Thai editorial: Look who's attacking the Shinawatras now

[LannaGuy]

Most sensible thing he's said in years. Even if Lannaguy doesn't see it

I am no Shin fan or apologist but it leaves a foul taste in the mouth when I see someone like Yingluck being kicked by the Army jackboots and then he joins in

Your not a democrat supporter either as evidenced by your posts. You still believe Yingluck hasn't done anything wrong !!

That's true I think the Democrats and Abhisit 'could have' made a real difference but they were in power for years and did NOTHING about all those issues they now bleat about daily

As for Yingluck I think all leaders of all countries make errors of judgement and if we stuck in the military jackboot on all of them no leader or their ministers would be spared in any country EVER. She certainly was no great PM and someone, untainted, and more skilful would be a far better choice.

As for the TOPIC the left in Thailand have never supported the Shins and all of this is a right wing 'in-fight' for power and involves many things we cannot discuss here.

[mikemac]

Most sensible thing he's said in years. Even if Lannaguy doesn't see it

I am no Shin fan or apologist but it leaves a foul taste in the mouth when I see someone like Yingluck being kicked by the Army jackboots and then he joins in

But you must surely applaud, when a lone voice from the ranks of the poor, says what many of us farangs have also been pointing out for years ?

Sadly people like him were quieter or simply ignored, in the days when PTP-MPs got their monthly loyalty-bonus, from the party.

If only there were more like him, and they were to form a political-party committed to representing the interests of the poor, but then who would ever want to finance them ?

Meanwhile the fragrant & photogenic former-PM, who had to have her arm twisted by her brother to ever stand for the job, has taken-up a management-role more in line with her abilities.

I wish her luck with that.

But you must surely applaud, when a lone voice from the ranks of the poor

He was a professor at one of the better known universities in Thailand. Since when did any of the academic elite ascend from the ranks of the poor to obtain a professorship there?

You make a good point, not too many from the "ranks of the poor" even get to attend any university.

Which is why I could not understand why Thaksin was looked upon as a "champion of the poor", considering he was filthy rich and

a candidate of being a member of the "elite" and the poor supposedly resented the elite. Or was it simply the bread crumbs he threw them that they loved ?

[lovetotravel]

Most sensible thing he's said in years. Even if Lannaguy doesn't see it

I am no Shin fan or apologist but it leaves a foul taste in the mouth when I see someone like Yingluck being kicked by the Army jackboots and then he joins in

Your not a democrat supporter either as evidenced by your posts. You still believe Yingluck hasn't done anything wrong !!

That's true I think the Democrats and Abhisit 'could have' made a real difference but they were in power for years and did NOTHING about all those issues they now bleat about daily

As for Yingluck I think all leaders of all countries make errors of judgement and if we stuck in the military jackboot on all of them no leader or their ministers would be spared in any country EVER. She certainly was no great PM and someone, untainted, and more skilful would be a far better choice.

As for the TOPIC the left in Thailand have never supported the Shins and all of this is a right wing 'in-fight' for power and involves many things we cannot discuss here.

What? The democrats were a lame duck government. And only in power for a short time. 2 years or so? Not voted in properly and didn't have the full support of the government nor the police. Thaksin or his proxies were in power for a majority of the time since 2001. Ample time to deal with a variety of issues. Which obviously didn't happen.

I'm not saying if the dems were in power Thailand would be any better off. That's anybody's guess. But PTP did nothing to deal with the issues we have today. Corrupt police, migrant problems, road safety, education, land grabs, etc, etc, etc.

[LannaGuy]

As for the TOPIC the left in Thailand have never supported the Shins and all of this is a right wing 'in-fight' for power and involves many things we cannot discuss here.

What? The democrats were a lame duck government. And only in power for a short time. 2 years or so? Not voted in properly and didn't have the full support of the government nor the police. Thaksin or his proxies were in power for a majority of the time since 2001. Ample time to deal with a variety of issues. Which obviously didn't happen.

