Pheu Thai party charges charter draft of intending to 'bonsai' the party

[Wilsonandson]

Let's hope this is the sword that cuts the head off this loathsome snake.

There again, "this loathsome snake" has won every election since 2001, and very likely remains the choice of the electorate when it comes to selecting a government. That they are not in power now, following a democratic electoral process, is because a minority movement benignly watched by the military (perhaps with their consent?) prevented that election, and allowed the military to justify imposing a junta government.

But hey, who cares what the people want... You certainly seem not to.

Time is running out for democracy in Thailand. The religion is being controlled and will be controlled soon. The politics is controlled and the other factor is under control. A miracle is needed to undo the damage and release the grip the military has. How can the people win? Will we see an arab spring like up-rising here, I doubt it. Seems to be over for democracy in Thailand.

[scorecard]

Let's hope this is the sword that cuts the head off this loathsome snake.

There again, "this loathsome snake" has won every election since 2001, and very likely remains the choice of the electorate when it comes to selecting a government. That they are not in power now, following a democratic electoral process, is because a minority movement benignly watched by the military (perhaps with their consent?) prevented that election, and allowed the military to justify imposing a junta government.

But hey, who cares what the people want... You certainly seem not to.

Are you vying for the 'cherry picking' prize of the century?

[JAG]

Let's hope this is the sword that cuts the head off this loathsome snake.

There again, "this loathsome snake" has won every election since 2001, and very likely remains the choice of the electorate when it comes to selecting a government. That they are not in power now, following a democratic electoral process, is because a minority movement benignly watched by the military (perhaps with their consent?) prevented that election, and allowed the military to justify imposing a junta government.

But hey, who cares what the people want... You certainly seem not to.

Are you vying for the 'cherry picking' prize of the century?

No, simple facts. They won every election since 2001. The 2014 election, entirely constitutional and you may recall called under a Royal Proclamation was prevented, whilst the Army stood by and watched. They then used the ensuing political stalemate (again you may recall those who had prevented the election were demanding that they should be allowed to appoint a government) as justification for staging a coup. That is what happened. Not cherry picking at all.

The election which was prevented was likely to have returned Pheu-Thai to government. That is open to debate because we don't know for certain, because a minority but well connected and well funded protest movement was allowed to prevent it.

[halloween]

Let's hope this is the sword that cuts the head off this loathsome snake.

There again, "this loathsome snake" has won every election since 2001, and very likely remains the choice of the electorate when it comes to selecting a government. That they are not in power now, following a democratic electoral process, is because a minority movement benignly watched by the military (perhaps with their consent?) prevented that election, and allowed the military to justify imposing a junta government.

But hey, who cares what the people want... You certainly seem not to.

Even if he "very likely remains the choice of the electorate" it matters little as he is a fugitive criminal. You seem to think that elections over-rule the laws of the land, and a rapacious criminal should be forgiven because he is popular, a very simplistic view of democracy. Would gang rape be acceptable to you because 9 out of 10 participants are in favour?

9 out of 10 rice farmers will vote for a government offering policy that would bankrupt the country (if allowed to continue) because they only see the short term gains. If they constitute a majority, should the rest of the country suffer deprivation until the short-sighted learn the cost of populism? If you were the dissenter in a gang rape, would you not protest?

Since when and where does being democratically elected give carte blanche to systematically and blatantly breaking the law?

[MZurf]

Let's hope this is the sword that cuts the head off this loathsome snake.

There again, "this loathsome snake" has won every election since 2001, and very likely remains the choice of the electorate when it comes to selecting a government. That they are not in power now, following a democratic electoral process, is because a minority movement benignly watched by the military (perhaps with their consent?) prevented that election, and allowed the military to justify imposing a junta government.

But hey, who cares what the people want... You certainly seem not to.

Even if he "very likely remains the choice of the electorate" it matters little as he is a fugitive criminal. You seem to think that elections over-rule the laws of the land, and a rapacious criminal should be forgiven because he is popular, a very simplistic view of democracy. Would gang rape be acceptable to you because 9 out of 10 participants are in favour?

