After all these years, Thaksin should have known better

[mike324]

"Yeah it is ,you count peoples votes and whoever gets the most wins, A very difficult concept to take in, democracy isn't removing the winner because you don't like the result"

I don't think anyone is arguing that the military junta is democratic at all.

But there's such thing as tyranny of the majority. And when elected Thaksin used his popular mandate to do whatever the hell he wanted.

That is exactly why checks and balances are normally built into governmental systems to prevent one person from accumulating that much power.

This Populist policy criticism, not yourself, the Junta is ridiculous. Why are they obsessed with Opinion polls if populism is not allowed ?.Politics is Populist policies , ft there were not policies that were popular with some sections of the electorate no one would vote. If those policies turn out our not beneficial to the Majority that party will be voted out in the next election, It should be argued in Parliament by the opposition to show the Governments incompetence , not go on the streets waving flags and stopping the function of Government and the worst action stopping people from voting. Off the top of my head I believe the level of Poverty have fallen over the last 14 or 15 year s, so those populist policy must be working for many, but they may be bankrupting the country. Its is up to what was then the opposition to convince the majority of the public how bad the policies are

Nobody ever said populist policies are not allowed, people are just arguing how sustainable it is. As for the the Rice Scheme, it was proven to be a total failure and plagued with corruption under Thaksins administration for several years, yet nobody voted it out. It was again repeated after Yinglucks administration, and they still claim its sustainable and corruption free. So who is going to vote it out when they have majority of the votes anyways during parliament meetings? How do we remove a party when they refused to declare the losses after 2 years running a scheme, when they are suppose to be transparent?

There are countless articles dating from Thaksins administration written by foreign agencies and organizations detailing how its a failure and full of corruption. So why does Thaksins party keep on bringing it back? Clearly voting it out is not as simple as you say and does not work.

Level of poverty has fallen almost pretty much everywhere around the world in developing countries, so thats not even a valid point to make in regards to how well a populist policy works. The fact that farmers are still in the same economic status compare to 20 years ago shows how much these populist policies have not work! And that they continue to reach their hands out for these populist policies shows how much the government has failed to make them self sustainable.

The opposition does try to convince the majority, but the problem is that the majority of the voters do not have a concept of how tax payers money work and sustainability, as long as they get what they are promised they will always vote for that party.

[luckytrev]

Much said is true but overall it misses the point. Democracy has never existed in Thailand in any substantive form. Thai democracy of the past was staged democracy for consumption only with little real impact.

It is highly unlikely that this country can achieve any form of true democratic process as the population and culture have been systematically corrupted for generations.

Democracy requires accountability from everyone. Democracy requires the tireless enforcement of law to one and all regardless of position.

Democracy requires a fair and just judicial system free from bias and manipulation.

I think a bridge too far in a country which is to a great extent lawless and where the moral and social culture states that you can do what you want.

Look at the rampant and cancerous corruption within the Police force. Few people here have faith in the judicial system.

Several million traffic regulations are transgressed on a daily basis with total impunity.

For a democracy to flourish all the above needs to be redressed and it simply can not be done in a lifetime.

The cancer which has gone unabated for generations has come home to roost.

True what you say and IMO stems from living in a hierarchy. Until we see everyone wai-ing at the same time rather than one after the other, democracy will remain elusive.

[GoodThaiGirl]

"Thaksin, of all people, should be aware of this. Nobody said democracy was easy,"

Yeah it is ,you count peoples votes and whoever gets the most wins, A very difficult concept to take in, democracy isn't removing the winner because you don't like the result , Thats Totalitarianism , Look up Franco , Hitler , Pol Pot , Mussolini, look how well there countries did and how the people love those old leaders. Don't back a Junta, a controller and oppressor of the people and their rights just because you had a government you didn't agree with or couldn't beat.

your trolling again or just plain drunk..was thaksin not a controller and oppressor of people..your deluded,again just for you in bold letters..they stepped in to stop the protesters from being murdered even more because your mate chalem even predicted it would happen but forgot to protect them...what part dont you get..i expect more from a (supposedly) educated farang...or maybe you come from utopia..can i get a visa to go there to live must be fab..

