Thai editorial: Reform shouldn't override rule of law

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
Reform shouldn't override rule of law
The Nation

In its eagerness to clean up corruption in politics, the interim govt may be eroding judicial norms

BANGKOK: -- In its eagerness to declare democratic reform as its main motive, the junta seems to have overlooked that elected governments have a democratic mandate to deliver their policies. And, if their policies do go awry, their only punishment should be a "political" one, meted out by voters at the next election

In a democratic system, political parties campaign on policy pledges. The election winners then make good on those pledges to the public by turning them into government policies by which they run the country.

Elections are the means by which this bargain between citizens and politicians is forged. Voters lend their mandate to one group of politicians in return for the implementation of policies they voted for.

It is true that, despite the check-and-balance safeguard provided by the elected parliament, such a system is no guarantee against poor or poorly implemented policies.

However, individual politicians and their parties remain accountable to the voters for their policy and its implementation. When things go wrong, voters have the final say on whether a government survives or falls.

Of course, government policy is always at the mercy of corruption and abuse of power, whether by policymakers, politicians or bureaucrats. The country needs a strong and independent legal system to ensure that those who abuse power for personal gain are punished according to the law.

Corruption and abuse of power are criminal acts, and the law needs to be strictly and impartially exercised to deter such actions. Any political interference in that process, whether brought to bear by politicians or due to bias among the judiciary themselves, will damage the rule of law. As such, unless members of the judiciary can prove they are non-partisan, they should stay away from cases involving politicians.

The junta claims it ousted the previous government in order to clean up corruption in politics. But its reform process seems to be entangled in charges and accusations against the previous government.

One example lies in its handling of cases that have arisen from the ill-fated rice-pledging scheme. The junta-backed anti-graft and legislative bodies seem to have lost their way in their eagerness to eradicate the influence of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra and his family. The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) says it has found evidence of corruption in the implementation of the rice scheme, but has so far failed to convince the public which part of it went wrong and who was to blame. Initially it pointed the finger at corrupt practices by a former commerce minister, his deputy and senior officials at the ministry. But, with the case against those individuals still pending, the NACC instead placed its case against former premier Yingluck Shinawatra, charging her with negligence before the junta's hand-picked National Legislative Assembly.

The NACC never claimed she was corrupt in overseeing the rice scheme. Her resulting impeachment was greeted with dismay among many in the international community, who said the verdict was motivated by politics.

A case against Yingluck has now been forwarded to the Supreme Court's Criminal Department for Political Position Holders. Meanwhile the corruption charge against former Commerce Ministry officials is notable for how slow it is moving. Also notable is the anti-graft body's claim that it cannot proceed with a similar case against former premier Abhisit Vejjajiva and his ministers because the evidence was damaged by the floods of 2011.

The rule of law took another hit when the anti-graft body proposed last week that the Finance Ministry sue Yingluck for Bt600 billion in compensation for money lost to the rice subsidy. This figure seems arbitrary, at best, given that not even the agencies involved know exactly how much was lost in the scheme. And no one can explain the legal basis for making an individual politician legally responsible for the outcome of a policy.

If such a law really did exist, no future Thai premier would dare to implement any policy.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Reform-shouldnt-override-rule-of-law-30254739.html

-- The Nation 2015-02-24

[barry51]

elected governments have a democratic mandate to deliver their policies. And, if their policies do go awry, their only punishment should be a "political" one

Not if their policy was a corrupt scheme to enrich themselves then they should face the full weight of the law.

[NeverSure]

The Nation keeps getting better and better. This is spot on.

[NeverSure]

elected governments have a democratic mandate to deliver their policies. And, if their policies do go awry, their only punishment should be a "political" one

Not if their policy was a corrupt scheme to enrich themselves then they should face the full weight of the law.

The article says that, but it also says that criminal charges shouldn't be brought for implementing government policies unless there were criminal acts.

The writer is correct that while YS is to be charged criminally and held monetarily liable for the rice scheme, there are no charges that she was part of corruption or committed a crime. This I have posted before.

When someone is charged for a crime with no allegations of criminal wrongdoing it smacks of political cleansing rather than corruption cleansing.

The junta has lost the plot and will ultimately hurt itself domestically and internationally.

Good article, The Nation.

[jcsmith]

elected governments have a democratic mandate to deliver their policies. And, if their policies do go awry, their only punishment should be a "political" one

Not if their policy was a corrupt scheme to enrich themselves then they should face the full weight of the law.

And where is the evidence of that?

