Ex-Pheu Thai MP sceptical about charter drafters

[rubl]

Conveniently forgetting that lots of people (and not only foregin TVF posters) complaint about the 2007 Constitution, about the 'biased' way checks and balances worked out, about law only used against the poor, etc., etc.

So, reforms anyone?

BTW you're so passe in your last sentence. 'vote buying' has evolved beyond handing out money before or during the election. It's now more the 'profitable pre-election promises', the local elite using social control and pressure to have their chargeYvote 'correctly'. Even PM yingluck gave a prime example when she promised seemless cooperation with the BMA when her candidate would be elected.

Not only did I not forget "that lots of people (and not only foregin TVF posters) complaint about the 2007 Constitution", I made a point of stating that I was one of those who didn't agree with it;

"and don't take that as I agree with it, or it's background"

so, sorry, what was your point again? Oh, that people didn't agree with the 2007 constitution, well, that includes the same organisation that wrote it so it's hardly a revolutionary viewpoint, though I do recall you at times defending the 2007 constitution as not much different to the 1997 charter - and that I do disagree with.

If I could be bothered, I could quote many examples of "profitable pre-election promises" from all political parties here and abroad, that's how politics works, rubl or are you too naive to know/admit that?

OK I broke my rule, you mentioned vote buying and I didn't ignore your post. Perhaps I should have done, it's hardly been life-changing.............................

First of all excuses for late reply. I know you seem to wait for it, but at times I'm just too busy earning a living in a decent manner.

So, you can quote. Well that I know. You can also quote what is likely to strengthen your case ignoring other aspects, well that I know as well.

BTW let me try again. "vote buying is so "passé"

Now as for constitutions, that ex-Pheu Thai MP should probably read Pheu Thai ex-MP. I assume that the chap spoke with Pol. Captain Chalerm who is a recognised expert on many things and even wrote his own constitution. The NCPO or NLA or NRC should have appointed this outsider who may be an actual insider as he had stated that Thaksin profited from the coup suggesting that Thaksin was somehow involved and maybe even asked for it.

[rubl]

Conveniently ignoring the elephant in the room - the military. What in your opinion was wrong with the 2007 charter (and don't take that as I agree with it, or it's background) which incidentally was binned by the very same organisation that wrote it 7 years ago, that necessitates yet another rewrite? It was deemed good enough (under sufferance by some no doubt) in 2011 for, as abhisit stated for the record, free and fair elections, so what has changed in the interim?

The checks and balances worked, the CC stomped on any changes that the former government tried to make and yet here we are, another coup, another constitution. The only conclusion I can make is that those free and fair elections in 2011 led to the wrong result in certain peoples eyes and that this reiteration will aim to correct that situation. There cannot be any other reason.

Caveat - any replies that mention that old standby, vote buying, will be instantly ignored.

Conveniently forgetting that lots of people (and not only foregin TVF posters) complaint about the 2007 Constitution, about the 'biased' way checks and balances worked out, about law only used against the poor, etc., etc.

So, reforms anyone?

BTW you're so passe in your last sentence. 'vote buying' has evolved beyond handing out money before or during the election. It's now more the 'profitable pre-election promises', the local elite using social control and pressure to have their chargeYvote 'correctly'. Even PM yingluck gave a prime example when she promised seemless cooperation with the BMA when her candidate would be elected.

Not only did I not forget "that lots of people (and not only foregin TVF posters) complaint about the 2007 Constitution", I made a point of stating that I was one of those who didn't agree with it;

"and don't take that as I agree with it, or it's background"

so, sorry, what was your point again? Oh, that people didn't agree with the 2007 constitution, well, that includes the same organisation that wrote it so it's hardly a revolutionary viewpoint, though I do recall you at times defending the 2007 constitution as not much different to the 1997 charter - and that I do disagree with.

If I could be bothered, I could quote many examples of "profitable pre-election promises" from all political parties here and abroad, that's how politics works, rubl or are you too naive to know/admit that?