[scorecard]

"Yeah it is ,you count peoples votes and whoever gets the most wins, A very difficult concept to take in, democracy isn't removing the winner because you don't like the result"

I don't think anyone is arguing that the military junta is democratic at all.

But there's such thing as tyranny of the majority. And when elected Thaksin used his popular mandate to do whatever the hell he wanted.

That is exactly why checks and balances are normally built into governmental systems to prevent one person from accumulating that much power.

This Populist policy criticism, not yourself, the Junta is ridiculous. Why are they obsessed with Opinion polls if populism is not allowed ?.Politics is Populist policies , ft there were not policies that were popular with some sections of the electorate no one would vote. If those policies turn out our not beneficial to the Majority that party will be voted out in the next election, It should be argued in Parliament by the opposition to show the Governments incompetence , not go on the streets waving flags and stopping the function of Government and the worst action stopping people from voting. Off the top of my head I believe the level of Poverty have fallen over the last 14 or 15 year s, so those populist policy must be working for many, but they may be bankrupting the country. Its is up to what was then the opposition to convince the majority of the public how bad the policies are

Nobody ever said populist policies are not allowed, people are just arguing how sustainable it is. As for the the Rice Scheme, it was proven to be a total failure and plagued with corruption under Thaksins administration for several years, yet nobody voted it out. It was again repeated after Yinglucks administration, and they still claim its sustainable and corruption free. So who is going to vote it out when they have majority of the votes anyways during parliament meetings? How do we remove a party when they refused to declare the losses after 2 years running a scheme, when they are suppose to be transparent?

There are countless articles dating from Thaksins administration written by foreign agencies and organizations detailing how its a failure and full of corruption. So why does Thaksins party keep on bringing it back? Clearly voting it out is not as simple as you say and does not work.

Level of poverty has fallen almost pretty much everywhere around the world in developing countries, so thats not even a valid point to make in regards to how well a populist policy works. The fact that farmers are still in the same economic status compare to 20 years ago shows how much these populist policies have not work! And that they continue to reach their hands out for these populist policies shows how much the government has failed to make them self sustainable.

The opposition does try to convince the majority, but the problem is that the majority of the voters do not have a concept of how tax payers money work and sustainability, as long as they get what they are promised they will always vote for that party.

Well said.

I especially like your last paragraph. If you ask a good selection of my outer circle Thai relatives where the money comes from for roads, hospitals, education etc., they will immediately hark back to thaksin and tell you a good man he is/was because he paid for everything. Aligned to this they will tell you.

- Tax money (e.g 7% VAT) gets divided up by the elites and abhisit gets the biggest %.

- The word democracy really means savior (thaksin).

- The person to be a PM must be a very rich man so he can fund everything, there's no other way to do it.

- One of our old aunties, always vocal, knows very little in terms of factual information about anything, but always has a loud opinion will tell you there is no such thing as the law, 'the law books people have are all fakes, because there is no such thing as the law'.

She believes it's the role of the police to listen to the details of each situation (as a stand alone case) and decide who wins etc. She also believes that if you have enough money to sway the decision your way then that's how it should work. (No logic at all.)

[scorecard]

Pointless argument. Thaksin was just one in a continuous line of corrupt leaders. He just happens to be the common enemy the elite have rallied against to justify increased exploitation of the populace.

He was also the first to explore the power of the majority and the results had the old guard shaking in their boots.

Democracy cannot prove itself when the conditions for democracy do not exist. (rule of law, media freedom, freedom to tell the truth). And it really cannot prove itself in a country that allows the army to routinely dissolve the government and rewrite the constitution.

These failings are not the fault of Thaksin.

Yes he was corrupt, but we have no evidence or reason to believe that any of the others political contenders would have been less corrupt.

I liked you analysis of the situation - BUT - Thaksin was corrupt to the nth degree and he made sure that the rule of law, media freedom etc. was further supressed to serve his interests and his interests only; therefore the failings at his point in time were his fault - his fault alone by being one of the lead players, if not the lead player in the corrupt regime that ran the country.

