Reforms to be unbiased, except against 'people like Thaksin': NRC member

[heybruce]

The US comes to mind. William Tweed of Tammany Hall in in 19th century New York, Huey "Kingfish" Long in early 20th century Louisiana, widespread police corruption during prohibition, etc. Corruption has not been completely eliminated in the US, and probably never will be, but it is much less than it used to be. A combination of a free press and public outrage eventually resulted in elected leaders who cleaned things up. I think there are other established democracies that have similar stories.

Military dictatorships don't worry about a free press and public outrage, for obvious reasons. They usually secure their positions by rewarding important allies with public wealth of some kind, often in a patronage relationship. Was the military dictatorship in South Korea known for being squeaky clean? Did any of those military dictators retire to a humble home and live on a modest pension?

Where did i ever claim they were squeaky clean?

No you didn't, but I did, as requested, give you an example of a corrupt democracy that solved, or reduced to manageable levels, corruption problems. Can you give me an example of a military dictatorship that did the same?

Actually you did not, you gave an example of a corrupt police force. And my example is in the first post - South korea.

The corrupt systems controlled by William Tweed and Huey Long extended well beyond the police.

A quick reading of South Korea's history educated me about the repressive dictatorship that followed the 1979 coup; it is remembered for the Gwanju massacre, and was toppled in 1987 by a popular uprising after reneging on democratic reforms. I didn't read anything that indicated that this was a corruption fighting dictatorship. Perhaps you can give more details on the history you are referring to.

It was the given reason for the original coup in south korea, the military influence lasted for about 30 years and south korea transitioned to a modern democracy, with an okish record.

Im sorry but if the only example you can muster some particular police force, going all the way back to 1920s usa. then i think you should conside that as a fail.

Just look at all the corrupt democracies that litter the world, very little changes, unless economic progress is made, then you get some progress in reducing corruption.

Anyway the arguments about democracy or corruption misframe what is happening in thailand.

Clearly you don't know who William Tweed and Huey Long were. They were not policemen. Try googling them.

So you were referring to the military government that ruled South Korea from 1961 to 1963. Fighting corruption was one of the rationalizations given for the coup, but I am aware of no evidence that corruption was reduced or that fighting it was a priority of the junta. Do you have any evidence beyond the fact that the coup leader said he'd fight corruption?

South Korea's government is still influenced by the military because it has technically been in a state of war with North Korea since 1950. However I have found no evidence that this influence benefited the current democracy other than in keeping North Korea's armies out of South Korea.

Regarding the corrupt democracies around the world, economic progress often depends on reducing corruption, and reducing government corruption generally requires a free press. Thailand doesn't have that. If you look at the progress of the former communist countries of Europe and the former Soviet Union, you'll find that economic progress has been much greater in the countries with the most press freedom and the least authoritarian governments. That's one reason why I'm very skeptical of the claims made an authoritarian military government that restricts freedom of speech and press when it states that it will fight corruption. Stories like this also don't help http://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/two-thais-charged-over-counterfeit-cash-one-set-free-68275/.

[heybruce]

Are there really rational human beings living in the 21st century arguing for dictatorships and against democracy???

Really...???

Rational human beings? Well....

[heybruce]

I love it! Yes, the benign dictatorship! The one that can do no wrong and will do nothing but good things! A benign dictatorship like, um...., well like those other benign dictatorships I can't think of but that did so many good things. Help me out SICHONSTEVE, what benign dictatorships are we referring to?

The one currently in Thailand.

Is the current work in progress the only example you have?

Its the only one that matters.

So in other words you can't give examples of benign dictatorships, other than Prayuth. What makes you think he's benign?

[SICHONSTEVE]

I don't need to as they don't have any affect on my life in Thailand.

In answer to the second question - the reason that I think he is benign is because I think he is benign!

