Beware of 'democracy trap': Prayut

[sandrew33]

The index weigh heavily on the freedom aspect and the characteristic of the political system. If the new constitution deny the freedom of elected officials and lean more on appointments, then Thailand democracy index will drop.

Hard to understand how a democratic index would be based on such things as participation; civil liberties and the power/freedom of elected members to govern

Jokes aside, so what's your point Eric? The discussion is about the government returning the democratic process via a constitution that is inherently undemocratic. You seem to agree.

Or am I missing something?

[Eric Loh]

The index weigh heavily on the freedom aspect and the characteristic of the political system. If the new constitution deny the freedom of elected officials and lean more on appointments, then Thailand democracy index will drop.

Hard to understand how a democratic index would be based on such things as participation; civil liberties and the power/freedom of elected members to govern

Jokes aside, so what's your point Eric? The discussion is about the government returning the democratic process via a constitution that is inherently undemocratic. You seem to agree.

Or am I missing something?

Putting it vey simply, the constitution changes to have appointed senators and appointed PM even during crisis will not raise our Democracy index. Hope this sort out the misunderstanding.

[sandrew33]

Putting it vey simply, the constitution changes to have appointed senators and appointed PM even during crisis will not raise our Democracy index. Hope this sort out the misunderstanding.

So you're foray into this thread was just to point out that it's a bad constitution that's counter to democracy but it's not as bad as some African countries? Cool.

[yellowboat]

Hmm, according to a majority of posters in this thread, democracy is to be treasured. That being the case, why do so few people vote in elections!

Democracy, most people can't handle democracy, not even in "mature" democracies in the west.

http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=TW Wow, you are becoming my favorite person. True, the US and other countries have less than exciting turn out. BUT, the rouge province of China has a very healthy vote.

To be fair, Thailand is not too bad either. Too bad it was taken away from the average Thai six months ago.

[jackted]

Setting the stage for a very rough scene in Thailand the next time the majority gets up the moxie to protest. I almost hope the people roll over and take it, because the alternative is frightening and bleak.

I believe Thailand has only been a so called Constitutional democracy for about 80 years. In the historical development of a country that`s not long. Many countries including the US and UK both had bloody civil wars along their development to how their countries are now.

No one surely wants to see a civil war here especially in this age of modern weaponry. I don`t feel there is any groundswell for that amongst Thais. But part of me, sadly thinks the repeated coups, money & power imbalance, endemic corruption will never really change. And so, however unpalatable or unlikely, perhaps a civil war may happen and may change the path that Thailand has unsuccessfully followed for the last 80 years for the better in the long run.

[KarenBravo]

Until Thais embrace the idea that all Thais are equal under the law and insist that this idea becomes reality, then nothing will change.

[bangrak]

Co-existence between Thais! Are the leaders of the country starting to see the light? Of course, co-existence is a, the, major problem, when one takes into consideration the, many, disparities between Thais, mainly following geographical lines.

But, alas, I'm very afraid there's no real solution in the make, as the only one I'd see seems to be a total taboo. It's a main topic for many, many, years, but no real action as ever been taken, about: decentralisation of powers. The reason seems obvious: the rulers gathered in the capital would lose, some of, their grip oner the nation as a whole (...and as a money trough).

The total taboo being... a federal system! Which would, IMO, solve many, maybe most, problems. One King, one 'Army', one healthcare system, one social(huh?) system, one (general) education system, and one federal government for these and other national matters and policies (such as federal finances, ditto infrastructure, and security, etc.) and international relations, period! On the regional side, five federated entities, for Central, North, North/East, East, and South, led by the (elected!!!) province governors, maybe appointing one regional leader (with a rotation of 2 to 3 years then, from a different province AND a different party). Those elected governors would at the same time also be made senators (to have the interets of their region duly represented in the higher chamber). The federated regions would f.i. run their own finances, education (local curriculum), infrastructure, agriculture, commerce, industry, AND local police forces.

It works in sooo many, democratic, countries, why wouldn't it in Thailand? When there would be a will to...

This all in a nutshell.

[RigPig]

Democracy is very over rated and not for everyone, he's absolutely correct.

Democracy is very over rated by whom - the same people who decide it is not for everyone?

Actually, what you write is perfectly correct.

Democracy, of which Prayut points out is never 100%, is not for everyone or every nation.

I believe that it is right for the UK, Germany, USA and a majority of countries in the world - but not for Thailand at this present moment of time. The reason that Thailand has had 19 coups and very few parliaments lasting the full term is because (flawed) democracy has failed here for decades.