I add; anybody who gets into corruption knows full well they are breaking the law, and the day could come when the axe falls and it could be you.

Everybody also knows that there can be no defense by saying 'others have done it before and have not been punished'.

Simple analogy. If I murder your wife of son, I am caught but I cannot be charged / cannot be processed by the courts / cannot be punished by the court, because other people have been murdered before but the murderer(s) have not been punished.

Would you accept that? I most certainly wouldn't.

There is of course a valid case to be pursued as to why the other murderers have not been charged and processed and punished, that's an aligned but different point.

[Dogmatix]

I guess Thaksin is preparing for another push of some sort. Getting charged with LM would generate attention and sympathy in the international media. The downside is, of course, that the charge may hang over him forever making only able to return to Thailand as bones and ashes. Anyway he is a gambler who loves to roll the dice one more time, specially if he doesn't have to use his own money.

[mike324]

Well said.

I especially like your last paragraph. If you ask a good selection of my outer circle Thai relatives where the money comes from for roads, hospitals, education etc., they will immediately hark back to thaksin and tell you a good man he is/was because he paid for everything. Aligned to this they will tell you.

- Tax money (e.g 7% VAT) gets divided up by the elites and abhisit gets the biggest %.

- The word democracy really means savior (thaksin).

- The person to be a PM must be a very rich man so he can fund everything, there's no other way to do it.

- One of our old aunties, always vocal, knows very little in terms of factual information about anything, but always has a loud opinion will tell you there is no such thing as the law, 'the law books people have are all fakes, because there is no such thing as the law'.

She believes it's the role of the police to listen to the details of each situation (as a stand alone case) and decide who wins etc. She also believes that if you have enough money to sway the decision your way then that's how it should work. (No logic at all.)

Just wondering how does the Tax Money gets divided up by elites and abhisit gets biggest %?

[ExPratt]

"Yeah it is ,you count peoples votes and whoever gets the most wins, A very difficult concept to take in, democracy isn't removing the winner because you don't like the result"

I don't think anyone is arguing that the military junta is democratic at all.

But there's such thing as tyranny of the majority. And when elected Thaksin used his popular mandate to do whatever the hell he wanted.

That is exactly why checks and balances are normally built into governmental systems to prevent one person from accumulating that much power.

This Populist policy criticism, not yourself, the Junta is ridiculous. Why are they obsessed with Opinion polls if populism is not allowed ?.Politics is Populist policies , ft there were not policies that were popular with some sections of the electorate no one would vote. If those policies turn out our not beneficial to the Majority that party will be voted out in the next election, It should be argued in Parliament by the opposition to show the Governments incompetence , not go on the streets waving flags and stopping the function of Government and the worst action stopping people from voting. Off the top of my head I believe the level of Poverty have fallen over the last 14 or 15 year s, so those populist policy must be working for many, but they may be bankrupting the country. Its is up to what was then the opposition to convince the majority of the public how bad the policies are

Nobody ever said populist policies are not allowed, people are just arguing how sustainable it is. As for the the Rice Scheme, it was proven to be a total failure and plagued with corruption under Thaksins administration for several years, yet nobody voted it out. It was again repeated after Yinglucks administration, and they still claim its sustainable and corruption free. So who is going to vote it out when they have majority of the votes anyways during parliament meetings? How do we remove a party when they refused to declare the losses after 2 years running a scheme, when they are suppose to be transparent?

There are countless articles dating from Thaksins administration written by foreign agencies and organizations detailing how its a failure and full of corruption. So why does Thaksins party keep on bringing it back? Clearly voting it out is not as simple as you say and does not work.

Level of poverty has fallen almost pretty much everywhere around the world in developing countries, so thats not even a valid point to make in regards to how well a populist policy works. The fact that farmers are still in the same economic status compare to 20 years ago shows how much these populist policies have not work! And that they continue to reach their hands out for these populist policies shows how much the government has failed to make them self sustainable.

The opposition does try to convince the majority, but the problem is that the majority of the voters do not have a concept of how tax payers money work and sustainability, as long as they get what they are promised they will always vote for that party.

