Democrats opposed to compromises on justice in push for reconciliation

[bangrak]

I'm 100% in favour of the dirty politicians getting what they deserve. They took this country on the road to bankruptcy and civil war and they have never shown any remorse for a single thing they did. If a few examples are made, it might make them think twice about it in the future.

Start with charges of 'abuse of power' for the 310 who voted for the amnesty disgrace. Put every single one of them in prison for 5 years.

Can you prove your claim of bankruptcy? Thailand had respectable year to year gdp growth from 2010 to 2013, and its debt to gdp ratio is much better than most first world countries. Even the rice subsidy only represented 7% of government spending. How does this support a claim of near bankruptcy?

I'm not a specialist, but, possibly, maybe, because the Trillion Baht this minimised adventure might well have cost, were not included in the State's expenditures budget, 'expected'(?!) to be 'self-supporting' as it was, or even to generate profits, according to Dr. Thaksin's 'brilliant' (NOT for Thailand, that's for sure) theory of 'Thaksinomics', possibly, maybe?

And not to mention the 2 to 3 Trillion extra the PTP 'government' wanted to levy, outside of the budget again, for two generations of Thais to finance capital and interests of, ...to spend as it pleased them, without cheks and balances, so-called for 'infrastucture', but in fact more to finance their ruinous rice pledging scheme till the expected end of their tenure, and they did go on with their attempts, even as 'caretakers', trying to coerce the EC to let it go through, did you forget about this, too?

Most First World countries are drowning in their accumulated debts, is that the right path for Thailand to follow in your opinion, or would the example of 'recent' emerging economies having as-good-as no long term debts, or none at all, not be a better one to aspire to? Isn't it that what should in essence really matter?

So, technically speaking, you are possibly right, that Thailand would not have become 'bankrupt' from it all, I don't know, I'm not a specialist, remember, but I would like to see international financial experts with credentials express a favourable opinion about what the so-called Yingluck 'government' has achieved and was planning to do further...

Edited November 9, 2014 by bangrak

[ginjag]

Conveniently 'forgotten' in these discussions about amnesty is the fact that the key opinion polls showed very strong support for amnesty as a path to reconciliation. Read some of the more extreme positions from some TV posters and one might believe this was some sort of ambush....simply not the case, public opinion in favour, Yingluck canvassed during the election campaign and could claim a mandate given her overwhelming victory, the opposition walked out of the debate in the usual 'spit the dummy' theatrics they employ.

The bill may have been ill-considered or ill-timed but it was no ambush and should not be presented as such. To continue to do so is disingenuous and more than a bit silly

Big mega problem and the Thai people knew it and even red leaders have spoke out about it..........amnesty without Thaksin and Yingluck (might ) have still been there---there is the reality.

[Robespiere]

I'm 100% in favour of the dirty politicians getting what they deserve. They took this country on the road to bankruptcy and civil war and they have never shown any remorse for a single thing they did. If a few examples are made, it might make them think twice about it in the future.

Start with charges of 'abuse of power' for the 310 who voted for the amnesty disgrace. Put every single one of them in prison for 5 years.

Can you prove your claim of bankruptcy? Thailand had respectable year to year gdp growth from 2010 to 2013, and its debt to gdp ratio is much better than most first world countries. Even the rice subsidy only represented 7% of government spending. How does this support a claim of near bankruptcy?

I'm not a specialist, but, possibly, maybe, because the Trillion Baht this minimised adventure might well have cost, were not included in the State's expenditures budget, 'expected'(?!) to be 'self-supporting' as it was, or even to generate profits, according to Dr. Thaksin's 'brilliant' (NOT for Thailand, that's for sure) theory of 'Thaksinomics', possibly, maybe?

And not to mention the 2 to 3 Trillion extra the PTP 'government' wanted to levy, outside of the budget again, for two generations of Thais to finance capital and interests of, ...to spend as it pleased them, without cheks and balances, so-called for 'infrasture', but in fact to finance their ruinous rice pledging scheme till the expected end of their tenure, and they did go on with their attempts, even as 'caretakers', trying to coerce the EC to let it go through, did you forget about this, too?

Most First World countries are drowning in their accumulated debts, is that the right path for Thailand to follow in your opinion, or would the example of 'recent' emerging economies having as-good-as no long term debts, or none at all, not be a better one to aspire to? Isn't it that what should in essence really matter?

So, technically speaking, you are possibly right, that Thailand would not have become 'bankrupt' from it all, I don't know, I'm not a specialist, remember, but I would like to see international financial experts with credentials express a favourable opinion about what the so-called Yingluck 'government' has achieved and was planning to do further...

International financial experts with credentials don't waste their time with such nonsense, they leave it to the yellow peanuts on TVF.

[robblok]

In Robespierre and other like-minded members' 'prosa' (it's Sunday, I'm in a good mood, so let me call it like that), I am still reading: 'coup' here, 'coup' there... May I be allowed to point out to these stakhanovist repetitive workers, that, possibly, unbiased, un-manipulated, History might decide to describe the events in a quite different way.

The most recent 'coup d'état' was perpetrated at night, about 3am, by PTP's MPs and 'affiliated' Senators (the PM was 'providentially' absent for the vote). Find out what a 'coup d'état' is, and, when you're honest, you won't be able to disagree this is really what that was. And, that makes of May 22nd a 'counter coup' then... Will you adapt to the reality of facts?

And while we are at definitions, the 2010 'reds'' 'insurgency', might also be called an attempted 'putsch' by Thaksin & Co. against the Government...

IMO, calling events by their true name puts those events into a more objective perspective, wouldn't you say, Robby?

Coup d'état: a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.

Putsch: a violent attempt to overthrow a government; a coup.

Using the above definitions, you couldn't be more wrong.