OK I broke my rule, you mentioned vote buying and I didn't ignore your post. Perhaps I should have done, it's hardly been life-changing.............................

not only did he mention vote buying, he didn't even try to address the question.

have another cup of joe on me -->

Question

Oh, you mean the nonsense about the 2007 constitution? Well, ask our dear fabs. It would seem he answered most of his question. The only part maybe remaining is what changed since Abhisit liked the constitution in 2011. Well, the 'Thaksin thinks' Pheu Thai party didn't like it, that's what. Mind you, some now move from 'need to change' to 'not the right people to do it'. If only the 'right' people hadn't stated not to cooperate .

Of course with all its powers the NCPO should have simply appointed those 'right' people. Surely with the thread of the Military Law they would have cooperated. 'right' people are less likely to flee the country and hold press conferences stating the junta was forcing them to write constitutions

[fab4]

Not only did I not forget "that lots of people (and not only foregin TVF posters) complaint about the 2007 Constitution", I made a point of stating that I was one of those who didn't agree with it;

"and don't take that as I agree with it, or it's background"

so, sorry, what was your point again? Oh, that people didn't agree with the 2007 constitution, well, that includes the same organisation that wrote it so it's hardly a revolutionary viewpoint, though I do recall you at times defending the 2007 constitution as not much different to the 1997 charter - and that I do disagree with.

If I could be bothered, I could quote many examples of "profitable pre-election promises" from all political parties here and abroad, that's how politics works, rubl or are you too naive to know/admit that?

OK I broke my rule, you mentioned vote buying and I didn't ignore your post. Perhaps I should have done, it's hardly been life-changing.............................

not only did he mention vote buying, he didn't even try to address the question.

have another cup of joe on me -->

Question

Oh, you mean the nonsense about the 2007 constitution? Well, ask our dear fabs. It would seem he answered most of his question. The only part maybe remaining is what changed since Abhisit liked the constitution in 2011. Well, the 'Thaksin thinks' Pheu Thai party didn't like it, that's what. Mind you, some now move from 'need to change' to 'not the right people to do it'. If only the 'right' people hadn't stated not to cooperate .

Of course with all its powers the NCPO should have simply appointed those 'right' people. Surely with the thread of the Military Law they would have cooperated. 'right' people are less likely to flee the country and hold press conferences stating the junta was forcing them to write constitutions

So, no answer then.

[rubl]

Not only did I not forget "that lots of people (and not only foregin TVF posters) complaint about the 2007 Constitution", I made a point of stating that I was one of those who didn't agree with it;

"and don't take that as I agree with it, or it's background"

so, sorry, what was your point again? Oh, that people didn't agree with the 2007 constitution, well, that includes the same organisation that wrote it so it's hardly a revolutionary viewpoint, though I do recall you at times defending the 2007 constitution as not much different to the 1997 charter - and that I do disagree with.

If I could be bothered, I could quote many examples of "profitable pre-election promises" from all political parties here and abroad, that's how politics works, rubl or are you too naive to know/admit that?

OK I broke my rule, you mentioned vote buying and I didn't ignore your post. Perhaps I should have done, it's hardly been life-changing.............................

not only did he mention vote buying, he didn't even try to address the question.

have another cup of joe on me -->

Question

Oh, you mean the nonsense about the 2007 constitution? Well, ask our dear fabs. It would seem he answered most of his question. The only part maybe remaining is what changed since Abhisit liked the constitution in 2011. Well, the 'Thaksin thinks' Pheu Thai party didn't like it, that's what. Mind you, some now move from 'need to change' to 'not the right people to do it'. If only the 'right' people hadn't stated not to cooperate .

Of course with all its powers the NCPO should have simply appointed those 'right' people. Surely with the thread of the Military Law they would have cooperated. 'right' people are less likely to flee the country and hold press conferences stating the junta was forcing them to write constitutions

So, no answer then.

Obviously none you care for

[tbthailand]

He urged the National Anti-Corruption Commission to check how military members of the Prayut Cabinet amassed hundreds of million of baht in wealth. "I believe they may have earned income from land deals,'' he alleged.

How about starting by investigating how you made your millions?

maybe, ... land deals??

So i was quite seriously joking...

Then I read yesterday that in fact, he had a big land deal with a shadow company created 7 days before the deal and associated with one of the royalist tycoons... The good general sold some land for...hmmm, worth how much? 600 million bhat.

Whoah, nice move general. Amazing ...

[whybother]

So i was quite seriously joking...

