"He seized power after months of street protests led to the ousting of Yingluck Shinawatra's democratically elected administration."

Really? I thought at the time of the coup there was only a caretaker govt due to the failure of the elections held to elect a govt. I also thought yingluck had been removed as caretaker PM by then as well.

I really should pay more attention. Thank goodness AFP is there to put me right.

Indeed you should. There was a caretaker government in situ (not "only" - this is , or should be, the normal state of affairs for a government that has dissolved parliament and awaiting elections to be organised and held, which were due to be scheduled for July 20th, I remember). So the caretaker government that were the representatives of the Thai Nation were prevented from holding that election by the Army Generals seizing power, hence

"He seized power after months of street protests led to the ousting of Yingluck Shinawatra's democratically elected administration".

Is that clear enough for you?

No, don't think so. There was an election that failed because it was boycotted across the country.

Is that clear to you?

"He seized power after months of street protests led to the ousting of Yingluck Shinawatra's democratically elected administration."

Really? I thought at the time of the coup there was only a caretaker govt due to the failure of the elections held to elect a govt. I also thought yingluck had been removed as caretaker PM by then as well.

I really should pay more attention. Thank goodness AFP is there to put me right.

hey, Bluespunk, the statement is actually correct, grammatically and factually, and it doesn't disagree with your interpretation either.

Factually, hmm, I'll think on that.

"He seized power after months of street protests led to the ousting of Yingluck Shinawatra's democratically elected administration."

Really? I thought at the time of the coup there was only a caretaker govt due to the failure of the elections held to elect a govt. I also thought yingluck had been removed as caretaker PM by then as well.

I really should pay more attention. Thank goodness AFP is there to put me right.

Indeed you should. There was a caretaker government in situ (not "only" - this is , or should be, the normal state of affairs for a government that has dissolved parliament and awaiting elections to be organised and held, which were due to be scheduled for July 20th, I remember). So the caretaker government that were the representatives of the Thai Nation were prevented from holding that election by the Army Generals seizing power, hence

"He seized power after months of street protests led to the ousting of Yingluck Shinawatra's democratically elected administration".

Is that clear enough for you?

actually he seized power after the reds started killing/blowing up innocent kids and women and threatened to start a war as well as declare their own state and the ptp were letting/encouraging them to do it

, I suppose that would have been your preferred outcome

Well, you have your opinion - and you're welcome to it.

"He seized power after months of street protests led to the ousting of Yingluck Shinawatra's democratically elected administration."

Really? I thought at the time of the coup there was only a caretaker govt due to the failure of the elections held to elect a govt. I also thought yingluck had been removed as caretaker PM by then as well.

I really should pay more attention. Thank goodness AFP is there to put me right.

Indeed you should. There was a caretaker government in situ (not "only" - this is , or should be, the normal state of affairs for a government that has dissolved parliament and awaiting elections to be organised and held, which were due to be scheduled for July 20th, I remember). So the caretaker government that were the representatives of the Thai Nation were prevented from holding that election by the Army Generals seizing power, hence

"He seized power after months of street protests led to the ousting of Yingluck Shinawatra's democratically elected administration".

Is that clear enough for you?

No, don't think so. There was an election that failed because it was boycotted across the country.

Is that clear to you?

Well No, actually. Does your explanation that the election failed because of "boycotting across the country" reflect the reality? Not any mention of the reality of the Courts restricting powers available to the police to ensure the voting went ahead, election ballot boxes being held "hostage", voters physically restrained and attacked whilst attempting to vote, which eventually resulted in a controversial ruling by the CC (not for the first time) that the Election was null and void because the voting was not completed in one day (due to said blockading and attacks on voters).

You also neglect to mention that another Election was scheduled for the 20th July.

But if you really feel the need to make excuses for a military junta overthrowing the democratic process, fill your boots, there's a few other posters on here I'm sure would enjoy your company.

I like it the way it is now. No demonstrations, no killings, no roadblocks. Corruption is being stopped, Thailand is being improved and cleaned from streetvendors....

There's still much more work to do, Bangkok has to become a real Metropole with good public transport, civilised people and also rules which have to be maintained.

