New Thai charter to contain built-in mechanisms to prevent parliamentary dictatorship

[tbthailand]

An army's job is to protect its population against aggressive invaders. Not to kill more of its own population than enemy combatants and deny them the right to vote for whom they wish. And then expect the nation to make them rich for doing so,

Until Thailand can control its military (to support the people rather than oppress) it will get nowhere. One of two things will happen. Thailand will become more oppressive than it is now. Much more. Or, it will do what Panama did and get rid of the military altogther and ask another nation to protect its borders for favourable trade agreements (with the USA in Panama's case).

Only the Aussies seem a viable 'local-ish' option though for Thailand. Or China

You might want to reread what you posted. Ever since the Army took over the indiscriminate killings for political reasons has ended.

Under the Army no deaths.

Under the PTP quite a few. Who was protecting the citizens them.

what are you talking about

deny them the right to vote for whom they wish

Many of them voted for who they were told to vote for by the village head man.

"Many of them voted for who they were told to vote for by the village head man."

So many people post things like that. One even offered proof, in the form of stories he heard from his wife's cousin. Funny that ANFREL didn't find evidence of any irregularities on a scale that would have changed the 2011 election outcome, or that Abhisit didn't blame vote buying when he accepted responsibility for the humiliating defeat of the Democrats in that election.

you have pointed this out many times. Thanks.

It is equally clear that vote-buying is a hammer used by the elites against the voters who vote against the elite. They want to discredit election results in general - even though Abhisit and ANFREL both accepted the results in 2011 as legitimate.

I feel that the elite, let's call them "anti-democrats", want to discredit the election process and marginalize voters because this permits them to justify the coups by their military allies and it is now being used to justify the creation of what will be the least democratic constitution in Thailand in 20 years.

On this forum, the amazing thing is that foreigners from democratic systems ape the same comments as the Thai elites...

[rubl]

An army's job is to protect its population against aggressive invaders. Not to kill more of its own population than enemy combatants and deny them the right to vote for whom they wish. And then expect the nation to make them rich for doing so,

Until Thailand can control its military (to support the people rather than oppress) it will get nowhere. One of two things will happen. Thailand will become more oppressive than it is now. Much more. Or, it will do what Panama did and get rid of the military altogther and ask another nation to protect its borders for favourable trade agreements (with the USA in Panama's case).

Only the Aussies seem a viable 'local-ish' option though for Thailand. Or China

You might want to reread what you posted. Ever since the Army took over the indiscriminate killings for political reasons has ended.

Under the Army no deaths.

Under the PTP quite a few. Who was protecting the citizens them.

what are you talking about

deny them the right to vote for whom they wish

Many of them voted for who they were told to vote for by the village head man.

"Many of them voted for who they were told to vote for by the village head man."

So many people post things like that. One even offered proof, in the form of stories he heard from his wife's cousin. Funny that ANFREL didn't find evidence of any irregularities on a scale that would have changed the 2011 election outcome, or that Abhisit didn't blame vote buying when he accepted responsibility for the humiliating defeat of the Democrats in that election.

True, true. The Pheu Thai party and maybe also other parties have grown beyong the simple, basic votebuying. Now it's the promises of what will come with the support of local elite who still seem to regard their fellow Thai in the same manner as their great-great-grandfathers did regard his serfs.

Also interesting that as some have it the Pheu Thai voters actually voted for Thaksin, the criminal fugitive. He who corrupted Thai democracy as no one else before. His party, his PM, his cabinet. skyping-in into cabinet meetings as if that's normal in democracies. Clearly a constitution should prevent such possibilities. Also the "thanks for your vote, we have a mandate, please go home now" attitude of Pheu Thai shows the need for safeguards, independent watchdogs.

BTW a defeat yes, but 'humiliating' ? Instead of 164 seats the Democrat party won in December 2007 they won 159 seats in July 2011. With lots of Thai still unhappy about the 2010 protests and a larger part of the electorate in North and NorthEast it is more of a miracle they still got so many seats.

But never mind, safeguards. Get democracy going and slowly work on a better and more democracies style incorporation of the army. Plus of course 'education, education, education'. The common people and the grass root organisations should really work on their self-entitlement, self-reliance.

[tbthailand]

You might want to reread what you posted. Ever since the Army took over the indiscriminate killings for political reasons has ended.

Under the Army no deaths.

Under the PTP quite a few. Who was protecting the citizens them.

what are you talking about

deny them the right to vote for whom they wish

Many of them voted for who they were told to vote for by the village head man.

"Many of them voted for who they were told to vote for by the village head man."

So many people post things like that. One even offered proof, in the form of stories he heard from his wife's cousin. Funny that ANFREL didn't find evidence of any irregularities on a scale that would have changed the 2011 election outcome, or that Abhisit didn't blame vote buying when he accepted responsibility for the humiliating defeat of the Democrats in that election.

True, true. The Pheu Thai party and maybe also other parties have grown beyong the simple, basic votebuying. Now it's the promises of what will come with the support of local elite who still seem to regard their fellow Thai in the same manner as their great-great-grandfathers did regard his serfs.

Also interesting that as some have it the Pheu Thai voters actually voted for Thaksin, the criminal fugitive. He who corrupted Thai democracy as no one else before. His party, his PM, his cabinet. skyping-in into cabinet meetings as if that's normal in democracies. Clearly a constitution should prevent such possibilities. Also the "thanks for your vote, we have a mandate, please go home now" attitude of Pheu Thai shows the need for safeguards, independent watchdogs.

BTW a defeat yes, but 'humiliating' ? Instead of 164 seats the Democrat party won in December 2007 they won 159 seats in July 2011. With lots of Thai still unhappy about the 2010 protests and a larger part of the electorate in North and NorthEast it is more of a miracle they still got so many seats.