Yep Understand that but it must have worked for the people it was aimed at. The people voted for him because his policies improved either their income or their life in General.I know some people are red or yellow through and through , but if the policies absolutely wiped them out or make their life worse. would they vote the way they do now ?

[Raymonddiaz]

All truths are not good to say...........................

[exalll]

After all these years, Thaksin still doesn't seem to get it.

The military elite are not sharing power with anyone, much less a self-made wealthy commoner.

If you believe these self-made myths about Thaksin, then there is no point in debating further.

[billd766]

"Yeah it is ,you count peoples votes and whoever gets the most wins, A very difficult concept to take in, democracy isn't removing the winner because you don't like the result"

I don't think anyone is arguing that the military junta is democratic at all.

But there's such thing as tyranny of the majority. And when elected Thaksin used his popular mandate to do whatever the hell he wanted.

That is exactly why checks and balances are normally built into governmental systems to prevent one person from accumulating that much power.

This Populist policy criticism, not yourself, the Junta is ridiculous. Why are they obsessed with Opinion polls if populism is not allowed ?.Politics is Populist policies , ft there were not policies that were popular with some sections of the electorate no one would vote. If those policies turn out our not beneficial to the Majority that party will be voted out in the next election, It should be argued in Parliament by the opposition to show the Governments incompetence , not go on the streets waving flags and stopping the function of Government and the worst action stopping people from voting. Off the top of my head I believe the level of Poverty have fallen over the last 14 or 15 year s, so those populist policy must be working for many, but they may be bankrupting the country. Its is up to what was then the opposition to convince the majority of the public how bad the policies are

Nobody ever said populist policies are not allowed, people are just arguing how sustainable it is. As for the the Rice Scheme, it was proven to be a total failure and plagued with corruption under Thaksins administration for several years, yet nobody voted it out. It was again repeated after Yinglucks administration, and they still claim its sustainable and corruption free. So who is going to vote it out when they have majority of the votes anyways during parliament meetings? How do we remove a party when they refused to declare the losses after 2 years running a scheme, when they are suppose to be transparent?

There are countless articles dating from Thaksins administration written by foreign agencies and organizations detailing how its a failure and full of corruption. So why does Thaksins party keep on bringing it back? Clearly voting it out is not as simple as you say and does not work.

Level of poverty has fallen almost pretty much everywhere around the world in developing countries, so thats not even a valid point to make in regards to how well a populist policy works. The fact that farmers are still in the same economic status compare to 20 years ago shows how much these populist policies have not work! And that they continue to reach their hands out for these populist policies shows how much the government has failed to make them self sustainable.

The opposition does try to convince the majority, but the problem is that the majority of the voters do not have a concept of how tax payers money work and sustainability, as long as they get what they are promised they will always vote for that party.

Yep Understand that but it must have worked for the people it was aimed at. The people voted for him because his policies improved either their income or their life in General.I know some people are red or yellow through and through , but if the policies absolutely wiped them out or make their life worse. would they vote the way they do now ?

You, nor I nor anyone else knows how they will vote now. All that is known is how they voted at the last full election and that was almost 4 years ago.

[jcisco]

%SNIP%

So where is the democratic bit he does follow? The carrot on the donkey. Elections. The rice schemes that never seem to make the rice farmers richer. The schemes aimed at the desperate poor people who do not care or understand the ramifications of thaksins actions above. Whose only thought is feeding their family and wondering where their next baht will come from. So desperate they have no choice but to vote for this man or his party that ignores them or as we have seen threatens them when they try to protest.

%SNIP%

If your desperation comes down to the fallacy that they only have a choice offered in an election, that is indicative of a lack of understanding of the basic democratic system. It isn't simply a consumer/supplier based system and it seems a great many people seem to think of it in this way, both foreign and domestic. Isn't it then a case of these desperate people not actually having representation, because they don't organize and cultivate leadership/representation and defer to a gamble of sorts.

What you have said otherwise is correct, but the bigger picture regarding the electorate participation is as bad in Thailand as it is in the west, And it contributes to narrow representation if at all.

