Thai editorial: Invoking Article 44 THROWS DOUBT on junta's competence

[NickJ]

Who in there right minds would want this job?..

Its a nation of babies governed by idiots...

or...

a nation of idiots goverened by babies....

its a never win scienario....

what could can come from this almost failed state........there are three things to do.

yet....nothing

Edited April 4, 2015 by NickJ

[Chris Lawrence]

A lot more is happening in Thailand then what one can read in the Nation.

100 people rounded up next week who are corrupt in Government positions? Some new restraints put on country folk by the regime. Is support getting thru to the farmers?

Not hearing how people in the country feel about new regime.

Maybe more unrest happening in a country with a sterile media?

[NickJ]

Call Mr Peabody and Sherman......the way way back machine is very much looking like the only choice.

There are absolutes that can save this society....What are they?

[rubl]

Now before too many fans get disappointed, here is my opinion on the topic.

The most important sentence in the editirial seems to be

"And unless the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) uses it in a constructive manner, it risks exacerbating the political crisis."

That is less like expressing an opinion and more like waving your hand vaguely in the direction your opinion may lie.

Be very careful tonight, rubl. I have just been absolutely thrashed at poker and am in an exceedingly grumpy and petulant mood...

OK, let me spell it out for you a wee bit more clearly.

The article 44 has been in the Interim Constitution since the 22nd of July 2014. The only reason no one said much about it was because with the Martial Law in place it didn't seem to matter. We have complaints of having this article, complaints it's being used, complaints it should be used.

The topic suggests the article 44 is no problem as long as it's used constructively.

I can agree with that. I think it is important that we get reforms under way even if people were reluctant to cooperate as they didn't believe the 'right' reforms' would be made. The more people complain about 'but this is not what I wanted' the more likely it gets the NCPO will stay on a wee bit longer. From the beginning it was clear that real reforms would take a generation or two, especially with the deplorable state of education. Now to me, pragmatically, it's simple: get going, that'a'way, course corrections can wait for now.

PS in reference to poker play and having taken to the cleaners, with you being a law-abiding citizen I can only assume you're not in Thailand at the moment. A pity otherwise I would be tempted to drop by with a bucket full of water to enlighten your mood and prepare you for Songkhran.

Cheers, from a hot Bangkok

Edited April 4, 2015 by rubl

[heybruce]

I think condition Burma/Myanmar was in until a few years ago is the best indicator of where Thailand will go under the generals.

Now before I make a mistake in interpreting what you wrote here, can you tell what condition Myanmar was in, what was wrong with that and why you think that all is the 'best indicator' of where Thailand will go under the generalss

Thanks

Unbelievable. Are you that out of touch?

In a nutshell, the Burmese/Myanmar generals refused to relinquish power following the decisive May 1990 election victory of the National League for Democracy Party led by Aung San Kuu Kyi. Aung San Suu Kyi spent most of the next twenty years under house arrest while the generals stayed in power through brutal suppression of all dissent, mismanaged the economy into the ground, and made themselves very rich. Beginning in 2011 they began to relax their grip, probably because they couldn't loot any more. I found the following instructive:

"Under British colonial rule, Burma was the richest country in Southeast Asia, awash in rubies, oil, and valuable timber. Sadly, after decades of mismanagement by post-independence dictators, Myanmar has become one of the poorest nations in the world."

"Estimates of the per capita income are unreliable, but it is probably about $230 US."

http://asianhistory.about.com/od/burmamyanmar/p/ProfileBurma.htm

That puts the annual per capita GDP of this potentially rich country at about one half the monthly per capita GDP of Thailand. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

You can check the internet for more information. You can even learn where Myanmar is if you're not sure.

Here's the really scary part--apparently the junta considers Myanmar to be a role model. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/04/us-thailand-politics-idUSKBN0F90VB20140704

Out of touch? My dear fellow let me tell you that I'm aware some people think that one of the biggest mistakes in history was 'decolonisation'.

BTW the reuters article deals with how the NCPO stated to see itself regarding the May 22nd coup. Allegedly since the article has only

""Myanmar had a similar experience to us in 1988, so they understand," said Tanasak Patimapragorn, supreme commander of Thailand's armed forces, following a visit to Bangkok by Myanmar's army chief.""