But never mind, safeguards. Get democracy going and slowly work on a better and more democracies style incorporation of the army. Plus of course 'education, education, education'. The common people and the grass root organisations should really work on their self-entitlement, self-reliance.

you are the last person on this forum who should be talking about democracy

[rubl]

Not knowing the proposed details, I am left to speculate that this is will probably prevent or discourage democratic leadership

Please explain what you mean when mentioning 'democratic leadership'. Without further description I can only speculate you write down a few terms which may comfort you in what you believe without knowing.

[rubl]

You might want to reread what you posted. Ever since the Army took over the indiscriminate killings for political reasons has ended.

Under the Army no deaths.

Under the PTP quite a few. Who was protecting the citizens them.

what are you talking about

""deny them the right to vote for whom they wish""

Many of them voted for who they were told to vote for by the village head man.

"Many of them voted for who they were told to vote for by the village head man."

So many people post things like that. One even offered proof, in the form of stories he heard from his wife's cousin. Funny that ANFREL didn't find evidence of any irregularities on a scale that would have changed the 2011 election outcome, or that Abhisit didn't blame vote buying when he accepted responsibility for the humiliating defeat of the Democrats in that election.

True, true. The Pheu Thai party and maybe also other parties have grown beyong the simple, basic votebuying. Now it's the promises of what will come with the support of local elite who still seem to regard their fellow Thai in the same manner as their great-great-grandfathers did regard his serfs.

Also interesting that as some have it the Pheu Thai voters actually voted for Thaksin, the criminal fugitive. He who corrupted Thai democracy as no one else before. His party, his PM, his cabinet. skyping-in into cabinet meetings as if that's normal in democracies. Clearly a constitution should prevent such possibilities. Also the "thanks for your vote, we have a mandate, please go home now" attitude of Pheu Thai shows the need for safeguards, independent watchdogs.

BTW a defeat yes, but 'humiliating' ? Instead of 164 seats the Democrat party won in December 2007 they won 159 seats in July 2011. With lots of Thai still unhappy about the 2010 protests and a larger part of the electorate in North and NorthEast it is more of a miracle they still got so many seats.

But never mind, safeguards. Get democracy going and slowly work on a better and more democracies style incorporation of the army. Plus of course 'education, education, education'. The common people and the grass root organisations should really work on their self-entitlement, self-reliance.

you are the last person on this forum who should be talking about democracy

Well thank you, that's very kind and democratic of you. Bravo.

[rubl]

You might want to reread what you posted. Ever since the Army took over the indiscriminate killings for political reasons has ended.

Under the Army no deaths.

Under the PTP quite a few. Who was protecting the citizens them.

what are you talking about

""deny them the right to vote for whom they wish""

Many of them voted for who they were told to vote for by the village head man.

"Many of them voted for who they were told to vote for by the village head man."

So many people post things like that. One even offered proof, in the form of stories he heard from his wife's cousin. Funny that ANFREL didn't find evidence of any irregularities on a scale that would have changed the 2011 election outcome, or that Abhisit didn't blame vote buying when he accepted responsibility for the humiliating defeat of the Democrats in that election.

you have pointed this out many times. Thanks.

It is equally clear that vote-buying is a hammer used by the elites against the voters who vote against the elite. They want to discredit election results in general - even though Abhisit and ANFREL both accepted the results in 2011 as legitimate.

I feel that the elite, let's call them "anti-democrats", want to discredit the election process and marginalize voters because this permits them to justify the coups by their military allies and it is now being used to justify the creation of what will be the least democratic constitution in Thailand in 20 years.

On this forum, the amazing thing is that foreigners from democratic systems ape the same comments as the Thai elites...

Vote buying has moved on to 'vote and get delivered'. The local elite supporting whatever party still has tremendous influence over their local fief and not only the ones in Isaan. The moment the son of a criminal fugitive issues the rallying cry because his aunt get bothered by laws and held to her responsibilities, you have a prime example of what's wrong with Thailand. Why you think neither Abhisit nor others complained with various charges over the Thaksin involvement? Too many personal relations between various 'elite' it would seem.

As for 'least democratic constitution' did you see a draft? Also you should remember that the evolving of democracy, constitution and population should go hand-in-hand. Here the population doesn't seem to care. They still like their local elite, they still like hand-outs, they still fight for the right of Amply Rich people to give them hand-outs.

It's amazing people who should know better what to go back to the Thaksinocracy of wealthy business control and a population to adapt to business needs. Maybe it's not only the Thai population which should be educated, a few posters here could also benefit. Self-entitlement, self-reliance, self-empowerment.

[rockingrobin]

What I find amazing about the posters on here , is there presumption that the Thai people are uneducated about their politics , whilst I agree that in the rural parts of the country and indeed elsewhere ,education needs to be better, but when it comes to corruption, self serving members of the upper class, politicians and military coups, they are more sagacious than any farang or foreigner.

[englishoak]

deny them the right to vote for whom they wish

Many of them voted for who they were told to vote for by the village head man.

"Many of them voted for who they were told to vote for by the village head man."

So many people post things like that. One even offered proof, in the form of stories he heard from his wife's cousin. Funny that ANFREL didn't find evidence of any irregularities on a scale that would have changed the 2011 election outcome, or that Abhisit didn't blame vote buying when he accepted responsibility for the humiliating defeat of the Democrats in that election.

True, true. The Pheu Thai party and maybe also other parties have grown beyong the simple, basic votebuying. Now it's the promises of what will come with the support of local elite who still seem to regard their fellow Thai in the same manner as their great-great-grandfathers did regard his serfs.

Also interesting that as some have it the Pheu Thai voters actually voted for Thaksin, the criminal fugitive. He who corrupted Thai democracy as no one else before. His party, his PM, his cabinet. skyping-in into cabinet meetings as if that's normal in democracies. Clearly a constitution should prevent such possibilities. Also the "thanks for your vote, we have a mandate, please go home now" attitude of Pheu Thai shows the need for safeguards, independent watchdogs.

