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

[Gunna]

Will the new charter prevent military dictatorship?

They all have.

Everyone had a clause that to overthrow the current consitution would be illegal. Unless of course you have a get out of jail free card....like a big tank

Maybe they should have written in the new constitution that every time a Government is caught doing illegal activities then the Army Chief can kick them out and immediately call new elections.

I didn't say individual Politicians because there would be few left, but when a whole party is involved in illegal acts they should be disbanded and the individual MPs banned for life.

[ExPratt]

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

"CDC spokesman General Lertrat Rattanavanich, meanwhile, said that the new charter would prevent political parties from fielding their candidates to run independently and later on, after having won the election, incorporating them into the parties to increase their seats in the parliament so as to take control of the parliament."

So a coalition is still allowed? but the people joining in the coalition can not jump from one party to another? Unless they are going to ban coalitions I don't see the reasoning of this. A vote is a vote in Parliament doesn't matter who you represent when you do vote

Beg to differ It does matter who you represent when you vote.

You should always vote for the people who elected you. That is presuming they elected you and were not bought or forced to vote for you.

Under the present system you for the most part do not owe them any loyalty. It is owed to the party you belong to and your constituent's don't count.

I understand that , but what I'm getting at if it is a measure to suppress opposition to the establishment parties , then it is of no use as vote is vote

[ExPratt]

If the term 'red' criminals' is not warranted, why still use it yourself?

People voted for political party candidates (constituency candidates) and for political parties (party list). As such they didn't vote for a coalition government, not even one which included former coup leader turned decent MP Gen Sondhi. As such there is no (direct) relation between red criminals/non-criminals and the government, nor with how the caretaker government was made to resign.

Quite obviously I'm not "Using it myself" I'm quoting what someone else says and probably believes about Normal people who have had there majority Government overthrown by the Rich and Powerful. Pouring scorn on these people and making up lies to excuse the coup , to make themselves feel better about cheer leading a Military coup,like little Fascist sheep that they are. I doubt very much these people would support a coup in there own countries, if they did they would be classed as collaborators

[tbthailand]

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.

You forgot a bit..

because an unelected criminal told them to vote that way even though the majority of Thai citizens asked them not to vote that way.

Your statement encapsulates the PTP ethos though and thank you for inadvertently proving me right. You have removed the bit regarding the majorities voice not being heard. That shows a lack of respect for the majority to favor the unelected criminal.

Thanks again...

to be honest, it doesn't matter how you dress it up.

Whether a parliament does the right thing or the wrong thing vis a vis the will of the people, it is not a dictatorship.

The US House may be a gerrymandered pack of right-wing nutters and they almost never vote in accordance to the will of the majority of Americans, but that doesn't them a dictatorship, that makes them partisan.

[heybruce]

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.

No election is ever perfect, but it it reflects the will of the people, as ANFREL stated the 2011 election did, then it is good enough. No one has come up with a reliable litmus test for honesty in politicians, if they did I think few politicians of any political persuasion would pass. And even with honest elections and honest politicians, if the military feels free to topple an elected government then democracy is not safe or stable.

Well you say

 
No election is ever perfect, but it it reflects the will of the people,

How is it reflecting the will of the people when 51% of them do not want it?

Under the terms of the constitution written at the direction of the military after the 2006 coup, the PTP won a clear majority of the seats in Parliament. Though it wasn't necessary, they formed a coalition with other parties that presumably agreed with many of the proposed PTP policies. The election results came as close to representing the majority as the military constitution allowed. One can think of other ways to determine an election result, but you'd have to stage a coup and impose your own constitution to implement them.

How do you know 51% opposed the PTP? If the voters for the parties that joined the PTP coalition objected, why didn't they make their objections known?

[rubl]

Parliamentary dictatorship is democratic in name only.

The problem with a democratic constitution is that it doesn't make voters democratic or understanding what democratic means. The CDC may do it's best, but education takes a wee bit longer.

This tired feeble mantra has been repeated over the centuries as democracy emerges - by those who detest it.The underlying thought is that the ordinary people lack the sophistication and education to understand what democracy is all about.It assumes that the ignorant masses will be swayed by populist policies and corrupt politicians.How much better it would be if politicians could be dispensed with and be replaced by "good people".