To me that's not the same as considering Myanmar a role model.

Sorry, you didn't post anything to erase the out of touch comment.

Instead of attempting to summarize the entire article in one sentence, why not let people read the first few, short paragraphs:

"Thailand's military on Friday compared its seizure of power in May to restore stability after months of unrest to the brutal crackdown by Myanmar's former junta in 1988 to snuff out a pro-democracy movement.

Thailand's military justified its intervention by the need to restore stability after months of unrest and demonstrations by pro and anti-government protesters.

Perhaps unwittingly, the deputy chief of the Thai junta likened its seizure of power to one of the darkest chapters in the rule of Myanmar's junta, its crushing of pro-democracy protests in 1988 when at least 3,000 people were killed.

"Myanmar's government agrees with what Thailand is doing in order to return stability to the nation. Myanmar had a similar experience to us in 1988, so they understand," said Tanasak Patimapragorn, supreme commander of Thailand's armed forces, following a visit to Bangkok by Myanmar's army chief." http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/04/us-thailand-politics-idUSKBN0F90VB20140704

The junta certainly seems sympathetic to idea of the military quashing democracy and all dissent with violence and ruling indefinitely with an iron hand. A comparison to Burma certainly seems more appropriate than a comparison to Singapore.

[Chris Lawrence]

Now before too many fans get disappointed, here is my opinion on the topic.

The most important sentence in the editirial seems to be

"And unless the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) uses it in a constructive manner, it risks exacerbating the political crisis."

That is less like expressing an opinion and more like waving your hand vaguely in the direction your opinion may lie.

Be very careful tonight, rubl. I have just been absolutely thrashed at poker and am in an exceedingly grumpy and petulant mood...

OK, let me spell it out for you a wee bit more clearly.

The article 44 has been in the Interim Constitution since the 22nd of July 2014. The only reason no one said much about it was because with the Martial Law in place it didn't seem to matter. We have complaints of having this article, complaints it's being used, complaints it should be used.

The topic suggests the article 44 is no problem as long as it's used constructively.

I can agree with that. I think it is important that we get reforms under way even if people were reluctant to cooperate as they didn't believe the 'right' reforms' would be made. The more people complain about 'but this is not what I wanted' the more likely it gets the NCPO will stay on a wee bit longer. From the beginning it was clear that real reforms would take a generation or two, especially with the deplorable state of education. Now to me, pragmatically, it's simple: get going, that'a'way, course corrections can wait for now.

PS in reference to poker play and having taken to the cleaners, with you being a law-abiding citizen I can only assume you're not in Thailand at the moment. A pity otherwise I would be tempted to drop by with a bucket full of water to enlighten your mood and prepare you for Songkhran.

Cheers, from a hot Bangkok

Hey Rubi, I hope you’re not in the back of the pick-up with your bucket, as I understand from people in Chiang Rai that the General won’t allow it. If that was the case you wouldn't be a law abiding citizen (alien) in Thailand.

Actually if I was there I would have a water gun.

[rubl]

Now before too many fans get disappointed, here is my opinion on the topic.

The most important sentence in the editirial seems to be

"And unless the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) uses it in a constructive manner, it risks exacerbating the political crisis."

That is less like expressing an opinion and more like waving your hand vaguely in the direction your opinion may lie.

Be very careful tonight, rubl. I have just been absolutely thrashed at poker and am in an exceedingly grumpy and petulant mood...

OK, let me spell it out for you a wee bit more clearly.

The article 44 has been in the Interim Constitution since the 22nd of July 2014. The only reason no one said much about it was because with the Martial Law in place it didn't seem to matter. We have complaints of having this article, complaints it's being used, complaints it should be used.

The topic suggests the article 44 is no problem as long as it's used constructively.

I can agree with that. I think it is important that we get reforms under way even if people were reluctant to cooperate as they didn't believe the 'right' reforms' would be made. The more people complain about 'but this is not what I wanted' the more likely it gets the NCPO will stay on a wee bit longer. From the beginning it was clear that real reforms would take a generation or two, especially with the deplorable state of education. Now to me, pragmatically, it's simple: get going, that'a'way, course corrections can wait for now.