Edited October 12, 2014 by SICHONSTEVE

[KevinB]

Again 7 something pages of vitriol about Taksin - when in fact most of the comments seem to have missed the point - If the stated views of a senior person in the NRC is to make sure that someone can never return to his home - when he or his acolytes have managed to win almost every election over the last decade - then this spells only one thing NO RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT WHICH IS AFFECTING THE ECOMOMY OF THIS COUNTRY. Already growth projections have been cut to 1.5% for this year. Already major investments are being moved to other members of ASEAN. I'm so glad so many members of ThaiVisa are immune to the tide of Economics - they are so lucky - millions in this country are not that lucky. If you guys actually believe that the opposition to this sort of elitist clap-trap is just going to disappear forget it - the attitude expressed by someone who is meant to be joining a National reconciliation effort is rather disappointing. These attitudes = an extension of conflict = instability in the long run = slower and weaker growth = move poverty = more reason to advocate for a radical change in the system.

[visionchaser45]

I don't need to as they don't have any affect on my life in Thailand.

In answer to the second question - the reason that I think he is benign is because I think he is benign!

Well, as long as you think it, it must be so. 555

[Thai at Heart]

Ah good news then. Going by your account we will soon rid ourselves not only of Thaksin's abuse of power, but that of all the other politicians before and after him. Not sure who will be left. May be you can offer yourself as a candidate.

To start with, bias is a subjective word. You are biased against Thaksin while others are biased against the current government. You think Thanksin was the most corrupt, and other things that a military institution is far more abusive and dangerous in the long run. That doesn't make you right or them right - in the end people make up their minds and the legacy of those in power will be defined.

Now imagine if a Thaksin government took the actions that the NLA and the junta have taken in the short months they have been in control? Wasn't this last chapter started all over an ill advised and poorly judged attempt at passing an amnesty bill while most people were sleeping? The current government doesn't even need to bother to try those shenanigans, they just do it in plain sight and with both a smirk and a strong warning against any widespread dissent. But hey, since they are on your side it is all right with you right?

And where is the evidence that they are any better? Nowhere. Just look at the murder investigation. The perfect investigation? Congratulations coming from the General himself? Journalists investigating labor abuse of immigrants by big Thai conglomerates still in jail without bail over on charges of criminal libel? Authorities are drinking their koolaid so fast that they now say they will arrest anybody that insults them over their performance? Who made them above the law? Did you? Did anybody else in this forum? People have the right to assemble as long as it is to sing Kumbaya songs? What's next, order TV stations to color ManU, Arsenal and Liverpool's kits into yellow to avoid any association of EPL teams with the red movement?

I can only hope that like minded people like you are not as righteousness as you are as this is the type of contempt that people that have no clue about the injustices that many of your fellow citizens endure on a consistent and systematic way in the hands of those that things they can do the thinking for them and the rest of us.

They talk as though corruption isn't an absolute. Thaksin corruption bad, other corruption OK.

[phutoie2]

I don't need to as they don't have any affect on my life in Thailand.

In answer to the second question - the reason that I think he is benign is because I think he is benign!

Well, as long as you think it, it must be so. 555

Thankfully the Chang has done its job. SS has not posted for a few hours. Let me take this opportunity to assure TV members that not all Brits living in Thailand are right wing nutjobs.. The bloke is an embarrassment, most UK citizens are proud of our own democratic roots and would not support any military juntas, dictatorships.

[AleG]

What a strange attitude? In any other country this would have disqualified any member of a parliamentary or quasi-parliamentary body.

What Thailand need most and what is in dire need of reform is the rule of law, which means that the law applies equally to all, no matter who or what they did or did not.

I guess we cannot expect much of this NRC, the composition of which is already highly suspicious and biased. Too bad, an excellent opportunity missed.

What Thailand need most and what is in dire need of reform is the rule of law, which means that the law applies equally to all, no matter who or what they did or did not.

That would be biased against people like Thaksin.

[heybruce]

What a strange attitude? In any other country this would have disqualified any member of a parliamentary or quasi-parliamentary body.