1. At 3am, the PTP were the government so they hardly committed a coup d'etat against themselves.

​2. In 2010 the Reds demanded elections, not to overthrow the unelected government of the day

IMO, not understanding the definitions of the words one uses is quite foolish.

It was a legal government because Newin his party just shifted partners. It was a coalition it was 100% legal and both Newin his party as the Democrats had won their position by votes. This is legal all over the world. Coalitions can be formed there is no need to have the party with the most votes there.

Then the red rabble came to the streets and violently tried to overthrow a legal elected government.

[ginjag]

I'm not Thai, so I cannot fathom all the meanders of Thainess, but, IMHO, true 'Reconciliation' can impossibly be achieved in the way the Thaksin/Shins/PTP/UDD partisans want to have it. To me, it is as if(?) they would want to abuse the principles of reconciliation to become in the end the general amnesty they could not become while having used up every, any, even the most crooked, means they could think of at the time. To me their plea sounds as honest as when they pretend to be wanting 'free and fair' elections, NOT then...

True 'Reconciliation' can impossibly be achieved by ignoring, forgetting, shoving-under-the-carpet, any act which anyone could consider criminal, unconstitutional, illegal, corrupt or adverse, made by any party, organisation, group, clan, family or individual(s), may they be/have been 'coloured' yellow, blue, white, red, black ...brown, green, or not, living in Thailand or staying abroad! The painfull list of all those acts must be patiently made up, with no exceptions allowed, and everyone suspected must be, very clearly, able and willing to take up its responsibility, and be brave, or just consequent, enough to accept the possibly dire consequences. And the 'general public' must be informed about it, all, long and wide, into details, no shady corner left unexposed.

It is then, and then only, that some, minor, elements can be, publicly, put on a table of negotiations, for a possible 'compensation of accounts', with all the parties' agreement, to allow a general compromise, including mutual forgiveness, with the aim to enable the Kingdom of Thailand to make its first(!) true steps towards becoming(!) a true Democracy!

Mind you, an, essential, condition, si nequa non, is to be fullfilled though, and it will come hard to all 'parties' to accept it, it is that Justice must be served, not only let to but encouraged to, about all and anything being into its consideration, and, also, all and everything that should be or become of its concern! There is no 'State' without 'Law', and there is no 'Democracy' without 'Justice', for all...

And to the ones allowing themselves to (mis-?)use South Africa as an example, Nelson Mandela included: don't attempt to bend History to fit your twisted theories, what I write hereabove is the way the Great Man wanted 'Reconciliation' to happen, and largely how it did, in his country, Justice too as a matter of fact, so, please, leave the RSA out of your plea for injustice, leave Nelson Mandela out of it, it's bad enough Thaksin dared to compare himself to him (as a Statesman even Mandela had to compromise, and let himself be caught on a picture with a 'Great Democrat' (NOT!) like Robert Mugabe, or a Thaksin Shinawatra, the Thai PM, in fact, are both last not very good friends? But that's a bit off topic...)!

The small number of people that have "owned" Thailand are losing their grip.

It is inevitable that their days are numbered.

How best to make the transition?

Tit for Tat?

When the Reds are in power, after winning elections, they get on with the job of running the country and have no time for vengeance.

When the Yellows are in power, after military and judicial coups, they seek out their foes with a vengeance and have no time to administer the country.

The amnesty bill was an attempt to short-circuit this merry-go-round and bring an end to hostilities.

That the Yellows will lose this war can be seen by all bar the Yellows themselves.

When the Yellows accept the reality of their defeat, there will be an amnesty for all involved and Thailand will be able to move forward to the long term benefit of all her citizens.

As we look back on this period it will be seen for what it is, an unnecessary, costly and deadly waste of time very similar to the last weeks and months of the Japanese effort in WW2.

Let us all hope the Reds don't need to resort to the nuclear option, as the US did with Japan, to make the Yellows finally accept the reality of their defeat.

No the amnesty bill without Thaksin would be ok.. but that one with Taksin included ingited the troubles and caused this coup. Even the red leaders agree the amnesty was a mistake. He was included at the last minute late at night. While the amnesty without Thaksin was agreed upon by others

No thanks to Thaksin his arrogance some poor redshirts are still in jail. He only cares about himself, without him there could be peace.

Without Thaksin the Yellows would just create another demon to justify their continued raping and pillaging of the country at the peoples expense.

Oh Ha Ha 555555

[brucec64]

I'm 100% in favour of the dirty politicians getting what they deserve. They took this country on the road to bankruptcy and civil war and they have never shown any remorse for a single thing they did. If a few examples are made, it might make them think twice about it in the future.

Start with charges of 'abuse of power' for the 310 who voted for the amnesty disgrace. Put every single one of them in prison for 5 years.

Can you prove your claim of bankruptcy? Thailand had respectable year to year gdp growth from 2010 to 2013, and its debt to gdp ratio is much better than most first world countries. Even the rice subsidy only represented 7% of government spending. How does this support a claim of near bankruptcy?

I'm not a specialist, but, possibly, maybe, because the Trillion Baht this minimised adventure might well have cost, were not included in the State's expenditures budget, 'expected'(?!) to be 'self-supporting' as it was, or even to generate profits, according to Dr. Thaksin's 'brilliant' (NOT for Thailand, that's for sure) theory of 'Thaksinomics', possibly, maybe?

And not to mention the 2 to 3 Trillion extra the PTP 'government' wanted to levy, outside of the budget again, for two generations of Thais to finance capital and interests of, ...to spend as it pleased them, without cheks and balances, so-called for 'infrastucture', but in fact more to finance their ruinous rice pledging scheme till the expected end of their tenure, and they did go on with their attempts, even as 'caretakers', trying to coerce the EC to let it go through, did you forget about this, too?

