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

[heybruce]

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.

You've just confirmed that you post in ignorance, without reading the OP. The word corruption isn't mentioned.

[AleG]

"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?

Thaksin is a side issue, on a thread about keeping Thaksin and people like him from abusing power while in office, right....

...Blah blah,yadda yadda...

"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.

I think you don't want to know what has led to the coup, you have hitched your moral wagon to the PR construct of a band of crooks that have conned a large part of the Thai population with an illusion of Democracy and so will ignore anything that doesn't fit with a one sided version of events where everything is wrong because of those other people.

People, in a Democracy, are responsible for the choices they make, that is the whole point of the system; if they repeatedly elect self-serving politicians that then proceed to undermine and subvert Democracy guess what happens?, the system breaks down, it's not difficult to understand the cause and effect there, is it?

Coups don't happen in countries with functional Democracies, coups happen in countries with non-functional Democracies, parties that undermine Democracy create the conditions were coups (and other breakdowns) can happen.

It's really very simple concept and it's remarkable how hard you try not to get it.

[rubl]

"the reform process will benefit all Thais, except those like former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra “who abuse their power.”"

I assume all here in favour, as all would be in favour to prevent 'those like former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi who abused their power", obviously

[Robespiere]

"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?

Thaksin is a side issue, on a thread about keeping Thaksin and people like him from abusing power while in office, right....

...Blah blah,yadda yadda...

"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.

I think you don't want to know what has led to the coup, you have hitched your moral wagon to the PR construct of a band of crooks that have conned a large part of the Thai population with an illusion of Democracy and so will ignore anything that doesn't fit with a one sided version of events where everything is wrong because of those other people.

People, in a Democracy, are responsible for the choices they make, that is the whole point of the system; if they repeatedly elect self-serving politicians that then proceed to undermine and subvert Democracy guess what happens?, the system breaks down, it's not difficult to understand the cause and effect there, is it?

Coups don't happen in countries with functional Democracies, coups happen in countries with non-functional Democracies, parties that undermine Democracy create the conditions were coups (and other breakdowns) can happen.

It's really very simple concept and it's remarkable how hard you try not to get it.

Everything in your post is exactly wrong.

[AleG]

Thaksin is a side issue, on a thread about keeping Thaksin and people like him from abusing power while in office, right....

...Blah blah,yadda yadda...

"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.

I think you don't want to know what has led to the coup, you have hitched your moral wagon to the PR construct of a band of crooks that have conned a large part of the Thai population with an illusion of Democracy and so will ignore anything that doesn't fit with a one sided version of events where everything is wrong because of those other people.

People, in a Democracy, are responsible for the choices they make, that is the whole point of the system; if they repeatedly elect self-serving politicians that then proceed to undermine and subvert Democracy guess what happens?, the system breaks down, it's not difficult to understand the cause and effect there, is it?

Coups don't happen in countries with functional Democracies, coups happen in countries with non-functional Democracies, parties that undermine Democracy create the conditions were coups (and other breakdowns) can happen.

It's really very simple concept and it's remarkable how hard you try not to get it.

Everything in your post is exactly wrong.

Troll on.

[Robespiere]

Thaksin is a side issue, on a thread about keeping Thaksin and people like him from abusing power while in office, right....

...Blah blah,yadda yadda...

"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.

I think you don't want to know what has led to the coup, you have hitched your moral wagon to the PR construct of a band of crooks that have conned a large part of the Thai population with an illusion of Democracy and so will ignore anything that doesn't fit with a one sided version of events where everything is wrong because of those other people.

People, in a Democracy, are responsible for the choices they make, that is the whole point of the system; if they repeatedly elect self-serving politicians that then proceed to undermine and subvert Democracy guess what happens?, the system breaks down, it's not difficult to understand the cause and effect there, is it?

Coups don't happen in countries with functional Democracies, coups happen in countries with non-functional Democracies, parties that undermine Democracy create the conditions were coups (and other breakdowns) can happen.

It's really very simple concept and it's remarkable how hard you try not to get it.

Everything in your post is exactly wrong.

Troll on.

Not trolling at all.

I literally mean everything in your post is exactly wrong.

I think you don't (want to) know what led to the coup, you don't know why and just how legitimately popular PTP are (no conning rqd), you don't know that for a while Thailand actually had democracy (not an illusion), you don't accept the non factual biased versions of events come from the yellow, not the red side.......

And that is just the first paragraph.

[heybruce]

"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?

