Thailand's NRC members set tone for reforms

[fab4]

NRC members set tone for reforms

That they do, but I don't think the junta wanted it to be quite so obvious as to what kind of tone was being set.

The relationship between the NRC, CDC, NCPO, the cabinet and the NLA is best represented diagrammatically, thus;

Tjeez, do you guys ever manage to agree on a single story rather than conflicting ones?

If the NLA is a slavish puppet group and the NRC and CDC not much better, and cabinet not much good either (as you seem to suggest), maybe more like

     NCPO - HEAD --------\
    C  N  N  -  C  -  P  -     Courts
    D  R  L     A     M        NACC
    C  C  A     B              The People

I take it you have a problem with understanding what a circular relationship is.

I have a problem trying to map a circular relation unto what some described as a slavish construction with 'commands' going downwards only.

Try self perpetuating.

[rubl]

I have a problem trying to map a circular relation unto what some described as a slavish construction with 'commands' going downwards only.

Try self perpetuating.

Such definition would apply to about all governments and political parties,

Now your circular relation seems to contradict what some called ' hand picked lackeys', a 'slavish attitude', or even 'obsequious' regarding the NLA to NCPO relation. Also I think that the NCPO can control the NLA and even the PM and his cabinet, but not the other way round.

So, nothing about going round here, apart from your comments maybe.

[fab4]

I have a problem trying to map a circular relation unto what some described as a slavish construction with 'commands' going downwards only.

Try self perpetuating.

Such definition would apply to about all governments and political parties,

Now your circular relation seems to contradict what some called ' hand picked lackeys', a 'slavish attitude', or even 'obsequious' regarding the NLA to NCPO relation. Also I think that the NCPO can control the NLA and even the PM and his cabinet, but not the other way round.

So, nothing about going round here, apart from your comments maybe.

If you say so rubl. You obviously don't understand "self perpetuating". Very little to do with control, though hand picked lackeys are an essential part.

Edited October 8, 2014 by fab4

[heybruce]

You didn't see anything because the NRC committees still have to work on it.

On another thread you're defending Prayuth from the need to declare assets, on this thread you're confident it will be part of the NRA reforms. Take a stand rubl, are you for or against transparency?

Oh, I don't know, I think it's perfectly transparent what rubl is doing........................

The truth will set you free, which might mean there may still be hope for you guys if you stop with the insinuations and distractions.

As for Brucy stating

- I defended PM Prayut from the need to declare assets. Well, show me where did I do that.

- confident 'asset declarations part of reform'. Yes, since already the NLA and cabinet did so.

- I'm all for transparency, independent audit committees, politicians who take responsibility and accountability as serious as the laws which makes them abide.

- I can only hope reforms of this kind will be ready in time for 'democracy'. To ask the NLA to adhere to non existing laws or laws which didn't help in the past makes you even a bit more of a dreamer than I sometimes am. To ask the current lot to behave as if they are democratic seems a bit hilarious.

As for my dear fabs

- its transparent you don't agree with me and will do anything you may possibly get away with to diminish, to ridicule, to obfuscate, to accuse and to insult in order to put doubt in other peoples mind.

Wow! Even I can't tell where you are paraphrasing me and where you are putting up your own smoke screen. Well done rubl.

By the way, I lost it in your obfuscation. Do you think PM Prayuth should declare his assets? Not because he made it the law, just because it's a good idea?

[englishoak]

oh another rubi spam defence.. how unusual

[heybruce]

Isnt it great how some can come out and have a kick at things that haven't even happened yet.

Would possibly be best to let these people get together in their designated groups and see what they come up with before having a go at what they haven't produced as yet.

As for Thaksin critics being in there it must have been difficult to get a balance when PTP and the reds refused to take part.

Even then there are reps from each province and as the red supporters tell us that the majority of north and northeast provinces vote PTP then it stands to reason that there must be at least those nominated from those provinces in there who are Thaksin supporters.