But as history shows this infantile vision had been proven wrong again and again.In Thailand the only question is whether there will be a historic compromise or whether the resolution will be a rather terrible thing.

My dear boy, before making childish remarks you might read a bit on history and democracy.

It would seem that educational development of a populace and growth in democracy go step by step and hand in hand. Till the moment even women can vote

In Thailand we have a situation where the population knows how to vote. Seems some steps were deemed unnecessary. Like explaining what democracy means in rights and duties. Maybe not in the interest of powers that be, both the central as well as the region ones. Reminds of England in the 19th Century when Engels and Marx wrote their books.

You are obviously ignorant or ill informed about the reasons for the growth of democracy across the world.The pressure for the franchise came from below and was generally resisted by those who benefited from the status quo.This is what we see in Thailand with the twist that, although universal franchise exists, the establishment refuses to accept results that are not to its liking.You also make the schoolboy error of confusing formal education and intelligence.Regardless of formal education all the evidence of recent elections in Thailand suggest that people of every class vote for what they perceive to be their own best interests.Nobody in India for example would accept your foolish premise.

The lecture in rights and duties you seem to think is necessary is an area that we can agree on.However it should not be delivered to ordinary decent Thais but to the generals, feudalists, corporate fatcats and myopic largely Sino Thai middle class ranged against them.

For your information 'population' includes ALL even those you don't like. 'education' can be formal and informal, progress is through both. A mindset is the result of an environment and the education, examples, etc., it provides.

So, education on rights and duties in a democracy should be delivered to the population. A mindset have to grow that a democracy doesn't mean you necessarily get what you want, whether you're poor or rich. Not even when you vote.

BTW you seem to have ignored my "Like explaining what democracy means in rights and duties. Maybe not in the interest of powers that be, both the central as well as the region ones." or I should have been more clearly, explicitly indicating I included those Bangkok and regional elite as part of the population.

PS History

"Whatever concept one may hold, from a metaphysical point of view, concerning the freedom of the will, certainly its appearances, which are human actions, like every other natural event, are determined by universal laws. However obscure their causes, history, which is concerned with narrating these appearances, permits us to hope that if we attend to the play of freedom of the human will in the large, we may be able to discern a regular movement in it, and that what seems complex and chaotic in the single individual may be seen from the standpoint of the human race as a whole to be a steady and progressive though slow evolution of its original endowment."

Immanuel Kant

or maybe

"I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is a tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history we make today."

Henry Ford

[rubl]

How can posters with a Western democratic background support the junta with NRC/CDC?

Well probably because some realise that it took a few centuries to get the Western Democracies and it's population in the shape it is today. Left alone the Thai would be condemned to repeat all that others already learned.

Mindyou, the mindset which goes with democracy, education whether formal, informal, or through experience shared, takes time. All classes in the population have to get used to it.

[ExPratt]

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

How can posters with a Western democratic background support the junta with NRC/CDC?

Well probably because some realise that it took a few centuries to get the Western Democracies and it's population in the shape it is today. Left alone the Thai would be condemned to repeat all that others already learned.

Mindyou, the mindset which goes with democracy, education whether formal, informal, or through experience shared, takes time. All classes in the population have to get used to it.

Rubi you seem like an intelligent fella , you can;t really believe Thailand isn't ready for Democracy ? which I assume you meant by your second paragraph. If so when will we deem them capable , when they vote for the Democratic party ? If anyone isn't ready for Democracy its the "Elite"

[rubl]

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

How can posters with a Western democratic background support the junta with NRC/CDC?

Well probably because some realise that it took a few centuries to get the Western Democracies and it's population in the shape it is today. Left alone the Thai would be condemned to repeat all that others already learned.

Mindyou, the mindset which goes with democracy, education whether formal, informal, or through experience shared, takes time. All classes in the population have to get used to it.

Rubi you seem like an intelligent fella , you can;t really believe Thailand isn't ready for Democracy ? which I assume you meant by your second paragraph. If so when will we deem them capable , when they vote for the Democratic party ? If anyone isn't ready for Democracy its the "Elite"

So "I can't really believe Thailand isn't ready" based on your assumption and following you ask me when we will deem them capable?