Thaksin is a side issue, on a thread about keeping Thaksin and people like him from abusing power while in office, right....

...Blah blah,yadda yadda...

"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.

I think you don't want to know what has led to the coup, you have hitched your moral wagon to the PR construct of a band of crooks that have conned a large part of the Thai population with an illusion of Democracy and so will ignore anything that doesn't fit with a one sided version of events where everything is wrong because of those other people.

People, in a Democracy, are responsible for the choices they make, that is the whole point of the system; if they repeatedly elect self-serving politicians that then proceed to undermine and subvert Democracy guess what happens?, the system breaks down, it's not difficult to understand the cause and effect there, is it?

Coups don't happen in countries with functional Democracies, coups happen in countries with non-functional Democracies, parties that undermine Democracy create the conditions were coups (and other breakdowns) can happen.

It's really very simple concept and it's remarkable how hard you try not to get it.

You're not going to get on topic and discuss the proposed reforms, are you? Criticizing Thaksin is what you do, and it appears that is all that you do.

What led to the coup is obvious, the military wanted to control the government. There are a number of excuses why, and a few reasons, some of which can't be discussed here.

I find it encouraging that you are showing your true colors, you're blaming the Thai people for a coup against the government they elected.

Coups don't happen in countries where a military led by honorable commanders serve the government. I know, I'm retired from a military that doesn't stage coups.

Coups don't help new democracies become mature, functional democracies. Certainly no coup in Thailand's history has accomplished that. However some people just refuse to see it.

[icare999]

So not all men are equal.

And the law cannot be universally applied.

No wonder Thaksin is the only one in Thailand who have to pay capital gain tax from selling SHIN shares.

He deserves it.

thats what started all this and while its true their is no CGT tax here at time I lived a lot in Bangkok and people were furious that to only dpi he change law to allow sale to singapore he paid no tax on profit which was huge. I remember at time around 2005/2006 telling people in Bangkok that no tax was payable but they still were furious and if he'd had decency to pay tax even though not legally due he would never had been deposed in coup and probably by now be president and dictator here. His total greed arrogance was thank god his downfall and I give thanks every day that this time with luck they will finish this evil megalomanic for good and if it takes 10 year of military rule to achieve that so be it. Thank you kuun Suphet and Army for at least having gifts to stand up to this would be megalomaniac dictator.

[dukebowling]

Are there really rational human beings arguing for the coup, and against democracy?

But this coup is different than the one in 2006, or the one in 1991, or the one in 1977, or the one in 1976, or the one in 1971, or the one in 1958, or the one in 1957, or the one in 1951, or the one in 1947, or the one in 1933, or the one in 1932...

Really???!!!

[Fred321]

But this coup is different than the one in 2006, or the one in 1991, or the one in 1977, or the one in 1976, or the one in 1971, or the one in 1958, or the one in 1957, or the one in 1951, or the one in 1947, or the one in 1933, or the one in 1932...

Really???!!!

evolution is a slow process

[AleG]

Thaksin is a side issue, on a thread about keeping Thaksin and people like him from abusing power while in office, right....

...Blah blah,yadda yadda...

"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.

I think you don't want to know what has led to the coup, you have hitched your moral wagon to the PR construct of a band of crooks that have conned a large part of the Thai population with an illusion of Democracy and so will ignore anything that doesn't fit with a one sided version of events where everything is wrong because of those other people.

People, in a Democracy, are responsible for the choices they make, that is the whole point of the system; if they repeatedly elect self-serving politicians that then proceed to undermine and subvert Democracy guess what happens?, the system breaks down, it's not difficult to understand the cause and effect there, is it?

Coups don't happen in countries with functional Democracies, coups happen in countries with non-functional Democracies, parties that undermine Democracy create the conditions were coups (and other breakdowns) can happen.

It's really very simple concept and it's remarkable how hard you try not to get it.

You're not going to get on topic and discuss the proposed reforms, are you? Criticizing Thaksin is what you do, and it appears that is all that you do.

What led to the coup is obvious, the military wanted to control the government. There are a number of excuses why, and a few reasons, some of which can't be discussed here.

I find it encouraging that you are showing your true colors, you're blaming the Thai people for a coup against the government they elected.

Coups don't happen in countries where a military led by honorable commanders serve the government. I know, I'm retired from a military that doesn't stage coups.

Coups don't help new democracies become mature, functional democracies. Certainly no coup in Thailand's history has accomplished that. However some people just refuse to see it.

Talking about reforms, without acknowledging first what the problem is is pointless.

