Yingluck finally dissolved the House.

All just a days work for a real democratic PM, cabinet and party, wouldn't you say ?

Let's not kid ourselves, Pheu Thai voters knew that a vote for Yingluck was a vote for Thaksin. He / They won the election, so there was a mandate for the amnesty bill.

Suthep and co. were just sour losers, and by their actions, definitely showed themselves to be undemocratic terrorists.

Is tjhat the type of democracy you long for?

A criminal fugitive involved in elections? A clone PM, Pheu Thai MPs going to see their master for orders, the criminal fugitive skyping-in into his canibet meetings to give orders how his ministers should take care of his country?

The sneakily modified blanket amnesty bill had extended coverage from 2004 to 2013-08-09, included all 'political influenced' wrongdoings. It was as if all corruption was to be swept under the table. Mandate, my foot.

Even the red-shirts had problems with the blanket amnesty bill, that is until heir leaders managed to distract them with yet another 'they try to steal your vote' story.

You only give a good example why reforms are necessary.

[jayboy]

Your unwittingly revealing comments suggest that this kind of analysis is either beyond your powers of comprehension or you are unable to deal with the clear evidence that demolished your position.I suspect the former but there's nothing to be ashamed of.Not everybody can be a clever clogs and you will always be able to find a similarly minded chap to chat with.And I mean that caringly.

You seem incapable to accept that you might be wrong. Following you are unable to refute my quotes and interpretation except by suggesting I might not have the required intellectual capabilities to agree with you.

As for your 'caring' attitude, you show to be condescending and insulting at the same time.

I can be wrong and frankly I often am.However it's a different point that was made - I thought politely - namely that Walker's article demolishing your stated position went completely over your head - at least judging by your naive and ignorant comments on it.

Oh come on, jayboy. Politely telling someone things go over his head, he's naive and has ignorant comments? You continue to be insulting. You seem incapable to offer objective arguments as to why you disagree with what I wrote, you seem unable to accept someone in his right mind would disagree with you and therefor you just continue on the condescending track.

In a way you're just as narrow minded as Walker who asks ""what can the rural people do to shake of this persistent image (of willing accomplices of the electocrats in the systematic corruption of electoral ‘‘democracy.)." as if the image is all important.

You said that Walker's book is "unreadable because it tends to zigzag along".In the circumstances I think suggesting the content went over your head is completely legitimate.Walker is of course an internationally acknowledged expert on contemporary Thailand.

[ThailandNoob]

The PT government had sneakily modified an amnesty bill to become a blanket amnesty bill covering Thaksin's last two years in/out of office and the Yinglucks Administration's first two years. Furthermore obstructing the opposition they pushed through in slightly more than 24 hours two readings and two votes. Next with 100,000 or more anti-government protesters, Ms. Yingluck said "please go home, its not final", promised not to pressure the Senate, had a Senate speaker trying to move the Senate discussion forward" and said "its not my fault, its up to the Senate". In the mean time Pheu Thai members in parliament started to voice condemnation of these 'obviously' undemocratic anti-government protests and the first accusations of "terrorists" could be heard. Now all of that was before Ms. Yingluck finally dissolved the House.

All just a days work for a real democratic PM, cabinet and party, wouldn't you say ?

Let's not kid ourselves, Pheu Thai voters knew that a vote for Yingluck was a vote for Thaksin. He / They won the election, so there was a mandate for the amnesty bill.

Suthep and co. were just sour losers, and by their actions, definitely showed themselves to be undemocratic terrorists.

Is tjhat the type of democracy you long for?

A criminal fugitive involved in elections? A clone PM, Pheu Thai MPs going to see their master for orders, the criminal fugitive skyping-in into his canibet meetings to give orders how his ministers should take care of his country?

The sneakily modified blanket amnesty bill had extended coverage from 2004 to 2013-08-09, included all 'political influenced' wrongdoings. It was as if all corruption was to be swept under the table. Mandate, my foot.

Even the red-shirts had problems with the blanket amnesty bill, that is until heir leaders managed to distract them with yet another 'they try to steal your vote' story.