[toybits]

The one who holds the whip is ALWAYS right.

[halloween]

elected governments have a democratic mandate to deliver their policies. And, if their policies do go awry, their only punishment should be a "political" one

Not if their policy was a corrupt scheme to enrich themselves then they should face the full weight of the law.

The article says that, but it also says that criminal charges shouldn't be brought for implementing government policies unless there were criminal acts.

The writer is correct that while YS is to be charged criminally and held monetarily liable for the rice scheme, there are no charges that she was part of corruption or committed a crime. This I have posted before.

When someone is charged for a crime with no allegations of criminal wrongdoing it smacks of political cleansing rather than corruption cleansing.

The junta has lost the plot and will ultimately hurt itself domestically and internationally.

Good article, The Nation.

You don't like the charge of criminal negligence? When a policy is introduced those implementing it may not be responsible for initial poor implementation, but they are expected to make attempts to improve, modify or even reduce a policy when it is seen to be failing. Telling lies about its success doesn't count.

And if a PM takes personal responsibility for a policy, attending the oversight meetings IS expected.

[Just1Voice]

At the rate and pace the illegal, corrupt junta is going, before long no on will want to hold any public office out of fear that if they burp or fart at the wrong time, they'll go to prison.

[Plowman]

This newspaper has me completely stumped. I'm so used to it being a mouthpiece for the elites I pretty much dismiss everything I read in it out of hand, but then they go and sum up the wholes farcical situation in a single paragraph:

In its eagerness to declare democratic reform as its main motive, the junta seems to have overlooked that elected governments have a democratic mandate to deliver their policies. And, if their policies do go awry, their only punishment should be a "political" one, meted out by voters at the next election

The Junta don't want politicians running the country - they are making as hard as possible to actually stand for election, they are doing all they can to destroy political parties ability to win majorities and should all of that fail, they want to be able to lock up anyone who implements policies they don't like.

They've overstepped and it won't be tolerated for too long. Many ordinary Thais have given their lives in the streets over the preceding decades in this long, long, long fight for democracy and equality against an arrogant and greedy elite - what on earth makes anyone think the people will bend over and take this backwards constitution without so much as asking for a bit of lube before it's rammed up their asses. Expect another mob to take to the streets to right this wrong.

[Plowman]

The one who holds the whip is ALWAYS right.

Been to see 50 shades of grey already have we?

[tif]

The junta claims it ousted the previous government in order to clean up corruption in politics. But its reform process seems to be entangled in charges and accusations against the previous government.

True that. What else have they done? Think about it. A few 'crackdowns' on bloody sun loungers. Seriously. Then we had the 'crackdown' on prostitution as a response to this country being downgraded to tier 3 for it's record on human trafficking, resulting in a few cops checking out a karaoke or two one evening, then, bugg4r all. The Animal welfare Bill was good, but then came the 'nothing' that was the raid of the Tiger temple. Elephants and their ivory? Don't even go there. Ad in finitum.

Meanwhile, whilst the current piggies are snouting the Chinese trough, the infrastructure in Thailand in general, and on Cash Cow Phuket in particular, is declining at a rate of knots, if that were possible. And they want to steer it away from quantity over quality Chinese/Russian tourists. With it's sunken roads and overhanging electricity lines, good luck with that. And don't start me on 'zoning'. Ugly great condos thrown up everybloodywhere, depriving domestic houses of right to light, and access to noise pollution. But hey! The General's promised shoddy Chinese built high speed rail to ship ever more Chinese sh1t throughout throughout the region. How much was the kickback on that then?

Given the amount in the coffers allocated to the running of this country, very little STILL remains to be spent on education, save for a few ultra nationalistic songs/credos. Pathetic. And if anyone's in any doubt as to how the General feels about Yoo Falung!, just pay a visit to your local 'government department'/immigration office' and get back to us.

I too was giving the benefit of the doubt, albeit it was against everything I stood for. But now? As things unfold, each and every day throws up the utter contempt the latest mob of self serving bullies have for ALL of us, Thai and farang alike. A plague on the lot of them. They know no shame. None.

Edited February 24, 2015 by tif

[bassman]

I'm sure if the current government wanted to prove corruption in the rice scheme it would not be hard. But nobody wants to get to the bottom of the corruption as I do not think any of the four colors that run and pillage this country (green, brown, red or yellow) want the real and complete truth told.

