Thai charter: Premier won't need to be an MP, drafters say

[Thai at Heart]

How will an appointed PM be able to enact any policies if they don't command a majority in the parliament?

[JAG]

How will an appointed PM be able to enact any policies if they don't command a majority in the parliament?

Piece of cake, since he will have invariably been effectively appointed by the military, they will suspend the constitution and dismiss the parliament, and he then rules"by decree" . I'm sure that there will be some "interim charter" produced at the drop of a (gold braided) hat which will justify it.

It is the way ahead.

Edited November 11, 2015 by JAG

[candide]

It seems extremely naive to me to avoid raising some questions. Why this insistence of the Junta related charter drafters to put every time the unelected PM in the charter? Why would it be impossible, even in time of crisis to find one among hundreds of MPs? Relatedly,what could be the profession of this guy that would make him unlikely to be an elected MP.

Of course, as usual, who will decide there is a crisis? Let's guess: some appointed committee maybe?

[englishoak]

It'll be as successful as all the others.

They really dont have a clue what to do other than regurgitate the same failed meddling ideas over and over to retain some semblance of normality only to have a coup and toss it out again a few years later.

Face it, whatever is rammed through eventually will be a complete shambles and wont last a decade before theres yet another "necessary" coup and protect the people from themselves... yawn....

[khunken]

Of course, there is nothing wrong with MPs accepting payments to vote to order, happens everywhere. Nor is there a problem with parties offering uncosted electoral bribes, allowing criminals access to cabinet meetings, nominating those facing serious charges and notoriously corrupt politicians tp party list seats.

Myopia is thinking anybody is suggesting the current government is the final result. The changes in progress are to select the next democratic government.

Have you never heard of the whipping system?

I have never suggested that the form of democracy in Thailand was ideal - far from it.But compared to the current nightmare it is so much more preferable.

And if you believe that the current government has a "reform" agenda that is going to result in a democratic system acceptable to all Thais and consistent with international standards, that is an interesting point of view.Actually it is somewhat pitiable because it reveals an abysmal ignorance - possibly just denial - of what is shaping behind the scenes and beyond the scope of this forum.

No constitution or electoral system is going to be acceptable to all Thais but they will have a chance to accept it or not. Nor does it have to conform to 'international standards' because there aren't any.

What is pitiable is that you have to resort to accusing others of not knowing what is 'shaping behind the scenes' - a cowardly way of avoiding discussion based on what's out in the open.

I don't like the latest system of voting but I do think the focus on an unelected PM (not a million miles from a party-list PM) is just an excuse for junta-bashing.

It's clear you simply don't grasp the issues here relating to the appointment of a non elected PM.If you are suggesting that Yingluck as a party list member is more or less the same as a non elected PM that verges on the absurd - because it avoids the reality that the people of Thailand voted in a government of which they knew Yingluck would be the leader.Slightly different from having some stooge of the elites thrust into office without legitimacy or accountability.

And as for cowardice on my part don't be a jerk.It's difficult enough to attempt a rational political discussion on this forum without breaking the rules or bothering the mods.Some things just can't be discussed here.

Once again the arrogance comes to through as it always does in your posts.

I grasp issues a lot better than you judging by your post as I said that there is not much (but there is some) difference between a party list that was constructed not by the party but by one self-exiled criminal. You use the 'stooge of the elites' which Yingluck was to a tee - different elites to your pet version.

Yes it is difficult to have a rational discussion here especially when you accuse others of not knowing what is going on behind the scenes, you are patronising those who don't agree with you and using your knowall attitude to put down other posters.

I'm not suggesting that you break the rules but leave out the arrogance.

Edited November 11, 2015 by khunken

[jayboy]

Of course, there is nothing wrong with MPs accepting payments to vote to order, happens everywhere. Nor is there a problem with parties offering uncosted electoral bribes, allowing criminals access to cabinet meetings, nominating those facing serious charges and notoriously corrupt politicians tp party list seats.

Myopia is thinking anybody is suggesting the current government is the final result. The changes in progress are to select the next democratic government.

