Thai editorial: We want rule by law, not laws for rulers

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
We want rule by law, not laws for rulers
The Nation

By granting some citizens more privileges than others, the draft constitution imperils the foundations of civilised society

BANGKOK: -- What the drafters of Thailand's new constitution - and all citizens - must keep in mind when scrutinising the just-completed draft is the role of the document itself and the rule of law.

The 36-member Constitution Drafting Committee last week submitted to the National Reform Council (NRC) a draft with 315 articles extending to 130 pages, plus a 20-page report on the procedure it followed and the intent of each article.

The NRC will spend this entire week debating the draft, with the discussion being broadcast live on television and radio. Academics, lawyers, politicians and activists have already begun doing their homework, and the initial findings are disheartening.

NRC members and citizens have expressed disappointment with the draft, warning that it is likely to create further conflict rather than bring about the reform and reconciliation promised by the military after it staged last year's coup.

The constitution should lay strong foundations for basic rights and rule of law. Yet one of the most basic rights of the people has been cast aside - that of choosing their representatives to run the country.

This right should never be denied under any premise. All those who pay taxes must have the right to choose who will represent them when that money is spent for the benefit of all. In this regard, no one can claim to know better than others, so the constitution must preserve the public's ability to select en masse the most deserving individuals to shoulder the responsibility.

Thus, the head of government and all members of the legislative branch should be elected by general ballot. The draft charter denies us this right, instead proposing that the authority to govern and make laws be, in fact, ceded to a non-elected prime minister, chosen by a two-thirds majority of members of Parliament.

Nor does it give the common man the right to elect senators, despite the significant power at stake to control government and legislation. Instead, an entity, yet to be clearly identified, would assume the authority to appoint senators.

If the draft constitution is approved, of the 200 senators required, only 77 could claim to have been at least partially elected. Voters in 77 provinces would cast ballots for "selected candidates". Another 65 senators would be nominated from professional associations (15) and from among high-ranking government officials (20), while the other 30 would be designated "experts" in their respective fields. The remaining 58 senators will come from a selection process that, again, has yet to be defined.

The constitution drafters insist, illogically, that some people simply know better than the rest what's best for the country, and these individuals should have the privilege of pre-screening candidates for election. The reasoning is that "good people", such as farm leaders and the keepers of "local wisdom" could never get elected to Parliament through an open ballot.

We wonder how "good" or "wise" these citizens truly are when they dare not put their vision and policies before the people in a vote.

Such approaches counter not just logic, but the rule of law. Giving some people more rights than others is a concept doomed to failure. Concepts like these render the constitution a document ruled by law and yet ignoring the rule of law.

By the rule of law, all people are treated equally. Instead we are in peril of being merely ruled by law, as wielded by those who use laws as instruments to govern. The constitution must guarantee the rule of law, rather than being the law for rulers.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/We-want-rule-by-law-not-laws-for-rulers-30258363.html


-- The Nation 2015-04-21

[Pattaya28]

Can go along with that .

We all think we know best.

We all want "privileges".

And we're all equal. Though, some are more equal than others.

So in summary. Nothing changes.

Spend the money for all, in principle. But, with the "money-shuffling", and the "distortion" of the principle, again, nothing changes.

It's an endless circle just getting bigger.

[MaxLee]

"Everybody in power SAY: My way, my way only my way or the high way!!!!!"

[BSJ]

The way the drafting committee set it up it was doomed to fail, it's just a matter of when.

This paragraph indicates they haven't got a clue about what they should be doing.

"If the draft constitution is approved, of the 200 senators required, only 77 could claim to have been at least partially elected. Voters in 77 provinces would cast ballots for "selected candidates". Another 65 senators would be nominated from professional associations (15) and from among high-ranking government officials (20), while the other 30 would be designated "experts" in their respective fields. The remaining 58 senators will come from a selection process that, again, has yet to be defined."

It's a bit like building a plane and not knowing where 25% of the rivets should go, so they leave them out! It will fly, but not for long!

Edited April 20, 2015 by BSJ

[englishoak]

We want rule by law, not laws for rulers

Naaa they don't.

[piersbeckett]

Although I, personally, agree with the general sentiment of the article, it's been written by someone or some people from The Nation who fail to specify who 'we', those advocating rule by law, are. Are they, for instance, educated, articulate foreigners of European origin with no franchise in Thailand?

