Is Thaksin doomed to be a follower of his movement?

[greenchair]

We were all hoping the powers that be, would have intelligence.

But there you have it.

You get what you get.

[CantSpell]

The ravings of a narcissistic sycophantic, hardly news worthy.

This meditation crap is pure manipulation as he tries desperately to align himself in the good grace of the quasi Buddhist following in this country.

I think the reality is in between, hidden in the OP...

Yingluck is growing mushrooms, and Mr T eats them before doing his idiotic speeches...

Knowing the man, and how little he cares for the people, that must be the reason... High on mushrooms

[MiKT]

Good news--Thaksin is no longer in charge.

Bad news--The majority of the Thai people still want democracy.

How will the junta deal with this?

You are having trouble keeping up with all of this aren't you ?.

When elections are held (the most free and fair Thailand has ever seen), will you stand up at Democracy Monument and shout "I am a gullible idiot" ?.

Because I have not seen or read a single thing to make me believe otherwise up to this moment.

You think I am a gullible idiot because I don't trust a military junta that came to power by toppling an elected government to produce a democratic constitution. I disagree. To find a gullible idiot a person who thinks the junta will produce a democratic constitution need only look in the mirror.

If and when the junta allows elections, the only reason they might be "free and fair" will be cause the prize won't be worth cheating for; all power will reside outside of elected offices:

"To break this deadlock, the new constitution would weaken the clout of elected politicians. A proportional voting system would encourage smaller parties and coalition governments in the lower house of parliament, while the upper house would be filled with a mix of candidates nominated by committee or selected by professional groups, including one dominated by former military figures. Under certain circumstances, the prime minister could be appointed from outside parliament. Watchdog agencies perceived to be tied to the establishment would get new powers. Thus, unelected elites could mind the store, rather than ordinary voters -- thought to be too susceptible to populist blandishments."

"Such a system would hark back to Thailand's failed past. Earlier constitutions also featured an appointed prime minister and senate, along with a weak lower house. But the old system produced 25 coalition governments from 1979 until Thaksin's election in 2001. And because many ordinary Thais, voting that year under a liberalized constitution, saw their circumstances improve under Thaksin, even the poor have grown used to the idea that their votes matter. They can hardly be expected to again trust their fates to a clique of "wise men" in Bangkok."

"Nor is there any reason to believe that constitutional tweaks can eliminate the main vices attributed to Thaksinite administrations. The junta has amply demonstrated that unelected governments can resort to populist measures as easily as any other, having disbursed billions in subsidies to mollify rice farmers loyal to the previous government. Weak coalition governments would face even more pressure to buy support. "http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-20/thailand-needs-elected-leaders-not-a-new-constitution

I underlined the most significant sections for the benefit of those who don't like to read any more than necessary.

There were two other parts of the Bloomberg article I found pertinent to Thailand's current situation:

"Rampant corruption, meanwhile, did not begin with Thaksin's arrival and won't end with his familys exit from the political scene. Cutting back on graft requires greater transparency, as well as watchdogs that are truly independent. Theres little evidence the new constitution will promote either."

and:

"The solution isnt to disempower politicians, as if they were some malign species. Only voters can give government legitimacy. And the only true, sustainable check on any future Thai government is the threat of being voted out of power. The way for opposition parties to defeat Thaksins popular electoral machine is to do the hard work of developing a national agenda and appeal. Any constitution that tries to get around basic democracy will only ensure that another one needs to be written in a few years."

I trust democracy, you trust a military junta. Who is the gullible idiot?

My apologies John, I seem to have totally misunderstood your post (and visa versa). I don't trust the junta to produce "free and fair elections" one little bit. I want to see free and fair elections return true democracy in Thailand and this will not "spring from the barrel of a gun" by overthrowing democratically elected governments, repressing free speech and tinkering with the election process to produce skewed results. I bow to your wise words.

Edited June 4, 2015 by MiKT

[waitforusalso]

Problem solved.. Thaksin is losing his followers. Now, the government can focus on 'real' problems. This is so exciting! I can't wait for the new, improved Thailand.

Just graduated from a Thai public school did you?

[scorecard]

The ravings of a narcissistic sycophantic, hardly news worthy.

This meditation crap is pure manipulation as he tries desperately to align himself in the good grace of the quasi Buddhist following in this country.

With big emphasis on the word '...manipulation...'

[scorecard]

Good news--Thaksin is no longer in charge.

