NRC votes No against draft charter

[rubl]

Actually it was the military that took down those governments, and only when prompted by mobs backed by a political party that can't win elections. When mobs opposing an unelected government took to the streets the military was quite bloody in it's crackdown.

Actually governments in some sort of dubious caretaker mode, taking care of number one that is.

So, NRC voted 'no', TVF posters continue.

Edited September 6, 2015 by rubl

[rubl]

Thais are getting real tired of the circus ruining the economy and the junta has nothing tangible to show for seizing power. I think the pm is realizing it's not easy to run the country with all its diverse problems. If he keeps power and this country continues at virtually no gdp growth, people having higher debt loads and investors avoiding this mess I think the actual Thais with real power will pull the plug on him. Also he puts off elections it's conceivable sanctions by the west are on the horizon like the USA has done specifically targeting Russian kleptocrats.

From what I hear Thai are getting annoyed with the West telling them what to do and how to behave and not just those Thai in power.

Some Thais are pretty insular and don't really have a concept of the global village. They haven't yet figured out that foreign countries can choose who to buy from or not.

Some Thais still have a bit of a "Thais are best" belief system, it comes from decades of being told just that. They can safely be ignored, though some will choose to listen to them no doubt.

Indeed some Thai, just like some foreigners.

BTW did you just suggest that some Thai could be safely ignored, suggesting somehow to do so, democratically of course?

'no' vote on charter, TVF posters still going on strongly though.

[rubl]

"As for the external factor, he pointed out at the widespread opposition to the draft which, he said, would lead to more conflict if the draft is allowed to go through."

Sounds almost democratic, what's wrong with him. Doesn't he know the NRC has been declared a mouthpiece for a fascist junta, and a few more lovely, endearing terms.

It's a government under military rule; democray doesn't exist. I would expect the NRC to exercise some discretion in making an important decision because of the composition of its members. With 77 from each provinces and 173 from 11 professional fields, they have less direct control by the military. Contrast with the NLA which is a mouthpiece as more than half are from the military.

Oh come on Eric, don't you know the NRC has been condemned by TVF's finest as being a junta mouthpiece ?

Anyway, the NRC voted against with PM Prayut being in favour. How's that for democracy?

Rubi, the junta is not too pleased with the NRC. The junta dictictorial demeanor will see the NRC removed and replaced with a reform steering assemble. NRC is deemed not loyal to the junta. How's that for democracy.

Thank you for your insight.

BTW how much was already planned, publicly available in how the NRC would be dissolved? Was that before the vote was held, with reason why the NRC would no longer be required?

[rubl]

[

It's a perfectly fair article which actually supports and expands on my position on the Constitution's defects.

Indeed, my dear boy. It also indicates the improvements and as such gives reasons why if an existing charter should be used to add improvements it should be the 2007 version rather than the 1997 as the 2007 version improves on it..

Edited September 6, 2015 by rubl

[JAG]

So now what? Despite publicly stating he was for the Charter I wouldn't be surprised if this is what the PM really wanted, a furtherance of the status quo with him at the helm.

Yes, but still it is kicking the can down the road. People's patience is finite and once they feel they are simply having the p!ss taken out of them...

....................having the p!ss taken out of them... ???

A

And then what Babs ? You keep making these subtle suggestions about something happening without ever revealing what it is. Be careful what you wish for.

Sounds like the PM and his crew are going to be around for a long time ! They won't have to worry about disbanding the reds and their employers, they will have died of old age by the time elections are held !

I shall be less subtle then, Mods permitting.

It dawns on the people that once again the country is being run by a clique of self-serving Generals and their buddies who have no intention of conceding any meaningful power whatsoever to the working class and rise up in anger, like they did in 1973, 1976 and 1992. The army butcher a load of them but end up retreating temporarily after an intervention at the highest level.

Any better an answer?

There is a change imminent "at the highest level".

The intervention may not be forthcoming.

That will be unknown territory.