I'm not saying if the dems were in power Thailand would be any better off. That's anybody's guess. But PTP did nothing to deal with the issues we have today. Corrupt police, migrant problems, road safety, education, land grabs, etc, etc, etc.

ah a Dem apologist! 'only 2 years' a 'lame duck government' (first I heard about anyone claiming that one even Abhisit and Suthep never claimed that) they only bleated about issues AFTER they were defeated (again)

of course not their fault then that they did nothing! glad we sorted that one out

[stevenl]

As for the TOPIC the left in Thailand have never supported the Shins and all of this is a right wing 'in-fight' for power and involves many things we cannot discuss here.

What? The democrats were a lame duck government. And only in power for a short time. 2 years or so? Not voted in properly and didn't have the full support of the government nor the police. Thaksin or his proxies were in power for a majority of the time since 2001. Ample time to deal with a variety of issues. Which obviously didn't happen.

I'm not saying if the dems were in power Thailand would be any better off. That's anybody's guess. But PTP did nothing to deal with the issues we have today. Corrupt police, migrant problems, road safety, education, land grabs, etc, etc, etc.

ah a Dem apologist! 'only 2 years' a 'lame duck government' (first I heard about anyone claiming that one even Abhisit and Suthep never claimed that) they only bleated about issues AFTER they were defeated (again)

of course not their fault then that they did nothing! glad we sorted that one out

No, I don't think that was the message. The message was 'ptp were in power for a long time, but nothing of the real issues has been improved'. Edited June 2, 2015 by stevenl

[JAG]

democracy is about elections dude but never mind

so you keep telling everyone here and so we keep correcting you

and so I keep repeating that a Military Junta is not the answer - nor has it ever been throughout history but this point seems to elude you

repeating it 1000 times still does not make it true

regarding the situation in Thailand before the coup and the years before it can very well

be an answer

well, it was the answer chosen by the General...

And now he speaks for all of Thailand

so your point is "true" in an extremely contorted way....

The contortions required to produce the " truth" that overthrowing a previously elected government, which was offering itself for re - election in a wholy constitutional manner, is somehow an act supporting democracy are indeed impressive.

Equally impressive is the enthusiasm and dedication applied to the task, perhaps an attempt to disguise the unpalatable fact that they are supporting a military junta because they cannot reconcile themselves to the electorates choice?

[JAG]

Most sensible thing he's said in years. Even if Lannaguy doesn't see it

I am no Shin fan or apologist but it leaves a foul taste in the mouth when I see someone like Yingluck being kicked by the Army jackboots and then he joins in

But you must surely applaud, when a lone voice from the ranks of the poor, says what many of us farangs have also been pointing out for years ?

Sadly people like him were quieter or simply ignored, in the days when PTP-MPs got their monthly loyalty-bonus, from the party.

If only there were more like him, and they were to form a political-party committed to representing the interests of the poor, but then who would ever want to finance them ?

Meanwhile the fragrant & photogenic former-PM, who had to have her arm twisted by her brother to ever stand for the job, has taken-up a management-role more in line with her abilities.

I wish her luck with that.

But you must surely applaud, when a lone voice from the ranks of the poor

He was a professor at one of the better known universities in Thailand. Since when did any of the academic elite ascend from the ranks of the poor to obtain a professorship there?

You make a good point, not too many from the "ranks of the poor" even get to attend any university.

Which is why I could not understand why Thaksin was looked upon as a "champion of the poor", considering he was filthy rich and

a candidate of being a member of the "elite" and the poor supposedly resented the elite. Or was it simply the bread crumbs he threw them that they loved ?

Thaksin made promises. He kept some of them, (by no means all).

No one else had really bothered to do that before.

That's why they love him.

[mikemac]

and so I keep repeating that a Military Junta is not the answer - nor has it ever been throughout history but this point seems to elude you

repeating it 1000 times still does not make it true

regarding the situation in Thailand before the coup and the years before it can very well

be an answer

Actually sweatalot, they are taught that repeating it 1000 times does in fact make it true, which explains the number of boring and repetitive comments they make.

and so I keep repeating that a Military Junta is not the answer - nor has it ever been throughout history but this point seems to elude you

Don't know about you, CoupExpert, but I have only been around for the last 2 coups and both of them have been bloodless coups.