Have you never heard of the whipping system?

I have never suggested that the form of democracy in Thailand was ideal - far from it.But compared to the current nightmare it is so much more preferable.

And if you believe that the current government has a "reform" agenda that is going to result in a democratic system acceptable to all Thais and consistent with international standards, that is an interesting point of view.Actually it is somewhat pitiable because it reveals an abysmal ignorance - possibly just denial - of what is shaping behind the scenes and beyond the scope of this forum.

No constitution or electoral system is going to be acceptable to all Thais but they will have a chance to accept it or not. Nor does it have to conform to 'international standards' because there aren't any.

What is pitiable is that you have to resort to accusing others of not knowing what is 'shaping behind the scenes' - a cowardly way of avoiding discussion based on what's out in the open.

I don't like the latest system of voting but I do think the focus on an unelected PM (not a million miles from a party-list PM) is just an excuse for junta-bashing.

It's clear you simply don't grasp the issues here relating to the appointment of a non elected PM.If you are suggesting that Yingluck as a party list member is more or less the same as a non elected PM that verges on the absurd - because it avoids the reality that the people of Thailand voted in a government of which they knew Yingluck would be the leader.Slightly different from having some stooge of the elites thrust into office without legitimacy or accountability.

And as for cowardice on my part don't be a jerk.It's difficult enough to attempt a rational political discussion on this forum without breaking the rules or bothering the mods.Some things just can't be discussed here.

Once again the arrogance comes to through as it always does in your posts.

I grasp issues a lot better than you judging by your post as I said that there is not much (but there is some) difference between a party list that was constructed not by the party but by one self-exiled criminal. You use the 'stooge of the elites' which Yingluck was to a tee - different elites to your pet version.

Yes it is difficult to have a rational discussion here especially when you accuse others of not knowing what is going on behind the scenes, you are patronising those who don't agree with you and using your knowall attitude to put down other posters.

I'm not suggesting that you break the rules but leave out the arrogance.

What we agree on is that there is much that cannot be discussed on this forum.You may conceivably have some simple understanding of this deeper background but your lightweight and unstructured posts do nothing to demonstrate this.

As for elites it is true that Yingluck was largely an agent of her brother and her party,and she remains by some considerable distance the most popular politician in the country.Notwithstanding her weaknesses, her leadership was legitimate and democratically endorsed by the Thai people.It is rather an important distinction to be made between her and those who have seized power by force.

[Wilsonandson]

Of course, there is nothing wrong with MPs accepting payments to vote to order, happens everywhere. Nor is there a problem with parties offering uncosted electoral bribes, allowing criminals access to cabinet meetings, nominating those facing serious charges and notoriously corrupt politicians tp party list seats.

Myopia is thinking anybody is suggesting the current government is the final result. The changes in progress are to select the next democratic government.

Have you never heard of the whipping system?

I have never suggested that the form of democracy in Thailand was ideal - far from it.But compared to the current nightmare it is so much more preferable.

And if you believe that the current government has a "reform" agenda that is going to result in a democratic system acceptable to all Thais and consistent with international standards, that is an interesting point of view.Actually it is somewhat pitiable because it reveals an abysmal ignorance - possibly just denial - of what is shaping behind the scenes and beyond the scope of this forum.

No constitution or electoral system is going to be acceptable to all Thais but they will have a chance to accept it or not. Nor does it have to conform to 'international standards' because there aren't any.

What is pitiable is that you have to resort to accusing others of not knowing what is 'shaping behind the scenes' - a cowardly way of avoiding discussion based on what's out in the open.

I don't like the latest system of voting but I do think the focus on an unelected PM (not a million miles from a party-list PM) is just an excuse for junta-bashing.

It's clear you simply don't grasp the issues here relating to the appointment of a non elected PM.If you are suggesting that Yingluck as a party list member is more or less the same as a non elected PM that verges on the absurd - because it avoids the reality that the people of Thailand voted in a government of which they knew Yingluck would be the leader.Slightly different from having some stooge of the elites thrust into office without legitimacy or accountability.