[bkkcanuck8]

constitution' have been raised, causing the junta to have to eliminate any such similar clause in any re-draft. Hobson's Choice.

Good point. At least now they cannot remain in power covertly and will have to be seen as what they are.

I think you'll find that whatever else in the draft constitution is amended (prior to referendum) it won't be the 'coup within a coup' section. I think I read somewhere that the PM, and presumably Suthep want this included , no matter what.

IMHO the country is faced with 2 choices, the first being to accept the new constitution for the 5 years that the 'coup wiithin a coup' section is slated to exist. PTP and it's supporters acceptance of this would be a bitter pill to swallow, with no absolute guarantee of a totally non-military government thereafter. If the military contrived constitution isn't amended to such an extent that PTP can recommend it to their supporters, the second choice might be a catastrophic situation that surpasses all previous political unrest seen in Thailand.

Why accept something for 5 years when the constitution only survives for at most 4

[jayboy]

[

It's a perfectly fair article which actually supports and expands on my position on the Constitution's defects.

Indeed, my dear boy. It also indicates the improvements and as such gives reasons why if an existing charter should be used to add improvements it should be the 2007 version rather than the 1997 as the 2007 version improves on it..

Don't be silly.It does nothing of the sort and indeed stresses the witch hunt elements and the partisan judicial activism introduced.In any case it's just one article.

If you are going to have an ridiculous argument whether the 2007 constitution is superior to 1997, have it with your toaster or your cup of cocoa.In any event not with me.

[Ed50]

This could be the result the PM wanted.

No doubt... another 2 years to "sort the country out", is what this means...

2 years, huh more like 2 hundred and I'm being realistic.

[rubl]

[

It's a perfectly fair article which actually supports and expands on my position on the Constitution's defects.

Indeed, my dear boy. It also indicates the improvements and as such gives reasons why if an existing charter should be used to add improvements it should be the 2007 version rather than the 1997 as the 2007 version improves on it..

Don't be silly.It does nothing of the sort and indeed stresses the witch hunt elements and the partisan judicial activism introduced.In any case it's just one article.

If you are going to have an ridiculous argument whether the 2007 constitution is superior to 1997, have it with your toaster or your cup of cocoa.In any event not with me.

No need to get annoyed, jayboy.

The "witch hunt" probably means you didn't agree with

"Third, under the current Constitution, various independent agencies have more powers to protect people. The National Human Rights Commission will be able to take cases directly to court, in its own name and on behalf of the victims⁸ a power lacking under the sixteenth Constitution. The Ombudsperson will be able to scrutinize the conduct of parliamentarians and other political office-holders for ethical purposes."

A few others as well. No doubt certain people don't like the increased link between responsibility and accountability.

PS I'm Dutch, I don't have toast or cocoa for breakfast or at other times. It's coffee at all times.

[Jon Wetherall]

[

It's a perfectly fair article which actually supports and expands on my position on the Constitution's defects.

Indeed, my dear boy. It also indicates the improvements and as such gives reasons why if an existing charter should be used to add improvements it should be the 2007 version rather than the 1997 as the 2007 version improves on it..

Don't be silly.It does nothing of the sort and indeed stresses the witch hunt elements and the partisan judicial activism introduced.In any case it's just one article.

If you are going to have an ridiculous argument whether the 2007 constitution is superior to 1997, have it with your toaster or your cup of cocoa.In any event not with me.

No need to get annoyed, jayboy.

The "witch hunt" probably means you didn't agree with

"Third, under the current Constitution, various independent agencies have more powers to protect people. The National Human Rights Commission will be able to take cases directly to court, in its own name and on behalf of the victims⁸ a power lacking under the sixteenth Constitution. The Ombudsperson will be able to scrutinize the conduct of parliamentarians and other political office-holders for ethical purposes."

A few others as well. No doubt certain people don't like the increased link between responsibility and accountability.

PS I'm Dutch, I don't have toast or cocoa for breakfast or at other times. It's coffee at all times.