BTW a defeat yes, but 'humiliating' ? Instead of 164 seats the Democrat party won in December 2007 they won 159 seats in July 2011. With lots of Thai still unhappy about the 2010 protests and a larger part of the electorate in North and NorthEast it is more of a miracle they still got so many seats.

But never mind, safeguards. Get democracy going and slowly work on a better and more democracies style incorporation of the army. Plus of course 'education, education, education'. The common people and the grass root organisations should really work on their self-entitlement, self-reliance.

Democracy cannot work under a military oversight only civilian, since the two are ideologically diametrically opposed until the Thai military become subservient and answerable to an elected government and has its powers stripped and severely restricted, democracy in Thailand will remain just a buzz word and not a reality.

The concern should be that in the event the future throws up someone or party who has the decency, aptitude, vision, sensible policy and the popularity needed to actually change things for the better it will need more than one term in office, should they be popular enough to be re elected they will then become a threat to the current elite status quo and probably at that point removed.

Which of course is the whole point of including this caveat.

[heybruce]

deny them the right to vote for whom they wish

Many of them voted for who they were told to vote for by the village head man.

"Many of them voted for who they were told to vote for by the village head man."

So many people post things like that. One even offered proof, in the form of stories he heard from his wife's cousin. Funny that ANFREL didn't find evidence of any irregularities on a scale that would have changed the 2011 election outcome, or that Abhisit didn't blame vote buying when he accepted responsibility for the humiliating defeat of the Democrats in that election.

True, true. The Pheu Thai party and maybe also other parties have grown beyong the simple, basic votebuying. Now it's the promises of what will come with the support of local elite who still seem to regard their fellow Thai in the same manner as their great-great-grandfathers did regard his serfs.

Also interesting that as some have it the Pheu Thai voters actually voted for Thaksin, the criminal fugitive. He who corrupted Thai democracy as no one else before. His party, his PM, his cabinet. skyping-in into cabinet meetings as if that's normal in democracies. Clearly a constitution should prevent such possibilities. Also the "thanks for your vote, we have a mandate, please go home now" attitude of Pheu Thai shows the need for safeguards, independent watchdogs.

BTW a defeat yes, but 'humiliating' ? Instead of 164 seats the Democrat party won in December 2007 they won 159 seats in July 2011. With lots of Thai still unhappy about the 2010 protests and a larger part of the electorate in North and NorthEast it is more of a miracle they still got so many seats.

But never mind, safeguards. Get democracy going and slowly work on a better and more democracies style incorporation of the army. Plus of course 'education, education, education'. The common people and the grass root organisations should really work on their self-entitlement, self-reliance.

"Now it's the promises of what will come with the support of local elite who still seem to regard their fellow Thai in the same manner as their great-great-grandfathers did regard his serfs."

Are you referring to populist spending and patronage politics? Surely with the majority of Thailand's government investment occurring in Bangkok where it benefits a minority of the population, the place to find and eliminate unaffordable populism and patronage politics would be in Bangkok. Bangkok is not a PTP stronghold, it is a Democrat and Suthep stronghold. While I disagree with some of the expensive programs initiated by the PTP, I do think much more government spending should go on programs that benefit the majority of Thais. Judging by how the majority of Thais have been voting, it seems the majority thinks the same.

"Also the "thanks for your vote, we have a mandate, please go home now" attitude of Pheu Thai shows the need for safeguards, independent watchdogs."

You and others keep posting statements like that, but fail to note that the people kept voting for the same party under its different names, suggesting the voters liked what the elected party was doing. You also fail to mention specific undemocratic actions taken while in office.

"BTW a defeat yes, but 'humiliating' ? Instead of 164 seats the Democrat party won in December 2007 they won 159 seats in July 2011."

I'll concede this point, I should have posted "another humiliating defeat". The Democrats demonstrated once again that they can't come close to winning an election. That's why they are so keen on coming to power through other means.

"Get democracy going and slowly work on a better and more democracies style incorporation of the army."

Huh? What is "more democracies style incorporation of the army."? In functioning democracies the military stays out of politics.

[ExPratt]

"Under the new electoral system, list MPs will come from six regions instead of eight so that the constituents will be more familiar with the candidates"

How do you say Gerrymandering in Thai ?

".

[rockingrobin]

Not knowing the proposed details, I am left to speculate that this is will probably prevent or discourage democratic leadership

Please explain what you mean when mentioning 'democratic leadership'. Without further description I can only speculate you write down a few terms which may comfort you in what you believe without knowing.

Rubi

There are instances where we hold different opinions, and I more than comfortable with this, however I take exception to " I can only speculate you write down a few terms which may comfort you in what you believe without knowing."

I did not realise that your approval is required

To answer your question, democratic leadership involves members being encouraged to discuss and share ideas about particular issues or problems, however there needs to be someone with overall authority to make ultimate decisions

[manarak]

An army's job is to protect its population against aggressive invaders. Not to kill more of its own population than enemy combatants and deny them the right to vote for whom they wish. And then expect the nation to make them rich for doing so,

Until Thailand can control its military (to support the people rather than oppress) it will get nowhere. One of two things will happen. Thailand will become more oppressive than it is now. Much more. Or, it will do what Panama did and get rid of the military altogther and ask another nation to protect its borders for favourable trade agreements (with the USA in Panama's case).

Only the Aussies seem a viable 'local-ish' option though for Thailand. Or China

Yes, but... who controls rogue MPs ?

It's the same kind of constitutional problem as the democratic election of islamists (muslim brotherhood in Egypt, GNC in Libya) - who can stop rogue MPs supported by stupid misguided voters?

Ah, yes; those stupid, misguided voters are not to be trusted. What is needed is a benevolent dictator to protect the people from themselves.