"I find it encouraging that you are showing your true colors, you're blaming the Thai people for a coup against the government they elected."

People are responsible for their choices, that is what Democracy is, people chose the government they want, making choices involves responsibility; they chose (well, a significant percentage anyway), repeatedly, a party that does not operate under Democratic principles, surprise surprise, Democracy eventually fails under those conditions. Until people learn that their choices have consequences then Democracy can't work.

If you don't think people under a Democracy have a responsibility on how a country is run then you don't understand the concept.

"Coups don't happen in countries where a military led by honorable commanders serve the government."

And in countries with functional Democracies honorable governments serve the people, Thaksin's governments served him and his band of crooks, as amply demonstrated with the "Amnesty Bill".

[AleG]

Are there really rational human beings arguing for the coup, and against democracy?

But this coup is different than the one in 2006, or the one in 1991, or the one in 1977, or the one in 1976, or the one in 1971, or the one in 1958, or the one in 1957, or the one in 1951, or the one in 1947, or the one in 1933, or the one in 1932...

Really???!!!

I, for one, I'm not arguing in favour of coups, as much as heybruce wants to spin things.

I find this whole thing remarkably similar to the Medicine/Alternative Medicine debate (hence my post #37) What I would like to see in the country is a real Democracy, you know, the one with accountability, transparency, equal protection under the law, civil rights, etc, etc... the kind that has been proven to work, like Medicine. On the other hand the Thaksin/Red Shirt type of Democracy (Alternative Medicine in this analogy), paraphrasing Tim Minchkin, has not been proven to work or has been proven not to work; not just here in Thailand, elsewhere in the world, repeatedly.

If I insist on that is not because I'm obsessed with Thaksin or I support military dictatorships, it is because I DON"T WANT TO SEE COUPS OR JUNTAS IN THAILAND AGAIN (got it bruce? or should I use a big red crayon?)

Good, strong, Democratic governance is the best protection against coups, it also happens to be the opposite of what Thaksin and his puppet governments have delivered, therefore they are the problem, it doesn't matter if the "evil elites" wouldn't like it, in a healthy, functional Democracy with an informed and responsible population they could huff and puff as much as they'd like, they wouldn't be able to go against it.

Edited October 18, 2014 by AleG

[heybruce]

Thaksin is a side issue, on a thread about keeping Thaksin and people like him from abusing power while in office, right....

...Blah blah,yadda yadda...

"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.

I think you don't want to know what has led to the coup, you have hitched your moral wagon to the PR construct of a band of crooks that have conned a large part of the Thai population with an illusion of Democracy and so will ignore anything that doesn't fit with a one sided version of events where everything is wrong because of those other people.

People, in a Democracy, are responsible for the choices they make, that is the whole point of the system; if they repeatedly elect self-serving politicians that then proceed to undermine and subvert Democracy guess what happens?, the system breaks down, it's not difficult to understand the cause and effect there, is it?

Coups don't happen in countries with functional Democracies, coups happen in countries with non-functional Democracies, parties that undermine Democracy create the conditions were coups (and other breakdowns) can happen.

It's really very simple concept and it's remarkable how hard you try not to get it.

You're not going to get on topic and discuss the proposed reforms, are you? Criticizing Thaksin is what you do, and it appears that is all that you do.

What led to the coup is obvious, the military wanted to control the government. There are a number of excuses why, and a few reasons, some of which can't be discussed here.

I find it encouraging that you are showing your true colors, you're blaming the Thai people for a coup against the government they elected.

Coups don't happen in countries where a military led by honorable commanders serve the government. I know, I'm retired from a military that doesn't stage coups.

Coups don't help new democracies become mature, functional democracies. Certainly no coup in Thailand's history has accomplished that. However some people just refuse to see it.

Talking about reforms, without acknowledging first what the problem is is pointless.

"I find it encouraging that you are showing your true colors, you're blaming the Thai people for a coup against the government they elected."

People are responsible for their choices, that is what Democracy is, people chose the government they want, making choices involves responsibility; they chose (well, a significant percentage anyway), repeatedly, a party that does not operate under Democratic principles, surprise surprise, Democracy eventually fails under those conditions. Until people learn that their choices have consequences then Democracy can't work.

If you don't think people under a Democracy have a responsibility on how a country is run then you don't understand the concept.

"Coups don't happen in countries where a military led by honorable commanders serve the government."

And in countries with functional Democracies honorable governments serve the people, Thaksin's governments served him and his band of crooks, as amply demonstrated with the "Amnesty Bill".