All the nonsense of ready when voting Democrat party distracts from voting for a criminal fugitives party which promises heaven on earth to be paid by Tax payers which somehow suggests they appeal to those who are not.

Promising educational programs to lead to self-reliance and self-entitlement seems more worthwhile. And no, that doesn't mean they should vote for the Democrat party.

[heybruce]

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.

You are responding with quantity over quality again, I see.

Regarding your first paragraph: Check a dictionary.

Second paragraph: Do you expect the Parliament to take a poll before every vote?

Third and fourth paragraph: How did Yingluck obstruct the election? Did you forget that it was Suthep's minions that prevented candidates from registering?

Firfth paragraph and sixth paragraph: She had the army behind her? Can you support that claim? The only thing keeping Suthep's mob in place was the army's refusal to take sides--hardly the action of an army that is behind the government or PM. Had Prayuth made clear that he wanted elections and was prepared to take 2010 style street clearing actions then the July election would have happened.

You end with:

"So I prefer a government that at least offer a hope that democracy (as well as elections) will be restored."

In spite of all the past coups and military governments you still believe the current one, which toppled the elected and prevented July elections, will restore democracy and elections.

1st paragraph - Checked it and it states that an unlelected criminal running a country from abroad is a definition of a dictatorship.

2nd - No of coarse not. I expect the minister for their electorate to represent the people that voted for them from that electorate…To even ask this question shows a lack of understanding of democratic principles.

3rd and 4th - Agreed. Suthep stopped candidates from registering, BUT she still went ahead with elections knowing they would fail. Remember the Tsunami? Would you build a house on the coast knowing it will fall when the waves came?

5th and 6th - She had an army behind her because she was the Defense Minister. Your peers stated she was the best and most wonderful leader Thailand hs ever seen. If that was the case her army would be jumping to her every command…Did she give any orders to them they ignored? Just one would be a great example that they were not behind her. If she was so incapable as the defense minister because she could not command HER army then what does that say about her ability to be PM or rice chairwomen?

My last comment illustrates that democracy was never "on tap" from 1 minute after the 2011 elections. There are a 13 dead farmers and 28 dead protestors and 700 injured families that can attest to this.

Ignore them too while your on your drive to ensure an unelelected criminal rules the country.

OK, we'll continue.

1st paragraph: What dictionary did you use?

2nd paragraph: You dodged the question. How are representatives supposed to determine the day by day preferences of the people that elected them? In democracies people elect representatives that they trust to learn about the issues and vote in a manner that is in the interests of the voters of their district and the nation. If the elected voters feel their elected representatives did a bad job, they elect new representatives during the next election. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand democratic principles.

3rd and 4th paragraph: Yingluck didn't build a house before a tsunami. Suthep's protests frequently showed signs of collapse, it was quite reasonable for Yingluck to believe the elections to had a good chance of succeeding, especially in view of statments from the police:

"PCAD has demanded that the election be scrapped in favour for the formation of an unelected "People′s Council", which would implement series of reforms deemed necessary by PCAD leadership before any election can be held.

Nevertheless, Pol.Lt.Gen. Amnart said he believes there won′t be any violent incident on the election day itself, as there are numerous polling stations which would force anti-election protesters to thinly spread out across the capital city." http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/700884-thai-police-warn-pcad-not-to-sabotage-election/?hl=prayuth

4th and 5th paragraph: This one is rich. You wrote:

"Your peers stated she was the best and most wonderful leader Thailand hs ever seen. If that was the case her army would be jumping to her every command…"

Clearly you're just making stuff up.

The military made it clear that they serve the monarchy. Praytuh's commitment to supporting the government was, at best, vague:

"He said the Army would support and assist all sides with no bias." http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/698460-thai-army-chief-says-soldiers-will-intervene-only-violence-is-uncontrollable/?hl=prayuth

Also, the military was less than prompt in responding to requests from the PM/Defense Minister:

""No one should expect the army to suddenly send troops without proper request, because that′s against the procedure," Lt.Col. Winthai explained, adding that the army is still waiting for "more clarity" from Mr. Surapong in his requests." http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/702337-thai-army-refuses-govts-request-for-troops-to-protect-pm-yingluck/?hl=prayuth

You ended with:

"If she was so incapable as the defense minister because she could not command HER army then what does that say about her ability to be PM or rice chairwomen?

