5.If you are a fan of Putin's Russia or the Chinese Government, that is your choice.I don't happen to regard them as particularly good democratic examples.

Why not?

They have elections. Just like Cambodia. Isn't that all that you care about?

Funny how you skirt that issue.

If you are suggesting I believe elections are all that democracy requires you are deluded, but they are a requisite without which democracy cannot exist.

Thailand has never had a working democracy with checks/ balances, rule of law, independent courts etc and I have never claimed otherwise.It has been a faltering journey and now with a massive setback.

Right, that only leaves corruption, conflict of interest and if I remember correctly a charge of terrorism. Not too bad, isn't it

All charges that foreign nations would have no trouble extraditing a fugitive for, particularly as none of them carry the death penalty.

Remember, there's a reason why Thaksin had to flee the UK and give up his residencies there, as they were about to hand him over - so now, his only home are dodgy third-world countries....

I'm not sure on the 'giving up 'residencies'. I think it was much more a case of having asked political asylum, the British government warned Thaksin about getting involved in politics and being too vocal about it. That didn't seem to suit him and he withdrew his application. As far as I remember, that is.

That is accurate.There was never any chance he would be extradited since the motivation on the Thai side was political - not to mention the alleged offences were trivial.We know from Wikileaks and other sources elements in the old Thai guard were desperately flailing around for an offence to pin on him.One suspects wiser elements in the establishment preferred to keep him abroad.

Right, that only leaves corruption, conflict of interest and if I remember correctly a charge of terrorism. Not too bad, isn't it

All charges that foreign nations would have no trouble extraditing a fugitive for, particularly as none of them carry the death penalty.

Remember, there's a reason why Thaksin had to flee the UK and give up his residencies there, as they were about to hand him over - so now, his only home are dodgy third-world countries....

I'm not sure on the 'giving up 'residencies'. I think it was much more a case of having asked political asylum, the British government warned Thaksin about getting involved in politics and being too vocal about it. That didn't seem to suit him and he withdrew his application. As far as I remember, that is.

He owned several posh residences that he had to ultimately sell, as he could no longer return.

5.If you are a fan of Putin's Russia or the Chinese Government, that is your choice.I don't happen to regard them as particularly good democratic examples.

Why not?

They have elections. Just like Cambodia. Isn't that all that you care about?

Funny how you skirt that issue.

If you are suggesting I believe elections are all that democracy requires you are deluded, but they are a requisite without which democracy cannot exist.

Thailand has never had a working democracy with checks/ balances, rule of law, independent courts etc and I have never claimed otherwise.It has been a faltering journey and now with a massive setback.

That's exactly what I am suggesting, and you have given no indication of it being any different. So, what DOES democracy require, then?

Right, that only leaves corruption, conflict of interest and if I remember correctly a charge of terrorism. Not too bad, isn't it

All charges that foreign nations would have no trouble extraditing a fugitive for, particularly as none of them carry the death penalty.

Remember, there's a reason why Thaksin had to flee the UK and give up his residencies there, as they were about to hand him over - so now, his only home are dodgy third-world countries....

I'm not sure on the 'giving up 'residencies'. I think it was much more a case of having asked political asylum, the British government warned Thaksin about getting involved in politics and being too vocal about it. That didn't seem to suit him and he withdrew his application. As far as I remember, that is.

He owned several posh residences that he had to ultimately sell, as he could no longer return.

I didn't keep track of all of his movements, but vaguely remembering and a quick search gives at least the one below. Maybe after having his relative the M0FA give his a new passport things were easier?

2012-04-29

"Fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra arrived in the United Kingdom on Friday night and would stay in that country for about a week, his spokesman said yesterday."

http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Asia/Story/A1Story20120429-342712.html

5.If you are a fan of Putin's Russia or the Chinese Government, that is your choice.I don't happen to regard them as particularly good democratic examples.

Why not?

They have elections. Just like Cambodia. Isn't that all that you care about?