It's not what I wrote - I wrote that I am openminded to learn about constitutional mechanisms that could prevent parliamentary dictatorship.

Dictators of any kind cannot be a long term solution.

But just giving people votes and hope they will vote in the country's best interest isn't going to work either.

It didn't work in Libya and Egypt, and it didn't work in Thailand.

My view on it is that Thailand's political structure, corruption and mentalities favor the rise to power of local thugs, especially in rural areas.

Simple Thai people duck and often bow when faced with violence and the power which comes from it.

If they want democracy, Thailand first has to tackle the problem of violence and criminal corruption in the provinces, and of course the police should be instrumental, but... 555

[rubl]

"Now it's the promises of what will come with the support of local elite who still seem to regard their fellow Thai in the same manner as their great-great-grandfathers did regard his serfs."

Are you referring to populist spending and patronage politics? Surely with the majority of Thailand's government investment occurring in Bangkok where it benefits a minority of the population, the place to find and eliminate unaffordable populism and patronage politics would be in Bangkok. Bangkok is not a PTP stronghold, it is a Democrat and Suthep stronghold. While I disagree with some of the expensive programs initiated by the PTP, I do think much more government spending should go on programs that benefit the majority of Thais. Judging by how the majority of Thais have been voting, it seems the majority thinks the same.

"Also the "thanks for your vote, we have a mandate, please go home now" attitude of Pheu Thai shows the need for safeguards, independent watchdogs."

You and others keep posting statements like that, but fail to note that the people kept voting for the same party under its different names, suggesting the voters liked what the elected party was doing. You also fail to mention specific undemocratic actions taken while in office.

"BTW a defeat yes, but 'humiliating' ? Instead of 164 seats the Democrat party won in December 2007 they won 159 seats in July 2011."

I'll concede this point, I should have posted "another humiliating defeat". The Democrats demonstrated once again that they can't come close to winning an election. That's why they are so keen on coming to power through other means.

"Get democracy going and slowly work on a better and more democracies style incorporation of the army."

Huh? What is "more democracies style incorporation of the army."? In functioning democracies the military stays out of politics.

I come from a country where no one can still remember when or if there ever was a single party government. It's always a coalition of a few parties with combinations left-middle, right-middle, left-right excluding middle. That's democracy.

As for winning, any party which wins seats wins. That's democracy.

"""Get democracy going and slowly work on a better and more democracies style incorporation of the army."

Huh? What is "more democracies style incorporation of the army."? In functioning democracies the military stays out of politics.

Sorry, let's rephrase. "incorporate the army like it's incorporated in real democracies. That means moving away from the army's direct involvement"

""

[rubl]

Not knowing the proposed details, I am left to speculate that this is will probably prevent or discourage democratic leadership

Please explain what you mean when mentioning 'democratic leadership'. Without further description I can only speculate you write down a few terms which may comfort you in what you believe without knowing.

Rubi

There are instances where we hold different opinions, and I more than comfortable with this, however I take exception to " I can only speculate you write down a few terms which may comfort you in what you believe without knowing."

I did not realise that your approval is required

To answer your question, democratic leadership involves members being encouraged to discuss and share ideas about particular issues or problems, however there needs to be someone with overall authority to make ultimate decisions

My approval is not necessary, but I am allowed to comment.

You're only left to speculate as you do based on what you already think it would seem.

As for your last sentence, are you suggesting that PM Prayut shows democratic leadership as members of his cabinet discuss and share ideas and he with overall authority makes the ultimate decision?

In democracies PMs have lost their own parties support and their position on lesser issues than claims on overall authority and ultimate decisions.

[heybruce]

"Now it's the promises of what will come with the support of local elite who still seem to regard their fellow Thai in the same manner as their great-great-grandfathers did regard his serfs."

Are you referring to populist spending and patronage politics? Surely with the majority of Thailand's government investment occurring in Bangkok where it benefits a minority of the population, the place to find and eliminate unaffordable populism and patronage politics would be in Bangkok. Bangkok is not a PTP stronghold, it is a Democrat and Suthep stronghold. While I disagree with some of the expensive programs initiated by the PTP, I do think much more government spending should go on programs that benefit the majority of Thais. Judging by how the majority of Thais have been voting, it seems the majority thinks the same.

"Also the "thanks for your vote, we have a mandate, please go home now" attitude of Pheu Thai shows the need for safeguards, independent watchdogs."

You and others keep posting statements like that, but fail to note that the people kept voting for the same party under its different names, suggesting the voters liked what the elected party was doing. You also fail to mention specific undemocratic actions taken while in office.

"BTW a defeat yes, but 'humiliating' ? Instead of 164 seats the Democrat party won in December 2007 they won 159 seats in July 2011."

I'll concede this point, I should have posted "another humiliating defeat". The Democrats demonstrated once again that they can't come close to winning an election. That's why they are so keen on coming to power through other means.

"Get democracy going and slowly work on a better and more democracies style incorporation of the army."

Huh? What is "more democracies style incorporation of the army."? In functioning democracies the military stays out of politics.

I come from a country where no one can still remember when or if there ever was a single party government. It's always a coalition of a few parties with combinations left-middle, right-middle, left-right excluding middle. That's democracy.

As for winning, any party which wins seats wins. That's democracy.

"""Get democracy going and slowly work on a better and more democracies style incorporation of the army."

Huh? What is "more democracies style incorporation of the army."? In functioning democracies the military stays out of politics.

Sorry, let's rephrase. "incorporate the army like it's incorporated in real democracies. That means moving away from the army's direct involvement"

""

I assume you come from a country where it is unusual for a single party to win a majority of the votes. I also assume that if one party wins over 50% of the votes or seats in Parliament that a coalition is not necessary.

I don't know of any functioning democracies in which the military is incorporated into the political system. In my country the military reports to and takes orders from the civilian leadership. The military only gets involved in politics by way of giving recommendations when requested. Officers that don't accept these limits on their political activities get kicked out of the military.