"Will be able to" is not the same as "Must do". These clauses would be subverted in the time-honoured Thai way: choose your men carefully, having regard only to whether they will do as their told and how much they owe you.

Meaningless, Thai-style.

[rubl]

Indeed, my dear boy. It also indicates the improvements and as such gives reasons why if an existing charter should be used to add improvements it should be the 2007 version rather than the 1997 as the 2007 version improves on it..

Don't be silly.It does nothing of the sort and indeed stresses the witch hunt elements and the partisan judicial activism introduced.In any case it's just one article.

If you are going to have an ridiculous argument whether the 2007 constitution is superior to 1997, have it with your toaster or your cup of cocoa.In any event not with me.

No need to get annoyed, jayboy.

The "witch hunt" probably means you didn't agree with

"Third, under the current Constitution, various independent agencies have more powers to protect people. The National Human Rights Commission will be able to take cases directly to court, in its own name and on behalf of the victims⁸ a power lacking under the sixteenth Constitution. The Ombudsperson will be able to scrutinize the conduct of parliamentarians and other political office-holders for ethical purposes."

A few others as well. No doubt certain people don't like the increased link between responsibility and accountability.

PS I'm Dutch, I don't have toast or cocoa for breakfast or at other times. It's coffee at all times.

"Will be able to" is not the same as "Must do". These clauses would be subverted in the time-honoured Thai way: choose your men carefully, having regard only to whether they will do as their told and how much they owe you.

Meaningless, Thai-style.

But a step in the right direction since the 1997 version didn't have even that.

So there's still some work to do as I and others indicated.

[phoenixdoglover]

........blah...blah...blah...

No need to get annoyed, jayboy.

The "witch hunt" probably means you didn't agree with

"Third, under the current Constitution, various independent agencies have more powers to protect people. The National Human Rights Commission will be able to take cases directly to court, in its own name and on behalf of the victims⁸ a power lacking under the sixteenth Constitution. The Ombudsperson will be able to scrutinize the conduct of parliamentarians and other political office-holders for ethical purposes."

A few others as well. No doubt certain people don't like the increased link between responsibility and accountability.

PS I'm Dutch, I don't have toast or cocoa for breakfast or at other times. It's coffee at all times.

"Will be able to" is not the same as "Must do". These clauses would be subverted in the time-honoured Thai way: choose your men carefully, having regard only to whether they will do as their told and how much they owe you.

Meaningless, Thai-style.

But a step in the right direction since the 1997 version didn't have even that.

So there's still some work to do as I and others indicated.

I don't think one small change in the 2007 Charter, regarding the complaint powers of a Commission, is a compelling argument for one Charter version over another.

I would think the best starting point is the Charter that most reflects the desires of the Thai people, either by virtue of its content, or its pedigree (where it came from). There is much to be gained by starting with something relatively popular.

In addition, I believe the philosophy of drafting a new Charter should be to streamline it, and eliminate unnecessary "law". The current Charter is larded with elements that cannot possibly stand the test of time. This desire to tweak the Charter to solve problems in the current political landscape is a fools errand. The Charter should proscribe "how" problems of government are solved, not in most cases "what" the current remedy is.

Finally, the Charter should be crystal clear in what it takes to amend the Charter. Set the bar as high as desired, but set it nonetheless in a fixed position.

Edited September 6, 2015 by phoenixdoglover

[whaleboneman]

This could be the result the PM wanted.

It's the vote I wanted!!

Let democracy take the back seat for longer and make sure that they have got it right this time. They need to shut out incompetent people voted in by ignorant and gullible people. Thaksin rigged it his way and look where that got us, it needs to be changed to avoid serious mistakes from being made again whether it is democratic or not. Of course, if they have an election then that is democracy, so simply make it so that they vote in the right people this time by whatever means necessary.

And who exactly would determine the "right" people? It sounds like you prefer a benevolent dictatorship to rule the "ignorant and gullible people".