Most First World countries are drowning in their accumulated debts, is that the right path for Thailand to follow in your opinion, or would the example of 'recent' emerging economies having as-good-as no long term debts, or none at all, not be a better one to aspire to? Isn't it that what should in essence really matter?

So, technically speaking, you are possibly right, that Thailand would not have become 'bankrupt' from it all, I don't know, I'm not a specialist, remember, but I would like to see international financial experts with credentials express a favourable opinion about what the so-called Yingluck 'government' has achieved and was planning to do further...

I did not state that these policies were fiscally prudent, only that the wild claims of "the sky is falling" were false, and they did not even come close to causing financial crisis for the country.

The 2 trillion infrastructure investment is now 3 under the junta, and their financing details are just as vague.

[Robespiere]

In Robespierre and other like-minded members' 'prosa' (it's Sunday, I'm in a good mood, so let me call it like that), I am still reading: 'coup' here, 'coup' there... May I be allowed to point out to these stakhanovist repetitive workers, that, possibly, unbiased, un-manipulated, History might decide to describe the events in a quite different way.

The most recent 'coup d'état' was perpetrated at night, about 3am, by PTP's MPs and 'affiliated' Senators (the PM was 'providentially' absent for the vote). Find out what a 'coup d'état' is, and, when you're honest, you won't be able to disagree this is really what that was. And, that makes of May 22nd a 'counter coup' then... Will you adapt to the reality of facts?

And while we are at definitions, the 2010 'reds'' 'insurgency', might also be called an attempted 'putsch' by Thaksin & Co. against the Government...

IMO, calling events by their true name puts those events into a more objective perspective, wouldn't you say, Robby?

Coup d'état: a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.

Putsch: a violent attempt to overthrow a government; a coup.

Using the above definitions, you couldn't be more wrong.

1. At 3am, the PTP were the government so they hardly committed a coup d'etat against themselves.

​2. In 2010 the Reds demanded elections, not to overthrow the unelected government of the day

IMO, not understanding the definitions of the words one uses is quite foolish.

It was a legal government because Newin his party just shifted partners. It was a coalition it was 100% legal and both Newin his party as the Democrats had won their position by votes. This is legal all over the world. Coalitions can be formed there is no need to have the party with the most votes there.

Then the red rabble came to the streets and violently tried to overthrow a legal elected government.

Not so.

[bangrak]

In Robespierre and other like-minded members' 'prosa' (it's Sunday, I'm in a good mood, so let me call it like that), I am still reading: 'coup' here, 'coup' there... May I be allowed to point out to these stakhanovist repetitive workers, that, possibly, unbiased, un-manipulated, History might decide to describe the events in a quite different way.

The most recent 'coup d'état' was perpetrated at night, about 3am, by PTP's MPs and 'affiliated' Senators (the PM was 'providentially' absent for the vote). Find out what a 'coup d'état' is, and, when you're honest, you won't be able to disagree this is really what that was. And, that makes of May 22nd a 'counter coup' then... Will you adapt to the reality of facts?

And while we are at definitions, the 2010 'reds'' 'insurgency', might also be called an attempted 'putsch' by Thaksin & Co. against the Government...

IMO, calling events by their true name puts those events into a more objective perspective, wouldn't you say, Robby?

Wow, I really hear it all. Seem you and your junta kissing clique is full of inventive ideas from bankrupting the country to civil war and now this non military coup in Parliment house. What the government did was sneaky but totally legit in passing the bill in the middle of the night. The Dems did not want to lose their beauty sleep and even if they are present will be out voted. Totally legal and only the first stage to a long process of being enacted as law which fortunately failed. Now stop these childish scenario imagination. It's hilarious.

Thank you for at least admitting it was 'sneaky', but 'legit', you can't be serious, just one tiny little question: was the text of the bill submitted to the last vote the exact same one as the one approved in the previous round, as it should have been, or had some changes, alterations, been made to it in between, what would be committing forgery and making use of forged documents?

[bangrak]

In Robespierre and other like-minded members' 'prosa' (it's Sunday, I'm in a good mood, so let me call it like that), I am still reading: 'coup' here, 'coup' there... May I be allowed to point out to these stakhanovist repetitive workers, that, possibly, unbiased, un-manipulated, History might decide to describe the events in a quite different way.

The most recent 'coup d'état' was perpetrated at night, about 3am, by PTP's MPs and 'affiliated' Senators (the PM was 'providentially' absent for the vote). Find out what a 'coup d'état' is, and, when you're honest, you won't be able to disagree this is really what that was. And, that makes of May 22nd a 'counter coup' then... Will you adapt to the reality of facts?

And while we are at definitions, the 2010 'reds'' 'insurgency', might also be called an attempted 'putsch' by Thaksin & Co. against the Government...

IMO, calling events by their true name puts those events into a more objective perspective, wouldn't you say, Robby?

Coup d'état: a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.

Putsch: a violent attempt to overthrow a government; a coup.

Using the above definitions, you couldn't be more wrong.

1. At 3am, the PTP were the government so they hardly committed a coup d'etat against themselves.

​2. In 2010 the Reds demanded elections, not to overthrow the unelected government of the day

IMO, not understanding the definitions of the words one uses is quite foolish.

It was a legal government because Newin his party just shifted partners. It was a coalition it was 100% legal and both Newin his party as the Democrats had won their position by votes. This is legal all over the world. Coalitions can be formed there is no need to have the party with the most votes there.

Then the red rabble came to the streets and violently tried to overthrow a legal elected government.

Not so.

Well so, whether you like it or not, Robespierre... Thank you robblock.

[robblok]

In Robespierre and other like-minded members' 'prosa' (it's Sunday, I'm in a good mood, so let me call it like that), I am still reading: 'coup' here, 'coup' there... May I be allowed to point out to these stakhanovist repetitive workers, that, possibly, unbiased, un-manipulated, History might decide to describe the events in a quite different way.

