US calls planned Thai poll delay to 2016 'unwise'

[Thai at Heart]

I am not sure what real difference it makes.

If the point is to really reform the country, they should be ready by around 2025.

[DaffyDuck]

Glad that you agree that the Army should remain in charge until 2025.

[thailiketoo]

Glad that you agree that the Army should remain in charge until 2025.

When do you think Thailand should have elections?

[Thai at Heart]

Glad that you agree that the Army should remain in charge until 2025.

When do you think Thailand should have elections?

Since you selectively answered my statement, they may as well get on with the constitution asap, reform the judiciary and legal system which will take at least a year, then they can get on with cleaning up corrupt politicians, another year, and then corrupt civil servants, police, and their own.

So if they do all of this properly around 2019 assuming they get all the court cases done and everyone locked up.

Of course, if this is just a hatchet job to get rid of the shins, to do a half job of appearing to selectively clean up one side to leave yourself and your cronies a free reign for the future, maybe March?

[rubl]

Actually let us focus on the topic with the USA calling a poll delay to 2016 unwise and unjustified.

good point, Rubl.

The USA is right.

Let me repeat what I wrote in this topic, about 240 posts ago on the day before Christmas:

"A delay may be unwise, but would a rushed poll be that much better only because some still think democracy = elections ?

Since Thailand is going through reforms, a constitution update, a possible referendum, the stability by having some 'government' present seems much more important than having a poll with reforms in progress and a constitution in limbo."

PS enjoy the move into 2015, stay healthy and keep smiling.

Looking forward to 'cross swords' again,

uncle rubl

Edited December 31, 2014 by rubl

[sjaak327]

So, I can only imagine your outrage and condemnation if a democratic nation like North Korean, or a democratic nation like Russia voiced their strong support for the Thai government.

A large percentage of commenters in this thread agree that the USA has no business critiquing Thailand considering the USA's history - it is quite funny to see your contortions in attempting to avoid acknowledging this.

I am not avoiding anything Daffy. I am simply stating that I don't agree that the US has no business stating what they did in the OP. Regardless of this, it doesn't make the message invalid. Thailand is run by a military junta, that abolished the constitution and replaced it with their own. Funny you should mention North Korea, as the powers now enjoyed by the junta are pretty much in compliance with the powers enjoyed by the people that run that country.

[DaffyDuck]

... and North Korea is very much a democratic country by your own definition... So, this bodes well for Thailand.

The point about the hypocrisy of the USA is pretty obvious, and as I pointed out, your contortions of avoiding this acknowledgment are telling.

[DaffyDuck]

Glad that you agree that the Army should remain in charge until 2025.

When do you think Thailand should have elections?

Right around the time when they are done with their self-appointed tasks, including the most important task, and no sooner than that. There should be no date set or given. 2025 sounds about right.

[thailiketoo]

... and North Korea is very much a democratic country by your own definition... So, this bodes well for Thailand.

The point about the hypocrisy of the USA is pretty obvious, and as I pointed out, your contortions of avoiding this acknowledgment are telling.

Can you point any other free nations that has a different opinion on the subject of this thread? No of course not. The USA has the same opinion as all of the free Western powers you are only in it to bash the USA.

You would have a smidgen of credibility if you said the hypocrisy of all the Free nations of the world but to pick out the USA when they all have the same opinion betrays your real motivation.

I happen to agree with you but in this instance you have picked the wrong dog because all the dogs are black and calling the USA a black dog makes your motives very transparent.

Edited December 31, 2014 by thailiketoo

[sjaak327]

... and North Korea is very much a democratic country by your own definition... So, this bodes well for Thailand.

The point about the hypocrisy of the USA is pretty obvious, and as I pointed out, your contortions of avoiding this acknowledgment are telling.

Daffy stop posting utter <deleted>, North Korea isn't a democracy. That it would be one by my definition comes out of your warped little mind.

[DaffyDuck]

... and North Korea is very much a democratic country by your own definition... So, this bodes well for Thailand.

The point about the hypocrisy of the USA is pretty obvious, and as I pointed out, your contortions of avoiding this acknowledgment are telling.