And as for cowardice on my part don't be a jerk.It's difficult enough to attempt a rational political discussion on this forum without breaking the rules or bothering the mods.Some things just can't be discussed here.

Once again the arrogance comes to through as it always does in your posts.

I grasp issues a lot better than you judging by your post as I said that there is not much (but there is some) difference between a party list that was constructed not by the party but by one self-exiled criminal. You use the 'stooge of the elites' which Yingluck was to a tee - different elites to your pet version.

Yes it is difficult to have a rational discussion here especially when you accuse others of not knowing what is going on behind the scenes, you are patronising those who don't agree with you and using your knowall attitude to put down other posters.

I'm not suggesting that you break the rules but leave out the arrogance.

What we agree on is that there is much that cannot be discussed on this forum.You may conceivably have some simple understanding of this deeper background but your lightweight and unstructured posts do nothing to demonstrate this.

As for elites it is true that Yingluck was largely an agent of her brother and her party,and she remains by some considerable distance the most popular politician in the country.Notwithstanding her weaknesses, her leadership was legitimate and democratically endorsed by the Thai people.It is rather an important distinction to be made between her and those who have seized power by force.

Weaknesses? Explain in more detail pls.

[khunken]

Of course, there is nothing wrong with MPs accepting payments to vote to order, happens everywhere. Nor is there a problem with parties offering uncosted electoral bribes, allowing criminals access to cabinet meetings, nominating those facing serious charges and notoriously corrupt politicians tp party list seats.

Myopia is thinking anybody is suggesting the current government is the final result. The changes in progress are to select the next democratic government.

Have you never heard of the whipping system?

I have never suggested that the form of democracy in Thailand was ideal - far from it.But compared to the current nightmare it is so much more preferable.

And if you believe that the current government has a "reform" agenda that is going to result in a democratic system acceptable to all Thais and consistent with international standards, that is an interesting point of view.Actually it is somewhat pitiable because it reveals an abysmal ignorance - possibly just denial - of what is shaping behind the scenes and beyond the scope of this forum.

No constitution or electoral system is going to be acceptable to all Thais but they will have a chance to accept it or not. Nor does it have to conform to 'international standards' because there aren't any.

What is pitiable is that you have to resort to accusing others of not knowing what is 'shaping behind the scenes' - a cowardly way of avoiding discussion based on what's out in the open.

I don't like the latest system of voting but I do think the focus on an unelected PM (not a million miles from a party-list PM) is just an excuse for junta-bashing.

It's clear you simply don't grasp the issues here relating to the appointment of a non elected PM.If you are suggesting that Yingluck as a party list member is more or less the same as a non elected PM that verges on the absurd - because it avoids the reality that the people of Thailand voted in a government of which they knew Yingluck would be the leader.Slightly different from having some stooge of the elites thrust into office without legitimacy or accountability.

And as for cowardice on my part don't be a jerk.It's difficult enough to attempt a rational political discussion on this forum without breaking the rules or bothering the mods.Some things just can't be discussed here.

Once again the arrogance comes to through as it always does in your posts.

I grasp issues a lot better than you judging by your post as I said that there is not much (but there is some) difference between a party list that was constructed not by the party but by one self-exiled criminal. You use the 'stooge of the elites' which Yingluck was to a tee - different elites to your pet version.

Yes it is difficult to have a rational discussion here especially when you accuse others of not knowing what is going on behind the scenes, you are patronising those who don't agree with you and using your knowall attitude to put down other posters.

I'm not suggesting that you break the rules but leave out the arrogance.

What we agree on is that there is much that cannot be discussed on this forum.You may conceivably have some simple understanding of this deeper background but your lightweight and unstructured posts do nothing to demonstrate this.

As for elites it is true that Yingluck was largely an agent of her brother and her party,and she remains by some considerable distance the most popular politician in the country.Notwithstanding her weaknesses, her leadership was legitimate and democratically endorsed by the Thai people.It is rather an important distinction to be made between her and those who have seized power by force.