[mikemac]

"Yeah it is ,you count peoples votes and whoever gets the most wins, A very difficult concept to take in, democracy isn't removing the winner because you don't like the result"

I don't think anyone is arguing that the military junta is democratic at all.

But there's such thing as tyranny of the majority. And when elected Thaksin used his popular mandate to do whatever the hell he wanted.

That is exactly why checks and balances are normally built into governmental systems to prevent one person from accumulating that much power.

This Populist policy criticism, not yourself, the Junta is ridiculous. Why are they obsessed with Opinion polls if populism is not allowed ?.Politics is Populist policies , ft there were not policies that were popular with some sections of the electorate no one would vote. If those policies turn out our not beneficial to the Majority that party will be voted out in the next election, It should be argued in Parliament by the opposition to show the Governments incompetence , not go on the streets waving flags and stopping the function of Government and the worst action stopping people from voting. Off the top of my head I believe the level of Poverty have fallen over the last 14 or 15 year s, so those populist policy must be working for many, but they may be bankrupting the country. Its is up to what was then the opposition to convince the majority of the public how bad the policies are

I think we can all agree on one thing, the opinion polls in Thailand, especially of late, are a big fat joke.

I doubt if anyone on this forum has truly taken any notice of them, except with tongue in cheek.

And I doubt if too many Thais would be bothered with them. Don't know why they bother with them myself.

Personally, I have nothing against populist policies, as long as they directly benefit the people in the rural villages, like supplying power or water or putting concrete roads in.

I don't like "disastrous policies" like the Rice Scheme, especially even after it has crashed and burned Yingluck still bleats that it was to benefit the poor farmer, which was absolute bs.

[Baerboxer]

Just throw him in Jail and a bunch of his followers. I am tired of this <deleted>.

Thailand has to start look forward and leave the bad history behind.

Which will have the effect of cementing him in position as the martyred deposed elected leader, and will re-energise his support base.

It will also confirm International opinion as to the nature of the current regime.

All in all perhaps not such a good idea.

Thaksin's present political strength and popularity is a result of repeated refusal to accept the will of the electorate, and a series of imposed governments. The problem will not begin to be resolved until the will of the electorate is accepted and respected. No amount of coups, charter re-writes or judicial interventions will change that.

Still peddling the old tripe. Thaksin isn't a deposed elected leader. He dissolved parliament as a result of all the protests caused when he changed the law without due process to favor himself by permitting his sale of his business and without incurring tax. He then resigned from the position of caretaker PM - and his resignation was formally accepted. A replacement caretaker PM was formally appointed. Thaksin apparently changed his mind several weeks later and moved back into government house and re-assumed the role with no approval but his own, possibly to delay any elections to a time he thought more favorable to his winning, by whatever means.

His PR lobbyists have done a good job with their brainwashing and the use of "deposed in a 2006 coup". That's what happens when mega rich billionaires (no matter how they got rich) hire people with the right skills and throw money at them. The reality is he resigned, fled the county to avoid jail and is no more than a common criminal fugitive. The only difference is he's a super mega rich one.

His strength is his huge wealth, which he uses to buy support and corrupt people to do what he says through bribery, intimidation, and violence. Have you ever wondered why so many people who oppose Thakisn disappear,get killed, get attacked, get bombed, get sued, and used to get threatened by the police and DSI when he controlled the governments?

Nothing will be resolved until Thailand gets some real political parties - not puppets for the old elites or corrupt immoral family clans out to seize things for themselves.

[jesimps]

A balanced and sound argument from Tulsathit - didn't expect to be saying that, given his track record. The bottom line is that Thaksin genuinely believes in democracy. His democracy. You are not permitted to argue with him.

A bit like you know who!

[mikemac]

Thaksin should have joined the military, instead of the cops. Then, he could have done his own coups.

Down with Thaksin! Up with military dictatorship!

Can you imagine it ? If he got that drunk on power, being General President His Excellency Thaksin, and got confused, he could actually topple himself in a coup !