My last comment illustrates that democracy was never "on tap" from 1 minute after the 2011 elections."

It seems that you are arguing that since the army would not take orders from the elected government that there was no democracy. That may be true, but has there ever been a time in Thailand's history when the army was not ready to ignore an elected government and stage a coup? It seems you are arguing that there will be no democracy in Thailand so long as the army is not firmly under the control of the elected government. On that we agree, but unlike you I don't trust a military junta to bring about this democracy.

By the way, I came across this amusing blast from the past while looking up the above sources:

BANGKOK, 2 April 2014 (NNT) – Army Chief Gen Prayuth Chan-Ocha says there is no need to invoke martial law, while also urging all sides to respect the justice system. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/715818-thai-military-not-imposing-martial-law/?p=7641265&hl=prayuth

18 days before marital law as imposed Prayuth said there was no need to impose martial law, and five days before the courts removed Yingluck from office but left the government in the hands of the PTP he urged all sides to respect the justice system. I don't know about you but I get the feeling that he expected the courts to topple the government for him.

[rubl]

... ...

By the way, I came across this amusing blast from the past while looking up the above sources:

BANGKOK, 2 April 2014 (NNT) – Army Chief Gen Prayuth Chan-Ocha says there is no need to invoke martial law, while also urging all sides to respect the justice system. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/715818-thai-military-not-imposing-martial-law/?p=7641265&hl=prayuth

18 days before marital law as imposed Prayuth said there was no need to impose martial law, and five days before the courts removed Yingluck from office but left the government in the hands of the PTP he urged all sides to respect the justice system. I don't know about you but I get the feeling that he expected the courts to topple the government for him.

I also came across

2014-05-16

"Former deputy prime minister and foreign minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul on Friday expressed his support for the declaration of martial law by the Army.

Surapong said if the Army were to declare martial law nationwide, the new election could be held smoothly.

Army Commander-in-Chief Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha indicated Thursday that he might have to resort to martial law if political violence escalates, saying the army might have to deploy troops to control the situation.

"Martial law is the highest level of measures to ensure security. I believe the armed forces have prepared measures to enforce it," Surapong said."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Surapong-voices-support-for-martial-law-30233791.html

2014-05-17

"Surapong said Army move could help election to go ahead, but interior minister urges kamnans to rally if coup is staged

Pro- and anti-government groups both praised the Army yesterday for its latest warning against violence in the political conflict.

Former deputy prime minister and foreign minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul, now an adviser to the Centre for the Administration of Peace and Order (CAPO), expressed support yesterday for a declaration of martial law by the Army.

"If martial law is declared, the military will run the operation to maintain security and the CAPO will not get involved. And I believe that if the martial law is declared nationwide, an election can be held smoothly," he said. "

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Warning-to-impose-martial-law-welcomed-by-both-sid-30233855.html

[heybruce]

... ...

By the way, I came across this amusing blast from the past while looking up the above sources:

BANGKOK, 2 April 2014 (NNT) – Army Chief Gen Prayuth Chan-Ocha says there is no need to invoke martial law, while also urging all sides to respect the justice system. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/715818-thai-military-not-imposing-martial-law/?p=7641265&hl=prayuth

18 days before marital law as imposed Prayuth said there was no need to impose martial law, and five days before the courts removed Yingluck from office but left the government in the hands of the PTP he urged all sides to respect the justice system. I don't know about you but I get the feeling that he expected the courts to topple the government for him.

I also came across

2014-05-16

"Former deputy prime minister and foreign minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul on Friday expressed his support for the declaration of martial law by the Army.

Surapong said if the Army were to declare martial law nationwide, the new election could be held smoothly.

Army Commander-in-Chief Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha indicated Thursday that he might have to resort to martial law if political violence escalates, saying the army might have to deploy troops to control the situation.