'Simple understanding, lightweight & unstructured'. What arrogance which you appear not to be able to control. You also don't seem to be able to answer points from other posters without shooting the messenger.

Whether Yingluck is still the 'most popular' is not factual just as your assertion that a constitution is acceptable to all Thais and must conform to unknown 'international standards'. Yinglucks election was similar to the Hong Kong & Iranian selection by a top down system & never had any input by her party which had to toe the big boss's line. Calling that democracy is typical of your false understanding of the term.

[tbthailand]

That system produced a government chosen by the people. Opposition to some policies resulted in them calling an election, which would allow the people to pass their judgement. The system then failed because that election failed due to a minority, tolerated ( encouraged?) by the military and the others within the establishment, using thuggish tactics to prevent voting. Instead of ensuring that the election happened the military staged a coup and installed themselves as a government. There are no real signs (intentions?) Of returning to a democratically chosen government.

That is how it could be worse.

No it didn't. The system produced a government, chosen by the people, who sold out their integrity to a criminal. The spark that created the mass opposition and protests was the ill contrived attempt to cheat a amnesty whitewash bill through parliament so said criminal could return, free of his conviction, sentence, bail jumping, 15+ outstanding court cases and anything that might come to light. His family, friends and lackey would also have been granted whitewashes.

The Shins thought they could fool the people, manipulate the system, ignore laws ad infinitum. They found out they couldn't.

The worse scenario would be Thaksin back, whitewashed and free to build his Lee / Hun Set style autocracy with Shins dominating all facets of public life, government and making sure all businesses paid them a patronage. A one party state, enjoying the sort of democratic elections associated with Zimbabwe and Cambodia, the red militia under his appointed leaders punishing any dissidents or opponents while the Shins got even more staggeringly wealthy at the expense of the country. Lies would be used to spread only good news, any other comment would be subject to threats, law suits, intimidation and outright violence.

The Shins, their red militia and the BiB in league and in control - a much worse scenario. They'd make Marcos look like an amateur.

pure denial that the people knowingly elected the government which they wanted.

Thaksin was not hiding his influence, nor was Yingluck. So, yes, the system produced a government chosen by the people.

Come on, face reality.

[tbthailand]

Isn't this the same system which the sly Suchinda used to become PM in 1991? And look what happened there a few months later. (And let's not forget after the dust had settled from Black May that the military vowed there would never be another coup. !!!!!!)

I think raising this topic again is a deliberate attempt to batter the people into submission, to tire them out, to back them continually into a corner with this concept until finally they shout "Enough!", you win, can we please move on.

it's also how Prem was "PM" for nearly a decade.

This measure seems to be critical to the elites. On one hand, they want to push the anti-democratic neutering of any elected government as far as possible without being accused of becoming Burma, and on the other hand, if the new measures to control elected governments are insufficient, as was the case with the 2007 military constitution, then they want to be able to put their own man into the driver's seat.

The generals have already shown in 2008 that it is easier to twist the arms of MPs than it is to get their proxy party elected.

[jayboy]

Yeah, right. There was nothing wrong with the electoral system that elected Yingluk, no need for improvement. You think the suggested changes presage disaster, while others ask "how could it be worse?"

All electoral systems are capable of being improved and to that extent democracy is always work in progress .However the election system that Thailand enjoyed and which resulted in Yingluck being able to form a government was fair and reasonable, and recognised as such by both domestic and international informed opinion.

For this reason Thailand had a government under Yingluck which was legitimate in every sense giving the country international respect and status.The contrast with the current government is rather striking.

The chief problem of the Thailand electoral system for the old elites is that the wrong party keeps on winning.Hence the need to direct the courts,launch military coups, rig the constitution and above all prevent the Thai people from exercising their full democratic rights.

To suggest that what faces the country now is somehow better than before requires myopia of the first order.The situation is of course infinitely worse and recent events suggest we are on a hellish path.God knows how it will be resolved.