Then I read yesterday that in fact, he had a big land deal with a shadow company created 7 days before the deal and associated with one of the royalist tycoons... The good general sold some land for...hmmm, worth how much? 600 million bhat.

Whoah, nice move general. Amazing ...

I don't see any issue with him selling his land. The question should be, how did he get the land in the first place?

[heybruce]

So i was quite seriously joking...

Then I read yesterday that in fact, he had a big land deal with a shadow company created 7 days before the deal and associated with one of the royalist tycoons... The good general sold some land for...hmmm, worth how much? 600 million bhat.

Whoah, nice move general. Amazing ...

I don't see any issue with him selling his land. The question should be, how did he get the land in the first place?

I was told many years ago that land deals were a common means for military commanders to get rich. In the opaque system of military spending in Thailand commanders have a great deal of influence on where military spending and projects occur, which affects nearby land values. The commander coordinates his spending decisions with appropriate businesses, which allow him in on lucrative investment opportunities generated by these spending decisions. All of this would earn a person many years in prison in the US, and I assume other countries with laws against conflicts of interest. In Thailand it seems to be common practice.

The practice could be greatly restricted simply by being more transparent on military spending, but that doesn't seem to be in the works:

"A few days ago, Prayuth appeared angry when Thais demanded the government increase transparency. He reportedly said, “I beg you not to dig up anything. There is no benefit in so doing. My government is here today to solve problems. I have so many burdens on my shoulder. My wife is also in this difficult situation. I just want some kind of moral support from you. I need your understanding. But the media has tried to dig up many issues. So have some politicians. I must say that you cannot do that for the time being.”" http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/thai-junta-beset-by-corruption-scandals/

I suspect that if there were a serious investigation into how these generals made their money, there would be a corruption scandal that would implicate a great many senior officers. That wouldn't look good for a military junta promising reform.

[rubl]

The practice could be greatly restricted simply by being more transparent on military spending, but that doesn't seem to be in the works:

"A few days ago, Prayuth appeared angry when Thais demanded the government increase transparency. He reportedly said, “I beg you not to dig up anything. There is no benefit in so doing. My government is here today to solve problems. I have so many burdens on my shoulder. My wife is also in this difficult situation. I just want some kind of moral support from you. I need your understanding. But the media has tried to dig up many issues. So have some politicians. I must say that you cannot do that for the time being.”" http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/thai-junta-beset-by-corruption-scandals/

I suspect that if there were a serious investigation into how these generals made their money, there would be a corruption scandal that would implicate a great many senior officers. That wouldn't look good for a military junta promising reform.

Allegedly that is. The same goes for 80% or more of the politicians and a lot of the more 'successful' businessmen allegedly as well. You were probably told that long, long time ago. Mind you with the 'right' people doing it you might have less problems what that.

Remember that a crime committed by a democratically elected person is not less a crime. If at all you might even consider it a more serious crime.

Anyway, whose's left to draft a new constitution? Maybe the UN should indeed take over for 10 to 20 years.

Edited November 4, 2014 by rubl

[tbthailand]

So i was quite seriously joking...

Then I read yesterday that in fact, he had a big land deal with a shadow company created 7 days before the deal and associated with one of the royalist tycoons... The good general sold some land for...hmmm, worth how much? 600 million bhat.

Whoah, nice move general. Amazing ...

I don't see any issue with him selling his land. The question should be, how did he get the land in the first place?

depends. could be both. The sale was technically his father's land to a company called 69 property which was established just 7 days before the company bought the land. After that, there was another company established by the shareholders of 69. The second company in the V.I. was then linked back to the thaibev chairman and one of the most powerful anti-democratic elites (and supporter of the PDRC).

So maybe the land was legitimately bought and the 'big win' was some amart funnelling over half a billion baht to a general through a chain of fabricated companies.

[tbthailand]

Conveniently forgetting that lots of people (and not only foregin TVF posters) complaint about the 2007 Constitution, about the 'biased' way checks and balances worked out, about law only used against the poor, etc., etc.

So, reforms anyone?

BTW you're so passe in your last sentence. 'vote buying' has evolved beyond handing out money before or during the election. It's now more the 'profitable pre-election promises', the local elite using social control and pressure to have their chargeYvote 'correctly'. Even PM yingluck gave a prime example when she promised seemless cooperation with the BMA when her candidate would be elected.