The most recent 'coup d'état' was perpetrated at night, about 3am, by PTP's MPs and 'affiliated' Senators (the PM was 'providentially' absent for the vote). Find out what a 'coup d'état' is, and, when you're honest, you won't be able to disagree this is really what that was. And, that makes of May 22nd a 'counter coup' then... Will you adapt to the reality of facts?

And while we are at definitions, the 2010 'reds'' 'insurgency', might also be called an attempted 'putsch' by Thaksin & Co. against the Government...

IMO, calling events by their true name puts those events into a more objective perspective, wouldn't you say, Robby?

Coup d'état: a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.

Putsch: a violent attempt to overthrow a government; a coup.

Using the above definitions, you couldn't be more wrong.

1. At 3am, the PTP were the government so they hardly committed a coup d'etat against themselves.

​2. In 2010 the Reds demanded elections, not to overthrow the unelected government of the day

IMO, not understanding the definitions of the words one uses is quite foolish.

It was a legal government because Newin his party just shifted partners. It was a coalition it was 100% legal and both Newin his party as the Democrats had won their position by votes. This is legal all over the world. Coalitions can be formed there is no need to have the party with the most votes there.

Then the red rabble came to the streets and violently tried to overthrow a legal elected government.

Not so.

What part is not true.. that Newin changed and formed an alliance with the democrats and that they had a majority after that ?

Are you denying that coalition governments exists ?

[bangrak]

I'm 100% in favour of the dirty politicians getting what they deserve. They took this country on the road to bankruptcy and civil war and they have never shown any remorse for a single thing they did. If a few examples are made, it might make them think twice about it in the future.

Start with charges of 'abuse of power' for the 310 who voted for the amnesty disgrace. Put every single one of them in prison for 5 years.

Can you prove your claim of bankruptcy? Thailand had respectable year to year gdp growth from 2010 to 2013, and its debt to gdp ratio is much better than most first world countries. Even the rice subsidy only represented 7% of government spending. How does this support a claim of near bankruptcy?

I'm not a specialist, but, possibly, maybe, because the Trillion Baht this minimised adventure might well have cost, were not included in the State's expenditures budget, 'expected'(?!) to be 'self-supporting' as it was, or even to generate profits, according to Dr. Thaksin's 'brilliant' (NOT for Thailand, that's for sure) theory of 'Thaksinomics', possibly, maybe?

And not to mention the 2 to 3 Trillion extra the PTP 'government' wanted to levy, outside of the budget again, for two generations of Thais to finance capital and interests of, ...to spend as it pleased them, without cheks and balances, so-called for 'infrastucture', but in fact more to finance their ruinous rice pledging scheme till the expected end of their tenure, and they did go on with their attempts, even as 'caretakers', trying to coerce the EC to let it go through, did you forget about this, too?

Most First World countries are drowning in their accumulated debts, is that the right path for Thailand to follow in your opinion, or would the example of 'recent' emerging economies having as-good-as no long term debts, or none at all, not be a better one to aspire to? Isn't it that what should in essence really matter?

So, technically speaking, you are possibly right, that Thailand would not have become 'bankrupt' from it all, I don't know, I'm not a specialist, remember, but I would like to see international financial experts with credentials express a favourable opinion about what the so-called Yingluck 'government' has achieved and was planning to do further...

I did not state that these policies were fiscally prudent, only that the wild claims of "the sky is falling" were false, and they did not even come close to causing financial crisis for the country.

The 2 trillion infrastructure investment is now 3 under the junta, and their financing details are just as vague.

Where did I write it was IMO the right thing to do for the present Government? I have actually been very critical about it, and asking about possible 'links' with Thaksin and the Shins (like about Dawei and the railways), but two wrongs still don't make a right, is it? For the rest, you try to work yourself around it, as we are, alas, accustomed to from the comrades of the 'soot brigade', quite sad actually...

[Robespiere]

"What part is not true.. that Newin changed and formed an alliance with the democrats and that they had a majority after that ?

Are you denying that coalition governments exists?"

New Thai prime minister chosen - CSMonitor.com

His coalition was bolted together under military pressure that induced pro-Thaksin lawmakers to cross the floor, but is beset by competing agendas and turf wars.

Edited November 9, 2014 by Robespiere

[Eric Loh]

In Robespierre and other like-minded members' 'prosa' (it's Sunday, I'm in a good mood, so let me call it like that), I am still reading: 'coup' here, 'coup' there... May I be allowed to point out to these stakhanovist repetitive workers, that, possibly, unbiased, un-manipulated, History might decide to describe the events in a quite different way.

The most recent 'coup d'état' was perpetrated at night, about 3am, by PTP's MPs and 'affiliated' Senators (the PM was 'providentially' absent for the vote). Find out what a 'coup d'état' is, and, when you're honest, you won't be able to disagree this is really what that was. And, that makes of May 22nd a 'counter coup' then... Will you adapt to the reality of facts?

And while we are at definitions, the 2010 'reds'' 'insurgency', might also be called an attempted 'putsch' by Thaksin & Co. against the Government...

IMO, calling events by their true name puts those events into a more objective perspective, wouldn't you say, Robby?

Wow, I really hear it all. Seem you and your junta kissing clique is full of inventive ideas from bankrupting the country to civil war and now this non military coup in Parliment house. What the government did was sneaky but totally legit in passing the bill in the middle of the night. The Dems did not want to lose their beauty sleep and even if they are present will be out voted. Totally legal and only the first stage to a long process of being enacted as law which fortunately failed. Now stop these childish scenario imagination. It's hilarious.

Thank you for at least admitting it was 'sneaky', but 'legit', you can't be serious, just one tiny little question: was the text of the bill submitted to the last vote the exact same one as the one approved in the previous round, as it should have been, or had some changes, alterations, been made to it in between, what would be committing forgery and making use of forged documents?