But one thing is certain.It will all be much more painful for the feudalists, the military gangsters, the complacent Sino Thai middle class and the entrenched capitalists all of whom have fought against democracy than it would have been if they had even a glimmer of enlightened self interest.

You are either joking or deluding yourself. No country believed Yingluck was anything other than a puppet for her brother. International respect and status - more like a mixture of laughing stock and concern about where the corruption would end.

Yingluck did nothing about anything - other than be a pretty for her brothers gang.

Yes, things don't look good for the future. There needs to be massive changes in society, the justice system, and those at the top, including the Shin, don't want to give up their places in the elite strata. Fighting for the spoils is fine, but only among themselves. Actually doing something to break that model isn't happening.

The Shins are not, never will be, interested in democracy, law, justice or a fair society. Just another bunch of gangsters made good on the plight of others.

I am sure foreign governments fully understood Yingluck was a leader in the Shinawatra fold.Nevertheless the respect and welcome she received reflected the fact she was democratically legitimate.A leader does not for example receive a personal audience with the Queen of England or Obama unless her credentials are impeccable.

If you want an international laughing stock look no further than Thailand's current leader, needy and desperate for the recognition that came easily to the democratically elected Yingluck - but often reduced to hovering in the background picking his nose.

I actually tend to agree with you that Thaksin used democracy rather than honouring it much.Nevertheless he substantially improved the lives of millions of Thais and earned their respect.You may loathe him and frankly I don't like him that much.But it's ultimately an area where the views of Thais are more important than ours - if they are ever allowed to express them freely.

[jayboy]

Of course, there is nothing wrong with MPs accepting payments to vote to order, happens everywhere. Nor is there a problem with parties offering uncosted electoral bribes, allowing criminals access to cabinet meetings, nominating those facing serious charges and notoriously corrupt politicians tp party list seats.

Myopia is thinking anybody is suggesting the current government is the final result. The changes in progress are to select the next democratic government.

Have you never heard of the whipping system?

I have never suggested that the form of democracy in Thailand was ideal - far from it.But compared to the current nightmare it is so much more preferable.

And if you believe that the current government has a "reform" agenda that is going to result in a democratic system acceptable to all Thais and consistent with international standards, that is an interesting point of view.Actually it is somewhat pitiable because it reveals an abysmal ignorance - possibly just denial - of what is shaping behind the scenes and beyond the scope of this forum.

No constitution or electoral system is going to be acceptable to all Thais but they will have a chance to accept it or not. Nor does it have to conform to 'international standards' because there aren't any.

What is pitiable is that you have to resort to accusing others of not knowing what is 'shaping behind the scenes' - a cowardly way of avoiding discussion based on what's out in the open.

I don't like the latest system of voting but I do think the focus on an unelected PM (not a million miles from a party-list PM) is just an excuse for junta-bashing.

It's clear you simply don't grasp the issues here relating to the appointment of a non elected PM.If you are suggesting that Yingluck as a party list member is more or less the same as a non elected PM that verges on the absurd - because it avoids the reality that the people of Thailand voted in a government of which they knew Yingluck would be the leader.Slightly different from having some stooge of the elites thrust into office without legitimacy or accountability.

And as for cowardice on my part don't be a jerk.It's difficult enough to attempt a rational political discussion on this forum without breaking the rules or bothering the mods.Some things just can't be discussed here.

Once again the arrogance comes to through as it always does in your posts.

I grasp issues a lot better than you judging by your post as I said that there is not much (but there is some) difference between a party list that was constructed not by the party but by one self-exiled criminal. You use the 'stooge of the elites' which Yingluck was to a tee - different elites to your pet version.

Yes it is difficult to have a rational discussion here especially when you accuse others of not knowing what is going on behind the scenes, you are patronising those who don't agree with you and using your knowall attitude to put down other posters.

I'm not suggesting that you break the rules but leave out the arrogance.

What we agree on is that there is much that cannot be discussed on this forum.You may conceivably have some simple understanding of this deeper background but your lightweight and unstructured posts do nothing to demonstrate this.

