Thai editorial: Reform shouldn't override rule of law

[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?

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.

Do you really expect me to answer your strawman arguments and false representations (aka lies) while you refuse to answer any of mine?

What exactly do you find unacceptable in my suggestion that election policies should be independently costed and evaluated. Or that an free press should be allowed to examine and criticise those policies so that voters can be better informed?

Doesn't those suggestions fit in "red democracy"?

[Plowman]

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.

Do you really expect me to answer your strawman arguments and false representations (aka lies) while you refuse to answer any of mine?

What exactly do you find unacceptable in my suggestion that election policies should be independently costed and evaluated. Or that an free press should be allowed to examine and criticise those policies so that voters can be better informed?

Doesn't those suggestions fit in "red democracy"?

Strawman?

Lets be clear, without elections you have nothing. Even an imperfect democracy is infinitely preferable to all other alternatives (-W.Churchill).

What you do is peddle Junta and ultra right wing anti democratic propaganda that stymies Thailands' pro-democracy movement. Why do you do it? I imagine a mixture of ignorance, prejudice and bigotry.

Shameful.

Why, in your last post have you dropped all reference to a "educated and informed populace"

[eliotness]

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?

In the EU there has been, and still is, massive fraud with the agricultural payouts, no doubt to an extent that makes Thailand's rice scheme look like "small potatoes". The EU's statement of accounts have not been approved for many years, and we slam Thailand for a silly cock-up. Unlike the extremely devious EU, the paper trail should be easy to follow and the military government should bring all those criminals to account asap to prove their credibility.

[halloween]

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.

Do you really expect me to answer your strawman arguments and false representations (aka lies) while you refuse to answer any of mine?

What exactly do you find unacceptable in my suggestion that election policies should be independently costed and evaluated. Or that an free press should be allowed to examine and criticise those policies so that voters can be better informed?

Doesn't those suggestions fit in "red democracy"?

Strawman?

Lets be clear, without elections you have nothing. Even an imperfect democracy is infinitely preferable to all other alternatives (-W.Churchill).

What you do is peddle Junta and ultra right wing anti democratic propaganda that stymies Thailands' pro-democracy movement. Why do you do it? I imagine a mixture of ignorance, prejudice and bigotry.

Shameful.

Why, in your last post have you dropped all reference to a "educated and informed populace"

1/ Yes, strawman, attempting to draw the discussion away from costed policies.

2/ you badly misquote Churchill, who also said "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. " as well as "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." The word "imperfect" is not used except by you to justify what was most certainly imperfect democracy.

3/ Insist on flaming and I will report your posts

4/ BS

5/ Independent costing and free criticism of electoral policies is essential to have an "educated and informed populace". Lack of it leads to voters thinking they will benefit from policies like the rice scam.

[micmichd]

and Britannia still thinks she rules...

[Plowman]

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.

Do you really expect me to answer your strawman arguments and false representations (aka lies) while you refuse to answer any of mine?

What exactly do you find unacceptable in my suggestion that election policies should be independently costed and evaluated. Or that an free press should be allowed to examine and criticise those policies so that voters can be better informed?

Doesn't those suggestions fit in "red democracy"?

Strawman?

Lets be clear, without elections you have nothing. Even an imperfect democracy is infinitely preferable to all other alternatives (-W.Churchill).

What you do is peddle Junta and ultra right wing anti democratic propaganda that stymies Thailands' pro-democracy movement. Why do you do it? I imagine a mixture of ignorance, prejudice and bigotry.

Shameful.

Why, in your last post have you dropped all reference to a "educated and informed populace"

1/ Yes, strawman, attempting to draw the discussion away from costed policies.

2/ you badly misquote Churchill, who also said "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. " as well as "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." The word "imperfect" is not used except by you to justify what was most certainly imperfect democracy.

3/ Insist on flaming and I will report your posts

4/ BS

5/ Independent costing and free criticism of electoral policies is essential to have an "educated and informed populace". Lack of it leads to voters thinking they will benefit from policies like the rice scam.

1. Your words - "achieving an educated and informed populace" You can clear this up quite easily by answering a simple question - Have the Thai people, particularly those residing in the North and North East achieved, in your opinion, a sufficient level of education to be entrusted with the responsibility of electing their own government? It's a yes or no question.

2. Is a democracy, imperfect as they all are, better than a dictatorship? Again a yes or no question.

3. We have a dobber - not surprising, especially when you read the following -

Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it.

