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

visionchaser45 · October 14, 2014

I'm afraid that Thaksin, the PTP and UDD cannot be trusted as they cheat, lie, are corrupt and care only for themselves - whilst bankrupting the country in the process. As far as I'm concerned they don't deserve to have a say in anything as they are criminals/fugitives.

Far better off without them don't you agree!!!!

No, I don't agree. The country is much worse now. BTW, there is no need to shout. It does nothing to make your argument more convincing. We will see who bankrupts the country. It appears the current regime is well on its way to doing just that.

SICHONSTEVE · October 14, 2014

I'm afraid that Thaksin, the PTP and UDD cannot be trusted as they cheat, lie, are corrupt and care only for themselves - whilst bankrupting the country in the process. As far as I'm concerned they don't deserve to have a say in anything as they are criminals/fugitives.

Far better off without them don't you agree!!!!

No, I don't agree. The country is much worse now. BTW, there is no need to shout. It does nothing to make your argument more convincing. We will see who bankrupts the country. It appears the current regime is well on its way to doing just that.

Keep chasing that vision matey, no matter how flawed and misguided it is you keeping chasing it.

heybruce · October 14, 2014

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.

Does this mean that you concede my point that you think the Thai people should vote in a manner that pleases the military, instead of for the candidate of their choice?

The democracy that was broken was the democracy that responded to protests by attempting to hold elections.

This par it interesting:

"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."

In other words, once Thailand has it's government finances and agricultural policy at a state few if any democracies in the world have achieved, then democracy can be restored. Considering the military has no demonstrated expertise in these areas, it is likely this means democracy will never be restored.

"corruption has a big hole in it"? Why do people have so much faith that a corrupt military will fight corruption?

tbthailand · October 14, 2014

I'm afraid that Thaksin, the PTP and UDD cannot be trusted as they cheat, lie, are corrupt and care only for themselves - whilst bankrupting the country in the process. As far as I'm concerned they don't deserve to have a say in anything as they are criminals/fugitives.

Far better off without them don't you agree!!!!

No, I don't agree. The country is much worse now. BTW, there is no need to shout. It does nothing to make your argument more convincing. We will see who bankrupts the country. It appears the current regime is well on its way to doing just that.

While it could turn out that the military hoses up the whole economy, bankrupting a country has nothing (fundamentally) to do with the form of government. Just compare Belgium and Singapore. I agree with Bruce that a free society probably is more likely to succeed, but it is always possible to find an example to counter the rule.

Steve's point is very one-sided. It's obvious that Thaksin looks out for number 1. So do his opponents among the elite. The elite have squeezed the country for money and their own benefit and power for decades. Steve's comment " they cheat, lie, are corrupt and care only for themselves" describes the elites (I don't mean the foot-soldiers who support one side's movement or the other) on both sides.

It's clear what the major conflict is among the elites, the uber-rich families of Thailand. They've been fighting like this for decades if not centuries. I just wish that they didn't run roughshod over democracy in their little fist-fight. While the elites fight over much the same thing all the time- power and money - this time there is an extra ingredient in the mix which is a democratic movement among the people. This isn't Thailand of the 60s and 70s - people have broad access to information. Thais travel. People know what is going on.

PS: economically, I agree with you - the country is much worse off in October 2014 than it was in 2013.

Edited October 14, 2014 by tbthailand

heybruce · October 14, 2014

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.

"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."

The edifice crumbled because the party that can't win elections wouldn't accept democrat rule, and this party had active sympathizers in the military. The party that won the last election attempted to hold another election to give the voters the opportunity to change government democratically, but that was stopped, first by Prayuth's thugs then by the military.

Regarding your fist unreferenced, off-topic quote, an unnamed Pheu Thai spokesperson said he wanted to speak in friendly territory, not unfriendly territory. So what?

I don't know if you mean the Chiang Mai Convention Center was proposed under Abhisit, approved under Abhisit, financed under Abhisit, or completed under Abhisit, but once again, so what? Also, is it in any way pertinent to the topic?

Regarding your second unreferenced, off-topic quote, I don't know what your point is (perhaps context would help).

Discussing Thai Rak Thai is going back a while, and you describe standard election campaign rhetoric.

Your final paragraph is one-sided, off-topic opinions. I won't bother with it.

Robespiere · October 14, 2014

I'm afraid that Thaksin, the PTP and UDD cannot be trusted as they cheat, lie, are corrupt and care only for themselves - whilst bankrupting the country in the process. As far as I'm concerned they don't deserve to have a say in anything as they are criminals/fugitives.

Far better off without them don't you agree!!!!

No, I don't agree. The country is much worse now. BTW, there is no need to shout. It does nothing to make your argument more convincing. We will see who bankrupts the country. It appears the current regime is well on its way to doing just that.

While it could turn out that the military hoses up the whole economy, bankrupting a country has nothing (fundamentally) to do with the form of government. Just compare Belgium and Singapore. I agree with Bruce that a free society probably is more likely to succeed, but it is always possible to find an example to counter the rule.

Steve's point is very one-sided. It's obvious that Thaksin looks out for number 1. So do his opponents among the elite. The elite have squeezed the country for money and their own benefit and power for decades. Steve's comment " they cheat, lie, are corrupt and care only for themselves" describes the elites (I don't mean the foot-soldiers who support one side's movement or the other) on both sides.

It's clear what the major conflict is among the elites, the uber-rich families of Thailand. They've been fighting like this for decades if not centuries. I just wish that they didn't run roughshod over democracy in their little fist-fight. While the elites fight over much the same thing all the time- power and money - this time there is an extra ingredient in the mix which is a democratic movement among the people. This isn't Thailand of the 60s and 70s - people have broad access to information. Thais travel. People know what is going on.

PS: economically, I agree with you - the country is much worse off in October 2014 than it was in 2013.

The differing means of obtaining power is what separates Thaksin from his opponents.

Thaksin's power comes from the people (votes), which the people control; whilst the other side obtain power via the barrels of their many guns, which the people do not control.

Thaksin can be legally got rid of by the people through the electoral process, there is no way (other than a mass uprising) to get rid of Thaksin's opponents.

Nickymaster · October 14, 2014

Ask the General about the 3,000 drug war deaths.

People like to pin that one on Thaksin but for some reason....no investigation.

Actually there have been several investigations into the "War on Drugs", the latest being abhisits foray in June 2010. No conclusions have ever been made.

Oh and there weren't 3000 deaths, not even 2,500 deaths as widely reported and repeated ad nauseam on this forum and elsewhere.

From Human Rights Watch.

In February 2003, the Thai government, under then Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, launched a 'war on drugs', purportedly aimed at the suppression of drug trafficking and the prevention of drug use. In fact, a major outcome of this policy was arbitrary killings. In the first three months of the campaign there were some 2800 extrajudicial killings. In 2007, an official investigation found that more than half of those killed had no connection whatsoever to drugs

http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/03/12/thailand-s-war-drugs

Thanks to the misunderstood criminal.

Robespiere · October 14, 2014

Ask the General about the 3,000 drug war deaths.

People like to pin that one on Thaksin but for some reason....no investigation.

Actually there have been several investigations into the "War on Drugs", the latest being abhisits foray in June 2010. No conclusions have ever been made.

Oh and there weren't 3000 deaths, not even 2,500 deaths as widely reported and repeated ad nauseam on this forum and elsewhere.

From Human Rights Watch.

In February 2003, the Thai government, under then Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, launched a 'war on drugs', purportedly aimed at the suppression of drug trafficking and the prevention of drug use. In fact, a major outcome of this policy was arbitrary killings. In the first three months of the campaign there were some 2800 extrajudicial killings. In 2007, an official investigation found that more than half of those killed had no connection whatsoever to drugs

http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/03/12/thailand-s-war-drugs

Thanks to the misunderstood criminal.

Whatever the number of extra judicial murders, there were too many.

I wonder what inspired Thaksin to launch his drug war?

There are those who believe Thaksin's drug war, despite the murders, actually saved lives.

I am curious as to your opinion of those that hold such beliefs?

tbthailand · October 14, 2014

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.

Does this mean that you concede my point that you think the Thai people should vote in a manner that pleases the military, instead of for the candidate of their choice?

The democracy that was broken was the democracy that responded to protests by attempting to hold elections.

This par it interesting:

"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."

In other words, once Thailand has it's government finances and agricultural policy at a state few if any democracies in the world have achieved, then democracy can be restored. Considering the military has no demonstrated expertise in these areas, it is likely this means democracy will never be restored.

"corruption has a big hole in it"? Why do people have so much faith that a corrupt military will fight corruption?

there are more articles out now about the navy officers caught with $7 million in counterfeit money...

There are also new articles out about 'mistreatment' by the military.

how benign....

fab4 · October 14, 2014

Ask the General about the 3,000 drug war deaths.

People like to pin that one on Thaksin but for some reason....no investigation.

Actually there have been several investigations into the "War on Drugs", the latest being abhisits foray in June 2010. No conclusions have ever been made.

Oh and there weren't 3000 deaths, not even 2,500 deaths as widely reported and repeated ad nauseam on this forum and elsewhere.

From Human Rights Watch.

In February 2003, the Thai government, under then Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, launched a 'war on drugs', purportedly aimed at the suppression of drug trafficking and the prevention of drug use. In fact, a major outcome of this policy was arbitrary killings. In the first three months of the campaign there were some 2800 extrajudicial killings. In 2007, an official investigation found that more than half of those killed had no connection whatsoever to drugs

http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/03/12/thailand-s-war-drugs

Thanks to the misunderstood criminal.

