Meechai says NCPO has demanded more than just non-elected Senate

[webfact]

Meechai says NCPO has demanded more than just non-elected Senate



BANGKOK: -- The National Council for Peace and Order has proposed more than just a non-elected Senate to be incorporated in the charter draft, Constitution Drafting Committee chairman Meechai Ruchupan said Monday.

He, however, declined to elaborate the other proposals besides the completely selected Senate. He said that the CDC spokesman would give more details about the NCPO’s proposals at the next press conference.

Mr Meechai disclosed that he had already received the proposals from NCPO which was signed by General Thirachai Narkvanich in his capacity as the NCPO secretary-general.

The proposals are contained in a 4-5-page report from the recent meeting of the “four rivers” which include the NCPO, the government, the National Legislative Assembly and the National Reform Steering Assembly.

Mr Meechai said the NCPO’s proposals are not confidential and their details would be unveiled to the public by the CDC spokesman.

Asked whether the NCPO’s proposals amount to demands that the CDC will have to accept without questioning, the CDC chairman merely said that they carry weight because they came from people who are responsible for running the country.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/content/155033


-- Thai PBS 2016-03-15

[thesetat2013]

And is this a surprise? The more non elected people in government, the more chance to keep it under tight control by the Junta or P or other group. This is no different than what every leader has done placing hard core red shirts in all of the key positions in the ministries, police, and watchdog groups.

[NongKhaiKid]

' What we have we hold ' and have every intention of doing so.

The PM and his cohorts talk about reconciliation, working together, obeying the law and on and on, all of course for the benefit of the country.

What they forget to say is that none of this applies to them.

[canuckamuck]

Doing what they can to ensure the citizens are kept without a voice. Unless they have enough money to talk for them.

[ChrisY1]

Methinks K. Meechai' days are numbered......

[ramrod711]

Doing what they can to ensure the citizens are kept without a voice. Unless they have enough money to talk for them.

An unelected Senate? What kind of a democracy is that? Why, in Canada............oh, wait a minute, unelected, friends of political parties, filled with useless fossils that rarely attend and ex hockey players. Now that's a Senate the world should aspire to.

[smedly]

it has been proven time and time again that governments in Thailand cannot be left to their own devices and to do what is expected of them and until they get the idea that democracy is not about total power abuse theiving and control then this seems to be the only answer for now, remember the senate will not be running the country, they will be their to make sure the government is acting in the interests of the people and providing some checks and balances, I see absolutly nothing wrong with that considering the antics of the last elected government

[smutcakes]

And is this a surprise? The more non elected people in government, the more chance to keep it under tight control by the Junta or P or other group. This is no different than what every leader has done placing hard core red shirts in all of the key positions in the ministries, police, and watchdog groups.

Of course its the same, it has been with every Govt in Thai history. Yet the CC deemed when YS did it that she be removed from office.

I presume you will be expecting the CC to agressively persue the NCPO for a similar offence? afterall this is reformed Thailand right? right......

[Tatsujin]

Reconciliation is off the table then and been given up on, now they're just filling all the positions with their own people, much like Thaksin tried to do previously and was called out on it.

No one learns anything, or changes, or compromises, or puts the good of the people/nation first, just themselves.

Same <deleted>, different day.

[smutcakes]

Reconciliation is off the table then and been given up on, now they're just filling all the positions with their own people, much like Thaksin tried to do previously and was called out on it.

No one learns anything, or changes, or compromises, or puts the good of the people/nation first, just themselves.

Same <deleted>, different day.

And you are suprised?

Seems the only people who thought it would be any different were the self proclaimed 'educated' PDRC supporters. It appears they were not as bright as they thought, not that that comes as any suprise either.

I presume most of the rank and file genuine PDRC people who believed the BS were actually duped into believeing their leaders wanted reform- when all along there was never any wish for reform, they have now gotten what they wanted. Power back into their good and greats hands to proceed with their good corruption, nepotism etc etc

[smedly]

Reconciliation is off the table then and been given up on, now they're just filling all the positions with their own people, much like Thaksin tried to do previously and was called out on it.

No one learns anything, or changes, or compromises, or puts the good of the people/nation first, just themselves.