As for elites it is true that Yingluck was largely an agent of her brother and her party,and she remains by some considerable distance the most popular politician in the country.Notwithstanding her weaknesses, her leadership was legitimate and democratically endorsed by the Thai people.It is rather an important distinction to be made between her and those who have seized power by force.

'Simple understanding, lightweight & unstructured'. What arrogance which you appear not to be able to control. You also don't seem to be able to answer points from other posters without shooting the messenger.

Whether Yingluck is still the 'most popular' is not factual just as your assertion that a constitution is acceptable to all Thais and must conform to unknown 'international standards'. Yinglucks election was similar to the Hong Kong & Iranian selection by a top down system & never had any input by her party which had to toe the big boss's line. Calling that democracy is typical of your false understanding of the term.

If you wish to avoid the lightweight label it is necessary for you but to be a little less glib, a little less prejudiced,a little more articulate and a great deal better informed.

On Yingluck's current popularity clearly that is a value judgement.You continue to compare Yingluck's democratic government to that of Iran - so with all due respect I submit you may still have some work to do on the issues covered in my first paragraph.

[khunken]

Of course, there is nothing wrong with MPs accepting payments to vote to order, happens everywhere. Nor is there a problem with parties offering uncosted electoral bribes, allowing criminals access to cabinet meetings, nominating those facing serious charges and notoriously corrupt politicians tp party list seats.

Myopia is thinking anybody is suggesting the current government is the final result. The changes in progress are to select the next democratic government.

Have you never heard of the whipping system?

I have never suggested that the form of democracy in Thailand was ideal - far from it.But compared to the current nightmare it is so much more preferable.

And if you believe that the current government has a "reform" agenda that is going to result in a democratic system acceptable to all Thais and consistent with international standards, that is an interesting point of view.Actually it is somewhat pitiable because it reveals an abysmal ignorance - possibly just denial - of what is shaping behind the scenes and beyond the scope of this forum.

No constitution or electoral system is going to be acceptable to all Thais but they will have a chance to accept it or not. Nor does it have to conform to 'international standards' because there aren't any.

What is pitiable is that you have to resort to accusing others of not knowing what is 'shaping behind the scenes' - a cowardly way of avoiding discussion based on what's out in the open.

I don't like the latest system of voting but I do think the focus on an unelected PM (not a million miles from a party-list PM) is just an excuse for junta-bashing.

It's clear you simply don't grasp the issues here relating to the appointment of a non elected PM.If you are suggesting that Yingluck as a party list member is more or less the same as a non elected PM that verges on the absurd - because it avoids the reality that the people of Thailand voted in a government of which they knew Yingluck would be the leader.Slightly different from having some stooge of the elites thrust into office without legitimacy or accountability.

And as for cowardice on my part don't be a jerk.It's difficult enough to attempt a rational political discussion on this forum without breaking the rules or bothering the mods.Some things just can't be discussed here.

Once again the arrogance comes to through as it always does in your posts.

I grasp issues a lot better than you judging by your post as I said that there is not much (but there is some) difference between a party list that was constructed not by the party but by one self-exiled criminal. You use the 'stooge of the elites' which Yingluck was to a tee - different elites to your pet version.

Yes it is difficult to have a rational discussion here especially when you accuse others of not knowing what is going on behind the scenes, you are patronising those who don't agree with you and using your knowall attitude to put down other posters.

I'm not suggesting that you break the rules but leave out the arrogance.

What we agree on is that there is much that cannot be discussed on this forum.You may conceivably have some simple understanding of this deeper background but your lightweight and unstructured posts do nothing to demonstrate this.

As for elites it is true that Yingluck was largely an agent of her brother and her party,and she remains by some considerable distance the most popular politician in the country.Notwithstanding her weaknesses, her leadership was legitimate and democratically endorsed by the Thai people.It is rather an important distinction to be made between her and those who have seized power by force.