Not only did I not forget "that lots of people (and not only foregin TVF posters) complaint about the 2007 Constitution", I made a point of stating that I was one of those who didn't agree with it;

"and don't take that as I agree with it, or it's background"

so, sorry, what was your point again? Oh, that people didn't agree with the 2007 constitution, well, that includes the same organisation that wrote it so it's hardly a revolutionary viewpoint, though I do recall you at times defending the 2007 constitution as not much different to the 1997 charter - and that I do disagree with.

If I could be bothered, I could quote many examples of "profitable pre-election promises" from all political parties here and abroad, that's how politics works, rubl or are you too naive to know/admit that?

OK I broke my rule, you mentioned vote buying and I didn't ignore your post. Perhaps I should have done, it's hardly been life-changing.............................

not only did he mention vote buying, he didn't even try to address the question.

have another cup of joe on me -->

Question

Oh, you mean the nonsense about the 2007 constitution? Well, ask our dear fabs. It would seem he answered most of his question. The only part maybe remaining is what changed since Abhisit liked the constitution in 2011. Well, the 'Thaksin thinks' Pheu Thai party didn't like it, that's what. Mind you, some now move from 'need to change' to 'not the right people to do it'. If only the 'right' people hadn't stated not to cooperate .

Of course with all its powers the NCPO should have simply appointed those 'right' people. Surely with the thread of the Military Law they would have cooperated. 'right' people are less likely to flee the country and hold press conferences stating the junta was forcing them to write constitutions

actually rubl, he asked a pointed and valid question - which a junta cheerleader like yourself should be able to knock out of the park

What in your opinion was wrong with the 2007 charter ... which incidentally was binned by the very same organisation that wrote it 7 years ago, that necessitates yet another rewrite? It was deemed good enough (under sufferance by some no doubt) in 2011 for, as abhisit stated for the record, free and fair elections, so what has changed in the interim?

go for it baby, I'm rooting for you.

[heybruce]

The practice could be greatly restricted simply by being more transparent on military spending, but that doesn't seem to be in the works:

"A few days ago, Prayuth appeared angry when Thais demanded the government increase transparency. He reportedly said, “I beg you not to dig up anything. There is no benefit in so doing. My government is here today to solve problems. I have so many burdens on my shoulder. My wife is also in this difficult situation. I just want some kind of moral support from you. I need your understanding. But the media has tried to dig up many issues. So have some politicians. I must say that you cannot do that for the time being.”" http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/thai-junta-beset-by-corruption-scandals/

I suspect that if there were a serious investigation into how these generals made their money, there would be a corruption scandal that would implicate a great many senior officers. That wouldn't look good for a military junta promising reform.

Allegedly that is. The same goes for 80% or more of the politicians and a lot of the more 'successful' businessmen allegedly as well. You were probably told that long, long time ago. Mind you with the 'right' people doing it you might have less problems what that.

Remember that a crime committed by a democratically elected person is not less a crime. If at all you might even consider it a more serious crime.

Anyway, whose's left to draft a new constitution? Maybe the UN should indeed take over for 10 to 20 years.

Allegedly indeed. Until there is transparency in military spending, and transparency in income sources for the officers responsible for military spending, these things will only be allegedly. As the quote makes clear, PM General Prayuth isn't interested in transparency. That makes one wonder how serious he is about fighting corruption.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a 'right' person to benefit from corruption, but in view of your rapid diversionary response to my post you seem to believe the military must be protected from legitimate concerns about corruption in the ranks. Do you think the military should be shielded from corruption enquiries? A crime committed by a person in uniform is no less a crime. If at all you might even consider it a more serious crime.

I wouldn't mind letting the UN draft the new constitution. In fact, I think picking a constitution from some established democracy and changing the name to Thailand would result in a better constitution than the current process.