How many more times?

Apart from the fact that the HRW report of deaths is greatly exaggerated they also increased the exaggerated figures that they did report:

1. July 8th 2004 - Not Enough Graves (http://www.hrw.org/node/12005/section/3)

"The result of the initial three-month phase of this campaign was some 2,275 extrajudicial killings, which the government blamed largely on gangs involved in the drug trade";

2. March 12th 2008 - Thailands War on Drugs (your link, http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/03/12/thailand-s-war-drugs)

"In the first three months of the campaign there were some 2800 extrajudicial killings*. In 2007, an official investigation found that more than half of those killed had no connection whatsoever to drugs"

* This figure came from General Surayud's military government special committee to investigate the "war on drugs".

The original figure (2,275) was reported by the police in mid April as the number of homicides in that period.

Police figures never stated that 2,275 were killed directly by the police or as a total figure in the “war on drugs”. It is simply the total number of homicides for the 2 and a half months.

So for HRW’s figure of 2,275 to be correct it would mean (a) that there were non-drug related homicides in Thailand in that period, and ( all drug-related homicides where extra-judicial killings. The odds of that happening would be astronomical.

In which parallel universe would the total homicide rate be seen as the drug-related homicide rate. HRW’s figures are inflated and wrong. The police said that themselves as the BBC reported:

…only 1,329 Thais died over drugs, arguing that the other 1,300 killings had nothing to do with the illegal trade

http://asiancorrespondent.com/20405/2275-where-did-this-number-come-from/

I know that doesn't fit the usual suspects agenda of " Thaksin's War on Drugs" propaganda but that's the problem with reality.

AleG · October 14, 2014

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.

"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."

The edifice crumbled because the party that can't win elections wouldn't accept democrat rule, and this party had active sympathizers in the military. The party that won the last election attempted to hold another election to give the voters the opportunity to change government democratically, but that was stopped, first by Prayuth's thugs then by the military.

Regarding your fist unreferenced, off-topic quote, an unnamed Pheu Thai spokesperson said he wanted to speak in friendly territory, not unfriendly territory. So what?

I don't know if you mean the Chiang Mai Convention Center was proposed under Abhisit, approved under Abhisit, financed under Abhisit, or completed under Abhisit, but once again, so what? Also, is it in any way pertinent to the topic?

Regarding your second unreferenced, off-topic quote, I don't know what your point is (perhaps context would help).

Discussing Thai Rak Thai is going back a while, and you describe standard election campaign rhetoric.

Your final paragraph is one-sided, off-topic opinions. I won't bother with it.

Obviously you don't want to see anything that shows how undemocratic Thaksin and his proxy parties are, even when it's presented plainly in front of you. You just made up a bunch of nonsense to hand wave away the first and second citations with links I gave, it's shameless, and didn't get any better from there.

Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions on what Democracy is of someone that sees nothing wrong with a government openly saying that they will help their own voters at the expense of everyone else or that they will enact laws explicitly to whitewash their master.

SICHONSTEVE · October 14, 2014

scraping the bottom of the barrel aren't we.

So two officers were caught in Cambodia with counterfeit bills............so what.

Mistreatment of what - the soi dogs in walking street.

If these 2 articles spell out the corruption in Thailand then Prayuth deserves plaudits for the good job he is doing.

The counterfeit episode wasn't even in Thailand BTW.

fab4 · October 14, 2014

Obviously you don't want to see anything that shows how undemocratic Thaksin and his proxy parties are, even when it's presented plainly in front of you. You just made up a bunch of nonsense to hand wave away the first and second citations with links I gave, it's shameless, and didn't get any better from there.

Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions on what Democracy is of someone that sees nothing wrong with a government openly saying that they will help their own voters at the expense of everyone else or that they will enact laws explicitly to whitewash their master.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the stutter brigade (but, but, abhisit) I see that you you eschew the views on democracy of someone (like myself) who really doesn't think that the apparent opinion of a cabinet minister of the last government on a convention centre in Phuket accurately reflects the view of that government towards democracy, (not to mention that it was hardly on topic, but I really cannot let that lie without a reply, off topic or not.)

If you would like a real accurate example of how a Prime Minister (and also Party Leader) views democracy, how about discussing abhisit's amendment of the constitution, prior to an upcoming election (2011), to restrict the number of constituency seats in the north and north east (16 seats removed from traditionally PTP voting constituencies) and an increase of 45 Party Lists seats as the dems have better results in the party list compared to constituency seats?

Just how democratic was that?

Edited October 14, 2014 by fab4

heybruce · October 14, 2014

"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."

The edifice crumbled because the party that can't win elections wouldn't accept democrat rule, and this party had active sympathizers in the military. The party that won the last election attempted to hold another election to give the voters the opportunity to change government democratically, but that was stopped, first by Prayuth's thugs then by the military.

Regarding your fist unreferenced, off-topic quote, an unnamed Pheu Thai spokesperson said he wanted to speak in friendly territory, not unfriendly territory. So what?

I don't know if you mean the Chiang Mai Convention Center was proposed under Abhisit, approved under Abhisit, financed under Abhisit, or completed under Abhisit, but once again, so what? Also, is it in any way pertinent to the topic?

Regarding your second unreferenced, off-topic quote, I don't know what your point is (perhaps context would help).

Discussing Thai Rak Thai is going back a while, and you describe standard election campaign rhetoric.

Your final paragraph is one-sided, off-topic opinions. I won't bother with it.

Obviously you don't want to see anything that shows how undemocratic Thaksin and his proxy parties are, even when it's presented plainly in front of you. You just made up a bunch of nonsense to hand wave away the first and second citations with links I gave, it's shameless, and didn't get any better from there.

Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions on what Democracy is of someone that sees nothing wrong with a government openly saying that they will help their own voters at the expense of everyone else or that they will enact laws explicitly to whitewash their master.

Ok, I found your unconventional linkage, I'll give you that. The second link is interesting, in it is:

"Prayuth responded: “The amnesty will not be applied to Thaksin because his legal predicament stemmed from an alleged abuse of power, with no links to political rallies.”"

A general who staged a coup accusing someone else of abuse of power, imagine that.

The pertinence of convention centers to this topic I won't give you, nor will I concede that an election promise to shift the bulk of government spending from Bangkok to provinces where the majority of Thai people live is undemocratic. As far as my making stuff up, why don't you provide an example?

Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions of someone who supports a rule-by-decree military junta led by a general that staged the coup and tore up the constitution written at the direction of the military after the last coup. Apparently their first cut at an undemocratic constitution didn't work so they're going to try again for something even less democratic. Which brings up my original, on-topic post:

The last two paragraphs of the article are:

Meanwhile, another NRC member, political science professor Amorn Wanichwiwat, promised to reform Thailand with a "Buddhist moral system" that only allows "Good People" to take political office.

"There has to be a selection process for the legislative and administrative branches, to screen for good people and moral people who follow the teachings of Buddhism, especially the Five Precepts," said Amorn, who, like Jermsak, was a drafter of the 2007 Constitution.

It seems like Thai-style democracy will be similar to Iranian-style democracy, where the clerics decide who can run in an election, or Chinese-style democracy, where the Communist Party decides. In other words, undemocratic democracy.

Nickymaster · October 16, 2014

Actually there have been several investigations into the "War on Drugs", the latest being abhisits foray in June 2010. No conclusions have ever been made.

Oh and there weren't 3000 deaths, not even 2,500 deaths as widely reported and repeated ad nauseam on this forum and elsewhere.

From Human Rights Watch.
In February 2003, the Thai government, under then Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, launched a 'war on drugs', purportedly aimed at the suppression of drug trafficking and the prevention of drug use. In fact, a major outcome of this policy was arbitrary killings. In the first three months of the campaign there were some 2800 extrajudicial killings. In 2007, an official investigation found that more than half of those killed had no connection whatsoever to drugs

http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/03/12/thailand-s-war-drugs

Thanks to the misunderstood criminal.

How many more times?

Apart from the fact that the HRW report of deaths is greatly exaggerated they also increased the exaggerated figures that they did report:

1. July 8th 2004 - Not Enough Graves (http://www.hrw.org/node/12005/section/3)

"The result of the initial three-month phase of this campaign was some 2,275 extrajudicial killings, which the government blamed largely on gangs involved in the drug trade";

2. March 12th 2008 - Thailands War on Drugs (your link, http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/03/12/thailand-s-war-drugs)

"In the first three months of the campaign there were some 2800 extrajudicial killings*. In 2007, an official investigation found that more than half of those killed had no connection whatsoever to drugs"

* This figure came from General Surayud's military government special committee to investigate the "war on drugs".

The original figure (2,275) was reported by the police in mid April as the number of homicides in that period.

Police figures never stated that 2,275 were killed directly by the police or as a total figure in the war on drugs. It is simply the total number of homicides for the 2 and a half months.

So for HRWs figure of 2,275 to be correct it would mean (a) that there were non-drug related homicides in Thailand in that period, and ( all drug-related homicides where extra-judicial killings. The odds of that happening would be astronomical.