Isn't it wonderful just how peaceful and uneventful life is here in Thailand!!! Now compare the situation just prior to the 'bloodless coup d'etat' when people were being murdered every day and people were rioting in the streets, all under a supposedly democratic system - this is better, is it???.

¨The reason that Thailand has had 19 coups and very few parliaments lasting the full term is because (flawed) democracy has failed here for decades.¨

Rubbish, it is simply because the ¨elite¨ are worried about losing power, The Army has controled this country for more time than the people and still we are having a coup!!

¨people were being murdered every day and people were rioting in the streets, all under a supposedly democratic system - this is better, is it???.¨

Try having the army and police force doing it´s job, and whether you like the results or not it is the peoples right to choose. They must e given a chance and the time to learn. But then the education system gratiously granted to them by the elite is doing a splendid job at that huh. Education and Democracy are dangerous things, it is how the people have always been kept in their place by the rich.

[KarenBravo]

I can't believe that there are people on here that enjoyed all the privileges of democracy and yet state that a dictatorship is preferable.

Bit of an insult to all those that died defending it.......

'The privileges of democracy', in Thailand? When would that have been then? There's a democracy monument, sure, but 'democracy'? Are you joking, or misleading?

(When you would associate 'democracy' with 'Thaksin regime', then allow me to say most Thais I know prefer this 'dictatorship' to what his was...)

Oh dear. Try re-reading my post.

Here's a clue. It's not about people from Thailand.

[JimGant]

Democracy is very over rated and not for everyone, he's absolutely correct.

Fills my head with images of councilmen having business lunches with corporate men in very posh private clubs - Democracy!

Kinda like America, in its early days, whereby only white landowning males had the vote. And thereby also the only group electable. I guess you could call them America's "hi so's."

But, as long as they were sworn to carry out the pinnacles of democracy, i.e., the Bill of Rights, what's to complain about? The requirement was to limit suffrage to those with an education, who then, supposedly, could think out the alternatives, and then make an informed vote. But, beginning with the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, America headed for universal suffrage, where every idiot had the vote. And just look at today's Congress....

Actually, a managed democracy, akin to Singapore's, would be a good fit for Thailand, as some have already discussed:

There the people can vote for their representatives, but civil servants appointed by its elite hold the power of the purse. Singapore has thrived under its managed democracy, as may Thailand’s should it adopt a similar political system going forward.

http://www.theglobalist.com/judicial-coup-in-thailand/

And, for many of the world's third world countries, a good old fashioned benevolent dictator gets my vote (er, so to speak). Unfortunately, getting the "benevolent" part right, to include smarts and pure intentions, is the hard part.....

[Xircal]

Show me a real democracy in the world today, and i will hold up a mirror and show you a liar...

The Netherlands most definitely fits that bill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands

Apart from the weather, it's a great place to live.

[smedly]

They can make sure a coup never happens again, by simply having no amnesties against those who conduct them!!

Hold them accountable for their actions, it's really that simple, but as long as the Army are not accountabke to any laws or Government then its business as usual here.

That is were you and me differ - although not an ideal solution it unfortunately seems to be (currently) the only way to remove an abomination like the last PTP government, it is possible that could change if the current reform process puts in place powerful independent agencies to hold a defunct government to account and remove them for improprieties such as corruption - power abuse and breaking the law, up until now it was none existent or easily brushed aside.

[sandrew33]

I agree with you - but I don't expect the current restrictions to go beyond the current administration - if they do then I will be the first to cry foul

The current "restrictions" are being baked into the new Constitution being discussed in this thread.

Enshrining control by the khon dii in perpetuity.

You really can't see that?

Edited March 4, 2015 by sandrew33

[losgrad]

For me, this is a very educational thread as I learn about history, governments, different perspectives and my errors in understanding. I hope discussions like this can continue and I can be passively educated and not forcefully re-educated.

Everyone, please continue indefinitely....

Thank you.

Edited March 5, 2015 by losgrad

[yellowboat]

For me, this is a very educational thread as I learn about history, governments, different perspectives and my errors in understanding. I hope discussions like this can continue and I can be passively educated and not forcefully re-educated.

Everyone, please continue indefinitely....

Thank you.

Sadly, it may not continue. Free speech comes at a price. Enjoy while you can.