Edited November 4, 2014 by heybruce

[MiclB]

heybruce, on 04 Nov 2014 - 13:32, said:

rubl, on 04 Nov 2014 - 11:13, said:

heybruce, on 04 Nov 2014 - 10:42, said:

The practice could be greatly restricted simply by being more transparent on military spending, but that doesn't seem to be in the works:

"A few days ago, Prayuth appeared angry when Thais demanded the government increase transparency. He reportedly said, “I beg you not to dig up anything. There is no benefit in so doing. My government is here today to solve problems. I have so many burdens on my shoulder. My wife is also in this difficult situation. I just want some kind of moral support from you. I need your understanding. But the media has tried to dig up many issues. So have some politicians. I must say that you cannot do that for the time being.”" http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/thai-junta-beset-by-corruption-scandals/

I suspect that if there were a serious investigation into how these generals made their money, there would be a corruption scandal that would implicate a great many senior officers. That wouldn't look good for a military junta promising reform.

Allegedly that is. The same goes for 80% or more of the politicians and a lot of the more 'successful' businessmen allegedly as well. You were probably told that long, long time ago. Mind you with the 'right' people doing it you might have less problems what that.

Remember that a crime committed by a democratically elected person is not less a crime. If at all you might even consider it a more serious crime.

Anyway, whose's left to draft a new constitution? Maybe the UN should indeed take over for 10 to 20 years.

Allegedly indeed. Until there is transparency in military spending, and transparency in income sources for the officers responsible for military spending, these things will only be allegedly. As the quote makes clear, PM General Prayuth isn't interested in transparency. That makes one wonder how serious he is about fighting corruption.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a 'right' person to benefit from corruption, but in view of your rapid diversionary response to my post you seem to believe the military must be protected from legitimate concerns about corruption in the ranks. Do you think the military should be shielded from corruption enquiries? A crime committed by a person in uniform is no less a crime. If at all you might even consider it a more serious crime.

I wouldn't mind letting the UN draft the new constitution. In fact, I think picking a constitution from some established democracy and changing the name to Thailand would result in a better constitution than the current process.

Agree, the more transparency the better. Unfortunately, that horse is a bit slow getting outta the gate.

I can't side with the UN idea quite. They haven't finished up anything much well that comes to mind; but, maybe that's just me.

Your final sentence/idea is a great one, but in this case a "face-saving" issue just might arise as a barrier, ya think?

[rubl]

not only did he mention vote buying, he didn't even try to address the question.

have another cup of joe on me -->

Question

Oh, you mean the nonsense about the 2007 constitution? Well, ask our dear fabs. It would seem he answered most of his question. The only part maybe remaining is what changed since Abhisit liked the constitution in 2011. Well, the 'Thaksin thinks' Pheu Thai party didn't like it, that's what. Mind you, some now move from 'need to change' to 'not the right people to do it'. If only the 'right' people hadn't stated not to cooperate .

Of course with all its powers the NCPO should have simply appointed those 'right' people. Surely with the thread of the Military Law they would have cooperated. 'right' people are less likely to flee the country and hold press conferences stating the junta was forcing them to write constitutions

actually rubl, he asked a pointed and valid question - which a junta cheerleader like yourself should be able to knock out of the park

What in your opinion was wrong with the 2007 charter ... which incidentally was binned by the very same organisation that wrote it 7 years ago, that necessitates yet another rewrite? It was deemed good enough (under sufferance by some no doubt) in 2011 for, as abhisit stated for the record, free and fair elections, so what has changed in the interim?

go for it baby, I'm rooting for you.

My dear tbthailand, please read my reply again.

Cheers

[rubl]

So i was quite seriously joking...

Then I read yesterday that in fact, he had a big land deal with a shadow company created 7 days before the deal and associated with one of the royalist tycoons... The good general sold some land for...hmmm, worth how much? 600 million bhat.

Whoah, nice move general. Amazing ...

I don't see any issue with him selling his land. The question should be, how did he get the land in the first place?

depends. could be both. The sale was technically his father's land to a company called 69 property which was established just 7 days before the company bought the land. After that, there was another company established by the shareholders of 69. The second company in the V.I. was then linked back to the thaibev chairman and one of the most powerful anti-democratic elites (and supporter of the PDRC).

So maybe the land was legitimately bought and the 'big win' was some amart funnelling over half a billion baht to a general through a chain of fabricated companies.

Maybe, maybe.

When a company is established its legal, not fabricated. When land is sold its bought by another. If bought by a legal company its legally bought. When someone buys someone pays the bill.

So we seem to have some legal transaction on legally owned land.