In which parallel universe would the total homicide rate be seen as the drug-related homicide rate. HRWs figures are inflated and wrong. The police said that themselves as the BBC reported:

only 1,329 Thais died over drugs, arguing that the other 1,300 killings had nothing to do with the illegal trade

http://asiancorrespondent.com/20405/2275-where-did-this-number-come-from/

I know that doesn't fit the usual suspects agenda of " Thaksin's War on Drugs" propaganda but that's the problem with reality.

Fact is that your beloved Thaksin is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of INNOCENT people. Over 2000 people where killed in a mere 3 months time. No trial, nothing. Thaksin's police force was authorized by Thaksin to kill whoever they thought had something to do with drugs.

Many claim Thaksin used this "was on drugs" to kill everybody who was against Thaksin and his police force. Sickening...

Edited October 16, 2014 by Nickymaster

AleG · October 16, 2014

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"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."

The edifice crumbled because the party that can't win elections wouldn't accept democrat rule, and this party had active sympathizers in the military. The party that won the last election attempted to hold another election to give the voters the opportunity to change government democratically, but that was stopped, first by Prayuth's thugs then by the military.

Regarding your fist unreferenced, off-topic quote, an unnamed Pheu Thai spokesperson said he wanted to speak in friendly territory, not unfriendly territory. So what?

I don't know if you mean the Chiang Mai Convention Center was proposed under Abhisit, approved under Abhisit, financed under Abhisit, or completed under Abhisit, but once again, so what? Also, is it in any way pertinent to the topic?

Regarding your second unreferenced, off-topic quote, I don't know what your point is (perhaps context would help).

Discussing Thai Rak Thai is going back a while, and you describe standard election campaign rhetoric.

Your final paragraph is one-sided, off-topic opinions. I won't bother with it.

Obviously you don't want to see anything that shows how undemocratic Thaksin and his proxy parties are, even when it's presented plainly in front of you. You just made up a bunch of nonsense to hand wave away the first and second citations with links I gave, it's shameless, and didn't get any better from there.

Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions on what Democracy is of someone that sees nothing wrong with a government openly saying that they will help their own voters at the expense of everyone else or that they will enact laws explicitly to whitewash their master.

Ok, I found your unconventional linkage, I'll give you that. The second link is interesting, in it is:

"Prayuth responded: “The amnesty will not be applied to Thaksin because his legal predicament stemmed from an alleged abuse of power, with no links to political rallies.”"

A general who staged a coup accusing someone else of abuse of power, imagine that.

The pertinence of convention centers to this topic I won't give you, nor will I concede that an election promise to shift the bulk of government spending from Bangkok to provinces where the majority of Thai people live is undemocratic. As far as my making stuff up, why don't you provide an example?

Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions of someone who supports a rule-by-decree military junta led by a general that staged the coup and tore up the constitution written at the direction of the military after the last coup. Apparently their first cut at an undemocratic constitution didn't work so they're going to try again for something even less democratic. Which brings up my original, on-topic post:

The last two paragraphs of the article are:

Meanwhile, another NRC member, political science professor Amorn Wanichwiwat, promised to reform Thailand with a "Buddhist moral system" that only allows "Good People" to take political office.

"There has to be a selection process for the legislative and administrative branches, to screen for good people and moral people who follow the teachings of Buddhism, especially the Five Precepts," said Amorn, who, like Jermsak, was a drafter of the 2007 Constitution.

It seems like Thai-style democracy will be similar to Iranian-style democracy, where the clerics decide who can run in an election, or Chinese-style democracy, where the Communist Party decides. In other words, undemocratic democracy.

"As far as my making stuff up, why don't you provide an example? "

This: "Regarding your fist unreferenced, off-topic quote, an unnamed Pheu Thai spokesperson said he wanted to speak in friendly territory, not unfriendly territory. So what" is completely made up, the quote had a link the Ministers's name was on it and him just speaking in a friendly territory is something you just made up on the spot to hand wave it away. You deliberately misrepresent and obfuscate what the quote said to wiggle out of defending the indefensible.

And this: The pertinence of convention centers to this topic I won't give you, nor will I concede that an election promise to shift the bulk of government spending from Bangkok to provinces where the majority of Thai people live is undemocratic.

You are deliberately changing the nature of the cite, i.e. making things up. What Plodprasop said, explicitly, was that his government would not construct the convention center in Phuket (which was already approved and budgeted) because the people of Phuket didn't vote for PTP (to the applause of the "Democracy loving" Red Shirts). You can pretend you don't understand what is wrong with explicitly shunning people for not voting for a party, it's not believable and only makes you look dishonest.

This you also made up: "Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions of someone who supports a rule-by-decree military junta led by a general that staged the coup and tore up the constitution written at the direction of the military after the last coup."

Of course you can provide a citation for that, can you?

heybruce · October 16, 2014

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Obviously you don't want to see anything that shows how undemocratic Thaksin and his proxy parties are, even when it's presented plainly in front of you. You just made up a bunch of nonsense to hand wave away the first and second citations with links I gave, it's shameless, and didn't get any better from there.

Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions on what Democracy is of someone that sees nothing wrong with a government openly saying that they will help their own voters at the expense of everyone else or that they will enact laws explicitly to whitewash their master.

Ok, I found your unconventional linkage, I'll give you that. The second link is interesting, in it is:

"Prayuth responded: “The amnesty will not be applied to Thaksin because his legal predicament stemmed from an alleged abuse of power, with no links to political rallies.”"

A general who staged a coup accusing someone else of abuse of power, imagine that.

The pertinence of convention centers to this topic I won't give you, nor will I concede that an election promise to shift the bulk of government spending from Bangkok to provinces where the majority of Thai people live is undemocratic. As far as my making stuff up, why don't you provide an example?

Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions of someone who supports a rule-by-decree military junta led by a general that staged the coup and tore up the constitution written at the direction of the military after the last coup. Apparently their first cut at an undemocratic constitution didn't work so they're going to try again for something even less democratic. Which brings up my original, on-topic post:

The last two paragraphs of the article are:

Meanwhile, another NRC member, political science professor Amorn Wanichwiwat, promised to reform Thailand with a "Buddhist moral system" that only allows "Good People" to take political office.

"There has to be a selection process for the legislative and administrative branches, to screen for good people and moral people who follow the teachings of Buddhism, especially the Five Precepts," said Amorn, who, like Jermsak, was a drafter of the 2007 Constitution.

It seems like Thai-style democracy will be similar to Iranian-style democracy, where the clerics decide who can run in an election, or Chinese-style democracy, where the Communist Party decides. In other words, undemocratic democracy.

"As far as my making stuff up, why don't you provide an example? "

This: "Regarding your fist unreferenced, off-topic quote, an unnamed Pheu Thai spokesperson said he wanted to speak in friendly territory, not unfriendly territory. So what" is completely made up, the quote had a link the Ministers's name was on it and him just speaking in a friendly territory is something you just made up on the spot to hand wave it away. You deliberately misrepresent and obfuscate what the quote said to wiggle out of defending the indefensible.

And this: The pertinence of convention centers to this topic I won't give you, nor will I concede that an election promise to shift the bulk of government spending from Bangkok to provinces where the majority of Thai people live is undemocratic.

You are deliberately changing the nature of the cite, i.e. making things up. What Plodprasop said, explicitly, was that his government would not construct the convention center in Phuket (which was already approved and budgeted) because the people of Phuket didn't vote for PTP (to the applause of the "Democracy loving" Red Shirts). You can pretend you don't understand what is wrong with explicitly shunning people for not voting for a party, it's not believable and only makes you look dishonest.

This you also made up: "Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions of someone who supports a rule-by-decree military junta led by a general that staged the coup and tore up the constitution written at the direction of the military after the last coup."

Of course you can provide a citation for that, can you?

As I've already stated, I didn't pick up on your unconventional method of referencing quotes--making the entire quote a link without mentioning the source is unconventional. It does appear the Deputy PM was making the proposed convention center in Phuket conditional on the voters supporting PTP, which was a stupid thing to say. However there are people currently in power in Thailand, one in particular, who are saying a lot of stupid things.

Regarding my statement:

"Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions of someone who supports a rule-by-decree military junta led by a general that staged the coup and tore up the constitution written at the direction of the military after the last coup."

That was in response to your statement:

"Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions on what Democracy is of someone that sees nothing wrong with a government openly saying that they will help their own voters at the expense of everyone else or that they will enact laws explicitly to whitewash their master."

You extrapolate a great deal from my rejection of the significance of conventions centers. Politics is about government spending and economics, among other things. Historically the vast majority of Thailand's government spending has gone to Bangkok, which has a small fraction of the population. Thaksin was the first politician to rock the boat by promising, and to a limited degree delivering, a better balance of government spending. This proved enormously popular; even if the junta succeeds in eliminating the Shinawatra family completely from politics it won't prevent other politicians from using the same tactic to win elections. Unless, of course, they can eliminate any semblance of free elections. Discussing that is on-topic.

In defense of my claim that you support the junta: You defend the junta at every opportunity. Your preferred tactic in defending, and the preferred tactic of most defenders of the junta, is to turn all debate on the intentions and performance of the junta into a discussion of the governments before the junta. The total absence of democracy in the current system is ignored, you simply point out flaws and missteps in the previous governments. So perhaps I should have written that you are 'defending' the junta, by diverting all critical comments directed at the junta into comments on Thaksin/Yingluck/redshirts. However I see little distinction between 'defending' and 'supporting' in these circumstances.