"Talking about reforms, without acknowledging first what the problem is is pointless."

Yes, and you haven't acknowledged that democracy can not establish itself when it is regularly disrupted by coups. You also ignore the fact that none of these coups have resulted in a functioning democracy in Thailand. Well, at least not functional in a manner that the military accepts.

"People are responsible for their choices, that is what Democracy is, people chose the government they want, making choices involves responsibility; they chose (well, a significant percentage anyway), repeatedly, a party that does not operate under Democratic principles, surprise surprise, Democracy eventually fails under those conditions. Until people learn that their choices have consequences then Democracy can't work."

That's the learning part of democracy, people have to choose a government, learn from the results, and then hopefully choose better the next election. That's how democracies mature, and in Thailand democracies aren't allowed to mature. One of the great tragedies of the latest coup is that there were indications that many voters who supported the PTP in 2011 had become disenchanted and would have voted differently had the July election been held. However they wouldn't have voted for the Democrats, and with upcoming events the Democrats are the only political party that would have been acceptable to the military. Didn't you notice that the military tolerated months of protests, but then staged the coup 15 days after the courts declined to remove the PTP from government? A court appointed government, presumably proper royalists from the Democrat party, would have been acceptable to the military, an elected government was not.

"And in countries with functional Democracies honorable governments serve the people, Thaksin's governments served him and his band of crooks, as amply demonstrated with the "Amnesty Bill"."

In all governments politicians take care of themselves, in countries with elections they have to take care of the voters as well. People can debate endlessly about how much more or less the Shinawatra related governments served self-interest and public interest, and how that compares to other countries and Thailand's military governments. The bottom line remains the same; the Shinawatra governments gave the voters the opportunity to vote the old government out and a new one in. Military juntas don't give people that option.

[heybruce]

Are there really rational human beings arguing for the coup, and against democracy?

But this coup is different than the one in 2006, or the one in 1991, or the one in 1977, or the one in 1976, or the one in 1971, or the one in 1958, or the one in 1957, or the one in 1951, or the one in 1947, or the one in 1933, or the one in 1932...

Really???!!!

I, for one, I'm not arguing in favour of coups, as much as heybruce wants to spin things.

I find this whole thing remarkably similar to the Medicine/Alternative Medicine debate (hence my post #37) What I would like to see in the country is a real Democracy, you know, the one with accountability, transparency, equal protection under the law, civil rights, etc, etc... the kind that has been proven to work, like Medicine. On the other hand the Thaksin/Red Shirt type of Democracy (Alternative Medicine in this analogy), paraphrasing Tim Minchkin, has not been proven to work or has been proven not to work; not just here in Thailand, elsewhere in the world, repeatedly.

If I insist on that is not because I'm obsessed with Thaksin or I support military dictatorships, it is because I DON"T WANT TO SEE COUPS OR JUNTAS IN THAILAND AGAIN (got it bruce? or should I use a big red crayon?)

Good, strong, Democratic governance is the best protection against coups, it also happens to be the opposite of what Thaksin and his puppet governments have delivered, therefore they are the problem, it doesn't matter if the "evil elites" wouldn't like it, in a healthy, functional Democracy with an informed and responsible population they could huff and puff as much as they'd like, they wouldn't be able to go against it.

"If I insist on that is not because I'm obsessed with Thaksin or I support military dictatorships, it is because I DON"T WANT TO SEE COUPS OR JUNTAS IN THAILAND AGAIN (got it bruce? or should I use a big red crayon?)"

If you've followed my posts on other threads, you know that I've repeatedly stated that the scheduled July elections would have weakened the PTP and possibly resulted in another party receiving the most votes and leading the government. Imagine that, removing the PTP from government democratically! Too bad it wasn't given a chance.

Now why are you bringing in color references? Other than noting that they were elected and tried to have another election (tried twice, actually), have I posted anything pro-Shinawatra, pro-redshirt, or pro-PTP? You're beginning to appear desperate.

"Good, strong, Democratic governance is the best protection against coups..."

And new democratic governments need time and elections in order to mature into good, strong, democratic governments. The current junta is definitely not democratic and neither are the reforms mentioned in the OP. The fact that supporters of the undemocratic junta are deciding on undemocratic reforms and writing a constitution to bring "real democracy" to Thailand leaves me seriously concerned about what this "real democracy" will be.

