Yingluck criticises draft charter

[JAG]

Well the junta junkies on the forum are too embarrassed by the joke draft charter to say anything other than to attack YL. Thailand deserves better than the rubbish being served up on this draft and the people will not accept it ...regardless of what Thaksin or YL say or do not Y

You talk utter commonsense, but i doubt the junta junkies will understand, apart from trashing the last popularly elected Thai PM they cannot see or think further than their noses.

Popularly elected!!

She was elected by MP's from the government.

Her name was number one on party list BUT it Doesn't mean that is automatically the PM.

MAYBE the PM should be elected by the people. What do you think?

Oh dear - that old chestnut again. Once more then...

Just about every sentient being who voted for Pheu-Thai in the election did so in the full knowledge that Yingluck was the party candidate for PM, and indeed that she was Thaksin's choice. The party won a clear victory ( we won't call it a landslide because that annoys).

Therefore Yingluck became PM, she was elected under the rules which then pertained, which is rather more than can be said about the current incumbent is it not?

So she was voted in under the rules that also voted in Abhisit.. But the Red shirts said he was undemocratic.... Strange No?

The circumstances were somewhat different. Put simply she was endorsed by the electorate, he was rejected by the electorate.

What absolute rubbish!

Abhisit had been a directly elected MP. After the previous PM Somchai was dismissed for " The Thai constitution bars parliament members from holding shares in companies that do business with state enterprises" there was a vote for the new PM. Abhisit won the vote! His party the Democrats had also garnered 14,084,265 in the 2007 election 39.63% of the proportional vote. That was against PPP's 14,071,799 and 39.60%.

Obviously the constituency vote was higher for PPP at 26,293,456 against Democrats 21,745,696 .

So to say that he was rejected by the electorate is just plain misleading!

If you consider that the statistics you quote establish an electoral mandate for Abhisit in any way comparable with that enjoyed by The PPP, then you are the one talking nonsense, and attempting to mislead.

In simple terms, the party which won the election was removed from office by the establishment/ elite/ traditional Bangkok power base (call it what you wish) because it threatened their grip on power, and the access to the nation's wealth which comes with that grip on power. Abhisit was their chosen substitute, the Army generals their agents. It happened before, has happened again since, and will probably happen again, until eventually the people get fed up and decide they have had enough, and insist that the government they select is allowed to run its term.

But, do you agree that the Shin governments were also interested in access to the nations wealth, and not for the benefit of the nation, too? Which is why they struggled so hard to keep their grip on power.

Any government should be allowed to run its term - providing they are abiding by the laws of the country and have not lost control or the support of the people. A government that cannot maintain law and order and keep the peace cannot continue.

Politicians who break laws, ignore the rules, lie and cheat shouldn't go unpunished or be allowed to be MP's. But, that should apply to all - regardless of party, family, connections, and wealth. But it seems very unlikely here. So the cycle will continue for the time being.

You hold an election and put it to the people as a whole to decide if the government stands or falls, rather than having a small group of people decide, and then engineer the removal of the government.

Please answer my question - "But, do you agree that the Shin governments were also interested in access to the nations wealth, and not for the benefit of the nation, too?

A simple Yes or No will suffice.

Are you really advocating putting governments above the law? That once in office they can be voted out at an election but not brought to justice for breaking the law when they want to?

No I'm not going to be drawn into answering into what is in effect a " Have you stopped beating your wife question ".

I have given a clear answer on how I believe governments should be changed, to wit by elections not engineered coups or "judicial dismissals".

You are now demanding an answer to a totally different question, one which is clearly designed to give you the opportunity (as someone recently said) to preach from an assumed moral position which is somewhat tainted by the antics, repeatedly employed by the faction you support, in order to dispose of an elected government. That faction has repeatedly engineered the overthrow of elected governments they saw as threatening their traditional grip on power. It doesn't get much more corrupt than that.

If as you profess to believe, the Shinawatra/PPP/PTP governments were solely in the business of personal enrichment then it is for the electorate to throw them out, not the generals. The most recent coup and the carefully orchestrated events which led to it, took place, amongst other reasons, to prevent the electorate from having that opportunity. Moreover its not the first time that has happened.

[tbthailand]

I don't personally favor amnesty at all. From a Thai perspective and given the imbalance in justice, I do understand how Thais (of both colors) supported the original amnesty which addressed only protesters and not the rest... and not Thaksin.

As you must certainly know, the final bill which passed the parliament was opposed by yellow shirts and by red shirts.

But again, a post which clarifies events is not being an apologist for anyone. As you certainly saw MAJICs original post, you would not agree with it, would you?