I suppose that one of the rules being that none of the NRC members are allowed to take part in politics in the future would have put some of from wanting to join, could also have kept out riff raff with delusions of grandeur or wealth at the expense of the country.

"Isnt it great how some can come out and have a kick at things that haven't even happened yet."

I know what you mean. There are some people so upset about the possibility of an amnesty bill being revived six months after it was dropped that they use it as justification for a military coup.

However in the case of asset declaration and transparency in general, I find their absence from the list of things the NRC wants to address to be a concern. Transparency is critical in fighting corruption (cockroaches don't like the light), but there are inexplicably wealthy people in government and the military who don't like it. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Nine-NLA-members-opposed-to-asset-disclosure-worth-30244758.html

Some are only upset that there are those who refuse to accept that the 'blanket amnesty bill' wasn't dropped, but return to parliament to lay untouched for 180 days after which any government could pick it up and vote on it.

Anyway, the 'inexplicably wealthy people' as you mention have declared assets and the NACC published those. No one was asked to explain how come they have these assets, so no answer. The only person who may be asked by the NACC is that former Senator who has done the asset declaration at least two times already and for whom the NACC can compare the differences. For the ones who now first time had to declare assets the NACC will do some checks on the completeness. Of course if truth loving people tell the NACC about hidden assets, the NACC will definitively take up the case,knowing the NLA has the power to impeach their own members.

.

Repeat after me ruble: "This post is not about the amnesty bill.", "This post is not about the amnesty bill.","This post is not about the amnesty bill."....

Pointless, I know. This won't dissuade you from using your favorite subject to take a topic off-topic.

Regarding the rest of your post;

"the 'inexplicably wealthy people' as you mention have declared assets and the NACC published those. No one was asked to explain how come they have these assets, so no answer."

That concerns me. Don't you think the inexplicably wealthy members of the NLA should give some explanation of their wealth? I think that this question should be asked routinely, don't you?

Also, as I keep going on about, isn't it a bad sign that military generals have never declared their assets, and resent the requirement to do so? After all, they are public employees serving the nation. shouldn't they be willing to reassure the nation they haven't abused this trust?

[rubl]

oh another rubi spam defence.. how unusual

If you say so, my dear chap. Your post is very valuable and informative of course

[rubl]

The truth will set you free, which might mean there may still be hope for you guys if you stop with the insinuations and distractions.

As for Brucy stating

- I defended PM Prayut from the need to declare assets. Well, show me where did I do that.

- confident 'asset declarations part of reform'. Yes, since already the NLA and cabinet did so.

- I'm all for transparency, independent audit committees, politicians who take responsibility and accountability as serious as the laws which makes them abide.

- I can only hope reforms of this kind will be ready in time for 'democracy'. To ask the NLA to adhere to non existing laws or laws which didn't help in the past makes you even a bit more of a dreamer than I sometimes am. To ask the current lot to behave as if they are democratic seems a bit hilarious.

As for my dear fabs

- its transparent you don't agree with me and will do anything you may possibly get away with to diminish, to ridicule, to obfuscate, to accuse and to insult in order to put doubt in other peoples mind.

Wow! Even I can't tell where you are paraphrasing me and where you are putting up your own smoke screen. Well done rubl.

By the way, I lost it in your obfuscation. Do you think PM Prayuth should declare his assets? Not because he made it the law, just because it's a good idea?

You confuse easily it would seem. Maybe because you tend to forget (or just like to forget) what you wrote as soon as someone points out to you what was wrong in your post.

As for your question, well, the NRC sets the tone for reforms, not me.

[rubl]

Isnt it great how some can come out and have a kick at things that haven't even happened yet.

Would possibly be best to let these people get together in their designated groups and see what they come up with before having a go at what they haven't produced as yet.

As for Thaksin critics being in there it must have been difficult to get a balance when PTP and the reds refused to take part.