[HHTel]

Why have a constitution at all? The UK is a constitutional monarchy (same as Thailand) and they have muddled through quite successfully without a constitution!

[Basil B]

draft charter...

[rubl]

........blah...blah...blah...

No need to get annoyed, jayboy.

The "witch hunt" probably means you didn't agree with

"Third, under the current Constitution, various independent agencies have more powers to protect people. The National Human Rights Commission will be able to take cases directly to court, in its own name and on behalf of the victims⁸ a power lacking under the sixteenth Constitution. The Ombudsperson will be able to scrutinize the conduct of parliamentarians and other political office-holders for ethical purposes."

A few others as well. No doubt certain people don't like the increased link between responsibility and accountability.

PS I'm Dutch, I don't have toast or cocoa for breakfast or at other times. It's coffee at all times.

"Will be able to" is not the same as "Must do". These clauses would be subverted in the time-honoured Thai way: choose your men carefully, having regard only to whether they will do as their told and how much they owe you.

Meaningless, Thai-style.

But a step in the right direction since the 1997 version didn't have even that.

So there's still some work to do as I and others indicated.

I don't think one small change in the 2007 Charter, regarding the complaint powers of a Commission, is a compelling argument for one Charter version over another.

I would think the best starting point is the Charter that most reflects the desires of the Thai people, either by virtue of its content, or its pedigree (where it came from). There is much to be gained by starting with something relatively popular.

In addition, I believe the philosophy of drafting a new Charter should be to streamline it, and eliminate unnecessary "law". The current Charter is larded with elements that cannot possibly stand the test of time. This desire to tweak the Charter to solve problems in the current political landscape is a fools errand. The Charter should proscribe "how" problems of government are solved, not in most cases "what" the current remedy is.

Finally, the Charter should be crystal clear in what it takes to amend the Charter. Set the bar as high as desired, but set it nonetheless in a fixed position.

It would seem you didn't read the article I provided a link to. It gives a few more improvement and a few 'to be done's.

Anyway, you seem to agree the 2007 constitution should be used as starting point. The Thai people voted for it, something they didn't get a chance to do in 1997.

[Just1Voice]

Read again, I wrote "all NLA members and all Cabinet members".

AS for NRC members, the NACC ruled on the 21st of October 2014 that NRC members did not need to declare their assets as they just did their academic job and had no conflict of interest.

Now of course if you want to tell me that NRC voting 'no' would be must better explained if they had needed to declare assets I'm really interested in your reasoning.

AS for fact, the current government is legitimate by law, in te eyes of the law. I'm sure especially lawyers would like that not to be as that would require lots of paperwork to 'redo'.

AS for fact, the current government is legitimate by law, in te eyes of the law.

So, by your reasoning, me and some of my friends can come into your house and just take over, doing whatever we want, and we would be "legal", right? Why not? That's what the Junta did.

[Jon Wetherall]

Read again, I wrote "all NLA members and all Cabinet members".

AS for NRC members, the NACC ruled on the 21st of October 2014 that NRC members did not need to declare their assets as they just did their academic job and had no conflict of interest.

Now of course if you want to tell me that NRC voting 'no' would be must better explained if they had needed to declare assets I'm really interested in your reasoning.

AS for fact, the current government is legitimate by law, in te eyes of the law. I'm sure especially lawyers would like that not to be as that would require lots of paperwork to 'redo'.

AS for fact, the current government is legitimate by law, in te eyes of the law.

So, by your reasoning, me and some of my friends can come into your house and just take over, doing whatever we want, and we would be "legal", right? Why not? That's what the Junta did.

Well not really, it would need your mates to all agree not to regard anything you do as a crime and start killing anyone who argued.

Then you'd be OK.

And quite by chance that's exactly what Mr P and his mates did. How odd. Fact stranger than fiction...

Edited September 7, 2015 by Jon Wetherall

[lildragon]

Read again, I wrote "all NLA members and all Cabinet members".