[lucky11]

This nonsense with "parliamentary dictatorship" is just another example of this 'CDC' showing it's true colors...

They have no intention of creating a democratic constitution, but they do intend to create a constitution which is democratic in name only...

Just like Thaksin and Yingluck governments were 'democratic in name only'!!

[tbthailand]

This nonsense with "parliamentary dictatorship" is just another example of this 'CDC' showing it's true colors...

They have no intention of creating a democratic constitution, but they do intend to create a constitution which is democratic in name only...

Just like Thaksin and Yingluck governments were 'democratic in name only'!!

actually, no.

but feel free to make your point with data.

[casualbiker]

An army's job is to protect its population against aggressive invaders. Not to kill more of its own population than enemy combatants and deny them the right to vote for whom they wish. And then expect the nation to make them rich for doing so,

Until Thailand can control its military (to support the people rather than oppress) it will get nowhere. One of two things will happen. Thailand will become more oppressive than it is now. Much more. Or, it will do what Panama did and get rid of the military altogther and ask another nation to protect its borders for favourable trade agreements (with the USA in Panama's case).

Only the Aussies seem a viable 'local-ish' option though for Thailand. Or China

You might want to reread what you posted. Ever since the Army took over the indiscriminate killings for political reasons has ended.

Under the Army no deaths.

Under the PTP quite a few. Who was protecting the citizens them.

what are you talking about

deny them the right to vote for whom they wish

Many of them voted for who they were told to vote for by the village head man.

"Many of them voted for who they were told to vote for by the village head man."

So many people post things like that. One even offered proof, in the form of stories he heard from his wife's cousin. Funny that ANFREL didn't find evidence of any irregularities on a scale that would have changed the 2011 election outcome, or that Abhisit didn't blame vote buying when he accepted responsibility for the humiliating defeat of the Democrats in that election.

you have pointed this out many times. Thanks.

It is equally clear that vote-buying is a hammer used by the elites against the voters who vote against the elite. They want to discredit election results in general - even though Abhisit and ANFREL both accepted the results in 2011 as legitimate.

I feel that the elite, let's call them "anti-democrats", want to discredit the election process and marginalize voters because this permits them to justify the coups by their military allies and it is now being used to justify the creation of what will be the least democratic constitution in Thailand in 20 years.

On this forum, the amazing thing is that foreigners from democratic systems ape the same comments as the Thai elites...

So you're suggesting that vote buying doesn't / didn't happen! Is that correct?

And here's Namfrel report of the 2011 election :

https://namfrel.wordpress.com

[heybruce]

"Many of them voted for who they were told to vote for by the village head man."

So many people post things like that. One even offered proof, in the form of stories he heard from his wife's cousin. Funny that ANFREL didn't find evidence of any irregularities on a scale that would have changed the 2011 election outcome, or that Abhisit didn't blame vote buying when he accepted responsibility for the humiliating defeat of the Democrats in that election.

you have pointed this out many times. Thanks.

It is equally clear that vote-buying is a hammer used by the elites against the voters who vote against the elite. They want to discredit election results in general - even though Abhisit and ANFREL both accepted the results in 2011 as legitimate.

I feel that the elite, let's call them "anti-democrats", want to discredit the election process and marginalize voters because this permits them to justify the coups by their military allies and it is now being used to justify the creation of what will be the least democratic constitution in Thailand in 20 years.

On this forum, the amazing thing is that foreigners from democratic systems ape the same comments as the Thai elites...

So you're suggesting that vote buying doesn't / didn't happen! Is that correct?

And here's Namfrel report of the 2011 election :

https://namfrel.wordpress.com

Your link it so the preliminary report. The final report is here:http://anfrel.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ThaiEOMReport_Edit_4-final_edit.pdf

However it's quite a lot of reading. The bottom line summary is:

"ANFREL issued a statement Tuesday noting there were some flaws in the election, including cases of violence, intimidation and vote-buying that it urged authorities to handle appropriately. But it said there were no major incidents that would call into question the results." http://www.voanews.com/content/asian-observer-group-commends-thai-election-cites-minor-flaws--125003034/141777.html

[rubl]

"Many of them voted for who they were told to vote for by the village head man."

So many people post things like that. One even offered proof, in the form of stories he heard from his wife's cousin. Funny that ANFREL didn't find evidence of any irregularities on a scale that would have changed the 2011 election outcome, or that Abhisit didn't blame vote buying when he accepted responsibility for the humiliating defeat of the Democrats in that election.

you have pointed this out many times. Thanks.

It is equally clear that vote-buying is a hammer used by the elites against the voters who vote against the elite. They want to discredit election results in general - even though Abhisit and ANFREL both accepted the results in 2011 as legitimate.

I feel that the elite, let's call them "anti-democrats", want to discredit the election process and marginalize voters because this permits them to justify the coups by their military allies and it is now being used to justify the creation of what will be the least democratic constitution in Thailand in 20 years.

On this forum, the amazing thing is that foreigners from democratic systems ape the same comments as the Thai elites...

So you're suggesting that vote buying doesn't / didn't happen! Is that correct?

And here's Namfrel report of the 2011 election :

https://namfrel.wordpress.com

Your link it so the preliminary report. The final report is here:http://anfrel.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ThaiEOMReport_Edit_4-final_edit.pdf

However it's quite a lot of reading. The bottom line summary is:

"ANFREL issued a statement Tuesday noting there were some flaws in the election, including cases of violence, intimidation and vote-buying that it urged authorities to handle appropriately. But it said there were no major incidents that would call into question the results." http://www.voanews.com/content/asian-observer-group-commends-thai-election-cites-minor-flaws--125003034/141777.html

The 'ordinary' vote buying has been replaced by pre-election promises of wonderful financial untenable schemes like the RPPS. The "one child, one tabletPC" disaster, the 'first car owners' tax rebate which saw many grandmothers 'buying' cars. things like that. The Thai population is susceptable to such promises.