What have we seen in the last couple of days is several nameless government individuals dismissed for corruption/fraud on the rice scheme but no name and shame, no evidence given to the public such as the specifications of the fraud and no criminal charges being brought forward. This is typical of about all "corruption" cases that make the news in this country. Even on the rare incidence of a conviction there are no details about the crime. All the Thai people get is a one liner mentioning the charge which is always reduced based upon confession and with few exceptions, bail pending appeal.

Thailand always has and will continue to be anything but transparent.

[dominique355]

Even for a minimalistic democracy, what is needed is not only elections, but also freedom of expression (no censorship) and freedom to assemble. Both are not given under today's military installed government.

For elections to be free and meaningful, the electorate must be able to choose the right and appropriate representative, it must be informed, it must be able to get information freely, even information critical to the government and the present situation and it must be able to share and discuss this information openly without having to fear being arrested, get an attitude adjustment or being put in prison for slander, LM etc.. People must be able to know what the candidate to be elected has done before, plans to do and what that implies. People must be able to discuss the future of the country and of all those involved.

And that is still far far away.

[TheDiva]

Hallebloodylujah! Finally, some incisive journalism. Read and weep, junta cheerleaders, read and weep.

[yellowboat]

Heard many speak of her guilt, but nobody as of yet shown a malice on her part, or even negligence .

The rice scheme did not seem like a great idea. Governments should stay out of playing with the economy. They do more harm than good.

[micmichd]

Guess it's legitimate to evaluate the facts behind the laws, then define a special area for experimental law-making, and then evaluate the effects again.

[Plowman]

Heard many speak of her guilt, but nobody as of yet shown a malice on her part, or even negligence .

The rice scheme did not seem like a great idea. Governments should stay out of playing with the economy. They do more harm than good.

Yeah, Singapore proves that, backward little island beside the thriving modern ultra rich Malaysia.

[smutcakes]

elected governments have a democratic mandate to deliver their policies. And, if their policies do go awry, their only punishment should be a "political" one

Not if their policy was a corrupt scheme to enrich themselves then they should face the full weight of the law.

The article says that, but it also says that criminal charges shouldn't be brought for implementing government policies unless there were criminal acts.

The writer is correct that while YS is to be charged criminally and held monetarily liable for the rice scheme, there are no charges that she was part of corruption or committed a crime. This I have posted before.

When someone is charged for a crime with no allegations of criminal wrongdoing it smacks of political cleansing rather than corruption cleansing.

The junta has lost the plot and will ultimately hurt itself domestically and internationally.

Good article, The Nation.

You don't like the charge of criminal negligence? When a policy is introduced those implementing it may not be responsible for initial poor implementation, but they are expected to make attempts to improve, modify or even reduce a policy when it is seen to be failing. Telling lies about its success doesn't count.

And if a PM takes personal responsibility for a policy, attending the oversight meetings IS expected.

Maybe you can outline the law you are referring to, which legally enforces someone to improve poor implementation?

Attendance IS expected, but is it a legal responsibility? Does the law say that she HAS TO ATTEND?

Anyway, you and I have no idea what was going on behind the scenes, for all we know attempts could of been made to improve areas of the policy.

I actually have no issue if she is found guilty of negligence if she was found to be so under the law. However i hope the same principal is rolled out to all office holders. eg. if the rail agreements turn sour with the Chinese which many people have warned the Govt of, will they be held accountable? If people start shooting each other in the south with guns handed out by Prawit despite the warnings, will he be held accountable?? (Will they hell)

[halloween]

This newspaper has me completely stumped. I'm so used to it being a mouthpiece for the elites I pretty much dismiss everything I read in it out of hand, but then they go and sum up the wholes farcical situation in a single paragraph:

In its eagerness to declare democratic reform as its main motive, the junta seems to have overlooked that elected governments have a democratic mandate to deliver their policies. And, if their policies do go awry, their only punishment should be a "political" one, meted out by voters at the next election

The Junta don't want politicians running the country - they are making as hard as possible to actually stand for election, they are doing all they can to destroy political parties ability to win majorities and should all of that fail, they want to be able to lock up anyone who implements policies they don't like.

They've overstepped and it won't be tolerated for too long. Many ordinary Thais have given their lives in the streets over the preceding decades in this long, long, long fight for democracy and equality against an arrogant and greedy elite - what on earth makes anyone think the people will bend over and take this backwards constitution without so much as asking for a bit of lube before it's rammed up their asses. Expect another mob to take to the streets to right this wrong.

As achieving an educated and informed populace (you know, one of those inconvenient bits of democracy) may take a few years, how about we have policies assessed by auditors to determine the approximate cost, if they are minimally feasible and have some benefit for their cost? Rather than criminal vote-buying scams that appeal to those unable to determine for their selves the true worth, and that anybody not blinded by lies can see through.