PS in reference to poker play and having taken to the cleaners, with you being a law-abiding citizen I can only assume you're not in Thailand at the moment. A pity otherwise I would be tempted to drop by with a bucket full of water to enlighten your mood and prepare you for Songkhran.

Cheers, from a hot Bangkok

Hey Rubi, I hope you’re not in the back of the pick-up with your bucket, as I understand from people in Chiang Rai that the General won’t allow it. If that was the case you wouldn't be a law abiding citizen (alien) in Thailand.

Actually if I was there I would have a water gun.

Don't worry on my account Chris. I'll just sit outside along the road here in Bangkok, have lots of nephews and nieces come to me, make a wai and douse me after which some will make sure I have food and drink(s). I'm in an area with almost no other foreigners and that's fine with me.

[tonbridgebrit]

The Nation Newspaper has still not yet been closed down. Bearing in mind the rules in Thailand today, well, it doesn't really make sense.
I really don't get it.

[rubl]

Unbelievable. Are you that out of touch?

In a nutshell, the Burmese/Myanmar generals refused to relinquish power following the decisive May 1990 election victory of the National League for Democracy Party led by Aung San Kuu Kyi. Aung San Suu Kyi spent most of the next twenty years under house arrest while the generals stayed in power through brutal suppression of all dissent, mismanaged the economy into the ground, and made themselves very rich. Beginning in 2011 they began to relax their grip, probably because they couldn't loot any more. I found the following instructive:

"Under British colonial rule, Burma was the richest country in Southeast Asia, awash in rubies, oil, and valuable timber. Sadly, after decades of mismanagement by post-independence dictators, Myanmar has become one of the poorest nations in the world."

"Estimates of the per capita income are unreliable, but it is probably about $230 US."

http://asianhistory.about.com/od/burmamyanmar/p/ProfileBurma.htm

That puts the annual per capita GDP of this potentially rich country at about one half the monthly per capita GDP of Thailand. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

You can check the internet for more information. You can even learn where Myanmar is if you're not sure.

Here's the really scary part--apparently the junta considers Myanmar to be a role model. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/04/us-thailand-politics-idUSKBN0F90VB20140704

Out of touch? My dear fellow let me tell you that I'm aware some people think that one of the biggest mistakes in history was 'decolonisation'.

BTW the reuters article deals with how the NCPO stated to see itself regarding the May 22nd coup. Allegedly since the article has only

""Myanmar had a similar experience to us in 1988, so they understand," said Tanasak Patimapragorn, supreme commander of Thailand's armed forces, following a visit to Bangkok by Myanmar's army chief.""

To me that's not the same as considering Myanmar a role model.

Sorry, you didn't post anything to erase the out of touch comment.

Instead of attempting to summarize the entire article in one sentence, why not let people read the first few, short paragraphs:

"Thailand's military on Friday compared its seizure of power in May to restore stability after months of unrest to the brutal crackdown by Myanmar's former junta in 1988 to snuff out a pro-democracy movement.

Thailand's military justified its intervention by the need to restore stability after months of unrest and demonstrations by pro and anti-government protesters.

Perhaps unwittingly, the deputy chief of the Thai junta likened its seizure of power to one of the darkest chapters in the rule of Myanmar's junta, its crushing of pro-democracy protests in 1988 when at least 3,000 people were killed.

"Myanmar's government agrees with what Thailand is doing in order to return stability to the nation. Myanmar had a similar experience to us in 1988, so they understand," said Tanasak Patimapragorn, supreme commander of Thailand's armed forces, following a visit to Bangkok by Myanmar's army chief." http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/04/us-thailand-politics-idUSKBN0F90VB20140704

The junta certainly seems sympathetic to idea of the military quashing democracy and all dissent with violence and ruling indefinitely with an iron hand. A comparison to Burma certainly seems more appropriate than a comparison to Singapore.

You posted the link, people could follow it and read the complete article.

Now "role model" and "they'll understand" and "seem sympathetic" are three different descriptions. Also it's your words that the junta quashed democracy if it that's what they set out to. It would seem without violence they quashed the violence between 'warring' fools. With Martial Law they made sure the fools stayed home. With Martial Law they could give the NRC and CDC a start. Doubts on competence because of article 44? Probably more doubt on competence if no article 44.