What Thailand need most and what is in dire need of reform is the rule of law, which means that the law applies equally to all, no matter who or what they did or did not.

I guess we cannot expect much of this NRC, the composition of which is already highly suspicious and biased. Too bad, an excellent opportunity missed.

What Thailand need most and what is in dire need of reform is the rule of law, which means that the law applies equally to all, no matter who or what they did or did not.

That would be biased against people like Thaksin.

And people who stage coups.

[AleG]

What Thailand need most and what is in dire need of reform is the rule of law, which means that the law applies equally to all, no matter who or what they did or did not.

That would be biased against people like Thaksin.

And people who stage coups.

That's why, if you don't like coups, you shouldn't support people like Thaksin.

Supporting someone who is in it only to subvert and corrupt Democracy for his own needs and then complaining that Democracy broke down is a little disingenuous.

[heybruce]

What Thailand need most and what is in dire need of reform is the rule of law, which means that the law applies equally to all, no matter who or what they did or did not.

That would be biased against people like Thaksin.

And people who stage coups.

That's why, if you don't like coups, you shouldn't support people like Thaksin.

Supporting someone who is in it only to subvert and corrupt Democracy for his own needs and then complaining that Democracy broke down is a little disingenuous.

I don't support Thaksin, I support the Thai people's right to choose their leaders. Unfortunately the people with guns oppose this right. If the rule of law could be applied to the military there wouldn't be coups.

Edited October 13, 2014 by heybruce

[AleG]

What Thailand need most and what is in dire need of reform is the rule of law, which means that the law applies equally to all, no matter who or what they did or did not.

That would be biased against people like Thaksin.

And people who stage coups.

That's why, if you don't like coups, you shouldn't support people like Thaksin.

Supporting someone who is in it only to subvert and corrupt Democracy for his own needs and then complaining that Democracy broke down is a little disingenuous.

I don't support Thaksin, I support the Thai people's right to choose their leaders. Unfortunately the people with guns oppose this right. If the rule of law could be applied to the military there wouldn't be coups.

Feel free to relay my message to the Thai people.

[heybruce]

And people who stage coups.

That's why, if you don't like coups, you shouldn't support people like Thaksin.

Supporting someone who is in it only to subvert and corrupt Democracy for his own needs and then complaining that Democracy broke down is a little disingenuous.

I don't support Thaksin, I support the Thai people's right to choose their leaders. Unfortunately the people with guns oppose this right. If the rule of law could be applied to the military there wouldn't be coups.

Feel free to relay my message to the Thai people.

You mean your message that the Thai people should vote the way the generals want them to vote? Ok, but they may consider it undemocratic.

[AleG]

Feel free to relay my message to the Thai people.

You mean your message that the Thai people should vote the way the generals want them to vote? Ok, but they may consider it undemocratic.

Now now Bruce, try to answer and be honest, did I say Thai people should vote the way the generals want them to?

[heybruce]

Feel free to relay my message to the Thai people.

You mean your message that the Thai people should vote the way the generals want them to vote? Ok, but they may consider it undemocratic.

Now now Bruce, try to answer and be honest, did I say Thai people should vote the way the generals want them to?

Let's see:

"That's why, if you don't like coups, you shouldn't support people like Thaksin."

No,in all honesty you just wrote that they should not support the candidate of their choice if it would make the generals unhappy.

[AleG]

Now now Bruce, try to answer and be honest, did I say Thai people should vote the way the generals want them to?

Let's see:

"That's why, if you don't like coups, you shouldn't support people like Thaksin."

No,in all honesty you just wrote that they should not support the candidate of their choice if it would make the generals unhappy.

I guess it was too much to ask of you, wasn't it?

Or was forgetting the second part of my post (you know, the one you took the time to edit out) was an honest mistake?

[SICHONSTEVE]

I don't need to as they don't have any affect on my life in Thailand.

In answer to the second question - the reason that I think he is benign is because I think he is benign!