[Plowman]

This newspaper has me completely stumped. I'm so used to it being a mouthpiece for the elites I pretty much dismiss everything I read in it out of hand, but then they go and sum up the wholes farcical situation in a single paragraph:

In its eagerness to declare democratic reform as its main motive, the junta seems to have overlooked that elected governments have a democratic mandate to deliver their policies. And, if their policies do go awry, their only punishment should be a "political" one, meted out by voters at the next election

The Junta don't want politicians running the country - they are making as hard as possible to actually stand for election, they are doing all they can to destroy political parties ability to win majorities and should all of that fail, they want to be able to lock up anyone who implements policies they don't like.

They've overstepped and it won't be tolerated for too long. Many ordinary Thais have given their lives in the streets over the preceding decades in this long, long, long fight for democracy and equality against an arrogant and greedy elite - what on earth makes anyone think the people will bend over and take this backwards constitution without so much as asking for a bit of lube before it's rammed up their asses. Expect another mob to take to the streets to right this wrong.

As achieving an educated and informed populace (you know, one of those inconvenient bits of democracy) may take a few years, how about we have policies assessed by auditors to determine the approximate cost, if they are minimally feasible and have some benefit for their cost? Rather than criminal vote-buying scams that appeal to those unable to determine for their selves the true worth, and that anybody not blinded by lies can see through.

Thais are too dumb to vote? What a truly pathetic argument. I'll tell you who's dumb - the idiots who fall hook, line and sinker for the idiotic Junta propaganda about vote buying affecting the outcome of elections. Thais know who they want running this country, every election for the past 15 years proves that point. You my friend are the uneducated and uninformed not the 15 million Thais who consistently vote for a better future for themselves and their families.

[micmichd]

"Criminal vote-buying scams"?

Let's see.

"Scam" is an act of fraud where someone promises you something with the intention of never keeping it.

"Bribery" is a deal where someone promises you something, and you get it if you pay.

I would prefer bribe to scam, from an economic point of view.

[halloween]

You don't like the charge of criminal negligence? When a policy is introduced those implementing it may not be responsible for initial poor implementation, but they are expected to make attempts to improve, modify or even reduce a policy when it is seen to be failing. Telling lies about its success doesn't count.

And if a PM takes personal responsibility for a policy, attending the oversight meetings IS expected.

Maybe you can outline the law you are referring to, which legally enforces someone to improve poor implementation?

Attendance IS expected, but is it a legal responsibility? Does the law say that she HAS TO ATTEND?

Anyway, you and I have no idea what was going on behind the scenes, for all we know attempts could of been made to improve areas of the policy.

I actually have no issue if she is found guilty of negligence if she was found to be so under the law. However i hope the same principal is rolled out to all office holders. eg. if the rail agreements turn sour with the Chinese which many people have warned the Govt of, will they be held accountable? If people start shooting each other in the south with guns handed out by Prawit despite the warnings, will he be held accountable?? (Will they hell)

Wait for the trial and you can get the exact numbering in Thailand's legal code. How hard is it for you to grasp that power includes responsibility; that if you implement a poor policy, or implement a good policy badly, it is your duty to minimise the losses from it. Failing to do so is negligence.

Is it a legal requirement to attend - no. But failing to attend makes for a poor defence to a charge of negligence.

I have no idea, neither do you. Were changes to the policy announced or enacted?

[halloween]

As achieving an educated and informed populace (you know, one of those inconvenient bits of democracy) may take a few years, how about we have policies assessed by auditors to determine the approximate cost, if they are minimally feasible and have some benefit for their cost? Rather than criminal vote-buying scams that appeal to those unable to determine for their selves the true worth, and that anybody not blinded by lies can see through.

Thais are too dumb to vote? What a truly pathetic argument. I'll tell you who's dumb - the idiots who fall hook, line and sinker for the idiotic Junta propaganda about vote buying affecting the outcome of elections. Thais know who they want running this country, every election for the past 15 years proves that point. You my friend are the uneducated and uninformed not the 15 million Thais who consistently vote for a better future for themselves and their families.

Shove your insults plowboy. In Oz, electoral promises are evaluated and audited. Are Thais generally better educated? Is/was Thailand more democratic? Are there higher levels of critical analysis readily available to voters?