Easy question. The final amnesty bill was concluded on 18 October and was the one that was passed on the 1st Nov night session. Totally legit. It contains amnesty for all including Thaksin, Ahbisit, Sutherp etc. Lots of time for the public and the oppositions to study the details. No forgery and everyone knows the detail of the bill and were making lots of noise especially from the Dem and the PDRC. If the bill was forged, you think the PDRC and the Dem will not raise a stink on this? Have you heard them talking about this?

[visionchaser45]

Justice or revenge?

[Eric Loh]

I'm 100% in favour of the dirty politicians getting what they deserve. They took this country on the road to bankruptcy and civil war and they have never shown any remorse for a single thing they did. If a few examples are made, it might make them think twice about it in the future.

Start with charges of 'abuse of power' for the 310 who voted for the amnesty disgrace. Put every single one of them in prison for 5 years.

Can you prove your claim of bankruptcy? Thailand had respectable year to year gdp growth from 2010 to 2013, and its debt to gdp ratio is much better than most first world countries. Even the rice subsidy only represented 7% of government spending. How does this support a claim of near bankruptcy?

I'm not a specialist, but, possibly, maybe, because the Trillion Baht this minimised adventure might well have cost, were not included in the State's expenditures budget, 'expected'(?!) to be 'self-supporting' as it was, or even to generate profits, according to Dr. Thaksin's 'brilliant' (NOT for Thailand, that's for sure) theory of 'Thaksinomics', possibly, maybe?

And not to mention the 2 to 3 Trillion extra the PTP 'government' wanted to levy, outside of the budget again, for two generations of Thais to finance capital and interests of, ...to spend as it pleased them, without cheks and balances, so-called for 'infrastucture', but in fact more to finance their ruinous rice pledging scheme till the expected end of their tenure, and they did go on with their attempts, even as 'caretakers', trying to coerce the EC to let it go through, did you forget about this, too?

Most First World countries are drowning in their accumulated debts, is that the right path for Thailand to follow in your opinion, or would the example of 'recent' emerging economies having as-good-as no long term debts, or none at all, not be a better one to aspire to? Isn't it that what should in essence really matter?

So, technically speaking, you are possibly right, that Thailand would not have become 'bankrupt' from it all, I don't know, I'm not a specialist, remember, but I would like to see international financial experts with credentials express a favourable opinion about what the so-called Yingluck 'government' has achieved and was planning to do further...

I am not an expert nor an economist but I can tell you that when the international credit rating downgrade to negative, no one wants our bond, massive capital flight and current account deficit start to widen to cause the Baht to depreciate sharply, then we start to panic as it show we can't service our debt and close to bankruptcy. Actually all these situation can happen if the current Finance MInister goes ahead and introduce the new foreign investment nominee law. That can trigger a loss of foreign investor confidence and capital flight and the rest will be ugly.

[jpeg]

Indeed, why should the country forgive those who broke the law just to make those who broke the law happy.

That the law breakers and their supporters are willing to break the law again if they don't get their way should make it even more imperative that justice is done and is seen to be done.

But Hay, isn't that what the amnesty bill was all about, forgive the law breakers to make them happy ?

Didn't work then and wont work again.

Read a little on Nelson Mandela's response to apartheid with South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Council.

Sometimes it's better not to let the future be held hostage by the past.

Let us also not forget who benefits the most from any amnesty agreement. One side would get amnesty for what amounts to a single, dubious real estate conviction whilst the other for three treasonous coups and the slaughter of nearly 100 innocent citizens.

Another post from the Thaksin PR department.

You forgot to mention the 25,000 + cases of corruption that would have been forgiven or Thaksins 15 criminal cases that still are waiting for his return, then, as you note, all the deaths, injuries and destruction from the riots he instigated and funded.

Those who burnt Govt buildings, were caught with weapons of war, the men in black, those who fired the grenades which killed the army officer and the lady in the sky train station.

The red leaders who emerged from the riots as multi millionaires and PT MP's as reward for their urging their followers to violence and arson.

Those people that are still in jail because they were ignored by the PT Govt while in office, refusing to help them.

Then there is the rice pledging, those already convicted of corruption would have been forgiven and no more investigation would have taken place, we would have never known how much rice was stolen, disappeared, gone bad, we would never have known about the fake G2G deals that have already resulted in a conviction for "A close aid of Thaksin".

Corruption within the tablet scheme, the futsal courts, the list goes on.

And you try to compare with an amnesty for Abhisit and Suthep something they did not want and objected strenuously against, something which would not have been an amnesty but would have robbed them of an opportunity to clear their names.

Sometimes it's better not to let the future be held hostage by the past.

From Mr Mandela:

"Great anger and violence can never build a nation. We are striving to proceed in a manner and towards a result, which will ensure that all our people, both black and white, emerge as victors.” (Speech to European Parliament, 1990)

“Without democracy there cannot be peace.” (South Africa, May 9, 1992)

Christ! Weasel words much? How about, here we go again 'Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it' as evidenced by the insane, now, NINETEEN coups here.

BTW Nelson Mandela should absolutely NOT be quoted/associated with the circus that is Thailand

[Robespiere]

Christ! Weasel words much? How about, here we go again 'Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it' as evidenced by the insane, now, NINETEEN coups here.

BTW Nelson Mandela should absolutely NOT be quoted/associated with the circus that is Thailand

So how to end the madness?

Carry on with tit for tat forever more?

Or draw a line in the sand, let bygones be bygones, pass an amnesty bill and get on with growing up as a modern, free, open, democratic and equal society.

Can the Thais not "learn from Mandela" to prevent being "doomed to repeating" their erroneous ways?

The more Thais that follow the examples set by the likes of Mandela and Gandhi, the better off the nation will be.