9 out of 10 rice farmers will vote for a government offering policy that would bankrupt the country (if allowed to continue) because they only see the short term gains. If they constitute a majority, should the rest of the country suffer deprivation until the short-sighted learn the cost of populism? If you were the dissenter in a gang rape, would you not protest?

Since when and where does being democratically elected give carte blanche to systematically and blatantly breaking the law?

"Would gang rape be acceptable to you because 9 out of 10 participants are in favour? If you were the dissenter in a gang rape, would you not protest?"

What is it with you and rape??

"9 out of 10 rice farmers will vote for a government offering policy that would bankrupt the country (if allowed to continue) because they only see the short term gains. If they constitute a majority, should the rest of the country suffer deprivation until the short-sighted learn the cost of populism?"

In one word; yes. In a democracy there are elections that can rid the country of inept governments. Tell me what mechanisms are in place to rid the country of inept, authoritarian military strongmen?

Yes I know, I know. As you have stated earlier you don't care who's in power as long as it's not Thaksin.

"Since when and where does being democratically elected give carte blanche to systematically and blatantly breaking the law?"

It doesn't, but as usual you miss the point. The judiciary that should handle such situations, not the army.

[JAG]

Let's hope this is the sword that cuts the head off this loathsome snake.

There again, "this loathsome snake" has won every election since 2001, and very likely remains the choice of the electorate when it comes to selecting a government. That they are not in power now, following a democratic electoral process, is because a minority movement benignly watched by the military (perhaps with their consent?) prevented that election, and allowed the military to justify imposing a junta government.

But hey, who cares what the people want... You certainly seem not to.

Even if he "very likely remains the choice of the electorate" it matters little as he is a fugitive criminal. You seem to think that elections over-rule the laws of the land, and a rapacious criminal should be forgiven because he is popular, a very simplistic view of democracy. Would gang rape be acceptable to you because 9 out of 10 participants are in favour?

9 out of 10 rice farmers will vote for a government offering policy that would bankrupt the country (if allowed to continue) because they only see the short term gains. If they constitute a majority, should the rest of the country suffer deprivation until the short-sighted learn the cost of populism? If you were the dissenter in a gang rape, would you not protest?

Since when and where does being democratically elected give carte blanche to systematically and blatantly breaking the law?

"Would gang rape be acceptable to you because 9 out of 10 participants are in favour? If you were the dissenter in a gang rape, would you not protest?"

What is it with you and rape??

"9 out of 10 rice farmers will vote for a government offering policy that would bankrupt the country (if allowed to continue) because they only see the short term gains. If they constitute a majority, should the rest of the country suffer deprivation until the short-sighted learn the cost of populism?"

In one word; yes. In a democracy there are elections that can rid the country of inept governments. Tell me what mechanisms are in place to rid the country of inept, authoritarian military strongmen?

Yes I know, I know. As you have stated earlier you don't care who's in power as long as it's not Thaksin.

"Since when and where does being democratically elected give carte blanche to systematically and blatantly breaking the law?"

It doesn't, but as usual you miss the point. The judiciary that should handle such situations, not the army.

You're right, but let's take it further and say an independent, non partisan judiciary.

But then, for some nothing matters as long as Thaksin is not in power...

Edited February 23, 2016 by JAG

[halloween]

There again, "this loathsome snake" has won every election since 2001, and very likely remains the choice of the electorate when it comes to selecting a government. That they are not in power now, following a democratic electoral process, is because a minority movement benignly watched by the military (perhaps with their consent?) prevented that election, and allowed the military to justify imposing a junta government.

But hey, who cares what the people want... You certainly seem not to.

Even if he "very likely remains the choice of the electorate" it matters little as he is a fugitive criminal. You seem to think that elections over-rule the laws of the land, and a rapacious criminal should be forgiven because he is popular, a very simplistic view of democracy. Would gang rape be acceptable to you because 9 out of 10 participants are in favour?

