Now, NLA panel to summon US envoy

[binjalin]

"We honour and respect them, but we also have to monitor them,"

talking about US diplomats yesterday - straight out of 'Junta Control 101'?

[mca]

Bilaibhan Sampatisiri...how could you possibly take seriously a person that looks like that! She looks like Benny Hill in drag

How excellent would it be if her and the rest of the NLA started chasing the American envoy around Lumpini Park in a speeded-up style while angrily waving rolling pins, rolled up newspapers and furled up umbrellas to the tune of "Yakkety Sax".

Edited January 31, 2015 by mca

[JAG]

Not only would it be hilarious, it would be a realistic representation of the whole nonsense.

Dare I say it might also bring some happiness?

[Oziex1]

Bilaibhan Sampatisiri...how could you possibly take seriously a person that looks like that! She looks like Benny Hill in drag

Oh dear, and for Thai politics you could always cue the Benny Hill show ending music and chase scene.

[khaowong1]

Bilaibhan Sampatisiri...how could you possibly take seriously a person that looks like that! She looks like Benny Hill in drag

You think she's bad, look at this one.

[geriatrickid]

This disagreement is being mishandled. Had professional, experienced diplomats been responding on behalf of Thailand, the Thai position would have been clearly stated and their would be no recriminations, nor embarrassing statements. The matter would have been calmed and dealt with. Foreign relations looks easy, but it requires finesse, acuity of the mind, and a steady hand. We are not seeing that here.

Despite the faults of the former Yingluck and Abhisit administrations, they would have handled this situation quite differently because they had people with experience handling the response. The foreign ministers would have taken advice and guidance from experienced diplomats and from staff with experience in dealing with the foreign country. Thailand's foreign ministry has a large number of people who know what they are doing. Unfortunately, they seem to have pushed aside. We now see what happens when people who are not experienced nor qualified take on a file.

[tbthailand]

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

Being the leader of a country is a very very important role. There are 66 million people who rely on that person being of sound judgement and intelligence to do the job. It is not a role to be given over to negligent incompetents, and I think we would all agree that Yingluck is both.

Such as Thailand's piss poor form of democracy that allows idiots like this to be put into the top position in the first place, things need to be done to shield the nation from such absurd happenings.

Unfortunately the nation is so full of moronic individuals that the head moron would likely get voted back into power, because the Thais just don't get it. So things like impeachments are necessary to save the idiots from themselves.

But it is obvious Yingluck WAS negligent, and that negligence DID allow massive corruption to flourish, so that impeachment was 100% justified. Even if it WAS politically motivated, then that motivation is justified in itself for the above reasons.

This is maybe what the NLA should be explaining to the US rather than whinging like kids. If you think the US is wrong, then just explain it to them till they understand. Fortunately for the Yanks, their electorate is a bit better educated.... hang on..... Bush, Obama..... Maybe not.

Your last sentence says it all. I have viewed posts on TV where the British and Australians are sometime bewildered by actions of their respective present or former PM's just as we Americans do the same of our presidents. The difference is we don't take to the streets and get violent or let the military overthrow them, put in a puppet legislature and impeach them or jail them for incompetence or negligence. They finish their terms and fade into history. Heck, we all too often reelect them. The point is we let the democratic process take its course.

The difference is that advanced democracies, such as those you mention, have systems in place that check and prevent a government from massive abuses.

If a government is breaking the law with its abuses, it's not for the people to decide whether or not they are happy and accepting of this practice, and if they are, well that's fine, the government can go on breaking it. That's not the way democracy works in the West, and it's not the way it should work here. In the West it is prevented, (well most of the time anyway), thanks to having things like independent bodies that help to monitor the government, and that the government can't simply put in its pocket by installing all their own mates and relatives in it, in top positions. This is what helps prevent a government from taking a complete stranglehold on power. This is what prevents a Ferdinand Marcos or a Hun Sen from getting into power in Britain, Australia or America, and staying there for twenty odd years. Thailand doesn't have the luxury of a democratic system that can prevent that sort of thing from happening. That's why they have coups (well at least it's one of the reasons - i'm not arguing that that there aren't other reasons), and it is why when coups happen, there is usually little or no resistance from the people.