"Martial law is the highest level of measures to ensure security. I believe the armed forces have prepared measures to enforce it," Surapong said."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Surapong-voices-support-for-martial-law-30233791.html

2014-05-17

"Surapong said Army move could help election to go ahead, but interior minister urges kamnans to rally if coup is staged

Pro- and anti-government groups both praised the Army yesterday for its latest warning against violence in the political conflict.

Former deputy prime minister and foreign minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul, now an adviser to the Centre for the Administration of Peace and Order (CAPO), expressed support yesterday for a declaration of martial law by the Army.

"If martial law is declared, the military will run the operation to maintain security and the CAPO will not get involved. And I believe that if the martial law is declared nationwide, an election can be held smoothly," he said. "

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Warning-to-impose-martial-law-welcomed-by-both-sid-30233855.html

So Surapong supported martial law if it were used to ensure a peaceful election in July 2014. I assume many people would have supported martial law if it had been used for that purpose.

[rubl]

... ...

By the way, I came across this amusing blast from the past while looking up the above sources:

BANGKOK, 2 April 2014 (NNT) – Army Chief Gen Prayuth Chan-Ocha says there is no need to invoke martial law, while also urging all sides to respect the justice system. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/715818-thai-military-not-imposing-martial-law/?p=7641265&hl=prayuth

18 days before marital law as imposed Prayuth said there was no need to impose martial law, and five days before the courts removed Yingluck from office but left the government in the hands of the PTP he urged all sides to respect the justice system. I don't know about you but I get the feeling that he expected the courts to topple the government for him.

I also came across

2014-05-16

"Former deputy prime minister and foreign minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul on Friday expressed his support for the declaration of martial law by the Army.

Surapong said if the Army were to declare martial law nationwide, the new election could be held smoothly.

Army Commander-in-Chief Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha indicated Thursday that he might have to resort to martial law if political violence escalates, saying the army might have to deploy troops to control the situation.

"Martial law is the highest level of measures to ensure security. I believe the armed forces have prepared measures to enforce it," Surapong said."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Surapong-voices-support-for-martial-law-30233791.html

2014-05-17

"Surapong said Army move could help election to go ahead, but interior minister urges kamnans to rally if coup is staged

Pro- and anti-government groups both praised the Army yesterday for its latest warning against violence in the political conflict.

Former deputy prime minister and foreign minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul, now an adviser to the Centre for the Administration of Peace and Order (CAPO), expressed support yesterday for a declaration of martial law by the Army.

"If martial law is declared, the military will run the operation to maintain security and the CAPO will not get involved. And I believe that if the martial law is declared nationwide, an election can be held smoothly," he said. "

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Warning-to-impose-martial-law-welcomed-by-both-sid-30233855.html

So Surapong supported martial law if it were used to ensure a peaceful election in July 2014. I assume many people would have supported martial law if it had been used for that purpose.

Well, 'used for that purpose' is shifting things a bit. Next we'll have Martial Law to avoid anti-government protests, or just because it's a Sunday.

BTW just two days before the coup we had

"(New York) – The Thai military’s imposition of nationwide martial law is effectively a coup that threatens the human rights of all Thais, Human Rights Watch said today. The United States and other influential governments should call for the immediate restoration of civilian rule and an end to censorship."

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/20/thailand-revoke-martial-law-undermining-rights

or on the 21st

"Human rights groups have said the declaration of martial law was akin to a coup."

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/thais-to-ponder-election-under-martial-law-as-way-out-of-crisis-563036

[TheDiva]

This tired feeble mantra has been repeated over the centuries as democracy emerges - by those who detest it.The underlying thought is that the ordinary people lack the sophistication and education to understand what democracy is all about.It assumes that the ignorant masses will be swayed by populist policies and corrupt politicians.How much better it would be if politicians could be dispensed with and be replaced by "good people".

But as history shows this infantile vision had been proven wrong again and again.In Thailand the only question is whether there will be a historic compromise or whether the resolution will be a rather terrible thing.

What I find curious that many posters (who presumably have a background of living in a western democracy for some period in their lives) are willing to suspend belief in that system when they speak on behalf of the Thai system of government and use any excuse they can think of to back up that "argument", hence the facile "the Thais aren't educated enough about democracy to be allowed it" reasoning.