[robblok]

"What part is not true.. that Newin changed and formed an alliance with the democrats and that they had a majority after that ?

Are you denying that coalition governments exists?"

New Thai prime minister chosen - CSMonitor.com

His coalition was bolted together under military pressure that induced pro-Thaksin lawmakers to cross the floor, but is beset by competing agendas and turf wars.

Yes.. the military pressured for a switch and the switch happened.. nothing wrong with it a lobby could have done the same. Nothing illegal about switching coalitions.

[Fatty123]

No special rights or preferential treatment for Democrats

I could've sworn that a very high ranking ex Democrat PM took a gang to the streets and illegally occupied government buildings? The army did nothing (of course). One could almost say it was a joint effort.

Not takin' sides here, but what if the reds had a mass demonstration in BKK? Oh yeah. They did once and 90 or so of them got massacred. Funny that.

[Robespiere]

"What part is not true.. that Newin changed and formed an alliance with the democrats and that they had a majority after that ?

Are you denying that coalition governments exists?"

New Thai prime minister chosen - CSMonitor.com

His coalition was bolted together under military pressure that induced pro-Thaksin lawmakers to cross the floor, but is beset by competing agendas and turf wars.

Yes.. the military pressured for a switch and the switch happened.. nothing wrong with it a lobby could have done the same. Nothing illegal about switching coalitions.

Yes, all normal functioning democracies operate this way.

Dismiss 2 sitting Prime Ministers, ban an entire political party, blockade the nations airport and have the military put a gun to the head of some politicians and hand over lucrative ministries to other politicians all to coerce their votes over to the "right" side.

Nothing illegal or out of the ordinary here.

I am bewildered as to why more countries don't adopt this wonderful system.

Anything similar ever happen in your homeland?

I bet not.

And if it did, I bet your fellow countrymen would abhor it.

[robblok]

"What part is not true.. that Newin changed and formed an alliance with the democrats and that they had a majority after that ?

Are you denying that coalition governments exists?"

New Thai prime minister chosen - CSMonitor.com

His coalition was bolted together under military pressure that induced pro-Thaksin lawmakers to cross the floor, but is beset by competing agendas and turf wars.

Yes.. the military pressured for a switch and the switch happened.. nothing wrong with it a lobby could have done the same. Nothing illegal about switching coalitions.

Yes, all normal functioning democracies operate this way.

Dismiss 2 sitting Prime Ministers, ban an entire political party, blockade the nations airport and have the military put a gun to the head of some politicians and hand over lucrative ministries to other politicians all to coerce their votes over to the "right" side.

Nothing illegal or out of the ordinary here.

I am bewildered as to why more countries don't adopt this wonderful system.

Anything similar ever happen in your homeland?

I bet not.

And if it did, I bet your fellow countrymen would abhor it.

Just horse trading.. and yes Newin got the posts he wanted (and was corrupt as hell and I don't like corruption so not a friend of mine.. same as Suthep.. not someone I like).

But nothing illegal about swapping sides, they were voted in.

In my homeland we got real democracy.. here because of vote buying and corruption there is none. So to compare Thai democracy with the one in my home country is as crazy as comparing Thaksin with Mandela like you are doing.

[jpeg]

Christ! Weasel words much? How about, here we go again 'Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it' as evidenced by the insane, now, NINETEEN coups here.

BTW Nelson Mandela should absolutely NOT be quoted/associated with the circus that is Thailand

So how to end the madness?

Carry on with tit for tat forever more?

Or draw a line in the sand, let bygones be bygones, pass an amnesty bill and get on with growing up as a modern, free, open, democratic and equal society.

Can the Thais not "learn from Mandela" to prevent being "doomed to repeating" their erroneous ways?

The more Thais that follow the examples set by the likes of Mandela and Gandhi, the better off the nation will be.

The madness wouldn't exist if democracy had been allowed to develop here instead of the army constantly waiting in the wings with their guns to put down any moves towards it. Our Western democracies were fought for, and unpalatable as that thought is, the fact remains democracy should have been allowed to have been fought for here. No pain no gain.

The particular traits of character possessed by Mandela and Gandhi will never be found in anyone here. Their culture doesn't allow for such development.

[MaiChai]

Indeed, why should the country forgive those who broke the law just to make those who broke the law happy.

That the law breakers and their supporters are willing to break the law again if they don't get their way should make it even more imperative that justice is done and is seen to be done.

But Hay, isn't that what the amnesty bill was all about, forgive the law breakers to make them happy ?

Didn't work then and wont work again.

Read a little on Nelson Mandela's response to apartheid with South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Council.

Sometimes it's better not to let the future be held hostage by the past.

Let us also not forget who benefits the most from any amnesty agreement. One side would get amnesty for what amounts to a single, dubious real estate conviction whilst the other for three treasonous coups and the slaughter of nearly 100 innocent citizens.

Another post from the Thaksin PR department.

You forgot to mention the 25,000 + cases of corruption that would have been forgiven or Thaksins 15 criminal cases that still are waiting for his return, then, as you note, all the deaths, injuries and destruction from the riots he instigated and funded.

Those who burnt Govt buildings, were caught with weapons of war, the men in black, those who fired the grenades which killed the army officer and the lady in the sky train station.

The red leaders who emerged from the riots as multi millionaires and PT MP's as reward for their urging their followers to violence and arson.

Those people that are still in jail because they were ignored by the PT Govt while in office, refusing to help them.

Then there is the rice pledging, those already convicted of corruption would have been forgiven and no more investigation would have taken place, we would have never known how much rice was stolen, disappeared, gone bad, we would never have known about the fake G2G deals that have already resulted in a conviction for "A close aid of Thaksin".

Corruption within the tablet scheme, the futsal courts, the list goes on.

And you try to compare with an amnesty for Abhisit and Suthep something they did not want and objected strenuously against, something which would not have been an amnesty but would have robbed them of an opportunity to clear their names.

