Ban on expression of political views will likely not be lifted

[NeverSure]

I was one of the million people who marched (or in my case, hobbled painfully!) to go tell Blair that we didn't want him to spend our tax money on bombing Iraqi children, and turning their modern secular nation into a pile of smoking rubble.

He didn't listen to our political views. RIP millions of innocent people. He now enjoys his reward of lucrative public speaking tours, and the rest of us can sit around knowing that our freedom to voice our political views ultimately boiled down to "I feel slightly less guilty because I tried" which means nothing, absolutely nothing.

Point being that even in those nations with the most freedom to voice your views, you can't expect those voices being heard. The best you can hope for in those nations is to pray that the person who will totally ignore your views, will go and do something good anyway. Not the optimum situation really.

In those "nations with the most freedom to voice your views" we also have something called elections to voice our views. An open and honest election would be a real novelty in Thailand. Perhaps you'll recall that there was an election in the UK just yesterday?

[tbthailand]

There is no guarantee of free speech, as in the US, anywhere in Asia. Britain has very tough laws against insulting other nationalities, races, etc..

Teen YouTube Rant Tests Singapore’s Censorship Limits

http://www.wsj.com/articles/teen-youtube-rant-tests-singapores-censorship-limits-1431081983

The current government needs to keep the populace focused on reconciliation and not on the divisions of the past. There will be plenty of time to renew those old hatreds later.

Is suppression of all dissent supposed to cause reconciliation?

If not, is the junta doing anything else to promote reconciliation?

BTW, I haven't heard of anyone in the US, Britain, or Singapore being detained for calling for elections. It's true that all countries have some limits on freedom of speech, but only repressive autocracies have them to the degree of the junta.

hmmmm, well, ramtindallas seems to use the inane argument that a lack of guarantee of free speech means it's OK to have a full-court press of censorship in Thailand.

As well as just making a vague hand-waving statement about freedom of speech in 'asia' which is demonstrably wrong, he goes further to claim (apparently) that this is needed so that the 'government' can keep the country focused on 'reconciliation' although, and as you point out, is not apparently on the radar of this regime at all...

hmmmm, ....

[heybruce]

One can express there views as long as it does not violate attempts for reconciliation, does not promote hate and division, does not fosters segregation of the North and the South and does not try to feebly attempt to thrust themselves into the limelight through a false ironic ethos of majority backing at the behest of a govt that have put the majorities (not 7%, but the majorities) best interests at heart. Reform for farmers being the latest example of this sincere concern for the people that have shown through facts that they support a govt that listen to their plight. (not the plight of 7% of the population mind you, but the real majority…They other 93%. i.e the non violent ones)

It is a very constructive opportunity to express views to benefit the majority through a controlled, non violent platform such as what the NCPO is proposing. I can guarantee it will not result in 28 dead and over 700 injured.

In other words people can express their views so long as they don't disagree with anyone, especially the junta.

You are a starry-eyed fan of authoritarian government, aren't you?

Edited May 9, 2015 by heybruce

[NickJ]

It was a nightmare for the press here when Mr Thaksin was in power. The press went from being ranked free to semi-free

[Yunla]

In those "nations with the most freedom to voice your views" we also have something called elections to voice our views. An open and honest election would be a real novelty in Thailand. Perhaps you'll recall that there was an election in the UK just yesterday?

Yes but the situations are different. Cameron's supporters were not marching around in hordes of identical demagogue T-shirts with the faces of Cameron and his Sister and his Son on the shirts. They were not carrying weapons to be used when they met some LibDems.

A few decades ago I wrote a fairly okay papery book thing, about consensus democracy, the changes it has gone through since the earliest days, and the current pick'n'mix system the UK has today, where you have these two or three guys who you know very little about in real terms, and you give your X to the one you hope will keep the lights on. But you don't get excited about it, its just another X same as your great-grandparents were marking.

And one of the conclusions is that really it takes ages to bring a nation to the current UK situation, where people don't get so involved or enraged, they just amble along and place an X and then go for a friendly beer with people who put Xs in totally different boxes. That kind of casual acceptance of inevitability, is a highly developed state which can not be forced overnight, it takes decades, even centuries to get to. The core idea is that yes you have the vote, but you don't expect it to make gold rain from the sky after you've voted. Social changes resulting from politics, are extremely gradual, and for a nation to learn to appreciate that fact, takes a very long time.