Bad news--The majority of the Thai people still want democracy.

How will the junta deal with this?

You are having trouble keeping up with all of this aren't you ?.

When elections are held (the most free and fair Thailand has ever seen), will you stand up at Democracy Monument and shout "I am a gullible idiot" ?.

Because I have not seen or read a single thing to make me believe otherwise up to this moment.

You think I am a gullible idiot because I don't trust a military junta that came to power by toppling an elected government to produce a democratic constitution. I disagree. To find a gullible idiot a person who thinks the junta will produce a democratic constitution need only look in the mirror.

If and when the junta allows elections, the only reason they might be "free and fair" will be cause the prize won't be worth cheating for; all power will reside outside of elected offices:

"To break this deadlock, the new constitution would weaken the clout of elected politicians. A proportional voting system would encourage smaller parties and coalition governments in the lower house of parliament, while the upper house would be filled with a mix of candidates nominated by committee or selected by professional groups, including one dominated by former military figures. Under certain circumstances, the prime minister could be appointed from outside parliament. Watchdog agencies perceived to be tied to the establishment would get new powers. Thus, unelected elites could mind the store, rather than ordinary voters -- thought to be too susceptible to populist blandishments."

"Such a system would hark back to Thailand's failed past. Earlier constitutions also featured an appointed prime minister and senate, along with a weak lower house. But the old system produced 25 coalition governments from 1979 until Thaksin's election in 2001. And because many ordinary Thais, voting that year under a liberalized constitution, saw their circumstances improve under Thaksin, even the poor have grown used to the idea that their votes matter. They can hardly be expected to again trust their fates to a clique of "wise men" in Bangkok."

"Nor is there any reason to believe that constitutional tweaks can eliminate the main vices attributed to Thaksinite administrations. The junta has amply demonstrated that unelected governments can resort to populist measures as easily as any other, having disbursed billions in subsidies to mollify rice farmers loyal to the previous government. Weak coalition governments would face even more pressure to buy support. "http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-20/thailand-needs-elected-leaders-not-a-new-constitution

I underlined the most significant sections for the benefit of those who don't like to read any more than necessary.

There were two other parts of the Bloomberg article I found pertinent to Thailand's current situation:

"Rampant corruption, meanwhile, did not begin with Thaksin's arrival and won't end with his familys exit from the political scene. Cutting back on graft requires greater transparency, as well as watchdogs that are truly independent. Theres little evidence the new constitution will promote either."

and:

"The solution isnt to disempower politicians, as if they were some malign species. Only voters can give government legitimacy. And the only true, sustainable check on any future Thai government is the threat of being voted out of power. The way for opposition parties to defeat Thaksins popular electoral machine is to do the hard work of developing a national agenda and appeal. Any constitution that tries to get around basic democracy will only ensure that another one needs to be written in a few years."

I trust democracy, you trust a military junta. Who is the gullible idiot?

My apologies John, I seem to have totally misunderstood your post (and visa versa). I don't trust the junta to produce "free and fair elections" one little bit. I want to see free and fair elections return true democracy in Thailand and this will not "spring from the barrel of a gun" by overthrowing democratically elected governments, repressing free speech and tinkering with the election process to produce skewed results. I bow to your wise words.

What?

[Nickymaster]

Good news--Thaksin is no longer in charge.

Bad news--The majority of the Thai people still want democracy.

How will the junta deal with this?

You are having trouble keeping up with all of this aren't you ?.

When elections are held (the most free and fair Thailand has ever seen), will you stand up at Democracy Monument and shout "I am a gullible idiot" ?.

Because I have not seen or read a single thing to make me believe otherwise up to this moment.

You think I am a gullible idiot because I don't trust a military junta that came to power by toppling an elected government to produce a democratic constitution. I disagree. To find a gullible idiot a person who thinks the junta will produce a democratic constitution need only look in the mirror.

If and when the junta allows elections, the only reason they might be "free and fair" will be cause the prize won't be worth cheating for; all power will reside outside of elected offices:

"To break this deadlock, the new constitution would weaken the clout of elected politicians. A proportional voting system would encourage smaller parties and coalition governments in the lower house of parliament, while the upper house would be filled with a mix of candidates nominated by committee or selected by professional groups, including one dominated by former military figures. Under certain circumstances, the prime minister could be appointed from outside parliament. Watchdog agencies perceived to be tied to the establishment would get new powers. Thus, unelected elites could mind the store, rather than ordinary voters -- thought to be too susceptible to populist blandishments."