I have consistently argued for democracy. I have repeatedly stated that a July election would have resulted in a sharp drop in support for the PTP, perhaps resulting in another party winning the most votes. I have repeatedly written that democracy in Thailand needs time to mature, which means several elections without interruption by military coups. And I have repeatedly stated that any government, however flawed, that allows the voters the opportunity to vote in a new government in fair, monitored elections, is preferable to a junta that denies the people this opportunity. I have argued for something. Have you argued for anything, or simply against all things Shinawatra?

Finally, and back on topic, what do you think of NRC member professor Amorn Wanichwiwat's promise to have an unspecified selection process to ensure only 'good people' take political office?

AleG · October 16, 2014

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Ok, I found your unconventional linkage, I'll give you that. The second link is interesting, in it is:

"Prayuth responded: “The amnesty will not be applied to Thaksin because his legal predicament stemmed from an alleged abuse of power, with no links to political rallies.”"

A general who staged a coup accusing someone else of abuse of power, imagine that.

The pertinence of convention centers to this topic I won't give you, nor will I concede that an election promise to shift the bulk of government spending from Bangkok to provinces where the majority of Thai people live is undemocratic. As far as my making stuff up, why don't you provide an example?

Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions of someone who supports a rule-by-decree military junta led by a general that staged the coup and tore up the constitution written at the direction of the military after the last coup. Apparently their first cut at an undemocratic constitution didn't work so they're going to try again for something even less democratic. Which brings up my original, on-topic post:

The last two paragraphs of the article are:

Meanwhile, another NRC member, political science professor Amorn Wanichwiwat, promised to reform Thailand with a "Buddhist moral system" that only allows "Good People" to take political office.

"There has to be a selection process for the legislative and administrative branches, to screen for good people and moral people who follow the teachings of Buddhism, especially the Five Precepts," said Amorn, who, like Jermsak, was a drafter of the 2007 Constitution.

It seems like Thai-style democracy will be similar to Iranian-style democracy, where the clerics decide who can run in an election, or Chinese-style democracy, where the Communist Party decides. In other words, undemocratic democracy.

"As far as my making stuff up, why don't you provide an example? "

This: "Regarding your fist unreferenced, off-topic quote, an unnamed Pheu Thai spokesperson said he wanted to speak in friendly territory, not unfriendly territory. So what" is completely made up, the quote had a link the Ministers's name was on it and him just speaking in a friendly territory is something you just made up on the spot to hand wave it away. You deliberately misrepresent and obfuscate what the quote said to wiggle out of defending the indefensible.

And this: The pertinence of convention centers to this topic I won't give you, nor will I concede that an election promise to shift the bulk of government spending from Bangkok to provinces where the majority of Thai people live is undemocratic.

You are deliberately changing the nature of the cite, i.e. making things up. What Plodprasop said, explicitly, was that his government would not construct the convention center in Phuket (which was already approved and budgeted) because the people of Phuket didn't vote for PTP (to the applause of the "Democracy loving" Red Shirts). You can pretend you don't understand what is wrong with explicitly shunning people for not voting for a party, it's not believable and only makes you look dishonest.

This you also made up: "Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions of someone who supports a rule-by-decree military junta led by a general that staged the coup and tore up the constitution written at the direction of the military after the last coup."

Of course you can provide a citation for that, can you?

As I've already stated, I didn't pick up on your unconventional method of referencing quotes--making the entire quote a link without mentioning the source is unconventional. It does appear the Deputy PM was making the proposed convention center in Phuket conditional on the voters supporting PTP, which was a stupid thing to say. However there are people currently in power in Thailand, one in particular, who are saying a lot of stupid things.

Regarding my statement:

"Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions of someone who supports a rule-by-decree military junta led by a general that staged the coup and tore up the constitution written at the direction of the military after the last coup."

That was in response to your statement:

"Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions on what Democracy is of someone that sees nothing wrong with a government openly saying that they will help their own voters at the expense of everyone else or that they will enact laws explicitly to whitewash their master."

You extrapolate a great deal from my rejection of the significance of conventions centers. Politics is about government spending and economics, among other things. Historically the vast majority of Thailand's government spending has gone to Bangkok, which has a small fraction of the population. Thaksin was the first politician to rock the boat by promising, and to a limited degree delivering, a better balance of government spending. This proved enormously popular; even if the junta succeeds in eliminating the Shinawatra family completely from politics it won't prevent other politicians from using the same tactic to win elections. Unless, of course, they can eliminate any semblance of free elections. Discussing that is on-topic.

In defense of my claim that you support the junta: You defend the junta at every opportunity. Your preferred tactic in defending, and the preferred tactic of most defenders of the junta, is to turn all debate on the intentions and performance of the junta into a discussion of the governments before the junta. The total absence of democracy in the current system is ignored, you simply point out flaws and missteps in the previous governments. So perhaps I should have written that you are 'defending' the junta, by diverting all critical comments directed at the junta into comments on Thaksin/Yingluck/redshirts. However I see little distinction between 'defending' and 'supporting' in these circumstances.

I have consistently argued for democracy. I have repeatedly stated that a July election would have resulted in a sharp drop in support for the PTP, perhaps resulting in another party winning the most votes. I have repeatedly written that democracy in Thailand needs time to mature, which means several elections without interruption by military coups. And I have repeatedly stated that any government, however flawed, that allows the voters the opportunity to vote in a new government in fair, monitored elections, is preferable to a junta that denies the people this opportunity. I have argued for something. Have you argued for anything, or simply against all things Shinawatra?

Finally, and back on topic, what do you think of NRC member professor Amorn Wanichwiwat's promise to have an unspecified selection process to ensure only 'good people' take political office?

First, for the last part, obviously religion should be kept out of politics, period.

Now then, it's astounding your lack of self awareness. You accuse me of defending the junta at every opportunity (an assertion not supported by any facts) by deflecting things into other people, right after writing this:

It does appear the Deputy PM was making the proposed convention center in Phuket conditional on the voters supporting PTP, which was a stupid thing to say. However there are people currently in power in Thailand, one in particular, who are saying a lot of stupid things.

Besides that, it wasn't a stupid thing to say, it was a profoundly undemocratic thing to say; it shows one of the ways he, and the party he belongs to undermined and subverted Democracy to gain and maintain power; furthermore it wasn't an isolated instance, I cited at least three examples of this undemocratic attitude and of course there are myriad others (for example Thaksin directly saying "Democracy is not my goal")

For the record I much rather not see a military Junta in power, and that is why the people of this country need to know and understand what led to the current situation (which is not the same as saying people should do as the generals say, as you claimed before); IMO the current situation is a direct result of Thaksin and his quest for power and as long as he (and people like him) get to wield so much political power there is no hope of moving on towards a functional Democracy in Thailand.

Edited October 16, 2014 by AleG

heybruce · October 16, 2014

"As far as my making stuff up, why don't you provide an example? "

This: "Regarding your fist unreferenced, off-topic quote, an unnamed Pheu Thai spokesperson said he wanted to speak in friendly territory, not unfriendly territory. So what" is completely made up, the quote had a link the Ministers's name was on it and him just speaking in a friendly territory is something you just made up on the spot to hand wave it away. You deliberately misrepresent and obfuscate what the quote said to wiggle out of defending the indefensible.

And this: The pertinence of convention centers to this topic I won't give you, nor will I concede that an election promise to shift the bulk of government spending from Bangkok to provinces where the majority of Thai people live is undemocratic.

You are deliberately changing the nature of the cite, i.e. making things up. What Plodprasop said, explicitly, was that his government would not construct the convention center in Phuket (which was already approved and budgeted) because the people of Phuket didn't vote for PTP (to the applause of the "Democracy loving" Red Shirts). You can pretend you don't understand what is wrong with explicitly shunning people for not voting for a party, it's not believable and only makes you look dishonest.

This you also made up: "Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions of someone who supports a rule-by-decree military junta led by a general that staged the coup and tore up the constitution written at the direction of the military after the last coup."

Of course you can provide a citation for that, can you?

As I've already stated, I didn't pick up on your unconventional method of referencing quotes--making the entire quote a link without mentioning the source is unconventional. It does appear the Deputy PM was making the proposed convention center in Phuket conditional on the voters supporting PTP, which was a stupid thing to say. However there are people currently in power in Thailand, one in particular, who are saying a lot of stupid things.

Regarding my statement:

"Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions of someone who supports a rule-by-decree military junta led by a general that staged the coup and tore up the constitution written at the direction of the military after the last coup."

That was in response to your statement:

"Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions on what Democracy is of someone that sees nothing wrong with a government openly saying that they will help their own voters at the expense of everyone else or that they will enact laws explicitly to whitewash their master."

You extrapolate a great deal from my rejection of the significance of conventions centers. Politics is about government spending and economics, among other things. Historically the vast majority of Thailand's government spending has gone to Bangkok, which has a small fraction of the population. Thaksin was the first politician to rock the boat by promising, and to a limited degree delivering, a better balance of government spending. This proved enormously popular; even if the junta succeeds in eliminating the Shinawatra family completely from politics it won't prevent other politicians from using the same tactic to win elections. Unless, of course, they can eliminate any semblance of free elections. Discussing that is on-topic.

In defense of my claim that you support the junta: You defend the junta at every opportunity. Your preferred tactic in defending, and the preferred tactic of most defenders of the junta, is to turn all debate on the intentions and performance of the junta into a discussion of the governments before the junta. The total absence of democracy in the current system is ignored, you simply point out flaws and missteps in the previous governments. So perhaps I should have written that you are 'defending' the junta, by diverting all critical comments directed at the junta into comments on Thaksin/Yingluck/redshirts. However I see little distinction between 'defending' and 'supporting' in these circumstances.