Sometimes it's better not to let the future be held hostage by the past.

From Mr Mandela:

"Great anger and violence can never build a nation. We are striving to proceed in a manner and towards a result, which will ensure that all our people, both black and white, emerge as victors.” (Speech to European Parliament, 1990)

“Without democracy there cannot be peace.” (South Africa, May 9, 1992)

There will never be democracy in Thailand until the rich and poor are treated equal by the law. In other words the rich will always get their way by buying their way. Until this changes democracy wont happen.

[bangrak]

I'm 100% in favour of the dirty politicians getting what they deserve. They took this country on the road to bankruptcy and civil war and they have never shown any remorse for a single thing they did. If a few examples are made, it might make them think twice about it in the future.

Start with charges of 'abuse of power' for the 310 who voted for the amnesty disgrace. Put every single one of them in prison for 5 years.

Can you prove your claim of bankruptcy? Thailand had respectable year to year gdp growth from 2010 to 2013, and its debt to gdp ratio is much better than most first world countries. Even the rice subsidy only represented 7% of government spending. How does this support a claim of near bankruptcy?

I'm not a specialist, but, possibly, maybe, because the Trillion Baht this minimised adventure might well have cost, were not included in the State's expenditures budget, 'expected'(?!) to be 'self-supporting' as it was, or even to generate profits, according to Dr. Thaksin's 'brilliant' (NOT for Thailand, that's for sure) theory of 'Thaksinomics', possibly, maybe?

And not to mention the 2 to 3 Trillion extra the PTP 'government' wanted to levy, outside of the budget again, for two generations of Thais to finance capital and interests of, ...to spend as it pleased them, without cheks and balances, so-called for 'infrasture', but in fact to finance their ruinous rice pledging scheme till the expected end of their tenure, and they did go on with their attempts, even as 'caretakers', trying to coerce the EC to let it go through, did you forget about this, too?

Most First World countries are drowning in their accumulated debts, is that the right path for Thailand to follow in your opinion, or would the example of 'recent' emerging economies having as-good-as no long term debts, or none at all, not be a better one to aspire to? Isn't it that what should in essence really matter?

So, technically speaking, you are possibly right, that Thailand would not have become 'bankrupt' from it all, I don't know, I'm not a specialist, remember, but I would like to see international financial experts with credentials express a favourable opinion about what the so-called Yingluck 'government' has achieved and was planning to do further...

International financial experts with credentials don't waste their time with such nonsense, they leave it to the yellow peanuts on TVF.

Mr Robespierre, nobody forced you to react, but you felt compelled to, and you, being somewhere out of sensible arguments, couldn't resist the urge to call me names. Outside of personality issues this could be telling about, which amittedly are not of my concern, and other members here will make an opinion of their own about, I will not accept it. When you would do it again, I would have to report you for abuse. Are we clear about that?

As you present me the opportunity on a platter though, let me return and have some fun about you. Like telling you, when I would have to make a choice between being a 'peanut' and being a 'nut' like you, I'd go for the peanut, anytime. With 'yellow' you entered a danger zone, wasn't it you declaring you were by no means 'affiliated' to any colour-coded movement, just being an unbiased critical individual? Well, I can't remember anyone calling another person 'yellow' when not being 'red' himself (or the exact opposite actually), and, by doing so, you might have exposed yourself, a lot. Sorry for your obsessions, I am not 'yellow', oh no, not at all, but does it matter, as it seems to be the final argument used by Thaksin/Yingluck/Shins/PTP/UDD/'reds' worshippers when out of any sensible one, so, maybe, when coming out of your guys' mouths(!), I should feel honoured.

As for the first proposition in your sentence, it is also as coming from a child getting angry for not being able to get what it wants. Though 're-arranging' it, it might make some sense, IMO, that there was such nonsense in the actions of the PTP 'government' that international financial experts with credentials wouldn't have wasted their time about it... It is childish to reverse your words like that, I know, but it seems that behind the artifacts you use, it is the way you should be treated, as a temperamental child. Please, prove me to be wrong... Starting to answer, in a sensible, polite and factual way, the points others, not sharing your views and opinions, make, might be a very good start.

Take good care of yourself.

Edited November 9, 2014 by bangrak

[Robespiere]

"What part is not true.. that Newin changed and formed an alliance with the democrats and that they had a majority after that ?

Are you denying that coalition governments exists?"

New Thai prime minister chosen - CSMonitor.com

His coalition was bolted together under military pressure that induced pro-Thaksin lawmakers to cross the floor, but is beset by competing agendas and turf wars.

Yes.. the military pressured for a switch and the switch happened.. nothing wrong with it a lobby could have done the same. Nothing illegal about switching coalitions.

Yes, all normal functioning democracies operate this way.

Dismiss 2 sitting Prime Ministers, ban an entire political party, blockade the nations airport and have the military put a gun to the head of some politicians and hand over lucrative ministries to other politicians all to coerce their votes over to the "right" side.

Nothing illegal or out of the ordinary here.

I am bewildered as to why more countries don't adopt this wonderful system.

Anything similar ever happen in your homeland?

I bet not.

And if it did, I bet your fellow countrymen would abhor it.

Just horse trading.. and yes Newin got the posts he wanted (and was corrupt as hell and I don't like corruption so not a friend of mine.. same as Suthep.. not someone I like).

But nothing illegal about swapping sides, they were voted in.

In my homeland we got real democracy.. here because of vote buying and corruption there is none. So to compare Thai democracy with the one in my home country is as crazy as comparing Thaksin with Mandela like you are doing.

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

So Newin was bribed - isn't that corruption?

So the military was involved using strong arm tactics - isn't that anti-democratic?

Vote buying is a non issue - always has been.

I'm not comparing Thaksin with Mandela at all.