If anything good came out of the last coup it was the fact that it stopped the killing of innocent protesters on the streets, including children, which is something the anti-junta crowd seem to ignore, for some reason.

( Go ask the families of those murdered by the terrorists what they think of the coup. They probably think, if anything, it came too late. )

Or does this fact simply "elude you" ?

[mikemac]

As for the TOPIC the left in Thailand have never supported the Shins and all of this is a right wing 'in-fight' for power and involves many things we cannot discuss here.

What? The democrats were a lame duck government. And only in power for a short time. 2 years or so? Not voted in properly and didn't have the full support of the government nor the police. Thaksin or his proxies were in power for a majority of the time since 2001. Ample time to deal with a variety of issues. Which obviously didn't happen.

I'm not saying if the dems were in power Thailand would be any better off. That's anybody's guess. But PTP did nothing to deal with the issues we have today. Corrupt police, migrant problems, road safety, education, land grabs, etc, etc, etc.

ah a Dem apologist! 'only 2 years' a 'lame duck government' (first I heard about anyone claiming that one even Abhisit and Suthep never claimed that) they only bleated about issues AFTER they were defeated (again)

of course not their fault then that they did nothing! glad we sorted that one out

OK LannaGuy, or whatever your real name is, you have now reached the level of an ill-informed, nasty, condescending troll.

A dime a dozen around here. Why don't you go and haunt one of the many other forums you are a member of ?

[JAG]

Ah, now Lannaguy joins the list of those you disagree with, and are therefore" Trolls"!:)

Edited June 2, 2015 by JAG

[lovetotravel]

As for the TOPIC the left in Thailand have never supported the Shins and all of this is a right wing 'in-fight' for power and involves many things we cannot discuss here.

What? The democrats were a lame duck government. And only in power for a short time. 2 years or so? Not voted in properly and didn't have the full support of the government nor the police. Thaksin or his proxies were in power for a majority of the time since 2001. Ample time to deal with a variety of issues. Which obviously didn't happen.

I'm not saying if the dems were in power Thailand would be any better off. That's anybody's guess. But PTP did nothing to deal with the issues we have today. Corrupt police, migrant problems, road safety, education, land grabs, etc, etc, etc.

ah a Dem apologist! 'only 2 years' a 'lame duck government' (first I heard about anyone claiming that one even Abhisit and Suthep never claimed that) they only bleated about issues AFTER they were defeated (again)

of course not their fault then that they did nothing! glad we sorted that one out

Far from a Dem apologist. Abhisit was elected in December 2008 and dissolved the government in early 2011. A bit over 2 years in power. Which as you know, we tough year due to the global economic crisis and the protests against his government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9310_Thai_political_crisis

PPP members and its supporters, UDD, then protested Abhisit's rise to power and engaged in a mass protest in Bangkok in April 2009. The Government's House was under siege again and main roads, intersections and entrances to hospitals were blocked in downtown Bangkok.

Just the facts. And yes, other governments had to deal with the same things. It's all a big mess!!

[hugh2121]

democracy is about elections dude but never mind

Do some research on what constitutes a true democracy. Elections are but one small part. And if not done properly, are definitely not democratic. You can ask the North Koreans about that one.

??? Elections are but one small part???

Democracy Starts with elections. That is a major part. One person, one vote. Good or bad, you get what the majority voted for.

[cumgranosalum]

there seems to be some misunderstanding about the situation regrading amnesty - it=t was for ALL those accused on BOTH sides and now....the amnesty bill has been declared unconstitutional when it's for Thaksin but totally constitutional when it's for the junta, by invoking the same law.....

[longway]

democracy is about elections dude but never mind

Do some research on what constitutes a true democracy. Elections are but one small part. And if not done properly, are definitely not democratic. You can ask the North Koreans about that one.

??? Elections are but one small part???

Democracy Starts with elections. That is a major part. One person, one vote. Good or bad, you get what the majority voted for.