"He seized power after months of street protests led to the ousting of Yingluck Shinawatra's democratically elected administration."

Really? I thought at the time of the coup there was only a caretaker govt due to the failure of the elections held to elect a govt. I also thought yingluck had been removed as caretaker PM by then as well.

I really should pay more attention. Thank goodness AFP is there to put me right.

Indeed you should. There was a caretaker government in situ (not "only" - this is , or should be, the normal state of affairs for a government that has dissolved parliament and awaiting elections to be organised and held, which were due to be scheduled for July 20th, I remember). So the caretaker government that were the representatives of the Thai Nation were prevented from holding that election by the Army Generals seizing power, hence

"He seized power after months of street protests led to the ousting of Yingluck Shinawatra's democratically elected administration".

Is that clear enough for you?

No, don't think so. There was an election that failed because it was boycotted across the country.

Is that clear to you?

Well No, actually. Does your explanation that the election failed because of "boycotting across the country" reflect the reality? Not any mention of the reality of the Courts restricting powers available to the police to ensure the voting went ahead, election ballot boxes being held "hostage", voters physically restrained and attacked whilst attempting to vote, which eventually resulted in a controversial ruling by the CC (not for the first time) that the Election was null and void because the voting was not completed in one day (due to said blockading and attacks on voters).

You also neglect to mention that another Election was scheduled for the 20th July.

But if you really feel the need to make excuses for a military junta overthrowing the democratic process, fill your boots, there's a few other posters on here I'm sure would enjoy your company.

Hmm, no, no, not really.

While I do agree that sutheps madness had some effect in bangkok in some places, across the country as a whole the elections were boycotted on a voluntary basis. For myself I thought that was stupid but that's me.

As for what the courts did…they enforced the laws as they stood at the time.

An election was scheduled for July 20th? Had the EC/CC/whoever agreed on this, can't remember [genuinely can't] Was it going to be any different?

However, that aside AFP is still wrong in stating an elected govt was in power. They weren't, PT had resigned.

My views on coups are a different issue. My gripe here is with AFP and their constant misrepresentation of the truth.

Edited March 5, 201511 yr by Bluespunk

Probably the best move would be to beg Thaksin to come back, rally all his upstanding, well qualified, and eager to be back in their rightful seat friends and reform a useful, dedicated government for the betterment of Thailand.

I like it the way it is now. No demonstrations, no killings, no roadblocks. Corruption is being stopped, Thailand is being improved and cleaned from streetvendors....

There's still much more work to do, Bangkok has to become a real Metropole with good public transport, civilised people and also rules which have to be maintained.

Corruption is not "being stopped". Lots of talk, a little action, some vendettas are being disguised as purely corruption cleanup.... One of the largest mafias in Thailand is run by military which has never been cleaned up. You don't think that the current selection of very wealthy military got that way by their salaries do you? Parents push their daughters to marry either police or military officers because that is where the money is -- why is that? Then with the current group (even potentially to his brother) they say they will explain where the money came from, but then silence.... There has been a lot of talk, some disruption of corruption when it was by the "wrong people" (making room for it to go into the right pockets in the future) but it is not being stopped.... they are just going from a published price list (like Shinawatra) to a negotiated fee again.... and making sure it goes back in the right pockets.... populism by Shinawatra was putting it in the wrong pockets.

The military made it IMPOSSIBLE to clear out the demonstrators, threatened officials if they used any traditional non-lethal force used in western countries for that purpose (tear gas, water trucks with irritant).... because they supported them all along. That support of course would never have been offered to red occupations which were dealt with with incompetent and deadly force (from some magical force not any of their people).

I like it the way it is now. No demonstrations, no killings, no roadblocks. Corruption is being stopped, Thailand is being improved and cleaned from streetvendors....

There's still much more work to do, Bangkok has to become a real Metropole with good public transport, civilised people and also rules which have to be maintained.

Which part of Bangkok do you live in? I want to move there.

Of course the prime minister coup leader army GENERAL Prayuth would object to having the junta's coup leader's banned from politics. What were they thinking?