[TomJoad]

"Do not worry as to how the charter will turn out. Instead, worry about who will become candidates for the next government." What lunacy ! The written holds meaning now and the future and not just the next election.. If the general does not hold the written word in high regard, he should step down immediately. He will cause even more harm .

Still amazed by all the westerners who agree with deposing a popularly elected government. It is just shameful.

Yes, yes, yes. If those people were back in their own countries, they would be the first to protest if the military took over their country. It is comical and the pinnacle of hypocrisy that so many western people defend the coup action. And even funnier if you read some of their posts, on other threads they criticize militaries in other countries fighting terrorism.

Its a strange world some of these people live in....

You're wrong (again). There have been several times in American history where democracy was suspended. Abraham Lincoln had editors of opposition newspapers thrown in jail without even being charged. Lincoln could have been considered a dictator.

He realized that democracy has its limits. If he hadn't, then the USA would be two separate countries today.

[Neeranam]

He said he will go on holiday when the country returns to an elected government.

That either means he has no plans ever for a holiday or else there will be sufficient billions skimmed by that time, whenever it may be, for him and his merry men to leave Thailand and live the live of billionaires whilst the rest of Thailand struggles with the economic and socio-economic quagmire that they have conspired to create. Men with guns taking over a country never do it for the good of the country, only for the good of themselves.

This really makes me think of a certain someone that loves Dubai this time of the year, or in fact the next 25 years.

The big difference is that Thaksin has absolutely no interest in making Thailand a better country. All he cared about was getting richer himself, which consequently means he is a fugitive. At least Prayoot cares about the country, the king and the people. Sure, there are perks of any job like this in Thailand but he is more like Chuan Leekpai than rogues like Taksin, Barnharn, and Chavalit..

Edited March 5, 2015 by Neeranam

[kinmaew]

= Keep foreigners out so all the money stays where it is thank you. Keep them poor, undedicated and stupid then they cant ask questions and don't know any better. Where would the UK be if they only took in "Whites". Ridiculous notion being presented from another recalcitrant hell bent on the Status Quo prevailing which ensures an austere life continues for the majority and Thais too gutless to do anything about it. Poms would not put up with this crap that is for sure. The complaints box would be full!!

[kinmaew]

"civil war" I hate to say it, but it seems its the only way they will ever be free.

[Laughing Gravy]

Basically, if we don't like the new civilian government we have already made our excuses for another coup.

I don't even know why they carry on this charade, coup after coup, they may as well just stay in charge forever.

I thought that is exactly what has happened over the last few decades or so, in some form or another.

I do feel that the people are more than capable of choosing who should lead their country. Treat them like adults and not children please.

[sandrew33]

Man, some people make strange resumptions.

I NEVER read the Nation.

I was here when all the PMs I talked about were in power and read Thai newspapers and the Bangkok Post.

I have studied Thai history for longer than the 23 years I have lived and worked here.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

And yet your earlier post was trite nonsense.

Biases often just get stronger with time. But I'm completely confident your views are popular in some of the same Thai circles I move in. Certainly in public at least.

Yes, he's a great but flawed patriot, acting in the best interests of the country. As the country should be. And the peasants should respect that and know their place. That's the Thai way. Khon dii know best ...

[canuckamuck]

Setting the stage for a very rough scene in Thailand the next time the majority gets up the moxie to protest. I almost hope the people roll over and take it, because the alternative is frightening and bleak.

I believe Thailand has only been a so called Constitutional democracy for about 80 years. In the historical development of a country that`s not long. Many countries including the US and UK both had bloody civil wars along their development to how their countries are now.

No one surely wants to see a civil war here especially in this age of modern weaponry. I don`t feel there is any groundswell for that amongst Thais. But part of me, sadly thinks the repeated coups, money & power imbalance, endemic corruption will never really change. And so, however unpalatable or unlikely, perhaps a civil war may happen and may change the path that Thailand has unsuccessfully followed for the last 80 years for the better in the long run.

I hear this excuse for Thailand somewhat frequently. That it hasn't been very long for them to figure out democracy. This is perhaps a polite thing to say, but it's not true. Canada for example Had a functioning democracy right out of the gate. It is not a system that is hard to figure out. 80 years is 20, 4 year election cycles. Certainly enough time to have established at the least a permanent constitution.

The reasons that Thailand has had to reboot and start back at square one every handful of years is:

1) the power brokers do not see democracy as an advantage, in fact it is a liability and a threat to their insulated privileged and powerful existences.