Greece might be an interesting example on how such things work.

[djjamie]

It is good to see the current government who through reform is offering democracy so electoral dictatorships whose desire for reform or embracing democracy is non existent.

I could not see the PTP being in a position when they ran their dictatorship (defined as listening to an unelelected criminal over the majority) stating "This is wrong. SO we will reform ourselves"

The future looks bright where the majority will no longer be ignored. Ironically brought to fruition through a military government because of an elected dictatorship.

[Plowman]

It is good to see the current government who through reform is offering democracy so electoral dictatorships whose desire for reform or embracing democracy is non existent.

I could not see the PTP being in a position when they ran their dictatorship (defined as listening to an unelelected criminal over the majority) stating "This is wrong. SO we will reform ourselves"

The future looks bright where the majority will no longer be ignored. Ironically brought to fruition through a military government because of an elected dictatorship.

Democracy is self correcting, that's why it is the best system that humans have developed when it comes to governing nations. If one party wins a crushing victory over its opponents this defeat informs the losers that they must improve, evolve and reform to make themselves and their policies more palatable to the electorate, in defeat the seeds of victory are sown. Thailands' problem is that one side of the equation will not accept democracies verdict - they refuse to accept the will of the people and at every turn seek to undermine and eradicate democracy so that they can steal power for themselves, instead of making themselves worthy of ruling, they send out the courts or the military to crush the people. The Democrats are a woeful political party, the only thing they are good at is losing elections and they will never get better because they continue to choose to destroy the system instead of improving themselves - they are the reason Thailand is suffering now, they are to blame - their ineptitude and willingness to take shortcuts to power at the nations expense.

For 15 years the Reds have had a substantially greater number of supporters than the Democrats, often an outright majority. The majority are being ignored right now under this coup government but fear not, the majority will win out in the long run, democracy will return and a new, balanced and fair constitution will be enacted. Unfortunately for you and those with views similar to you - right now is as good as it gets, as good as it will ever get - so enjoy it while you can than start making plans to move to perhaps the only place in the world where you'll be welcomed - the hermit kingdom of NK.

BTW - Thailands fight for democracy will be over when, sometime in the (probably distant) future, the Democrats actually win an election based on merit and power changes hands in a cordial and civilised manner - the only ones delaying that day are the Democrats themselves and their behind the scenes puppet masters.

[heybruce]

It is good to see the current government who through reform is offering democracy so electoral dictatorships whose desire for reform or embracing democracy is non existent.

I could not see the PTP being in a position when they ran their dictatorship (defined as listening to an unelelected criminal over the majority) stating "This is wrong. SO we will reform ourselves"

The future looks bright where the majority will no longer be ignored. Ironically brought to fruition through a military government because of an elected dictatorship.

You believe anything the junta says without question, don't you?

Regarding your definition of dictatorship, you must be using the "djjamie Dictionary", because that definition doesn't exist anywhere else. You also ignore the fact that the elected government you call a dictatorship tried very hard to have elections, but your heroes wouldn't let them.

[djjamie]

It is good to see the current government who through reform is offering democracy so electoral dictatorships whose desire for reform or embracing democracy is non existent.

I could not see the PTP being in a position when they ran their dictatorship (defined as listening to an unelelected criminal over the majority) stating "This is wrong. SO we will reform ourselves"

The future looks bright where the majority will no longer be ignored. Ironically brought to fruition through a military government because of an elected dictatorship.

Democracy is self correcting, that's why it is the best system that humans have developed when it comes to governing nations. If one party wins a crushing victory over its opponents this defeat informs the losers that they must improve, evolve and reform to make themselves and their policies more palatable to the electorate, in defeat the seeds of victory are sown. Thailands' problem is that one side of the equation will not accept democracies verdict - they refuse to accept the will of the people and at every turn seek to undermine and eradicate democracy so that they can steal power for themselves, instead of making themselves worthy of ruling, they send out the courts or the military to crush the people. The Democrats are a woeful political party, the only thing they are good at is losing elections and they will never get better because they continue to choose to destroy the system instead of improving themselves - they are the reason Thailand is suffering now, they are to blame - their ineptitude and willingness to take shortcuts to power at the nations expense.

For 15 years the Reds have had a substantially greater number of supporters than the Democrats, often an outright majority. The majority are being ignored right now under this coup government but fear not, the majority will win out in the long run, democracy will return and a new, balanced and fair constitution will be enacted. Unfortunately for you and those with views similar to you - right now is as good as it gets, as good as it will ever get - so enjoy it while you can than start making plans to move to perhaps the only place in the world where you'll be welcomed - the hermit kingdom of NK.

BTW - Thailands fight for democracy will be over when, sometime in the (probably distant) future, the Democrats actually win an election based on merit and power changes hands in a cordial and civilised manner - the only ones delaying that day are the Democrats themselves and their behind the scenes puppet masters.

You have been a busy little bee the last 2 days of your membership to TVF…Is that you Fab4? Time will tell.

[Plowman]

It is good to see the current government who through reform is offering democracy so electoral dictatorships whose desire for reform or embracing democracy is non existent.

I could not see the PTP being in a position when they ran their dictatorship (defined as listening to an unelelected criminal over the majority) stating "This is wrong. SO we will reform ourselves"

The future looks bright where the majority will no longer be ignored. Ironically brought to fruition through a military government because of an elected dictatorship.