"Such a system would hark back to Thailand's failed past. Earlier constitutions also featured an appointed prime minister and senate, along with a weak lower house. But the old system produced 25 coalition governments from 1979 until Thaksin's election in 2001. And because many ordinary Thais, voting that year under a liberalized constitution, saw their circumstances improve under Thaksin, even the poor have grown used to the idea that their votes matter. They can hardly be expected to again trust their fates to a clique of "wise men" in Bangkok."

"Nor is there any reason to believe that constitutional tweaks can eliminate the main vices attributed to Thaksinite administrations. The junta has amply demonstrated that unelected governments can resort to populist measures as easily as any other, having disbursed billions in subsidies to mollify rice farmers loyal to the previous government. Weak coalition governments would face even more pressure to buy support. "http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-20/thailand-needs-elected-leaders-not-a-new-constitution

I underlined the most significant sections for the benefit of those who don't like to read any more than necessary.

There were two other parts of the Bloomberg article I found pertinent to Thailand's current situation:

"Rampant corruption, meanwhile, did not begin with Thaksin's arrival and won't end with his familys exit from the political scene. Cutting back on graft requires greater transparency, as well as watchdogs that are truly independent. Theres little evidence the new constitution will promote either."

and:

"The solution isnt to disempower politicians, as if they were some malign species. Only voters can give government legitimacy. And the only true, sustainable check on any future Thai government is the threat of being voted out of power. The way for opposition parties to defeat Thaksins popular electoral machine is to do the hard work of developing a national agenda and appeal. Any constitution that tries to get around basic democracy will only ensure that another one needs to be written in a few years."

I trust democracy, you trust a military junta. Who is the gullible idiot?

My apologies John, I seem to have totally misunderstood your post (and visa versa). I don't trust the junta to produce "free and fair elections" one little bit. I want to see free and fair elections return true democracy in Thailand and this will not "spring from the barrel of a gun" by overthrowing democratically elected governments, repressing free speech and tinkering with the election process to produce skewed results. I bow to your wise words.

You want the return of true democracy. Uuuuuuuuhhhhhh

[scorecard]

Good news--Thaksin is no longer in charge.

Bad news--The majority of the Thai people still want democracy.

How will the junta deal with this?

You are having trouble keeping up with all of this aren't you ?.

When elections are held (the most free and fair Thailand has ever seen), will you stand up at Democracy Monument and shout "I am a gullible idiot" ?.

Because I have not seen or read a single thing to make me believe otherwise up to this moment.[/quote "free and fair elections" dream on John, you're a gullible idiot in the wrong country. What a lot of really pathetic whitch hunt posts. Like little children who only know how to parrot. Some of you must be running out of room under your bridges to stash your ill-gotten gains.

Another poster who thinks it's clever to insult other members.

[northernjohn]

So will the slogan be changed to ' PTP thinks, Thaksin acts ' ?

Good one.

But no that would not make any sense. The PTP never was capable of thinking. They are like a ship adrift on the ocean of politics with out his greed to lead them.

I liked this bit

"I believe in Lord Buddha's teaching that everything is impermanent. Things are born and then they are gone. So are the passports. I don't want this issue to get bigger. I am the same person until I leave this world.

Sounds to me like a plea for mercy and no intention of trying to help improve the life of the common Thai citizen. Nice touch throwing in the

"So are the passport" bit.

[northernjohn]

Good news--Thaksin is no longer in charge.

Bad news--The majority of the Thai people still want democracy.

How will the junta deal with this?

You are having trouble keeping up with all of this aren't you ?.

When elections are held (the most free and fair Thailand has ever seen), will you stand up at Democracy Monument and shout "I am a gullible idiot" ?.

Because I have not seen or read a single thing to make me believe otherwise up to this moment.

You think I am a gullible idiot because I don't trust a military junta that came to power by toppling an elected government to produce a democratic constitution. I disagree. To find a gullible idiot a person who thinks the junta will produce a democratic constitution need only look in the mirror.

If and when the junta allows elections, the only reason they might be "free and fair" will be cause the prize won't be worth cheating for; all power will reside outside of elected offices:

"To break this deadlock, the new constitution would weaken the clout of elected politicians. A proportional voting system would encourage smaller parties and coalition governments in the lower house of parliament, while the upper house would be filled with a mix of candidates nominated by committee or selected by professional groups, including one dominated by former military figures. Under certain circumstances, the prime minister could be appointed from outside parliament. Watchdog agencies perceived to be tied to the establishment would get new powers. Thus, unelected elites could mind the store, rather than ordinary voters -- thought to be too susceptible to populist blandishments."