And so sometimes when things overheat, you have to let it cool down and try again when some time has passed, and repeat this process for ages until you reach that 'casual' don't-expect-miracles stage of voter realism.

[heybruce]

In those "nations with the most freedom to voice your views" we also have something called elections to voice our views. An open and honest election would be a real novelty in Thailand. Perhaps you'll recall that there was an election in the UK just yesterday?

Yes but the situations are different. Cameron's supporters were not marching around in hordes of identical demagogue T-shirts with the faces of Cameron and his Sister and his Son on the shirts. They were not carrying weapons to be used when they met some LibDems.

A few decades ago I wrote a fairly okay papery book thing, about consensus democracy, the changes it has gone through since the earliest days, and the current pick'n'mix system the UK has today, where you have these two or three guys who you know very little about in real terms, and you give your X to the one you hope will keep the lights on. But you don't get excited about it, its just another X same as your great-grandparents were marking.

And one of the conclusions is that really it takes ages to bring a nation to the current UK situation, where people don't get so involved or enraged, they just amble along and place an X and then go for a friendly beer with people who put Xs in totally different boxes. That kind of casual acceptance of inevitability, is a highly developed state which can not be forced overnight, it takes decades, even centuries to get to. The core idea is that yes you have the vote, but you don't expect it to make gold rain from the sky after you've voted. Social changes resulting from politics, are extremely gradual, and for a nation to learn to appreciate that fact, takes a very long time.

And so sometimes when things overheat, you have to let it cool down and try again when some time has passed, and repeat this process for ages until you reach that 'casual' don't-expect-miracles stage of voter realism.

Really? How many military coups and military governments did the UK go through to reach it's current level of democracy?

[Yunla]

In those "nations with the most freedom to voice your views" we also have something called elections to voice our views. An open and honest election would be a real novelty in Thailand. Perhaps you'll recall that there was an election in the UK just yesterday?

Yes but the situations are different. Cameron's supporters were not marching around in hordes of identical demagogue T-shirts with the faces of Cameron and his Sister and his Son on the shirts. They were not carrying weapons to be used when they met some LibDems.

A few decades ago I wrote a fairly okay papery book thing, about consensus democracy, the changes it has gone through since the earliest days, and the current pick'n'mix system the UK has today, where you have these two or three guys who you know very little about in real terms, and you give your X to the one you hope will keep the lights on. But you don't get excited about it, its just another X same as your great-grandparents were marking.

And one of the conclusions is that really it takes ages to bring a nation to the current UK situation, where people don't get so involved or enraged, they just amble along and place an X and then go for a friendly beer with people who put Xs in totally different boxes. That kind of casual acceptance of inevitability, is a highly developed state which can not be forced overnight, it takes decades, even centuries to get to. The core idea is that yes you have the vote, but you don't expect it to make gold rain from the sky after you've voted. Social changes resulting from politics, are extremely gradual, and for a nation to learn to appreciate that fact, takes a very long time.

And so sometimes when things overheat, you have to let it cool down and try again when some time has passed, and repeat this process for ages until you reach that 'casual' don't-expect-miracles stage of voter realism.

Really? How many military coups and military governments did the UK go through to reach it's current level of democracy?

What I was saying, is that younger democracies have a very fiery and intense attitude to elections, and older ones have a very sedate and more accepting attitude to the nature of government machinery and the action of voting.

Early stages of democracy tend to be about immediacy, voters have a notion that if their party is voted in, things will change for the better very quickly, and somehow Party B replacing Party A will usher in great leaps in quality of life almost overnight. And that this is not how it works, it is a big machine, you are putting a group of people in to push buttons on the machine, but really the machine has a habit of trundling along in the same direction regardless. The best you can hope for is that the operators won't crash the machine off a cliff. Beyond that, what you're getting with person A and B are largely the same things, a bit of tinkering here and there, and you hope that they will listen to your opinions on what needs tinkering on.

Older democracies such as the UK have got this to an art form, in terms of people understanding that what they are voting for is basically some tinkering, no unicorns and rainbows. No big leaps forward overnight. And for that reason, voting and political expression in those nations is very peaceful, people just say stuff and put their X down, but it is amiable and good-natured for the simple reason that they have learned over many generations, that nothing fundamentally changes and it is a process of inevitability. Younger more hotheaded democracies are totally different, changes have to happen like tomorrow morning, big sweeping changes. This makes the situation more volatile, and removes the amiable 'no big deal' feeling that I hear whenever I talk to UK voters.

