Prayut must stay on as PM until problems solved: survey

[Snig27]

And get the problems solved, now.

I don't see anything major happen....By now there should be hundreds of former politicians jailed, and that are just the cases where it is obvious and everyone knows.

bbrr, I get sick of these negative reactions, finally FINALLY there is a right shaped soul, who wants to make Thailand a better and correct country, who cleaned out in a short period a lot of corruption and law mistreats ... and it still not good...

Except he hasn't done any of that - which is the point others are making. The cops are still doing exactly what they have alway done, the cab and beach mafias are all in business as they were and after a brief pause civil servants all have their hands out again. Meanwhile the economy is spiraling and Thailand is now regarded as the sick old man of SEA. Where is the court reform? Where is police reform? How about the grossly bloated military budgets?

If the general had wanted to make a difference, 2 Feb and thereabouts was the time to do so. Instead he allowed it to spin out of control to justify May's coup.

[joecoolfrog]

Ha Ha Ting Tong Falang believe government propaganda , some Falang ba mak mak !

[Thai at Heart]

Jesus Ginjag you're acting like a petulant child asking to be put on their ignore list!!

Your fervent support for the General is scary to be honest, and leaping to his defence with "but PTP this and PTP that " is almost as boring as PM bashing in another thread you claimed that by reading All the red apologists posts destresses you, bullshit it does mate, it winds you up no need when your hero of year gets stick!!!

Why is he held in such reverence to you? By your own accounts since the 30 years you've been here, not one single Government has delivered and yet you put all your faith in a man you don't even know ?

Talk about a leap of faith ?? Good fair you you'll give him a year to sort it all out too, how very big of you to give him that time, I guess you're actually quite an important Thai National that you can give him 12 months to set things right, and not some Farang with zero say on how any Thai in authority performs?

I'm wondering just what exactly gives the General a much better chance to turn around Thai politics that no other politician has been able to do in 30 years ????

Instead of asking people to put you on their ignore list, why don't you simply stop coming to the defence of a man who by definition seized control of the country at gunpoint, and let people rant and rave all they want, I'm sure the General doesn't need you to stick up for him and he should be tough enough to accept criticism no matter how big or small, he's a 60 year old career soldier a multi millionaire to boot, he's not a defences less 10 years old you need to come to his aid all the time.

?

Propaganda one sided post again. ignore list please, pigged off with this clap trap.

He used to state proudly that he supported the DEMS, but his words deceived that notion as he only ever denounced them.

With comments like this I wonder if he is a Junta fan as well!

I love the "gun point" argument too. The reason the most popular PM in 10 years seized control was because the country WAS held at gun point by the red shirts. Unless the 28 deaths and 780 odd injured mean nothing.

Imagine if the army killed 28 people in 7 months and injured 780 and then the red shirts came in and stopped that massacre in it's tracks stating that they could not consciously let it continue. Even a special needs child in a wheel chair with no imagination and an attention deficit disorder would know how the red apologists would view the army and the red shirts in that scenario.

PTP logic right there folks.

The most popular PM in 10 years is terrified of elections.

The most popular PM in 10 years is terrified of free speech.

The most popular PM in 10 years is terrified of free assembly.

It's almost as if he's not actually that popular at all and must use brute force and fear to cling to power.

This must be why he's so popular. He's terrified of the people.

[heybruce]

I think the situation is a bit more complicated. Military has to be in total control but also it can then be used as a scapegoat to run the country into the ground so it can be rescued or "turned around". We could be playing a game of comparatives with the winning hand going to the oarsman who returns the boat to the right course again.

Take the kiddies candy away for a year or so and see how popular you will be if you are the one to hand it back.

"Military has to be in total control..."

Huh? Why? When has that ever ended well?

[heybruce]

Heybruce - Do you really think this whole thing is in preparation for that? An honest question, not a challenge.

Ginjag - why don't you share with us what you feel will happen politically over the next 2,3,4 years?

Yes. The timing speaks for itself--months of gridlock in Bangkok, but no decisive action until two weeks after the courts removed Yingluck from office but declined to remove the PTP. A coup could not be stage after the 2011 election resulted in an elected government with a popular mandate, but had to be staged before a new election gave a new government a new mandate. Action had to be taken before there was an election

The 2007 constitution states that the military serves the monarchy, not the Thai government. This provides the military a lot of protection from civilian scrutiny and control. It also allows the military to do many things to protect many people interested in maintaining a comfortable status quo. I can't go any further than that.

[heybruce]

Perhaps ginjag's deranged, hateful and profoundly stupid posts can be merged with the what-Thais-hate-about-foreigners thread. That would seem to be their natural home.

There were a lot more like him baying for a coup earlier in the year. The more sensible ones realised that most would change their minds soon enough. Anyone with a brain realises that coups are never the answer. No matter bad the government may be. It's up to the electorate to vote them out. Not to be ousted at gunpoint with weapons paid for by them to protect their democratic rights.

It's like paying a security guard to protect your home and family. He then takes the gun, holds you and your family at gunpoint and takes your house. He then orders you about and punishes you if you don't agree with his every word/command. Make sure you smile, too. He wants you to be realy p..ed off, but wants you to force a smile for him.