2) the only reason democracy is put up with is for reasons of face. in the international realm, the cool kids are all democratic. To be otherwise makes you a pariah. Thailand brags about being a democracy when the cameras are rolling but does all it can to scuttle the ship from behind the scene.

3) Corruption is so endemic and accepted, that all attempts at a democratic system are doomed from beginning because there is no political will to hold elites accountable. And the Elites also find it inconceivable that laws should apply equally to all regardless of connections or net worth.

Thailand cannot perpetuate even a entry level democracy without some form of cultural sea change. It is simply beyond them.

[BB24]

I am clearly on one side (pro-takeover) than the other (pro-Shinawatra/Yingluck/etc.), and there has been some 'solid' argument on both sides of the debate.

However, there has been a lot of 'fluid' argument being made and this post is to help those still deciding their side on the argument .

When sifting the 'grain' from the 'chaff' there are many methods that can be used - saqme as in deciding what is iognorant and what is valid - all of them require the argument being put forward to be 'challanged'. One of the ways to see if an argument is a valid obe, or is the rants of an idiot/ignorant person, is to carefully 'read' how they respond when challenged.

Inevitably the ignorant/idiots respond to any challenge as a personal insult :- EG; Q-What you just said is ignorant - A-How dare you call me ignorant.

However, those with a valid (reasoned) argument respond very differently :- EG; Q-What you just said is ignorant - A-On what basis do you say that - what facts/evidence do you have.

Inevitably the ignorant/idiots provide vague inconclusive information as factual evidence :- EG; Democracy is good for everyone and that is a fact - no matter how corrupt/destructive it is.

However, those with a valid (reasoned) argument respond very differently :- EG; Democracy is not always great, but so far it is the most successful form of Government we have had, in terms of being of the most overall benefit to the most number of people.

After reading the valid arguments against the military takeover (ignoring the rest), I can see the reasons why people dont support it, but I am still of the belief that the stopping of a probable civil war and removal of a corrupt Government System (both sides) was overall a good thing. However, as I said at the start, as long as they get things sorted and then hand power back in an appropriate timeframe, then I will continue to support it - for whatever that opinion is worth.

One more 'example' if I may. When someone is ignorant/stupid about a particular issue, they automatically see negative in anything that is associated with that issue (like a teenager). My apologies if you have not yet had kids and thereforefore do not understand that analogy - but it is a fact. EG: The military Government decides to introduce some form of Political reform so that in the future the Politicians can resolve the impasse between the 'Waring Parties' themselves. They propose to introduce something so that the 'sane' Politicians who in the future find themselves on the brink of a civil war, can invoke in the Parliament something that forces all the Politicians to address the matter. They recognise that the current system whereby to get rid of one side's PM would mean putting in the other side's Leader as PM, is not a solution and is certainly something that would not be acceptable in this culture (loss of face). So they propose to introduce a method whereby the majority of Politicians can select an unelected person as PM, in order to solve the impasse, save face, and to cool things down for a while. How do the teenagers respond - they automatically 'attack' the proposal and do not think through the reasons. They do not reason - they react. So tell me (teenagers) - what change do you propose to the Thai Political System to facilitate the Politicians solving the future issue of a civil war and rampant corruption themselves. The current system clearly does not work - the last two times they got close, they continued to fight for their own corrupted vested interests, and did stuff all about helping the people resolve their differences peacefully. One could argue that the current political system is the cause of the differences - it is certainly the cause of the rampant corruption and vested interests.

[yellowboat]

Setting the stage for a very rough scene in Thailand the next time the majority gets up the moxie to protest. I almost hope the people roll over and take it, because the alternative is frightening and bleak.

I believe Thailand has only been a so called Constitutional democracy for about 80 years. In the historical development of a country that`s not long. Many countries including the US and UK both had bloody civil wars along their development to how their countries are now.

No one surely wants to see a civil war here especially in this age of modern weaponry. I don`t feel there is any groundswell for that amongst Thais. But part of me, sadly thinks the repeated coups, money & power imbalance, endemic corruption will never really change. And so, however unpalatable or unlikely, perhaps a civil war may happen and may change the path that Thailand has unsuccessfully followed for the last 80 years for the better in the long run.

I hear this excuse for Thailand somewhat frequently. That it hasn't been very long for them to figure out democracy. This is perhaps a polite thing to say, but it's not true. Canada for example Had a functioning democracy right out of the gate. It is not a system that is hard to figure out. 80 years is 20, 4 year election cycles. Certainly enough time to have established at the least a permanent constitution.