Many voters in younger democracies still have the belief that if those other people voted for the same person you're voting for, somehow this will make the world awesome and in short order too. That makes for pressure and conflict among voters, because they don't see it as a gradual and inevitable process of glacially-slow change, with minor tinkering and a few improvements here and there. They still see it as some kind of now-or-never deal with huge rewards involved. And that to change from the early volatile stage to the mature sedate stage takes generations, it takes absolutely ages. And sometimes needs to go for a cold shower.

[heybruce]

In those "nations with the most freedom to voice your views" we also have something called elections to voice our views. An open and honest election would be a real novelty in Thailand. Perhaps you'll recall that there was an election in the UK just yesterday?

Yes but the situations are different. Cameron's supporters were not marching around in hordes of identical demagogue T-shirts with the faces of Cameron and his Sister and his Son on the shirts. They were not carrying weapons to be used when they met some LibDems.

A few decades ago I wrote a fairly okay papery book thing, about consensus democracy, the changes it has gone through since the earliest days, and the current pick'n'mix system the UK has today, where you have these two or three guys who you know very little about in real terms, and you give your X to the one you hope will keep the lights on. But you don't get excited about it, its just another X same as your great-grandparents were marking.

And one of the conclusions is that really it takes ages to bring a nation to the current UK situation, where people don't get so involved or enraged, they just amble along and place an X and then go for a friendly beer with people who put Xs in totally different boxes. That kind of casual acceptance of inevitability, is a highly developed state which can not be forced overnight, it takes decades, even centuries to get to. The core idea is that yes you have the vote, but you don't expect it to make gold rain from the sky after you've voted. Social changes resulting from politics, are extremely gradual, and for a nation to learn to appreciate that fact, takes a very long time.

And so sometimes when things overheat, you have to let it cool down and try again when some time has passed, and repeat this process for ages until you reach that 'casual' don't-expect-miracles stage of voter realism.

Really? How many military coups and military governments did the UK go through to reach it's current level of democracy?

What I was saying, is that younger democracies have a very fiery and intense attitude to elections, and older ones have a very sedate and more accepting attitude to the nature of government machinery and the action of voting.

Early stages of democracy tend to be about immediacy, voters have a notion that if their party is voted in, things will change for the better very quickly, and somehow Party B replacing Party A will usher in great leaps in quality of life almost overnight. And that this is not how it works, it is a big machine, you are putting a group of people in to push buttons on the machine, but really the machine has a habit of trundling along in the same direction regardless. The best you can hope for is that the operators won't crash the machine off a cliff. Beyond that, what you're getting with person A and B are largely the same things, a bit of tinkering here and there, and you hope that they will listen to your opinions on what needs tinkering on.

Older democracies such as the UK have got this to an art form, in terms of people understanding that what they are voting for is basically some tinkering, no unicorns and rainbows. No big leaps forward overnight. And for that reason, voting and political expression in those nations is very peaceful, people just say stuff and put their X down, but it is amiable and good-natured for the simple reason that they have learned over many generations, that nothing fundamentally changes and it is a process of inevitability. Younger more hotheaded democracies are totally different, changes have to happen like tomorrow morning, big sweeping changes. This makes the situation more volatile, and removes the amiable 'no big deal' feeling that I hear whenever I talk to UK voters.

Many voters in younger democracies still have the belief that if those other people voted for the same person you're voting for, somehow this will make the world awesome and in short order too. That makes for pressure and conflict among voters, because they don't see it as a gradual and inevitable process of glacially-slow change, with minor tinkering and a few improvements here and there. They still see it as some kind of now-or-never deal with huge rewards involved. And that to change from the early volatile stage to the mature sedate stage takes generations, it takes absolutely ages. And sometimes needs to go for a cold shower.

That makes perfect sense, but it doesn't apply to Thailand. The majority of people wanted change, but seemed quite patient about it. After Thaksin was elected the subsistence farmers remained poor, but were delighted that their children were going to university and had a shot at a better future. Excluding a few hotheads,I think the majority displayed remarkable maturity for a new democracy.