Can you imagine a coup in America happening without any resistance? Of course not. Is that because Amercians are a brave and outspoken people who will stand up for democracy whereas Thais are sheepish and meek and don't care about it? Of course not. It's rather that Americans have a democratic system that prevents massive abuses without coups, whereas Thais don't.

that's total nonsense.

Americans don't have coups because the military is not a separate political force, because it is under the command of the US people via the President, and because the military is not allowed to be active within the boarders of the USA. If a 'coup' were attempted, the general(s) would be convicted for treason and probably (it is the USA after all) sentenced to death.

That's why.

The Thai constitution from 1997 was democratic and still had checks and balances.

Coups in Thailand happen because Generals and the traditional Thai elites want them.

[smedly]

This disagreement is being mishandled. Had professional, experienced diplomats been responding on behalf of Thailand, the Thai position would have been clearly stated and their would be no recriminations, nor embarrassing statements. The matter would have been calmed and dealt with. Foreign relations looks easy, but it requires finesse, acuity of the mind, and a steady hand. We are not seeing that here.

Despite the faults of the former Yingluck and Abhisit administrations, they would have handled this situation quite differently because they had people with experience handling the response. The foreign ministers would have taken advice and guidance from experienced diplomats and from staff with experience in dealing with the foreign country. Thailand's foreign ministry has a large number of people who know what they are doing. Unfortunately, they seem to have pushed aside. We now see what happens when people who are not experienced nor qualified take on a file.

one of the rare occasions I agree with most of what you said, but I will add that the US have not handled this well either

[rixalex]

The difference is that advanced democracies, such as those you mention, have systems in place that check and prevent a government from massive abuses.

If a government is breaking the law with its abuses, it's not for the people to decide whether or not they are happy and accepting of this practice, and if they are, well that's fine, the government can go on breaking it. That's not the way democracy works in the West, and it's not the way it should work here. In the West it is prevented, (well most of the time anyway), thanks to having things like independent bodies that help to monitor the government, and that the government can't simply put in its pocket by installing all their own mates and relatives in it, in top positions. This is what helps prevent a government from taking a complete stranglehold on power. This is what prevents a Ferdinand Marcos or a Hun Sen from getting into power in Britain, Australia or America, and staying there for twenty odd years. Thailand doesn't have the luxury of a democratic system that can prevent that sort of thing from happening. That's why they have coups (well at least it's one of the reasons - i'm not arguing that that there aren't other reasons), and it is why when coups happen, there is usually little or no resistance from the people.

Can you imagine a coup in America happening without any resistance? Of course not. Is that because Amercians are a brave and outspoken people who will stand up for democracy whereas Thais are sheepish and meek and don't care about it? Of course not. It's rather that Americans have a democratic system that prevents massive abuses without coups, whereas Thais don't.

that's total nonsense.

Americans don't have coups because the military is not a separate political force, because it is under the command of the US people via the President, and because the military is not allowed to be active within the boarders of the USA. If a 'coup' were attempted, the general(s) would be convicted for treason and probably (it is the USA after all) sentenced to death.

That's why.

The Thai constitution from 1997 was democratic and still had checks and balances.

Coups in Thailand happen because Generals and the traditional Thai elites want them.

Who asked you why America doesn't have coups? Because i certainly didn't.

I should have known though... it's not possible to bring any sort of a hypothetical comparison into a debate here without there being at least one numbnut who takes it in the literal sense.

Were we debating the merits of the death penalty in the case of a convicted murderer of young girls, and were i to ask the hypothetical question of how people would feel if it was their young daughter who had been killed, tbthailand would be the one saying that my question was all nonsense and proceeding to give us all of the ins and outs of his past relationships and why it was simply not possible for him to have fathered a child.

I know why America doesn't have coups coups thank you very much. I wasn't suggesting that there was any likelihood of one happening there. I was asking a hypothetical question of how American people would react were they to have one... "were they" being the operative words. Anyway, if you are not capable of distinguishing between an ordinary question and a hypothetical one, i suggest just forget it and move on.

As for the 1997 Thai constitution, this is the one that the Shinawatra camp love and hold in such fond memory, because it was the one under which they were able to most successfully circumvent checks and balances. They always make much of how the 2007 constitution which followed it, and which they hated so much, was voted in by a referendum that was not free, fair or democratic, which is funny, as the one they love and treasure so much wasn't voted in by a referendum of any sort whatsoever. We'll wait and see what the new one is like, but i'm not holding my breath.