I think the problem here is that many people believe in instant democracy: Write a constitution, hold an election, oops, don't like the results, let's have a coup and start over. Sorry guys, there's no such thing as instant democracy. The only way Thailand will have real democracy (as opposed to "real democracy") is by having elections, let the elected government serve the constitutionally acceptable time, then have another election to allow voters to keep the current government or choose another one. Only if this is allowed to happen for several election cycles, possibly one or two generations, will Thailand have a chance of developing a functional democracy. Military coups don't result in functional democracies.

Edited October 18, 2014 by heybruce

[AleG]

"Talking about reforms, without acknowledging first what the problem is is pointless."

Yes, and you haven't acknowledged that democracy can not establish itself when it is regularly disrupted by coups. You also ignore the fact that none of these coups have resulted in a functioning democracy in Thailand. Well, at least not functional in a manner that the military accepts.

"People are responsible for their choices, that is what Democracy is, people chose the government they want, making choices involves responsibility; they chose (well, a significant percentage anyway), repeatedly, a party that does not operate under Democratic principles, surprise surprise, Democracy eventually fails under those conditions. Until people learn that their choices have consequences then Democracy can't work."

That's the learning part of democracy, people have to choose a government, learn from the results, and then hopefully choose better the next election. That's how democracies mature, and in Thailand democracies aren't allowed to mature. One of the great tragedies of the latest coup is that there were indications that many voters who supported the PTP in 2011 had become disenchanted and would have voted differently had the July election been held. However they wouldn't have voted for the Democrats, and with upcoming events the Democrats are the only political party that would have been acceptable to the military. Didn't you notice that the military tolerated months of protests, but then staged the coup 15 days after the courts declined to remove the PTP from government? A court appointed government, presumably proper royalists from the Democrat party, would have been acceptable to the military, an elected government was not.

"And in countries with functional Democracies honorable governments serve the people, Thaksin's governments served him and his band of crooks, as amply demonstrated with the "Amnesty Bill"."

In all governments politicians take care of themselves, in countries with elections they have to take care of the voters as well. People can debate endlessly about how much more or less the Shinawatra related governments served self-interest and public interest, and how that compares to other countries and Thailand's military governments. The bottom line remains the same; the Shinawatra governments gave the voters the opportunity to vote the old government out and a new one in. Military juntas don't give people that option.

Yes, and you haven't acknowledged that democracy can not establish itself when it is regularly disrupted by coups.

It was already established before Thaksin deliberately undermined it.

Thaksin get elected, no coup, Thaksin undermines Democracy to the point of a constitutional crisis (i.e. reinstalling himself as PM after resigning), coup. Do you understand causality?

"A court appointed government, presumably proper royalists from the Democrat party, would have been acceptable to the military, an elected government was not."

You keep making up this self serving theories, in that case the coup would had happened immediately following the 2011 election, I don't think you understand causality at all.

What led to the coup was PTP flipping the bird to the country and going ahead with the "Amnesty Bill" specifically made to whitewash Thaksin and thousands of other cases of corruption under his and his sister government, that in addition to other undemocratic antics.

"Didn't you notice that the military tolerated months of protests, but then staged the coup 15 days after the courts declined to remove the PTP from government?"

I noticed PTP's little Red helpers assaulting, shooting and murdering people that dared protest against PTP (three killed the night of the coup), the threats of secession and civil war, PTP ministers urging people to armed conflict, etc, etc.. why didn't you mention that? Perhaps it's not that you don't understand causality, you simply leave out any facts that don't fit in the narrative you want to arrive to.

[heybruce]

"Talking about reforms, without acknowledging first what the problem is is pointless."

Yes, and you haven't acknowledged that democracy can not establish itself when it is regularly disrupted by coups. You also ignore the fact that none of these coups have resulted in a functioning democracy in Thailand. Well, at least not functional in a manner that the military accepts.

"People are responsible for their choices, that is what Democracy is, people chose the government they want, making choices involves responsibility; they chose (well, a significant percentage anyway), repeatedly, a party that does not operate under Democratic principles, surprise surprise, Democracy eventually fails under those conditions. Until people learn that their choices have consequences then Democracy can't work."

That's the learning part of democracy, people have to choose a government, learn from the results, and then hopefully choose better the next election. That's how democracies mature, and in Thailand democracies aren't allowed to mature. One of the great tragedies of the latest coup is that there were indications that many voters who supported the PTP in 2011 had become disenchanted and would have voted differently had the July election been held. However they wouldn't have voted for the Democrats, and with upcoming events the Democrats are the only political party that would have been acceptable to the military. Didn't you notice that the military tolerated months of protests, but then staged the coup 15 days after the courts declined to remove the PTP from government? A court appointed government, presumably proper royalists from the Democrat party, would have been acceptable to the military, an elected government was not.