9 out of 10 rice farmers will vote for a government offering policy that would bankrupt the country (if allowed to continue) because they only see the short term gains. If they constitute a majority, should the rest of the country suffer deprivation until the short-sighted learn the cost of populism? If you were the dissenter in a gang rape, would you not protest?

Since when and where does being democratically elected give carte blanche to systematically and blatantly breaking the law?

"Would gang rape be acceptable to you because 9 out of 10 participants are in favour? If you were the dissenter in a gang rape, would you not protest?"

What is it with you and rape??

"9 out of 10 rice farmers will vote for a government offering policy that would bankrupt the country (if allowed to continue) because they only see the short term gains. If they constitute a majority, should the rest of the country suffer deprivation until the short-sighted learn the cost of populism?"

In one word; yes. In a democracy there are elections that can rid the country of inept governments. Tell me what mechanisms are in place to rid the country of inept, authoritarian military strongmen?

Yes I know, I know. As you have stated earlier you don't care who's in power as long as it's not Thaksin.

"Since when and where does being democratically elected give carte blanche to systematically and blatantly breaking the law?"

It doesn't, but as usual you miss the point. The judiciary that should handle such situations, not the army.

What is it with you and avoiding questions?Surprisingly, many people here are not prepared to wait the decades, if not centuries, it will take for Thailand to morph into something resembling a real democracy, in the meantime allowing corrupt politicians to plunder THEIR national wealth. They are willing to accept some forced change (even though you deny it is happening) to speed the process.

Military governments here don't require forced removal, they willingly hand back the reins to elected governments, hoping for improvement from the previous criminals. Usually in vain.

I do like your sudden leap of faith to the judiciary. Just a tad hypocritical don't you think? But they find it hard to act with regulatory bodies being starved of funds and police firmly in the pockets of the politicians. Or are you suggesting that Tarit was the appropriate person to prosecute the criminals of the Yingluk government? He even changed the definition of perjury to protect the guilty.

Edited February 23, 2016 by halloween

[halloween]

You're right, but let's take it further and say an independent, non partisan judiciary.

But then, for some nothing matters as long as Thaksin is not in power...

Thaksin is the most blatantly corrupt person I have ever seen in public office. Given that view, what is hard to understand about not wanting him to have access to the public purse? do you ask a thief to hold your wallet?

[MZurf]

There again, "this loathsome snake" has won every election since 2001, and very likely remains the choice of the electorate when it comes to selecting a government. That they are not in power now, following a democratic electoral process, is because a minority movement benignly watched by the military (perhaps with their consent?) prevented that election, and allowed the military to justify imposing a junta government.

But hey, who cares what the people want... You certainly seem not to.

Even if he "very likely remains the choice of the electorate" it matters little as he is a fugitive criminal. You seem to think that elections over-rule the laws of the land, and a rapacious criminal should be forgiven because he is popular, a very simplistic view of democracy. Would gang rape be acceptable to you because 9 out of 10 participants are in favour?

9 out of 10 rice farmers will vote for a government offering policy that would bankrupt the country (if allowed to continue) because they only see the short term gains. If they constitute a majority, should the rest of the country suffer deprivation until the short-sighted learn the cost of populism? If you were the dissenter in a gang rape, would you not protest?

Since when and where does being democratically elected give carte blanche to systematically and blatantly breaking the law?

"Would gang rape be acceptable to you because 9 out of 10 participants are in favour? If you were the dissenter in a gang rape, would you not protest?"

What is it with you and rape??

"9 out of 10 rice farmers will vote for a government offering policy that would bankrupt the country (if allowed to continue) because they only see the short term gains. If they constitute a majority, should the rest of the country suffer deprivation until the short-sighted learn the cost of populism?"

In one word; yes. In a democracy there are elections that can rid the country of inept governments. Tell me what mechanisms are in place to rid the country of inept, authoritarian military strongmen?

Yes I know, I know. As you have stated earlier you don't care who's in power as long as it's not Thaksin.

"Since when and where does being democratically elected give carte blanche to systematically and blatantly breaking the law?"