"Such a system would hark back to Thailand's failed past. Earlier constitutions also featured an appointed prime minister and senate, along with a weak lower house. But the old system produced 25 coalition governments from 1979 until Thaksin's election in 2001. And because many ordinary Thais, voting that year under a liberalized constitution, saw their circumstances improve under Thaksin, even the poor have grown used to the idea that their votes matter. They can hardly be expected to again trust their fates to a clique of "wise men" in Bangkok."

"Nor is there any reason to believe that constitutional tweaks can eliminate the main vices attributed to Thaksinite administrations. The junta has amply demonstrated that unelected governments can resort to populist measures as easily as any other, having disbursed billions in subsidies to mollify rice farmers loyal to the previous government. Weak coalition governments would face even more pressure to buy support. "http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-20/thailand-needs-elected-leaders-not-a-new-constitution

I underlined the most significant sections for the benefit of those who don't like to read any more than necessary.

There were two other parts of the Bloomberg article I found pertinent to Thailand's current situation:

"Rampant corruption, meanwhile, did not begin with Thaksin's arrival and won't end with his family’s exit from the political scene. Cutting back on graft requires greater transparency, as well as watchdogs that are truly independent. There’s little evidence the new constitution will promote either."

and:

"The solution isn’t to disempower politicians, as if they were some malign species. Only voters can give government legitimacy. And the only true, sustainable check on any future Thai government is the threat of being voted out of power. The way for opposition parties to defeat Thaksin’s popular electoral machine is to do the hard work of developing a national agenda and appeal. Any constitution that tries to get around basic democracy will only ensure that another one needs to be written in a few years."

I trust democracy, you trust a military junta. Who is the gullible idiot?

"I trust democracy, you trust a military junta. Who is the gullible idiot?"

Not sure but when was the last Democratically elected Government was that the Thaksin one in 2,000? all the rest weren't Democratically elected. They were elected on the Parliamentary system where you don't need the majority of votes as you do in a democracy. Personally I prefer the Junta to Thaksin. To each their own.

[heybruce]

Good news--Thaksin is no longer in charge.

Bad news--The majority of the Thai people still want democracy.

How will the junta deal with this?

You are having trouble keeping up with all of this aren't you ?.

When elections are held (the most free and fair Thailand has ever seen), will you stand up at Democracy Monument and shout "I am a gullible idiot" ?.

Because I have not seen or read a single thing to make me believe otherwise up to this moment.

You think I am a gullible idiot because I don't trust a military junta that came to power by toppling an elected government to produce a democratic constitution. I disagree. To find a gullible idiot a person who thinks the junta will produce a democratic constitution need only look in the mirror.

If and when the junta allows elections, the only reason they might be "free and fair" will be cause the prize won't be worth cheating for; all power will reside outside of elected offices:

"To break this deadlock, the new constitution would weaken the clout of elected politicians. A proportional voting system would encourage smaller parties and coalition governments in the lower house of parliament, while the upper house would be filled with a mix of candidates nominated by committee or selected by professional groups, including one dominated by former military figures. Under certain circumstances, the prime minister could be appointed from outside parliament. Watchdog agencies perceived to be tied to the establishment would get new powers. Thus, unelected elites could mind the store, rather than ordinary voters -- thought to be too susceptible to populist blandishments."

"Such a system would hark back to Thailand's failed past. Earlier constitutions also featured an appointed prime minister and senate, along with a weak lower house. But the old system produced 25 coalition governments from 1979 until Thaksin's election in 2001. And because many ordinary Thais, voting that year under a liberalized constitution, saw their circumstances improve under Thaksin, even the poor have grown used to the idea that their votes matter. They can hardly be expected to again trust their fates to a clique of "wise men" in Bangkok."

"Nor is there any reason to believe that constitutional tweaks can eliminate the main vices attributed to Thaksinite administrations. The junta has amply demonstrated that unelected governments can resort to populist measures as easily as any other, having disbursed billions in subsidies to mollify rice farmers loyal to the previous government. Weak coalition governments would face even more pressure to buy support. "http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-20/thailand-needs-elected-leaders-not-a-new-constitution

I underlined the most significant sections for the benefit of those who don't like to read any more than necessary.