BTW a comparison with Singapore would allow to highlight the differences between an NCPO and a fully democratic government.

[JOC]

@ rubl. Congratulations, you did it again. True masterclass!!

Derailed another thread not to your liking, by suffocating us with long very well worded posts, with more or less relevant links. All the time remaining friendly (uncle rubl), never losing your temper or using foul language.

And in the midst of this slowly slowly trying to move the thread to where you think it should be.

True masterclass!!

In case someone has forgotten, this is the topic:

Thai editorial: Invoking Article 44 THROWS DOUBT on junta's competence

[rubl]

@ rubl. Congratulations, you did it again. True masterclass!!

Derailed another thread not to your liking, by suffocating us with long very well worded posts, with more or less relevant links. All the time remaining friendly (uncle rubl), never losing your temper or using foul language.

And in the midst of this slowly slowly trying to move the thread to where you think it should be.

True masterclass!!

In case someone has forgotten, this is the topic:

Thai editorial: Invoking Article 44 THROWS DOUBT on junta's competence

Did you miss my #59 and #64?

PS I have to speak up for my friend Heybruce, he tends to be more timid. I think he has the same if not more right(s) to your praise

[heybruce]

Unbelievable. Are you that out of touch?

In a nutshell, the Burmese/Myanmar generals refused to relinquish power following the decisive May 1990 election victory of the National League for Democracy Party led by Aung San Kuu Kyi. Aung San Suu Kyi spent most of the next twenty years under house arrest while the generals stayed in power through brutal suppression of all dissent, mismanaged the economy into the ground, and made themselves very rich. Beginning in 2011 they began to relax their grip, probably because they couldn't loot any more. I found the following instructive:

"Under British colonial rule, Burma was the richest country in Southeast Asia, awash in rubies, oil, and valuable timber. Sadly, after decades of mismanagement by post-independence dictators, Myanmar has become one of the poorest nations in the world."

"Estimates of the per capita income are unreliable, but it is probably about $230 US."

http://asianhistory.about.com/od/burmamyanmar/p/ProfileBurma.htm

That puts the annual per capita GDP of this potentially rich country at about one half the monthly per capita GDP of Thailand. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

You can check the internet for more information. You can even learn where Myanmar is if you're not sure.

Here's the really scary part--apparently the junta considers Myanmar to be a role model. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/04/us-thailand-politics-idUSKBN0F90VB20140704

Out of touch? My dear fellow let me tell you that I'm aware some people think that one of the biggest mistakes in history was 'decolonisation'.

BTW the reuters article deals with how the NCPO stated to see itself regarding the May 22nd coup. Allegedly since the article has only

""Myanmar had a similar experience to us in 1988, so they understand," said Tanasak Patimapragorn, supreme commander of Thailand's armed forces, following a visit to Bangkok by Myanmar's army chief.""

To me that's not the same as considering Myanmar a role model.

Sorry, you didn't post anything to erase the out of touch comment.

Instead of attempting to summarize the entire article in one sentence, why not let people read the first few, short paragraphs:

"Thailand's military on Friday compared its seizure of power in May to restore stability after months of unrest to the brutal crackdown by Myanmar's former junta in 1988 to snuff out a pro-democracy movement.

Thailand's military justified its intervention by the need to restore stability after months of unrest and demonstrations by pro and anti-government protesters.

Perhaps unwittingly, the deputy chief of the Thai junta likened its seizure of power to one of the darkest chapters in the rule of Myanmar's junta, its crushing of pro-democracy protests in 1988 when at least 3,000 people were killed.

"Myanmar's government agrees with what Thailand is doing in order to return stability to the nation. Myanmar had a similar experience to us in 1988, so they understand," said Tanasak Patimapragorn, supreme commander of Thailand's armed forces, following a visit to Bangkok by Myanmar's army chief." http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/04/us-thailand-politics-idUSKBN0F90VB20140704

The junta certainly seems sympathetic to idea of the military quashing democracy and all dissent with violence and ruling indefinitely with an iron hand. A comparison to Burma certainly seems more appropriate than a comparison to Singapore.