And finally, "what is the reason for coups in Thailand?" is only half of the question. Try answering, "What is the reason for coups in Thailand and why has Thai populace in recent history gone along with them so easily?". Yes the generals and the traditional elites have been staging them no doubt for their own selfish reasons, but ask yourself, why is it that, the day after the coup, people aren't taking to the streets in their hundreds and thousands, up in arms and angry, as they would so surely be doing in other places. The reason is that Thai politicians, by catastrophic mismanagement, bad policies, by greed, corruption, nepotism, by law breaking and all the rest, lay the foundations whereby when the military do step in, people just shrug their shoulders and proceed to get on with their lives.

The day Thailand has a government that isn't terribly mismanaged and isn't riddled with greed, corruption, nepotism and illegal activity, is the day when the Thai people won't simply stand by and watch as coups happen every five or six years. There will be a very real and immediate backlash involving many many thousands of people on the streets the very day after the coup, not a contrived, organised and funded "backlash" put on weeks, months or even years after the coup. And that is when coups will begin to cease happening, because the people who stage them, will know that they won't get away with them, at least not without an awful lot of trouble.

[tbthailand]

The difference is that advanced democracies, such as those you mention, have systems in place that check and prevent a government from massive abuses.

If a government is breaking the law with its abuses, it's not for the people to decide whether or not they are happy and accepting of this practice, and if they are, well that's fine, the government can go on breaking it. That's not the way democracy works in the West, and it's not the way it should work here. In the West it is prevented, (well most of the time anyway), thanks to having things like independent bodies that help to monitor the government, and that the government can't simply put in its pocket by installing all their own mates and relatives in it, in top positions. This is what helps prevent a government from taking a complete stranglehold on power. This is what prevents a Ferdinand Marcos or a Hun Sen from getting into power in Britain, Australia or America, and staying there for twenty odd years. Thailand doesn't have the luxury of a democratic system that can prevent that sort of thing from happening. That's why they have coups (well at least it's one of the reasons - i'm not arguing that that there aren't other reasons), and it is why when coups happen, there is usually little or no resistance from the people.

Can you imagine a coup in America happening without any resistance? Of course not. Is that because Amercians are a brave and outspoken people who will stand up for democracy whereas Thais are sheepish and meek and don't care about it? Of course not. It's rather that Americans have a democratic system that prevents massive abuses without coups, whereas Thais don't.

that's total nonsense.

Americans don't have coups because the military is not a separate political force, because it is under the command of the US people via the President, and because the military is not allowed to be active within the boarders of the USA. If a 'coup' were attempted, the general(s) would be convicted for treason and probably (it is the USA after all) sentenced to death.

That's why.

The Thai constitution from 1997 was democratic and still had checks and balances.

Coups in Thailand happen because Generals and the traditional Thai elites want them.

Who asked you why America doesn't have coups? Because i certainly didn't.

I should have known though... it's not possible to bring any sort of a hypothetical comparison into a debate here without there being at least one numbnut who takes it in the literal sense.

Were we debating the merits of the death penalty in the case of a convicted murderer of young girls, and were i to ask the hypothetical question of how people would feel if it was their young daughter who had been killed, tbthailand would be the one saying that my question was all nonsense and proceeding to give us all of the ins and outs of his past relationships and why it was simply not possible for him to have fathered a child.

I know why America doesn't have coups coups thank you very much. I wasn't suggesting that there was any likelihood of one happening there. I was asking a hypothetical question of how American people would react were they to have one... "were they" being the operative words. Anyway, if you are not capable of distinguishing between an ordinary question and a hypothetical one, i suggest just forget it and move on.

As for the 1997 Thai constitution, this is the one that the Shinawatra camp love and hold in such fond memory, because it was the one under which they were able to most successfully circumvent checks and balances. They always make much of how the 2007 constitution which followed it, and which they hated so much, was voted in by a referendum that was not free, fair or democratic, which is funny, as the one they love and treasure so much wasn't voted in by a referendum of any sort whatsoever. We'll wait and see what the new one is like, but i'm not holding my breath.