I have consistently argued for democracy. I have repeatedly stated that a July election would have resulted in a sharp drop in support for the PTP, perhaps resulting in another party winning the most votes. I have repeatedly written that democracy in Thailand needs time to mature, which means several elections without interruption by military coups. And I have repeatedly stated that any government, however flawed, that allows the voters the opportunity to vote in a new government in fair, monitored elections, is preferable to a junta that denies the people this opportunity. I have argued for something. Have you argued for anything, or simply against all things Shinawatra?

Finally, and back on topic, what do you think of NRC member professor Amorn Wanichwiwat's promise to have an unspecified selection process to ensure only 'good people' take political office?

First, for the last part, obviously religion should be kept out of politics, period.

Now then, it's astounding your lack of self awareness. You accuse me of defending the junta at every opportunity (an assertion not supported by any facts) by deflecting things into other people, right after writing this:

It does appear the Deputy PM was making the proposed convention center in Phuket conditional on the voters supporting PTP, which was a stupid thing to say. However there are people currently in power in Thailand, one in particular, who are saying a lot of stupid things.

Besides that, it wasn't a stupid thing to say, it was a profoundly undemocratic thing to say; it shows one of the ways he, and the party he belongs to undermined and subverted Democracy to gain and maintain power; furthermore it wasn't an isolated instance, I cited at least three examples of this undemocratic attitude and of course there are myriad others (for example Thaksin directly saying "Democracy is not my goal")

For the record I much rather not see a military Junta in power, and that is why the people of this country need to know and understand what led to the current situation (which is not the same as saying people should do as the generals say, as you claimed before); IMO the current situation is a direct result of Thaksin and his quest for power and as long as he (and people like him) get to wield so much political power there is no hope of moving on towards a functional Democracy in Thailand.

Where to begin?

Few people try to defend the actions of the junta, because these actions are indefensible. The preferred defense of the junta is to turn every discussion on current events into criticism of past governments. That is what I've seen you do in every junta related topic in which I've seen your posts. I assume you are either defending the junta with a "best defense is a good offense" tactic, or you are completely obsessed with everything related to Thaksin.

My comment on your off-topic convention center quote was an attempt to put it in perspective. People high up in government were saying stupid things before and are saying stupid things now.

Regarding your repeatedly drawing attention to flaws in the democracy before the coup; do you think going from a flawed democracy to no democracy represents some sort of progress? As I've repeatedly stated, democracy needs time to mature, which means time without coups. So long as the flawed democracy allowed free, monitored elections then no coup was warranted.

The current situation is not a direct result of Thaksin, it is a direct result of the military disapproving of the past choices of Thai voters and its unwillingness to give voters the chance to choose again. So long as the military feels free to topple governments they disapprove of "there is no hope of moving on towards a functional Democracy in Thailand."

Clearly you also disapprove of the past choices the Thai voters made. So what? People who believe in democracy believe it is up to the people to choose their government, not the military.

Perhaps you disagree. Do you think a junta that bans political gatherings, calls for elections and criticism, censors the press, shuts down academic seminars on democracy in one of the country's top universities, rules by decree, and is moving to "reforms" that limit candidate choices in elections is preparing Thailand for a functional democracy?

northernjohn · October 16, 2014

In other words, the endgame is pre-determined. What a facade and a joke.

Did you read the article. It said people like him who abuse their power.

Makes sense to me.

speaking of jokes how you doing?

fab4 · October 16, 2014

How many more times?

Apart from the fact that the HRW report of deaths is greatly exaggerated they also increased the exaggerated figures that they did report:

1. July 8th 2004 - Not Enough Graves (http://www.hrw.org/node/12005/section/3)

"The result of the initial three-month phase of this campaign was some 2,275 extrajudicial killings, which the government blamed largely on gangs involved in the drug trade";

2. March 12th 2008 - Thailands War on Drugs (your link, http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/03/12/thailand-s-war-drugs)

"In the first three months of the campaign there were some 2800 extrajudicial killings*. In 2007, an official investigation found that more than half of those killed had no connection whatsoever to drugs"

* This figure came from General Surayud's military government special committee to investigate the "war on drugs".

The original figure (2,275) was reported by the police in mid April as the number of homicides in that period.

Police figures never stated that 2,275 were killed directly by the police or as a total figure in the war on drugs. It is simply the total number of homicides for the 2 and a half months.

So for HRWs figure of 2,275 to be correct it would mean (a) that there were non-drug related homicides in Thailand in that period, and ( all drug-related homicides where extra-judicial killings. The odds of that happening would be astronomical.

In which parallel universe would the total homicide rate be seen as the drug-related homicide rate. HRWs figures are inflated and wrong. The police said that themselves as the BBC reported:

only 1,329 Thais died over drugs, arguing that the other 1,300 killings had nothing to do with the illegal trade

http://asiancorrespondent.com/20405/2275-where-did-this-number-come-from/

I know that doesn't fit the usual suspects agenda of " Thaksin's War on Drugs" propaganda but that's the problem with reality.

Fact is that your beloved Thaksin is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of INNOCENT people. Over 2000 people where killed in a mere 3 months time. No trial, nothing. Thaksin's police force was authorized by Thaksin to kill whoever they thought had something to do with drugs.

Many claim Thaksin used this "was on drugs" to kill everybody who was against Thaksin and his police force. Sickening...

You do have reading difficulties. Over 2000 people were killed in a mere 3 months. However a large number of those deaths were "normal" homicides. Maybe you should try reading and then analysing what the words mean?

Many claim..........blah blah blah. Really, is that a subjective viewpoint or do you have something to back up that opinion??

While he was opposition leader, Abhisit Vejjajiva accused Thaksin of crimes against humanity for his alleged role in the campaign. After being appointed Prime Minister, Abhisit opened an investigation into the killings, claiming that a successful probe could lead to prosecution by the International Criminal Court. Former attorney-general Kampee Kaewcharoen led the investigation and the investigation committee was approved by Abhisit’s Cabinet. Abhisit denied that the probe was politically motivated. Witnesses and victims were urged to report to the Department of Special Investigation, which operated directly under Abhisit’s control.

As of the August 2011 parliamentary elections, Abhisit’s investigation failed to find or publicize any conclusive evidence linking Thaksin or members of his Government to any extrajudicial killings.

http://assassinationthaksin.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/thaksins-war-on-drugs/

AleG · October 16, 2014

First, for the last part, obviously religion should be kept out of politics, period.

Now then, it's astounding your lack of self awareness. You accuse me of defending the junta at every opportunity (an assertion not supported by any facts) by deflecting things into other people, right after writing this:

It does appear the Deputy PM was making the proposed convention center in Phuket conditional on the voters supporting PTP, which was a stupid thing to say. However there are people currently in power in Thailand, one in particular, who are saying a lot of stupid things.

Besides that, it wasn't a stupid thing to say, it was a profoundly undemocratic thing to say; it shows one of the ways he, and the party he belongs to undermined and subverted Democracy to gain and maintain power; furthermore it wasn't an isolated instance, I cited at least three examples of this undemocratic attitude and of course there are myriad others (for example Thaksin directly saying "Democracy is not my goal")

For the record I much rather not see a military Junta in power, and that is why the people of this country need to know and understand what led to the current situation (which is not the same as saying people should do as the generals say, as you claimed before); IMO the current situation is a direct result of Thaksin and his quest for power and as long as he (and people like him) get to wield so much political power there is no hope of moving on towards a functional Democracy in Thailand.

Where to begin?

Few people try to defend the actions of the junta, because these actions are indefensible. The preferred defense of the junta is to turn every discussion on current events into criticism of past governments. That is what I've seen you do in every junta related topic in which I've seen your posts. I assume you are either defending the junta with a "best defense is a good offense" tactic, or you are completely obsessed with everything related to Thaksin.

My comment on your off-topic convention center quote was an attempt to put it in perspective. People high up in government were saying stupid things before and are saying stupid things now.

Regarding your repeatedly drawing attention to flaws in the democracy before the coup; do you think going from a flawed democracy to no democracy represents some sort of progress? As I've repeatedly stated, democracy needs time to mature, which means time without coups. So long as the flawed democracy allowed free, monitored elections then no coup was warranted.

The current situation is not a direct result of Thaksin, it is a direct result of the military disapproving of the past choices of Thai voters and its unwillingness to give voters the chance to choose again. So long as the military feels free to topple governments they disapprove of "there is no hope of moving on towards a functional Democracy in Thailand."

Clearly you also disapprove of the past choices the Thai voters made. So what? People who believe in democracy believe it is up to the people to choose their government, not the military.

Perhaps you disagree. Do you think a junta that bans political gatherings, calls for elections and criticism, censors the press, shuts down academic seminars on democracy in one of the country's top universities, rules by decree, and is moving to "reforms" that limit candidate choices in elections is preparing Thailand for a functional democracy?

The preferred defense of the junta is to turn every discussion on current events into criticism of past governments.

Please remind me, what is the topic of this thread?

