Army 'needs martial law to shield itself'

[DaffyDuck]

don't the supporters of authoritarian rule not see that most adults take gross bloody offence at other self-appointed adults telling them what to do, think and behave?

I think, if anything, that's a personal problem specific to you.

No matter what government you are dealing with, you ALWAYS have other adults telling you what to do, think, and how to behave. There is no difference in a so-called 'democratic' society, so your argument is quite invalid.

Stop posting on here.

So, you object to being told what to do, yet have no problem issuing commands to others. Very funny.

Yes, I understand how being confronted with accurate information would make you feel uncomfortable - it's called 'cognitive dissonance' - but if you desire to participate in a discussion, then you will need to substantiate your statements - with more than implied threats of censorship to support your 'freedom' position, y'know.

Edited January 7, 2015 by DaffyDuck

[DaffyDuck]

Anyway, I'm sure Martial Law will be lifted in time for elections to be arranged and conducted under normal law. As history teaches us the Military did that before

Exactly - that part of history seems to be what some people tend to forget, while consistently regurgitating the parts of history that haven't been repeated at this time.

In recent coups, the military has repeatedly and predictably stepped back, to allow another stab at the democratic process. There is no reason to assume it won't do so again, once they have created an even and fair playground in a couple of years.

Edited January 7, 2015 by DaffyDuck

[baboon]

don't the supporters of authoritarian rule not see that most adults take gross bloody offence at other self-appointed adults telling them what to do, think and behave?

I think, if anything, that's a personal problem specific to you.

No matter what government you are dealing with, you ALWAYS have other adults telling you what to do, think, and how to behave. There is no difference in a so-called 'democratic' society, so your argument is quite invalid.

Stop posting on here.

So, you object to being told what to do, yet have no problem issuing commands to others. Very funny.

Yes, I understand how being confronted with accurate information would make you feel uncomfortable - it's called 'cognitive dissonance' - but if you desire to participate in a discussion, then you will need to substantiate your statements - with more than implied threats of censorship to support your 'freedom' position, y'know.

My post was not solely aimed at you, Mr Vituperative - not everything is about you, believe it or not - and you clearly misunderstood or chose to misunderstand it anyway.

Have a nice day!

[DaffyDuck]

My post was not solely aimed at you, Mr Vituperative - not everything is about you, believe it or not - and you clearly misunderstood or chose to misunderstand it anyway.

That's funny. Hilarious, even.

[baboon]

Thank you. I am available for parties.

[rubl]

^^

Exactly, rubl and who the hell am I to be telling people what to do? That was my point.

No offence meant, you mean "monkey see, monkey do" ?

[DaffyDuck]

Nicely done.

[sjaak327]

Of course, you have (as usual) refused to do so - instead, deflecting (sorry, 'explaining) things that weren't and aren't salient to this discussion (but which you apparently enjoy repeating ad nauseam).

Nobody asked you to provide sources for the suspended constitution and the establishment of martial law (albeit, just for the record, you really haven't provided sources for that either... but I'd digress).

How is the point about martial law not relevant to the discussion, did you actually read what this topic is about ?

Both are very relevant to your counter claim that they are clean and saintly. Why would I need to provide sources for those Daffy, are you denying those have occured ?

You were asked (and, of course, you know that, but are playing 'dumb') to provided sources for you 'begging the question' claim of "Are you convinced members of the NCPO aren't lining their pockets right now ? How about members of the government that refuse to give up their army position, it can't be for the pay, as that isn't anything special."

... and, of course, you didn't provide any sources for that (as usual).

The last "claim" was reported in the news and has since been commented on by prayuth: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/789729-no-generals-are-about-to-retire-prayut-says/

his comments by the way are a great read. At least he assured us there will be no more coups, which I guess ties in with the claims in this OP.

the first claim wasn't a claim of course, but would be in line with the evidence or sources that are being used to paint the previous government. The question isn't outrageous considering the military's history.

[heybruce]

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

Some are consistently pointing to the past to avoid discussing the present. The OP is all about the present and the future, yet the junta supporters can only discuss the past.

Is that why YOU and other anti-military folks keep consistently and repeatedly bringing up the Army's actions from the past, 1976, 1992, instead of acknowledging the actions and behavior of the present?