And finally, "what is the reason for coups in Thailand?" is only half of the question. Try answering, "What is the reason for coups in Thailand and why has Thai populace in recent history gone along with them so easily?". Yes the generals and the traditional elites have been staging them no doubt for their own selfish reasons, but ask yourself, why is it that, the day after the coup, people aren't taking to the streets in their hundreds and thousands, up in arms and angry, as they would so surely be doing in other places. The reason is that Thai politicians, by catastrophic mismanagement, bad policies, by greed, corruption, nepotism, by law breaking and all the rest, lay the foundations whereby when the military do step in, people just shrug their shoulders and proceed to get on with their lives.

The day Thailand has a government that isn't terribly mismanaged and isn't riddled with greed, corruption, nepotism and illegal activity, is the day when the Thai people won't simply stand by and watch as coups happen every five or six years. There will be a very real and immediate backlash involving many many thousands of people on the streets the very day after the coup, not a contrived, organised and funded "backlash" put on weeks, months or even years after the coup. And that is when coups will begin to cease happening, because the people who stage them, will know that they won't get away with them, at least not without an awful lot of trouble.

come on, you made this statement, right?

It's rather that Americans have a democratic system that prevents massive abuses without coups, whereas Thais don't.

and yeah, that is total nonsense... even in the context of your full post.

First, your statement is the same short-hand others have used which says "coups happen in Thailand because of corruption". That is the first part which is really, really, completely nonsense. Corruption happens under democratic governments, under military governments, under despots, ... corruption is not linked to the form of governance. Corruption happens all the time and it happens in every country, every government, even in every industry...

What this makes clear is that "corruption or massive abuses" as an excuse for a coup is just that, an excuse.

America lives with corruption. The American government does what it needs to in order to seek out and prosecute corruption. There are 3 speakers of State senates in the USA under indictment or convicted of corruption right now - one of those states is New York. A US representative from Statin Island recently re-elected, has been convicted of corruption - he had 20 indictments against him when he won re-election.

Thailand is the same - it has corruption under every government. The form of governance is irrelevant. The only point to be made would be that under a system of self-governance, there is a better chance to increase transparency and root out corruption than there is under an authoritarian system.

I stated the real reason America doesn't have coups in my first reply.

[rixalex]

Please read more carefully.

I have already stated that those staging the coups no doubt have their own selfish reasons for doing so. Corruption and massive abuse might play a part in the decision making, but it is certainly not the only reason. So when you attribute the statement above to me - "coups happen in Thailand because of corruption" - you are misrepresenting my view and then calling it total nonsense. It's what's called making a strawman argument.

Coups don't happen just because of corruption, but it's the corruption, along with the other abuses that i have mentioned, that allow coups to happen without the sort of widespread public outrage that would certainly occur in advanced Western democracies were coups staged there tomorrow (and before you start off again, that's a hypothetical so please no more explanations on why coups wouldn't happen in those places).

Thai politicians aren't the ones staging the coups, but they are the ones giving the justifications to those who do and laying the foundations that allow the coups to happen so effortlessly and with so little public resistance. If Thai politicians were to clean up their acts and start running the country not simply for the benefit of themselves and their chums, things just might start to change around here... things might be forced to change by the weight of public opinion. It would certainly be a good start anyway.

Edited February 1, 2015 by rixalex

[NCFC]

Please read more carefully.

I have already stated that those staging the coups no doubt have their own selfish reasons for doing so. Corruption and massive abuse might play a part in the decision making, but it is certainly not the only reason. So when you attribute the statement above to me - "coups happen in Thailand because of corruption" - you are misrepresenting my view and then calling it total nonsense. It's what's called making a strawman argument.

Coups don't happen just because of corruption, but it's the corruption, along with the other abuses that i have mentioned, that allow coups to happen without the sort of widespread public outrage that would certainly occur in advanced Western democracies were coups staged there tomorrow (and before you start off again, that's a hypothetical so please no more explanations on why coups wouldn't happen in those places).

Thai politicians aren't the ones staging the coups, but they are the ones giving the justifications to those who do and laying the foundations that allow the coups to happen so effortlessly and with so little public resistance. If Thai politicians were to clean up their acts and start running the country not simply for the benefit of themselves and their chums, things just might start to change around here... things might be forced to change by the weight of public opinion. It would certainly be a good start anyway.

I wish I could share your optimism that if politicians cleaned up their act then things would change

If a 'righteous' person ever got to be PM and started to clean up I think they would be removed poste haste

Corruption is a symptom that those in power are untouchable because they have power, control the checks and balances, can operate outside the law and can keep the majority ignorant of what is happening. The elites in Thailand benefit from corruption and will do whatever they can to keep the status quo.