Well, as long as you think it, it must be so. 555

Thankfully the Chang has done its job. SS has not posted for a few hours. Let me take this opportunity to assure TV members that not all Brits living in Thailand are right wing nutjobs.. The bloke is an embarrassment, most UK citizens are proud of our own democratic roots and would not support any military juntas, dictatorships.

I can't stand Chang - Leo is my beer.

So I'm a right wing nut job eh!! Funny that because I was a member of the labour party for years and have campaigned for them in the driving snow and pouring rain.

I am proud of being working class and most am most definitely not for the 'rich boys' scum.

I guess you couldn't have been more wrong about me could you. Just because I am left of left it doesn't make me support trash such as the Shinawatras and I am an ardent admirer of Abhisit (it should be the other way around, but there you go).

I support Prayuth in his BENIGN dictatorship because what he is doing is purely out of the interest for the Thai people and I think that he is doing a superb and selfless job!!

I couldn't care less if you still think I'm an embarrassment as I will always stick to my principals and never deviate - criticise me if you want but I am conviction driven and stick up for 'the common man' in adversity.

[tbthailand]

Feel free to relay my message to the Thai people.

You mean your message that the Thai people should vote the way the generals want them to vote? Ok, but they may consider it undemocratic.

Now now Bruce, try to answer and be honest, did I say Thai people should vote the way the generals want them to?

Let's see:

"That's why, if you don't like coups, you shouldn't support people like Thaksin."

No,in all honesty you just wrote that they should not support the candidate of their choice if it would make the generals unhappy.

Prayuth chan-ocha did his foreshadowing in the spring of 2011 urging Thais to vote for 'honorable' people.

[longway]

Actually you did not, you gave an example of a corrupt police force. And my example is in the first post - South korea.

The corrupt systems controlled by William Tweed and Huey Long extended well beyond the police.

A quick reading of South Korea's history educated me about the repressive dictatorship that followed the 1979 coup; it is remembered for the Gwanju massacre, and was toppled in 1987 by a popular uprising after reneging on democratic reforms. I didn't read anything that indicated that this was a corruption fighting dictatorship. Perhaps you can give more details on the history you are referring to.

It was the given reason for the original coup in south korea, the military influence lasted for about 30 years and south korea transitioned to a modern democracy, with an okish record.

Im sorry but if the only example you can muster some particular police force, going all the way back to 1920s usa. then i think you should conside that as a fail.

Just look at all the corrupt democracies that litter the world, very little changes, unless economic progress is made, then you get some progress in reducing corruption.

Anyway the arguments about democracy or corruption misframe what is happening in thailand.

Clearly you don't know who William Tweed and Huey Long were. They were not policemen. Try googling them.

So you were referring to the military government that ruled South Korea from 1961 to 1963. Fighting corruption was one of the rationalizations given for the coup, but I am aware of no evidence that corruption was reduced or that fighting it was a priority of the junta. Do you have any evidence beyond the fact that the coup leader said he'd fight corruption?

South Korea's government is still influenced by the military because it has technically been in a state of war with North Korea since 1950. However I have found no evidence that this influence benefited the current democracy other than in keeping North Korea's armies out of South Korea.

Regarding the corrupt democracies around the world, economic progress often depends on reducing corruption, and reducing government corruption generally requires a free press. Thailand doesn't have that. If you look at the progress of the former communist countries of Europe and the former Soviet Union, you'll find that economic progress has been much greater in the countries with the most press freedom and the least authoritarian governments. That's one reason why I'm very skeptical of the claims made an authoritarian military government that restricts freedom of speech and press when it states that it will fight corruption. Stories like this also don't help http://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/two-thais-charged-over-counterfeit-cash-one-set-free-68275/.

You will find that S korea was dominated by the militarty until the late 1970s, they made dramatic progress economically and developed strong state institutions, all these helped when they trasintioned to a democracy in reducing corruption, in fact the external threat they faced from N Korea was an incentive to developing these strong institutions pre and post the democratic transition, all these are lacking in Thailand.