This ginjag chap needs a good lie down. And yes. PT were self serving rubbish on the whole (although they did more for poorer Thais than any other party in Thai history), but a coup is never the answer. The foamers answer to that are the rants about civil war and red terrorists. Forgetting the fact that is was the PDRC that started the kerfuffle with their rabble rousing speakers. Using 'you know what' as an excuse, when 99.9% of reds support 'you know what'. Mouthing off in speeches about them being uneducated simpletons and that their votes shouldn't count. Stopping elections. Closing down gov buildings. Why? To give the military a reason to move in. If Suthep and co could cause a mild stink, the army could simply ignore government demands for help and move in claiming they 'stopped a civil war etc'

Truth hurts, but it needs pointing out to the easily led. If the army (or police for that matter) actually did its job and protected the electorate they would've steamed in, arrested Suthep and co (not for protesting but for closing down buildings/cutting power/stopping people from voting etc) and nipped the nonsense in the bud early.

Can you imagine the reaction in the UK or USA if the elected party was booted out after the army refused to help the government after it took sides choosing the opposition? Us Brits are pretty reserved on the whole, but we'd burn London to the ground if that happened. I'm sure the USA would do similar. It's sad innocents had to die in the riots, including children. That is terrible, of course. But so was the gunning down of 90 or so protesters from the 'terrorist' side. They were agrieved voters. Fed up of being ridden roughshod over. So no, they aren't terrorists in my eyes.

"Anyone with a brain realises that coups are never the answer."

I liked all of your post, but the above was my favorite part. However, in order to be fair, we should invite all supporters of the most recent coup to provide examples of past coups that led to a better government.

[RustBucket]

makes me wonder if PCO is commissioning these polls to cling to power till he has made enough cash.

[RustBucket]

Perhaps ginjag's deranged, hateful and profoundly stupid posts can be merged with the what-Thais-hate-about-foreigners thread. That would seem to be their natural home.

There were a lot more like him baying for a coup earlier in the year. The more sensible ones realised that most would change their minds soon enough. Anyone with a brain realises that coups are never the answer. No matter bad the government may be. It's up to the electorate to vote them out. Not to be ousted at gunpoint with weapons paid for by them to protect their democratic rights.

It's like paying a security guard to protect your home and family. He then takes the gun, holds you and your family at gunpoint and takes your house. He then orders you about and punishes you if you don't agree with his every word/command. Make sure you smile, too. He wants you to be realy p..ed off, but wants you to force a smile for him.

This ginjag chap needs a good lie down. And yes. PT were self serving rubbish on the whole (although they did more for poorer Thais than any other party in Thai history), but a coup is never the answer. The foamers answer to that are the rants about civil war and red terrorists. Forgetting the fact that is was the PDRC that started the kerfuffle with their rabble rousing speakers. Using 'you know what' as an excuse, when 99.9% of reds support 'you know what'. Mouthing off in speeches about them being uneducated simpletons and that their votes shouldn't count. Stopping elections. Closing down gov buildings. Why? To give the military a reason to move in. If Suthep and co could cause a mild stink, the army could simply ignore government demands for help and move in claiming they 'stopped a civil war etc'

Truth hurts, but it needs pointing out to the easily led. If the army (or police for that matter) actually did its job and protected the electorate they would've steamed in, arrested Suthep and co (not for protesting but for closing down buildings/cutting power/stopping people from voting etc) and nipped the nonsense in the bud early.

Can you imagine the reaction in the UK or USA if the elected party was booted out after the army refused to help the government after it took sides choosing the opposition? Us Brits are pretty reserved on the whole, but we'd burn London to the ground if that happened. I'm sure the USA would do similar. It's sad innocents had to die in the riots, including children. That is terrible, of course. But so was the gunning down of 90 or so protesters from the 'terrorist' side. They were agrieved voters. Fed up of being ridden roughshod over. So no, they aren't terrorists in my eyes.

Not very intelligent are you?

Did most for the poorer than any other government?

Everything they did was for themselves, and did you forget the farmers killing themselves? The country would have went bankrupt if they had stayed and who suffers the most in a bankrupt country?

Using 'you know what' as an excuse, when 99.9% of reds support 'you know what'.

Well they used the amnesty bill as an excuse and you claim 99.9% of reds supported it? Did you just arrive in Thailand last week or what?

[scorecard]

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

Perhaps ginjag's deranged, hateful and profoundly stupid posts can be merged with the what-Thais-hate-about-foreigners thread. That would seem to be their natural home.

There were a lot more like him baying for a coup earlier in the year. The more sensible ones realised that most would change their minds soon enough. Anyone with a brain realises that coups are never the answer. No matter bad the government may be. It's up to the electorate to vote them out. Not to be ousted at gunpoint with weapons paid for by them to protect their democratic rights.

It's like paying a security guard to protect your home and family. He then takes the gun, holds you and your family at gunpoint and takes your house. He then orders you about and punishes you if you don't agree with his every word/command. Make sure you smile, too. He wants you to be realy p..ed off, but wants you to force a smile for him.