Not everybody believes in democracy nor, indeed, in the rule of law and not every country is governed thus. There is, however, the question of alignment; in not being democratic and under the rule of law, a nation is, inevitably, aligning itself with other undemocratic, quasi democratic or democratic in name only, nations not governed under the rule of law.

It looks as though those who would like a bit of Europe or north America here in the way the country's governed are to be disappointed as Thailand joins the mish-mash of quasi political systems that is south east Asia.

[Snig27]

Profound words in The Nation.

Remember folks, The Nation Group is right at the centre of the power elite - this indicates unease at the highest level with the junta, and not for the first time of recent. Gross incompetence, as seen daily, is not a recipe for Thai happiness.

[oneday]

"...proposing that the authority to govern and make laws be, in fact, ceded to a non-elected prime minister, chosen by a two-thirds majority of members of Parliament..."

"...Nor does it give the common man the right to elect senators, despite the significant power at stake to control government and legislation. Instead, an entity, yet to be clearly identified, would assume the authority to appoint senators..."

The charter as it stands is non-Democratic. Where is the Democracy Prayut promised? The CDC and those who back them clearly do not want Democracy.

[Roadman]

The constitution should lay strong foundations for basic rights and rule of law. Yet one of the most basic rights of the people has been cast aside - that of choosing their representatives to run the country.

I think that is Thailand's problem right there. In the past the constitutions have placed some basic rights and attempted to apply rule of law for those elected to abide to. But, those chosen via the basic right of elections by the people to run the country have shown time and again that they are incapable of applying one of the very first constitutional basic's being the rule of law. Since 1932 it has just been an ongoing merry go round of elections and failure of those elected to abide by the law, punctuated by coups. The conditions prior to the 2014 coup showed just how far from the rule of law and basic values Thailand had drifted.

The reality is with their patronage system so strongly embedded Thailand is far from having most of the values that need to exist for democracy to flourish. Not only is the rule of law ignored or considered below some, or used as a political tool, but other democratic principles especially that of equality, along with moral and values and overall empathy for others are sadly lacking in a large percentage of the population. While democracy is an ideal worth having as of today if society as a whole is not prepared, or is not sufficiently educated to abide or apply those basic principles, then it would seem pointless resetting the same constantly failed system. The problem does not seem to be totally the system but more the people within it. Perhaps what Thailand needs is a period of time where its runs a system that is initially partially democratically elected and partially nominated, while the rule of law is enforced, learnt and abided to, where equality is strengthened and enforced, and education is strengthened and improved and the patronage system is gradually weakened.

[baboon]

"...proposing that the authority to govern and make laws be, in fact, ceded to a non-elected prime minister, chosen by a two-thirds majority of members of Parliament..."

"...Nor does it give the common man the right to elect senators, despite the significant power at stake to control government and legislation. Instead, an entity, yet to be clearly identified, would assume the authority to appoint senators..."

The charter as it stands is non-Democratic. Where is the Democracy Prayut promised? The CDC and those who back them clearly do not want Democracy.

It's like this: 'Either we run the country or no-one does. If people have to be sacrificed along the way, so be it.' It will be a titanic struggle to shift these elites from their cosy positions...

[Roadman]

All those who pay taxes must have the right to choose who will represent them when that money is spent for the benefit of all.

If the writer cared to think about that statement they have made then they would realise that they are shooting down their own democratic argument.

They do realise that most especially the poor in Thailand do not pay taxes? Thaksin would be really p!ssed as that would be his brought power base gone.

[Always18]

Sloppy use of English can easily muddy the issue here........................."Rule by Law" and "Rule of Law" are two entirely opposite concepts.

The former, historically, has been practised by dictators - Hitler and Mussolini spring to mind - the latter is inherent in a healthy, functioning democracy........................oh! perhaps not such sloppy reporting after all....................

Edited April 21, 2015 by Always18

[Lupatria]

Thus, the head of government and all members of the legislative branch should be elected by general ballot.

Somchai says: “Who cares if General Ballot or General P. elects the legislative branch- they are all the same kind.”

[Eric Loh]

All those who pay taxes must have the right to choose who will represent them when that money is spent for the benefit of all.

If the writer cared to think about that statement they have made then they would realise that they are shooting down their own democratic argument.

They do realise that most especially the poor in Thailand do not pay taxes? Thaksin would be really p!ssed as that would be his brought power base gone.