Daffy stop posting utter <deleted>, North Korea isn't a democracy. That it would be one by my definition comes out of your warped little mind.

It says so right on the package - DEMOCRATIC Republic of North Korea. Furthermore, they have elections. That is, after all, your only criteria. China has elections as well. So does Russia. So, now you are saying that elections aren't enough for a country to be a democracy?

[I Like Thai]

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

The beauty of the USA is I can say anything about the government I want to say without fear of reprisal. I have freedom of speech.

On this forum I can't say what I want to say about who I want to say it.

So the topic is open to USA bashing without the opportunity to explain WHY.

So let's bash the USA and ignore what's happening in Thailand.

I have quoted you when replying to your posts. On my initial post in this train I did not quote anyone as my reply was not aimed at you, there were numerous posters that complained of America hating/bashing etc, not just you.

I think it incorrect for America or Wales or any other country to go and speak negatively about another country and try to tell that country what it should and shouldn't do.

If Wales had spoken likewise and there was a topic on Thai visa, then I would also say they were incorrect in their views. If a Welsh poster agreed with the view that Wales was entitled to slate another country and took exception to anyone saying Wales was not then accused them of Wales bashing, then I would also get the impression that they were using double standards.

You wrote, "Why is it that when America speak negatively about Thailand or any other country it is seen as acceptable, but when anyone speaks negatively about America is it "America Bashing" or "America Hating"

Seems as though a lot of Americans on this thread operate a double standard.

Please provide one example.

You wrote, "I think it incorrect for America or Wales or any other country to go and speak negatively about another country and try to tell that country what it should and shouldn't do." This is obviously wrong as there have been many cases of massive human rights violations that all civilized countries of the world are bound to point out. Would you accept the Holocaust again and have other nations remain silent?

Third post in the topic, quoted above, even before anyone disagreed with the USA statement

I think that if a minority in any country is subjected to mass brutality, then other countries should do what they can to extricate these people from that country if they wish to leave and give them a home in their country. Condemning these kinds of actions with words is meaningless waffle.

On WW2, at no time did any of the countries go to war with Germany to protect the Jews or other minorities that were being massacred, this was only added as a reason long after the war finished by people that like to re write history.

There have been many Holocausts throughout history and right up to modern times that have gone unspoken about and ignore, because it was countries of the so called free world that were committing them.

[sjaak327]

... and North Korea is very much a democratic country by your own definition... So, this bodes well for Thailand.

The point about the hypocrisy of the USA is pretty obvious, and as I pointed out, your contortions of avoiding this acknowledgment are telling.

Daffy stop posting utter <deleted>, North Korea isn't a democracy. That it would be one by my definition comes out of your warped little mind.

It says so right on the package - DEMOCRATIC Republic of North Korea. Furthermore, they have elections. That is, after all, your only criteria. China has elections as well. So does Russia. So, now you are saying that elections aren't enough for a country to be a democracy?

I never claimed having elections means one has a democracy. Elections are normal in a host of countries that aren't democratic such as Laos or Cuba just to name a few.

Democracy is about letting the electorate decide who they deem fit to run their country, in neither Laos, Cuba or North Korea this is the actual case, it was previously the case in Thailand, one that I would like them to return to now. For the sake of the country and most of all the Thai citizens, who are now still under martial law.

[DaffyDuck]

Considering that 85% of Thais appear satisfied with the status quo, you do not appear to talk for Thai citizens.

"letting the electorate decide who they deem fit to run their country" - so, elections, then.

Yet, in the same sentence you claim that elections aren't the criteria for "letting the electorate decide". How are the elections in Cuba, Laos, North Korea, or Russia not "letting the people decide". How are the elections in those countries not democratic?

[thailiketoo]

Considering that 85% of Thais appear satisfied with the status quo, you do not appear to talk for Thai citizens.

"letting the electorate decide who they deem fit to run their country" - so, elections, then.

Yet, in the same sentence you claim that elections aren't the criteria for "letting the electorate decide". How are the elections in Cuba, Laos, North Korea, or Russia not "letting the people decide". How are the elections in those countries not democratic?