AS for NRC members, the NACC ruled on the 21st of October 2014 that NRC members did not need to declare their assets as they just did their academic job and had no conflict of interest.

Now of course if you want to tell me that NRC voting 'no' would be must better explained if they had needed to declare assets I'm really interested in your reasoning.

AS for fact, the current government is legitimate by law, in te eyes of the law. I'm sure especially lawyers would like that not to be as that would require lots of paperwork to 'redo'.

AS for fact, the current government is legitimate by law, in te eyes of the law.

So, by your reasoning, me and some of my friends can come into your house and just take over, doing whatever we want, and we would be "legal", right? Why not? That's what the Junta did.

Coups were illegal in the previous constitution no? So the junta did the coup and then just changed the rules to make it ok. That's alright in the eyes of the sycophants it seems.

[lvr181]

To be the "devils advocate" - who said democracy is the only or best way?

I am a democracy supporter in a country that has minimal corruption and those who get caught get jailed. But those conditions do not seem workable in Thailand at this time or indeed, in the recent past - vested interests etc.

Education and a crackdown on corruption as a starter would be on the right path to having a workable democracy in Thailand. Is this happening? Is this the time now for democracy? In my opinion NO. Democracy has failed in the past for many reasons, those need to be addressed and solved before trying yet again with a strong likelihood of further failure.

Singapore is a very wealthy country in a short period of time. What has Singapore done that Thailand could perhaps learn from? Can Thai leadership be capable of learning from Singapore, an adapting those lessons to Thailand?

Edited September 8, 2015 by lvr181

[phoenixdoglover]

"messed up" quotes removed

Many people on forums on the Internet feel it is sufficient to provide a link as a substitute for actually explaining their position by citing and summarizing evidence.

Some of us know that this is not an acceptable form of argument.

Here's an analogy to demonstrate why the assertion of, "you didn't read the link I provided, therefore my position is still valid" does not work in the real world.

The analogy: You have been given an assignment in school to write a "term paper" that must be supported by references and a bibliography. You compile a bibliography of 100 sources. You then write the term paper, which consists of a single paragraph of writing. At the bottom of the page, you cite all of your 100 sources. The teacher grades your paper and you receive an "F". You have failed to make a sufficient case for your point of view, and simply referring to sources that may or may not support your position is insufficient..

Edited September 8, 2015 by CharlieH

[heybruce]

To be the "devils advocate" - who said democracy is the only or best way?

I am a democracy supporter in a country that has minimal corruption and those who get caught get jailed. But those conditions do not seem workable in Thailand at this time or indeed, in the recent past - vested interests etc.

Education and a crackdown on corruption as a starter would be on the right path to having a workable democracy in Thailand. Is this happening? Is this the time now for democracy? In my opinion NO. Democracy has failed in the past for many reasons, those need to be addressed and solved before trying yet again with a strong likelihood of further failure.

Singapore is a very wealthy country in a short period of time. What has Singapore done that Thailand could perhaps learn from? Can Thai leadership be capable of learning from Singapore, an adapting those lessons to Thailand?

"Democracy has failed in the past for many reasons, those need to be addressed and solved..."

Democracy has failed in Thailand because the military can stage a coup with impunity. This needs to be addressed.

<<<< Off topic deflection comments removed >>>> Can you give an example of a military Article 44-ship genuinely fighting corruption, as opposed to restructuring it in the military's benefit?

Edited September 9, 2015 by metisdead

[krdowney]

So now what? Despite publicly stating he was for the Charter I wouldn't be surprised if this is what the PM really wanted, a furtherance of the status quo with him at the helm.

Well, if it wasn't what he wanted, the vote would not have stood....

[jerojero]

A bit of a surprise given they are all in political Office with tacit or direct approval of the PM 16 months ago!

[rubl]

Read again, I wrote "all NLA members and all Cabinet members".