[Nickymaster]

In his latest interview from self-imposed exile, Thaksin once again blamed everyone and everything but himself. What he left out was the stark truth that his own supposed democratic rule was badly flawed, with top-level corruption threatening to run out of control, checks and balances virtually non-existent and Parliament only used to rubber-stamp irregularities and worse.

THAKSIN: "I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG" 2:39

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLAPCgQM0Sk

[ThaiUser]

Here we have another drivel from the Nation trying to explain democracy to the readership and throwing everything into the pot from moral and ethical issues and in that creating a view of democracy that is as thick as pea soup.

Democracy derives from two old Greek words ‘demo’ and ‘kratos’ meaning people and rule or power, giving the people the power to vote for the form of administration they aspire; that is the only rule required in a democracy, the right to vote freely for or against an administration.

Freedom of speech, laws that prevent corruption, the right to own properties are values we might want to see enshrined in laws but they are not the measure of a democracy. A government that is voted into office on the basis that it is going to abolish free speech and declares corruption a virtue is still a democratically elected government when elected by the majority of the voters in free elections.

[scorecard]

Well said.

I especially like your last paragraph. If you ask a good selection of my outer circle Thai relatives where the money comes from for roads, hospitals, education etc., they will immediately hark back to thaksin and tell you a good man he is/was because he paid for everything. Aligned to this they will tell you.

- Tax money (e.g 7% VAT) gets divided up by the elites and abhisit gets the biggest %.

- The word democracy really means savior (thaksin).

- The person to be a PM must be a very rich man so he can fund everything, there's no other way to do it.

- One of our old aunties, always vocal, knows very little in terms of factual information about anything, but always has a loud opinion will tell you there is no such thing as the law, 'the law books people have are all fakes, because there is no such thing as the law'.

She believes it's the role of the police to listen to the details of each situation (as a stand alone case) and decide who wins etc. She also believes that if you have enough money to sway the decision your way then that's how it should work. (No logic at all.)

Just wondering how does the Tax Money gets divided up by elites and abhisit gets biggest %?

Me too.

Where does 'aunty' get all of this from?

Easy answer, the red shirt democracy school or it's reincarnation is alive and well and is telling the locals this stuff.

Aunty tells us often how bad abhisit is, in fact she often brings up such subjects, and her focus is always abhisit and how much she hates him and how the red shirts need to do something to stop him...

[Baerboxer]

Well said.

I especially like your last paragraph. If you ask a good selection of my outer circle Thai relatives where the money comes from for roads, hospitals, education etc., they will immediately hark back to thaksin and tell you a good man he is/was because he paid for everything. Aligned to this they will tell you.

- Tax money (e.g 7% VAT) gets divided up by the elites and abhisit gets the biggest %.

- The word democracy really means savior (thaksin).

- The person to be a PM must be a very rich man so he can fund everything, there's no other way to do it.

- One of our old aunties, always vocal, knows very little in terms of factual information about anything, but always has a loud opinion will tell you there is no such thing as the law, 'the law books people have are all fakes, because there is no such thing as the law'.

She believes it's the role of the police to listen to the details of each situation (as a stand alone case) and decide who wins etc. She also believes that if you have enough money to sway the decision your way then that's how it should work. (No logic at all.)

Just wondering how does the Tax Money gets divided up by elites and abhisit gets biggest %?

Me too.

Where does 'aunty' get all of this from?

Easy answer, the red shirt democracy school or it's reincarnation is alive and well and is telling the locals this stuff.

Aunty tells us often how bad abhisit is, in fact she often brings up such subjects, and her focus is always abhisit and how much she hates him and how the red shirts need to do something to stop him...

Scary indoctrination. A real misrepresentation of the sinister truth about Thaksin and his clan. Not for the first time in history that wannabee dictators, and a few who succeeded used such tactics.

Any wonder why all those years of Thaksin / Thaksin proxy governments never really did much about education?

Clue: Yingluck's mushroom farming idea is similar - keep them in the dark and cover them with &lt;deleted&gt;.

[Nickymaster]

Here we have another drivel from the Nation trying to explain democracy to the readership and throwing everything into the pot from moral and ethical issues and in that creating a view of democracy that is as thick as pea soup.