1. Cuba. Castro proclaimed the new administration a direct democracy, in which Cubans could assemble at demonstrations to express their democratic will. As a result, he rejected the need for elections, claiming that representative democratic systems served the interests of socio-economic elite.

2. China. Communist party picks all of the candidates that stand for election.

3. North Korea, Only one candidate appears on the ballot. Elections are ostensibly conducted by secret ballot, and a voter may cross off the candidate's name to vote against him, but must do so in a special booth without any secrecy.

^{Sorry too daffy to continue you can look up the rest.}

[thailiketoo]

I have quoted you when replying to your posts. On my initial post in this train I did not quote anyone as my reply was not aimed at you, there were numerous posters that complained of America hating/bashing etc, not just you.

I think it incorrect for America or Wales or any other country to go and speak negatively about another country and try to tell that country what it should and shouldn't do.

If Wales had spoken likewise and there was a topic on Thai visa, then I would also say they were incorrect in their views. If a Welsh poster agreed with the view that Wales was entitled to slate another country and took exception to anyone saying Wales was not then accused them of Wales bashing, then I would also get the impression that they were using double standards.

You wrote, "Why is it that when America speak negatively about Thailand or any other country it is seen as acceptable, but when anyone speaks negatively about America is it "America Bashing" or "America Hating"

Seems as though a lot of Americans on this thread operate a double standard.

Please provide one example.

You wrote, "I think it incorrect for America or Wales or any other country to go and speak negatively about another country and try to tell that country what it should and shouldn't do." This is obviously wrong as there have been many cases of massive human rights violations that all civilized countries of the world are bound to point out. Would you accept the Holocaust again and have other nations remain silent?

You wrote, "Third post in the topic, quoted above, even before anyone disagreed with the USA statement

I think that if a minority in any country is subjected to mass brutality, then other countries should do what they can to extricate these people from that country if they wish to leave and give them a home in their country. Condemning these kinds of actions with words is meaningless waffle.

On WW2, at no time did any of the countries go to war with Germany to protect the Jews or other minorities that were being massacred, this was only added as a reason long after the war finished by people that like to re write history.

There have been many Holocausts throughout history and right up to modern times that have gone unspoken about and ignore, because it was countries of the so called free world that were committing them."

You wrote, "I think it incorrect for America or Wales or any other country to go and speak negatively about another country and try to tell that country what it should and shouldn't do" AND "I think that if a minority in any country is subjected to mass brutality, then other countries should do what they can to extricate these people from that country if they wish to leave and give them a home in their country"

Which is it? Which do you believe? It seems obvious to me that one could not evacuate millions from a country without speaking ill of that country.

BTW that is exactly what happened in Operation Passage to Freedom when the USA moved the largest population of folks ever moved by boat 300,000 and the French moved another 500,000 but the evacuation of the Catholics from North Vietnam was one of the causes of the American Vietnam war.

So in the end maybe trying to control public opinion would have been a better idea.

Edited January 1, 2015 by thailiketoo

[sjaak327]

Considering that 85% of Thais appear satisfied with the status quo, you do not appear to talk for Thai citizens.

"letting the electorate decide who they deem fit to run their country" - so, elections, then.

Yet, in the same sentence you claim that elections aren't the criteria for "letting the electorate decide". How are the elections in Cuba, Laos, North Korea, or Russia not "letting the people decide". How are the elections in those countries not democratic?

So my Lao partner could decide to form a party and run for office ? Nope no chance in hell. Hence the reason why Lao PDR isn't a democracy despite having the term in the country name.

As to the 85% you mentioned, I hope you are aware that a poll taken from 626 community leaders is not representative. I understand some people are swallowing the propaganda, but let's have a real poll, say one that includes every Thai citizen eligible to vote, to see how happy and satisfied they really are.

Edited January 1, 2015 by sjaak327

[DaffyDuck]

Considering that 85% of Thais appear satisfied with the status quo, you do not appear to talk for Thai citizens.

"letting the electorate decide who they deem fit to run their country" - so, elections, then.

Yet, in the same sentence you claim that elections aren't the criteria for "letting the electorate decide". How are the elections in Cuba, Laos, North Korea, or Russia not "letting the people decide". How are the elections in those countries not democratic?