You posted the link, people could follow it and read the complete article.

Now "role model" and "they'll understand" and "seem sympathetic" are three different descriptions. Also it's your words that the junta quashed democracy if it that's what they set out to. It would seem without violence they quashed the violence between 'warring' fools. With Martial Law they made sure the fools stayed home. With Martial Law they could give the NRC and CDC a start. Doubts on competence because of article 44? Probably more doubt on competence if no article 44.

BTW a comparison with Singapore would allow to highlight the differences between an NCPO and a fully democratic government.

"Also it's your words that the junta quashed democracy if it that's what they set out to."

Re-read my post rubl, I was referring to the Burmese military quashing democracy and the Thai junta sympathizing with their actions. Apparently the Thai junta and the Burmese junta are sufficiently similar for you to get the two confused.

[retsdon]

I watched the British inter-leader debate on YouTube last night - part of the build up to the upcoming Westminster elections. What stood out was how civilized everybody was. They were questioned, they made their points - there was a bit of cut and thrust - but it was a given that everybody, from the audience, to the politicians, to the bloke doing the lighting, all understood that everything would be decided by the ballot box, and that it was all about convincing the electorate. I'm pretty down on Britain generally, but compared to the crap that goes on on Thailand, it was like getting a breath of air after being held under water for minutes.

No doubt examples of that kind of open and essentially respectful debate could be found for any normal civilized democracy. So the role-model for continuous, repeating, stable government is there for all to see.

What the hell is the matter with Thailand that it can't follow such a simple and basic roadmap?

[billd766]

It is time to face the possibility that what this junta lacks is not power, but the basic ability to govern.

Not only this junta but the serial juntas over the last 70 some-odd years....

And to think that some people blame the last government for all of Thailand's woes...

And to think that some people believe "professional" politicians are wiser and better and that the same people believe that the current government are responsible for all Thailands woes.

[jerojero]

Competence. Takes years to get enough to manage an economy and a country. Military leaders think they know it all. What a bunch of misled, pompous a**holes, thinking they know it all! And what is best for the millions of little people (poor).... Pathetic.

Edited April 5, 2015 by jerojero

[billd766]

I watched the British inter-leader debate on YouTube last night - part of the build up to the upcoming Westminster elections. What stood out was how civilized everybody was. They were questioned, they made their points - there was a bit of cut and thrust - but it was a given that everybody, from the audience, to the politicians, to the bloke doing the lighting, all understood that everything would be decided by the ballot box, and that it was all about convincing the electorate. I'm pretty down on Britain generally, but compared to the crap that goes on on Thailand, it was like getting a breath of air after being held under water for minutes.

No doubt examples of that kind of open and essentially respectful debate could be found for any normal civilized democracy. So the role-model for continuous, repeating, stable government is there for all to see.

What the hell is the matter with Thailand that it can't follow such a simple and basic roadmap?

The UK has had over 1,000 years more practice at democracy than Thailand and they have also had civil wars on the way not not mention lopping off a kings head along the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_civil_wars

Being a king was not all a bed of roses. See the bottom part of the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_of_the_British_Isles_by_cause_of_death

They also had their own home grown dictator called Oliver Cromwell and even a witchfinder general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins

Edited April 5, 2015 by billd766

[lewy67]

I watched the British inter-leader debate on YouTube last night - part of the build up to the upcoming Westminster elections. What stood out was how civilized everybody was. They were questioned, they made their points - there was a bit of cut and thrust - but it was a given that everybody, from the audience, to the politicians, to the bloke doing the lighting, all understood that everything would be decided by the ballot box, and that it was all about convincing the electorate. I'm pretty down on Britain generally, but compared to the crap that goes on on Thailand, it was like getting a breath of air after being held under water for minutes.

No doubt examples of that kind of open and essentially respectful debate could be found for any normal civilized democracy. So the role-model for continuous, repeating, stable government is there for all to see.

What the hell is the matter with Thailand that it can't follow such a simple and basic roadmap?

Democracy in Thailand has never been given a chance to evolve. The military over throw an elected government or conduct a counter coup about every six or seven years on average. For democracy to have a chance the military needs to have its budget cut by 80% and be told to stay in the barracks.