Funny how you skirt that issue.

If you are suggesting I believe elections are all that democracy requires you are deluded, but they are a requisite without which democracy cannot exist.

Thailand has never had a working democracy with checks/ balances, rule of law, independent courts etc and I have never claimed otherwise.It has been a faltering journey and now with a massive setback.

That's exactly what I am suggesting, and you have given no indication of it being any different. So, what DOES democracy require, then?

I think I have just outlined what democracy does require.In Thailand one has to be disappointed by the record of the Democrat Party which has cynically and ruinously undermined the process.The challenge was to reorganise and form a political movement that could generate countrywide support and counter Thaksin.It failed this challenge and it is frankly hard to forgive the likes of Abhisit and Korn - civilised and well educated men who knew the right thing to do but didn't do it.

Of course the military intervention just made matters a great deal worse.

Some will understand what I am saying.

I think I have just outlined what democracy does require.

No, you haven't. You consistently claim you have, but that doesn't make it so. You consistently fail to support your claims and arguments, while going off on tangents, and hoping no one notices.

What does democracy require?

If you are suggesting I believe elections are all that democracy requires you are deluded, but they are a requisite without which democracy cannot exist.

Thailand has never had a working democracy with checks/ balances, rule of law, independent courts etc and I have never claimed otherwise.It has been a faltering journey and now with a massive setback.

That's exactly what I am suggesting, and you have given no indication of it being any different. So, what DOES democracy require, then?

I think I have just outlined what democracy does require.In Thailand one has to be disappointed by the record of the Democrat Party which has cynically and ruinously undermined the process.The challenge was to reorganise and form a political movement that could generate countrywide support and counter Thaksin.It failed this challenge and it is frankly hard to forgive the likes of Abhisit and Korn - civilised and well educated men who knew the right thing to do but didn't do it.

Of course the military intervention just made matters a great deal worse.

Some will understand what I am saying.

Some may suspect what you are trying to imply. It seems you say that the Democrat party on purpose failed to counter Thaksin effectively, even cynically and ruinously undermined efforts to counter Thaksin.

I think I have just outlined what democracy does require.

No, you haven't. You consistently claim you have, but that doesn't make it so. You consistently fail to support your claims and arguments, while going off on tangents, and hoping no one notices.

What does democracy require?

Please refer to my earlier post but to expand a little - rule of law, independent judiciary, army under civilian control, strong civil society,free press, freedom of expression,fairly conducted elections.None of this is really up for debate.

I love the way you describe points you can't answer as "going off on tangent".

If you are suggesting I believe elections are all that democracy requires you are deluded, but they are a requisite without which democracy cannot exist.

Thailand has never had a working democracy with checks/ balances, rule of law, independent courts etc and I have never claimed otherwise.It has been a faltering journey and now with a massive setback.

That's exactly what I am suggesting, and you have given no indication of it being any different. So, what DOES democracy require, then?

I think I have just outlined what democracy does require.In Thailand one has to be disappointed by the record of the Democrat Party which has cynically and ruinously undermined the process.The challenge was to reorganise and form a political movement that could generate countrywide support and counter Thaksin.It failed this challenge and it is frankly hard to forgive the likes of Abhisit and Korn - civilised and well educated men who knew the right thing to do but didn't do it.

Of course the military intervention just made matters a great deal worse.

Some will understand what I am saying.

Some may suspect what you are trying to imply. It seems you say that the Democrat party on purpose failed to counter Thaksin effectively, even cynically and ruinously undermined efforts to counter Thaksin.

No you fail - again - to grasp the point.The Democrats knew they had to reform to win over the Thai people.The leadership disgracefully wouldn't do this fearing to compete in an election and preferring to ride the coat tails of the unelected vested interests that have driven this country to its current wretched state.

5.If you are a fan of Putin's Russia or the Chinese Government, that is your choice.I don't happen to regard them as particularly good democratic examples.