[Plowman]

As achieving an educated and informed populace (you know, one of those inconvenient bits of democracy) may take a few years, how about we have policies assessed by auditors to determine the approximate cost, if they are minimally feasible and have some benefit for their cost? Rather than criminal vote-buying scams that appeal to those unable to determine for their selves the true worth, and that anybody not blinded by lies can see through.

Thais are too dumb to vote? What a truly pathetic argument. I'll tell you who's dumb - the idiots who fall hook, line and sinker for the idiotic Junta propaganda about vote buying affecting the outcome of elections. Thais know who they want running this country, every election for the past 15 years proves that point. You my friend are the uneducated and uninformed not the 15 million Thais who consistently vote for a better future for themselves and their families.

Shove your insults plowboy. In Oz, electoral promises are evaluated and audited. Are Thais generally better educated? Is/was Thailand more democratic? Are there higher levels of critical analysis readily available to voters?

Australia has an annual bill of over 13 billion dollars subsidising property investors (negative gearing), Fossil Fuel Business receives 17.6 billion dollars per year in subsidies, the car industry received 1.5 billion dollars in subsidy over the previous 4 years.........politics is politics, it matters not which country is being discussed.

Thais deserve the right to choose their own government, who are you to say they don't?

[brucec64]

This newspaper has me completely stumped. I'm so used to it being a mouthpiece for the elites I pretty much dismiss everything I read in it out of hand, but then they go and sum up the wholes farcical situation in a single paragraph:

In its eagerness to declare democratic reform as its main motive, the junta seems to have overlooked that elected governments have a democratic mandate to deliver their policies. And, if their policies do go awry, their only punishment should be a "political" one, meted out by voters at the next election

The Junta don't want politicians running the country - they are making as hard as possible to actually stand for election, they are doing all they can to destroy political parties ability to win majorities and should all of that fail, they want to be able to lock up anyone who implements policies they don't like.

They've overstepped and it won't be tolerated for too long. Many ordinary Thais have given their lives in the streets over the preceding decades in this long, long, long fight for democracy and equality against an arrogant and greedy elite - what on earth makes anyone think the people will bend over and take this backwards constitution without so much as asking for a bit of lube before it's rammed up their asses. Expect another mob to take to the streets to right this wrong.

As achieving an educated and informed populace (you know, one of those inconvenient bits of democracy) may take a few years, how about we have policies assessed by auditors to determine the approximate cost, if they are minimally feasible and have some benefit for their cost? Rather than criminal vote-buying scams that appeal to those unable to determine for their selves the true worth, and that anybody not blinded by lies can see through.

We all know how this will play out. The auditors will be appointed by the current junta, and of course be as biased as the NACC, NLA, the NRC, and all the other bodies appointed by the biased junta (who aren't even bothering to hide their bias anymore).

The result will be that any popular policy brought forward by the "wrong" people, will simply be deemed populist. Just another way that the next election will be completely gerrymandered.

[halloween]

As achieving an educated and informed populace (you know, one of those inconvenient bits of democracy) may take a few years, how about we have policies assessed by auditors to determine the approximate cost, if they are minimally feasible and have some benefit for their cost? Rather than criminal vote-buying scams that appeal to those unable to determine for their selves the true worth, and that anybody not blinded by lies can see through.

Thais are too dumb to vote? What a truly pathetic argument. I'll tell you who's dumb - the idiots who fall hook, line and sinker for the idiotic Junta propaganda about vote buying affecting the outcome of elections. Thais know who they want running this country, every election for the past 15 years proves that point. You my friend are the uneducated and uninformed not the 15 million Thais who consistently vote for a better future for themselves and their families.

Shove your insults plowboy. In Oz, electoral promises are evaluated and audited. Are Thais generally better educated? Is/was Thailand more democratic? Are there higher levels of critical analysis readily available to voters?

Australia has an annual bill of over 13 billion dollars subsidising property investors (negative gearing), Fossil Fuel Business receives 17.6 billion dollars per year in subsidies, the car industry received 1.5 billion dollars in subsidy over the previous 4 years.........politics is politics, it matters not which country is being discussed.

Thais deserve the right to choose their own government, who are you to say they don't?

All costed, evaluated and critically examined before, after and during implementation. Why not here?

BTW stop making false representation. I didn't say Thais don't have the right to choose their own government, I AM saying they have the right to have electoral policies evaluated for them before they vote.

[Plowman]

Thais are too dumb to vote? What a truly pathetic argument. I'll tell you who's dumb - the idiots who fall hook, line and sinker for the idiotic Junta propaganda about vote buying affecting the outcome of elections. Thais know who they want running this country, every election for the past 15 years proves that point. You my friend are the uneducated and uninformed not the 15 million Thais who consistently vote for a better future for themselves and their families.