This ginjag chap needs a good lie down. And yes. PT were self serving rubbish on the whole (although they did more for poorer Thais than any other party in Thai history), but a coup is never the answer. The foamers answer to that are the rants about civil war and red terrorists. Forgetting the fact that is was the PDRC that started the kerfuffle with their rabble rousing speakers. Using 'you know what' as an excuse, when 99.9% of reds support 'you know what'. Mouthing off in speeches about them being uneducated simpletons and that their votes shouldn't count. Stopping elections. Closing down gov buildings. Why? To give the military a reason to move in. If Suthep and co could cause a mild stink, the army could simply ignore government demands for help and move in claiming they 'stopped a civil war etc'

Truth hurts, but it needs pointing out to the easily led. If the army (or police for that matter) actually did its job and protected the electorate they would've steamed in, arrested Suthep and co (not for protesting but for closing down buildings/cutting power/stopping people from voting etc) and nipped the nonsense in the bud early.

Can you imagine the reaction in the UK or USA if the elected party was booted out after the army refused to help the government after it took sides choosing the opposition? Us Brits are pretty reserved on the whole, but we'd burn London to the ground if that happened. I'm sure the USA would do similar. It's sad innocents had to die in the riots, including children. That is terrible, of course. But so was the gunning down of 90 or so protesters from the 'terrorist' side. They were agrieved voters. Fed up of being ridden roughshod over. So no, they aren't terrorists in my eyes.

"Anyone with a brain realises that coups are never the answer."

I liked all of your post, but the above was my favorite part. However, in order to be fair, we should invite all supporters of the most recent coup to provide examples of past coups that led to a better government.

So you have a guarantee that the result of this coup will be exactly the same as other coups?

How so?

[Fatty123]

Perhaps ginjag's deranged, hateful and profoundly stupid posts can be merged with the what-Thais-hate-about-foreigners thread. That would seem to be their natural home.

There were a lot more like him baying for a coup earlier in the year. The more sensible ones realised that most would change their minds soon enough. Anyone with a brain realises that coups are never the answer. No matter bad the government may be. It's up to the electorate to vote them out. Not to be ousted at gunpoint with weapons paid for by them to protect their democratic rights.

It's like paying a security guard to protect your home and family. He then takes the gun, holds you and your family at gunpoint and takes your house. He then orders you about and punishes you if you don't agree with his every word/command. Make sure you smile, too. He wants you to be realy p..ed off, but wants you to force a smile for him.

This ginjag chap needs a good lie down. And yes. PT were self serving rubbish on the whole (although they did more for poorer Thais than any other party in Thai history), but a coup is never the answer. The foamers answer to that are the rants about civil war and red terrorists. Forgetting the fact that is was the PDRC that started the kerfuffle with their rabble rousing speakers. Using 'you know what' as an excuse, when 99.9% of reds support 'you know what'. Mouthing off in speeches about them being uneducated simpletons and that their votes shouldn't count. Stopping elections. Closing down gov buildings. Why? To give the military a reason to move in. If Suthep and co could cause a mild stink, the army could simply ignore government demands for help and move in claiming they 'stopped a civil war etc'

Truth hurts, but it needs pointing out to the easily led. If the army (or police for that matter) actually did its job and protected the electorate they would've steamed in, arrested Suthep and co (not for protesting but for closing down buildings/cutting power/stopping people from voting etc) and nipped the nonsense in the bud early.

Can you imagine the reaction in the UK or USA if the elected party was booted out after the army refused to help the government after it took sides choosing the opposition? Us Brits are pretty reserved on the whole, but we'd burn London to the ground if that happened. I'm sure the USA would do similar. It's sad innocents had to die in the riots, including children. That is terrible, of course. But so was the gunning down of 90 or so protesters from the 'terrorist' side. They were agrieved voters. Fed up of being ridden roughshod over. So no, they aren't terrorists in my eyes.

Not very intelligent are you?

Did most for the poorer than any other government?

Everything they did was for themselves, and did you forget the farmers killing themselves? The country would have went bankrupt if they had stayed and who suffers the most in a bankrupt country?

Using 'you know what' as an excuse, when 99.9% of reds support 'you know what'.

Well they used the amnesty bill as an excuse and you claim 99.9% of reds supported it? Did you just arrive in Thailand last week or what?

'Not very intelligent'?

Hmmm. I'm not gonna win Mastermind. That much may be true. However, I'm not the one that thinks a coup is a good idea. PT (and its other guises), love 'em or hate 'em, introduced the 30 baht healthcard system. Provided payments for the elderly and had the economy in the best shape it had ever been. Spent a bucket on infrastusture programs within Thailand. Again, the economy was a darn site better than it is now despite the spending.

Before you claim cognitive superiority over anyone in future, I suggest looking again at what happened to the farm payments and who stopped them being paid. You may be surprised. And to surprise you even more, I feel Thaksin and co are part of the 'elite' too. And are part of Thailand's problems rather than solutions.