Democracy is self correcting, that's why it is the best system that humans have developed when it comes to governing nations. If one party wins a crushing victory over its opponents this defeat informs the losers that they must improve, evolve and reform to make themselves and their policies more palatable to the electorate, in defeat the seeds of victory are sown. Thailands' problem is that one side of the equation will not accept democracies verdict - they refuse to accept the will of the people and at every turn seek to undermine and eradicate democracy so that they can steal power for themselves, instead of making themselves worthy of ruling, they send out the courts or the military to crush the people. The Democrats are a woeful political party, the only thing they are good at is losing elections and they will never get better because they continue to choose to destroy the system instead of improving themselves - they are the reason Thailand is suffering now, they are to blame - their ineptitude and willingness to take shortcuts to power at the nations expense.

For 15 years the Reds have had a substantially greater number of supporters than the Democrats, often an outright majority. The majority are being ignored right now under this coup government but fear not, the majority will win out in the long run, democracy will return and a new, balanced and fair constitution will be enacted. Unfortunately for you and those with views similar to you - right now is as good as it gets, as good as it will ever get - so enjoy it while you can than start making plans to move to perhaps the only place in the world where you'll be welcomed - the hermit kingdom of NK.

BTW - Thailands fight for democracy will be over when, sometime in the (probably distant) future, the Democrats actually win an election based on merit and power changes hands in a cordial and civilised manner - the only ones delaying that day are the Democrats themselves and their behind the scenes puppet masters.

You have been a busy little bee the last 2 days of your membership to TVF…Is that you Fab4? Time will tell.

Pretty weak response

[djjamie]

It is good to see the current government who through reform is offering democracy so electoral dictatorships whose desire for reform or embracing democracy is non existent.

I could not see the PTP being in a position when they ran their dictatorship (defined as listening to an unelelected criminal over the majority) stating "This is wrong. SO we will reform ourselves"

The future looks bright where the majority will no longer be ignored. Ironically brought to fruition through a military government because of an elected dictatorship.

You believe anything the junta says without question, don't you?

Regarding your definition of dictatorship, you must be using the "djjamie Dictionary", because that definition doesn't exist anywhere else. You also ignore the fact that the elected government you call a dictatorship tried very hard to have elections, but your heroes wouldn't let them.

Well I define a dictatorship as a parliament that vote for an amnesty bill at 310 - 0 because an unelected criminal told them to vote that way even though the majority of Thai citizens asked them not to vote that way. I think the dictionary defines a dictatorship as an entity that refuses to relinquish power and will never allow democracy to flourish in the future. Maybe it is a dictatorship to threaten protestors with the RCM51 and call them garbage?

The democracy part of the previous government stopped when they held the most seats in parliament. Had they listened and reflected the majorities interested while there then that is good. When they didn't that is a dictatorship. The only principle of democracy you can ever use when describing the PTP is elections because there is no other principle they adhere too.

And as for this election in 2014. She did a great job to have it while ensuring it failed.

She knew and wanted those polls to fail so she could blame the PDRC for the non payments of the rice scheme. yingluck was even told that the commission candidates have been unable to register in some constituencies, meaning there would not be a quorum to open parliament even if voting went ahead. It is akin to knowing the future, but building a house in Phuket a day before the Tsunami. Why hold an election when you know that it won't be successful? She wanted those polls to fail because she knew she would have lost. The results that were tabulated proved that. All polls post failed rice scheme proved that as well.

Robert Amsterdam. the unelected leader of the PTP dictatorship and the PTP advisors made their money that day when they told her to drive this election to its doom. If she didn't want the polls to fail she would have ordered soldiers to all polling booths in her capacity of defense minister to ensure they proceeded successfully. She should have made sure the candidates can register. She had an army behind her for goodness sake. Never happened. Remember yingluck fanboys say she was the best leader Thailand had ever seen. If that was the case this soldiers would be jumping to the beat of her drum…She didn't even order them out. Not even on Facebook did she order them out.

yingluck was in the unique position of being the defense minister and PM and if she truly knew she would win that election she would use every tool she had to ensure peaceful polls. Yet that never happened. She did drive for elections, but not for peaceful ones. No soldiers in force defending polling stations while Chalerm on the other front was suggesting he would dress up in a Groucho mask to arrest Suthep…That aint the sign of a government that wants polls to go ahead. It is certainly not the sign of a sane government either.

It was a time wasting narratives to ensure it goes ahead and fails.

So I prefer a government that at least offer a hope that democracy (as well as elections) will be restored. The previous government removed it (yes, yes elections, I get it) and offered no hope of a restoration of it.

[rockingrobin]

It is good to see the current government who through reform is offering democracy so electoral dictatorships whose desire for reform or embracing democracy is non existent.

I could not see the PTP being in a position when they ran their dictatorship (defined as listening to an unelelected criminal over the majority) stating "This is wrong. SO we will reform ourselves"

The future looks bright where the majority will no longer be ignored. Ironically brought to fruition through a military government because of an elected dictatorship.

You believe anything the junta says without question, don't you?

Regarding your definition of dictatorship, you must be using the "djjamie Dictionary", because that definition doesn't exist anywhere else. You also ignore the fact that the elected government you call a dictatorship tried very hard to have elections, but your heroes wouldn't let them.

Well I define a dictatorship as a parliament that vote for an amnesty bill at 310 - 0 because an unelected criminal told them to vote that way even though the majority of Thai citizens asked them not to vote that way. I think the dictionary defines a dictatorship as an entity that refuses to relinquish power and will never allow democracy to flourish in the future. Maybe it is a dictatorship to threaten protestors with the RCM51 and call them garbage?

The democracy part of the previous government stopped when they held the most seats in parliament. Had they listened and reflected the majorities interested while there then that is good. When they didn't that is a dictatorship. The only principle of democracy you can ever use when describing the PTP is elections because there is no other principle they adhere too.

And as for this election in 2014. She did a great job to have it while ensuring it failed.