Indonesia for example was at the same time the rate the most democratic country in SE asia and the most corrupt a few years ago.

Democratisation and reducing corruption dont go hand in hand. I dont know who Tweed and long are but I dont think an example from 1920s USA really cuts the mustard here. Eastern europe had a bad economic system so its not really relevant.

China restricts press freedom and is quite corrupt but economic progress is speactular. India is far more democratic with a free press and is rated as more corrupt than China and its economic progress and its progress in sharing wealth are far worse than China.

Thailand's press had been lauded the most free in SE asia prior to 2001, it was also considered the most democratic, its gotten steadily worse since that time clearly, but the blame for that can be aportioned quite evenly between greedy unscrupolous politicians as much as the traditional elite.

As I said before, none of this is really relevant anyway to Thailand anyway, as improving democracy and reducing corruption is not the main focus of the problems here. I was just curious what you had in mind.

There is no black and white answer here. The coup could help Thailand in the future and just as likely it wont, just wait and see before trying to use your prejudices to judge the situation.

[KevinB]

Sishon Steve wrote "I am conviction driven and stick up for 'the common man' in adversity."

Reading some of your posts - surely you jest. You can't really be a big supporter of the Generals and what they are lauding over at the moment or you obviously haven't seen the poor common folk having they little stalls and homes flatten because some HiSo person has dropped off a brown envelope at the Regimental HQ. I get around a bit and I'm observant and it's really getting a bit sad in places for the common man. Plus in places you are already starting to see the local economy slow perceptibly and there are lots of common folk starting to suffer - general consumer spending is starting to dive and the beginning of a ripple of deflation stalks the land. Adversity - stick around.

PS I also don't like Chang - only drink their Soda water with a good flavoured rum.

[heybruce]

Now now Bruce, try to answer and be honest, did I say Thai people should vote the way the generals want them to?

Let's see:

"That's why, if you don't like coups, you shouldn't support people like Thaksin."

No,in all honesty you just wrote that they should not support the candidate of their choice if it would make the generals unhappy.

I guess it was too much to ask of you, wasn't it?

Or was forgetting the second part of my post (you know, the one you took the time to edit out) was an honest mistake?

Alright, let's do the whole thing:

Your post:

'What Thailand need most and what is in dire need of reform is the rule of law, which means that the law applies equally to all, no matter who or what they did or did not.'

That would be biased against people like Thaksin.

My reply:

And people who stage coups.

Your response:

That's why, if you don't like coups, you shouldn't support people like Thaksin.

Supporting someone who is in it only to subvert and corrupt Democracy for his own needs and then complaining that Democracy broke down is a little disingenuous.

It still seems like you're saying that people should vote the way the military wants them to vote, or at least in a manner that doesn't annoy the military. And describing a military coup as "Democracy broke down" is disingenuous, a coup is an example of external forces breaking democracy in a decisive manner.

[heybruce]

The corrupt systems controlled by William Tweed and Huey Long extended well beyond the police.

A quick reading of South Korea's history educated me about the repressive dictatorship that followed the 1979 coup; it is remembered for the Gwanju massacre, and was toppled in 1987 by a popular uprising after reneging on democratic reforms. I didn't read anything that indicated that this was a corruption fighting dictatorship. Perhaps you can give more details on the history you are referring to.

It was the given reason for the original coup in south korea, the military influence lasted for about 30 years and south korea transitioned to a modern democracy, with an okish record.

Im sorry but if the only example you can muster some particular police force, going all the way back to 1920s usa. then i think you should conside that as a fail.

Just look at all the corrupt democracies that litter the world, very little changes, unless economic progress is made, then you get some progress in reducing corruption.

Anyway the arguments about democracy or corruption misframe what is happening in thailand.

Clearly you don't know who William Tweed and Huey Long were. They were not policemen. Try googling them.