Unless you have proof for your'maybees', 'funneling' and fabrication' I suspect a hyper active imagination for all things related to the NCPO and PM Prayut.

[rubl]

The practice could be greatly restricted simply by being more transparent on military spending, but that doesn't seem to be in the works:

"A few days ago, Prayuth appeared angry when Thais demanded the government increase transparency. He reportedly said, “I beg you not to dig up anything. There is no benefit in so doing. My government is here today to solve problems. I have so many burdens on my shoulder. My wife is also in this difficult situation. I just want some kind of moral support from you. I need your understanding. But the media has tried to dig up many issues. So have some politicians. I must say that you cannot do that for the time being.”" http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/thai-junta-beset-by-corruption-scandals/

I suspect that if there were a serious investigation into how these generals made their money, there would be a corruption scandal that would implicate a great many senior officers. That wouldn't look good for a military junta promising reform.

Allegedly that is. The same goes for 80% or more of the politicians and a lot of the more 'successful' businessmen allegedly as well. You were probably told that long, long time ago. Mind you with the 'right' people doing it you might have less problems what that.

Remember that a crime committed by a democratically elected person is not less a crime. If at all you might even consider it a more serious crime.

Anyway, whose's left to draft a new constitution? Maybe the UN should indeed take over for 10 to 20 years.

Allegedly indeed. Until there is transparency in military spending, and transparency in income sources for the officers responsible for military spending, these things will only be allegedly. As the quote makes clear, PM General Prayuth isn't interested in transparency. That makes one wonder how serious he is about fighting corruption.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a 'right' person to benefit from corruption, but in view of your rapid diversionary response to my post you seem to believe the military must be protected from legitimate concerns about corruption in the ranks. Do you think the military should be shielded from corruption enquiries? A crime committed by a person in uniform is no less a crime. If at all you might even consider it a more serious crime.

I wouldn't mind letting the UN draft the new constitution. In fact, I think picking a constitution from some established democracy and changing the name to Thailand would result in a better constitution than the current process.

When long time ago you were told about "and deals were a common means for military commanders to get rich", you obviously missed the same on politicians and business people.

Now I grant you that there could be a few police and military generals in need of a thorough investigation, but I don't think now is the time. The PM Prayut government would be unable to govern while such investigation is ongoing. We can't go back to the politicians as they would be under similar investigations. Result? Chaos.

To import a constitution would help much either. Constitutions grow up with countries. Legal systems and laws grow up and are amended based on constitutions. Society relies on written and unwritten laws which mostly have a lot of a countries development within them. Importing a constitution would require a rewrite of the legal system and laws and a 're-education' of society based and structured around the old laws.

Imagine the UN indeed taking over Thailand for two generations. Of course looking at Japan the Americans could do it in five years, but the result might not be what some expect.

[heybruce]

The practice could be greatly restricted simply by being more transparent on military spending, but that doesn't seem to be in the works:

"A few days ago, Prayuth appeared angry when Thais demanded the government increase transparency. He reportedly said, “I beg you not to dig up anything. There is no benefit in so doing. My government is here today to solve problems. I have so many burdens on my shoulder. My wife is also in this difficult situation. I just want some kind of moral support from you. I need your understanding. But the media has tried to dig up many issues. So have some politicians. I must say that you cannot do that for the time being.”" http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/thai-junta-beset-by-corruption-scandals/

I suspect that if there were a serious investigation into how these generals made their money, there would be a corruption scandal that would implicate a great many senior officers. That wouldn't look good for a military junta promising reform.

Allegedly that is. The same goes for 80% or more of the politicians and a lot of the more 'successful' businessmen allegedly as well. You were probably told that long, long time ago. Mind you with the 'right' people doing it you might have less problems what that.

Remember that a crime committed by a democratically elected person is not less a crime. If at all you might even consider it a more serious crime.

Anyway, whose's left to draft a new constitution? Maybe the UN should indeed take over for 10 to 20 years.

Allegedly indeed. Until there is transparency in military spending, and transparency in income sources for the officers responsible for military spending, these things will only be allegedly. As the quote makes clear, PM General Prayuth isn't interested in transparency. That makes one wonder how serious he is about fighting corruption.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a 'right' person to benefit from corruption, but in view of your rapid diversionary response to my post you seem to believe the military must be protected from legitimate concerns about corruption in the ranks. Do you think the military should be shielded from corruption enquiries? A crime committed by a person in uniform is no less a crime. If at all you might even consider it a more serious crime.