In answer to your final question. I spent seven years in Thailand until earlier this year. I would expand further on a few points, but I'm not sure you would understand (and we all know full well what the yellows used as their main excuse. And I'm not going there)

[RigPig]

If the odds are so good why not just go to the poles and REALLY see what the people think?

[Fat Haggis]

Incobart there's over 40 different political parties registered in Thailand not just 2, and this is what makes it so difficult for the Democrats to win outright.

Demographically the PTP has more perceived support as they are by and far the largest single group of people.

Any win by democrats would have to be from a coalition of all the other parties to stand against the PTP, but hey, by all accounts only 7% of the population would vote against the Democrats or the PM if the current set of polls are anything to go by, so what's the problem with holding an election as promised in late 2015?

The General And the dems would win an election by a landslide if this were really true ?

[ginjag]

Heybruce - Do you really think this whole thing is in preparation for that? An honest question, not a challenge.

Ginjag - why don't you share with us what you feel will happen politically over the next 2,3,4 years?

Do not want to play your games anymore. Unless you reply to a post of mine DO NOT bring me into conversations. Not interested. Argue with the PM personally, report what you don't like there are lines open for it.

[Fat Haggis]

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

Perhaps ginjag's deranged, hateful and profoundly stupid posts can be merged with the what-Thais-hate-about-foreigners thread. That would seem to be their natural home.

There were a lot more like him baying for a coup earlier in the year. The more sensible ones realised that most would change their minds soon enough. Anyone with a brain realises that coups are never the answer. No matter bad the government may be. It's up to the electorate to vote them out. Not to be ousted at gunpoint with weapons paid for by them to protect their democratic rights.

It's like paying a security guard to protect your home and family. He then takes the gun, holds you and your family at gunpoint and takes your house. He then orders you about and punishes you if you don't agree with his every word/command. Make sure you smile, too. He wants you to be realy p..ed off, but wants you to force a smile for him.

This ginjag chap needs a good lie down. And yes. PT were self serving rubbish on the whole (although they did more for poorer Thais than any other party in Thai history), but a coup is never the answer. The foamers answer to that are the rants about civil war and red terrorists. Forgetting the fact that is was the PDRC that started the kerfuffle with their rabble rousing speakers. Using 'you know what' as an excuse, when 99.9% of reds support 'you know what'. Mouthing off in speeches about them being uneducated simpletons and that their votes shouldn't count. Stopping elections. Closing down gov buildings. Why? To give the military a reason to move in. If Suthep and co could cause a mild stink, the army could simply ignore government demands for help and move in claiming they 'stopped a civil war etc'

Truth hurts, but it needs pointing out to the easily led. If the army (or police for that matter) actually did its job and protected the electorate they would've steamed in, arrested Suthep and co (not for protesting but for closing down buildings/cutting power/stopping people from voting etc) and nipped the nonsense in the bud early.

Can you imagine the reaction in the UK or USA if the elected party was booted out after the army refused to help the government after it took sides choosing the opposition? Us Brits are pretty reserved on the whole, but we'd burn London to the ground if that happened. I'm sure the USA would do similar. It's sad innocents had to die in the riots, including children. That is terrible, of course. But so was the gunning down of 90 or so protesters from the 'terrorist' side. They were agrieved voters. Fed up of being ridden roughshod over. So no, they aren't terrorists in my eyes.

"Anyone with a brain realises that coups are never the answer."

I liked all of your post, but the above was my favorite part. However, in order to be fair, we should invite all supporters of the most recent coup to provide examples of past coups that led to a better government.

So you have a guarantee that the result of this coup will be exactly the same as other coups?

How so?

As opposed to a guarantee that this coup will be different?

How so?

[Fat Haggis]

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

Perhaps ginjag's deranged, hateful and profoundly stupid posts can be merged with the what-Thais-hate-about-foreigners thread. That would seem to be their natural home.

There were a lot more like him baying for a coup earlier in the year. The more sensible ones realised that most would change their minds soon enough. Anyone with a brain realises that coups are never the answer. No matter bad the government may be. It's up to the electorate to vote them out. Not to be ousted at gunpoint with weapons paid for by them to protect their democratic rights.

It's like paying a security guard to protect your home and family. He then takes the gun, holds you and your family at gunpoint and takes your house. He then orders you about and punishes you if you don't agree with his every word/command. Make sure you smile, too. He wants you to be realy p..ed off, but wants you to force a smile for him.

This ginjag chap needs a good lie down. And yes. PT were self serving rubbish on the whole (although they did more for poorer Thais than any other party in Thai history), but a coup is never the answer. The foamers answer to that are the rants about civil war and red terrorists. Forgetting the fact that is was the PDRC that started the kerfuffle with their rabble rousing speakers. Using 'you know what' as an excuse, when 99.9% of reds support 'you know what'. Mouthing off in speeches about them being uneducated simpletons and that their votes shouldn't count. Stopping elections. Closing down gov buildings. Why? To give the military a reason to move in. If Suthep and co could cause a mild stink, the army could simply ignore government demands for help and move in claiming they 'stopped a civil war etc'

Truth hurts, but it needs pointing out to the easily led. If the army (or police for that matter) actually did its job and protected the electorate they would've steamed in, arrested Suthep and co (not for protesting but for closing down buildings/cutting power/stopping people from voting etc) and nipped the nonsense in the bud early.