And do you think the UK debate would have been so civilised had the government of 5 years ago ordered the army to mow down 80 odd opposition supporters while they were taking part in protests? Makes it a bit hard to be civil towards your political opponents when one side is launching grenades and the other slaughtering protesters.

[a99az]

Doubt! no way. it's very clear that the General intends to Rule Thailand his way.

[city]

I watched the British inter-leader debate on YouTube last night - part of the build up to the upcoming Westminster elections. What stood out was how civilized everybody was. They were questioned, they made their points - there was a bit of cut and thrust - but it was a given that everybody, from the audience, to the politicians, to the bloke doing the lighting, all understood that everything would be decided by the ballot box, and that it was all about convincing the electorate. I'm pretty down on Britain generally, but compared to the crap that goes on on Thailand, it was like getting a breath of air after being held under water for minutes.

No doubt examples of that kind of open and essentially respectful debate could be found for any normal civilized democracy. So the role-model for continuous, repeating, stable government is there for all to see.

What the hell is the matter with Thailand that it can't follow such a simple and basic roadmap?

Democracy in Thailand has never been given a chance to evolve. The military over throw an elected government or conduct a counter coup about every six or seven years on average. For democracy to have a chance the military needs to have its budget cut by 80% and be told to stay in the barracks.

And do you think the UK debate would have been so civilised had the government of 5 years ago ordered the army to mow down 80 odd opposition supporters while they were taking part in protests? Makes it a bit hard to be civil towards your political opponents when one side is launching grenades and the other slaughtering protesters.

If the army is the answer...I dont want to think what the problem is..... The people have to stand and be counted.

[rubl]

I watched the British inter-leader debate on YouTube last night - part of the build up to the upcoming Westminster elections. What stood out was how civilized everybody was. They were questioned, they made their points - there was a bit of cut and thrust - but it was a given that everybody, from the audience, to the politicians, to the bloke doing the lighting, all understood that everything would be decided by the ballot box, and that it was all about convincing the electorate. I'm pretty down on Britain generally, but compared to the crap that goes on on Thailand, it was like getting a breath of air after being held under water for minutes.

No doubt examples of that kind of open and essentially respectful debate could be found for any normal civilized democracy. So the role-model for continuous, repeating, stable government is there for all to see.

What the hell is the matter with Thailand that it can't follow such a simple and basic roadmap?

The UK has had over 1,000 years more practice at democracy than Thailand and they have also had civil wars on the way not not mention lopping off a kings head along the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_civil_wars

Being a king was not all a bed of roses. See the bottom part of the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_of_the_British_Isles_by_cause_of_death

They also had their own home grown dictator called Oliver Cromwell and even a witchfinder general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins

... and they even had some Dutch uncles for awhile. That was glorious as it were

[Fat Haggis]

Ask the Republicans how popular William of Orange was Uncle Rubs

[rubl]

Ask the Republicans how popular William of Orange was Uncle Rubs

billd766 was talking about the UK. I don't think there were many 'republicans' left in the UK, by 1688 that is.

Edited April 5, 2015 by rubl

[lovelomsak]

The Vatican is a money machine supported by donors from all over the world. Up to them.

The other three you mentioned have horrible incomes per capita. Very few hi so's among the people. The people are poor and stifled.

There are more than 1 million millionaires in China, defined as those with at least 10 million yuan, roughly $1.6 million.

Their ranks grew 3.8 percent from a year earlier, to 1,090,000. Meanwhile, the number of super-rich, those with at least 100 million yuan ($16 million), grew 3.7 percent to 67,000. Those numbers are expected to rise to more than 1.2 million millionaires and 73,000 super-rich in the next three years, predicts Hurun.

www.bloomberg.com/.../where-chinas-millionaires-live-and-how-they-g...

Geez.

The income per capita in Australia is ten times as much as China. LINK

With a population of 1.3 billion people, your 1 million privileged people are a drop in the bucket.

The average person in China has 1/10th the income the average Australian has.

You wrote, "Very few hi so's among the people."

Number of million dollar households. You said nothing about per capita hi so people.