Thaksin upset the status quo and had to go. A righteous person would IMO suffer the same fate.

Thailand can only be turned around when the Thai people wrest back control of those conditions that allow corruption to flourish and elites to benefit.

Fortunately modern social media allows people to become informed. It's a small start but maybe from this the Thai people will learn, communicate and discuss among themselves how to move forward. Certainly the elites, the military and the politicians are not voluntarily going to give up power.

[rixalex]

Please read more carefully.

I have already stated that those staging the coups no doubt have their own selfish reasons for doing so. Corruption and massive abuse might play a part in the decision making, but it is certainly not the only reason. So when you attribute the statement above to me - "coups happen in Thailand because of corruption" - you are misrepresenting my view and then calling it total nonsense. It's what's called making a strawman argument.

Coups don't happen just because of corruption, but it's the corruption, along with the other abuses that i have mentioned, that allow coups to happen without the sort of widespread public outrage that would certainly occur in advanced Western democracies were coups staged there tomorrow (and before you start off again, that's a hypothetical so please no more explanations on why coups wouldn't happen in those places).

Thai politicians aren't the ones staging the coups, but they are the ones giving the justifications to those who do and laying the foundations that allow the coups to happen so effortlessly and with so little public resistance. If Thai politicians were to clean up their acts and start running the country not simply for the benefit of themselves and their chums, things just might start to change around here... things might be forced to change by the weight of public opinion. It would certainly be a good start anyway.

I wish I could share your optimism that if politicians cleaned up their act then things would change

If a 'righteous' person ever got to be PM and started to clean up I think they would be removed poste haste

Corruption is a symptom that those in power are untouchable because they have power, control the checks and balances, can operate outside the law and can keep the majority ignorant of what is happening. The elites in Thailand benefit from corruption and will do whatever they can to keep the status quo.

Thaksin upset the status quo and had to go. A righteous person would IMO suffer the same fate.

Thailand can only be turned around when the Thai people wrest back control of those conditions that allow corruption to flourish and elites to benefit.

Fortunately modern social media allows people to become informed. It's a small start but maybe from this the Thai people will learn, communicate and discuss among themselves how to move forward. Certainly the elites, the military and the politicians are not voluntarily going to give up power.

I understand your cause for pessimism regarding the chances of a righteous politician being able to stay in power, but I think you underestimate the power of the people, particularly in this day and age. It would be a turning point I believe, from which there would be no turning back. It would be the Thaksin effect to the power of ten. Having a politician who wasn't just using the poor for their own gain, but doing something for them because they actually genuinely cared and had a vision for a better Thailand... that would be the game changer.

Until that day, expect the same old cycle to continue.

Edited February 2, 2015 by rixalex

[ExPratt]

"He said the US seemed to believe that an election was tantamount to being a democracy, without taking into account the political context of individual countries."

You can't argue with that really, if you have a logical bone in your body.Pornpetch Wichitcholchai is obviously a graduate of the Thai School for the Gifted

[tbthailand]

Please read more carefully.

I have already stated that those staging the coups no doubt have their own selfish reasons for doing so. Corruption and massive abuse might play a part in the decision making, but it is certainly not the only reason. So when you attribute the statement above to me - "coups happen in Thailand because of corruption" - you are misrepresenting my view and then calling it total nonsense. It's what's called making a strawman argument.

Coups don't happen just because of corruption, but it's the corruption, along with the other abuses that i have mentioned, that allow coups to happen without the sort of widespread public outrage that would certainly occur in advanced Western democracies were coups staged there tomorrow (and before you start off again, that's a hypothetical so please no more explanations on why coups wouldn't happen in those places).

Thai politicians aren't the ones staging the coups, but they are the ones giving the justifications to those who do and laying the foundations that allow the coups to happen so effortlessly and with so little public resistance. If Thai politicians were to clean up their acts and start running the country not simply for the benefit of themselves and their chums, things just might start to change around here... things might be forced to change by the weight of public opinion. It would certainly be a good start anyway.

alright, I agree with you in general in that it seems like you are saying that one way out of the cycle of coups would be for politicians to not do what generals then use as justification for coups. In this case, things like corruption. Right?