I am stating that Thailand should follow Mandela's example and focus on truth and reconciliation and forget about vengeance, i.e. all sides should support an amnesty bill that absolves all the murderers and thieves from both sides, the only price the criminals should have to pay is that all their dirty deeds must be revealed in full to all the citizens of the nation and they must live the rest of their lives with each and every one of their fellow citizens knowing what they have done.

And let's not forget the stuff you failed to comment on....

the unjust and illegal dismissal of 2 sitting Prime Ministers, the unjust and illegal disbanding of the nations largest political party and the unjust and illegal blockading of the national airport.

This is not a normal way a change of government occurs in any nation on this planet.

Only a peanut would think it is.

Edited November 9, 2014 by Robespiere

[Robespiere]

Christ! Weasel words much? How about, here we go again 'Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it' as evidenced by the insane, now, NINETEEN coups here.

BTW Nelson Mandela should absolutely NOT be quoted/associated with the circus that is Thailand

So how to end the madness?

Carry on with tit for tat forever more?

Or draw a line in the sand, let bygones be bygones, pass an amnesty bill and get on with growing up as a modern, free, open, democratic and equal society.

Can the Thais not "learn from Mandela" to prevent being "doomed to repeating" their erroneous ways?

The more Thais that follow the examples set by the likes of Mandela and Gandhi, the better off the nation will be.

The madness wouldn't exist if democracy had been allowed to develop here instead of the army constantly waiting in the wings with their guns to put down any moves towards it. Our Western democracies were fought for, and unpalatable as that thought is, the fact remains democracy should have been allowed to have been fought for here. No pain no gain.

The particular traits of character possessed by Mandela and Gandhi will never be found in anyone here. Their culture doesn't allow for such development.

You underestimate the Thai underclasses.

They are good people saddled with a horrid elite.

Democracy will wash away the filth and Thailand will eventually produce its very own Jokowi.

Edited November 9, 2014 by Robespiere

[Robespiere]

There will never be democracy in Thailand until the rich and poor are treated equal by the law. In other words the rich will always get their way by buying their way. Until this changes democracy wont happen.

Democracy is the agent of change.

It is why the elites are fighting so hard against it.

Good will triumph over evil, democracy will be re-established and eventually there will be equality.

A time of great change is coming.....

[ginjag]

There will never be democracy in Thailand until the rich and poor are treated equal by the law. In other words the rich will always get their way by buying their way. Until this changes democracy wont happen.

Democracy is the agent of change.

It is why the elites are fighting so hard against it.

Good will triumph over evil, democracy will be re-established and eventually there will be equality.

A time of great change is coming.....

Are you in the twilight years ??? The sabre tooth must have said that at some time.

[AleG]

Just horse trading.. and yes Newin got the posts he wanted (and was corrupt as hell and I don't like corruption so not a friend of mine.. same as Suthep.. not someone I like).

But nothing illegal about swapping sides, they were voted in.

In my homeland we got real democracy.. here because of vote buying and corruption there is none. So to compare Thai democracy with the one in my home country is as crazy as comparing Thaksin with Mandela like you are doing.

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

So Newin was bribed - isn't that corruption?

So the military was involved using strong arm tactics - isn't that anti-democratic?

Vote buying is a non issue - always has been.

I'm not comparing Thaksin with Mandela at all.

I am stating that Thailand should follow Mandela's example and focus on truth and reconciliation and forget about vengeance, i.e. all sides should support an amnesty bill that absolves all the murderers and thieves from both sides, the only price the criminals should have to pay is that all their dirty deeds must be revealed in full to all the citizens of the nation and they must live the rest of their lives with each and every one of their fellow citizens knowing what they have done.

And let's not forget the stuff you failed to comment on....

the unjust and illegal dismissal of 2 sitting Prime Ministers, the unjust and illegal disbanding of the nations largest political party and the unjust and illegal blockading of the national airport.

This is not a normal way a change of government occurs in any nation on this planet.

Only a peanut would think it is.

"And let's not forget the stuff you failed to comment on....

the unjust and illegal dismissal of 2 sitting Prime Ministers, the unjust and illegal disbanding of the nations largest political party and the unjust and illegal blockading of the national airport."

First point; Samak was dismissed for accepting money working on his cooking show and lying about it, that is illegal here in Thailand and in many other countries, both a legal and just outcome.

Second point: Somchai was dismissed when he lost his MP status after PPP was disbanded for electoral fraud, both a legal and just outcome.

Third point:

Forum Rules

2) You will not use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law.

[bangrak]

"What part is not true.. that Newin changed and formed an alliance with the democrats and that they had a majority after that ?

Are you denying that coalition governments exists?"

New Thai prime minister chosen - CSMonitor.com

His coalition was bolted together under military pressure that induced pro-Thaksin lawmakers to cross the floor, but is beset by competing agendas and turf wars.

Yes.. the military pressured for a switch and the switch happened.. nothing wrong with it a lobby could have done the same. Nothing illegal about switching coalitions.

Maybe some manipulated members here were too young and/or not living in Thailand at the time, to remember about the ones who helped Mr Thaksin in the saddle on his way with his new TRT to disputable elections, games and lies about assets, and other niceties, to become PM, weren't it... the Military, wasn't there a coup? When they are old enough and know about recent History, they have no excuse to get agitated about a (counter-)coup, while it was a coup that freed the way for their master to reach power over the country in the first place! Or is it a 'logic'(?!) of: coup-for-Thaksin-good-coup, coup-against-Thaksin-bad-coup kind of neanderthal stuff? It would be very 'telling' about a large group of people a Reconciliation is to be achieved with, and what will become of the whole thing too soon after, when they are let getting what they are told to want... The responsibility of Khun Prayuth and his team is immense, let us all hope they don't make out of it what we have, alas, become used to of Thailand...