1 United States 7,135,000

2 China 2,378,000

3. Japan 1,240,000

4 United Kingdom 513,000

5 Switzerland 435,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire

This cannot be by networth. The wiki link shows Canada with 384,000 millionaires That is ridiculous. Most people i know in Canada their homes alone are worth more than a million. Vancouver alone probably has more than 384,000 millionaires. This link is so way off the post is irrelevant

[lostoday]

There are more than 1 million millionaires in China, defined as those with at least 10 million yuan, roughly $1.6 million.

Their ranks grew 3.8 percent from a year earlier, to 1,090,000. Meanwhile, the number of super-rich, those with at least 100 million yuan ($16 million), grew 3.7 percent to 67,000. Those numbers are expected to rise to more than 1.2 million millionaires and 73,000 super-rich in the next three years, predicts Hurun.

www.bloomberg.com/.../where-chinas-millionaires-live-and-how-they-g...

Geez.

The income per capita in Australia is ten times as much as China. LINK

With a population of 1.3 billion people, your 1 million privileged people are a drop in the bucket.

The average person in China has 1/10th the income the average Australian has.

You wrote, "Very few hi so's among the people."

Number of million dollar households. You said nothing about per capita hi so people.

1 United States 7,135,000

2 China 2,378,000

3. Japan 1,240,000

4 United Kingdom 513,000

5 Switzerland 435,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire

This cannot be by networth. The wiki link shows Canada with 384,000 millionaires That is ridiculous. Most people i know in Canada their homes alone are worth more than a million. Vancouver alone probably has more than 384,000 millionaires. This link is so way off the post is irrelevant

Might be a good idea to read the link. Not standard procedure I realize for Thai Visa posters but before you say, "the link is so way off."

The link is right on. You are way off. If you read the link that will become obvious.

[JOC]

Congratulations Mr P, Art 44 is working!!

Normally a thread like this would attract 100's of critical comments, but not this time.

A few lame attempts and a lot of sidetracking, that is all!!

But here we go: IMO Art 44 is nothing than a disguise for a little man, to regain total control of Thailand.

The irony is the little man don't even realize, he is being used as a replaceable tool by the elite and their mighty sponsors................

Hope my fellow posters will visit me, when I am "invited" to the camp!!

[billd766]

Congratulations Mr P, Art 44 is working!!

Normally a thread like this would attract 100's of critical comments, but not this time.

A few lame attempts and a lot of sidetracking, that is all!!

But here we go: IMO Art 44 is nothing than a disguise for a little man, to regain total control of Thailand.

The irony is the little man don't even realize, he is being used as a replaceable tool by the elite and their mighty sponsors................

Hope my fellow posters will visit me, when I am "invited" to the camp!!

If you do get caught up send me a PM and I will arrange for the Red Cross to airdrop you food parcels, a book called The Great Escape by Paul Brickhill and a file with a cake in it, or is that a cake with a file in it.

Have a good day.

[Humberstone]

I watched the British inter-leader debate on YouTube last night - part of the build up to the upcoming Westminster elections. What stood out was how civilized everybody was. They were questioned, they made their points - there was a bit of cut and thrust - but it was a given that everybody, from the audience, to the politicians, to the bloke doing the lighting, all understood that everything would be decided by the ballot box, and that it was all about convincing the electorate. I'm pretty down on Britain generally, but compared to the crap that goes on on Thailand, it was like getting a breath of air after being held under water for minutes.

No doubt examples of that kind of open and essentially respectful debate could be found for any normal civilized democracy. So the role-model for continuous, repeating, stable government is there for all to see.

What the hell is the matter with Thailand that it can't follow such a simple and basic roadmap?

The UK has had over 1,000 years more practice at democracy than Thailand and they have also had civil wars on the way not not mention lopping off a kings head along the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_civil_wars

Being a king was not all a bed of roses. See the bottom part of the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_of_the_British_Isles_by_cause_of_death

They also had their own home grown dictator called Oliver Cromwell and even a witchfinder general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins

I'm note sure what your point is? You're quoting a lot of history and not providing any context. Yes, there was a civil war in England and briefly there was a 'commonwealth' with Cromwell as the head of state. But, there was no 'real democracy' in England for another 400 years. A lot of other European countries went through similar changes and, of course, the USA.