You are the one trying to derail it into discussing the Junta, you don't want to see what role Thaksin had on the current situation and how him and people like him can be prevented from gaining control of a country, you know, the topic of this thread.

northernjohn · October 16, 2014

"As far as my making stuff up, why don't you provide an example? "

This: "Regarding your fist unreferenced, off-topic quote, an unnamed Pheu Thai spokesperson said he wanted to speak in friendly territory, not unfriendly territory. So what" is completely made up, the quote had a link the Ministers's name was on it and him just speaking in a friendly territory is something you just made up on the spot to hand wave it away. You deliberately misrepresent and obfuscate what the quote said to wiggle out of defending the indefensible.

And this: The pertinence of convention centers to this topic I won't give you, nor will I concede that an election promise to shift the bulk of government spending from Bangkok to provinces where the majority of Thai people live is undemocratic.

You are deliberately changing the nature of the cite, i.e. making things up. What Plodprasop said, explicitly, was that his government would not construct the convention center in Phuket (which was already approved and budgeted) because the people of Phuket didn't vote for PTP (to the applause of the "Democracy loving" Red Shirts). You can pretend you don't understand what is wrong with explicitly shunning people for not voting for a party, it's not believable and only makes you look dishonest.

This you also made up: "Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions of someone who supports a rule-by-decree military junta led by a general that staged the coup and tore up the constitution written at the direction of the military after the last coup."

Of course you can provide a citation for that, can you?

As I've already stated, I didn't pick up on your unconventional method of referencing quotes--making the entire quote a link without mentioning the source is unconventional. It does appear the Deputy PM was making the proposed convention center in Phuket conditional on the voters supporting PTP, which was a stupid thing to say. However there are people currently in power in Thailand, one in particular, who are saying a lot of stupid things.

Regarding my statement:

"Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions of someone who supports a rule-by-decree military junta led by a general that staged the coup and tore up the constitution written at the direction of the military after the last coup."

That was in response to your statement:

"Pardon me if I hold as worthless the opinions on what Democracy is of someone that sees nothing wrong with a government openly saying that they will help their own voters at the expense of everyone else or that they will enact laws explicitly to whitewash their master."

You extrapolate a great deal from my rejection of the significance of conventions centers. Politics is about government spending and economics, among other things. Historically the vast majority of Thailand's government spending has gone to Bangkok, which has a small fraction of the population. Thaksin was the first politician to rock the boat by promising, and to a limited degree delivering, a better balance of government spending. This proved enormously popular; even if the junta succeeds in eliminating the Shinawatra family completely from politics it won't prevent other politicians from using the same tactic to win elections. Unless, of course, they can eliminate any semblance of free elections. Discussing that is on-topic.

In defense of my claim that you support the junta: You defend the junta at every opportunity. Your preferred tactic in defending, and the preferred tactic of most defenders of the junta, is to turn all debate on the intentions and performance of the junta into a discussion of the governments before the junta. The total absence of democracy in the current system is ignored, you simply point out flaws and missteps in the previous governments. So perhaps I should have written that you are 'defending' the junta, by diverting all critical comments directed at the junta into comments on Thaksin/Yingluck/redshirts. However I see little distinction between 'defending' and 'supporting' in these circumstances.

I have consistently argued for democracy. I have repeatedly stated that a July election would have resulted in a sharp drop in support for the PTP, perhaps resulting in another party winning the most votes. I have repeatedly written that democracy in Thailand needs time to mature, which means several elections without interruption by military coups. And I have repeatedly stated that any government, however flawed, that allows the voters the opportunity to vote in a new government in fair, monitored elections, is preferable to a junta that denies the people this opportunity. I have argued for something. Have you argued for anything, or simply against all things Shinawatra?

Finally, and back on topic, what do you think of NRC member professor Amorn Wanichwiwat's promise to have an unspecified selection process to ensure only 'good people' take political office?

First, for the last part, obviously religion should be kept out of politics, period.

Now then, it's astounding your lack of self awareness. You accuse me of defending the junta at every opportunity (an assertion not supported by any facts) by deflecting things into other people, right after writing this:

It does appear the Deputy PM was making the proposed convention center in Phuket conditional on the voters supporting PTP, which was a stupid thing to say. However there are people currently in power in Thailand, one in particular, who are saying a lot of stupid things.

Besides that, it wasn't a stupid thing to say, it was a profoundly undemocratic thing to say; it shows one of the ways he, and the party he belongs to undermined and subverted Democracy to gain and maintain power; furthermore it wasn't an isolated instance, I cited at least three examples of this undemocratic attitude and of course there are myriad others (for example Thaksin directly saying "Democracy is not my goal")

For the record I much rather not see a military Junta in power, and that is why the people of this country need to know and understand what led to the current situation (which is not the same as saying people should do as the generals say, as you claimed before); IMO the current situation is a direct result of Thaksin and his quest for power and as long as he (and people like him) get to wield so much political power there is no hope of moving on towards a functional Democracy in Thailand.

Where to begin?

Few people try to defend the actions of the junta, because these actions are indefensible. The preferred defense of the junta is to turn every discussion on current events into criticism of past governments. That is what I've seen you do in every junta related topic in which I've seen your posts. I assume you are either defending the junta with a "best defense is a good offense" tactic, or you are completely obsessed with everything related to Thaksin.

My comment on your off-topic convention center quote was an attempt to put it in perspective. People high up in government were saying stupid things before and are saying stupid things now.

Regarding your repeatedly drawing attention to flaws in the democracy before the coup; do you think going from a flawed democracy to no democracy represents some sort of progress? As I've repeatedly stated, democracy needs time to mature, which means time without coups. So long as the flawed democracy allowed free, monitored elections then no coup was warranted.

The current situation is not a direct result of Thaksin, it is a direct result of the military disapproving of the past choices of Thai voters and its unwillingness to give voters the chance to choose again. So long as the military feels free to topple governments they disapprove of "there is no hope of moving on towards a functional Democracy in Thailand."

Clearly you also disapprove of the past choices the Thai voters made. So what? People who believe in democracy believe it is up to the people to choose their government, not the military.

Perhaps you disagree. Do you think a junta that bans political gatherings, calls for elections and criticism, censors the press, shuts down academic seminars on democracy in one of the country's top universities, rules by decree, and is moving to "reforms" that limit candidate choices in elections is preparing Thailand for a functional democracy?

I will defend the junta. They are working for the betterment of Thailand. They are the only ones with the power to do it. The democrats would not have the power top do it because they would be trying to hold off the PTP with their red army and lies. The PTP is not interested in cleaning up the government. We see that under Abhist the corruption leveled out. When he left office the PTP cut the funding to the committee looking into corruption and the corruption started to rise again and continued to.

It is not Democratic and I for one could care less. The important thing is to clean the government up and make it harder to corrupt. As has been said the PM has said some stupid things but what was left out was that he did not insist on carrying it out. He admitted it was wrong. A man like that is the only way any government is going to change. He has been in power now for less than 4 months and already the Thaksin huggers are trying to crucify him. Yingluck they were giving her 6 months.

The present situation was a direct result of the every day honest hard working citizens having enough of Thaksin tyranny. They let the government know how they felt and still the government tried to ram Thaksin down their throat. Had they been an honest government and spent the time ruling the country instead of trying to white wash a convicted criminal the military would never have had to intervene. I am not trying to defend the junta for paying the farmers the money the government owes them or switching out police who were in control of a very corrupt police department or making the streets safe to walk on. Three times in to straighten up the cab 's in Phuket. Not that I think they charge a fair price but they don't hold a gun to your head now. The cabs in Bangkok looking at a raise. Some small attempts at cleaning up the traffic in Bangkok. All in all not bad for some one who is new to politics.

I am willing to wait to see the outcome of it. That is why I am against people trying to stop the change. It can't get worse. An honest look at it and it would be pretty hard to say he haven't made a little bit of a change for the better.

northernjohn · October 16, 2014

How many more times?

Apart from the fact that the HRW report of deaths is greatly exaggerated they also increased the exaggerated figures that they did report:

1. July 8th 2004 - Not Enough Graves (http://www.hrw.org/node/12005/section/3)

"The result of the initial three-month phase of this campaign was some 2,275 extrajudicial killings, which the government blamed largely on gangs involved in the drug trade";

2. March 12th 2008 - Thailands War on Drugs (your link, http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/03/12/thailand-s-war-drugs)

"In the first three months of the campaign there were some 2800 extrajudicial killings*. In 2007, an official investigation found that more than half of those killed had no connection whatsoever to drugs"

* This figure came from General Surayud's military government special committee to investigate the "war on drugs".

The original figure (2,275) was reported by the police in mid April as the number of homicides in that period.

I know that doesn't fit the usual suspects agenda of " Thaksin's War on Drugs" propaganda but that's the problem with reality.

Fact is that your beloved Thaksin is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of INNOCENT people. Over 2000 people where killed in a mere 3 months time. No trial, nothing. Thaksin's police force was authorized by Thaksin to kill whoever they thought had something to do with drugs.

Many claim Thaksin used this "was on drugs" to kill everybody who was against Thaksin and his police force. Sickening...

You do have reading difficulties. Over 2000 people were killed in a mere 3 months. However a large number of those deaths were "normal" homicides. Maybe you should try reading and then analysing what the words mean?

Many claim..........blah blah blah. Really, is that a subjective viewpoint or do you have something to back up that opinion??