True, true. The previous coup leader turned respectful politician, joined the Pheu Thai led coalition government and voted for the blanket amnesty bill to make double sure he had it.

Shameless?

Return to democracy, oppose banning of politicians, but of course ban the NLA members from seeking political office in elections?

Yes, shameless.

Could you please elaborate a wee bit? What makes you describe the words of PM Prayut as 'shameless'

Why don't you state your opinion first so then we are on a level playing field.

Why should I? You wrote 'shameless' and seem unable to explain why you did.

Thai junta chief rejects proposal to bar coup leaders from office

of course he rejects it. How in heavens name will he follow in Prem's footsteps if he did reject it?

Besides, what else is he going to do after he returns from vacation?

To reject the proposal to bar coup leaders from political office has nothing to do at all with the Privy Council.

The Privy Council is a body advising H.M. the King of Thailand. K. Prem is appointed as president of the Privy Council by H.M. the King.

CDC chairman Jade Donavanik is up for an "attitude adjustment"

Attitude adjustment? Don't think so, I think a total strip down and rebuild will be coming his way.

I like it the way it is now. No demonstrations, no killings, no roadblocks. Corruption is being stopped, Thailand is being improved and cleaned from streetvendors....

There's still much more work to do, Bangkok has to become a real Metropole with good public transport, civilised people and also rules which have to be maintained.

Oh please.

If the good general does run for the election and doesn't get voted in, you can bet he will bar anyone other than himself from being allowed to run in the recount.

CHARTER WRITING
Prayut opposes proposal for two-year political sabbatical
KRIS BHROMSUTHI
THE NATION

PM sees no reason to distrust junta appointees; general election likely in April 2016

BANGKOK: -- PRIME MINISTER Prayut Chan-o-cha yesterday voiced his opposition to a proposed two-year exclusion from politics for members of the five junta-appointed organisations in a bid to prevent them from "inheriting power" gained from the coup.

Prayut argued that if all of them are required to stay away from political office for two years, "there will be nobody to work".

He saw no reason for mistrust of members of the five junta-appointed organisations.

The prime minister, who is also head of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), said that if the junta really wanted to remain in power after the new charter takes effect, "I will just not return the power."

Interior Minister Anupong Paochinda said yesterday that he had no problem with the proposed ban. But he added that the prime minister, in his capacity as head of the NCPO leader would have the final say on this matter.

A member of the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC), Jade Donavanik, had earlier suggested a transitional clause to prohibit members of the NCPO, the CDC, the Cabinet, the National Reform Council and the National Legislative Assembly - also known as the "five rivers" - from holding any political positions for two years after the new constitution comes into effect.

"We will recommend that they are not allowed to enter politics for two years after the new constitution is endorsed. We are afraid about power hogging and conflict of interest," Jade said.

The proposal was raised at yesterday's meeting of the constitution drafters. However, some CDC members expressed their opposition to it, arguing that it was "improper". The meeting later resolved to postpone debate on this matter.

The CDC members are scheduled to discuss the matter at a closed-door meeting today, CDC spokesman Kamnoon Sidhisamarn said.

Pheu Thai Party politician Amnuay Klangpha yesterday backed Jade's proposal, saying the exclusion would prove the sincerity of those involved that they would not get involved with any conflict of interest.

The charter drafters yesterday inserted a temporary provision in the charter that gave the junta 180 days to hold a general election after the new constitution officially comes into effect. It is expected that the general election will be held around April next year.

Article 307 stipulates that the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) is expected to deliberate and vote on election-related bills proposed by charter drafters within 60 days.

The charter drafters are expected to propose those bills as soon as possible after the new constitution is officially enforced, which will be around October, hence it is expected that the NLA will pass electoral-related bills around January.

After passing those bills, the NLA is likely to submit those bills to the Constitutional Court, which will have 30 days to approve them.

Article 308 of the temporary provision states that a general election for the lower house of representatives must be held within 90 days after those electoral charter laws had been officially enforced.

The general election is likely to be held in April.

As for the Senate, Article 308 stipulates that their election process must be completed 60 days after lower house MPs had been elected.

The charter drafters yesterday began their first day of deliberations on some 12 temporary provisions.