Can you imagine the reaction in the UK or USA if the elected party was booted out after the army refused to help the government after it took sides choosing the opposition? Us Brits are pretty reserved on the whole, but we'd burn London to the ground if that happened. I'm sure the USA would do similar. It's sad innocents had to die in the riots, including children. That is terrible, of course. But so was the gunning down of 90 or so protesters from the 'terrorist' side. They were agrieved voters. Fed up of being ridden roughshod over. So no, they aren't terrorists in my eyes.

"Anyone with a brain realises that coups are never the answer."

I liked all of your post, but the above was my favorite part. However, in order to be fair, we should invite all supporters of the most recent coup to provide examples of past coups that led to a better government.

So you have a guarantee that the result of this coup will be exactly the same as other coups?

How so?

As opposed to a guarantee that this coup will be different?

How so?

[fab4]

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

"Anyone with a brain realises that coups are never the answer."

I liked all of your post, but the above was my favorite part. However, in order to be fair, we should invite all supporters of the most recent coup to provide examples of past coups that led to a better government.

So you have a guarantee that the result of this coup will be exactly the same as other coups?

How so?

I can think of 11 other reasons. Why do you think the result of this coup will be different from all those others?

As Paul Chambers, a professor at Chiang Mai University’s Institute for South-East Asian Affairs stated in an email to the Washington Post;

"What sets this event off from previous coups is an attempt to make it appear much more under the law," Chambers wrote in an e-mail to The Post.

"But this is only a superficial bit of semantics."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/05/20/thailands-army-says-this-definitely-isnt-a-coup-heres-11-times-it-definitely-was/

.............................

[baboon]

Heybruce - Do you really think this whole thing is in preparation for that? An honest question, not a challenge.

Ginjag - why don't you share with us what you feel will happen politically over the next 2,3,4 years?

Do not want to play your games anymore. Unless you reply to a post of mine DO NOT bring me into conversations. Not interested. Argue with the PM personally, report what you don't like there are lines open for it.

Fair enough. Anyone who disagrees with you or invites you to join in and speculate on what the future may hold is "playing games". With a mentality like that, you have clearly backed the right horse politically. Good day to you.

[blaze]

If as some have suggested, the real reason for the coup (and high level support for the anti Thaksin forces beginning with the PAD) is to ensure the monopolization of political and economic power by the historic establishment, then history would suggest that the General will not be relinquishing his control any time soon.

The real threat that Thaksin posed was not just the mobilization of the poor at the ballot boxes-- but the encroachment by 'new money' into the power system-- new money that wasn't part of the 'old boys network' which has traditionally run the country, albeit from behind the scenes.. that didn't play by the established 'rules' ... (those that ensured all players 'knew their place' in the game and to whom higher in the pecking order that they were immediately subservient to.

This also explains the 'anti-capitalist' rhetoric that spewed off the PAD stages and even sometimes from PDRC supporters. And the popularity in some segments of the sufficiency economy. Anti captialism in this context should not be seen as socialism- but rather a system closer to medeival European feudalism wherein individual financial opportunity was determined by your place in the hierarchy, usually a place not earned but bequeathed by custom- heredity.

This may explain why the General sees no contradiction in tossing a few populist programs to the rural sector. Even if that sector does elevate itself a bit, the system will remain essentially stable--

This is not new of course- the battle between old money and new money - it also explains the threat that the establishment feared Thaksin represented in that his popularity threatened to challenge the sources of legitimacy of the system and to destroy the entire hierarchical- non-meritocrous edifice upon which it is built.

History shows that such systems are doomed-- yet they rarely give up without a struggle.

[Fat Haggis]

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

Perhaps ginjag's deranged, hateful and profoundly stupid posts can be merged with the what-Thais-hate-about-foreigners thread. That would seem to be their natural home.

There were a lot more like him baying for a coup earlier in the year. The more sensible ones realised that most would change their minds soon enough. Anyone with a brain realises that coups are never the answer. No matter bad the government may be. It's up to the electorate to vote them out. Not to be ousted at gunpoint with weapons paid for by them to protect their democratic rights.

It's like paying a security guard to protect your home and family. He then takes the gun, holds you and your family at gunpoint and takes your house. He then orders you about and punishes you if you don't agree with his every word/command. Make sure you smile, too. He wants you to be realy p..ed off, but wants you to force a smile for him.

This ginjag chap needs a good lie down. And yes. PT were self serving rubbish on the whole (although they did more for poorer Thais than any other party in Thai history), but a coup is never the answer. The foamers answer to that are the rants about civil war and red terrorists. Forgetting the fact that is was the PDRC that started the kerfuffle with their rabble rousing speakers. Using 'you know what' as an excuse, when 99.9% of reds support 'you know what'. Mouthing off in speeches about them being uneducated simpletons and that their votes shouldn't count. Stopping elections. Closing down gov buildings. Why? To give the military a reason to move in. If Suthep and co could cause a mild stink, the army could simply ignore government demands for help and move in claiming they 'stopped a civil war etc'

Truth hurts, but it needs pointing out to the easily led. If the army (or police for that matter) actually did its job and protected the electorate they would've steamed in, arrested Suthep and co (not for protesting but for closing down buildings/cutting power/stopping people from voting etc) and nipped the nonsense in the bud early.