Poor do not pay taxes? Think again. Excise tax for alcohol, pick-up trucks, farm equipments etc etc. Import tax, stamp duties at municipal levels etc etc. No one escape tax whether direct or indirect, period.

[callaway]

How about drafting a bill that also tells the behaviour expected of those elected and the severe penalties that will be invoked to those who do not toe the line. Ensure it is for both sides of government and make sure it will be enforced by having a watchdog committee, that is totally independant. Make sure all assests are declared prior to entering parliament with a year audit on politicians wealth/assests. Also requirement to explain where any money/assets, outside their wages, has to fully accountable. It has to start off at the top if this country is to ever come out of the corruption hole it has dug for itself.

[Tatsujin]

"We want rule by law, not laws for rulers" ... quick note to The Nation ... you better define (or understand) who this magical "we" is/are ... cos that headline flies in the face of what I'm seeing here in Thailand ... especially amongst the (shall we say) less educated and/or priveleged.

[Srikcir]

"Everybody in power SAY: My way, my way only my way or the high way!!!!!" alt=cheesy.gif width=32 height=20> alt=cheesy.gif width=32 height=20> alt=cheesy.gif width=32 height=20> alt=cheesy.gif width=32 height=20> alt=cheesy.gif width=32 height=20>

You say that laughingly but there's only one power group who can say "it's my or the highway" that can IMPRISON OR EXECUTE anyone else who disagrees. As long as that group wields armed might, there can never be civilian power, no matter the kind of government the majority of the Thai electorate might choose.

[JAG]

The constitution should lay strong foundations for basic rights and rule of law. Yet one of the most basic rights of the people has been cast aside - that of choosing their representatives to run the country.

I think that is Thailand's problem right there. In the past the constitutions have placed some basic rights and attempted to apply rule of law for those elected to abide to. But, those chosen via the basic right of elections by the people to run the country have shown time and again that they are incapable of applying one of the very first constitutional basic's being the rule of law. Since 1932 it has just been an ongoing merry go round of elections and failure of those elected to abide by the law, punctuated by coups. The conditions prior to the 2014 coup showed just how far from the rule of law and basic values Thailand had drifted.

The reality is with their patronage system so strongly embedded Thailand is far from having most of the values that need to exist for democracy to flourish. Not only is the rule of law ignored or considered below some, or used as a political tool, but other democratic principles especially that of equality, along with moral and values and overall empathy for others are sadly lacking in a large percentage of the population. While democracy is an ideal worth having as of today if society as a whole is not prepared, or is not sufficiently educated to abide or apply those basic principles, then it would seem pointless resetting the same constantly failed system. The problem does not seem to be totally the system but more the people within it. Perhaps what Thailand needs is a period of time where its runs a system that is initially partially democratically elected and partially nominated, while the rule of law is enforced, learnt and abided to, where equality is strengthened and enforced, and education is strengthened and improved and the patronage system is gradually weakened.

Perhaps the most significant condition pertaining prior to the 2014 coup was that an elected government, faced with a significant level of protest and extra parliamentary opposition offered itself for re - election. That election was trashed - prevented by the extra parliamentary opposition, with the tolerant approval of the non elected establishment - which allowed the conditions to be engineered to "justify" an illegal act, the coup. This process has confirmed and strengthened the power of the establishment, and removed the power of the electorate. So yes, Thailand has drifted from the rule of law and basic values, but not in the way which you mean.

What Thailand needs is a period of time in which the democratic process is allowed to run its course. That means allowing governments to offer themselves for re-election, either prematurely if the political situation dictates, as it did in 2014, or when their due term is up. That will, over time weaken the power of patronage, as patronage cannot dictate the results of a secret ballot.

Edited April 21, 2015 by JAG

[Srikcir]

"We want rule by law, not laws for rulers"

This was already attempted in the 1997 Constitution:

Chapter 1, General Provisions - Section 6 (certified correct translation)

" The Constitution is the supreme law of the State. The provisions of any law, rule or regulation, which are contrary to or inconsistent with this Constitution, shall be unenforceable."

That would mean that NEITHER the Junta's abolition of the 1997 Constitution, the military's 2006 Provisional Charter and revised 2007 Constitution, the NCPO's abolition of the 2007 Constitution, the NCPO's Interim Charter, and the 2007 Constitution, can legally supercede the 1997 Constitution and the rule of laws established by it. That also means that the subsequent amnesties granted to the coups by themselves are illegal.