The reasons that Thailand has had to reboot and start back at square one every handful of years is:

1) the power brokers do not see democracy as an advantage, in fact it is a liability and a threat to their insulated privileged and powerful existences.

2) the only reason democracy is put up with is for reasons of face. in the international realm, the cool kids are all democratic. To be otherwise makes you a pariah. Thailand brags about being a democracy when the cameras are rolling but does all it can to scuttle the ship from behind the scene.

3) Corruption is so endemic and accepted, that all attempts at a democratic system are doomed from beginning because there is no political will to hold elites accountable. And the Elites also find it inconceivable that laws should apply equally to all regardless of connections or net worth.

Thailand cannot perpetuate even a entry level democracy without some form of cultural sea change. It is simply beyond them.

There is just no real excuse for what is happening in Thailand. Taiwan has had a functioning representative government for about 25 years. Some of their biggest fans are in Hong Kong and in China. There are great examples around Asia. What you have in Thailand is apathy, incompetence and outright greed. No excuse.

[candide]

I am clearly on one side (pro-takeover) than the other (pro-Shinawatra/Yingluck/etc.), and there has been some 'solid' argument on both sides of the debate.

However, there has been a lot of 'fluid' argument being made and this post is to help those still deciding their side on the argument .

When sifting the 'grain' from the 'chaff' there are many methods that can be used - saqme as in deciding what is iognorant and what is valid - all of them require the argument being put forward to be 'challanged'. One of the ways to see if an argument is a valid obe, or is the rants of an idiot/ignorant person, is to carefully 'read' how they respond when challenged.

Inevitably the ignorant/idiots respond to any challenge as a personal insult :- EG; Q-What you just said is ignorant - A-How dare you call me ignorant.

However, those with a valid (reasoned) argument respond very differently :- EG; Q-What you just said is ignorant - A-On what basis do you say that - what facts/evidence do you have.

Inevitably the ignorant/idiots provide vague inconclusive information as factual evidence :- EG; Democracy is good for everyone and that is a fact - no matter how corrupt/destructive it is.

However, those with a valid (reasoned) argument respond very differently :- EG; Democracy is not always great, but so far it is the most successful form of Government we have had, in terms of being of the most overall benefit to the most number of people.

After reading the valid arguments against the military takeover (ignoring the rest), I can see the reasons why people dont support it, but I am still of the belief that the stopping of a probable civil war and removal of a corrupt Government System (both sides) was overall a good thing. However, as I said at the start, as long as they get things sorted and then hand power back in an appropriate timeframe, then I will continue to support it - for whatever that opinion is worth.

One more 'example' if I may. When someone is ignorant/stupid about a particular issue, they automatically see negative in anything that is associated with that issue (like a teenager). My apologies if you have not yet had kids and thereforefore do not understand that analogy - but it is a fact. EG: The military Government decides to introduce some form of Political reform so that in the future the Politicians can resolve the impasse between the 'Waring Parties' themselves. They propose to introduce something so that the 'sane' Politicians who in the future find themselves on the brink of a civil war, can invoke in the Parliament something that forces all the Politicians to address the matter. They recognise that the current system whereby to get rid of one side's PM would mean putting in the other side's Leader as PM, is not a solution and is certainly something that would not be acceptable in this culture (loss of face). So they propose to introduce a method whereby the majority of Politicians can select an unelected person as PM, in order to solve the impasse, save face, and to cool things down for a while. How do the teenagers respond - they automatically 'attack' the proposal and do not think through the reasons. They do not reason - they react. So tell me (teenagers) - what change do you propose to the Thai Political System to facilitate the Politicians solving the future issue of a civil war and rampant corruption themselves. The current system clearly does not work - the last two times they got close, they continued to fight for their own corrupted vested interests, and did stuff all about helping the people resolve their differences peacefully. One could argue that the current political system is the cause of the differences - it is certainly the cause of the rampant corruption and vested interests.

The main problem of your argument is that you believe (or pretend to) in the fairy tale of a neutral Junta trying to solve political conflict. They are part of the same political faction as the 2013/2014 protesters. Idem for the constitution, it's designed to allow one political side to control the system.

[Eric Loh]

They can make sure a coup never happens again, by simply having no amnesties against those who conduct them!!

Hold them accountable for their actions, it's really that simple, but as long as the Army are not accountabke to any laws or Government then its business as usual here.