Can you imagine the reaction in the UK or USA if the elected party was booted out after the army refused to help the government after it took sides choosing the opposition? Us Brits are pretty reserved on the whole, but we'd burn London to the ground if that happened. I'm sure the USA would do similar. It's sad innocents had to die in the riots, including children. That is terrible, of course. But so was the gunning down of 90 or so protesters from the 'terrorist' side. They were agrieved voters. Fed up of being ridden roughshod over. So no, they aren't terrorists in my eyes.

"Anyone with a brain realises that coups are never the answer."

I liked all of your post, but the above was my favorite part. However, in order to be fair, we should invite all supporters of the most recent coup to provide examples of past coups that led to a better government.

So you have a guarantee that the result of this coup will be exactly the same as other coups?

How so?

As opposed to a guarantee that this coup will be different?

How so?

[Fat Haggis]

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

Perhaps ginjag's deranged, hateful and profoundly stupid posts can be merged with the what-Thais-hate-about-foreigners thread. That would seem to be their natural home.

There were a lot more like him baying for a coup earlier in the year. The more sensible ones realised that most would change their minds soon enough. Anyone with a brain realises that coups are never the answer. No matter bad the government may be. It's up to the electorate to vote them out. Not to be ousted at gunpoint with weapons paid for by them to protect their democratic rights.

It's like paying a security guard to protect your home and family. He then takes the gun, holds you and your family at gunpoint and takes your house. He then orders you about and punishes you if you don't agree with his every word/command. Make sure you smile, too. He wants you to be realy p..ed off, but wants you to force a smile for him.

This ginjag chap needs a good lie down. And yes. PT were self serving rubbish on the whole (although they did more for poorer Thais than any other party in Thai history), but a coup is never the answer. The foamers answer to that are the rants about civil war and red terrorists. Forgetting the fact that is was the PDRC that started the kerfuffle with their rabble rousing speakers. Using 'you know what' as an excuse, when 99.9% of reds support 'you know what'. Mouthing off in speeches about them being uneducated simpletons and that their votes shouldn't count. Stopping elections. Closing down gov buildings. Why? To give the military a reason to move in. If Suthep and co could cause a mild stink, the army could simply ignore government demands for help and move in claiming they 'stopped a civil war etc'

Truth hurts, but it needs pointing out to the easily led. If the army (or police for that matter) actually did its job and protected the electorate they would've steamed in, arrested Suthep and co (not for protesting but for closing down buildings/cutting power/stopping people from voting etc) and nipped the nonsense in the bud early.

Can you imagine the reaction in the UK or USA if the elected party was booted out after the army refused to help the government after it took sides choosing the opposition? Us Brits are pretty reserved on the whole, but we'd burn London to the ground if that happened. I'm sure the USA would do similar. It's sad innocents had to die in the riots, including children. That is terrible, of course. But so was the gunning down of 90 or so protesters from the 'terrorist' side. They were agrieved voters. Fed up of being ridden roughshod over. So no, they aren't terrorists in my eyes.

"Anyone with a brain realises that coups are never the answer."

I liked all of your post, but the above was my favorite part. However, in order to be fair, we should invite all supporters of the most recent coup to provide examples of past coups that led to a better government.

So you have a guarantee that the result of this coup will be exactly the same as other coups?

How so?

As opposed to a guarantee that this coup will be different?

How so?

[thaiguzzi]

626 community leaders were asked in the poll. Yeah, all from in and around the BKK area. Ask them up here in the North and NE, and he'd get a big fat Zero. Nought. Nada.He aint popular up here i can guarantee them pollsters that.

[whybother]

Right, it almost seems like the junta is killing time, keeping a tight lid on the country with martial law, and seriously damaging the tourist industry in the process, and creating ongoing political uncertainty which deters much needed investment.

Why would the junta deliberately stall a transition to a more stable government, and do great damage to the Thai economy in the process? What big, traumatic event in Thailand will happen in the near future? Why would the military believe that it, and not an elected government, must be in charge when that happens? I wonder...

This is also the idea that I have gotten after following a former Reuters journalist for a while who spread this theory around a lot (and just published a book based on that theory). I must admit that while I think it all sounds very plausible and there is no way i can refute the points he makes, I still cannot totally answer the question you ask at the end: "why they have to be in charge when that happens?".

It sounds too far fetched to me that a big surprise would take place at that moment, especially not when the military is in charge. They either control the situation, and therefore have no reason for "a big change", or they lose control and thereby put themselves out of the game. It would be easier to have someone else in charge (especially a red government) so you can send "terrorists" through the country to give you an excuse for a coup at that moment. And then you have carte blanche to do what you want in the name of "saving the country". People would cheer for the coup in the first weeks as it will stop the violence, and in those weeks you can make the amendments you planned to make all along. Once the honeymoon weeks are over you might be booted out by the people, but the changes you made cannot be reversed anymore.