I wouldn't mind letting the UN draft the new constitution. In fact, I think picking a constitution from some established democracy and changing the name to Thailand would result in a better constitution than the current process.

When long time ago you were told about "and deals were a common means for military commanders to get rich", you obviously missed the same on politicians and business people.

Now I grant you that there could be a few police and military generals in need of a thorough investigation, but I don't think now is the time. The PM Prayut government would be unable to govern while such investigation is ongoing. We can't go back to the politicians as they would be under similar investigations. Result? Chaos.

To import a constitution would help much either. Constitutions grow up with countries. Legal systems and laws grow up and are amended based on constitutions. Society relies on written and unwritten laws which mostly have a lot of a countries development within them. Importing a constitution would require a rewrite of the legal system and laws and a 're-education' of society based and structured around the old laws.

Imagine the UN indeed taking over Thailand for two generations. Of course looking at Japan the Americans could do it in five years, but the result might not be what some expect.

"When long time ago you were told about "and deals were a common means for military commanders to get rich", you obviously missed the same on politicians and business people."

Yes, but politicians and business people are not in charge now. When politicians were in charge they could be voted out of office, currently that is not an option, and won't be for an unknown period of time.

"Now I grant you that there could be a few police and military generals in need of a thorough investigation, but I don't think now is the time. The PM Prayut government would be unable to govern while such investigation is ongoing."

A few? Well if there are only a few an investigation should have no impact on PM General Prayuth's ability to govern, and will greatly enhance his credibility as a reformer who is trying to eliminate corruption. If there are more that a few and the military is rife with corruption then the military is not the organization to lead and reform the country.

I wrote that an imported constitution would be better than the one the current process will produce. It would be far from ideal, but more democratic. I never wrote the UN should take over Thailand, I wrote:

"I wouldn't mind letting the UN draft the new constitution."

I stand by that--the UN also would provide a better constitution than the current process. Since the current process is designed to put the interests of certain people and institutions over the interests of the rest of the country, any number of alternative approaches would result in a better constitution.

[whybother]

I don't see any issue with him selling his land. The question should be, how did he get the land in the first place?

depends. could be both. The sale was technically his father's land to a company called 69 property which was established just 7 days before the company bought the land. After that, there was another company established by the shareholders of 69. The second company in the V.I. was then linked back to the thaibev chairman and one of the most powerful anti-democratic elites (and supporter of the PDRC).

So maybe the land was legitimately bought and the 'big win' was some amart funnelling over half a billion baht to a general through a chain of fabricated companies.

Was the sale over priced? If not, it's just a normal sale. How the purchasers fund it is irrelevant from the General's point of view.

I still think the more relevant question is how did he fund the purchase of it in the first place.

[tbthailand]

not only did he mention vote buying, he didn't even try to address the question.

have another cup of joe on me -->

Question

Oh, you mean the nonsense about the 2007 constitution? Well, ask our dear fabs. It would seem he answered most of his question. The only part maybe remaining is what changed since Abhisit liked the constitution in 2011. Well, the 'Thaksin thinks' Pheu Thai party didn't like it, that's what. Mind you, some now move from 'need to change' to 'not the right people to do it'. If only the 'right' people hadn't stated not to cooperate .

Of course with all its powers the NCPO should have simply appointed those 'right' people. Surely with the thread of the Military Law they would have cooperated. 'right' people are less likely to flee the country and hold press conferences stating the junta was forcing them to write constitutions

actually rubl, he asked a pointed and valid question - which a junta cheerleader like yourself should be able to knock out of the park

What in your opinion was wrong with the 2007 charter ... which incidentally was binned by the very same organisation that wrote it 7 years ago, that necessitates yet another rewrite? It was deemed good enough (under sufferance by some no doubt) in 2011 for, as abhisit stated for the record, free and fair elections, so what has changed in the interim?

go for it baby, I'm rooting for you.

My dear tbthailand, please read my reply again.

Cheers

thanks, I did.

Now go ahead and answer the question.