Why not?

They have elections. Just like Cambodia. Isn't that all that you care about?

Funny how you skirt that issue.

If you are suggesting I believe elections are all that democracy requires you are deluded, but they are a requisite without which democracy cannot exist.

Thailand has never had a working democracy with checks/ balances, rule of law, independent courts etc and I have never claimed otherwise.It has been a faltering journey and now with a massive setback.

This is about as close as to agreement that some of the opposing views on this board can come.

Elections are a prerequisite for democracy is easily agreed.

"Thailand has never had a working democracy with checks/ balances, rule of law, independent courts etc "

With that statement one would also agree. But with that, the issue is when this state of affairs is in place and for some six months to a year prior to the Junta stepping in to stop the chaos, the state of so called democracy was collapsing and on the way to being replaced with a fugitive peoples court criminals dictator controlled police state, then it becomes impossible to defend the Thaksin proxy government of the puppet Yingluck and henchmen Chalerm as being anything close to democratic. It is a bloody joke that people defend the previous elected mess as democratic when even just to begin with without going into all the other countless charges, it is run by a fugitive people courts convicted criminal who as per the context of this thread has a rap sheet of charges still to face.

From that point it only leaves those who accept that Thailand has never had a working democracy and until the Junta stepped in was being hijacked further away from any resemblance of a working democracy by Thaksin, to then take your point with the "massive setback" sarcastically reply that the massive set back was not the Junta stepping in but the corrupt, incompetent and lawless regime that they booted out. What is happening now is the usual "press reset" but the big difference this time around which one continues to hope for is this Junta is not being frightened off by time and change and world opinion and is holding the patient on course for the medicine that Thailand desperately needs if it does want the journey to be less faltering.

5.If you are a fan of Putin's Russia or the Chinese Government, that is your choice.I don't happen to regard them as particularly good democratic examples.

Why not?

They have elections. Just like Cambodia. Isn't that all that you care about?

Funny how you skirt that issue.

If you are suggesting I believe elections are all that democracy requires you are deluded, but they are a requisite without which democracy cannot exist.

Thailand has never had a working democracy with checks/ balances, rule of law, independent courts etc and I have never claimed otherwise.It has been a faltering journey and now with a massive setback.

This is about as close as to agreement that some of the opposing views on this board can come.

Elections are a prerequisite for democracy is easily agreed.

"Thailand has never had a working democracy with checks/ balances, rule of law, independent courts etc "

With that statement one would also agree. But with that, the issue is when this state of affairs is in place and for some six months to a year prior to the Junta stepping in to stop the chaos, the state of so called democracy was collapsing and on the way to being replaced with a fugitive peoples court criminals dictator controlled police state, then it becomes impossible to defend the Thaksin proxy government of the puppet Yingluck and henchmen Chalerm as being anything close to democratic. It is a bloody joke that people defend the previous elected mess as democratic when even just to begin with without going into all the other countless charges, it is run by a fugitive people courts convicted criminal who as per the context of this thread has a rap sheet of charges still to face.

From that point it only leaves those who accept that Thailand has never had a working democracy and until the Junta stepped in was being hijacked further away from any resemblance of a working democracy by Thaksin, to then take your point with the "massive setback" sarcastically reply that the massive set back was not the Junta stepping in but the corrupt, incompetent and lawless regime that they booted out. What is happening now is the usual "press reset" but the big difference this time around which one continues to hope for is this Junta is not being frightened off by time and change and world opinion and is holding the patient on course for the medicine that Thailand desperately needs if it does want the journey to be less faltering.

A reasonable and well thought through post.But you will not be surprised to hear I disagree with your conclusion.The governments elected in the last decade were hardly impressive but they had a mandate.The Democrats failed to reorganise and behaved irresponsibly since they connived at Suthep's quasi fascistic gangsterism.The current situation does not represent a reset but rather a disturbing deterioration.Your hopes for the military government are not borne out by historical experience; indeed signs of unravelling are already apparent.