Supposedly, according to these same commentators, there was a period of time (between December 2008 and August 2011) that democracy flourished but somehow, miraculously, all this changed overnight and the system that had been working OK for that period (and in reality for some time before that) suddenly was broken and needed to be overhauled.

Can any of the pro militarists please explain to me just why the system that was accepted by them as perfectly reasonable during the Abhisit years (and working under a military written constitution) needed to have that constitution ripped up and rewritten and followed by a complete reform of the political system?

Other than the obvious answer that it is being carried out to establish the conditions necessary to ensure the chosen ones achieve power (again).

Interesting

You only mention the Abhist government. They also accepted it under the two previous governments both owned by Thaksin. Any particular reason for omitting 2/3 of the ownership?

As for the need to rip it up well time showed the holes in it and even Yingluck admitted it needed reworking. But she said that the PTP would do it. The very people abusing it.

I mentioned the abhisit government because the PTP government shared the same constitution as the abhisit government (after abhisit had attempted to gerrymander the election by the amendment to the organic act on elections to increase the party list, not to mention the number of appointed senators). So they had a constitution in common, a political system in common, yet it was only during (and after) the PTP government that suddenly a democracy didn't exist.

And don't try and claim that the PTP's proposed amendments to the constitution rendered democracy non existent. They were applied using the (often changing) guidelines laid down by the Constitutional Court. How was that abusing the constitution?

[heybruce]

... ...

By the way, I came across this amusing blast from the past while looking up the above sources:

BANGKOK, 2 April 2014 (NNT) – Army Chief Gen Prayuth Chan-Ocha says there is no need to invoke martial law, while also urging all sides to respect the justice system. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/715818-thai-military-not-imposing-martial-law/?p=7641265&hl=prayuth

18 days before marital law as imposed Prayuth said there was no need to impose martial law, and five days before the courts removed Yingluck from office but left the government in the hands of the PTP he urged all sides to respect the justice system. I don't know about you but I get the feeling that he expected the courts to topple the government for him.

I also came across

2014-05-16

"Former deputy prime minister and foreign minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul on Friday expressed his support for the declaration of martial law by the Army.

Surapong said if the Army were to declare martial law nationwide, the new election could be held smoothly.

Army Commander-in-Chief Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha indicated Thursday that he might have to resort to martial law if political violence escalates, saying the army might have to deploy troops to control the situation.

"Martial law is the highest level of measures to ensure security. I believe the armed forces have prepared measures to enforce it," Surapong said."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Surapong-voices-support-for-martial-law-30233791.html

2014-05-17

"Surapong said Army move could help election to go ahead, but interior minister urges kamnans to rally if coup is staged

Pro- and anti-government groups both praised the Army yesterday for its latest warning against violence in the political conflict.

Former deputy prime minister and foreign minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul, now an adviser to the Centre for the Administration of Peace and Order (CAPO), expressed support yesterday for a declaration of martial law by the Army.

"If martial law is declared, the military will run the operation to maintain security and the CAPO will not get involved. And I believe that if the martial law is declared nationwide, an election can be held smoothly," he said. "

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Warning-to-impose-martial-law-welcomed-by-both-sid-30233855.html

So Surapong supported martial law if it were used to ensure a peaceful election in July 2014. I assume many people would have supported martial law if it had been used for that purpose.

Well, 'used for that purpose' is shifting things a bit. Next we'll have Martial Law to avoid anti-government protests, or just because it's a Sunday.

BTW just two days before the coup we had

"(New York) – The Thai military’s imposition of nationwide martial law is effectively a coup that threatens the human rights of all Thais, Human Rights Watch said today. The United States and other influential governments should call for the immediate restoration of civilian rule and an end to censorship."

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/20/thailand-revoke-martial-law-undermining-rights

or on the 21st

"Human rights groups have said the declaration of martial law was akin to a coup."