AS for NRC members, the NACC ruled on the 21st of October 2014 that NRC members did not need to declare their assets as they just did their academic job and had no conflict of interest.

Now of course if you want to tell me that NRC voting 'no' would be must better explained if they had needed to declare assets I'm really interested in your reasoning.

AS for fact, the current government is legitimate by law, in te eyes of the law. I'm sure especially lawyers would like that not to be as that would require lots of paperwork to 'redo'.

AS for fact, the current government is legitimate by law, in te eyes of the law.

So, by your reasoning, me and some of my friends can come into your house and just take over, doing whatever we want, and we would be "legal", right? Why not? That's what the Junta did.

Give it a try, be my guest.

[rubl]

Read again, I wrote "all NLA members and all Cabinet members".

AS for NRC members, the NACC ruled on the 21st of October 2014 that NRC members did not need to declare their assets as they just did their academic job and had no conflict of interest.

Now of course if you want to tell me that NRC voting 'no' would be must better explained if they had needed to declare assets I'm really interested in your reasoning.

AS for fact, the current government is legitimate by law, in te eyes of the law. I'm sure especially lawyers would like that not to be as that would require lots of paperwork to 'redo'.

AS for fact, the current government is legitimate by law, in te eyes of the law.

So, by your reasoning, me and some of my friends can come into your house and just take over, doing whatever we want, and we would be "legal", right? Why not? That's what the Junta did.

Well not really, it would need your mates to all agree not to regard anything you do as a crime and start killing anyone who argued.

Then you'd be OK.

And quite by chance that's exactly what Mr P and his mates did. How odd. Fact stranger than fiction...

Well, the killing was by those who didn't like the anti-government protesters and that was before the coup.

How odd and strange that time line get so twisted.

BTW I feel real honoured by the attention I will get. Having my house invaded by a few foreigners who seem so 'democracy' minded. Must be part of the communist ideals of all equal and share.

Edited September 8, 2015 by rubl

[rubl]

Read again, I wrote "all NLA members and all Cabinet members".

AS for NRC members, the NACC ruled on the 21st of October 2014 that NRC members did not need to declare their assets as they just did their academic job and had no conflict of interest.

Now of course if you want to tell me that NRC voting 'no' would be must better explained if they had needed to declare assets I'm really interested in your reasoning.

AS for fact, the current government is legitimate by law, in te eyes of the law. I'm sure especially lawyers would like that not to be as that would require lots of paperwork to 'redo'.

AS for fact, the current government is legitimate by law, in te eyes of the law.

So, by your reasoning, me and some of my friends can come into your house and just take over, doing whatever we want, and we would be "legal", right? Why not? That's what the Junta did.

Coups were illegal in the previous constitution no? So the junta did the coup and then just changed the rules to make it ok. That's alright in the eyes of the sycophants it seems.

So, in your odd way you seem to label me as sycophant. Now I wonder what that has to do with me pointing out that one war or another the current government is legal. I'm not even getting into how it might relate to the topic.

If you think you are currently living under an illegal government, please arise you well-meaning foreigners and fight them. Go to the government offices and tell the chaps they are criminals, illegally holding positions, etc, etc. Tell your representative in your home country. Don't forget to mention you plan to invade the home of another foreigner here in Bangkok. You might need some legal support later on.

But that's enough of my worries, back to the topic with the NRC having voted 'no' to the draft charter.

[baboon]

Read again, I wrote "all NLA members and all Cabinet members".

AS for NRC members, the NACC ruled on the 21st of October 2014 that NRC members did not need to declare their assets as they just did their academic job and had no conflict of interest.

Now of course if you want to tell me that NRC voting 'no' would be must better explained if they had needed to declare assets I'm really interested in your reasoning.

AS for fact, the current government is legitimate by law, in te eyes of the law. I'm sure especially lawyers would like that not to be as that would require lots of paperwork to 'redo'.

AS for fact, the current government is legitimate by law, in te eyes of the law.