But you don't get what the majority voted for ever and not just in thailand.

[cumgranosalum]

Democracy is government of the people by the people for the people.

Anything else is not democracy. If you can find a way of achieving this without free and fair ope elections for a house of parliament, I'm sure your ideas will be welcomed around the world.

NB - Democracy does NOT mean enforcing the will of a majority or any other particular intewrewst group...it says "by the people" not "by PART of the people"

[h90]

Just goes to show how far loyalty goes once the money stops flowing.

Once you forget a money transfer and than that......

[lovetotravel]

democracy is about elections dude but never mind

Do some research on what constitutes a true democracy. Elections are but one small part. And if not done properly, are definitely not democratic. You can ask the North Koreans about that one.

??? Elections are but one small part???

Democracy Starts with elections. That is a major part. One person, one vote. Good or bad, you get what the majority voted for.

As has been mentioned before, democracy is like a chair. Take one leg away and you no longer have democracy. Lots of countries have elections that are nowhere near being democratic. Russia is a great example. Elections are meaningless there.

[cumgranosalum]

"my cat has 4 legs" syndrome.

Dogs have 4 legs; my cat has 4 legs, therefore my cat is a dog.....no!

Democracies have elections; but just because a country has elections it doesn't mean it has to be a democracy

[Wombat6]

there seems to be some misunderstanding about the situation regrading amnesty - it=t was for ALL those accused on BOTH sides and now....the amnesty bill has been declared unconstitutional when it's for Thaksin but totally constitutional when it's for the junta, by invoking the same law.....

Did you just arrive on earth ??

[Wombat6]

Democracy is government of the people by the people for the people.

Anything else is not democracy. If you can find a way of achieving this without free and fair ope elections for a house of parliament, I'm sure your ideas will be welcomed around the world.

NB - Democracy does NOT mean enforcing the will of a majority or any other particular intewrewst group...it says "by the people" not "by PART of the people"

The "people" only elect 300 0f the 500 members of parliament in Thailand.....sort of shoots down your argument !!!!

[cumgranosalum]

Democracy is government of the people by the people for the people.

Anything else is not democracy. If you can find a way of achieving this without free and fair ope elections for a house of parliament, I'm sure your ideas will be welcomed around the world.

NB - Democracy does NOT mean enforcing the will of a majority or any other particular intewrewst group...it says "by the people" not "by PART of the people"

The "people" only elect 300 0f the 500 members of parliament in Thailand.....sort of shoots down your argument !!!!

You seem not to understand my argument or maybe the definition of democracy. "Government" of the people by the people requires a government....how large is debatable but to suggest that EVERYBODY should directly involved in legislative ,executive an judiciary processes would seem I would have thought even to the most literal and naive observer to be facile in the extreme.

you also seem to think that I'm suggesting that the new constitution in Thailand will be "democratic" - I fail to see agin how you could infer this from my post as it looks like the majority of any new government in Thailand will NOT be elected but appointed from the "great and the good" - however great or good if unelected this is by definition NOT democratic.

Edited June 2, 2015 by cumgranosalum

[cumgranosalum]

there seems to be some misunderstanding about the situation regrading amnesty - it=t was for ALL those accused on BOTH sides and now....the amnesty bill has been declared unconstitutional when it's for Thaksin but totally constitutional when it's for the junta, by invoking the same law.....

Did you just arrive on earth ??

you might want to read my posts again and articulate yourself a little more clearly.

[AleG]

Democracy is government of the people by the people for the people.

Anything else is not democracy. If you can find a way of achieving this without free and fair ope elections for a house of parliament, I'm sure your ideas will be welcomed around the world.

NB - Democracy does NOT mean enforcing the will of a majority or any other particular intewrewst group...it says "by the people" not "by PART of the people"

"Democracy is government of the people by the people for the people."

Indeed, and none of that was at work when PTP voted en-masse for the Amnesty Bill. It was a government of Thaksin, by Thaksin and for Thaksin in action; even Red Shirts cried foul over it.