Interested if someone can enlighten me a bit more.

From what I understand, the people in charge at the time have some influence in who's next. It's not like the UK where there is a defined line.

[Bob12345]

Right, it almost seems like the junta is killing time, keeping a tight lid on the country with martial law, and seriously damaging the tourist industry in the process, and creating ongoing political uncertainty which deters much needed investment.

Why would the junta deliberately stall a transition to a more stable government, and do great damage to the Thai economy in the process? What big, traumatic event in Thailand will happen in the near future? Why would the military believe that it, and not an elected government, must be in charge when that happens? I wonder...

This is also the idea that I have gotten after following a former Reuters journalist for a while who spread this theory around a lot (and just published a book based on that theory). I must admit that while I think it all sounds very plausible and there is no way i can refute the points he makes, I still cannot totally answer the question you ask at the end: "why they have to be in charge when that happens?".

It sounds too far fetched to me that a big surprise would take place at that moment, especially not when the military is in charge. They either control the situation, and therefore have no reason for "a big change", or they lose control and thereby put themselves out of the game. It would be easier to have someone else in charge (especially a red government) so you can send "terrorists" through the country to give you an excuse for a coup at that moment. And then you have carte blanche to do what you want in the name of "saving the country". People would cheer for the coup in the first weeks as it will stop the violence, and in those weeks you can make the amendments you planned to make all along. Once the honeymoon weeks are over you might be booted out by the people, but the changes you made cannot be reversed anymore.

Interested if someone can enlighten me a bit more.

From what I understand, the people in charge at the time have some influence in who's next. It's not like the UK where there is a defined line.

True, thats also how i understand it.

But how likely will it be that they will actually use that influence? To me that sounds like the biggest risk possible in Thailand where you jeopardize the complete system that has made you and your buddies rich.

[whybother]

True, thats also how i understand it.

But how likely will it be that they will actually use that influence? To me that sounds like the biggest risk possible in Thailand where you jeopardize the complete system that has made you and your buddies rich.

I'm quite sure they will use that influence. (Both sides.) That's why they want to be in power when it happens. Getting the "right" person there (or not having the "wrong" person there) is what this is all about.

[heybruce]

Right, it almost seems like the junta is killing time, keeping a tight lid on the country with martial law, and seriously damaging the tourist industry in the process, and creating ongoing political uncertainty which deters much needed investment.

Why would the junta deliberately stall a transition to a more stable government, and do great damage to the Thai economy in the process? What big, traumatic event in Thailand will happen in the near future? Why would the military believe that it, and not an elected government, must be in charge when that happens? I wonder...

This is also the idea that I have gotten after following a former Reuters journalist for a while who spread this theory around a lot (and just published a book based on that theory). I must admit that while I think it all sounds very plausible and there is no way i can refute the points he makes, I still cannot totally answer the question you ask at the end: "why they have to be in charge when that happens?".

It sounds too far fetched to me that a big surprise would take place at that moment, especially not when the military is in charge. They either control the situation, and therefore have no reason for "a big change", or they lose control and thereby put themselves out of the game. It would be easier to have someone else in charge (especially a red government) so you can send "terrorists" through the country to give you an excuse for a coup at that moment. And then you have carte blanche to do what you want in the name of "saving the country". People would cheer for the coup in the first weeks as it will stop the violence, and in those weeks you can make the amendments you planned to make all along. Once the honeymoon weeks are over you might be booted out by the people, but the changes you made cannot be reversed anymore.

Interested if someone can enlighten me a bit more.

From what I understand, the people in charge at the time have some influence in who's next. It's not like the UK where there is a defined line.

True, thats also how i understand it.

But how likely will it be that they will actually use that influence? To me that sounds like the biggest risk possible in Thailand where you jeopardize the complete system that has made you and your buddies rich.

While the question of who is important, I think the biggest fear of those invested in the current system is that a change at the top may prompt calls for a change to the system. That is why the junta and martial law will stay in place; they want the country firmly under control to ensure that a change at the top won't result in calls for other changes, such as a more democratic system, or a military that serves the civilian government instead of...well, you know.

[blaze]

Perhaps ginjag's deranged, hateful and profoundly stupid posts can be merged with the what-Thais-hate-about-foreigners thread. That would seem to be their natural home.

There were a lot more like him baying for a coup earlier in the year. The more sensible ones realised that most would change their minds soon enough. Anyone with a brain realises that coups are never the answer. No matter bad the government may be. It's up to the electorate to vote them out. Not to be ousted at gunpoint with weapons paid for by them to protect their democratic rights.

It's like paying a security guard to protect your home and family. He then takes the gun, holds you and your family at gunpoint and takes your house. He then orders you about and punishes you if you don't agree with his every word/command. Make sure you smile, too. He wants you to be realy p..ed off, but wants you to force a smile for him.