Democracy derives from two old Greek words ‘demo’ and ‘kratos’ meaning people and rule or power, giving the people the power to vote for the form of administration they aspire; that is the only rule required in a democracy, the right to vote freely for or against an administration.

Freedom of speech, laws that prevent corruption, the right to own properties are values we might want to see enshrined in laws but they are not the measure of a democracy. A government that is voted into office on the basis that it is going to abolish free speech and declares corruption a virtue is still a democratically elected government when elected by the majority of the voters in free elections.

Can you rewrite this and then ad something about accountability, checks and balances and transparency? Where I come from we take that very serious. Otherwise I might as well listen to Thaksin preaching about his version of leal democlacy .

[ThaiUser]

Here we have another drivel from the Nation trying to explain democracy to the readership and throwing everything into the pot from moral and ethical issues and in that creating a view of democracy that is as thick as pea soup.

Democracy derives from two old Greek words ‘demo’ and ‘kratos’ meaning people and rule or power, giving the people the power to vote for the form of administration they aspire; that is the only rule required in a democracy, the right to vote freely for or against an administration.

Freedom of speech, laws that prevent corruption, the right to own properties are values we might want to see enshrined in laws but they are not the measure of a democracy. A government that is voted into office on the basis that it is going to abolish free speech and declares corruption a virtue is still a democratically elected government when elected by the majority of the voters in free elections.

Can you rewrite this and then ad something about accountability, checks and balances and transparency? Where I come from we take that very serious. Otherwise I might as well listen to Thaksin preaching about his version of leal democlacy .

First of all I don't know where you come from so I couldn't make an assessment how serious the values you listed are regarded in your country.

Second point is that these values have nothing to do with democracy but are moral and ethical values most of us would like to see enacted into laws in a democracy, but that is a total different issue, as freedom of speech laws show that are differently interpreted in countries that claim to be democracies.

These countries all subscribe to free elections, which is required to be regarded as a democracy but when it comes to the values they seem to look at accountability, checks and balances and transparency from different angles.

[worgeordie]

At first I think Thaksin was doing well for Thailand,he certainly shook up the

civil service,and got them working,so it only took one day to do things,instead

of 3 or 4.

He then realised that by having populist polices,instead of using his own money

he could use the Governments,to secure votes,that had never been done before,

then ego seems to raise its head,and he thought he could rule Thailand like a

Corporation with him as CEO,as they say,power corrupts and total power corrupts

totally,so it was no longer about Thailand or its people,it was all about him.

If he had not been toppled,he could have well turned into a megalomaniac,like

Saadam,Hitller or the N, Korean family of despots.now the time has come to

forget him,for Thailand to forge ahead with new leaders of vision (don't know who they are but !)

regards worgeordie

[Wombat6]

A balanced and sound argument from Tulsathit - didn't expect to be saying that, given his track record. The bottom line is that Thaksin genuinely believes in democracy. His democracy. You are not permitted to argue with him.

But you could vote him and his various proxy governments out.

Which is rather more than you can say for the present bunch!

Are you deluded ?? No one could vote him out with a rigged Political System. Vote buying and many other reasons have already been aired on this forum but obviously you haven't been able to accept the truth. Please don't go on about "voting/Thaksi/Yingluck/Redshirts etc. You are entitled to your opinion which we have read time after time but it is time to give it a rest and get on with your life.

[canuckamuck]

It seems to me you did not read the article carefully. Read the following paragraph again:

In his latest interview from self-imposed exile, Thaksin once again blamed everyone and everything but himself. What he left out was the stark truth that his own supposed democratic rule was badly flawed, with top-level corruption threatening to run out of control, checks and balances virtually non-existent and Parliament only used to rubber-stamp irregularities and worse.

What is pointless (or untrue) about that?

Pointless argument. Thaksin was just one in a continuous line of corrupt leaders. He just happens to be the common enemy the elite have rallied against to justify increased exploitation of the populace.

He was also the first to explore the power of the majority and the results had the old guard shaking in their boots.

Democracy cannot prove itself when the conditions for democracy do not exist. (rule of law, media freedom, freedom to tell the truth). And it really cannot prove itself in a country that allows the army to routinely dissolve the government and rewrite the constitution.