The problem was a minority that could not accept the fact that they were no longer in charge. An article in "The Economist" that predates the most recent coup sums the situation up:

"The main opposition group, the Democrat Party, should contemplate a name change: to the “anti-Democrats”, perhaps, or the catchier “Born to Rule!”. It is boycotting next month’s election not because it would be unfair (though it might be), but because it would lose. It has not won a general election for more than two decades. Its supporters in the south are outnumbered by those in the north and north-east of the country, who keep on voting in proxies for Thaksin Shinawatra, an exiled former prime minister. The forces that the Born to Rules represent, including much of Thailand’s traditional elite, find this impossible to accept. They are openly campaigning for what amounts to dictatorship, though they do not call it that. Democracy has not worked for the Democrats." http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21593419-varying-degrees-justification-election-boycotts-are-vogue-asia-trouble

I see this as the biggest impediment to democracy in Thailand, especially since the military is decidedly on the side of the minority and determined to frustrate majority rule.

[jayboy]

One can express there views as long as it does not violate attempts for reconciliation, does not promote hate and division, does not fosters segregation of the North and the South and does not try to feebly attempt to thrust themselves into the limelight through a false ironic ethos of majority backing at the behest of a govt that have put the majorities (not 7%, but the majorities) best interests at heart. Reform for farmers being the latest example of this sincere concern for the people that have shown through facts that they support a govt that listen to their plight. (not the plight of 7% of the population mind you, but the real majority…They other 93%. i.e the non violent ones)

It is a very constructive opportunity to express views to benefit the majority through a controlled, non violent platform such as what the NCPO is proposing. I can guarantee it will not result in 28 dead and over 700 injured.

In other words people can express their views so long as they don't disagree with anyone, especially the junta.

You are a starry-eyed fan of authoritarian government, aren't you?

I honestly wouldn't bother attempting to address the ramblings of these foreign defenders of repression, especially when they are so often ignorant.In terms of the ban of expression of political views, Kevin Hewison provides a very useful article giving background and context.

http://kyotoreview.org/issue-17/inequality-and-politics-in-thailand-2/

[kareona]

Two years ago: Govt threatens webmasters with fines & jail if they allow people to post messages criticising Yingluck

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/MICT-threat-a-rights-violation-30205554.html

I wonder how many of the above posters, and those who 'liked' their opinions, (Suffinator, ExPratt, Siamesecarper, NongKhaiKid, Emster23, sgtsabai, heybruce, joebrown, lildragon, disambiguated, emilymat, DM07, LannaGuy, Yunla, wabothai, phoenixdoglover) were posting their objections to Yingluck's government restrictions on 'free speech'. I'd bet, NONE on the list I just compiled complained when it was Yingluck's government doing the censoring. Are you hypocrites or just ignorant that Yingluck's government had censorship too? Which is it?

'The ministry insisted the message comparing Yingluck to a prostitute selling away Thailand was vulgar and did not constitute proper criticism'.

It was this 'opinion/criticisme' in the sentence above that the minister of communication wanted to be removed. Yingluck was unfavourable compared to a prostitute after a speech in Mongolia about democracy. I invite everybody to consider if this is 'hate speech' and an insult or a proper criticisme.

[heybruce]

One can express there views as long as it does not violate attempts for reconciliation, does not promote hate and division, does not fosters segregation of the North and the South and does not try to feebly attempt to thrust themselves into the limelight through a false ironic ethos of majority backing at the behest of a govt that have put the majorities (not 7%, but the majorities) best interests at heart. Reform for farmers being the latest example of this sincere concern for the people that have shown through facts that they support a govt that listen to their plight. (not the plight of 7% of the population mind you, but the real majority…They other 93%. i.e the non violent ones)

It is a very constructive opportunity to express views to benefit the majority through a controlled, non violent platform such as what the NCPO is proposing. I can guarantee it will not result in 28 dead and over 700 injured.

In other words people can express their views so long as they don't disagree with anyone, especially the junta.

You are a starry-eyed fan of authoritarian government, aren't you?

I honestly wouldn't bother attempting to address the ramblings of these foreign defenders of repression, especially when they are so often ignorant.In terms of the ban of expression of political views, Kevin Hewison provides a very useful article giving background and context.

http://kyotoreview.org/issue-17/inequality-and-politics-in-thailand-2/

An excellent article, thanks for link.

[tbthailand]

It was a nightmare for the press here when Mr Thaksin was in power. The press went from being ranked free to semi-free

and under Abhisit, Thailand went from partly free to not free, then back to partly free in 2011/2012 and now they are again, not free...