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/thais-to-ponder-election-under-martial-law-as-way-out-of-crisis-563036

How is pointing out that some people would have supported martial law for the purpose of ensuring peaceful elections in July 2014 shifting things? I pointed out that Prayuth, not Surapong, stated there would be no need to impose martial law 18 days before he imposed martial law. I also pointed out the curious coincidence of Prayuth urging all sides to respect the justice system five days before the justice system decided to leave the PTP in charge of the caretaker government, then staging a coup 15 days after this court decision.

I'm not sure what the point of your two links are. Prayuth announced martial law, made no mention of acting with any kind of government approval, and immediately initiated censorship by ordering 14 television and radio stations to stop broadcasting. Observers can be forgiven for seeing this as tantamount to a coup, even though Prayuth denied it in your first link:

"Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha denied Tuesday's declaration of martial law amounted to a military coup, saying he had acted to restore restore order and build investor confidence. The caretaker government says it is still in charge."

As we now know the official coup came two days after Prayuth made this announcement.

Edited February 22, 2015 by heybruce

[rubl]

I also came across

2014-05-16

"Former deputy prime minister and foreign minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul on Friday expressed his support for the declaration of martial law by the Army.

Surapong said if the Army were to declare martial law nationwide, the new election could be held smoothly.

Army Commander-in-Chief Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha indicated Thursday that he might have to resort to martial law if political violence escalates, saying the army might have to deploy troops to control the situation.

"Martial law is the highest level of measures to ensure security. I believe the armed forces have prepared measures to enforce it," Surapong said."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Surapong-voices-support-for-martial-law-30233791.html

2014-05-17

"Surapong said Army move could help election to go ahead, but interior minister urges kamnans to rally if coup is staged

Pro- and anti-government groups both praised the Army yesterday for its latest warning against violence in the political conflict.

Former deputy prime minister and foreign minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul, now an adviser to the Centre for the Administration of Peace and Order (CAPO), expressed support yesterday for a declaration of martial law by the Army.

"If martial law is declared, the military will run the operation to maintain security and the CAPO will not get involved. And I believe that if the martial law is declared nationwide, an election can be held smoothly," he said. "

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Warning-to-impose-martial-law-welcomed-by-both-sid-30233855.html

So Surapong supported martial law if it were used to ensure a peaceful election in July 2014. I assume many people would have supported martial law if it had been used for that purpose.

Well, 'used for that purpose' is shifting things a bit. Next we'll have Martial Law to avoid anti-government protests, or just because it's a Sunday.

BTW just two days before the coup we had

"(New York) – The Thai military’s imposition of nationwide martial law is effectively a coup that threatens the human rights of all Thais, Human Rights Watch said today. The United States and other influential governments should call for the immediate restoration of civilian rule and an end to censorship."

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/20/thailand-revoke-martial-law-undermining-rights

or on the 21st

"Human rights groups have said the declaration of martial law was akin to a coup."

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/thais-to-ponder-election-under-martial-law-as-way-out-of-crisis-563036

How is pointing out that some people would have supported martial law for the purpose of ensuring peaceful elections in July 2014 shifting things? I pointed out that Prayuth, not Surapong, stated there would be no need to impose martial law 18 days before he imposed martial law. I also pointed out the curious coincidence of Prayuth urging all sides to respect the justice system five days before the justice system decided to leave the PTP in charge of the caretaker government, then staging a coup 15 days after this court decision.

I'm not sure what the point of your two links are. Prayuth announced martial law, made no mention of acting with any kind of government approval, and immediately initiated censorship by ordering 14 television and radio stations to stop broadcasting. Observers can be forgiven for seeing this as tantamount to a coup, even though Prayuth denied it in your first link:

"Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha denied Tuesday's declaration of martial law amounted to a military coup, saying he had acted to restore restore order and build investor confidence. The caretaker government says it is still in charge."

As we now know the official coup came two days after Prayuth made this announcement.

Don't worry, I understand. It would seem you implicitly agree that built-in mechanisms are necessary to prevent parliamentary dictatorship. I already assumed you of all people wouldn't even suggest to instate Martial Law in order to have elections.

BTW the two last links I provided came from two and one day before the coup. It shows how Human Rights Groups thought about Martial Law. Even though the somewhat caretaker MoFA and advisor of the CAPO Surapong said on the 16th

""If martial law is declared, the military will run the operation to maintain security and the CAPO will not get involved. And I believe that if the martial law is declared nationwide, the election can be held.""