So you were referring to the military government that ruled South Korea from 1961 to 1963. Fighting corruption was one of the rationalizations given for the coup, but I am aware of no evidence that corruption was reduced or that fighting it was a priority of the junta. Do you have any evidence beyond the fact that the coup leader said he'd fight corruption?

South Korea's government is still influenced by the military because it has technically been in a state of war with North Korea since 1950. However I have found no evidence that this influence benefited the current democracy other than in keeping North Korea's armies out of South Korea.

Regarding the corrupt democracies around the world, economic progress often depends on reducing corruption, and reducing government corruption generally requires a free press. Thailand doesn't have that. If you look at the progress of the former communist countries of Europe and the former Soviet Union, you'll find that economic progress has been much greater in the countries with the most press freedom and the least authoritarian governments. That's one reason why I'm very skeptical of the claims made an authoritarian military government that restricts freedom of speech and press when it states that it will fight corruption. Stories like this also don't help http://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/two-thais-charged-over-counterfeit-cash-one-set-free-68275/.

You will find that S korea was dominated by the militarty until the late 1970s, they made dramatic progress economically and developed strong state institutions, all these helped when they trasintioned to a democracy in reducing corruption, in fact the external threat they faced from N Korea was an incentive to developing these strong institutions pre and post the democratic transition, all these are lacking in Thailand.

Indonesia for example was at the same time the rate the most democratic country in SE asia and the most corrupt a few years ago.

Democratisation and reducing corruption dont go hand in hand. I dont know who Tweed and long are but I dont think an example from 1920s USA really cuts the mustard here. Eastern europe had a bad economic system so its not really relevant.

China restricts press freedom and is quite corrupt but economic progress is speactular. India is far more democratic with a free press and is rated as more corrupt than China and its economic progress and its progress in sharing wealth are far worse than China.

Thailand's press had been lauded the most free in SE asia prior to 2001, it was also considered the most democratic, its gotten steadily worse since that time clearly, but the blame for that can be aportioned quite evenly between greedy unscrupolous politicians as much as the traditional elite.

As I said before, none of this is really relevant anyway to Thailand anyway, as improving democracy and reducing corruption is not the main focus of the problems here. I was just curious what you had in mind.

There is no black and white answer here. The coup could help Thailand in the future and just as likely it wont, just wait and see before trying to use your prejudices to judge the situation.

So South Korea failed to develop a strong democracy in the seven years between the Korean War armistice in 1953 and the 1960 coup. You claim that after almost 30 years of dominance by the military it emerged with a more or less functioning democracy. Leaving aside the possibility that South Korea may have developed a better democracy without the military interference, are you suggesting that Thailand needs 30 years of military rule? Also, let's consider the possibility that if Thailand were allowed to go a few election cycles without a coup intervening it might develop better institutions than the suspect ones being worked on by the junta.

I'm aware that Indonesia and other democracies have done a poor job of limiting corruption; I never said that democracy always eliminates corruption, only that it has a much better track record than military dictatorships. I'm not convinced by your South Korea example, can you provide another?

I don't agree with your rejection of the eastern European examples, all these countries had bad economic systems and endemic corruption when they emerged from communism, the ones that adopted democracy and freedom of press are the ones advancing to first world economic status, while the ones that have kept autocratic systems and restricted freedom of the press are the ones that have made little economic progress or stagnated. The junta is an autocracy if not an outright dictatorship and it doesn't tolerate freedom of the press, and Thailand is predicted to make the least economic progress of any of the southeast Asian nations for the foreseeable future.

I believe that democracy, freedom of the press and limiting corruption provide the best foundation for a modern first world economy. China has made spectacular progress in advancing from a poor to middle income nation (on a per capita earnings basis), I think it's advance will stall out without some significant reforms. Centralized control and command economies can work reasonably well in pulling countries out of desperate poverty, they stall out when comes to economic progress beyond the middle income level.

I'm curious about this statement:

"As I said before, none of this is really relevant anyway to Thailand anyway, as improving democracy and reducing corruption is not the main focus of the problems here."