"And in countries with functional Democracies honorable governments serve the people, Thaksin's governments served him and his band of crooks, as amply demonstrated with the "Amnesty Bill"."

In all governments politicians take care of themselves, in countries with elections they have to take care of the voters as well. People can debate endlessly about how much more or less the Shinawatra related governments served self-interest and public interest, and how that compares to other countries and Thailand's military governments. The bottom line remains the same; the Shinawatra governments gave the voters the opportunity to vote the old government out and a new one in. Military juntas don't give people that option.

Yes, and you haven't acknowledged that democracy can not establish itself when it is regularly disrupted by coups.

It was already established before Thaksin deliberately undermined it.

Thaksin get elected, no coup, Thaksin undermines Democracy to the point of a constitutional crisis (i.e. reinstalling himself as PM after resigning), coup. Do you understand causality?

"A court appointed government, presumably proper royalists from the Democrat party, would have been acceptable to the military, an elected government was not."

You keep making up this self serving theories, in that case the coup would had happened immediately following the 2011 election, I don't think you understand causality at all.

What led to the coup was PTP flipping the bird to the country and going ahead with the "Amnesty Bill" specifically made to whitewash Thaksin and thousands of other cases of corruption under his and his sister government, that in addition to other undemocratic antics.

"Didn't you notice that the military tolerated months of protests, but then staged the coup 15 days after the courts declined to remove the PTP from government?"

I noticed PTP's little Red helpers assaulting, shooting and murdering people that dared protest against PTP (three killed the night of the coup), the threats of secession and civil war, PTP ministers urging people to armed conflict, etc, etc.. why didn't you mention that? Perhaps it's not that you don't understand causality, you simply leave out any facts that don't fit in the narrative you want to arrive to.

"Thaksin get elected, no coup, Thaksin undermines Democracy to the point of a constitutional crisis (i.e. reinstalling himself as PM after resigning), coup. Do you understand causality?"

A problem that could and should have been dealt with by an election.

"What led to the coup was PTP flipping the bird to the country and going ahead with the "Amnesty Bill" specifically made to whitewash Thaksin and thousands of other cases of corruption under his and his sister government, that in addition to other undemocratic antics."

You mean the amnesty bill that was withdrawn. Another problem that could and should have been dealt with by an election.

"You keep making up this self serving theories, in that case the coup would had happened immediately following the 2011 election, I don't think you understand causality at all."

In 2011 the government had a very strong and fresh mandate. A new election in July of this year would have resulted in a new government with a new mandate, which would have made it difficult to stage a coup for a few years. For reasons that can't be mentioned the military didn't want to wait.

"I noticed PTP's little Red helpers assaulting, shooting and murdering people that dared protest against PTP (three killed the night of the coup), the threats of secession and civil war, PTP ministers urging people to armed conflict, etc, etc.. why didn't you mention that? Perhaps it's not that you don't understand causality, you simply leave out any facts that don't fit in the narrative you want to arrive to."

The fact is that few of those murder investigations have been resolved and guilty parties identified, and rhetoric became heated after Suthep made it clear he would do whatever he could to prevent elections. The fact is that illegal protests were allowed to disrupt government and the economy with little or no interference from the military (unlike in 2010) and that the hope of a coup was all that kept the protesters going. The fact is that the military could have easily broken up the protests and ensured a July election, probably without the need for another bloody crackdown but by clearly stating that there would be no coup and that the military would do whatever it took to ensure a peaceful election. The fact is that the military tolerated months of chaos, then staged the coup 15 days after the courts removed Yingluck from office but did not remove the PTP from government.

You have never clearly stated what you think should have happened. I think the coup was unnecessary and a huge step backwards for Thailand. I think the military should have helped the police keep the protests within legal parameters and also helped to ensure a July election. What do you think should have happened?

[tbthailand]

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.

I will defend the junta. They are working for the betterment of Thailand.

Thai history since the revolution in 1932 shows 2 things;

- the Thai military takes over under the guise of fighting a corrupt civilian government, and

- the Thai military has not ever done it for the betterment of Thailand, but it has always been for the benefit of the Thai military - for their wealth and for their power.

Given this history, and given the events over the last year, I have no reason to believe that anything is different this time.