Even then there are reps from each province and as the red supporters tell us that the majority of north and northeast provinces vote PTP then it stands to reason that there must be at least those nominated from those provinces in there who are Thaksin supporters.

I suppose that one of the rules being that none of the NRC members are allowed to take part in politics in the future would have put some of from wanting to join, could also have kept out riff raff with delusions of grandeur or wealth at the expense of the country.

"Isnt it great how some can come out and have a kick at things that haven't even happened yet."

I know what you mean. There are some people so upset about the possibility of an amnesty bill being revived six months after it was dropped that they use it as justification for a military coup.

However in the case of asset declaration and transparency in general, I find their absence from the list of things the NRC wants to address to be a concern. Transparency is critical in fighting corruption (cockroaches don't like the light), but there are inexplicably wealthy people in government and the military who don't like it. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Nine-NLA-members-opposed-to-asset-disclosure-worth-30244758.html

Some are only upset that there are those who refuse to accept that the 'blanket amnesty bill' wasn't dropped, but return to parliament to lay untouched for 180 days after which any government could pick it up and vote on it.

Anyway, the 'inexplicably wealthy people' as you mention have declared assets and the NACC published those. No one was asked to explain how come they have these assets, so no answer. The only person who may be asked by the NACC is that former Senator who has done the asset declaration at least two times already and for whom the NACC can compare the differences. For the ones who now first time had to declare assets the NACC will do some checks on the completeness. Of course if truth loving people tell the NACC about hidden assets, the NACC will definitively take up the case,knowing the NLA has the power to impeach their own members.

.

Repeat after me ruble: "This post is not about the amnesty bill.", "This post is not about the amnesty bill.","This post is not about the amnesty bill."....

Pointless, I know. This won't dissuade you from using your favorite subject to take a topic off-topic.

Regarding the rest of your post;

"the 'inexplicably wealthy people' as you mention have declared assets and the NACC published those. No one was asked to explain how come they have these assets, so no answer."

That concerns me. Don't you think the inexplicably wealthy members of the NLA should give some explanation of their wealth? I think that this question should be asked routinely, don't you?

Also, as I keep going on about, isn't it a bad sign that military generals have never declared their assets, and resent the requirement to do so? After all, they are public employees serving the nation. shouldn't they be willing to reassure the nation they haven't abused this trust?

Correct, this post is not on the by now expired blanket amnesty bill, neither on NLA by the way. Your post though is on annoying and baiting followed by your concerns on none topic related issues phrased is a suggestive manner.

As far as I know none of the NRC members are also NLA member. Furthermore none of the NLA members seems 'inexplicably wealthy' in the sense that only some speculation has been offered. As the NACC took a month without coming with more than publishing the asset declarations, it would seem there wasn't anything inexplicably. Of course if you think there was, please inform the NACC and give them all data which would strengthen your concerns.

Further more you might inform the NRC members that part of their reforms should aim for a broader requirement of asset declarations, covering army generals, high(er) level government bureaucrats, business people, rice warehouse owners, etc., etc. I doubt thought they'll be much impressed with your reference of 'as done in the USA'.

[heybruce]

The truth will set you free, which might mean there may still be hope for you guys if you stop with the insinuations and distractions.

As for Brucy stating

- I defended PM Prayut from the need to declare assets. Well, show me where did I do that.

- confident 'asset declarations part of reform'. Yes, since already the NLA and cabinet did so.

- I'm all for transparency, independent audit committees, politicians who take responsibility and accountability as serious as the laws which makes them abide.

- I can only hope reforms of this kind will be ready in time for 'democracy'. To ask the NLA to adhere to non existing laws or laws which didn't help in the past makes you even a bit more of a dreamer than I sometimes am. To ask the current lot to behave as if they are democratic seems a bit hilarious.

As for my dear fabs

- its transparent you don't agree with me and will do anything you may possibly get away with to diminish, to ridicule, to obfuscate, to accuse and to insult in order to put doubt in other peoples mind.