So, by your reasoning, me and some of my friends can come into your house and just take over, doing whatever we want, and we would be "legal", right? Why not? That's what the Junta did.

Coups were illegal in the previous constitution no? So the junta did the coup and then just changed the rules to make it ok. That's alright in the eyes of the sycophants it seems.

So, in your odd way you seem to label me as sycophant. Now I wonder what that has to do with me pointing out that one war or another the current government is legal. I'm not even getting into how it might relate to the topic.

If you think you are currently living under an illegal government, please arise you well-meaning foreigners and fight them. Go to the government offices and tell the chaps they are criminals, illegally holding positions, etc, etc. Tell your representative in your home country. Don't forget to mention you plan to invade the home of another foreigner here in Bangkok. You might need some legal support later on.

But that's enough of my worries, back to the topic with the NRC having voted 'no' to the draft charter.

I'm game. Which government offices do you suggest I attend in order to complain?

[lvr181]

To be the "devils advocate" - who said democracy is the only or best way?

I am a democracy supporter in a country that has minimal corruption and those who get caught get jailed. But those conditions do not seem workable in Thailand at this time or indeed, in the recent past - vested interests etc.

Education and a crackdown on corruption as a starter would be on the right path to having a workable democracy in Thailand. Is this happening? Is this the time now for democracy? In my opinion NO. Democracy has failed in the past for many reasons, those need to be addressed and solved before trying yet again with a strong likelihood of further failure.

Singapore is a very wealthy country in a short period of time. What has Singapore done that Thailand could perhaps learn from? Can Thai leadership be capable of learning from Singapore, an adapting those lessons to Thailand?

"Democracy has failed in the past for many reasons, those need to be addressed and solved..."

Democracy has failed in Thailand because the military can stage a coup with impunity. This needs to be addressed.

Check out recent news from Guatemala and Honduras and you'll find stories of people using free speech and democracy, two things lacking in Thailand, to fight corruption. Can you give an example of a military Article 44-ship genuinely fighting corruption, as opposed to restructuring it in the military's benefit?

I have no example of Article 44 genuinely fighting corruption but I do know that is one of the many issues that needs to be addressed. Certainly education and corruption had NOT been addressed under recent "democratic" governments. They failed on so many issues. So perhaps the current Government needs to be given a chance whether we like how they do it or not?

Education, education and more education can go a long way to solving many problems. And I don't mean buying the kids some form of electronic tablet because the only beneficiaries of that (financially) seem to be the providers of the equipment and all their friends and anyone else who could make a quick Baht in the supply and authorisation of the tablets. Wow, look what we did for education - NOT!

Frankly I get sick of hearing "democracy" is the only way - well it did not work very well in the past! There are some deep seated fundamental changes to be made in Thai society before democracy could be given a chance of working with some reasonable degree of success, that westerners expect of their societies.

Edit: Layout.

Edited September 9, 2015 by lvr181

[rubl]

AS for fact, the current government is legitimate by law, in te eyes of the law.

So, by your reasoning, me and some of my friends can come into your house and just take over, doing whatever we want, and we would be "legal", right? Why not? That's what the Junta did.

Coups were illegal in the previous constitution no? So the junta did the coup and then just changed the rules to make it ok. That's alright in the eyes of the sycophants it seems.

So, in your odd way you seem to label me as sycophant. Now I wonder what that has to do with me pointing out that one war or another the current government is legal. I'm not even getting into how it might relate to the topic.

If you think you are currently living under an illegal government, please arise you well-meaning foreigners and fight them. Go to the government offices and tell the chaps they are criminals, illegally holding positions, etc, etc. Tell your representative in your home country. Don't forget to mention you plan to invade the home of another foreigner here in Bangkok. You might need some legal support later on.

But that's enough of my worries, back to the topic with the NRC having voted 'no' to the draft charter.

I'm game. Which government offices do you suggest I attend in order to complain?

Who cares, ask Just1voice who started this absurd line of thoughts.