The CDC members had yesterday completed nine of them and the rest will be completed by today, Kamnoon said. Article 311 is another significant article as it merges the Office of Ombudsman and the Office of National Human Rights Commission of Thailand. It states that the two offices shall be combined under the name "the Office of Ombudsman and Human Rights Protection".

Other articles also state that the Cabinet and the NLA under the junta administration shall remain until the new elected members of both institutions are sworn into office. The NLA shall remain until both the lower and upper house members are elected through a general election next year.

However, Kamnoon said it was still undecided how long the charter drafters and the National Reform Council should continue.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Prayut-opposes-proposal-for-two-year-political-sab-30255436.html

-- The Nation 2015-03-06

I am still tryin to understand why P thinks that a political ban once elections return would prevent these people from doin their job now? Unless of course they are writing the new constitution to help their own futures instead of thailands future. It should not matter what the interim constitution says as it will be defunct once the new one is approved. Maybe im just ignorant to comprehend P's logic or perhaps I need a session in an attitude adjustment camp

"He seized power after months of street protests led to the ousting of Yingluck Shinawatra's democratically elected administration."

Really? I thought at the time of the coup there was only a caretaker govt due to the failure of the elections held to elect a govt. I also thought yingluck had been removed as caretaker PM by then as well.

I really should pay more attention. Thank goodness AFP is there to put me right.

hey, Bluespunk, the statement is actually correct, grammatically and factually, and it doesn't disagree with your interpretation either.

Factually, hmm, I'll think on that.

sure.

It doesn't say anything more than "he seized power" and it was after Yingluck's administration had been "ousted" from power. And it attributes that to, in part, the street protests.

There is really nothing wrong with the statement, is there?

Thai junta chief rejects proposal to bar coup leaders from office

of course he rejects it. How in heavens name will he follow in Prem's footsteps if he did reject it?

Besides, what else is he going to do after he returns from vacation?

To reject the proposal to bar coup leaders from political office has nothing to do at all with the Privy Council.

The Privy Council is a body advising H.M. the King of Thailand. K. Prem is appointed as president of the Privy Council by H.M. the King.

you really know nothing of Thai history, do you?

The General surely could have ensured the election wasn't interfered with but instead, colluded with Suthep and his manufactured 'crisis.'

Remember Suthep?... shutdown Bangkok, blocked the polls, threatened to kidnap the Prime Minister. That clown should be in jail, no?... but he was on a mission for an untouchable...friends of the Army.

It's become increasingly obvious the PM wants to be the shining star of Thai politics for a considerable time. Let him stand in the next election and see if the people of Thailand feel the same.

Perhaps I have been wrong - up to now I thought Prayuth was a Despot and another D word which is banned (you can look it up in a DICTionary).

Now, I can see that, in truth, he is plainly a megalomaniac.

It's become increasingly obvious the PM wants to be the shining star of Thai politics for a considerable time. Let him stand in the next election and see if the people of Thailand feel the same.

According to The Nation, Thai people love him, love the coup and hope he stays longer.

Amazing, the garbage they put in their headlines every day.

Even more amazing, some farangs buy it!

All the news they want you to hear.....

Prayuth is shameless.

So they are not really in it to help reform the country, they are actually doing it to hold on to power. Words right from the horses mouth.

This is what happens when the vultures in the biggest family in Thailand gets into a squabble. They don't care about the Thai people.

The General is doing their dirty work. Doing as he's told like a good soldier.

No surprise here.

No coup leader will work so hard, and give so many public explanations trying to boost its image, to pass its power to an elected Government.

No way. Prayut is already on an election campaign...and soldiers use any strategy to win...not to "surrender".

Surprise surprise surprise. Who would have thought he'd do this? Why bother challenging anything of coup leaders or supporters.

Oops! Seems like someone at the CDC is going to need an "attitude adjustment".

Going against Prayut...that's a no, no.

"...adding that a ban on key junta figures now would discourage them working to reform the country..."

Really? Did he seriously say that? If true, then that indicates the "key junta leaders" are only concerned with their own lives and could care less about the country, which means they should be banned.