Wow! Even I can't tell where you are paraphrasing me and where you are putting up your own smoke screen. Well done rubl.

By the way, I lost it in your obfuscation. Do you think PM Prayuth should declare his assets? Not because he made it the law, just because it's a good idea?

You confuse easily it would seem. Maybe because you tend to forget (or just like to forget) what you wrote as soon as someone points out to you what was wrong in your post.

As for your question, well, the NRC sets the tone for reforms, not me.

I'm not confused by well written posts or moderately well written posts, and I can usually figure out the poorly written posts. I can't figure out your posts when you are in full obfuscation mode, which was why I complemented you on your incoherent writing. Learn to take a complement rubl.

Back on topic; yes, the NRC sets the tone for reforms, and the OP makes no mention of transparency. This worries me, and I think it would worry anyone concerned about corruption in Thailand.

[heybruce]

"Isnt it great how some can come out and have a kick at things that haven't even happened yet."

I know what you mean. There are some people so upset about the possibility of an amnesty bill being revived six months after it was dropped that they use it as justification for a military coup.

However in the case of asset declaration and transparency in general, I find their absence from the list of things the NRC wants to address to be a concern. Transparency is critical in fighting corruption (cockroaches don't like the light), but there are inexplicably wealthy people in government and the military who don't like it. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Nine-NLA-members-opposed-to-asset-disclosure-worth-30244758.html

Some are only upset that there are those who refuse to accept that the 'blanket amnesty bill' wasn't dropped, but return to parliament to lay untouched for 180 days after which any government could pick it up and vote on it.

Anyway, the 'inexplicably wealthy people' as you mention have declared assets and the NACC published those. No one was asked to explain how come they have these assets, so no answer. The only person who may be asked by the NACC is that former Senator who has done the asset declaration at least two times already and for whom the NACC can compare the differences. For the ones who now first time had to declare assets the NACC will do some checks on the completeness. Of course if truth loving people tell the NACC about hidden assets, the NACC will definitively take up the case,knowing the NLA has the power to impeach their own members.

.

Repeat after me ruble: "This post is not about the amnesty bill.", "This post is not about the amnesty bill.","This post is not about the amnesty bill."....

Pointless, I know. This won't dissuade you from using your favorite subject to take a topic off-topic.

Regarding the rest of your post;

"the 'inexplicably wealthy people' as you mention have declared assets and the NACC published those. No one was asked to explain how come they have these assets, so no answer."

That concerns me. Don't you think the inexplicably wealthy members of the NLA should give some explanation of their wealth? I think that this question should be asked routinely, don't you?

Also, as I keep going on about, isn't it a bad sign that military generals have never declared their assets, and resent the requirement to do so? After all, they are public employees serving the nation. shouldn't they be willing to reassure the nation they haven't abused this trust?

Correct, this post is not on the by now expired blanket amnesty bill, neither on NLA by the way. Your post though is on annoying and baiting followed by your concerns on none topic related issues phrased is a suggestive manner.

As far as I know none of the NRC members are also NLA member. Furthermore none of the NLA members seems 'inexplicably wealthy' in the sense that only some speculation has been offered. As the NACC took a month without coming with more than publishing the asset declarations, it would seem there wasn't anything inexplicably. Of course if you think there was, please inform the NACC and give them all data which would strengthen your concerns.

Further more you might inform the NRC members that part of their reforms should aim for a broader requirement of asset declarations, covering army generals, high(er) level government bureaucrats, business people, rice warehouse owners, etc., etc. I doubt thought they'll be much impressed with your reference of 'as done in the USA'.

"Your post though is on annoying and baiting followed by your concerns on none topic related issues phrased is a suggestive manner."

I replied to a post by Robby nz with:

""Isnt it great how some can come out and have a kick at things that haven't even happened yet."