[billd766]

I watched the British inter-leader debate on YouTube last night - part of the build up to the upcoming Westminster elections. What stood out was how civilized everybody was. They were questioned, they made their points - there was a bit of cut and thrust - but it was a given that everybody, from the audience, to the politicians, to the bloke doing the lighting, all understood that everything would be decided by the ballot box, and that it was all about convincing the electorate. I'm pretty down on Britain generally, but compared to the crap that goes on on Thailand, it was like getting a breath of air after being held under water for minutes.

No doubt examples of that kind of open and essentially respectful debate could be found for any normal civilized democracy. So the role-model for continuous, repeating, stable government is there for all to see.

What the hell is the matter with Thailand that it can't follow such a simple and basic roadmap?

The UK has had over 1,000 years more practice at democracy than Thailand and they have also had civil wars on the way not not mention lopping off a kings head along the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_civil_wars

Being a king was not all a bed of roses. See the bottom part of the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_of_the_British_Isles_by_cause_of_death

They also had their own home grown dictator called Oliver Cromwell and even a witchfinder general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins

I'm note sure what your point is? You're quoting a lot of history and not providing any context. Yes, there was a civil war in England and briefly there was a 'commonwealth' with Cromwell as the head of state. But, there was no 'real democracy' in England for another 400 years. A lot of other European countries went through similar changes and, of course, the USA.

The point is that it took the UK over 1,000 years to get democracy yet Thailand has only tried since 1932. Democracy in the UK took a long time so it won't be quick in Thailand either but certainly it will be less than 1,000 years.

[Humberstone]

I watched the British inter-leader debate on YouTube last night - part of the build up to the upcoming Westminster elections. What stood out was how civilized everybody was. They were questioned, they made their points - there was a bit of cut and thrust - but it was a given that everybody, from the audience, to the politicians, to the bloke doing the lighting, all understood that everything would be decided by the ballot box, and that it was all about convincing the electorate. I'm pretty down on Britain generally, but compared to the crap that goes on on Thailand, it was like getting a breath of air after being held under water for minutes.

No doubt examples of that kind of open and essentially respectful debate could be found for any normal civilized democracy. So the role-model for continuous, repeating, stable government is there for all to see.

What the hell is the matter with Thailand that it can't follow such a simple and basic roadmap?

The UK has had over 1,000 years more practice at democracy than Thailand and they have also had civil wars on the way not not mention lopping off a kings head along the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_civil_wars

Being a king was not all a bed of roses. See the bottom part of the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_of_the_British_Isles_by_cause_of_death

They also had their own home grown dictator called Oliver Cromwell and even a witchfinder general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins

I'm note sure what your point is? You're quoting a lot of history and not providing any context. Yes, there was a civil war in England and briefly there was a 'commonwealth' with Cromwell as the head of state. But, there was no 'real democracy' in England for another 400 years. A lot of other European countries went through similar changes and, of course, the USA.

The point is that it took the UK over 1,000 years to get democracy yet Thailand has only tried since 1932. Democracy in the UK took a long time so it won't be quick in Thailand either but certainly it will be less than 1,000 years.

Yes true but to counter that, the Republic of India is hailed as the world's largest democracy in terms of voter numbers. This since it became independent in 1947 and I can't recall any serious coup attempts during this period. It has been a parliamentary democracy for a much shorter time than Thailand.

[rubl]

The point is that it took the UK over 1,000 years to get democracy yet Thailand has only tried since 1932. Democracy in the UK took a long time so it won't be quick in Thailand either but certainly it will be less than 1,000 years.

Yes true but to counter that, the Republic of India is hailed as the world's largest democracy in terms of voter numbers. This since it became independent in 1947 and I can't recall any serious coup attempts during this period. It has been a parliamentary democracy for a much shorter time than Thailand.

Being the World's largest democracy in terms of voter numbers says more about the size of the population than the state of the democracy. The Netherlands probably has less than one percent of the numbers, but may be a wee bit more democratic in implementation.

Of course compared with Thailand India had the (dubious?) advantage of having the Raj teach them a trick or two on democracy.