[hawker9000]

Please read more carefully.

I have already stated that those staging the coups no doubt have their own selfish reasons for doing so. Corruption and massive abuse might play a part in the decision making, but it is certainly not the only reason. So when you attribute the statement above to me - "coups happen in Thailand because of corruption" - you are misrepresenting my view and then calling it total nonsense. It's what's called making a strawman argument.

Coups don't happen just because of corruption, but it's the corruption, along with the other abuses that i have mentioned, that allow coups to happen without the sort of widespread public outrage that would certainly occur in advanced Western democracies were coups staged there tomorrow (and before you start off again, that's a hypothetical so please no more explanations on why coups wouldn't happen in those places).

Thai politicians aren't the ones staging the coups, but they are the ones giving the justifications to those who do and laying the foundations that allow the coups to happen so effortlessly and with so little public resistance. If Thai politicians were to clean up their acts and start running the country not simply for the benefit of themselves and their chums, things just might start to change around here... things might be forced to change by the weight of public opinion. It would certainly be a good start anyway.

alright, I agree with you in general in that it seems like you are saying that one way out of the cycle of coups would be for politicians to not do what generals then use as justification for coups. In this case, things like corruption. Right?

Not meaning to speak for rixalex, but IMO when the public loses its confidence in its government, yes, bad things start to happen and a government takeover which would have otherwise been considered completely unacceptable and cause for public outrage can begin to seem more appealing, and even necessary. Corruption, pandering, and deceit on the public are prime examples of what can cause this loss of public faith and confidence, and have caused it in Thailand. 'Proof that democracy can be subverted. A coup which in another country might have caused widespread violent unrest & social upheaval and spawned a festering militant underground movement, is instead considered almost matter-of-fact, maybe better than what went before, and mostly just fodder for verbal sparring by most Thais.

[tbthailand]

Please read more carefully.

I have already stated that those staging the coups no doubt have their own selfish reasons for doing so. Corruption and massive abuse might play a part in the decision making, but it is certainly not the only reason. So when you attribute the statement above to me - "coups happen in Thailand because of corruption" - you are misrepresenting my view and then calling it total nonsense. It's what's called making a strawman argument.

Coups don't happen just because of corruption, but it's the corruption, along with the other abuses that i have mentioned, that allow coups to happen without the sort of widespread public outrage that would certainly occur in advanced Western democracies were coups staged there tomorrow (and before you start off again, that's a hypothetical so please no more explanations on why coups wouldn't happen in those places).

Thai politicians aren't the ones staging the coups, but they are the ones giving the justifications to those who do and laying the foundations that allow the coups to happen so effortlessly and with so little public resistance. If Thai politicians were to clean up their acts and start running the country not simply for the benefit of themselves and their chums, things just might start to change around here... things might be forced to change by the weight of public opinion. It would certainly be a good start anyway.

alright, I agree with you in general in that it seems like you are saying that one way out of the cycle of coups would be for politicians to not do what generals then use as justification for coups. In this case, things like corruption. Right?

Not meaning to speak for rixalex, but IMO when the public loses its confidence in its government, yes, bad things start to happen and a government takeover which would have otherwise been considered completely unacceptable and cause for public outrage can begin to seem more appealing, and even necessary. Corruption, pandering, and deceit on the public are prime examples of what can cause this loss of public faith and confidence, and have caused it in Thailand. 'Proof that democracy can be subverted. A coup which in another country might have caused widespread violent unrest & social upheaval and spawned a festering militant underground movement, is instead considered almost matter-of-fact, maybe better than what went before, and mostly just fodder for verbal sparring by most Thais.

I understand his basic point, but there are a couple of things.

There are Thai people who are not at all happy with the coup but are waiting for the general to clean up things... It's almost irrelevant that the coup was not really about stopping the protests or about corruption. The general says he will do that and the people actually do want that. In this sense, if the elected governments were successful in the eyes of the Thai people in addressing corruption, it would make it more difficult for a coup-maker to use that excuse.

But not impossible or even improbable. The generals are that creative. They have been darn repetitive for over 5 decades...

Coup-makers in Thailand will find an excuse. They will even use the same old ones. The problem is that it's impossible to run even the cleanest of societies without corruption and Thailand if far from the cleanest of countries.

[canuckamuck]

Thais don't usually have a political opinion until someone hosts a rally and tells then they're angry.