It doesn't, but as usual you miss the point. The judiciary that should handle such situations, not the army.

What is it with you and avoiding questions?Surprisingly, many people here are not prepared to wait the decades, if not centuries, it will take for Thailand to morph into something resembling a real democracy, allowing corrupt politicians to plunder THEIR national wealth. They are willing to accept some forced change (even though you deny it is happening) to speed the process.

Military governments here don't require forced removal, they willingly hand back the reins to elected governments, hoping for improvement from the previous criminals. Usually in vain.

I do like your sudden leap of faith to the judiciary. Just a tad hypocritical don't you think? But they find it hard to act with regulatory bodies being starved of funds and police firmly in the pockets of the politicians. Or are you suggesting that Tarit was the appropriate person to prosecute the criminals of the Yingluk government? He even changed the definition of perjury to protect the guilty.

"They are willing to accept some forced change (even though you deny it is happening) to speed the process."

What change??? Please show me in which important areas (please don't mention the lottery) the junta has implemented meaningful change and I'll sing the little man's praise!

If this guy really want to improve Thailand then why hasn't he completely reformed the police, judiciary and the armed forces? Why is that, halloween?

"I do like your sudden leap of faith to the judiciary. "

I have no faith in the present judiciary at all. The point was that the judiciary is the right institution to handle such matter, not the military. Or have the 19 coups that brought absolutely no progress lead you to believe that this is the way to go?

[halloween]

What is it with you and avoiding questions?Surprisingly, many people here are not prepared to wait the decades, if not centuries, it will take for Thailand to morph into something resembling a real democracy, allowing corrupt politicians to plunder THEIR national wealth. They are willing to accept some forced change (even though you deny it is happening) to speed the process.

Military governments here don't require forced removal, they willingly hand back the reins to elected governments, hoping for improvement from the previous criminals. Usually in vain.

I do like your sudden leap of faith to the judiciary. Just a tad hypocritical don't you think? But they find it hard to act with regulatory bodies being starved of funds and police firmly in the pockets of the politicians. Or are you suggesting that Tarit was the appropriate person to prosecute the criminals of the Yingluk government? He even changed the definition of perjury to protect the guilty.

"They are willing to accept some forced change (even though you deny it is happening) to speed the process."

What change??? Please show me in which important areas (please don't mention the lottery) the junta has implemented meaningful change and I'll sing the little man's praise!

If this guy really want to improve Thailand then why hasn't he completely reformed the police, judiciary and the armed forces? Why is that, halloween?

"I do like your sudden leap of faith to the judiciary. "

I have no faith in the present judiciary at all. The point was that the judiciary is the right institution to handle such matter, not the military. Or have the 19 coups that brought absolutely no progress lead you to believe that this is the way to go?

I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about the CHANGES to be brought about by the new charter. Will they not change Thai democracy as PTP claims? Or are you merely trying to change the subject (again)?

But seeming as you asked, not every reform can be carried out instantly. I certainly see more corrupt police and army being prosecuted in the last few years than in the 10 before.

I understand your unwillingness to discuss the emasculation of regulatory bodies, and co-opting of police. What I find hard to grasp is how given that it was happening, how any improved judiciary would clean up the political mess.

[GarryP]

Why can't they just sever the ties between PTP and Taksin? If the people want to vote PTP and PTP wins the majority, they should be allowed to run the country. However, that right should be terminated if they are found to be operating on the instructions of a fugitive from the law. Make it obvious. Let them know that communications between Taksin and Thailand will be monitored, visits between party hacks and Taksin will be viewed as taking instructions from him, etc. Totally isolate him such that if he wants to communicate with Thailand he must come back and serve his time. Don't try to limit the power of political parties simply to prevent PTP getting a majority. That is plainly wrong. If it is possible to run the country through a single party as a result of a free and fair election then the voters choice should be respected.

[MZurf]

What is it with you and avoiding questions?Surprisingly, many people here are not prepared to wait the decades, if not centuries, it will take for Thailand to morph into something resembling a real democracy, allowing corrupt politicians to plunder THEIR national wealth. They are willing to accept some forced change (even though you deny it is happening) to speed the process.