While he was opposition leader, Abhisit Vejjajiva accused Thaksin of crimes against humanity for his alleged role in the campaign. After being appointed Prime Minister, Abhisit opened an investigation into the killings, claiming that a successful probe could lead to prosecution by the International Criminal Court. Former attorney-general Kampee Kaewcharoen led the investigation and the investigation committee was approved by Abhisit’s Cabinet. Abhisit denied that the probe was politically motivated. Witnesses and victims were urged to report to the Department of Special Investigation, which operated directly under Abhisit’s control.

As of the August 2011 parliamentary elections, Abhisit’s investigation failed to find or publicize any conclusive evidence linking Thaksin or members of his Government to any extrajudicial killings.

http://assassinationthaksin.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/thaksins-war-on-drugs/

It was around 1,500 innocent people killed by the people operating under Thaksin's orders. Thou should brush up on reality.

Robespiere · October 16, 2014

It was around 1,500 innocent people killed by the people operating under Thaksin's orders. Thou should brush up on reality.

Any chance Thaksin himself was acting under orders?

heybruce · October 16, 2014

First, for the last part, obviously religion should be kept out of politics, period.

Now then, it's astounding your lack of self awareness. You accuse me of defending the junta at every opportunity (an assertion not supported by any facts) by deflecting things into other people, right after writing this:

It does appear the Deputy PM was making the proposed convention center in Phuket conditional on the voters supporting PTP, which was a stupid thing to say. However there are people currently in power in Thailand, one in particular, who are saying a lot of stupid things.

Besides that, it wasn't a stupid thing to say, it was a profoundly undemocratic thing to say; it shows one of the ways he, and the party he belongs to undermined and subverted Democracy to gain and maintain power; furthermore it wasn't an isolated instance, I cited at least three examples of this undemocratic attitude and of course there are myriad others (for example Thaksin directly saying "Democracy is not my goal")

For the record I much rather not see a military Junta in power, and that is why the people of this country need to know and understand what led to the current situation (which is not the same as saying people should do as the generals say, as you claimed before); IMO the current situation is a direct result of Thaksin and his quest for power and as long as he (and people like him) get to wield so much political power there is no hope of moving on towards a functional Democracy in Thailand.

Where to begin?

Few people try to defend the actions of the junta, because these actions are indefensible. The preferred defense of the junta is to turn every discussion on current events into criticism of past governments. That is what I've seen you do in every junta related topic in which I've seen your posts. I assume you are either defending the junta with a "best defense is a good offense" tactic, or you are completely obsessed with everything related to Thaksin.

My comment on your off-topic convention center quote was an attempt to put it in perspective. People high up in government were saying stupid things before and are saying stupid things now.

Regarding your repeatedly drawing attention to flaws in the democracy before the coup; do you think going from a flawed democracy to no democracy represents some sort of progress? As I've repeatedly stated, democracy needs time to mature, which means time without coups. So long as the flawed democracy allowed free, monitored elections then no coup was warranted.

The current situation is not a direct result of Thaksin, it is a direct result of the military disapproving of the past choices of Thai voters and its unwillingness to give voters the chance to choose again. So long as the military feels free to topple governments they disapprove of "there is no hope of moving on towards a functional Democracy in Thailand."

Clearly you also disapprove of the past choices the Thai voters made. So what? People who believe in democracy believe it is up to the people to choose their government, not the military.

Perhaps you disagree. Do you think a junta that bans political gatherings, calls for elections and criticism, censors the press, shuts down academic seminars on democracy in one of the country's top universities, rules by decree, and is moving to "reforms" that limit candidate choices in elections is preparing Thailand for a functional democracy?

The preferred defense of the junta is to turn every discussion on current events into criticism of past governments.

Please remind me, what is the topic of this thread?

You are the one trying to derail it into discussing the Junta, you don't want to see what role Thaksin had on the current situation and how him and people like him can be prevented from gaining control of a country, you know, the topic of this thread.

The topic of the thread:

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

A committee that is currently deciding on the future of Thailand is considering ways to exclude 'people like Thaksin' from this future. You take this as an opportunity to start listing undemocratic things that Thaksin or related parties have done in the past. You display no interest in the present and how the NRC will go about excluding certain kinds of people, what exactly they are to be excluded from, how this might affect the future of Thailand, or even if the NRC's concerns about Thaksin are the same as yours. All you write about are your objections to Shinawatra related events of the past. You are obsessed with Thaksin.

You claim to be concerned about past undemocratic practices in Thailand, but express no concerns about the present and Thailand's current absence of democracy. I find that curious, but let's assume you are at least a little concerned about democracy. Have you considered the possibility that the NRC isn't at all concerned? After all, they serve a junta that came to power by way of a coup, people involved in these activities usually are not concerned with democracy. The statements in the news article the OP refers to certainly raise questions about the impact of promised 'reforms' on democracy in Thailand. I think it's quite possible that when they say 'people like Thaksin' they mean people who shift power and money from Bangkok and the traditional powers in government, and that they intend to put an end to people like that ever again achieving power.

You accuse me of not wanting to see "how him and people like him can be prevented from gaining control of a country, you know, the topic of this thread." My first comment on this topic, which I have referred back to a few times, is about my concern on this subject. Do I need to repeat it again? Where have you expressed opinions or concerns about the process used to exclude certain kinds of people from government?

heybruce · October 16, 2014

Where to begin?

Few people try to defend the actions of the junta, because these actions are indefensible. The preferred defense of the junta is to turn every discussion on current events into criticism of past governments. That is what I've seen you do in every junta related topic in which I've seen your posts. I assume you are either defending the junta with a "best defense is a good offense" tactic, or you are completely obsessed with everything related to Thaksin.

My comment on your off-topic convention center quote was an attempt to put it in perspective. People high up in government were saying stupid things before and are saying stupid things now.

Regarding your repeatedly drawing attention to flaws in the democracy before the coup; do you think going from a flawed democracy to no democracy represents some sort of progress? As I've repeatedly stated, democracy needs time to mature, which means time without coups. So long as the flawed democracy allowed free, monitored elections then no coup was warranted.

The current situation is not a direct result of Thaksin, it is a direct result of the military disapproving of the past choices of Thai voters and its unwillingness to give voters the chance to choose again. So long as the military feels free to topple governments they disapprove of "there is no hope of moving on towards a functional Democracy in Thailand."

Clearly you also disapprove of the past choices the Thai voters made. So what? People who believe in democracy believe it is up to the people to choose their government, not the military.

Perhaps you disagree. Do you think a junta that bans political gatherings, calls for elections and criticism, censors the press, shuts down academic seminars on democracy in one of the country's top universities, rules by decree, and is moving to "reforms" that limit candidate choices in elections is preparing Thailand for a functional democracy?

I will defend the junta. They are working for the betterment of Thailand. They are the only ones with the power to do it. The democrats would not have the power top do it because they would be trying to hold off the PTP with their red army and lies. The PTP is not interested in cleaning up the government. We see that under Abhist the corruption leveled out. When he left office the PTP cut the funding to the committee looking into corruption and the corruption started to rise again and continued to.

It is not Democratic and I for one could care less. The important thing is to clean the government up and make it harder to corrupt. As has been said the PM has said some stupid things but what was left out was that he did not insist on carrying it out. He admitted it was wrong. A man like that is the only way any government is going to change. He has been in power now for less than 4 months and already the Thaksin huggers are trying to crucify him. Yingluck they were giving her 6 months.

The present situation was a direct result of the every day honest hard working citizens having enough of Thaksin tyranny. They let the government know how they felt and still the government tried to ram Thaksin down their throat. Had they been an honest government and spent the time ruling the country instead of trying to white wash a convicted criminal the military would never have had to intervene. I am not trying to defend the junta for paying the farmers the money the government owes them or switching out police who were in control of a very corrupt police department or making the streets safe to walk on. Three times in to straighten up the cab 's in Phuket. Not that I think they charge a fair price but they don't hold a gun to your head now. The cabs in Bangkok looking at a raise. Some small attempts at cleaning up the traffic in Bangkok. All in all not bad for some one who is new to politics.

I am willing to wait to see the outcome of it. That is why I am against people trying to stop the change. It can't get worse. An honest look at it and it would be pretty hard to say he haven't made a little bit of a change for the better.

I wrote "Few people try to defend the actions of the junta, because these actions are indefensible." You are one of the few, because, as you made clear, you don't care about democracy.

However you destroy your credibility by making claims such as "We see that under Abhist the corruption leveled out." without offering any evidence to support the claim. You consistently ignore the fact that corruption has been endemic in Thailand, including the military, throughout living memory. You also ignore the fact that military governments in the past have been as corrupt, if not more corrupt, than civilian governments, and that there's no reason to think this one will be any different. Can you describe what experience or expertise in fighting corruption the military brings to government?

You cite small initiatives that look like publicity stunts and ignore the news stories that indicate that nothing has changed. You also ignore the fact that corruption remains and no systemic reforms to government, such as greatly increased transparency in all things financial, have been proposed.

Finally, you are very wrong in stating "It can't get worse". It can get much worse. It can get to the state that Burma is only now attempting to climb out of.

AleG · October 16, 2014

The preferred defense of the junta is to turn every discussion on current events into criticism of past governments.

Please remind me, what is the topic of this thread?

You are the one trying to derail it into discussing the Junta, you don't want to see what role Thaksin had on the current situation and how him and people like him can be prevented from gaining control of a country, you know, the topic of this thread.