The rest of the time they talk about food.

[hawker9000]

Please read more carefully.

I have already stated that those staging the coups no doubt have their own selfish reasons for doing so. Corruption and massive abuse might play a part in the decision making, but it is certainly not the only reason. So when you attribute the statement above to me - "coups happen in Thailand because of corruption" - you are misrepresenting my view and then calling it total nonsense. It's what's called making a strawman argument.

Coups don't happen just because of corruption, but it's the corruption, along with the other abuses that i have mentioned, that allow coups to happen without the sort of widespread public outrage that would certainly occur in advanced Western democracies were coups staged there tomorrow (and before you start off again, that's a hypothetical so please no more explanations on why coups wouldn't happen in those places).

Thai politicians aren't the ones staging the coups, but they are the ones giving the justifications to those who do and laying the foundations that allow the coups to happen so effortlessly and with so little public resistance. If Thai politicians were to clean up their acts and start running the country not simply for the benefit of themselves and their chums, things just might start to change around here... things might be forced to change by the weight of public opinion. It would certainly be a good start anyway.

alright, I agree with you in general in that it seems like you are saying that one way out of the cycle of coups would be for politicians to not do what generals then use as justification for coups. In this case, things like corruption. Right?

Not meaning to speak for rixalex, but IMO when the public loses its confidence in its government, yes, bad things start to happen and a government takeover which would have otherwise been considered completely unacceptable and cause for public outrage can begin to seem more appealing, and even necessary. Corruption, pandering, and deceit on the public are prime examples of what can cause this loss of public faith and confidence, and have caused it in Thailand. 'Proof that democracy can be subverted. A coup which in another country might have caused widespread violent unrest & social upheaval and spawned a festering militant underground movement, is instead considered almost matter-of-fact, maybe better than what went before, and mostly just fodder for verbal sparring by most Thais.

I understand his basic point, but there are a couple of things.

There are Thai people who are not at all happy with the coup but are waiting for the general to clean up things... It's almost irrelevant that the coup was not really about stopping the protests or about corruption. The general says he will do that and the people actually do want that. In this sense, if the elected governments were successful in the eyes of the Thai people in addressing corruption, it would make it more difficult for a coup-maker to use that excuse.

But not impossible or even improbable. The generals are that creative. They have been darn repetitive for over 5 decades...

Coup-makers in Thailand will find an excuse. They will even use the same old ones. The problem is that it's impossible to run even the cleanest of societies without corruption and Thailand if far from the cleanest of countries.

"There are Thai people who are not at all happy with the coup..."

Of course there are. And many (I believe many more) who are generally OK with it. It's a population of 67 million! There are going to be people in it who believe almost anything you can concoct.

And of course corruption exists everywhere to some degree. It's the degree that matters! In Thailand, the issue of prevalence and "degree" is what made the prior government hopelessly dysfunctional. Too many Thais didn't respect it, trust it, or have confidence in it. I think most Thais instinctively recognize this as fact, and so do not too greatly bemoan the coup having taken place, or the present military government remaining in place. Where the people have to weigh the two evils of a dysfunctional but elected government, and an unelected government perceived to be - or even just hoped to be - any less dysfunctional, this argument about elected government and coups becomes strictly abstract, and not likely to inspire any widespread public outrage, and instead mostly just apathy.

[Gweiloman]

The biggest surprise to me about this thread is that we have not heard from the likes of djjamie, rubl, costas and the rest of the usual suspects. Have they all been suspended?

[baboon]

The biggest surprise to me about this thread is that we have not heard from the likes of djjamie, rubl, costas and the rest of the usual suspects. Have they all been suspended?

Perhaps squaring the circle is becoming increasingly difficult?

[HiSoLowSoNoSo]

Thais don't usually have a political opinion until someone hosts a rally and tells then they're angry.

The rest of the time they talk about food.

Or about lottery numbers.

[Don Aleman]

IT wasn't a big deal until Thai " diplomats" made it so and " showing the door " to one US representative, while "inviting " another to get a spanking is not the way to cement relations with the world's number one power. There have been several similar incidents over the past 5 years and, this one, may well be the " straw that breaks the camel's back ". Already, for months, there has been no US ambassador seated in Thailand and the Us participation in Cobra Gold has been reduced from 5,000 US military to 4,000. Hint, hint !