There were two other parts of the Bloomberg article I found pertinent to Thailand's current situation:

"Rampant corruption, meanwhile, did not begin with Thaksin's arrival and won't end with his family’s exit from the political scene. Cutting back on graft requires greater transparency, as well as watchdogs that are truly independent. There’s little evidence the new constitution will promote either."

and:

"The solution isn’t to disempower politicians, as if they were some malign species. Only voters can give government legitimacy. And the only true, sustainable check on any future Thai government is the threat of being voted out of power. The way for opposition parties to defeat Thaksin’s popular electoral machine is to do the hard work of developing a national agenda and appeal. Any constitution that tries to get around basic democracy will only ensure that another one needs to be written in a few years."

I trust democracy, you trust a military junta. Who is the gullible idiot?

"I trust democracy, you trust a military junta. Who is the gullible idiot?"

Not sure but when was the last Democratically elected Government was that the Thaksin one in 2,000? all the rest weren't Democratically elected. They were elected on the Parliamentary system where you don't need the majority of votes as you do in a democracy. Personally I prefer the Junta to Thaksin. To each their own.

The PTP won the 2011 election under the rules established by the military in their 2007 constitution. It was as democratic as it could get, and ended as undemocratically as it could be done. As you've made very clear, you prefer it that way.

Any comments on the problems with the draft charter raised by Bloomberg?

[tbthailand]

Good news--Thaksin is no longer in charge.

Bad news--The majority of the Thai people still want democracy.

How will the junta deal with this?

You are having trouble keeping up with all of this aren't you ?.

When elections are held (the most free and fair Thailand has ever seen), will you stand up at Democracy Monument and shout "I am a gullible idiot" ?.

Because I have not seen or read a single thing to make me believe otherwise up to this moment.

you haven't read the draft charter yet, then have you?

[tbthailand]

Good news--Thaksin is no longer in charge.

Bad news--The majority of the Thai people still want democracy.

How will the junta deal with this?

You are having trouble keeping up with all of this aren't you ?.

When elections are held (the most free and fair Thailand has ever seen), will you stand up at Democracy Monument and shout "I am a gullible idiot" ?.

Because I have not seen or read a single thing to make me believe otherwise up to this moment.

You think I am a gullible idiot because I don't trust a military junta that came to power by toppling an elected government to produce a democratic constitution. I disagree. To find a gullible idiot a person who thinks the junta will produce a democratic constitution need only look in the mirror.

If and when the junta allows elections, the only reason they might be "free and fair" will be cause the prize won't be worth cheating for; all power will reside outside of elected offices:

"To break this deadlock, the new constitution would weaken the clout of elected politicians. A proportional voting system would encourage smaller parties and coalition governments in the lower house of parliament, while the upper house would be filled with a mix of candidates nominated by committee or selected by professional groups, including one dominated by former military figures. Under certain circumstances, the prime minister could be appointed from outside parliament. Watchdog agencies perceived to be tied to the establishment would get new powers. Thus, unelected elites could mind the store, rather than ordinary voters -- thought to be too susceptible to populist blandishments."

"Such a system would hark back to Thailand's failed past. Earlier constitutions also featured an appointed prime minister and senate, along with a weak lower house. But the old system produced 25 coalition governments from 1979 until Thaksin's election in 2001. And because many ordinary Thais, voting that year under a liberalized constitution, saw their circumstances improve under Thaksin, even the poor have grown used to the idea that their votes matter. They can hardly be expected to again trust their fates to a clique of "wise men" in Bangkok."

"Nor is there any reason to believe that constitutional tweaks can eliminate the main vices attributed to Thaksinite administrations. The junta has amply demonstrated that unelected governments can resort to populist measures as easily as any other, having disbursed billions in subsidies to mollify rice farmers loyal to the previous government. Weak coalition governments would face even more pressure to buy support. "http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-20/thailand-needs-elected-leaders-not-a-new-constitution

I underlined the most significant sections for the benefit of those who don't like to read any more than necessary.

There were two other parts of the Bloomberg article I found pertinent to Thailand's current situation:

"Rampant corruption, meanwhile, did not begin with Thaksin's arrival and won't end with his family’s exit from the political scene. Cutting back on graft requires greater transparency, as well as watchdogs that are truly independent. There’s little evidence the new constitution will promote either."

and:

"The solution isn’t to disempower politicians, as if they were some malign species. Only voters can give government legitimacy. And the only true, sustainable check on any future Thai government is the threat of being voted out of power. The way for opposition parties to defeat Thaksin’s popular electoral machine is to do the hard work of developing a national agenda and appeal. Any constitution that tries to get around basic democracy will only ensure that another one needs to be written in a few years."