[cumgranosalum]

there seems to be some misunderstanding about the situation regrading amnesty - it=t was for ALL those accused on BOTH sides and now....the amnesty bill has been declared unconstitutional when it's for Thaksin but totally constitutional when it's for the junta, by invoking the same law.....

Did you just arrive on earth ??

do you seriously think that is likely? I think that any subsequent discussion with you could be jaundiced by that statement if you don't think it is a fatuous as it reads.......

[jcisco]

democracy is about elections dude but never mind

Do some research on what constitutes a true democracy. Elections are but one small part. And if not done properly, are definitely not democratic. You can ask the North Koreans about that one.

??? Elections are but one small part???

Democracy Starts with elections. That is a major part. One person, one vote. Good or bad, you get what the majority voted for.

No it starts with the choice to stand for election, by way of seeking the support by election of those who are satisfied you will represent their interests best, and to do it essentially unrestricted.

[cumgranosalum]

Elections are a tool for implementing a democratic system.......as of yet, I haven't heard of a better way of doing it.......most countries have "general elections" - usually at more or less fixed terms, but even these elections have different criteria - first past the post, PR etc etc.....but the idea is to REPRESENT the people's view by allowing EVERYONE to have a "say"

many don't vote or argue their vote is insignificant (do they still do the lottery??) but at least they ca if they want - the proposed Thai constitution will not give this to the people of Thailand as the people voted for by the electorate will have less power than the other institutions/members who are appointed by other methods. So even if there is an elction in Thailand in the next couple of years, it is unlikely that it will be truly democratic.

Unelected figures appointing others to positions of power (however well intended) cannot be considered DEMOCRACY = dēmos ‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule’.

[sulasno]

Which party will win the next election?

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

[cumgranosalum]

Democracy is government of the people by the people for the people.

Anything else is not democracy. If you can find a way of achieving this without free and fair ope elections for a house of parliament, I'm sure your ideas will be welcomed around the world.

NB - Democracy does NOT mean enforcing the will of a majority or any other particular intewrewst group...it says "by the people" not "by PART of the people"

"Democracy is government of the people by the people for the people."

Indeed, and none of that was at work when PTP voted en-masse for the Amnesty Bill. It was a government of Thaksin, by Thaksin and for Thaksin in action; even Red Shirts cried foul over it.

If you consider Thai politics in terms of red/yellow shirts then I'd suggest you have a long way to go before you have a realistic view of what is happening in the country.

[AleG]

Elections are a tool for implementing a democratic system.......as of yet, I haven't heard of a better way of doing it.......most countries have "general elections" - usually at more or less fixed terms, but even these elections have different criteria - first past the post, PR etc etc.....but the idea is to REPRESENT the people's view by allowing EVERYONE to have a "say"

many don't vote or argue their vote is insignificant (do they still do the lottery??) but at least they ca if they want - the proposed Thai constitution will not give this to the people of Thailand as the people voted for by the electorate will have less power than the other institutions/members who are appointed by other methods. So even if there is an elction in Thailand in the next couple of years, it is unlikely that it will be truly democratic.

Unelected figures appointing others to positions of power (however well intended) cannot be considered DEMOCRACY = dēmos ‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule’.

"...the idea is to REPRESENT the people's view by allowing EVERYONE to have a "say""

"Thaksin thinks, PTP acts"

Enough said.

[AleG]

Democracy is government of the people by the people for the people.

Anything else is not democracy. If you can find a way of achieving this without free and fair ope elections for a house of parliament, I'm sure your ideas will be welcomed around the world.

NB - Democracy does NOT mean enforcing the will of a majority or any other particular intewrewst group...it says "by the people" not "by PART of the people"

"Democracy is government of the people by the people for the people."

Indeed, and none of that was at work when PTP voted en-masse for the Amnesty Bill. It was a government of Thaksin, by Thaksin and for Thaksin in action; even Red Shirts cried foul over it.

If you consider Thai politics in terms of red/yellow shirts then I'd suggest you have a long way to go before you have a realistic view of what is happening in the country.

And if you wouldn't ascribe views to other that they don't hold ,you may go a long way in understanding what they say.