I agree that improving democracy and reducing corruption aren't the main focus of the junta. What do you think the main focus of the problems are?

[maxme]

I don't need to as they don't have any affect on my life in Thailand.

In answer to the second question - the reason that I think he is benign is because I think he is benign!

Well, as long as you think it, it must be so. 555

Thankfully the Chang has done its job. SS has not posted for a few hours. Let me take this opportunity to assure TV members that not all Brits living in Thailand are right wing nutjobs.. The bloke is an embarrassment, most UK citizens are proud of our own democratic roots and would not support any military juntas, dictatorships.

I can't stand Chang - Leo is my beer.

So I'm a right wing nut job eh!! Funny that because I was a member of the labour party for years and have campaigned for them in the driving snow and pouring rain.

I am proud of being working class and most am most definitely not for the 'rich boys' scum.

I guess you couldn't have been more wrong about me could you. Just because I am left of left it doesn't make me support trash such as the Shinawatras and I am an ardent admirer of Abhisit (it should be the other way around, but there you go).

I support Prayuth in his BENIGN dictatorship because what he is doing is purely out of the interest for the Thai people and I think that he is doing a superb and selfless job!!

I couldn't care less if you still think I'm an embarrassment as I will always stick to my principals and never deviate - criticise me if you want but I am conviction driven and stick up for 'the common man' in adversity.

I think you may be on to something there Pointdexter.

Tell you what... Why don't you write an article about your opinion on 'benign dictatorship'. Get it published in Bangkok post, heck... why not New York Times and the Guardian while you are at it.

When you get that done, I promise you, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Edited October 13, 2014 by maxme

[bendejo]

And not only that, his bow tie squirts water!

[heybruce]

I don't need to as they don't have any affect on my life in Thailand.

In answer to the second question - the reason that I think he is benign is because I think he is benign!

Apparently your belief that Prayuth is a benign dictator is not the result of a rational evaluation of evidence, it's a matter of faith.

[ScubaPhuket]

Thaksin was the best thing this country ever had going for it. His ousting & all of the accusations against him are based on one premise. Keep the money where it is right now & let the mafia keep power.

Sorry but if you can't see that Thaksin is the biggest victim &scapegoat in thai history then you need to take a closer look at the country.

[SICHONSTEVE]

Now now Bruce, try to answer and be honest, did I say Thai people should vote the way the generals want them to?

Let's see:

"That's why, if you don't like coups, you shouldn't support people like Thaksin."

No,in all honesty you just wrote that they should not support the candidate of their choice if it would make the generals unhappy.

I guess it was too much to ask of you, wasn't it?

Or was forgetting the second part of my post (you know, the one you took the time to edit out) was an honest mistake?

Alright, let's do the whole thing:

Your post:

'What Thailand need most and what is in dire need of reform is the rule of law, which means that the law applies equally to all, no matter who or what they did or did not.'

That would be biased against people like Thaksin.

My reply:

And people who stage coups.

Your response:

That's why, if you don't like coups, you shouldn't support people like Thaksin.

Supporting someone who is in it only to subvert and corrupt Democracy for his own needs and then complaining that Democracy broke down is a little disingenuous.

It still seems like you're saying that people should vote the way the military wants them to vote, or at least in a manner that doesn't annoy the military. And describing a military coup as "Democracy broke down" is disingenuous, a coup is an example of external forces breaking democracy in a decisive manner.

'Breaking democracy'!!

What democracy was broken?

Once the reforms are in place and the country's finances have been restored, the farmers are growing profitable crops and don't have to rely on government subsidies, corruption has a big hole put in it and the mess created by the previous lot has been addressed THEN free and fair elections can be held and the good general will step down and depart (mission accomplished) and true democracy will be restored.

The politicians were given the chance to settle their differences and could only agree to disagree on everything and so the general stepped in treated them like the little children they were behaving like and things improved overnight. The killings (very one sided may I add) STOPPED overnight - not just reduced, but STOPPED!!