1. Cuba. Castro proclaimed the new administration a direct democracy, in which Cubans could assemble at demonstrations to express their democratic will. As a result, he rejected the need for elections, claiming that representative democratic systems served the interests of socio-economic elite.

2. China. Communist party picks all of the candidates that stand for election.

3. North Korea, Only one candidate appears on the ballot. Elections are ostensibly conducted by secret ballot, and a voter may cross off the candidate's name to vote against him, but must do so in a special booth without any secrecy.

^{Sorry too daffy to continue you can look up the rest.}

So, are you saying that elections, manipulated by the elite for their own benefits, do not qualify as 'democratic', then?

Are you saying that Castro was wrong?

[thailiketoo]

Considering that 85% of Thais appear satisfied with the status quo, you do not appear to talk for Thai citizens.

"letting the electorate decide who they deem fit to run their country" - so, elections, then.

Yet, in the same sentence you claim that elections aren't the criteria for "letting the electorate decide". How are the elections in Cuba, Laos, North Korea, or Russia not "letting the people decide". How are the elections in those countries not democratic?

1. Cuba. Castro proclaimed the new administration a direct democracy, in which Cubans could assemble at demonstrations to express their democratic will. As a result, he rejected the need for elections, claiming that representative democratic systems served the interests of socio-economic elite.

2. China. Communist party picks all of the candidates that stand for election.

3. North Korea, Only one candidate appears on the ballot. Elections are ostensibly conducted by secret ballot, and a voter may cross off the candidate's name to vote against him, but must do so in a special booth without any secrecy.

^{Sorry too daffy to continue you can look up the rest.}

So, are you saying that elections, manipulated by the elite for their own benefits, do not qualify as 'democratic', then?

Are you saying that Castro was wrong?

Free, fair and regular elections are the essential principle of Democracy. If you don't know the meaning of free, fair and regular try a dictionary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Edited January 1, 2015 by thailiketoo

[mikemac]

Anyone who thinks that "Free, fair and regular elections" are the beginning and the end of democracy is a bit "slow".

What is the point of even having elections if that is the only process the voters are going to have a say in ? Seems like lately in Thailand once a party is elected the government just does what it wants and the people who elected them have no say in anything at all.

I am reminded of the rice farmers going to Bangkok to protest about the rice scheme and being sent home with a truckload of empty promises and blatant lies.

[thailiketoo]

Anyone who thinks that "Free, fair and regular elections" are the beginning and the end of democracy is a bit "slow".

What is the point of even having elections if that is the only process the voters are going to have a say in ? Seems like lately in Thailand once a party is elected the government just does what it wants and the people who elected them have no say in anything at all.

I am reminded of the rice farmers going to Bangkok to protest about the rice scheme and being sent home with a truckload of empty promises and blatant lies.

You have Free, fair and regular elections and if your representatives don't do as you wish you vote them out. That is the principle of Democracy. There is no democracy that gives the citizens more than that.

[DaffyDuck]

Anyone who thinks that "Free, fair and regular elections" are the beginning and the end of democracy is a bit "slow".

Pretty good summary. Thanks.

The naïveté of some of the Thaksin aficionados in these threads is astounding - but your summary does explain most of it rather well.

Edited January 1, 2015 by DaffyDuck

[Thai at Heart]

Anyone who thinks that "Free, fair and regular elections" are the beginning and the end of democracy is a bit "slow".

Pretty good summary. Thanks.

The naïveté of some of the Thaksin aficionados in these threads is astounding - but your summary does explain most of it rather well.

Well they may not be the end of democracy, but they are somewhere at the.start

Edited January 1, 2015 by Thai at Heart

[tbthailand]

Considering that 85% of Thais appear satisfied with the status quo, you do not appear to talk for Thai citizens.

"letting the electorate decide who they deem fit to run their country" - so, elections, then.

Yet, in the same sentence you claim that elections aren't the criteria for "letting the electorate decide". How are the elections in Cuba, Laos, North Korea, or Russia not "letting the people decide". How are the elections in those countries not democratic?