BTW, I may not have seen it yet, but are you a "Landslide-denier"?

(ps; to add, there is no way that there will ever be a democratic constitution which both sides can live with because one side doesn't believe in, nor do they want, democracy. It will have to be imposed by the people.)

................"BTW, I may not have seen it yet, but are you a "Landslide-denier"?".........................

Nice try, trying to find something else to use when you attack me. Fail ! I have never once commented on any "Landslide" nor do I care about it. So don't bother labeling me a "Landslide-denier", as you falsely labeled me a junta supporter.

Posting "porkies" will get you nowhere, and a bad rep.

As far as Yingluck criticizing the draft charter goes, anyone who believes they were her words has the mentality of a watermelon.

as you well know, I am not accusing you of being one, I am asking if you are. I posed the question to one of your "not a shin supporter" replies in a thread relevant to landslides and you never responded to it (that I saw).

So now I know that you are neither a landslide-denier, nor are you a junta-hugger. Cool. I guess you will proudly wear the label "Thaksin-hater", won't you?

Now, regarding your inane accusation that correcting a massively incorrect post from MAJIC makes me a "shin supporter", please feel free to explain your "logic".

[rubl]

... anyway Ms. Yingluck critisized the draft charter. Since we only seem to have the April version freely available, she seems a bit late with her comments.

Being against it is no surprise, as responsible person being held accountable already made her state that democracy had died. The charter wouldn't help her.

[jayboy]

... anyway Ms. Yingluck critisized the draft charter. Since we only seem to have the April version freely available, she seems a bit late with her comments.

Being against it is no surprise, as responsible person being held accountable already made her state that democracy had died. The charter wouldn't help her.

Yingluck's views are of relatively little significance now.What's depressing is that some seem unable to understand the reality of what is now happening - a brutal assault on democracy which the self appointed "good people" wish to make permanent.

http://www.thaidatapoints.com/project-updates/thailandscontainmentconstitutionbyallenhicken

The article quoted usefully points out a common misunderstanding in Thailand of the term "checks and balances".

[rubl]

... anyway Ms. Yingluck critisized the draft charter. Since we only seem to have the April version freely available, she seems a bit late with her comments.

Being against it is no surprise, as responsible person being held accountable already made her state that democracy had died. The charter wouldn't help her.

Yingluck's views are of relatively little significance now.What's depressing is that some seem unable to understand the reality of what is now happening - a brutal assault on democracy which the self appointed "good people" wish to make permanent.

http://www.thaidatapoints.com/project-updates/thailandscontainmentconstitutionbyallenhicken

The article quoted usefully points out a common misunderstanding in Thailand of the term "checks and balances".

The article has "This draft constitution suggests " in reference to the April version.

Interesting blog

"We created this blog with the intention of bringing a non-partisan, political science perspective to Thai politics."

"All posts will be written by social scientists (mostly from political science), either ourselves or guest contributors."

I will not comment about what two American Professors in Political Science know about 'building party systems' seeing how it works in their country.

[tbthailand]

... anyway Ms. Yingluck critisized the draft charter. Since we only seem to have the April version freely available, she seems a bit late with her comments.

Being against it is no surprise, as responsible person being held accountable already made her state that democracy had died. The charter wouldn't help her.

Yingluck's views are of relatively little significance now.What's depressing is that some seem unable to understand the reality of what is now happening - a brutal assault on democracy which the self appointed "good people" wish to make permanent.

http://www.thaidatapoints.com/project-updates/thailandscontainmentconstitutionbyallenhicken

The article quoted usefully points out a common misunderstanding in Thailand of the term "checks and balances".

Thanks - nice link.

[jerojero]

I am not a fan, but she is right. The government of the people, for the people by the people, etc.

She may be recalled for one more attitude adjustment.

Of, for, and by the people? ..... US based rhetoric, doesn't apply well. Why does US Congress and Senate have thousands of lobbyists throwing money and perks at them, and laws allowing millionaires to secretly "buy" a presidential candidate.

[metisdead]

Insulting post and other nonsense posts have been removed.

[clausewitz]

Can someone clarify for me: i just read this thread: I take it from the posts that the army was what saved Thailand from Yingluck, and this new constitution is great - Thailand would have been in an awful mess without uncle Prayut? Have I got it right?

[casualbiker]

Can someone clarify for me: i just read this thread: I take it from the posts that the army was what saved Thailand from Yingluck, and this new constitution is great - Thailand would have been in an awful mess without uncle Prayut? Have I got it right?

What do you think?

[SpoliaOpima]

She will go down in history as a true, gentle and elegant fighter for the Thai poor and repressed

Only time will tell but history suggests otherwise.