I know what you mean. There are some people so upset about the possibility of an amnesty bill being revived six months after it was dropped that they use it as justification for a military coup.

However in the case of asset declaration and transparency in general, I find their absence from the list of things the NRC wants to address to be a concern. Transparency is critical in fighting corruption (cockroaches don't like the light), but there are inexplicably wealthy people in government and the military who don't like it. http://www.nationmul...h-30244758.html"

I wasn't replying to a post of yours and I didn't mention your name. If you consider that annoying, baiting and suggestive that is your problem, not mine. Also, on post #8 of this topic I wrote:

I didn't see anything about transparency in government spending; full disclosure of assets and business interests by all people in government who have any influence on spending, laws with stiff penalties for conflicts of interest, and open competitive bidding on all government contracts. The kind of rules that would eliminate backroom deals to reward supporters and line pockets.

This on-topic post is where I explained how transparency and asset declaration should be part of the NRC's 'tone for reforms'. I didn't consider it necessary to repeat this explanation in all succeeding posts, I assumed most readers would understand that things like transparency should be part of the reforms and were therefore on-topic.

I referred to the topic about NLA members who resisted asset declaration to illustrate the fact that transparency is not in the culture of Thai government. I never wrote that there are shared members between the NLA and the NRC, I don't know why you brought that up. Also, if you look up the definition of 'inexplicable' you'll see that until the wealth of these NLA members is explained it is inexplicable.

I do agree that the junta will not be impressed with how things are done in the USA. In the USA corruption is much lower than in Thailand, largely due to effective laws on transparency and against conflicts of interest. Also in the USA the leaders are elected, the country has used the same constitution for over 200 years, and there has never been a military coup. The junta will probably be annoyed by comparisons with a country like that.

[rubl]

The truth will set you free, which might mean there may still be hope for you guys if you stop with the insinuations and distractions.

As for Brucy stating

- I defended PM Prayut from the need to declare assets. Well, show me where did I do that.

- confident 'asset declarations part of reform'. Yes, since already the NLA and cabinet did so.

- I'm all for transparency, independent audit committees, politicians who take responsibility and accountability as serious as the laws which makes them abide.

- I can only hope reforms of this kind will be ready in time for 'democracy'. To ask the NLA to adhere to non existing laws or laws which didn't help in the past makes you even a bit more of a dreamer than I sometimes am. To ask the current lot to behave as if they are democratic seems a bit hilarious.

As for my dear fabs

- its transparent you don't agree with me and will do anything you may possibly get away with to diminish, to ridicule, to obfuscate, to accuse and to insult in order to put doubt in other peoples mind.

Wow! Even I can't tell where you are paraphrasing me and where you are putting up your own smoke screen. Well done rubl.

By the way, I lost it in your obfuscation. Do you think PM Prayuth should declare his assets? Not because he made it the law, just because it's a good idea?

You confuse easily it would seem. Maybe because you tend to forget (or just like to forget) what you wrote as soon as someone points out to you what was wrong in your post.

As for your question, well, the NRC sets the tone for reforms, not me.

I'm not confused by well written posts or moderately well written posts, and I can usually figure out the poorly written posts. I can't figure out your posts when you are in full obfuscation mode, which was why I complemented you on your incoherent writing. Learn to take a complement rubl.

Back on topic; yes, the NRC sets the tone for reforms, and the OP makes no mention of transparency. This worries me, and I think it would worry anyone concerned about corruption in Thailand.

Incoherent writing ? As non-native English speaker I feel insulted by a seemingly native English speaker. Especially the 'take it as a compliment' makes it even worse. Mind you, there is a suggestion somehow that you admire what you call my 'incoherent writing' as you feel humbled by the masterful use of the English language by a mere Dutchman.

Anyway, back to topic, also many other aspects are left unmentioned. Like the refusal of certain groups to participate whereas a broad participation would really helped to ensure transparency.