These failings are not the fault of Thaksin.

Yes he was corrupt, but we have no evidence or reason to believe that any of the others political contenders would have been less corrupt.

It is fair to say that when Thaksin had his moment he failed to rise above his own greed and put the nation first. Just like all those who came before him. But it is pointless to point out again and again the specifics of the corruption of his government. The corruption wasn't the problem, the corruption was expected. What Thaksin did that was different and unforgivable was to open the Pandora' box of populist politics; forever changing the political playing field. This is why he is hated by the elite, he gave the majority a peek at power. He opened their eyes to the power of the majority. Which is exactly why Democracy will not return to Thailand any time soon. The dogs have tasted blood and no longer can be trusted in the hen house.

[ThaiUser]

A balanced and sound argument from Tulsathit - didn't expect to be saying that, given his track record. The bottom line is that Thaksin genuinely believes in democracy. His democracy. You are not permitted to argue with him.

But you could vote him and his various proxy governments out.

Which is rather more than you can say for the present bunch!

Are you deluded ?? No one could vote him out with a rigged Political System. Vote buying and many other reasons have already been aired on this forum but obviously you haven't been able to accept the truth. Please don't go on about "voting/Thaksi/Yingluck/Redshirts etc. You are entitled to your opinion which we have read time after time but it is time to give it a rest and get on with your life.

I am a bit confused if you talk about Thai elections or the recent elections in Australia. Here is what I can say about Thai elections and that 2005 international observers took part in the election process. Fair to say they didn’t find anything wrong at that time.

Coming to the 2007 election we had a slight problem which I am highlighting here:

http://asiancorrespondent.com/51084/thailand-rejects-foreign-election-observers/

It would be ‘inappropriate’ to allow outside involvement in the poll, which is due in June or July and comes after deadly street protests last year, said Suthep Thaugsuban.

‘I don’t respect ‘farangs’. We do not have to surrender to them,‘ he said, using the Thai word for ‘Westerners’.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed. This topic is not about malnutrition of children, not about child poverty, not about infant mortality rates. Please stay on topic.

[MaeJoMTB]

If there's an election Thaksin (or his proxy) will win.

That's what the people want.

No matter what anyone says or does,

Hard to see any was round it.

[waitforusalso]

A balanced and sound argument from Tulsathit - didn't expect to be saying that, given his track record. The bottom line is that Thaksin genuinely believes in democracy. His democracy. You are not permitted to argue with him.

But you could vote him and his various proxy governments out.

Which is rather more than you can say for the present bunch!

Are you deluded ?? No one could vote him out with a rigged Political System. Vote buying and many other reasons have already been aired on this forum but obviously you haven't been able to accept the truth. Please don't go on about "voting/Thaksi/Yingluck/Redshirts etc. You are entitled to your opinion which we have read time after time but it is time to give it a rest and get on with your life.

Even Democrat Korn, thinks this hackneyed line is BS

http://asiancorrespondent.com/116697/vote-buying-thaksin-and-the-democrats/

[peteregion]

Here we have another drivel from the Nation trying to explain democracy to the readership and throwing everything into the pot from moral and ethical issues and in that creating a view of democracy that is as thick as pea soup.

Democracy derives from two old Greek words ‘demo’ and ‘kratos’ meaning people and rule or power, giving the people the power to vote for the form of administration they aspire; that is the only rule required in a democracy, the right to vote freely for or against an administration.

Freedom of speech, laws that prevent corruption, the right to own properties are values we might want to see enshrined in laws but they are not the measure of a democracy. A government that is voted into office on the basis that it is going to abolish free speech and declares corruption a virtue is still a democratically elected government when elected by the majority of the voters in free elections.

Further definition about Democracy.

No consensus exists on how to define democracy, but legal equality, political freedom and rule of law have been identified as important characteristics.^[9][10] These principles are reflected in all eligible citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative^{[according to whom?]}, and the freedom of its eligible citizens is secured by legitimised rights and liberties which are typically protected by a constitution.^[11][12]