What does democracy require?

Please refer to my earlier post but to expand a little - rule of law, independent judiciary, army under civilian control, strong civil society,free press, freedom of expression,fairly conducted elections.None of this is really up for debate.

So, those were all met 100% under Thaksin?

[quo hear I disagree with your conclusion.

You keep confirming that the ONLY thing you care about to declare a democratic process are elections - by this same logic, China, Russia, and Cambodia also have flourishing democracies. Yet, you reject that.

Moreover, Roadman, the last elected government, which you judge to have been failing as a democratic institution, called an election to renew its mandate, in accordance with the constitution. That election was trashed by the opposition in a cynical and well organised, and ultimately successful attempt to create the conditions required to allow the military to seize power. That was the action which hijacked the government of Thailand further away from any resemblance of a working democracy. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the current regime has no intention of restoring anything which resembles a working democracy. That is the "joke". Whether it becomes a " bloody joke" depends on the regime's response if or when any coherent opposition emerges. Given the leaders of the Juntas record, (2010) I rather fear the worst.

FUD, devoid of facts. The usual, as that's all the detractors can muster.

What does democracy require?

Please refer to my earlier post but to expand a little - rule of law, independent judiciary, army under civilian control, strong civil society,free press, freedom of expression,fairly conducted elections.None of this is really up for debate.

So, those were all met 100% under Thaksin?

No, of course not.

Mickey Mouse

George Bush

Moe Larry Currley

The Beatles

Donald Trump

All on the list too.

Who cares?

I bet some of you expats living in Thailand for more than a decade never thought Thailand would turn into what it now has become. A Military you know what. Starts with a J hunt A.

But oh well. When the economy collapses as it eventually will with this type of government, at least the girls will be plentiful again in the bars.

It is somewhat surprising that this has been allowed to happen but so it has.

I bet you boys and girls from the west never thought you would be living in a nation with a officer non-elected running things.

When the bars close and they kick you all out of the nation because there is no need for English for their people, where will you go?

Sad that this has happened but this was seeable. So it has come to be.

[quo hear I disagree with your conclusion.

You keep confirming that the ONLY thing you care about to declare a democratic process are elections - by this same logic, China, Russia, and Cambodia also have flourishing democracies. Yet, you reject that.

What on earth are you talking about? I said elections were a prerequisite to democracy but took pains to list out some of the key areas that were also needed.

What does democracy require?

Please refer to my earlier post but to expand a little - rule of law, independent judiciary, army under civilian control, strong civil society,free press, freedom of expression,fairly conducted elections.None of this is really up for debate.

So, those were all met 100% under Thaksin?

No, of course not.

In other words, the previous governments were just as un-democratic as you claim the Army government to be. Therefore, your various objections based on singling out the Army government are invalid.

If anything, the previous governments' main objective were self-enrichment and keeping themselves in power.

It can be argued that the stated goal of the Prayuth government is to restore conditions that prevent the prior abuses, and are more protective of a *real* democratic institution.

As such, we can confirm again that your ONLY criteria for endorsement are elections, and absolutely nothing else.

[quo hear I disagree with your conclusion.

You keep confirming that the ONLY thing you care about to declare a democratic process are elections - by this same logic, China, Russia, and Cambodia also have flourishing democracies. Yet, you reject that.

What on earth are you talking about? I said elections were a prerequisite to democracy but took pains to list out some of the key areas that were also needed.

Since none of your other criteria were met by prior government, the only difference left are one had elections (however corrupted they were) and the other does not. Hence, elections are your only criteria to demonize the current government, no matter how much it might achieve, or what its true intentions are.

Daffy, do you have reading comprehension issues? Jayboy listed a few things which were required for Democracy and stated the previous Govt did not fullfil them, and this means his only requirement is for elections?

I suggest re-reading what I wrote above your comment.