So far, myself, rubl and others keep attempting to focus you and others on the present, to which you and your red friends consistently deflect to the past. Every single time.

Projecting. It's what you do.

I'm sure Sondhi appreciates the route to better democracy amidst the hail of bullets.

Remember this:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2009/05/04/the-sondhi-limthongkul-assassination-effort/

Was this part of the road to better democracy?

You're making this too easy--you criticize me and others for learning from history, then use an article from 2009 to support, um, I'm not sure what your post is supposed to support.

Also, "anti-military"? You must be ginjag.

Edited January 7, 2015 by heybruce

[heybruce]

Well, if some constantly point to the past of Thailand, we're also not discussing democracy or lack of corruption.

Some are consistently pointing to the past to avoid discussing the present. The OP is all about the present and the future, yet the junta supporters can only discuss the past.

Thailand had a flawed democracy that could have evolved into something better. Every functioning democracy I am aware of started out as a flawed democracy that had to learn from experience to become a functioning democracy. No democracy that I am aware of originated in military rule, unless you count those countries that were so disgusted by military rule the people kicked the generals out in order to bring about democracy.

So complain some only want to discuss the past following which you do so yourself?

Anyway, I'm sure Martial Law will be lifted in time for elections to be arranged and conducted under normal law. As history teaches us the Military did that before

I didn't complain about learning from history, I pointed out that some posters were trying to divert attention from the present with the old "Thaksin the bogeyman" diversion.

But on the subject of history, why is it that Thailand's history of corrupt military rule is not pertinent to the present discussion, but the military's history of eventually lifting martial law is significant?

Edited January 7, 2015 by heybruce

[heybruce]

Someone who writes "what history learned some of us." shouldn't criticize.

No, I was giving a quick reply to a poster who used a simple error in dates as an excuse to not defend foolish posts about Prayuth being elected by the NLA, Yingluck asking for but not receiving military assistance, and other indefensible nonsense.

It's quite obvious that you were clearly admonishing someone for his 'crime' of not being a native English speaker, and essentially asserting that he doesn't have the right to participate in your debate if he doesn't speak English.

Your full quote (since you are so concerned about being quoted accurately): "Someone who writes "what history learned some of us." shouldn't criticize."

If the debate had been about English proficiency, you might have had a minor case, but as it wasn't, and seeing as how you forbade him to participate solely based on his English proficiency / mistake, you have no wiggle room.

Your attempt to backpedal and rationalize your statement is just sad. A simple "hey, sorry, I didn't mean this" would have been the appropriate, mature way to conclude this snafu.

First you edit my post and then you do the same thing I accused another poster of doing. The part you edited out was:

"As far as my demanding something, I demanded nothing. You seem to be one of those posters who like to exaggerate the trivial to ridiculous proportions.'

I direct a similar reply to you--I "forbade" nothing, you want to exaggerate the trivial to ridiculous proportions.

Edited January 7, 2015 by heybruce

[heybruce]

Some are consistently pointing to the past to avoid discussing the present. The OP is all about the present and the future, yet the junta supporters can only discuss the past.

Thailand had a flawed democracy that could have evolved into something better. Every functioning democracy I am aware of started out as a flawed democracy that had to learn from experience to become a functioning democracy. No democracy that I am aware of originated in military rule, unless you count those countries that were so disgusted by military rule the people kicked the generals out in order to bring about democracy.

Yes Bruce, it COULD have evolved into something better, but all the signs were there that is was heading downhill fast. When your elected criminals get a bit too blatant, it is time to try a different path.

The claim that being elected gives them the right to pervert justice and steal until satisfied, and they never are, right up to their last day of term, and then escape prosecution because they gave themselves an amnesty, is rubbish. How does that lead to a better democracy?

When they eliminate or starve the anti-corruption agencies and buy off the police, how does that lead to a better democracy?

When they use part of the proceeds of crime to buy enough votes, or propose utterly ruinous populism, to return to office, how does that lead to a better democracy?

When the former government called for elections and attempted to give the voters a chance to choose different leaders, that gave the people of Thailand a chance at a better democracy. It wouldn't have happened as fast as the 'quick-fix' crowd would like, but it would eventually have happened, given enough time and elections without a military coup.

How does a military government that, according to the OP, needs to maintain martial law to protect itself from the military, lead to a better democracy?

[brucec64]

Some are consistently pointing to the past to avoid discussing the present. The OP is all about the present and the future, yet the junta supporters can only discuss the past.

Thailand had a flawed democracy that could have evolved into something better. Every functioning democracy I am aware of started out as a flawed democracy that had to learn from experience to become a functioning democracy. No democracy that I am aware of originated in military rule, unless you count those countries that were so disgusted by military rule the people kicked the generals out in order to bring about democracy.

Yes Bruce, it COULD have evolved into something better, but all the signs were there that is was heading downhill fast. When your elected criminals get a bit too blatant, it is time to try a different path.

The claim that being elected gives them the right to pervert justice and steal until satisfied, and they never are, right up to their last day of term, and then escape prosecution because they gave themselves an amnesty, is rubbish. How does that lead to a better democracy?

When they eliminate or starve the anti-corruption agencies and buy off the police, how does that lead to a better democracy?

When they use part of the proceeds of crime to buy enough votes, or propose utterly ruinous populism, to return to office, how does that lead to a better democracy?

When the former government called for elections and attempted to give the voters a chance to choose different leaders, that gave the people of Thailand a chance at a better democracy. It wouldn't have happened as fast as the 'quick-fix' crowd would like, but it would eventually have happened, given enough time and elections without a military coup.

How does a military government that, according to the OP, needs to maintain martial law to protect itself from the military, lead to a better democracy?

How does a military government, even if they fund anti-corruption agencies, prevent corruption when they will not tackle corruption within the military, and sweep any hint of corruption under the carpet (microphones, general's wealth are good examples).

The last PM was finally taken down for a single act of nepotism, yet the junta has used nepotism and cronyism to fill literally hundreds of bureurocratic, state enterprise and government positions.

The current impeachment case is for the attempt to change a single clause of the last constitution, I don`t have to bother to explain what the junta did in regards to the last constitution!

This junta government is, at best, a lateral shift from the previous government. This is disgraceful since they took power on the premise that they would do better.

[rubl]

Finding 13 replies on my posts and quickly scanning through them, I've decided that to reply on the replies is just a waste of time. When HeyBruce even managed to move the 2010 'unrest' into 2006 I even wondered what history learned some of us.

So, forget it.

Yours truly,

uncle rubl

Ok, I got a date messed up. Someone who writes "what history learned some of us." shouldn't criticize.

But you are denying the right of a non-native English speaker the right to criticize. Surely that in itself is not democratic. Hypocrite.

No, I was giving a quick reply to a poster who used a simple error in dates as an excuse to not defend foolish posts about Prayuth being elected by the NLA, Yingluck asking for but not receiving military assistance, and other indefensible nonsense.

As far as my demanding something, I demanded nothing. You seem to be one of those posters who like to exaggerate the trivial to ridiculous proportions.

For someone not demanding anything you're demanding in getting answers to your questions. Questions I call less relevant to be friendly. That some of my posts offend you to the point of calling them 'foolish' and 'indefensible' only shows a certain lack of acceptance of free speech. IMHO.

Anyway, maybe I need protection, almost like the army needs the Martial Law, allegedly that is

[rubl]

I've been wondering about long stories based on a functioning democracy and non-corrupt politicians. Somehow those don't seem to have much to do with topics here. Here we discuss Thailand.

I guess these folks aren't really familiar with Thailand, or maybe they are talking about some utopian place with the same name. They probably have never been there, is my guess.

Funny you should say that Daffy, I know you haven't got the slightest clue when it comes to Thailand, how else could you possibly believe the current junta is trying to stop corruption. These are people from the military, and no, they aren't this rich because they married a rich wife any more than they got money due to a land sale.

The military has always been one of the most corrupt organizations in Thailand, and they are currently ensuring this will continue for quite some time.

Oh by the way, nice try bringing Thaksin into this discussion, I don't care about him and I certainly don't care his remark about not criticizing the junta, one must believe the bloke cut a deal, which again wouldn't be a huge surprise considering the parties involved and the country concerned.

Together with the deal some say to be cut with the Thaksin clone it would seem that going back to pre-coup times would not be an improvement as it involves some 'we' don't care about, somehow.

Edited January 7, 2015 by rubl

[rubl]

Paradoxicracy...... go watch it and learn all about your beloved coups,Thai freedom and elites BS games entwined with the military.

You don't need to listen to your GF or equally clueless average Thai, there are those outside of Thailand that have a far more balanced, non political bias and detailed understanding of things and papers or articles that can't be posted here. Go read something that isnt muzzled and censored, if you dont then you cannot have an understanding of the game being played.

But that would be too hard for some to grasp no doubt as it would lead to the simple obvious conclusion that the intention has never been to allow Thailand or its people a democratic choice of direction for long. Even one they may regret will never be allowed to really appreciate making a mistake because before the people are allowed to reject them at an election and learn, the option is taken away......

Morons you might think but thats the point, keep things stable enough to muddle along but unstable enough to get away with coup after coup... reset, rinse and repeat is all it'll ever be until a proper...............

To be fair, those outside would also understand that the Military government might not be really worse from previous elected governments. That's apart from the 'democracy' bit which wasn't really democratic anyway.

[tbthailand]

I've been wondering about long stories based on a functioning democracy and non-corrupt politicians. Somehow those don't seem to have much to do with topics here. Here we discuss Thailand.

I guess these folks aren't really familiar with Thailand, or maybe they are talking about some utopian place with the same name. They probably have never been there, is my guess.

Funny you should say that Daffy, I know you haven't got the slightest clue when it comes to Thailand, how else could you possibly believe the current junta is trying to stop corruption. These are people from the military, and no, they aren't this rich because they married a rich wife any more than they got money due to a land sale.

The military has always been one of the most corrupt organizations in Thailand, and they are currently ensuring this will continue for quite some time.

None of which has anything to do with THE PRESENT, of course.

Yep, like I thought - he probably doesn't even know where Thailand is on a map. It's very similar to debating politics with libertarians.

None of which has anything to do with THE PRESENT, of course.

a demonstrably false statement, which makes this...

Yep, like I thought - he probably doesn't even know where Thailand is on a map.

completely laughable.

[rubl]

Well, if some constantly point to the past of Thailand, we're also not discussing democracy or lack of corruption.

Some are consistently pointing to the past to avoid discussing the present. The OP is all about the present and the future, yet the junta supporters can only discuss the past.

Thailand had a flawed democracy that could have evolved into something better. Every functioning democracy I am aware of started out as a flawed democracy that had to learn from experience to become a functioning democracy. No democracy that I am aware of originated in military rule, unless you count those countries that were so disgusted by military rule the people kicked the generals out in order to bring about democracy.

So complain some only want to discuss the past following which you do so yourself?

Anyway, I'm sure Martial Law will be lifted in time for elections to be arranged and conducted under normal law. As history teaches us the Military did that before

I didn't complain about learning from history, I pointed out that some posters were trying to divert attention from the present with the old "Thaksin the bogeyman" diversion.

But on the subject of history, why is it that Thailand's history of corrupt military rule is not pertinent to the present discussion, but the military's history of eventually lifting martial law is significant?

But you asked why some only want to talk about the past?

As for your question, indeed the subject is not history, but 'the Armies need for the Martial Law'. That's why their handling of the Martial Law and lifting of it in the past is significant. In other topics you may want to discuss other aspects.

[tbthailand]

But you are denying the right of a non-native English speaker the right to criticize. Surely that in itself is not democratic. Hypocrite.

No, I was giving a quick reply to a poster who used a simple error in dates as an excuse to not defend foolish posts about Prayuth being elected by the NLA, Yingluck asking for but not receiving military assistance, and other indefensible nonsense.

As far as my demanding something, I demanded nothing. You seem to be one of those posters who like to exaggerate the trivial to ridiculous proportions.

For someone not demanding anything you're demanding in getting answers to your questions. Questions I call less relevant to be friendly. That some of my posts offend you to the point of calling them 'foolish' and 'indefensible' only shows a certain lack of acceptance of free speech. IMHO.

Anyway, maybe I need protection, almost like the army needs the Martial Law, allegedly that is

free speech means that you have the right to make foolish and indefensible statements.

it also means HB can identify your statements as such. I feel reasonably certain that he would himself defend your right to make such statements.

I find your replies to be mostly obtuse & evasive, and usually including a tangential comment to deflect the discussion.

just my opinion, of course. just as it is my opinion that the army will likely keep martial law for a long time in order to effectively silence any opposition. I wonder if they will lift it just before the allow the next elections... if and when that happens.

[rubl]

But you are denying the right of a non-native English speaker the right to criticize. Surely that in itself is not democratic. Hypocrite.

No, I was giving a quick reply to a poster who used a simple error in dates as an excuse to not defend foolish posts about Prayuth being elected by the NLA, Yingluck asking for but not receiving military assistance, and other indefensible nonsense.

As far as my demanding something, I demanded nothing. You seem to be one of those posters who like to exaggerate the trivial to ridiculous proportions.

For someone not demanding anything you're demanding in getting answers to your questions. Questions I call less relevant to be friendly. That some of my posts offend you to the point of calling them 'foolish' and 'indefensible' only shows a certain lack of acceptance of free speech. IMHO.

Anyway, maybe I need protection, almost like the army needs the Martial Law, allegedly that is

free speech means that you have the right to make foolish and indefensible statements.

it also means HB can identify your statements as such. I feel reasonably certain that he would himself defend your right to make such statements.

I find your replies to be mostly obtuse & evasive, and usually including a tangential comment to deflect the discussion.

just my opinion, of course. just as it is my opinion that the army will likely keep martial law for a long time in order to effectively silence any opposition. I wonder if they will lift it just before the allow the next elections... if and when that happens.

You should have written "free speech means people have the right to make foolish and indefensible statements" following which you might have added you think my remarks fall in the category. Of course it would help if apart from putting labels on my remarks you would also give reasoning a bit more detailed than just the label 'obtuse, evasive, tangential, deflective'. In a way just putting labels without explanation is disruptive and deflective in itself. IMHO and all that my dear TB.

Your last paragraph is more like it. We believe different things there, but that's no problem.

[rubl]

How does a military government, even if they fund anti-corruption agencies, prevent corruption when they will not tackle corruption within the military, and sweep any hint of corruption under the carpet (microphones, general's wealth are good examples).

The last PM was finally taken down for a single act of nepotism, yet the junta has used nepotism and cronyism to fill literally hundreds of bureurocratic, state enterprise and government positions.

The current impeachment case is for the attempt to change a single clause of the last constitution, I don`t have to bother to explain what the junta did in regards to the last constitution!

This junta government is, at best, a lateral shift from the previous government. This is disgraceful since they took power on the premise that they would do better.

you're a bit theatric with your "used nepotism and cronyism to fill literally hundreds of bureurocratic, state enterprise and government positions." Also somewhat inaccurate I think. Could you expand a bit more, qualify and quantify ?

[brucec64]

How does a military government, even if they fund anti-corruption agencies, prevent corruption when they will not tackle corruption within the military, and sweep any hint of corruption under the carpet (microphones, general's wealth are good examples).

The last PM was finally taken down for a single act of nepotism, yet the junta has used nepotism and cronyism to fill literally hundreds of bureurocratic, state enterprise and government positions.

The current impeachment case is for the attempt to change a single clause of the last constitution, I don`t have to bother to explain what the junta did in regards to the last constitution!

This junta government is, at best, a lateral shift from the previous government. This is disgraceful since they took power on the premise that they would do better.

you're a bit theatric with your "used nepotism and cronyism to fill literally hundreds of bureurocratic, state enterprise and government positions." Also somewhat inaccurate I think. Could you expand a bit more, qualify and quantify ?

NLA and NRC for a start - that`s in the hundreds without even going into state boards like Thai and PTT, the cabinet, and most of the top bureaucratic posts. So, not theatric, but truthful. If you need more proof, there is a wonderful tool called google.

[rubl]

How does a military government, even if they fund anti-corruption agencies, prevent corruption when they will not tackle corruption within the military, and sweep any hint of corruption under the carpet (microphones, general's wealth are good examples).

The last PM was finally taken down for a single act of nepotism, yet the junta has used nepotism and cronyism to fill literally hundreds of bureurocratic, state enterprise and government positions.

The current impeachment case is for the attempt to change a single clause of the last constitution, I don`t have to bother to explain what the junta did in regards to the last constitution!

This junta government is, at best, a lateral shift from the previous government. This is disgraceful since they took power on the premise that they would do better.

you're a bit theatric with your "used nepotism and cronyism to fill literally hundreds of bureurocratic, state enterprise and government positions." Also somewhat inaccurate I think. Could you expand a bit more, qualify and quantify ?

NLA and NRC for a start - that`s in the hundreds without even going into state boards like Thai and PTT, the cabinet, and most of the top bureaucratic posts. So, not theatric, but truthful. If you need more proof, there is a wonderful tool called google.

Maybe we should look at the definition of 'nepotism' and 'cronyism' ?

[brucec64]

How does a military government, even if they fund anti-corruption agencies, prevent corruption when they will not tackle corruption within the military, and sweep any hint of corruption under the carpet (microphones, general's wealth are good examples).

The last PM was finally taken down for a single act of nepotism, yet the junta has used nepotism and cronyism to fill literally hundreds of bureurocratic, state enterprise and government positions.

The current impeachment case is for the attempt to change a single clause of the last constitution, I don`t have to bother to explain what the junta did in regards to the last constitution!

This junta government is, at best, a lateral shift from the previous government. This is disgraceful since they took power on the premise that they would do better.

you're a bit theatric with your "used nepotism and cronyism to fill literally hundreds of bureurocratic, state enterprise and government positions." Also somewhat inaccurate I think. Could you expand a bit more, qualify and quantify ?

NLA and NRC for a start - that`s in the hundreds without even going into state boards like Thai and PTT, the cabinet, and most of the top bureaucratic posts. So, not theatric, but truthful. If you need more proof, there is a wonderful tool called google.

Maybe we should look at the definition of 'nepotism' and 'cronyism' ?

cro·ny·ism

ˈkrōnēˌizəm/

noun

derogatory

noun: cronyism; noun: croneyism

1. the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.

I would say that applies, at a minimum, to the 100+ military members in the NLA, as well as the non-qualified cabinet members, who were chosen because of loyalty rather than qualifications. Also applies to military members appointed to state enterprise boards,

[rubl]

Maybe we should look at the definition of 'nepotism' and 'cronyism' ?

cro·ny·ism

ˈkrōnēˌizəm/

noun

derogatory

noun: cronyism; noun: croneyism

1. the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.

I would say that applies, at a minimum, to the 100+ military members in the NLA, as well as the non-qualified cabinet members, who were chosen because of loyalty rather than qualifications. Also applies to military members appointed to state enterprise boards,

The NLA members qualify as required in the Interim Constitution. The qualifications required are not really different from the qualifications one required of aspiring candidate MPs in the 2007 or even 1997 Constitution.

As for 'non-qualified cabinet members' name some.

Nepotism doesn't apply at all I think, not even with PM Prayut's little brother.

None of this has anything to do with needing Martial Law by the way.

Edited January 7, 2015 by rubl

[brucec64]

Maybe we should look at the definition of 'nepotism' and 'cronyism' ?

cro·ny·ism

ˈkrōnēˌizəm/

noun

derogatory

noun: cronyism; noun: croneyism

1. the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.

I would say that applies, at a minimum, to the 100+ military members in the NLA, as well as the non-qualified cabinet members, who were chosen because of loyalty rather than qualifications. Also applies to military members appointed to state enterprise boards,

The NLA members qualify as required in the Interim Constitution. The qualifications required are not really different from the qualifications one required of aspiring candidate MPs in the 2007 or even 1997 Constitution.

As for 'non-qualified cabinet members' name some.

Nepotism doesn't apply at all I think, not even with PM Prayut's little brother.

None of this has anything to do with needing Martial Law by the way.

You obviously do not understand the meaning of cronyism, nepotism or proper qualifications, but I do understand that English is your second language..