BTW a few weeks ago it was mentioned that a Surin family had too many members willing to participate. Till now no one seems to have been able to go past that initial allegation. Maybe the accusation was too transparent?

[rubl]

"Your post though is on annoying and baiting followed by your concerns on none topic related issues phrased is a suggestive manner."

I replied to a post by Robby nz with:

""Isnt it great how some can come out and have a kick at things that haven't even happened yet."

I know what you mean. There are some people so upset about the possibility of an amnesty bill being revived six months after it was dropped that they use it as justification for a military coup.

However in the case of asset declaration and transparency in general, I find their absence from the list of things the NRC wants to address to be a concern. Transparency is critical in fighting corruption (cockroaches don't like the light), but there are inexplicably wealthy people in government and the military who don't like it. http://www.nationmul...h-30244758.html"

I wasn't replying to a post of yours and I didn't mention your name. If you consider that annoying, baiting and suggestive that is your problem, not mine. Also, on post #8 of this topic I wrote:

I didn't see anything about transparency in government spending; full disclosure of assets and business interests by all people in government who have any influence on spending, laws with stiff penalties for conflicts of interest, and open competitive bidding on all government contracts. The kind of rules that would eliminate backroom deals to reward supporters and line pockets.

This on-topic post is where I explained how transparency and asset declaration should be part of the NRC's 'tone for reforms'. I didn't consider it necessary to repeat this explanation in all succeeding posts, I assumed most readers would understand that things like transparency should be part of the reforms and were therefore on-topic.

I referred to the topic about NLA members who resisted asset declaration to illustrate the fact that transparency is not in the culture of Thai government. I never wrote that there are shared members between the NLA and the NRC, I don't know why you brought that up. Also, if you look up the definition of 'inexplicable' you'll see that until the wealth of these NLA members is explained it is inexplicable.

I do agree that the junta will not be impressed with how things are done in the USA. In the USA corruption is much lower than in Thailand, largely due to effective laws on transparency and against conflicts of interest. Also in the USA the leaders are elected, the country has used the same constitution for over 200 years, and there has never been a military coup. The junta will probably be annoyed by comparisons with a country like that.

The 'democratic' part of this forum is that anyone can reply.

Anyway, as for your last paragraph you might be wrong. I would not be surprised if the 'junta' is really impressed with how 'rule of law' works in the USA.

"The Justice Department is claiming, in a little-noticed court filing, that a federal agent had the right to impersonate a young woman online by creating a Facebook page in her name without her knowledge. Government lawyers also are defending the agent’s right to scour the woman’s seized cell phone and to post photographs — including racy pictures of her and even one of her young son and niece — to the phony social media account, which the agent was using to communicate with suspected criminals."

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrishamby/government-says-federal-agents-can-impersonate-woman-online#1xarf12

[heybruce]

Wow! Even I can't tell where you are paraphrasing me and where you are putting up your own smoke screen. Well done rubl.

By the way, I lost it in your obfuscation. Do you think PM Prayuth should declare his assets? Not because he made it the law, just because it's a good idea?

You confuse easily it would seem. Maybe because you tend to forget (or just like to forget) what you wrote as soon as someone points out to you what was wrong in your post.

As for your question, well, the NRC sets the tone for reforms, not me.

I'm not confused by well written posts or moderately well written posts, and I can usually figure out the poorly written posts. I can't figure out your posts when you are in full obfuscation mode, which was why I complemented you on your incoherent writing. Learn to take a complement rubl.

Back on topic; yes, the NRC sets the tone for reforms, and the OP makes no mention of transparency. This worries me, and I think it would worry anyone concerned about corruption in Thailand.

Incoherent writing ? As non-native English speaker I feel insulted by a seemingly native English speaker. Especially the 'take it as a compliment' makes it even worse. Mind you, there is a suggestion somehow that you admire what you call my 'incoherent writing' as you feel humbled by the masterful use of the English language by a mere Dutchman.