I have read it and it makes no sense. You are trying to misrepresent what he says. (Trying badly i might add)

I think I have just outlined what democracy does require.In Thailand one has to be disappointed by the record of the Democrat Party which has cynically and ruinously undermined the process.The challenge was to reorganise and form a political movement that could generate countrywide support and counter Thaksin.It failed this challenge and it is frankly hard to forgive the likes of Abhisit and Korn - civilised and well educated men who knew the right thing to do but didn't do it.

Of course the military intervention just made matters a great deal worse.

Some will understand what I am saying.

Some may suspect what you are trying to imply. It seems you say that the Democrat party on purpose failed to counter Thaksin effectively, even cynically and ruinously undermined efforts to counter Thaksin.

No you fail - again - to grasp the point.The Democrats knew they had to reform to win over the Thai people.The leadership disgracefully wouldn't do this fearing to compete in an election and preferring to ride the coat tails of the unelected vested interests that have driven this country to its current wretched state.

Oh, so you didn't mean the elected vested interest of PM businessman Thaksin, the one who disgracefully used the Thai State for his own interest.

The government is working with officials in foreign countries for the extradition of Thais accused of lese majeste...

There is much that could be discussed, indeed should be discussed about that statement, but of course the law itself if designed to preclude any such discussion. If ever there was an example of a thoroughly bad law, then lesé majesté is it.

I think I have just outlined what democracy does require.In Thailand one has to be disappointed by the record of the Democrat Party which has cynically and ruinously undermined the process.The challenge was to reorganise and form a political movement that could generate countrywide support and counter Thaksin.It failed this challenge and it is frankly hard to forgive the likes of Abhisit and Korn - civilised and well educated men who knew the right thing to do but didn't do it.

Of course the military intervention just made matters a great deal worse.

Some will understand what I am saying.

Some may suspect what you are trying to imply. It seems you say that the Democrat party on purpose failed to counter Thaksin effectively, even cynically and ruinously undermined efforts to counter Thaksin.

No you fail - again - to grasp the point.The Democrats knew they had to reform to win over the Thai people.The leadership disgracefully wouldn't do this fearing to compete in an election and preferring to ride the coat tails of the unelected vested interests that have driven this country to its current wretched state.

Oh, so you didn't mean the elected vested interest of PM businessman Thaksin, the one who disgracefully used the Thai State for his own interest.

No I didn't mean Thaksin as of course was obvious.Still I note the time honoured tactic lives on of invoking him when other arguments fail.

But on the whole I prefer elected vested interests to non elected vested interests - because the former can be voted out.

Since none of your other criteria were met by prior government, the only difference left are one had elections (however corrupted they were) and the other does not. Hence, elections are your only criteria to demonize the current government, no matter how much it might achieve, or what its true intentions are.

Seriously do you consider you have made a grown up point?

I have read it and it makes no sense. You are trying to misrepresent what he says. (Trying badly i might add)

I would posit, then, that you lack reading comprehension.

All the criteria that he lists as necessary for a 'democracy' were equally Non-existent or broken in prior government, as what he claims is non-existent or broken in the present government.

Thus, the ONLY differentiating criteria between the prior governments, and the current Army government, are that elections took place.

Hence, as he condemns the current Army government as 'non-democratic', yet has no such condemnations for the prior governments, it stands to reason that his ONLY criteria for a government to be considered 'democratic' is the presence of elections.

Subsequently, the governments of Russia, China and Cambodia likewise lack all the other criteria, *but* they *have* elections - yet, he somehow condemns those governments as well. Despite having elections.

So, what are, then, the criteria by which he considers a government 'democratic'? Or is it just a long-winded and blind support for one single person, with ridiculous and hypocritical rationalizations that fall apart under scrutiny?

You be the judge.

But on the whole I prefer elected vested interests to non elected vested interests - because the former can be voted out.

How's that working out for the voters of China, Russia, Cambodia, and North Korea? All having elected vested interests. It says so, right on the packaging.