The topic of the thread:
Reforms to be unbiased, except against 'people like Thaksin': NRC member
A committee that is currently deciding on the future of Thailand is considering ways to exclude 'people like Thaksin' from this future. You take this as an opportunity to start listing undemocratic things that Thaksin or related parties have done in the past. You display no interest in the present and how the NRC will go about excluding certain kinds of people, what exactly they are to be excluded from, how this might affect the future of Thailand, or even if the NRC's concerns about Thaksin are the same as yours. All you write about are your objections to Shinawatra related events of the past. You are obsessed with Thaksin.

You claim to be concerned about past undemocratic practices in Thailand, but express no concerns about the present and Thailand's current absence of democracy. I find that curious, but let's assume you are at least a little concerned about democracy. Have you considered the possibility that the NRC isn't at all concerned? After all, they serve a junta that came to power by way of a coup, people involved in these activities usually are not concerned with democracy. The statements in the news article the OP refers to certainly raise questions about the impact of promised 'reforms' on democracy in Thailand. I think it's quite possible that when they say 'people like Thaksin' they mean people who shift power and money from Bangkok and the traditional powers in government, and that they intend to put an end to people like that ever again achieving power.

You accuse me of not wanting to see "how him and people like him can be prevented from gaining control of a country, you know, the topic of this thread." My first comment on this topic, which I have referred back to a few times, is about my concern on this subject. Do I need to repeat it again? Where have you expressed opinions or concerns about the process used to exclude certain kinds of people from government?

"Reforms to be unbiased, except against 'people like Thaksin': NRC memberA committee that is currently deciding on the future of Thailand is considering ways to exclude 'people like Thaksin' from this future. You take this as an opportunity to start listing undemocratic things that Thaksin or related parties have done in the past."

Are you daft or you seriously don't see how ridiculous your argument is? The thread is about Thaksin (and people like him) and what to do to stop them from abusing power, of course what they have done in the past is relevant to the topic.

That is the whole point, how to keep people from doing the same things again, what things? you don't want to know, you'd rather construct some BS than address the actual facts, like this:

"I think it's quite possible that when they say 'people like Thaksin' they mean people who shift power and money from Bangkok and the traditional powers in government, and that they intend to put an end to people like that ever again achieving power."

It says right on the OP what they mean:

BANGKOK — A prominent member of the recently-formed National Reform Council (NRC) says the reform process will benefit all Thais, except those like former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra “who abuse their power.”

But no, better to make a straw man argument about those evil people thinking only of how to screw the poor oppressed non-Bankokians, that's just self serving rhetoric.

"You claim to be concerned about past undemocratic practices in Thailand, but express no concerns about the present and Thailand's current absence of democracy."

What part of "For the record I much rather not see a military Junta in power, and that is why the people of this country need to know and understand what led to the current situation" do you have a problem processing?

You seem to have a serious perception problem, first you make an assumption based on your own prejudices, then you derive your conclusions from it; facts, what people actually said, doesn't seem to make a difference.

heybruce · October 17, 2014

The preferred defense of the junta is to turn every discussion on current events into criticism of past governments.

Please remind me, what is the topic of this thread?

You are the one trying to derail it into discussing the Junta, you don't want to see what role Thaksin had on the current situation and how him and people like him can be prevented from gaining control of a country, you know, the topic of this thread.

The topic of the thread:
Reforms to be unbiased, except against 'people like Thaksin': NRC member
A committee that is currently deciding on the future of Thailand is considering ways to exclude 'people like Thaksin' from this future. You take this as an opportunity to start listing undemocratic things that Thaksin or related parties have done in the past. You display no interest in the present and how the NRC will go about excluding certain kinds of people, what exactly they are to be excluded from, how this might affect the future of Thailand, or even if the NRC's concerns about Thaksin are the same as yours. All you write about are your objections to Shinawatra related events of the past. You are obsessed with Thaksin.

You claim to be concerned about past undemocratic practices in Thailand, but express no concerns about the present and Thailand's current absence of democracy. I find that curious, but let's assume you are at least a little concerned about democracy. Have you considered the possibility that the NRC isn't at all concerned? After all, they serve a junta that came to power by way of a coup, people involved in these activities usually are not concerned with democracy. The statements in the news article the OP refers to certainly raise questions about the impact of promised 'reforms' on democracy in Thailand. I think it's quite possible that when they say 'people like Thaksin' they mean people who shift power and money from Bangkok and the traditional powers in government, and that they intend to put an end to people like that ever again achieving power.

You accuse me of not wanting to see "how him and people like him can be prevented from gaining control of a country, you know, the topic of this thread." My first comment on this topic, which I have referred back to a few times, is about my concern on this subject. Do I need to repeat it again? Where have you expressed opinions or concerns about the process used to exclude certain kinds of people from government?

"Reforms to be unbiased, except against 'people like Thaksin': NRC memberA committee that is currently deciding on the future of Thailand is considering ways to exclude 'people like Thaksin' from this future. You take this as an opportunity to start listing undemocratic things that Thaksin or related parties have done in the past."

Are you daft or you seriously don't see how ridiculous your argument is? The thread is about Thaksin (and people like him) and what to do to stop them from abusing power, of course what they have done in the past is relevant to the topic.

That is the whole point, how to keep people from doing the same things again, what things? you don't want to know, you'd rather construct some BS than address the actual facts, like this:

"I think it's quite possible that when they say 'people like Thaksin' they mean people who shift power and money from Bangkok and the traditional powers in government, and that they intend to put an end to people like that ever again achieving power."

It says right on the OP what they mean:

BANGKOK — A prominent member of the recently-formed National Reform Council (NRC) says the reform process will benefit all Thais, except those like former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra “who abuse their power.”

But no, better to make a straw man argument about those evil people thinking only of how to screw the poor oppressed non-Bankokians, that's just self serving rhetoric.

"You claim to be concerned about past undemocratic practices in Thailand, but express no concerns about the present and Thailand's current absence of democracy."

What part of "For the record I much rather not see a military Junta in power, and that is why the people of this country need to know and understand what led to the current situation" do you have a problem processing?

You seem to have a serious perception problem, first you make an assumption based on your own prejudices, then you derive your conclusions from it; facts, what people actually said, doesn't seem to make a difference.

Am I daft? No, but I'm beginning to wonder about you. You are definitely confirming my claim that you are obsessed by Thaksin.

Did you read the article the OP is based on? "Thaksin" is mentioned six times, twice in the first two paragraphs repeating the "people like Thaksin" phrase and explaining that means "people who abuse their power" (ironic considering the NRC exists because of the greatest abuse of power a military commander can commit), twice in establishing Jermsak's anti-Thaksin credentials, and then twice on one paragraph explaining that Thaksin is in exile but still influential and that his parties have won every election since he was ousted in a coup in 2006. The rest of the article is about reforms and the "roadmap to democracy", which seems to require undemocratic reforms. You are the one fixating on the past, and neglecting to comment on the reforms.

To put it simple; the article and the title of the article, is about reforms in work. Thaksin is a side issue.

Regarding what you refer to as BS:

"I think it's quite possible that when they say 'people like Thaksin' they mean people who shift power and money from Bangkok and the traditional powers in government, and that they intend to put an end to people like that ever again achieving power."

I am not the only person who thinks their are people, specifically the Democrats, who think only they should rule http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21593419-varying-degrees-justification-election-boycotts-are-vogue-asia-trouble. Also, it's worth noting that in 2012 (the most recent year for which I can find the numbers) 72% of government spending was in Bangkok, where only 17% of the population lives http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/05/10/thailand-public-finance-management-review-report. Strangely enough I can find no mention of populist spending in Bangkok, where the majority of spending takes place for the benefit of a minority of the population; populist spending accusations always refer to spending in other places. In view of this, and Amorn Wanichwiwat's promise that only "Good People" will be allowed to take political office, I think my suspicions are reasonable.

In response to my statement:

"You claim to be concerned about past undemocratic practices in Thailand, but express no concerns about the present and Thailand's current absence of democracy."

You offer:

"What part of "For the record I much rather not see a military Junta in power, and that is why the people of this country need to know and understand what led to the current situation" do you have a problem processing?"

Your "For the record..." is not so much a comment on the military junta as an implication that the Thai people are somehow responsible for it. Do you think the people in this country don't know and understand what led to the current situation? Are you suggesting that the people, and not the military, are responsible for the coup? If so, you are daft. That's how I process it. If that was not your intended meaning I suggest you work on your wording.

Back on topic--reforms and the direction the NRC is heading in. From the statements:

"It's also to prevent political parties that win elections in the future from claiming a popular mandate and altering the Constitution."

and:

"Meanwhile, another NRC member, political science professor Amorn Wanichwiwat, promised to reform Thailand with a "Buddhist moral system" that only allows "Good People" to take political office."

I think the NRC is promising to deliver undemocratic reforms. What do you think?

seajae · October 17, 2014

hahahahahahaha, I think it is absolutely hilarious that the red/ptp/thaksin lovers are getting there knickers in a knot because the reporter shortened l statement to look like thaksin is the only reason when it openly states people like him, ie, corrupt with no morals. Really shows everyone exactly how twisted these people are when they are whinging because their heroes name is mentioned and they refuse to accept that he was a corrupt person. The fact they cannot understand that the people/NRC do not want corrupt people in govt goes right over their heads due entirely to their pathetic biased views, sounds like they are extremely immature and cannot handle the truth, maybe a good cry and a lie down will help, poor dears.

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics