Army 'needs martial law to shield itself'

[tbthailand]

The western press is not "finally figuring what many in Thailand knew from the start". The Economist magazine figured it out within about a week of the coup. Needless to say the article was rapidly blocked.

Most Thais know what the coup was about; they just daren't talk about it. That is the ultimate folly; a ruling elite that is not willing or confident enough to prepare its own people for the biggest change of their lifetime.

I agree with the second part of you post, but I feel compelled to defend my original statement regarding the myopic western press.

I've been a regular reader of the Economist for some time and think highly of the publication. However, while their May 24 issue suggested that the subject that can not be mentioned was a factor in the coup, the publication was discreet and uncertain on the matter for several months after that. A Banyan blog on June 6 stated that the army was unlikely to relinquish control until after the big event, but an article on September 13, "Uniform Reaction" indicated that a swift return to democracy was likely. I don't think the Economist was clear on the subject until their December 6 article, "Delaying the day of reckoning". In spite of this, they were still a better source of information on the matter than any other major western publication that I am aware of.

For obvious reasons I have not provided links to any of these articles, Another article I will not provide a link to is one published by Forbes on December 22 titled "Thailand's Military Junta Destroys Democracy, Enjoys Exercising Power: Generals Postpone Elections Before Rigging Them". It can easily be found on-line. There isn't anything new for informed people following events, but I think it's a good summary of where Thailand is currently at.

agree about the economist

the forbes article is interesting, but I found the last paragraph almost like cheerleading the junta to jump-start the economy so that they could justify the coup.

2 completely unrelated topics.

Forbes is a business oriented publication, you have to expect that. That's why it tends to be less emotional and more factual in its reporting. I don't think we need to worry about the junta recognizing and implementing good advice regarding Thailand's economy, I expect it will be economic mismanagement that eventually topples the junta.

Agreed. Also, Forbes is radically more conservative (in general) than the Economist. I find that the reporting in the Economist is one of the more interesting sources overall. Not only for political and economic news.

[tbthailand]

The amnesty bill was dead in the water, it became dead the minute Yingluck dissolved the lower house December 2013.

You guys are drifting off again. Also the blanket amnesty bill wasn't dead, it was dormant for 180 days after the Senate rejected it. One of the reasons Ms. Yingluck c.s. tried to push through the Feb2 elections was the hope to win and by a simple majority pass the blanket amnesty bill into law.

No we are not rubl. The amnesty bill WAS dead in the water. The lower house was dissolved, and the only way to vote on it again was for Yingluck to win the elections again. Hence receiving yet another mandate. That would at the very least indicate the Thai electorate would have agreed with this bill.

The claim that the army stepped in due to the amnesty bill is incorrect. At the time of the coup, there still wasn't a house of representatives, so no possible way to re-introduce the bill. At the end, an amnesty clause was drafted, one that applies to the current Junta.

As I've tried in vain to explain to HeyBruce, tbthailand and a few others, and now probably in vain to you, the "blanket amnesty bill" was not dead, nor dropped. Legally the "blanket amnesty bill" was put on hold, dormant for 180 days after which a government could take it up and let it pass in a simple majority in parliament.

As for the Thai electorate and Yingluck picking up the not-so-dead bill, you might have liked that although that's like approving of Hitler asking the electorate to vote for him so he could make sure they didn't need to vote again. They did, around 1933 I think, also very democratic.

Now the "Blanket Amnesty Bill" including a.o. "politically influenced corruption" covered 2004 to 2012-08-09. The Yingluck Administration thought it needed that. The bill and the very undemocratic attitude of the Yingluck Government, the direct involvement of that criminal fugitive, the gigantic losses incurred which the tax payer needs to cover. Now that's more going in the direction why we had a coup. Of course the 'unknowns' who cowardly shot at anti-government protesters in the night, lobbed more than 100 grenades on anti-government protesters, they also helped to set the stage.

It would seem if Thai have the distorted views you and others present here there is a clear reason why the Martial Law can't be lifted yet.

BTW I never claimed the army staged a coup because of the Blanket Amnesty Bill which suddenly covered Thaksin's last two years in and out of office and even the Yingluck Governments first year. Not me, so don't bring up against me what I never said.

as you have already had pointed out to you repeatedly,

The Senate voted 141-0 late Monday to reject the bill after the ruling party withdrew its support. Although the more-powerful lower house can legally pass legislation without Senate approval after a 180-day wait, Yingluck and the government coalition parties have pledged that the bill will not be revived.

And the protests immediately transformed themselves the same week into a bid to simply bring down the government...

The main opposition Democrat Party called for civil disobedience and a three-day nationwide strike beginning Wednesday in what is seen as a campaign to bring down the government led by Thaksin's sister, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

Which of course it did. Yingluck dissolved the parliament.

Then the protests continued in order to disrupt the elections of Feb 2nd.

And from December onwards, there was no more talk of the amnesty bill. The PDRC had long since moved on to Rice and Corruption in general.

The amnesty bill was dead then. The constitution is dead now.

[JAG]

The party she led had the most votes in the 2011 election. If that isn't qualification enough for you then you clearly are not democrats.

By the way, what are Prayuth's qualifications for the position of PM?

Getting the most votes doesn't mean you're qualified.

It does in a democracy.

And there in lies the nub of the coup enthusiasts argument. They deny democracy, and rejoice in an elected government being forced from office and replaced by a military Junta.It really is very simple, as simple as that eight word statement.

Edited January 4, 2015 by JAG

[englishoak]

The party she led had the most votes in the 2011 election. If that isn't qualification enough for you then you clearly are not democrats.

By the way, what are Prayuth's qualifications for the position of PM?

Getting the most votes doesn't mean you're qualified.

It does in a democracy.

And there in lies the nub of the coup enthusiasts argument. They deny democracy, and rejoice in an elected government being forced from office and replaced by a military Junta.It really is very simple, as simple as that eight word statement.

Just mindless idiots who think as long as it gets rid of some political group they dont like anything is fine. Even Military Juntas that have a track record of mostly only ever shooting and or oppressing their own countrymen.

No need to wait for an election if a gun is available right, what could possibly be wrong with that ?

They would crap themselves nearly one and all and probably run for the exit if a junta did similar take over back home though.

Moronic hypocrites one and all.

[metisdead]

A post with paid to post allegations has been removed as well as the replies. Other posts with off topic deflection tactics have been removed as well as the replies. .

[rubl]

No we are not rubl. The amnesty bill WAS dead in the water. The lower house was dissolved, and the only way to vote on it again was for Yingluck to win the elections again. Hence receiving yet another mandate. That would at the very least indicate the Thai electorate would have agreed with this bill.

The claim that the army stepped in due to the amnesty bill is incorrect. At the time of the coup, there still wasn't a house of representatives, so no possible way to re-introduce the bill. At the end, an amnesty clause was drafted, one that applies to the current Junta.

As I've tried in vain to explain to HeyBruce, tbthailand and a few others, and now probably in vain to you, the "blanket amnesty bill" was not dead, nor dropped. Legally the "blanket amnesty bill" was put on hold, dormant for 180 days after which a government could take it up and let it pass in a simple majority in parliament.

As for the Thai electorate and Yingluck picking up the not-so-dead bill, you might have liked that although that's like approving of Hitler asking the electorate to vote for him so he could make sure they didn't need to vote again. They did, around 1933 I think, also very democratic.

Now the "Blanket Amnesty Bill" including a.o. "politically influenced corruption" covered 2004 to 2012-08-09. The Yingluck Administration thought it needed that. The bill and the very undemocratic attitude of the Yingluck Government, the direct involvement of that criminal fugitive, the gigantic losses incurred which the tax payer needs to cover. Now that's more going in the direction why we had a coup. Of course the 'unknowns' who cowardly shot at anti-government protesters in the night, lobbed more than 100 grenades on anti-government protesters, they also helped to set the stage.

It would seem if Thai have the distorted views you and others present here there is a clear reason why the Martial Law can't be lifted yet.

BTW I never claimed the army staged a coup because of the Blanket Amnesty Bill which suddenly covered Thaksin's last two years in and out of office and even the Yingluck Governments first year. Not me, so don't bring up against me what I never said.

Please, how could the government possibly pass it with a simple majority in parliament when that parliament has been dissolved ?

Are you trying to defy logic ?

The only way that law would have passed is Yingluck receiving yet another mandate, there is no way around it. I don't think that amnesty bill justifies mentioning Hitler, so leave that shit out of the discussion.

And Rubl, I didn't claim YOU used it as a reason, but the initial poster did. Unfortunately, I reached the maximum number of quotes, so had to leave that out.

What remains is an amnesty bill that targets past and future transgressions by the Junta, I am surprised you don't take issue with this. But I guess, they are your friends, so it's allright.

By the way, the OP seems to indicate Martial Law is needed for a whole different reason than people having "distorted views". Maybe instead of making such outrageous claims focus on the reason for Martial Law according to the OP.

Logic, to vote again on a 'dead in the water' bill.

Any government could have voted the dormant "blanket amnesty bill' into law through a simple majority in parliament, 50% + 1 vote.

So, voting to amnesty oneself is democratic? Former junta leader MP Gen. Sonthi must have thought so. As part of the Pheu Thai coalition he voted for his own amnesty, to be double sure I guess.

So, what I take issue with is the lack of interest by posters to comment on the topic. Just like you now also start to state.

[rubl]

\

Anyway, in 2007 the Military lifted the Martial Law in the provinces it still was valid in and that before the start of the Election Period of 45 to 60 days. Had something to do with people stating voters might feel intimidated with military around. Obviously that's why the Yingluck government in it's not-so-caretaking role asked the help of the Military to do the elections. Strange that, isn't it?

In 2014 the protesters were more intimidating than the military, and having the military make it clear that they supported elections would have taken all the steam out of the protests.

How much assistance did the military offer in ensuring safe, peaceful elections?

Does this mean you agree with using the army for such purposes? Fearsome, heavily armed soldiers standing next to the poll booths to intimidate voters wrongdoers ?

Anyway, unlike the Yingluck remnant government suggesting Martial Law be declared for the elections, I'm convinced the NCPO will lift it ahead of elections, like they did end of October 2007.

[rubl]

You guys are drifting off again. Also the blanket amnesty bill wasn't dead, it was dormant for 180 days after the Senate rejected it. One of the reasons Ms. Yingluck c.s. tried to push through the Feb2 elections was the hope to win and by a simple majority pass the blanket amnesty bill into law.

Yingluck called an election when she and her party were reaching new lows in popularity in order to win a simple majority? Do you really think she was that politically ignorant?

Regardless of why she called an election, it was an opportunity to let the voters in Thailand pass judgment on her performance in office, including the amnesty attempt. It was a democratic way out of the crisis, and the people who obstructed the elections and applauded the coup clearly are not democrats.

And to ensure all would go as planned the Yingluck Government even wanted the Army to help with the elections, post at stations. The (unclear status) MoFA even suggested the Army declare Martial Law to ensure elections. Imagine!

In 2007 the Army even lifted the Martial Law as was still valid in a few provinces listening to various rights organisations which deemed voting under Martial Law undemocratic.

And did the Army assist with the elections?

The Yingluck remnant government had a fully functioning police force to deploy, didn't they? Why would someone try to drag the Army in an activity so important to 'real' democracy?

[rubl]

The party she led had the most votes in the 2011 election. If that isn't qualification enough for you then you clearly are not democrats.

By the way, what are Prayuth's qualifications for the position of PM?

I think Gen. Prayut was more of a leader than Ms. Yingluck who only begin of May, 2011 petitioned the Pheu Thai executives to let her help as she felt the urge (to help the Nation that is). Her brother agreed, allegedly.

Anyway, Martial Law seems uninteresting. Pity it's part of the topic, isn't it?

Good point; why does this qualified General/PM need martial law to stay in office?

You mean apart from being elected by the NLA members and confirmed by H.M. the King?

Anyway, Martial Law seems uninteresting. Pity it's part of the topic, isn't it?

[rubl]

No we are not rubl. The amnesty bill WAS dead in the water. The lower house was dissolved, and the only way to vote on it again was for Yingluck to win the elections again. Hence receiving yet another mandate. That would at the very least indicate the Thai electorate would have agreed with this bill.

The claim that the army stepped in due to the amnesty bill is incorrect. At the time of the coup, there still wasn't a house of representatives, so no possible way to re-introduce the bill. At the end, an amnesty clause was drafted, one that applies to the current Junta.

As I've tried in vain to explain to HeyBruce, tbthailand and a few others, and now probably in vain to you, the "blanket amnesty bill" was not dead, nor dropped. Legally the "blanket amnesty bill" was put on hold, dormant for 180 days after which a government could take it up and let it pass in a simple majority in parliament.

As for the Thai electorate and Yingluck picking up the not-so-dead bill, you might have liked that although that's like approving of Hitler asking the electorate to vote for him so he could make sure they didn't need to vote again. They did, around 1933 I think, also very democratic.

Now the "Blanket Amnesty Bill" including a.o. "politically influenced corruption" covered 2004 to 2012-08-09. The Yingluck Administration thought it needed that. The bill and the very undemocratic attitude of the Yingluck Government, the direct involvement of that criminal fugitive, the gigantic losses incurred which the tax payer needs to cover. Now that's more going in the direction why we had a coup. Of course the 'unknowns' who cowardly shot at anti-government protesters in the night, lobbed more than 100 grenades on anti-government protesters, they also helped to set the stage.

It would seem if Thai have the distorted views you and others present here there is a clear reason why the Martial Law can't be lifted yet.

BTW I never claimed the army staged a coup because of the Blanket Amnesty Bill which suddenly covered Thaksin's last two years in and out of office and even the Yingluck Governments first year. Not me, so don't bring up against me what I never said.

as you have already had pointed out to you repeatedly,

The Senate voted 141-0 late Monday to reject the bill after the ruling party withdrew its support. Although the more-powerful lower house can legally pass legislation without Senate approval after a 180-day wait, Yingluck and the government coalition parties have pledged that the bill will not be revived.

And the protests immediately transformed themselves the same week into a bid to simply bring down the government...

The main opposition Democrat Party called for civil disobedience and a three-day nationwide strike beginning Wednesday in what is seen as a campaign to bring down the government led by Thaksin's sister, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

Which of course it did. Yingluck dissolved the parliament.

Then the protests continued in order to disrupt the elections of Feb 2nd.

And from December onwards, there was no more talk of the amnesty bill. The PDRC had long since moved on to Rice and Corruption in general.

The amnesty bill was dead then. The constitution is dead now.

History is being rewritten again, I see.

So, a 'dead in the water' bill the Yingluck government pushed through, got it's support immediately withdrawn by said government? The Yingluck Government 'pledged' not to revive it? So, it wasn't dead, just dormant and we have to believe that after going through so much effort to push the "blanket amnesty bill" through the Yingluck government just dropped it? Promise not to revive it? Obfuscate by stating the have withdrawn the amnesty bill while only meaning the have withdrawn six OTHER amnesty bills?

Anyway, the "blanket amnesty bill" is dead now having passed the 180 day 'dead' line and not being revived. Of course a Constitution we still have, legally so. It would seem the army needs the Martial Law to protect itself from malicious rumours, 'agent provocateurs' and the like.

[chotthee]

Don't be surprise if Thailand does not become a military state. Or maybe it has already.

Farang just don't understand Thai people.

Thai people are more happy with this military state, now that Prayuth have returned happiness to the Thai people, stolen away by Thaksin and Yingluck.

[Bob12345]

No we are not rubl. The amnesty bill WAS dead in the water. The lower house was dissolved, and the only way to vote on it again was for Yingluck to win the elections again. Hence receiving yet another mandate. That would at the very least indicate the Thai electorate would have agreed with this bill.

The claim that the army stepped in due to the amnesty bill is incorrect. At the time of the coup, there still wasn't a house of representatives, so no possible way to re-introduce the bill. At the end, an amnesty clause was drafted, one that applies to the current Junta.

As I've tried in vain to explain to HeyBruce, tbthailand and a few others, and now probably in vain to you, the "blanket amnesty bill" was not dead, nor dropped. Legally the "blanket amnesty bill" was put on hold, dormant for 180 days after which a government could take it up and let it pass in a simple majority in parliament.

As for the Thai electorate and Yingluck picking up the not-so-dead bill, you might have liked that although that's like approving of Hitler asking the electorate to vote for him so he could make sure they didn't need to vote again. They did, around 1933 I think, also very democratic.

Now the "Blanket Amnesty Bill" including a.o. "politically influenced corruption" covered 2004 to 2012-08-09. The Yingluck Administration thought it needed that. The bill and the very undemocratic attitude of the Yingluck Government, the direct involvement of that criminal fugitive, the gigantic losses incurred which the tax payer needs to cover. Now that's more going in the direction why we had a coup. Of course the 'unknowns' who cowardly shot at anti-government protesters in the night, lobbed more than 100 grenades on anti-government protesters, they also helped to set the stage.

It would seem if Thai have the distorted views you and others present here there is a clear reason why the Martial Law can't be lifted yet.

BTW I never claimed the army staged a coup because of the Blanket Amnesty Bill which suddenly covered Thaksin's last two years in and out of office and even the Yingluck Governments first year. Not me, so don't bring up against me what I never said.

Please, how could the government possibly pass it with a simple majority in parliament when that parliament has been dissolved ?

Are you trying to defy logic ?

The only way that law would have passed is Yingluck receiving yet another mandate, there is no way around it. I don't think that amnesty bill justifies mentioning Hitler, so leave that shit out of the discussion.

And Rubl, I didn't claim YOU used it as a reason, but the initial poster did. Unfortunately, I reached the maximum number of quotes, so had to leave that out.

What remains is an amnesty bill that targets past and future transgressions by the Junta, I am surprised you don't take issue with this. But I guess, they are your friends, so it's allright.

By the way, the OP seems to indicate Martial Law is needed for a whole different reason than people having "distorted views". Maybe instead of making such outrageous claims focus on the reason for Martial Law according to the OP.

Logic, to vote again on a 'dead in the water' bill.

Any government could have voted the dormant "blanket amnesty bill' into law through a simple majority in parliament, 50% + 1 vote.

So, voting to amnesty oneself is democratic? Former junta leader MP Gen. Sonthi must have thought so. As part of the Pheu Thai coalition he voted for his own amnesty, to be double sure I guess.

So, what I take issue with is the lack of interest by posters to comment on the topic. Just like you now also start to state.

Are you seriously asking if "voting to amnesty oneself is democratic"?

How can it be undemocratic?

(If the constitution allows it)

Edit: politicians all over the world are allowed to vote, and i doubt they vote for the opposition

Edited January 5, 2015 by Bob12345

[Bob12345]

\

Anyway, in 2007 the Military lifted the Martial Law in the provinces it still was valid in and that before the start of the Election Period of 45 to 60 days. Had something to do with people stating voters might feel intimidated with military around. Obviously that's why the Yingluck government in it's not-so-caretaking role asked the help of the Military to do the elections. Strange that, isn't it?

In 2014 the protesters were more intimidating than the military, and having the military make it clear that they supported elections would have taken all the steam out of the protests.

How much assistance did the military offer in ensuring safe, peaceful elections?

Does this mean you agree with using the army for such purposes? Fearsome, heavily armed soldiers standing next to the poll booths to intimidate voters wrongdoers ?

Isn't it the army's job to follow the orders of politicians (as long as possible within the limits of the constitution)?

Or do you think that an army should have a political view and only follow orders when they feel like it?

And their job wouldn't be to intimidate, but to protect whoever wants to vote. That way they could "protect" the constitution (which they wrote themselves not too long ago).

[Bob12345]

You guys are drifting off again. Also the blanket amnesty bill wasn't dead, it was dormant for 180 days after the Senate rejected it. One of the reasons Ms. Yingluck c.s. tried to push through the Feb2 elections was the hope to win and by a simple majority pass the blanket amnesty bill into law.

Yingluck called an election when she and her party were reaching new lows in popularity in order to win a simple majority? Do you really think she was that politically ignorant?

Regardless of why she called an election, it was an opportunity to let the voters in Thailand pass judgment on her performance in office, including the amnesty attempt. It was a democratic way out of the crisis, and the people who obstructed the elections and applauded the coup clearly are not democrats.

And to ensure all would go as planned the Yingluck Government even wanted the Army to help with the elections, post at stations. The (unclear status) MoFA even suggested the Army declare Martial Law to ensure elections. Imagine!

In 2007 the Army even lifted the Martial Law as was still valid in a few provinces listening to various rights organisations which deemed voting under Martial Law undemocratic.

And did the Army assist with the elections?

The Yingluck remnant government had a fully functioning police force to deploy, didn't they? Why would someone try to drag the Army in an activity so important to 'real' democracy?

Was the police force fully functioning before or after the court decided they were not allowed to clear protestors from the streets?

And maybe they wanted to drag the army into the activity when the "unarmed" protestors started using military issue automatic rifles. Or you think police officer Somchai had protection enough against that with his plastic motorcycle helmet and reflective police vest?

[Bob12345]

No we are not rubl. The amnesty bill WAS dead in the water. The lower house was dissolved, and the only way to vote on it again was for Yingluck to win the elections again. Hence receiving yet another mandate. That would at the very least indicate the Thai electorate would have agreed with this bill.

The claim that the army stepped in due to the amnesty bill is incorrect. At the time of the coup, there still wasn't a house of representatives, so no possible way to re-introduce the bill. At the end, an amnesty clause was drafted, one that applies to the current Junta.

As I've tried in vain to explain to HeyBruce, tbthailand and a few others, and now probably in vain to you, the "blanket amnesty bill" was not dead, nor dropped. Legally the "blanket amnesty bill" was put on hold, dormant for 180 days after which a government could take it up and let it pass in a simple majority in parliament.

As for the Thai electorate and Yingluck picking up the not-so-dead bill, you might have liked that although that's like approving of Hitler asking the electorate to vote for him so he could make sure they didn't need to vote again. They did, around 1933 I think, also very democratic.

Now the "Blanket Amnesty Bill" including a.o. "politically influenced corruption" covered 2004 to 2012-08-09. The Yingluck Administration thought it needed that. The bill and the very undemocratic attitude of the Yingluck Government, the direct involvement of that criminal fugitive, the gigantic losses incurred which the tax payer needs to cover. Now that's more going in the direction why we had a coup. Of course the 'unknowns' who cowardly shot at anti-government protesters in the night, lobbed more than 100 grenades on anti-government protesters, they also helped to set the stage.

It would seem if Thai have the distorted views you and others present here there is a clear reason why the Martial Law can't be lifted yet.

BTW I never claimed the army staged a coup because of the Blanket Amnesty Bill which suddenly covered Thaksin's last two years in and out of office and even the Yingluck Governments first year. Not me, so don't bring up against me what I never said.

as you have already had pointed out to you repeatedly,

The Senate voted 141-0 late Monday to reject the bill after the ruling party withdrew its support. Although the more-powerful lower house can legally pass legislation without Senate approval after a 180-day wait, Yingluck and the government coalition parties have pledged that the bill will not be revived.

And the protests immediately transformed themselves the same week into a bid to simply bring down the government...

The main opposition Democrat Party called for civil disobedience and a three-day nationwide strike beginning Wednesday in what is seen as a campaign to bring down the government led by Thaksin's sister, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

Which of course it did. Yingluck dissolved the parliament.

Then the protests continued in order to disrupt the elections of Feb 2nd.

And from December onwards, there was no more talk of the amnesty bill. The PDRC had long since moved on to Rice and Corruption in general.

The amnesty bill was dead then. The constitution is dead now.

History is being rewritten again, I see.

So, a 'dead in the water' bill the Yingluck government pushed through, got it's support immediately withdrawn by said government? The Yingluck Government 'pledged' not to revive it? So, it wasn't dead, just dormant and we have to believe that after going through so much effort to push the "blanket amnesty bill" through the Yingluck government just dropped it? Promise not to revive it? Obfuscate by stating the have withdrawn the amnesty bill while only meaning the have withdrawn six OTHER amnesty bills?

Anyway, the "blanket amnesty bill" is dead now having passed the 180 day 'dead' line and not being revived. Of course a Constitution we still have, legally so. It would seem the army needs the Martial Law to protect itself from malicious rumours, 'agent provocateurs' and the like.

The bill was dormant and the government promised not to revive it.

That should have ended the demonstrations with the stern warning demonstrations would start again as soon as the government breaks that promise.

When they break it new elections could be held to see if "the people" support it or not. If not, the government would be out and the new government could fix the situation. If the government gets re-elected despite breaking their promise then who are you to decide if that is okay or not?

The above reads a bit like... hmmmm... like... uhmmmm... a working democracy?

[Bob12345]

It would seem the army needs the Martial Law to protect itself from malicious rumours, 'agent provocateurs' and the like.

Not sure if you are joking or serious with that sentence. So apologies if it was a joke and i didnt grasp you were being sarcastic.

But martial law against rumours?

What about openess, giving facts, independent varification of these facts, and opening up to be scrutinized?

Or does that sound too "responsible" or "western" to advocate for the thai army or a government?

Edited January 5, 2015 by Bob12345

[sjaak327]

Please, how could the government possibly pass it with a simple majority in parliament when that parliament has been dissolved ?

Are you trying to defy logic ?

The only way that law would have passed is Yingluck receiving yet another mandate, there is no way around it. I don't think that amnesty bill justifies mentioning Hitler, so leave that shit out of the discussion.

And Rubl, I didn't claim YOU used it as a reason, but the initial poster did. Unfortunately, I reached the maximum number of quotes, so had to leave that out.

What remains is an amnesty bill that targets past and future transgressions by the Junta, I am surprised you don't take issue with this. But I guess, they are your friends, so it's allright.

By the way, the OP seems to indicate Martial Law is needed for a whole different reason than people having "distorted views". Maybe instead of making such outrageous claims focus on the reason for Martial Law according to the OP.

Logic, to vote again on a 'dead in the water' bill.

Any government could have voted the dormant "blanket amnesty bill' into law through a simple majority in parliament, 50% + 1 vote.

So, voting to amnesty oneself is democratic? Former junta leader MP Gen. Sonthi must have thought so. As part of the Pheu Thai coalition he voted for his own amnesty, to be double sure I guess.

So, what I take issue with is the lack of interest by posters to comment on the topic. Just like you now also start to state.

They could, provided there is a parliament. There wasn't, so the only way for Yingluck (or any other PM) to reconsider this bill, was to have received another mandate. Whilst the amnesty bill could be something to disagree with, voting on it isn't undemocratic. This time around, Sonthi did receive a mandate.

[heybruce]

\

Anyway, in 2007 the Military lifted the Martial Law in the provinces it still was valid in and that before the start of the Election Period of 45 to 60 days. Had something to do with people stating voters might feel intimidated with military around. Obviously that's why the Yingluck government in it's not-so-caretaking role asked the help of the Military to do the elections. Strange that, isn't it?

In 2014 the protesters were more intimidating than the military, and having the military make it clear that they supported elections would have taken all the steam out of the protests.

How much assistance did the military offer in ensuring safe, peaceful elections?

Does this mean you agree with using the army for such purposes? Fearsome, heavily armed soldiers standing next to the poll booths to intimidate voters wrongdoers ?

Anyway, unlike the Yingluck remnant government suggesting Martial Law be declared for the elections, I'm convinced the NCPO will lift it ahead of elections, like they did end of October 2007.

The military was needed to prevent thugs from using violence and intimidation to obstruct the election. The military could have ended the protests just by making it clear that it wanted peaceful elections and didn't want to topple the government, The military chose a different approach.

You're somewhat optimistic, both on martial law being lifted and on future elections.

[heybruce]

Yingluck called an election when she and her party were reaching new lows in popularity in order to win a simple majority? Do you really think she was that politically ignorant?

Regardless of why she called an election, it was an opportunity to let the voters in Thailand pass judgment on her performance in office, including the amnesty attempt. It was a democratic way out of the crisis, and the people who obstructed the elections and applauded the coup clearly are not democrats.

And to ensure all would go as planned the Yingluck Government even wanted the Army to help with the elections, post at stations. The (unclear status) MoFA even suggested the Army declare Martial Law to ensure elections. Imagine!

In 2007 the Army even lifted the Martial Law as was still valid in a few provinces listening to various rights organisations which deemed voting under Martial Law undemocratic.

And did the Army assist with the elections?

The Yingluck remnant government had a fully functioning police force to deploy, didn't they? Why would someone try to drag the Army in an activity so important to 'real' democracy?

Yingluck's police force was as fully functioning as Abhisit's in 2006. The biggest difference between 2006 and 2014 was that the military bloodily crushed protesters calling for elections in 2006, then toppled the government to accommodate protesters opposing elections in 2014.

[heybruce]

The party she led had the most votes in the 2011 election. If that isn't qualification enough for you then you clearly are not democrats.

By the way, what are Prayuth's qualifications for the position of PM?

I think Gen. Prayut was more of a leader than Ms. Yingluck who only begin of May, 2011 petitioned the Pheu Thai executives to let her help as she felt the urge (to help the Nation that is). Her brother agreed, allegedly.

Anyway, Martial Law seems uninteresting. Pity it's part of the topic, isn't it?

Good point; why does this qualified General/PM need martial law to stay in office?

You mean apart from being elected by the NLA members and confirmed by H.M. the King?

Anyway, Martial Law seems uninteresting. Pity it's part of the topic, isn't it?

You mean being elected by the NLA members he appointed? You're really getting desperate.

If you think martial law is uninteresting why are you posting on this topic? The OP is about a general who seized power in a coup, had himself appointed PM, and now needs martial law to stay in control.

[heybruce]

No we are not rubl. The amnesty bill WAS dead in the water. The lower house was dissolved, and the only way to vote on it again was for Yingluck to win the elections again. Hence receiving yet another mandate. That would at the very least indicate the Thai electorate would have agreed with this bill.

The claim that the army stepped in due to the amnesty bill is incorrect. At the time of the coup, there still wasn't a house of representatives, so no possible way to re-introduce the bill. At the end, an amnesty clause was drafted, one that applies to the current Junta.

As I've tried in vain to explain to HeyBruce, tbthailand and a few others, and now probably in vain to you, the "blanket amnesty bill" was not dead, nor dropped. Legally the "blanket amnesty bill" was put on hold, dormant for 180 days after which a government could take it up and let it pass in a simple majority in parliament.

As for the Thai electorate and Yingluck picking up the not-so-dead bill, you might have liked that although that's like approving of Hitler asking the electorate to vote for him so he could make sure they didn't need to vote again. They did, around 1933 I think, also very democratic.

Now the "Blanket Amnesty Bill" including a.o. "politically influenced corruption" covered 2004 to 2012-08-09. The Yingluck Administration thought it needed that. The bill and the very undemocratic attitude of the Yingluck Government, the direct involvement of that criminal fugitive, the gigantic losses incurred which the tax payer needs to cover. Now that's more going in the direction why we had a coup. Of course the 'unknowns' who cowardly shot at anti-government protesters in the night, lobbed more than 100 grenades on anti-government protesters, they also helped to set the stage.

It would seem if Thai have the distorted views you and others present here there is a clear reason why the Martial Law can't be lifted yet.

BTW I never claimed the army staged a coup because of the Blanket Amnesty Bill which suddenly covered Thaksin's last two years in and out of office and even the Yingluck Governments first year. Not me, so don't bring up against me what I never said.

as you have already had pointed out to you repeatedly,

The Senate voted 141-0 late Monday to reject the bill after the ruling party withdrew its support. Although the more-powerful lower house can legally pass legislation without Senate approval after a 180-day wait, Yingluck and the government coalition parties have pledged that the bill will not be revived.

And the protests immediately transformed themselves the same week into a bid to simply bring down the government...

The main opposition Democrat Party called for civil disobedience and a three-day nationwide strike beginning Wednesday in what is seen as a campaign to bring down the government led by Thaksin's sister, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

Which of course it did. Yingluck dissolved the parliament.

Then the protests continued in order to disrupt the elections of Feb 2nd.

And from December onwards, there was no more talk of the amnesty bill. The PDRC had long since moved on to Rice and Corruption in general.

The amnesty bill was dead then. The constitution is dead now.

History is being rewritten again, I see.

So, a 'dead in the water' bill the Yingluck government pushed through, got it's support immediately withdrawn by said government? The Yingluck Government 'pledged' not to revive it? So, it wasn't dead, just dormant and we have to believe that after going through so much effort to push the "blanket amnesty bill" through the Yingluck government just dropped it? Promise not to revive it? Obfuscate by stating the have withdrawn the amnesty bill while only meaning the have withdrawn six OTHER amnesty bills?

Anyway, the "blanket amnesty bill" is dead now having passed the 180 day 'dead' line and not being revived. Of course a Constitution we still have, legally so. It would seem the army needs the Martial Law to protect itself from malicious rumours, 'agent provocateurs' and the like.

"It would seem the army needs the Martial Law to protect itself from malicious rumours, 'agent provocateurs' and the like."

You really should read the OP before posting ruble, in this case the first three paragraphs:

"The military is expected to have increased political roles in this new year although there is a unity problem among top commanders in the Army, according to sources familiar with the armed forces.

Observers say martial law - imposed shortly before the coup in May - is likely to be retained for a long time, to help ensure that the military will have the power to deal with unexpected problems when they arise.

"There are uncertainties in the Army. The decision-making is done from many sources of power in the Army. So it is inevitable for martial law to be retained. The military needs some tool to deal with problems that may happen in the future," said one source, a high-ranking officer in the armed forces."

It would seem the junta needs martial law to protect junta from its own military.

[DaffyDuck]

So, what I take issue with is the lack of interest by posters to comment on the topic. Just like you now also start to state.

I have observed comments from regular commenters pointing out that the constant spamming on these sort of threads by the anti-Thai, anti-Thai posse has effectively turned them off from interacting and wanting to engage in commenting. I have no doubt that many other members abstain similarly, without commenting on it.

[chotthee]

Thailand needs martial laws to stop alleged Thaksin's sponsored Red Shirts, from killing innocent Yellow Thai people.

[DaffyDuck]

Thailand needs martial laws to stop alleged Thaksin's sponsored Red Shirts, from killing innocent Yellow Thai people.

Seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?

;-)

[tbthailand]

As I've tried in vain to explain to HeyBruce, tbthailand and a few others, and now probably in vain to you, the "blanket amnesty bill" was not dead, nor dropped. Legally the "blanket amnesty bill" was put on hold, dormant for 180 days after which a government could take it up and let it pass in a simple majority in parliament.

As for the Thai electorate and Yingluck picking up the not-so-dead bill, you might have liked that although that's like approving of Hitler asking the electorate to vote for him so he could make sure they didn't need to vote again. They did, around 1933 I think, also very democratic.

Now the "Blanket Amnesty Bill" including a.o. "politically influenced corruption" covered 2004 to 2012-08-09. The Yingluck Administration thought it needed that. The bill and the very undemocratic attitude of the Yingluck Government, the direct involvement of that criminal fugitive, the gigantic losses incurred which the tax payer needs to cover. Now that's more going in the direction why we had a coup. Of course the 'unknowns' who cowardly shot at anti-government protesters in the night, lobbed more than 100 grenades on anti-government protesters, they also helped to set the stage.