So my Lao partner could decide to form a party and run for office ? Nope no chance in hell. Hence the reason why Lao PDR isn't a democracy despite having the term in the country name.

As to the 85% you mentioned, I hope you are aware that a poll taken from 626 community leaders is not representative. I understand some people are swallowing the propaganda, but let's have a real poll, say one that includes every Thai citizen eligible to vote, to see how happy and satisfied they really are.

he's just making it up as he goes so that he can spread his bird-poop around the forum.

my guess is that he just wants to disgust the pro-democracy people so much that they stop posting about rational, self-governance and democratic principles. He seems to like the 'NCPO' being in charge of the country.

He's not alone, there are many anti-democrats in Thailand who are as pleased as pigs in a poke right now.

[thailiketoo]

Anyone who thinks that "Free, fair and regular elections" are the beginning and the end of democracy is a bit "slow".

What is the point of even having elections if that is the only process the voters are going to have a say in ? Seems like lately in Thailand once a party is elected the government just does what it wants and the people who elected them have no say in anything at all.

I am reminded of the rice farmers going to Bangkok to protest about the rice scheme and being sent home with a truckload of empty promises and blatant lies.

What other system do you propose? Democracy with Free, fair and regular elections is the only system that has worked unless you want to point another that I am unaware of. You are an Australian would you rather live in N Korea or Cuba?

[DaffyDuck]

"The only system that has worked" - it all comes back to you folks being naive, and extremely weltfremd.

my guess is that he just wants to disgust the pro-democracy people so much that they stop posting about rational, self-governance and democratic principles. He seems to like the 'NCPO' being in charge of the country.

I thought we were talking about Thailand?

Funny how the same could be said about you - you seem to have liked a criminal being in charge of the country who usurped and abused democratic principles. As I point out earlier - as you weren't complaining and outraged about Thaksin doing exactly what you denounce, your arguments are invalid.

You are an Australian would you rather live in N Korea or Cuba?

I love how, when cornered, you resort to ridiculous extremes. Edited January 1, 2015 by DaffyDuck

[thailiketoo]

You are an Australian would you rather live in N Korea or Cuba?

I love how, when cornered, you resort to ridiculous extremes.

You edited my post to completely change the meaning in violation of rule 16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post. You have posted enough to know the rules why not use them?

"Here is what I wrote, "What other system do you propose? Democracy with Free, fair and regular elections is the only system that has worked unless you want to point another that I am unaware of. You are an Australian would you rather live in N Korea or Cuba?"

[thailiketoo]

"The only system that has worked" - it all comes back to you folks being naive, and extremely weltfremd.

This is not a German forum post in English please. What other political system do you propose for Thailand besides Democracy?

[DaffyDuck]

Sorry your google is broken - it's amusing how you folks, when cornered and waning, resort to whining and crying foul to mommy.

It appears that the former implementation of democracy did not work for Thailand, as it was usurped, abused and manipulated by a criminal and his family.

Hence, what is happening right now is the appropriate 'fix' - a suspension of the system, along with a much needed reform, before the system has a chance at a true democratic implementation again.

In economics this would be called a 'correction' - socially, this would be called an 'intervention' - I'm sure you know what these terms are, given that they are English.

As such, Prayuth is performing a much needed intervention in order to prevent the Thai political system from degenerating into something akin to Laos, Cambodia or North Korea. It's unfortunate that your shortsighted interpretation of current events is unable to grasp the much larger pictures that are at stake.

[tbthailand]

"The only system that has worked" - it all comes back to you folks being naive, and extremely weltfremd.

my guess is that he just wants to disgust the pro-democracy people so much that they stop posting about rational, self-governance and democratic principles. He seems to like the 'NCPO' being in charge of the country.

I thought we were talking about Thailand?

Funny how the same could be said about you - you seem to have liked a criminal being in charge of the country who usurped and abused democratic principles. As I point out earlier - as you weren't complaining and outraged about Thaksin doing exactly what you denounce, your arguments are invalid.

You are an Australian would you rather live in N Korea or Cuba?

I love how, when cornered, you resort to ridiculous extremes.

see, this is why you are a Quack.

you just make things up about other posters and then criticize them for your imaginary positions.

waddle on, daffy