[rubl]

Maybe we should look at the definition of 'nepotism' and 'cronyism' ?

cro·ny·ism

ˈkrōnēˌizəm/

noun

derogatory

noun: cronyism; noun: croneyism

1. the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.

I would say that applies, at a minimum, to the 100+ military members in the NLA, as well as the non-qualified cabinet members, who were chosen because of loyalty rather than qualifications. Also applies to military members appointed to state enterprise boards,

The NLA members qualify as required in the Interim Constitution. The qualifications required are not really different from the qualifications one required of aspiring candidate MPs in the 2007 or even 1997 Constitution.

As for 'non-qualified cabinet members' name some.

Nepotism doesn't apply at all I think, not even with PM Prayut's little brother.

None of this has anything to do with needing Martial Law by the way.

You obviously do not understand the meaning of cronyism, nepotism or proper qualifications, but I do understand that English is your second language..

Getting desperate?

[brucec64]

The NLA members qualify as required in the Interim Constitution. The qualifications required are not really different from the qualifications one required of aspiring candidate MPs in the 2007 or even 1997 Constitution.

As for 'non-qualified cabinet members' name some.

Nepotism doesn't apply at all I think, not even with PM Prayut's little brother.

None of this has anything to do with needing Martial Law by the way.

You obviously do not understand the meaning of cronyism, nepotism or proper qualifications, but I do understand that English is your second language..

Getting desperate?

From an article in the nation (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/PM-puts-faith-in-military-and-ex-bureaucrats-30242225.html)

The generals in the latest Cabinet are expected to ensure that the PM's roadmap is not disrupted.

Prayuth's former superior General Prawit Wongsuwan was appointed deputy PM and Defence Minister, while another of his ex-superiors, General Anupong Paochinda, was named Interior Minister.

Four of the premier's former classmates have portfolios. General Dapong Ratanasuwan was appointed Natural Resources and Environment Minister, General Tanasak Patimapragorn is deputy PM and Foreign Minister, Gen Chatchai Sarikalya was named Commerce Minister, and permanent secretary for defence General Surasak Kanjanarat is the Labour Minister.

Prayuth's 'junior' friends from pre-cadet school days, Navy chief ADM Narong Pipatanasai and Air Force chief ACM Prajin Juntong, were appointed Education Minister and Transport Minister respectively.

The premier's subordinates from the armed forces who will help him administer the country include deputy Army chief General Udomdej Sitabutr, the Deputy Defence Minister, and assistant Army chief General Paiboon Koomchaya, the Justice Minister.

This is called cronyism and nepotism does apply to his brother.

If you disagree, please provide example of how these individuals are qualified to have their portfolios, and not the cop-out answer that they meet the bare qualifications as dictated in the charter.

[rubl]

Getting desperate?

From an article in the nation (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/PM-puts-faith-in-military-and-ex-bureaucrats-30242225.html)

The generals in the latest Cabinet are expected to ensure that the PM's roadmap is not disrupted.

Prayuth's former superior General Prawit Wongsuwan was appointed deputy PM and Defence Minister, while another of his ex-superiors, General Anupong Paochinda, was named Interior Minister.

Four of the premier's former classmates have portfolios. General Dapong Ratanasuwan was appointed Natural Resources and Environment Minister, General Tanasak Patimapragorn is deputy PM and Foreign Minister, Gen Chatchai Sarikalya was named Commerce Minister, and permanent secretary for defence General Surasak Kanjanarat is the Labour Minister.

Prayuth's 'junior' friends from pre-cadet school days, Navy chief ADM Narong Pipatanasai and Air Force chief ACM Prajin Juntong, were appointed Education Minister and Transport Minister respectively.

The premier's subordinates from the armed forces who will help him administer the country include deputy Army chief General Udomdej Sitabutr, the Deputy Defence Minister, and assistant Army chief General Paiboon Koomchaya, the Justice Minister.

This is called cronyism and nepotism does apply to his brother.

If you disagree, please provide example of how these individuals are qualified to have their portfolios, and not the cop-out answer that they meet the bare qualifications as dictated in the charter.

Now you're talking.