Until the majority of the Thai electorate decide that they will control the rule of law, there will be no SUSTAINABLE rule of law.

[sandrew33]

If the writer cared to think about that statement they have made then they would realise that they are shooting down their own democratic argument.

They do realise that most especially the poor in Thailand do not pay taxes? Thaksin would be really p!ssed as that would be his brought power base gone.

They don't pay income tax, they do however pay tax almost every time they buy something. But don't let facts get in the way of your position.

Nice to see you parroting nonsense at the end about bought folk.

One senses you need to think for yourself out educate yourself or perhaps both.

Edited April 21, 2015 by sandrew33

[NongKhaiKid]

Hasn't the PM, and others, say they wish for the old days ?

We are rich and powerful and that gives us a divine right to decide what's best for the country, how can the poor and uneducated be trusted to know ?

Didn't someone make reference to Hong Kong where the Chief Executive actually suggested a salary level beneath which no one should have a vote.

Wouldn't that fit in nicely here ?

[chainarong]

All they have done is clawed back what they have lost since 1976 and they won't be giving it away in the short term , I blame the people , the students fought long and hard and those that lost their life so that others could have some semblance of Democracy must be turning in their graves, all that was achieved has been wasted so that some trumped up, upstart can control the country and the people have no say, I just wonder if the students are prepared to try again or will they think twice of the people who in the end pulled the rug from beneath Thai Democracy.

[heybruce]

How about drafting a bill that also tells the behaviour expected of those elected and the severe penalties that will be invoked to those who do not toe the line. Ensure it is for both sides of government and make sure it will be enforced by having a watchdog committee, that is totally independant. Make sure all assests are declared prior to entering parliament with a year audit on politicians wealth/assests. Also requirement to explain where any money/assets, outside their wages, has to fully accountable. It has to start off at the top if this country is to ever come out of the corruption hole it has dug for itself.

Good idea, but only if asset disclosure and rules against conflict of interests are also extended to all members of the civil service, judiciary, and military who are in a position to influence government spending and policies. Transparency in government spending is also essential.

Corruption prosecutions look good, but corruption will continue unless the system is changed to ensure transparency and end patronage through-out all of the government. The junta shows no interest in implementing these much needed changes, probably because military contracts negotiated in private and promotions through patronage are entrenched in the military. It seems they want to preserve this way of doing business in government, while restricting the complications of democracy.

[Snig27]

The constitution should lay strong foundations for basic rights and rule of law. Yet one of the most basic rights of the people has been cast aside - that of choosing their representatives to run the country. Perhaps the most significant condition pertaining prior to the 2014 coup was that an elected government, faced with a significant level of protest and extra parliamentary opposition offered itself for re - election. That election was trashed - prevented by the extra parliamentary opposition, with the tolerant approval of the non elected establishment - which allowed the conditions to be engineered to "justify" an illegal act, the coup. This process has confirmed and strengthened the power of the establishment, and removed the power of the electorate. So yes, Thailand has drifted from the rule of law and basic values, but not in the way which you mean.

What Thailand needs is a period of time in which the democratic process is allowed to run its course. That means allowing governments to offer themselves for re-election, either prematurely if the political situation dictates, as it did in 2014, or when their due term is up. That will, over time weaken the power of patronage, as patronage cannot dictate the results of a secret ballot.

Perfectly said JAG - that's the only solution.

Idiotic statements about "democracy is not just about voting" really do miss the point. Thailand will only advance if government of the people is allowed to breath and grow. The very worst thing that can be allowed to happen is for governments not be allowed to either run their course, or to have to answer to the electorate if they do not.

Sadly, after an engineered takeover by the forces of the right, and now a document designed to disenfranchise, Thailand is far worse off now than it was 3 years back. Dreadful charter, which opens the door to all sorts of future hell.

[chainarong]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The constitution should lay strong foundations for basic rights and rule of law. Yet one of the most basic rights of the people has been cast aside - that of choosing their representatives to run the country. Perhaps the most significant condition pertaining prior to the 2014 coup was that an elected government, faced with a significant level of protest and extra parliamentary opposition offered itself for re - election. That election was trashed - prevented by the extra parliamentary opposition, with the tolerant approval of the non elected establishment - which allowed the conditions to be engineered to "justify" an illegal act, the coup. This process has confirmed and strengthened the power of the establishment, and removed the power of the electorate. So yes, Thailand has drifted from the rule of law and basic values, but not in the way which you mean.