If I can correctly state, Thailand does not have a Sedition Law or Act that will rule illegal any overt conduct or insurrection against established government. That's the better aspect of the British legacy in Singapore, Malaysia and HongKong was that they introduced the Sedition Act. Unless someone has the fortitude to introduce this Act, the military will never be held accountable. Perhaps we don't have this Act so the military can lord over Thailand.

[Thai at Heart]

I am clearly on one side (pro-takeover) than the other (pro-Shinawatra/Yingluck/etc.), and there has been some 'solid' argument on both sides of the debate.

However, there has been a lot of 'fluid' argument being made and this post is to help those still deciding their side on the argument .

When sifting the 'grain' from the 'chaff' there are many methods that can be used - saqme as in deciding what is iognorant and what is valid - all of them require the argument being put forward to be 'challanged'. One of the ways to see if an argument is a valid obe, or is the rants of an idiot/ignorant person, is to carefully 'read' how they respond when challenged.

Inevitably the ignorant/idiots respond to any challenge as a personal insult :- EG; Q-What you just said is ignorant - A-How dare you call me ignorant.

However, those with a valid (reasoned) argument respond very differently :- EG; Q-What you just said is ignorant - A-On what basis do you say that - what facts/evidence do you have.

Inevitably the ignorant/idiots provide vague inconclusive information as factual evidence :- EG; Democracy is good for everyone and that is a fact - no matter how corrupt/destructive it is.

However, those with a valid (reasoned) argument respond very differently :- EG; Democracy is not always great, but so far it is the most successful form of Government we have had, in terms of being of the most overall benefit to the most number of people.

After reading the valid arguments against the military takeover (ignoring the rest), I can see the reasons why people dont support it, but I am still of the belief that the stopping of a probable civil war and removal of a corrupt Government System (both sides) was overall a good thing. However, as I said at the start, as long as they get things sorted and then hand power back in an appropriate timeframe, then I will continue to support it - for whatever that opinion is worth.

One more 'example' if I may. When someone is ignorant/stupid about a particular issue, they automatically see negative in anything that is associated with that issue (like a teenager). My apologies if you have not yet had kids and thereforefore do not understand that analogy - but it is a fact. EG: The military Government decides to introduce some form of Political reform so that in the future the Politicians can resolve the impasse between the 'Waring Parties' themselves. They propose to introduce something so that the 'sane' Politicians who in the future find themselves on the brink of a civil war, can invoke in the Parliament something that forces all the Politicians to address the matter. They recognise that the current system whereby to get rid of one side's PM would mean putting in the other side's Leader as PM, is not a solution and is certainly something that would not be acceptable in this culture (loss of face). So they propose to introduce a method whereby the majority of Politicians can select an unelected person as PM, in order to solve the impasse, save face, and to cool things down for a while. How do the teenagers respond - they automatically 'attack' the proposal and do not think through the reasons. They do not reason - they react. So tell me (teenagers) - what change do you propose to the Thai Political System to facilitate the Politicians solving the future issue of a civil war and rampant corruption themselves. The current system clearly does not work - the last two times they got close, they continued to fight for their own corrupted vested interests, and did stuff all about helping the people resolve their differences peacefully. One could argue that the current political system is the cause of the differences - it is certainly the cause of the rampant corruption and vested interests.

The main problem of your argument is that you believe (or pretend to) in the fairy tale of a neutral Junta trying to solve political conflict. They are part of the same political faction as the 2013/2014 protesters. Idem for the constitution, it's designed to allow one political side to control the system.

Precisely. The junta isn't doing this to insure that that democracy flourishes. They are doing it to make sure that democracy plays by their very narrow interpretation.

[Fat Haggis]

You know what they say about rules ? ?

Like I said I agree with a lot of what you say I was just surprised to actually read that you hoped people would be rounded up and deported, as much as I'd love to see people get the odd ban, of which I've had a few myself I don't believe in curtailing their beliefs.

I may disagree but it takes a great deal for me to wish consequences that affect more than a poster rights to post here if they were to be deported, especially over something trivial as insulting the PM, and yes I consider it trivial, it's not a crime to call someone a tosser, if it was the jails would be full.

The country does need a clean up, but it has to come from the politicians who represented and misrepresented the public, not the ultimate teddy throwers, they changed the last constitution and now they want to change it again?

Power corrupts mate, and you also know what they say about absolute power too!!?

I'd still buy you a beer ?

[metisdead]

Inflammatory posts and replies have been removed.