As politicians of any flavour were ruled out as having had their chance and to prevent the usual obstruction which was clearly displayed the last few years, it is clear that there was a preference for reliable people, but still with the necessary qualifications. Politicians excluded are mostly (this being Thailand) not really better qualified people.

Since the aim is to put Thailand through necessary reforms, since the NCPO and NLA will step down to make way for a elected parliament/Senate/government I think it's incorrect to describe the setup of NLA or cabinet as cronyism, more like a necessary choice to get things done rather than continue with the chaos surely no one would like to return to? Nepotism certainly doesn't apply, unless you think PM Prayut's little brother was in need of a job and wouldn't be employable otherwise?

You're right in that for all positions there may have been better qualified people, but that was even true with Ms. Yingluck's handpicked cabinet full of knowledgeble, capable, full of potential and suitable people (terms Ms. Yingluck used explaining 'her' criteria).

BTW at times Ministers have been described as managers who rely on their Ministries Staff for the real work. Some told me manager can manage anything without having to know much about what they manage

Edited January 7, 2015 by rubl

[brucec64]

Getting desperate?

From an article in the nation (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/PM-puts-faith-in-military-and-ex-bureaucrats-30242225.html)

The generals in the latest Cabinet are expected to ensure that the PM's roadmap is not disrupted.

Prayuth's former superior General Prawit Wongsuwan was appointed deputy PM and Defence Minister, while another of his ex-superiors, General Anupong Paochinda, was named Interior Minister.

Four of the premier's former classmates have portfolios. General Dapong Ratanasuwan was appointed Natural Resources and Environment Minister, General Tanasak Patimapragorn is deputy PM and Foreign Minister, Gen Chatchai Sarikalya was named Commerce Minister, and permanent secretary for defence General Surasak Kanjanarat is the Labour Minister.

Prayuth's 'junior' friends from pre-cadet school days, Navy chief ADM Narong Pipatanasai and Air Force chief ACM Prajin Juntong, were appointed Education Minister and Transport Minister respectively.

The premier's subordinates from the armed forces who will help him administer the country include deputy Army chief General Udomdej Sitabutr, the Deputy Defence Minister, and assistant Army chief General Paiboon Koomchaya, the Justice Minister.

This is called cronyism and nepotism does apply to his brother.

If you disagree, please provide example of how these individuals are qualified to have their portfolios, and not the cop-out answer that they meet the bare qualifications as dictated in the charter.

Now you're talking.

As politicians of any flavour were ruled out as having had their chance and to prevent the usual obstruction which was clearly displayed the last few years, it is clear that there was a preference for reliable people, but still with the necessary qualifications. Politicians excluded are mostly (this being Thailand) not really better qualified people.

Since the aim is to put Thailand through necessary reforms, since the NCPO and NLA will step down to make way for a elected parliament/Senate/government I think it's incorrect to describe the setup of NLA or cabinet as cronyism, more like a necessary choice to get things done rather than continue with the chaos surely no one would like to return to? Nepotism certainly doesn't apply, unless you think PM Prayut's little brother was in need of a job and wouldn't be employable otherwise?

You're right in that for all positions there may have been better qualified people, but that was even true with Ms. Yingluck's handpicked cabinet full of knowledgeble, capable, full of potential and suitable people (terms Ms. Yingluck used explaining 'her' criteria).

BTW at times Ministers have been described as managers who rely on their Ministries Staff for the real work. Some told me manager can manage anything without having to know much about what they manage

We will have to agree to disagree because I do not agree with the two premises of your argument.

1) I don't think the aim is to put Thailand through necessary reforms. Reforms are necessary, but the current reforms being forced through will not solve the long-term problems within Thailand since large portions of the populace are being marginalized in this process.

2) NCPO and NLA are not going anywhere soon. They will always be lurking in the appointed Senate, and some other "Good Person" committee that is given an inordinate amount of power. As well, the unelected PM reforms are paving the way for Prayuth to be around for a long time.

Therefore, cronyism IS applicable, because the militiary members are chosen simply for loyalty, and the ability to say yes (or no) as required, not for their ability to put Thailand through reforms that will actually solve the problems, rather than just suppress them.