Military governments here don't require forced removal, they willingly hand back the reins to elected governments, hoping for improvement from the previous criminals. Usually in vain.

I do like your sudden leap of faith to the judiciary. Just a tad hypocritical don't you think? But they find it hard to act with regulatory bodies being starved of funds and police firmly in the pockets of the politicians. Or are you suggesting that Tarit was the appropriate person to prosecute the criminals of the Yingluk government? He even changed the definition of perjury to protect the guilty.

"They are willing to accept some forced change (even though you deny it is happening) to speed the process."

What change??? Please show me in which important areas (please don't mention the lottery) the junta has implemented meaningful change and I'll sing the little man's praise!

If this guy really want to improve Thailand then why hasn't he completely reformed the police, judiciary and the armed forces? Why is that, halloween?

"I do like your sudden leap of faith to the judiciary. "

I have no faith in the present judiciary at all. The point was that the judiciary is the right institution to handle such matter, not the military. Or have the 19 coups that brought absolutely no progress lead you to believe that this is the way to go?

I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about the CHANGES to be brought about by the new charter. Will they not change Thai democracy as PTP claims? Or are you merely trying to change the subject (again)?

But seeming as you asked, not every reform can be carried out instantly. I certainly see more corrupt police and army being prosecuted in the last few years than in the 10 before.

I understand your unwillingness to discuss the emasculation of regulatory bodies, and co-opting of police. What I find hard to grasp is how given that it was happening, how any improved judiciary would clean up the political mess.

"I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about the CHANGES to be brought about by the new charter. Will they not change Thai democracy as PTP claims?"

Of course it will change "Thai democracy". It will change it by making it undemocratic, ensuring lame duck governments controlled by the old elite.

"...not every reform can be carried out instantly."

No, only the most pressing ones like the state lottery system. You do know that they have been in power for almost two years, right? And since reform of the police, judiciary and armed forces without a doubt are some of the most pressing challenges Thailand is facing why haven't anything meaningful been done?

" I certainly see more corrupt police and army being prosecuted in the last few years than in the 10 before."

win·dow dress·ing

noun

1. the arrangement of an attractive display in a shop window.

   • an adroit but superficial or actually misleading presentation of something, designed to create a favorable impression.

     "the government's effort has amounted to little more than window dressing"

[halloween]

I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about the CHANGES to be brought about by the new charter. Will they not change Thai democracy as PTP claims? Or are you merely trying to change the subject (again)?

But seeming as you asked, not every reform can be carried out instantly. I certainly see more corrupt police and army being prosecuted in the last few years than in the 10 before.

I understand your unwillingness to discuss the emasculation of regulatory bodies, and co-opting of police. What I find hard to grasp is how given that it was happening, how any improved judiciary would clean up the political mess.

"I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about the CHANGES to be brought about by the new charter. Will they not change Thai democracy as PTP claims?"

Of course it will change "Thai democracy". It will change it by making it undemocratic, ensuring lame duck governments controlled by the old elite.

"...not every reform can be carried out instantly."

No, only the most pressing ones like the state lottery system. You do know that they have been in power for almost two years, right? And since reform of the police, judiciary and armed forces without a doubt are some of the most pressing challenges Thailand is facing why haven't anything meaningful been done?

" I certainly see more corrupt police and army being prosecuted in the last few years than in the 10 before."

win·dow dress·ing

noun

1. the arrangement of an attractive display in a shop window.

   • an adroit but superficial or actually misleading presentation of something, designed to create a favorable impression.

     "the government's effort has amounted to little more than window dressing"

So no explanation of how the courts will effect change without assistance from police or starved regulatory bodies?

You are entitled to your view of the charter changes, however ignorant. Nice to see that we now agree that change is occurring.

BTW off topic, but if reform of the police and military is so pressing, why wasn't it attempted since, say, 2001? Isn't alleged window dressing better than denial?