What Thailand needs is a period of time in which the democratic process is allowed to run its course. That means allowing governments to offer themselves for re-election, either prematurely if the political situation dictates, as it did in 2014, or when their due term is up. That will, over time weaken the power of patronage, as patronage cannot dictate the results of a secret ballot.

Perfectly said JAG - that's the only solution.

Idiotic statements about "democracy is not just about voting" really do miss the point. Thailand will only advance if government of the people is allowed to breath and grow. The very worst thing that can be allowed to happen is for governments not be allowed to either run their course, or to have to answer to the electorate if they do not.

Sadly, after an engineered takeover by the forces of the right, and now a document designed to disenfranchise, Thailand is far worse off now than it was 3 years back. Dreadful charter, which opens the door to all sorts of future hell.

I fully agree with you comments , I really don't think most Thai politicians are mature enough to understand Democracy and to think that some members were criminals and some had been suspended from politics even one out on parole during parliament sitting reinforces the theory, most didn't have any interest in the people or the country only themselves, this mind set needs to change if Thailand is to survive another round of democracy.

[Baerboxer]

"Everybody in power SAY: My way, my way only my way or the high way!!!!!" alt=cheesy.gif width=32 height=20> alt=cheesy.gif width=32 height=20> alt=cheesy.gif width=32 height=20> alt=cheesy.gif width=32 height=20> alt=cheesy.gif width=32 height=20>

You say that laughingly but there's only one power group who can say "it's my or the highway" that can IMPRISON OR EXECUTE anyone else who disagrees. As long as that group wields armed might, there can never be civilian power, no matter the kind of government the majority of the Thai electorate might choose.

How many times were PTP culpable of allowing / facilitating / turning a blind eye to blatant murders, assaults and intimidation of any who dare speak against them?

Giving out the names and addresses and telephone numbers of judges, just one example of the responsible behavior from a democratically elected government with a mandate from a large minority.

[Baerboxer]

The constitution should lay strong foundations for basic rights and rule of law. Yet one of the most basic rights of the people has been cast aside - that of choosing their representatives to run the country. Perhaps the most significant condition pertaining prior to the 2014 coup was that an elected government, faced with a significant level of protest and extra parliamentary opposition offered itself for re - election. That election was trashed - prevented by the extra parliamentary opposition, with the tolerant approval of the non elected establishment - which allowed the conditions to be engineered to "justify" an illegal act, the coup. This process has confirmed and strengthened the power of the establishment, and removed the power of the electorate. So yes, Thailand has drifted from the rule of law and basic values, but not in the way which you mean.

What Thailand needs is a period of time in which the democratic process is allowed to run its course. That means allowing governments to offer themselves for re-election, either prematurely if the political situation dictates, as it did in 2014, or when their due term is up. That will, over time weaken the power of patronage, as patronage cannot dictate the results of a secret ballot.

Perfectly said JAG - that's the only solution.

Idiotic statements about "democracy is not just about voting" really do miss the point. Thailand will only advance if government of the people is allowed to breath and grow. The very worst thing that can be allowed to happen is for governments not be allowed to either run their course, or to have to answer to the electorate if they do not.

Sadly, after an engineered takeover by the forces of the right, and now a document designed to disenfranchise, Thailand is far worse off now than it was 3 years back. Dreadful charter, which opens the door to all sorts of future hell.

The worst thing that can happen is for a government to be run by a non elected criminal fugitive hell bent on passing laws to whitewash all his past and future crimes and ensure voting becomes a controllable rubber stamp, just like all checks and balances, for his organization.

Zimbabwe is a great example - and which party has close connections there?

Idiots who believe an election allows the winner to do anything they want, even hand over control to a criminal fugitive if they so wish, and place themselves above and beyond the law want to live in the old style Eastern bloc "democratic" republics where criminal family clans ran corrupt regimes where only the "more equal" prospered.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Baerboxer

[heybruce]

The constitution should lay strong foundations for basic rights and rule of law. Yet one of the most basic rights of the people has been cast aside - that of choosing their representatives to run the country. Perhaps the most significant condition pertaining prior to the 2014 coup was that an elected government, faced with a significant level of protest and extra parliamentary opposition offered itself for re - election. That election was trashed - prevented by the extra parliamentary opposition, with the tolerant approval of the non elected establishment - which allowed the conditions to be engineered to "justify" an illegal act, the coup. This process has confirmed and strengthened the power of the establishment, and removed the power of the electorate. So yes, Thailand has drifted from the rule of law and basic values, but not in the way which you mean.