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/726599-former-thai-fm-surapong-voices-support-for-martial-law-declaration/

Interesting is that the appointed government in 2007 lifted the Martial Law in remaining provinces two months ahead of elections as it was stated to them that free elections couldn't be held under martial law.

So, built-in mechanisms to prevent parliamentary dictatorship.

[Thai at Heart]

Democracy has the possibility to turn out all sorts of governments and policies and will find a way to sustain.

The unelected minority want to continuously influence the type of govt and type of policies being enacted. In the long run, it won't work.

[heybruce]

So Surapong supported martial law if it were used to ensure a peaceful election in July 2014. I assume many people would have supported martial law if it had been used for that purpose.

Well, 'used for that purpose' is shifting things a bit. Next we'll have Martial Law to avoid anti-government protests, or just because it's a Sunday.

BTW just two days before the coup we had

"(New York) – The Thai military’s imposition of nationwide martial law is effectively a coup that threatens the human rights of all Thais, Human Rights Watch said today. The United States and other influential governments should call for the immediate restoration of civilian rule and an end to censorship."

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/20/thailand-revoke-martial-law-undermining-rights

or on the 21st

"Human rights groups have said the declaration of martial law was akin to a coup."

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/thais-to-ponder-election-under-martial-law-as-way-out-of-crisis-563036

How is pointing out that some people would have supported martial law for the purpose of ensuring peaceful elections in July 2014 shifting things? I pointed out that Prayuth, not Surapong, stated there would be no need to impose martial law 18 days before he imposed martial law. I also pointed out the curious coincidence of Prayuth urging all sides to respect the justice system five days before the justice system decided to leave the PTP in charge of the caretaker government, then staging a coup 15 days after this court decision.

I'm not sure what the point of your two links are. Prayuth announced martial law, made no mention of acting with any kind of government approval, and immediately initiated censorship by ordering 14 television and radio stations to stop broadcasting. Observers can be forgiven for seeing this as tantamount to a coup, even though Prayuth denied it in your first link:

"Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha denied Tuesday's declaration of martial law amounted to a military coup, saying he had acted to restore restore order and build investor confidence. The caretaker government says it is still in charge."

As we now know the official coup came two days after Prayuth made this announcement.

Don't worry, I understand. It would seem you implicitly agree that built-in mechanisms are necessary to prevent parliamentary dictatorship. I already assumed you of all people wouldn't even suggest to instate Martial Law in order to have elections.

BTW the two last links I provided came from two and one day before the coup. It shows how Human Rights Groups thought about Martial Law. Even though the somewhat caretaker MoFA and advisor of the CAPO Surapong said on the 16th

""If martial law is declared, the military will run the operation to maintain security and the CAPO will not get involved. And I believe that if the martial law is declared nationwide, the election can be held.""

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/726599-former-thai-fm-surapong-voices-support-for-martial-law-declaration/

Interesting is that the appointed government in 2007 lifted the Martial Law in remaining provinces two months ahead of elections as it was stated to them that free elections couldn't be held under martial law.

So, built-in mechanisms to prevent parliamentary dictatorship.

rubl, I don't understand why you are confused or how you are inventing my "implicit" agreement with junta BS. Once again, I pointed out the news article:

BANGKOK, 2 April 2014 (NNT) – Army Chief Gen Prayuth Chan-Ocha says there is no need to invoke martial law, while also urging all sides to respect the justice system. http://www.thaivisa....1265&hl=prayuth

18 days after stating there was no need for martial law Prayuth imposed martial law, and it remains in place now, eight months later.

Five days after urging all sides to respect the justice system the courts removed Yingluck from office but left the PTP in charge of the government, and 15 days after that Prayuth disrespected the court ruling by staging a coup against the government the court left in place.

You pointed out that some people hoped martial law would be used to ensure a peaceful election in July 2014, but obviously these people were disappointed.

You also pointed out that some news organizations stated that the imposition of martial law was tantamount to a coup, and almost immediately after their views were published Prayuth staged a coup.

These are easy to understand recent events. Why are you confused?