She knew and wanted those polls to fail so she could blame the PDRC for the non payments of the rice scheme. yingluck was even told that the commission candidates have been unable to register in some constituencies, meaning there would not be a quorum to open parliament even if voting went ahead. It is akin to knowing the future, but building a house in Phuket a day before the Tsunami. Why hold an election when you know that it won't be successful? She wanted those polls to fail because she knew she would have lost. The results that were tabulated proved that. All polls post failed rice scheme proved that as well.

Robert Amsterdam. the unelected leader of the PTP dictatorship and the PTP advisors made their money that day when they told her to drive this election to its doom. If she didn't want the polls to fail she would have ordered soldiers to all polling booths in her capacity of defense minister to ensure they proceeded successfully. She should have made sure the candidates can register. She had an army behind her for goodness sake. Never happened. Remember yingluck fanboys say she was the best leader Thailand had ever seen. If that was the case this soldiers would be jumping to the beat of her drum…She didn't even order them out. Not even on Facebook did she order them out.

yingluck was in the unique position of being the defense minister and PM and if she truly knew she would win that election she would use every tool she had to ensure peaceful polls. Yet that never happened. She did drive for elections, but not for peaceful ones. No soldiers in force defending polling stations while Chalerm on the other front was suggesting he would dress up in a Groucho mask to arrest Suthep…That aint the sign of a government that wants polls to go ahead. It is certainly not the sign of a sane government either.

It was a time wasting narratives to ensure it goes ahead and fails.

So I prefer a government that at least offer a hope that democracy (as well as elections) will be restored. The previous government removed it (yes, yes elections, I get it) and offered no hope of a restoration of it.

Once again you end up spouting utter rubbish

[tbthailand]

It is good to see the current government who through reform is offering democracy so electoral dictatorships whose desire for reform or embracing democracy is non existent.

I could not see the PTP being in a position when they ran their dictatorship (defined as listening to an unelelected criminal over the majority) stating "This is wrong. SO we will reform ourselves"

The future looks bright where the majority will no longer be ignored. Ironically brought to fruition through a military government because of an elected dictatorship.

You believe anything the junta says without question, don't you?

Regarding your definition of dictatorship, you must be using the "djjamie Dictionary", because that definition doesn't exist anywhere else. You also ignore the fact that the elected government you call a dictatorship tried very hard to have elections, but your heroes wouldn't let them.

Well I define a dictatorship as a parliament that vote for an amnesty bill at 310 - 0 because an unelected criminal told them to vote that way even though the majority of Thai citizens asked them not to vote that way. I think the dictionary defines a dictatorship as an entity that refuses to relinquish power and will never allow democracy to flourish in the future. Maybe it is a dictatorship to threaten protestors with the RCM51 and call them garbage?

The democracy part of the previous government stopped when they held the most seats in parliament. Had they listened and reflected the majorities interested while there then that is good. When they didn't that is a dictatorship. The only principle of democracy you can ever use when describing the PTP is elections because there is no other principle they adhere too.

And as for this election in 2014. She did a great job to have it while ensuring it failed.

She knew and wanted those polls to fail so she could blame the PDRC for the non payments of the rice scheme. yingluck was even told that the commission candidates have been unable to register in some constituencies, meaning there would not be a quorum to open parliament even if voting went ahead. It is akin to knowing the future, but building a house in Phuket a day before the Tsunami. Why hold an election when you know that it won't be successful? She wanted those polls to fail because she knew she would have lost. The results that were tabulated proved that. All polls post failed rice scheme proved that as well.

Robert Amsterdam. the unelected leader of the PTP dictatorship and the PTP advisors made their money that day when they told her to drive this election to its doom. If she didn't want the polls to fail she would have ordered soldiers to all polling booths in her capacity of defense minister to ensure they proceeded successfully. She should have made sure the candidates can register. She had an army behind her for goodness sake. Never happened. Remember yingluck fanboys say she was the best leader Thailand had ever seen. If that was the case this soldiers would be jumping to the beat of her drum…She didn't even order them out. Not even on Facebook did she order them out.

yingluck was in the unique position of being the defense minister and PM and if she truly knew she would win that election she would use every tool she had to ensure peaceful polls. Yet that never happened. She did drive for elections, but not for peaceful ones. No soldiers in force defending polling stations while Chalerm on the other front was suggesting he would dress up in a Groucho mask to arrest Suthep…That aint the sign of a government that wants polls to go ahead. It is certainly not the sign of a sane government either.

It was a time wasting narratives to ensure it goes ahead and fails.

So I prefer a government that at least offer a hope that democracy (as well as elections) will be restored. The previous government removed it (yes, yes elections, I get it) and offered no hope of a restoration of it.

Well I define a dictatorship as a parliament that vote for an amnesty bill at 310 - 0

so clearly the problem is that you don't recognize a dictatorship when you see one.

[beautifulthailand99]

An army's job is to protect its population against aggressive invaders. Not to kill more of its own population than enemy combatants and deny them the right to vote for whom they wish. And then expect the nation to make them rich for doing so,

Until Thailand can control its military (to support the people rather than oppress) it will get nowhere. One of two things will happen. Thailand will become more oppressive than it is now. Much more. Or, it will do what Panama did and get rid of the military altogther and ask another nation to protect its borders for favourable trade agreements (with the USA in Panama's case).

Only the Aussies seem a viable 'local-ish' option though for Thailand. Or China

That said they do a good job of defending the borders....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai%E2%80%93Laotian_Border_War

[northernjohn]

They should eliminate the Party List System completely.

If you want a seat in Parlament, then you stand for election and either win, or lose. No party list BS, as it is a sure path to corruption.

Might want to put something into the new charter that places the military under civilian control and makes coups an automatic death sentence.

Good one The general pulls off a coup then shoots himself because it is illegal.

if only it were that easy. Thailand will never be a stable democracy until the military is firmly under the control of the civilian government, though it's hard to imagine how that will be brought about.

Not hard at all honest elections and honest politicians. You need to broaden your imagination.