What Thailand needs is a period of time in which the democratic process is allowed to run its course. That means allowing governments to offer themselves for re-election, either prematurely if the political situation dictates, as it did in 2014, or when their due term is up. That will, over time weaken the power of patronage, as patronage cannot dictate the results of a secret ballot.

Perfectly said JAG - that's the only solution.

Idiotic statements about "democracy is not just about voting" really do miss the point. Thailand will only advance if government of the people is allowed to breath and grow. The very worst thing that can be allowed to happen is for governments not be allowed to either run their course, or to have to answer to the electorate if they do not.

Sadly, after an engineered takeover by the forces of the right, and now a document designed to disenfranchise, Thailand is far worse off now than it was 3 years back. Dreadful charter, which opens the door to all sorts of future hell.

The worst thing that can happen is for a government to be run by a non elected criminal fugitive hell bent on passing laws to whitewash all his past and future crimes and ensure voting becomes a controllable rubber stamp, just like all checks and balances, for his organization.

Zimbabwe is a great example - and which party has close connections there?

Idiots who believe an election allows the winner to do anything they want, even hand over control to a criminal fugitive if they so wish, and place themselves above and beyond the law want to live in the old style Eastern bloc "democratic" republics where criminal family clans ran corrupt regimes where only the "more equal" prospered.

Elections don't allow the winner to do anything he or she wants, but Article 44 does allow a military dic****r to do so. The proposed charter will also allow all those involved in the coup to whitewash their crimes.

Voting was far from becoming a controllable rubber stamp, if there had been an election in July 2014 the PTP might have lost, but the Democrats wouldn't have won. Due to upcoming events the military wanted to make sure there would be a government to their liking in place, so shortly after the courts declined to remove the PTP from power and appoint a royalist government, Prayuth used Suthep's faltering protests as an excuse for the coup. It was a clear example of rule by force, followed by laws for rulers.

Edited April 21, 2015 by heybruce

[rubl]

Profound words in The Nation.

Remember folks, The Nation Group is right at the centre of the power elite - this indicates unease at the highest level with the junta, and not for the first time of recent. Gross incompetence, as seen daily, is not a recipe for Thai happiness.

Excuses, I've been too busy to frequent TVF the last days. Did I miss that censorship has been lifted and the press can criticise the junta?

[rubl]

Perfectly said JAG - that's the only solution.

Idiotic statements about "democracy is not just about voting" really do miss the point. Thailand will only advance if government of the people is allowed to breath and grow. The very worst thing that can be allowed to happen is for governments not be allowed to either run their course, or to have to answer to the electorate if they do not.

Sadly, after an engineered takeover by the forces of the right, and now a document designed to disenfranchise, Thailand is far worse off now than it was 3 years back. Dreadful charter, which opens the door to all sorts of future hell.

The worst thing that can happen is for a government to be run by a non elected criminal fugitive hell bent on passing laws to whitewash all his past and future crimes and ensure voting becomes a controllable rubber stamp, just like all checks and balances, for his organization.

Zimbabwe is a great example - and which party has close connections there?

Idiots who believe an election allows the winner to do anything they want, even hand over control to a criminal fugitive if they so wish, and place themselves above and beyond the law want to live in the old style Eastern bloc "democratic" republics where criminal family clans ran corrupt regimes where only the "more equal" prospered.

Elections don't allow the winner to do anything he or she wants, but Article 44 does allow a military dic****r to do so. The proposed charter will also allow all those involved in the coup to whitewash their crimes.

Voting was far from becoming a controllable rubber stamp, if there had been an election in July 2014 the PTP might have lost, but the Democrats wouldn't have won. Due to upcoming events the military wanted to make sure there would be a government to their liking in place, so shortly after the courts declined to remove the PTP from power and appoint a royalist government, Prayuth used Suthep's faltering protests as an excuse for the coup. It was a clear example of rule by force, followed by laws for rulers.

History teaches us sometimes

If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.’

Mark Twain