This ginjag chap needs a good lie down. And yes. PT were self serving rubbish on the whole (although they did more for poorer Thais than any other party in Thai history), but a coup is never the answer. The foamers answer to that are the rants about civil war and red terrorists. Forgetting the fact that is was the PDRC that started the kerfuffle with their rabble rousing speakers. Using 'you know what' as an excuse, when 99.9% of reds support 'you know what'. Mouthing off in speeches about them being uneducated simpletons and that their votes shouldn't count. Stopping elections. Closing down gov buildings. Why? To give the military a reason to move in. If Suthep and co could cause a mild stink, the army could simply ignore government demands for help and move in claiming they 'stopped a civil war etc'

Truth hurts, but it needs pointing out to the easily led. If the army (or police for that matter) actually did its job and protected the electorate they would've steamed in, arrested Suthep and co (not for protesting but for closing down buildings/cutting power/stopping people from voting etc) and nipped the nonsense in the bud early.

Can you imagine the reaction in the UK or USA if the elected party was booted out after the army refused to help the government after it took sides choosing the opposition? Us Brits are pretty reserved on the whole, but we'd burn London to the ground if that happened. I'm sure the USA would do similar. It's sad innocents had to die in the riots, including children. That is terrible, of course. But so was the gunning down of 90 or so protesters from the 'terrorist' side. They were agrieved voters. Fed up of being ridden roughshod over. So no, they aren't terrorists in my eyes.

Not very intelligent are you?

Did most for the poorer than any other government?

Everything they did was for themselves, and did you forget the farmers killing themselves? The country would have went bankrupt if they had stayed and who suffers the most in a bankrupt country?

Using 'you know what' as an excuse, when 99.9% of reds support 'you know what'.

Well they used the amnesty bill as an excuse and you claim 99.9% of reds supported it? Did you just arrive in Thailand last week or what?

Since you are intelligent and been here for ages- pleases explain to the previous poster exactly why the gov't of the time could not simply borrow the money from banks (as this current regime has) to pay the farmers their due.

[blaze]

I would give him a maximum of one year. If by Nov 1 2015, he has not made some serious inroads into reforming the RTP (disbanding, and starting over from scratch, would probably be better) and tackling the corruption of the last government (that means arrests and prosecutions, preferably followed by a few Chinese style executions), then I would toss him out on his ear.

So far the prospects of him doing anything substantial seem very dim indeed.

you would toss him out huh?

How?

Christ you people so blinded by hatred of the Weimar-- sorry Taksin- regime that you will give any corporal -sorry, I meant General- with a hard on for your enemy carte blanche-- and now you say- you will give him a year?

You will not give him SHIT- he will take as much time as he wants.

and you will do NOTHING.

Yeah-- Thais need more education before they are turned loose on the polls. Right!!!

[whybother]

While the question of who is important, I think the biggest fear of those invested in the current system is that a change at the top may prompt calls for a change to the system. That is why the junta and martial law will stay in place; they want the country firmly under control to ensure that a change at the top won't result in calls for other changes, such as a more democratic system, or a military that serves the civilian government instead of...well, you know.

I doubt very much that a change of system is on the cards. There are a lot of people that don't take sides in this fight who I believe would take a side if that suggestion was brought up.

[heybruce]

While the question of who is important, I think the biggest fear of those invested in the current system is that a change at the top may prompt calls for a change to the system. That is why the junta and martial law will stay in place; they want the country firmly under control to ensure that a change at the top won't result in calls for other changes, such as a more democratic system, or a military that serves the civilian government instead of...well, you know.

I doubt very much that a change of system is on the cards. There are a lot of people that don't take sides in this fight who I believe would take a side if that suggestion was brought up.

There are also a lot of people who will not accept the traditional choice, which raises concerns with the traditionalists.

Regardless of who the new person will be, that person will not be nearly as popular as the old one, which will weaken a system which depends on public support. Military government and martial law are intended to prop up the system until the new guy is accepted. If this takes years of martial law, delaying the new constitution and deferring elections to accomplish this, that is what they'll do, regardless of the impact on the economy.

Edited November 4, 2014 by heybruce

[whybother]

There are also a lot of people who will not accept the traditional choice, which raises concerns with the traditionalists.

Regardless of who the new person will be, that person will not be nearly as popular as the old one, which will weaken a system which depends on public support. Military government and martial law are intended to prop up the system until the new guy is accepted. If it takes years of martial law to accomplish this, and devastates the economy in the process, that is what they'll do.

Given that there hasn't been a change for quite a few years, I'm not sure what you mean by "the traditional choice". What tradition?

Besides that, there are a lot of people who wont be happy with one or other of the choices, but they will accept it. I believe that there would be more people that wouldn't accept no choice.

I think you're wrong about the "prop up the system until the new "guy" is accepted". I think the economy will take a hit when 'it' happens, but the next choice won't have any further effect. That is until whoever is in charge at the time starts to be seen to be taking advantage of the choice. If the choice becomes more involved than what is currently (generally) happening, there will probably be an outcry similar to the last few years. That applies to both sides.