'Simple understanding, lightweight & unstructured'. What arrogance which you appear not to be able to control. You also don't seem to be able to answer points from other posters without shooting the messenger.

Whether Yingluck is still the 'most popular' is not factual just as your assertion that a constitution is acceptable to all Thais and must conform to unknown 'international standards'. Yinglucks election was similar to the Hong Kong & Iranian selection by a top down system & never had any input by her party which had to toe the big boss's line. Calling that democracy is typical of your false understanding of the term.

If you wish to avoid the lightweight label it is necessary for you but to be a little less glib, a little less prejudiced,a little more articulate and a great deal better informed.

On Yingluck's current popularity clearly that is a value judgement.You continue to compare Yingluck's democratic government to that of Iran - so with all due respect I submit you may still have some work to do on the issues covered in my first paragraph.

More of the same sh+t, different day. I have no intention of avoiding anything that you say or attempt to put words in my mouth as I seem to be dealing with a self-important featherweight. You need to brush up on honesty with your pretence of 'I don't like Thaksin, but...'.

Actually this is the first time I've compared Yingluck's selection with Iran & HK too & probably won't be the last. The un-democratic PTP and all it's predecessors never cared a toss for any rules set out in the constitution & were always very lax with taxpayers' money.

That's my contribution to this thread ended. You can have the last word of more disinformation if you want.

[sawadee1947]

so the door is always wide open for the army?!! Congrats. That's it what Thailand will need? Peace in sight? Never ever!

[tbthailand]

For this reason Thailand had a government under Yingluck which was legitimate in every sense giving the country international respect and status.The contrast with the current government is rather striking.

The chief problem of the Thailand electoral system for the old elites is that the wrong party keeps on winning.Hence the need to direct the courts,launch military coups, rig the constitution and above all prevent the Thai people from exercising their full democratic rights.

To suggest that what faces the country now is somehow better than before requires myopia of the first order.The situation is of course infinitely worse and recent events suggest we are on a hellish path.God knows how it will be resolved.

But one thing is certain.It will all be much more painful for the feudalists, the military gangsters, the complacent Sino Thai middle class and the entrenched capitalists all of whom have fought against democracy than it would have been if they had even a glimmer of enlightened self interest.

You are either joking or deluding yourself. No country believed Yingluck was anything other than a puppet for her brother. International respect and status - more like a mixture of laughing stock and concern about where the corruption would end.

Yingluck did nothing about anything - other than be a pretty for her brothers gang.

Yes, things don't look good for the future. There needs to be massive changes in society, the justice system, and those at the top, including the Shin, don't want to give up their places in the elite strata. Fighting for the spoils is fine, but only among themselves. Actually doing something to break that model isn't happening.

The Shins are not, never will be, interested in democracy, law, justice or a fair society. Just another bunch of gangsters made good on the plight of others.

I am sure foreign governments fully understood Yingluck was a leader in the Shinawatra fold.Nevertheless the respect and welcome she received reflected the fact she was democratically legitimate.A leader does not for example receive a personal audience with the Queen of England or Obama unless her credentials are impeccable.

If you want an international laughing stock look no further than Thailand's current leader, needy and desperate for the recognition that came easily to the democratically elected Yingluck - but often reduced to hovering in the background picking his nose.

I actually tend to agree with you that Thaksin used democracy rather than honouring it much.Nevertheless he substantially improved the lives of millions of Thais and earned their respect.You may loathe him and frankly I don't like him that much.But it's ultimately an area where the views of Thais are more important than ours - if they are ever allowed to express them freely.

I agree with you that Thaksin used rather than honored/embraced/defended democracy in Thailand. And he was clearly lacking in integrity just as his royalist, elite peers and enemies are lacking in integrity and corrupt to the bone as well.

I suspect that many supporters of Yingluck like her more than Thaksin - that's my impression, not a scientific poll result like the Thai Happiness Master Poll, or anything... And it is even possible that she has more integrity than her brother.

BB talks about the need to have "massive change" at the top, but of course, the current trajectory is down the same path as the last 70 years and is anything but "massive change"...