Now wouldn't you say that it was a big improvement over what preceded it? I'm sure that the farmers who got paid in double quick time (stemmed the number of suicides) were happy about the new situation.

[SICHONSTEVE]

I don't need to as they don't have any affect on my life in Thailand.

In answer to the second question - the reason that I think he is benign is because I think he is benign!

Apparently your belief that Prayuth is a benign dictator is not the result of a rational evaluation of evidence, it's a matter of faith.

If that is so, then:

"Keep the faith"!

[AleG]

I guess it was too much to ask of you, wasn't it?

Or was forgetting the second part of my post (you know, the one you took the time to edit out) was an honest mistake?

Alright, let's do the whole thing:

Your post:

'What Thailand need most and what is in dire need of reform is the rule of law, which means that the law applies equally to all, no matter who or what they did or did not.'

That would be biased against people like Thaksin.

My reply:

And people who stage coups.

Your response:

That's why, if you don't like coups, you shouldn't support people like Thaksin.

Supporting someone who is in it only to subvert and corrupt Democracy for his own needs and then complaining that Democracy broke down is a little disingenuous.

It still seems like you're saying that people should vote the way the military wants them to vote, or at least in a manner that doesn't annoy the military. And describing a military coup as "Democracy broke down" is disingenuous, a coup is an example of external forces breaking democracy in a decisive manner.

No, you are wrong.

It means that if people vote for politicians that actively undermine and subvert Democracy then they shouldn't be so surprised when the whole edifice crumbles.

If you play with matches and gasoline don't complain if the house burns down; it's really not a difficult concept to understand, is it?

Unfortunately for the people of Thailand, the house is more like a condo, and everyone living on it, not just those that like to play with fire, have now to live with the consequences of their reckless beheaviour.

Here's a PTP minister explaining their "Democratic" way of doing things (and how much Red Shirts love it):

Speaking in the Chiang Mai Gymnasium at a political event called “Pheu Thai for the Future of Thailand”, he said, “I don’t want to do it [the convention centre in Phuket]. Why? Any problem? We will do it in the future when the people of Phuket see the good side of us and elect our man.

“I will do it for you, but right now I don’t feel like it,” he said to cheers from the crowd in the gymnasium, many wearing red shirts and rattling “foot clappers”.

Side note: Chiang Mai got an international convention center during Abhisit's government.

Then of course there are things like the Amnesty Bill, hijacked explicitly to whitewash Thaksin:

On Sunday, however, Prayuth (Siripanich) admitted to Somroutai Sapsomboon from The Nation that he proposed revising the bill to seek a blanket amnesty as Thaksin had told him he wants to come home.

Prayuth said he met Thaksin in Hong Kong several months ago, before he proposed the change to Worachai's draft.

“Once I met him, he said 'Brother, I want to go home now.' He said just that, and I knew immediately that he would like to return to Thailand through a proper channel. And a channel that can help him return is amnesty. So, it has been on my mind all the time that I must help him come home.”

Prayuth claimed several of Pheu Thai's key leaders supported him on the revised version of the bill.

“I can't do it on my own. It's a party matter,” he said.

Guess who said "Provinces which vote for the Thai Rak Thai party will be taken good care of first..."?

Any of that sounds like a Democratic system of governance to you?

"Democracy" under Thaksin means government of the people Thaksin, by the people Thaksin, for the people Thaksin

And of course there also that little thing about assaulting, murdering and maiming people that protest against such things.

That is an intolerable situation for anyone who truly wants to see a Democratic governance, it makes it impossible to have a stable society and that, eventually, leads to a breakdown.

Now, people that have been voting for Thaksin's Get Rich Quick club need to realize what they are doing to their country, if the scraps they get justify the misery they put the entire country through, Democracy is as much a responsibility as it is a right, and if people want to look towards and feel proud to live in a Democracy they need to understand that very clearly or else they are condemned to fumble around going from back and forth between undemocratic governance to non democratic governance indefinitely.