It would seem if Thai have the distorted views you and others present here there is a clear reason why the Martial Law can't be lifted yet.

BTW I never claimed the army staged a coup because of the Blanket Amnesty Bill which suddenly covered Thaksin's last two years in and out of office and even the Yingluck Governments first year. Not me, so don't bring up against me what I never said.

as you have already had pointed out to you repeatedly,

The Senate voted 141-0 late Monday to reject the bill after the ruling party withdrew its support. Although the more-powerful lower house can legally pass legislation without Senate approval after a 180-day wait, Yingluck and the government coalition parties have pledged that the bill will not be revived.

And the protests immediately transformed themselves the same week into a bid to simply bring down the government...

The main opposition Democrat Party called for civil disobedience and a three-day nationwide strike beginning Wednesday in what is seen as a campaign to bring down the government led by Thaksin's sister, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

Which of course it did. Yingluck dissolved the parliament.

Then the protests continued in order to disrupt the elections of Feb 2nd.

And from December onwards, there was no more talk of the amnesty bill. The PDRC had long since moved on to Rice and Corruption in general.

The amnesty bill was dead then. The constitution is dead now.

History is being rewritten again, I see.

So, a 'dead in the water' bill the Yingluck government pushed through, got it's support immediately withdrawn by said government? The Yingluck Government 'pledged' not to revive it? So, it wasn't dead, just dormant and we have to believe that after going through so much effort to push the "blanket amnesty bill" through the Yingluck government just dropped it? Promise not to revive it? Obfuscate by stating the have withdrawn the amnesty bill while only meaning the have withdrawn six OTHER amnesty bills?

Anyway, the "blanket amnesty bill" is dead now having passed the 180 day 'dead' line and not being revived. Of course a Constitution we still have, legally so. It would seem the army needs the Martial Law to protect itself from malicious rumours, 'agent provocateurs' and the like.

if you chose to ignore the events as they actually occurred, Rubl, that is up to you.

History is being rewritten again, I see.

yes, indeed...

[chotthee]

Thailand needs martial laws to stop alleged Thaksin's sponsored Red Shirts, from killing innocent Yellow Thai people.

Seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?

;-)

And protect the institution.

[tbthailand]

So, what I take issue with is the lack of interest by posters to comment on the topic. Just like you now also start to state.

I have observed comments from regular commenters pointing out that the constant spamming on these sort of threads by the anti-Thai, anti-Thai posse has effectively turned them off from interacting and wanting to engage in commenting. I have no doubt that many other members abstain similarly, without commenting on it.

I noticed your recent attempts to accuse other posters of doing exactly that which you are undertaking with amazing energy.

waddle on...

[metisdead]

Another reminder:

Please use discretion in your references to the government. Phrases which can be considered as anti-coup will be removed. Referring to Thailand or the government as a dictatorship, military dictatorship or other such terms will be removed.

Any posts which can be construed as rumor mongering are not allowed.

Posters violating these rules, and the forum rules will receive a warning, a possible suspension of posting privileges or a ban from the site.

[DaffyDuck]

Another reminder:

Please use discretion in your references to the government. Phrases which can be considered as anti-coup will be removed. Referring to Thailand or the government as a dictatorship, military dictatorship or other such terms will be removed.

Any posts which can be construed as rumor mongering are not allowed.

Posters violating these rules, and the forum rules will receive a warning, a possible suspension of posting privileges or a ban from the site.

Since the above is part of the rules, then effectively any disruptive comments from tbthailand, sjaak, JPEG, thailiketoo, Thai at heart, heybruce and others like them should be removed - their comments, continuously, skirt the edge of exactly what you point out above as being essential rules - disregarding the fact that it has been pointed out repeatedly by other posters that these disruptive commenters de-motivate conversation and discussion. Edited January 5, 2015 by DaffyDuck

[sjaak327]

Another reminder:

Please use discretion in your references to the government. Phrases which can be considered as anti-coup will be removed. Referring to Thailand or the government as a dictatorship, military dictatorship or other such terms will be removed.

Any posts which can be construed as rumor mongering are not allowed.

Posters violating these rules, and the forum rules will receive a warning, a possible suspension of posting privileges or a ban from the site.

Since the above is part of the rules, then effectively any disruptive comments from tbthailand, sjaak, JPEG, thailiketoo, Thai at heart, heybruce and others like them should be removed - their comments, continuously, skirt the edge of exactly what you point out above as being essential rules - disregarding the fact that it has been pointed out repeatedly by other posters that these disruptive commenters de-motivate conversation and discussion.

Hmm, wonder what comments that would be Daffy. We already know that you don't value democracy, or the notion of freedom of speech, but to suggest our comments should be removed because you deem them disruptive might be a few bridges to far don't you think.

As to de-motivate conversation and discussion, how can someone have a decent discussion or conversation if people are not free to express themselves. I understand you don't want to hear anything negative about the Junta, but what good would any discussion or conversation do if we are not allowed to say the truth ?

Edited January 5, 2015 by sjaak327