Anyway, back to topic, also many other aspects are left unmentioned. Like the refusal of certain groups to participate whereas a broad participation would really helped to ensure transparency.

BTW a few weeks ago it was mentioned that a Surin family had too many members willing to participate. Till now no one seems to have been able to go past that initial allegation. Maybe the accusation was too transparent?

"Mind you, there is a suggestion somehow that you admire what you call my 'incoherent writing' as you feel humbled by the masterful use of the English language by a mere Dutchman."

Masterful? Indeed. Remember writing this, post #93 from http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/766273-red-shirts-shrug-off-nrc-moves-to-watch-process/page-4:

"So, I seem to think with you seem to interpret as I state continuing with asking a question based on what you think I stated."

Truly masterful writing there rubl. You should write for SNL.

I'm not sure what transparency you are referring to in your second paragraph, I've been arguing that it is important that the proposed reforms include transparency on government operations, especially spending. Transparency isn't mentioned in the OP and that concerns me. I don't see how wider participation improves the chances of the reforms including transparency.

As far as a Surin family having too many members willing to participate, why do you care?

[heybruce]

"Your post though is on annoying and baiting followed by your concerns on none topic related issues phrased is a suggestive manner."

I replied to a post by Robby nz with:

""Isnt it great how some can come out and have a kick at things that haven't even happened yet."

I know what you mean. There are some people so upset about the possibility of an amnesty bill being revived six months after it was dropped that they use it as justification for a military coup.

However in the case of asset declaration and transparency in general, I find their absence from the list of things the NRC wants to address to be a concern. Transparency is critical in fighting corruption (cockroaches don't like the light), but there are inexplicably wealthy people in government and the military who don't like it. http://www.nationmul...h-30244758.html"

I wasn't replying to a post of yours and I didn't mention your name. If you consider that annoying, baiting and suggestive that is your problem, not mine. Also, on post #8 of this topic I wrote:

I didn't see anything about transparency in government spending; full disclosure of assets and business interests by all people in government who have any influence on spending, laws with stiff penalties for conflicts of interest, and open competitive bidding on all government contracts. The kind of rules that would eliminate backroom deals to reward supporters and line pockets.

This on-topic post is where I explained how transparency and asset declaration should be part of the NRC's 'tone for reforms'. I didn't consider it necessary to repeat this explanation in all succeeding posts, I assumed most readers would understand that things like transparency should be part of the reforms and were therefore on-topic.

I referred to the topic about NLA members who resisted asset declaration to illustrate the fact that transparency is not in the culture of Thai government. I never wrote that there are shared members between the NLA and the NRC, I don't know why you brought that up. Also, if you look up the definition of 'inexplicable' you'll see that until the wealth of these NLA members is explained it is inexplicable.

I do agree that the junta will not be impressed with how things are done in the USA. In the USA corruption is much lower than in Thailand, largely due to effective laws on transparency and against conflicts of interest. Also in the USA the leaders are elected, the country has used the same constitution for over 200 years, and there has never been a military coup. The junta will probably be annoyed by comparisons with a country like that.

The 'democratic' part of this forum is that anyone can reply.

Anyway, as for your last paragraph you might be wrong. I would not be surprised if the 'junta' is really impressed with how 'rule of law' works in the USA.

"The Justice Department is claiming, in a little-noticed court filing, that a federal agent had the right to impersonate a young woman online by creating a Facebook page in her name without her knowledge. Government lawyers also are defending the agent’s right to scour the woman’s seized cell phone and to post photographs — including racy pictures of her and even one of her young son and niece — to the phony social media account, which the agent was using to communicate with suspected criminals."

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrishamby/government-says-federal-agents-can-impersonate-woman-online#1xarf12

Right, a low-level federal agent exhibits what appears to be poor judgment and is taken to court, while the event is reported in detail by a press unconstrained by censorship and restrictive libel laws. The junta is unlikely to allow anything like this to happen while they're in charge.