I trust democracy, you trust a military junta. Who is the gullible idiot?

"I trust democracy, you trust a military junta. Who is the gullible idiot?"

Not sure but when was the last Democratically elected Government was that the Thaksin one in 2,000? all the rest weren't Democratically elected. They were elected on the Parliamentary system where you don't need the majority of votes as you do in a democracy. Personally I prefer the Junta to Thaksin. To each their own.

all the rest weren't Democratically elected. They were elected on the Parliamentary system where you don't need the majority of votes as you do in a democracy.

wow, you write that and then do you expect anyone to believe that you understand democracy? Thaksin or junta aside, you seem a bit lost in the woods, there...

[mr chow]

Gaol ?? No colloquial here. Use everyday common English here. Say j

[MiKT]

Good news--Thaksin is no longer in charge.

Bad news--The majority of the Thai people still want democracy.

How will the junta deal with this?

You are having trouble keeping up with all of this aren't you ?.

When elections are held (the most free and fair Thailand has ever seen), will you stand up at Democracy Monument and shout "I am a gullible idiot" ?.

Because I have not seen or read a single thing to make me believe otherwise up to this moment.

You think I am a gullible idiot because I don't trust a military junta that came to power by toppling an elected government to produce a democratic constitution. I disagree. To find a gullible idiot a person who thinks the junta will produce a democratic constitution need only look in the mirror.

If and when the junta allows elections, the only reason they might be "free and fair" will be cause the prize won't be worth cheating for; all power will reside outside of elected offices:

"To break this deadlock, the new constitution would weaken the clout of elected politicians. A proportional voting system would encourage smaller parties and coalition governments in the lower house of parliament, while the upper house would be filled with a mix of candidates nominated by committee or selected by professional groups, including one dominated by former military figures. Under certain circumstances, the prime minister could be appointed from outside parliament. Watchdog agencies perceived to be tied to the establishment would get new powers. Thus, unelected elites could mind the store, rather than ordinary voters -- thought to be too susceptible to populist blandishments."

"Such a system would hark back to Thailand's failed past. Earlier constitutions also featured an appointed prime minister and senate, along with a weak lower house. But the old system produced 25 coalition governments from 1979 until Thaksin's election in 2001. And because many ordinary Thais, voting that year under a liberalized constitution, saw their circumstances improve under Thaksin, even the poor have grown used to the idea that their votes matter. They can hardly be expected to again trust their fates to a clique of "wise men" in Bangkok."

"Nor is there any reason to believe that constitutional tweaks can eliminate the main vices attributed to Thaksinite administrations. The junta has amply demonstrated that unelected governments can resort to populist measures as easily as any other, having disbursed billions in subsidies to mollify rice farmers loyal to the previous government. Weak coalition governments would face even more pressure to buy support. "http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-20/thailand-needs-elected-leaders-not-a-new-constitution

I underlined the most significant sections for the benefit of those who don't like to read any more than necessary.

There were two other parts of the Bloomberg article I found pertinent to Thailand's current situation:

"Rampant corruption, meanwhile, did not begin with Thaksin's arrival and won't end with his familys exit from the political scene. Cutting back on graft requires greater transparency, as well as watchdogs that are truly independent. Theres little evidence the new constitution will promote either."

and:

"The solution isnt to disempower politicians, as if they were some malign species. Only voters can give government legitimacy. And the only true, sustainable check on any future Thai government is the threat of being voted out of power. The way for opposition parties to defeat Thaksins popular electoral machine is to do the hard work of developing a national agenda and appeal. Any constitution that tries to get around basic democracy will only ensure that another one needs to be written in a few years."

I trust democracy, you trust a military junta. Who is the gullible idiot?

My apologies John, I seem to have totally misunderstood your post (and visa versa). I don't trust the junta to produce "free and fair elections" one little bit. I want to see free and fair elections return true democracy in Thailand and this will not "spring from the barrel of a gun" by overthrowing democratically elected governments, repressing free speech and tinkering with the election process to produce skewed results. I bow to your wise words.

What?

What what? Shall I repeat my post with little pictures or will you try a course in English comprehension?

[MiKT]

Good news--Thaksin is no longer in charge.