4. BS

5. Why have you re-phrased things? Trying to weasel out of your initial post? BTW - if the Democrats had an ounce of political ability they could easily exploit any perceived weaknesses (whether financial or other) in PTP policies and win an election in their own right, or do you think the Thai people are to stupid to understand costing and criticism?

[halloween]

snip

....... do you think the Thai people are to stupid to understand costing and criticism?

How could I possibly know until they are given that opportunity? Which is what I have been advocating.

Edited February 24, 2015 by halloween

[Plowman]

snip

....... do you think the Thai people are to stupid to understand costing and criticism?

How could I possibly know until they are given that opportunity? Which is what I have been advocating.

Answered not a single question.

So because the Democrats are inadequate and ineffective in their role as opposition the entire Thai population loses democracy?

What you are advocating is the denial of democratic rights to a nations people for a question that you can't even answer.

Shameful and pathetic.

You should have quit after your first post in this thread.

[Thai at Heart]

Did anyone not notice that these bunch came to power through a coup? I always find it hilarious how the winning pooyai can take such hypocritical positions...

[micmichd]

Were you in Thailand at times of the last elections, and did you watch the educated elite vote?

Edited February 24, 2015 by micmichd

[smutcakes]

Were you in Thailand at times of the last elections, and did you watch the educated elite vote?

I was, and the 'educated' elite were to busy blocking voting booths to stop the uneducated people who don't understand democracy from voting......

A savage irony really.

What makes life military officers intelligent and 'educated' is another which passes me by.

No doubt Rubl will be here to tell us the military is 'self financing' and handing out 40 billion is 'self financing' etc...

[heybruce]

I hope this editorial was published and widely distributed in Thai.

[halloween]

snip

....... do you think the Thai people are to stupid to understand costing and criticism?

How could I possibly know until they are given that opportunity? Which is what I have been advocating.

Answered not a single question.

So because the Democrats are inadequate and ineffective in their role as opposition the entire Thai population loses democracy?

What you are advocating is the denial of democratic rights to a nations people for a question that you can't even answer.

Shameful and pathetic.

You should have quit after your first post in this thread.

Answered not a single question. Have you ever?

Perhaps if you asked a question about the topic, reform, or the reform I am suggesting, it would be worthy of my time. Instead, you keep attempting to steer away. Why is that? what is so abhorrent about independently costed election policies?

[greenchair]

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.

Well she did not enrich herself did she.

She was the only politician and probably the first politician ever , to come out of her position showing a lower net worth than when she went in to office.

So far , not a single person has been convicted of corruption in the scheme.

People just don't seem to be able to see the difference between corruption and a poor policy plan that lost money.

The first is criminal.

The latter is not.

[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.

Well she did not enrich herself did she.

She was the only politician and probably the first politician ever , to come out of her position showing a lower net worth than when she went in to office.

So far , not a single person has been convicted of corruption in the scheme.

People just don't seem to be able to see the difference between corruption and a poor policy plan that lost money.

The first is criminal.

The latter is not.

You just can't grasp the concept of criminal negligence.

And make a big thing about her declared asset increase, ignoring that of family members, which also constitute a conflict of interest and corruption.

[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.

Well she did not enrich herself did she.

She was the only politician and probably the first politician ever , to come out of her position showing a lower net worth than when she went in to office.

So far , not a single person has been convicted of corruption in the scheme.

People just don't seem to be able to see the difference between corruption and a poor policy plan that lost money.

The first is criminal.

The latter is not.

You just can't grasp the concept of criminal negligence.

And make a big thing about her declared asset increase, ignoring that of family members, which also constitute a conflict of interest and corruption.

What about the family members constituting conflict of interest and corruption? What are you alleging?

[micmichd]

You better ask that himself, maybe he'll tell you.

[halloween]

You just can't grasp the concept of criminal negligence.

And make a big thing about her declared asset increase, ignoring that of family members, which also constitute a conflict of interest and corruption.

What about the family members constituting conflict of interest and corruption? What are you alleging?.

I ALLEGE that allowed her brother access to cabinet meeting allowed him to use insider trading to massively increase his wealth.

I am STATING that Yingluk enacted and attempted to enact laws/policies to benefit her brother, and that the PTP MPs he bribes monthly voted in favour. Further, that she knew those laws/policies would cause harm to the nation, but she allowed corruption to flourish, to reap the electoral benefits and avoid the backlash.

Edited February 26, 2015 by halloween