Shove your insults plowboy. In Oz, electoral promises are evaluated and audited. Are Thais generally better educated? Is/was Thailand more democratic? Are there higher levels of critical analysis readily available to voters?

Australia has an annual bill of over 13 billion dollars subsidising property investors (negative gearing), Fossil Fuel Business receives 17.6 billion dollars per year in subsidies, the car industry received 1.5 billion dollars in subsidy over the previous 4 years.........politics is politics, it matters not which country is being discussed.

Thais deserve the right to choose their own government, who are you to say they don't?

All costed, evaluated and critically examined before, after and during implementation. Why not here?

BTW stop making false representation. I didn't say Thais don't have the right to choose their own government, I AM saying they have the right to have electoral policies evaluated for them before they vote.

"As achieving an educated and informed populace (you know, one of those inconvenient bits of democracy) may take a few years"

Backtracking now are we? What exactly may take a few years then?

Thais deserve the right to choose their own government, who are you to say they don't?

[halloween]

Thais are too dumb to vote? What a truly pathetic argument. I'll tell you who's dumb - the idiots who fall hook, line and sinker for the idiotic Junta propaganda about vote buying affecting the outcome of elections. Thais know who they want running this country, every election for the past 15 years proves that point. You my friend are the uneducated and uninformed not the 15 million Thais who consistently vote for a better future for themselves and their families.

All costed, evaluated and critically examined before, after and during implementation. Why not here?

BTW stop making false representation. I didn't say Thais don't have the right to choose their own government, I AM saying they have the right to have electoral policies evaluated for them before they vote.

"As achieving an educated and informed populace (you know, one of those inconvenient bits of democracy) may take a few years"

Backtracking now are we? What exactly may take a few years then?

Thais deserve the right to choose their own government, who are you to say they don't?

No. I simply don't rate elections as more important than the other pillars of democracy, which include an educated and informed populace, and a free and critical press. Having electoral policies evaluated, freely criticised and audited is part of the education process which allows the voters to pick the party with the best policies.

Why are you so against such a process?

Do you prefer Thaksin style BS policies that promise the earth, cost the earth, and deliver bugger all?

[tif]

Thais are too dumb to vote? What a truly pathetic argument. I'll tell you who's dumb - the idiots who fall hook, line and sinker for the idiotic Junta propaganda about vote buying affecting the outcome of elections. Thais know who they want running this country, every election for the past 15 years proves that point. You my friend are the uneducated and uninformed not the 15 million Thais who consistently vote for a better future for themselves and their families.

I'd go with that apart from the ' uneducated and uninformed not the 15 million Thais who consistently vote for a better future for themselves and their families'.

There is and has never been the choice for the majority to choose between the Pasha and the Populist.

[Plowman]

Thais are too dumb to vote? What a truly pathetic argument. I'll tell you who's dumb - the idiots who fall hook, line and sinker for the idiotic Junta propaganda about vote buying affecting the outcome of elections. Thais know who they want running this country, every election for the past 15 years proves that point. You my friend are the uneducated and uninformed not the 15 million Thais who consistently vote for a better future for themselves and their families.

All costed, evaluated and critically examined before, after and during implementation. Why not here?

BTW stop making false representation. I didn't say Thais don't have the right to choose their own government, I AM saying they have the right to have electoral policies evaluated for them before they vote.

"As achieving an educated and informed populace (you know, one of those inconvenient bits of democracy) may take a few years"

Backtracking now are we? What exactly may take a few years then?

Thais deserve the right to choose their own government, who are you to say they don't?

No. I simply don't rate elections as more important than the other pillars of democracy, which include an educated and informed populace, and a free and critical press. Having electoral policies evaluated, freely criticised and audited is part of the education process which allows the voters to pick the party with the best policies.

Why are you so against such a process?

Do you prefer Thaksin style BS policies that promise the earth, cost the earth, and deliver bugger all?

And who gets to decide when the populace has achieved a sufficient level of education to be allowed to vote for their own government? You? The Generals? Is there a test you take? Did you take a test in Australia before they let you vote?

The best way to learn is by actually doing.

How can Thais be expected to be able to refine and improve their democracy if there is a coup every time any progress in that direction is made?

Thais have been fighting for democracy since 1932, it appears they are not willing to wait " a few years"

Thais deserve the right to chooses their own government, who are you to say they don't.