Bad news--The majority of the Thai people still want democracy.

How will the junta deal with this?

You are having trouble keeping up with all of this aren't you ?.

When elections are held (the most free and fair Thailand has ever seen), will you stand up at Democracy Monument and shout "I am a gullible idiot" ?.

Because I have not seen or read a single thing to make me believe otherwise up to this moment.

You think I am a gullible idiot because I don't trust a military junta that came to power by toppling an elected government to produce a democratic constitution. I disagree. To find a gullible idiot a person who thinks the junta will produce a democratic constitution need only look in the mirror.

If and when the junta allows elections, the only reason they might be "free and fair" will be cause the prize won't be worth cheating for; all power will reside outside of elected offices:

"To break this deadlock, the new constitution would weaken the clout of elected politicians. A proportional voting system would encourage smaller parties and coalition governments in the lower house of parliament, while the upper house would be filled with a mix of candidates nominated by committee or selected by professional groups, including one dominated by former military figures. Under certain circumstances, the prime minister could be appointed from outside parliament. Watchdog agencies perceived to be tied to the establishment would get new powers. Thus, unelected elites could mind the store, rather than ordinary voters -- thought to be too susceptible to populist blandishments."

"Such a system would hark back to Thailand's failed past. Earlier constitutions also featured an appointed prime minister and senate, along with a weak lower house. But the old system produced 25 coalition governments from 1979 until Thaksin's election in 2001. And because many ordinary Thais, voting that year under a liberalized constitution, saw their circumstances improve under Thaksin, even the poor have grown used to the idea that their votes matter. They can hardly be expected to again trust their fates to a clique of "wise men" in Bangkok."

"Nor is there any reason to believe that constitutional tweaks can eliminate the main vices attributed to Thaksinite administrations. The junta has amply demonstrated that unelected governments can resort to populist measures as easily as any other, having disbursed billions in subsidies to mollify rice farmers loyal to the previous government. Weak coalition governments would face even more pressure to buy support. "http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-20/thailand-needs-elected-leaders-not-a-new-constitution

I underlined the most significant sections for the benefit of those who don't like to read any more than necessary.

There were two other parts of the Bloomberg article I found pertinent to Thailand's current situation:

"Rampant corruption, meanwhile, did not begin with Thaksin's arrival and won't end with his familys exit from the political scene. Cutting back on graft requires greater transparency, as well as watchdogs that are truly independent. Theres little evidence the new constitution will promote either."

and:

"The solution isnt to disempower politicians, as if they were some malign species. Only voters can give government legitimacy. And the only true, sustainable check on any future Thai government is the threat of being voted out of power. The way for opposition parties to defeat Thaksins popular electoral machine is to do the hard work of developing a national agenda and appeal. Any constitution that tries to get around basic democracy will only ensure that another one needs to be written in a few years."

I trust democracy, you trust a military junta. Who is the gullible idiot?

My apologies John, I seem to have totally misunderstood your post (and visa versa). I don't trust the junta to produce "free and fair elections" one little bit. I want to see free and fair elections return true democracy in Thailand and this will not "spring from the barrel of a gun" by overthrowing democratically elected governments, repressing free speech and tinkering with the election process to produce skewed results. I bow to your wise words.

You want the return of true democracy. Uuuuuuuuhhhhhh

Try Googling the words "elections" and "returns" together

[bendejo]

Some of those things Thaksin mentioned are actually quite funny coming from him. In US politics this would be considered a 'come to Jesus' moment where a politician wraps himself in religion to attempt atone for whatever he/she was caught doing. (The secular equivalent is to "wrap yourself in The Flag" where they confess that whatever it is they were caught doing was for love of country.) I guess in a way Thai Buddhism is like Christianity, in that whatever terrible thing you've done can be redeemed by merit-making/penance.

Anyone watching what was going on with the reds 5 or 6 years ago may have noticed that Thaksin does not employ smart people, for the good reason that he doesn't want to be outsmarted. This works well for a criminal organization, but for a political movement it's completely different: there is no high-minded idealism, no vision for a better tomorrow. There is no redshirt Thomas Paine. Thaksin is more like a bootlegging kingpin of the prohibition era.

The height of the comedy was the Three Stooges summit with Abhisit back when the reds were camped out in the streets. Abhisit would propose something, but none of the three could respond without checking with the boss, so they would make excuses to go to the bathroom where they would call Thaksin on their phones.