You only give a good example why reforms are necessary.

At least they need to go to the polls every few years to renew their mandate. This places an upper limit on what they can get away with.

As opposed to the Yellows, who come to power undemocratically and thus have no such restraints.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[ThailandNoob]

If no-one supported the amnesty bill, then why was Pheu Thai going to win the February election?

Suthep's thugs used violence to intimidate participants in the election. That if nothing else is a clear cut example of "undemocratic terrorism". I would have rather seen the army clean them out (but of course we all know whose side they were on).

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

First paragraph another non sequitur. Well done.

Second, I don't think you know what terrorism is, let me check:

Is bombing and shooting at a political gathering, killing and maiming people in the process an act of terrorism yes or no?

If the "political gathering"'s objective is to end democracy and replace it with an unelected "People's Council", and to achieve this objective they use violence to stop an election, then they themselves are terrorists, and deserve everything they get.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[AleG]

First paragraph another non sequitur. Well done.

Second, I don't think you know what terrorism is, let me check:

Is bombing and shooting at a political gathering, killing and maiming people in the process an act of terrorism yes or no?

If the "political gathering"'s objective is to end democracy and replace it with an unelected "People's Council", and to achieve this objective they use violence to stop an election, then they themselves are terrorists, and deserve everything they get.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The children murdered by Red Shirt terrorist deserved it too?

Is bombing and shooting at a political gathering, killing and maiming people in the process an act of terrorism yes or no?

Edited October 3, 2014 by AleG

[ThailandNoob]

First paragraph another non sequitur. Well done.

Second, I don't think you know what terrorism is, let me check:

Is bombing and shooting at a political gathering, killing and maiming people in the process an act of terrorism yes or no?

If the "political gathering"'s objective is to end democracy and replace it with an unelected "People's Council", and to achieve this objective they use violence to stop an election, then they themselves are terrorists, and deserve everything they get.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The children murdered by Red Shirt terrorist deserved it too?

Is bombing and shooting at a political gathering, killing and maiming people in the process an act of terrorism yes or no?

I feel sorry for the innocent bystanders that got hurt. But if the army had done what it was supposed to do and cleaned them out themselves, then maybe the risk of that happening would have been less.

Suthep's thugs deserved everything they got.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[AleG]

The children murdered by Red Shirt terrorist deserved it too?

Is bombing and shooting at a political gathering, killing and maiming people in the process an act of terrorism yes or no?

I feel sorry for the innocent bystanders that got hurt. But if the army had done what it was supposed to do and cleaned them out themselves, then maybe the risk of that happening would have been less.

Suthep's thugs deserved everything they got.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

So the Red Shirts that sprayed gunfire and threw grenades at crowds of people didn't mean to hurt innocent bystanders? How does that work in your head?

Is bombing and shooting at a political gathering, killing and maiming people in the process an act of terrorism yes or no?

Edited October 3, 2014 by AleG

[mikemac]

First paragraph another non sequitur. Well done.

Second, I don't think you know what terrorism is, let me check:

Is bombing and shooting at a political gathering, killing and maiming people in the process an act of terrorism yes or no?

If the "political gathering"'s objective is to end democracy and replace it with an unelected "People's Council", and to achieve this objective they use violence to stop an election, then they themselves are terrorists, and deserve everything they get.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The children murdered by Red Shirt terrorist deserved it too?

Is bombing and shooting at a political gathering, killing and maiming people in the process an act of terrorism yes or no?

I feel sorry for the innocent bystanders that got hurt. But if the army had done what it was supposed to do and cleaned them out themselves, then maybe the risk of that happening would have been less.

Suthep's thugs deserved everything they got.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

..................."But if the army had done what it was supposed to do and cleaned them out themselves".............................. ?????????????????

Funny, that is what I said in 2010 when the failed Thaksin coup was going on in Bangkok.

.................................."Suthep's thugs deserved everything they got."......................................

Funny, if you substitute Suthep's with Thaksin's then I said that as well.

Sometimes I cannot help thinking that "certain" posters are just copying and pasting previous quotes and changing names and dates to suit their agenda.