Same <deleted>, different day.

gotta laugh at that one, reconciliation was a word dreamed up by Thaksin and pumped hard, what it actually meant was "my amnesty" which turned out to be a colossal backfire, I laugh again

[smedly]

remember the senate will not be running the country, they will be their to make sure the government is acting in the interests of the people and providing some checks and balances, I see absolutly nothing wrong with that considering the antics of the last elected government

The Senate is not the government

[smutcakes]

remember the senate will not be running the country, they will be their to make sure the government is acting in the interests of the people and providing some checks and balances, I see absolutly nothing wrong with that considering the antics of the last elected government

The Senate is not the government

On paper yes, but giving them powers to override the Government essentially means that the most powerful civilian body in the country is not one chosen by the people, but one chosen by a small select group of people.

Surely people elected by the people of the country who are all supposed to have equal right to the country and its resources should be in the position to select who Governs them.

Who will keep checks on those appointed to be on the Senate? Say the elected Govt tried to make sweeping changes to the Governance/transparency of the armed forces or the RTP, would having 100 extremely wealthy armed forces members who have ongoing interest in maintainin the positioning of the armed forces in society be trsut worthy enough to not intervene or veto it? This is just an example, but i think for anyone the answer would be clear.

They are essentially their to oversee reform? Is it likely genuine reform of the police, army, judiciary, the key required areas of reform can be carried out properly by a Government if the appointed Senate who can override the Government is loaded with persons from those functions?

[Tatsujin]

Reconciliation is off the table then and been given up on, now they're just filling all the positions with their own people, much like Thaksin tried to do previously and was called out on it.

No one learns anything, or changes, or compromises, or puts the good of the people/nation first, just themselves.

Same <deleted>, different day.

And you are suprised?

Seems the only people who thought it would be any different were the self proclaimed 'educated' PDRC supporters. It appears they were not as bright as they thought, not that that comes as any suprise either.

I presume most of the rank and file genuine PDRC people who believed the BS were actually duped into believeing their leaders wanted reform- when all along there was never any wish for reform, they have now gotten what they wanted. Power back into their good and greats hands to proceed with their good corruption, nepotism etc etc

Not surprised, just continually disappointed at the dogs breakfast they are continually repeating here.

[canuckamuck]

Doing what they can to ensure the citizens are kept without a voice. Unless they have enough money to talk for them.

An unelected Senate? What kind of a democracy is that? Why, in Canada............oh, wait a minute, unelected, friends of political parties, filled with useless fossils that rarely attend and ex hockey players. Now that's a Senate the world should aspire to.

I am a long time proponent of having an elected senate in Canada. There was plenty of support for this in the west, but the east didn't want to lose its rubber, stamping, patronage, trough. Many things wrong with the Canadian system, but that is not what is being discussed here.

[heybruce]

it has been proven time and time again that governments in Thailand cannot be left to their own devices and to do what is expected of them and until they get the idea that democracy is not about total power abuse theiving and control then this seems to be the only answer for now, remember the senate will not be running the country, they will be their to make sure the government is acting in the interests of the people and providing some checks and balances, I see absolutly nothing wrong with that considering the antics of the last elected government

smedly is in persistent denial of the obvious: The military is thoroughly corrupt, it can't write a democratic constitution, it won't allow democracy to mature, it routinely overthrows democratic governments whenever it suits the powers in Bangkok. It has been proven time and again that coups and military rule does not lead to stable democracy or any kind of competent government.

There are no quick fixes to corruption. It can take decades of democracy uninterrupted by military coups before people feel secure enough about democratic rule to demand an end to corruption. This is what's happening in Brazil, Guatemala, and Honduras now. However corrupt military rulers never eliminate corruption, they only defend their power and privilege.

[jayboy]

it has been proven time and time again that governments in Thailand cannot be left to their own devices and to do what is expected of them and until they get the idea that democracy is not about total power abuse theiving and control then this seems to be the only answer for now, remember the senate will not be running the country, they will be their to make sure the government is acting in the interests of the people and providing some checks and balances, I see absolutly nothing wrong with that considering the antics of the last elected government

But how do you envisage a non elected Senate will be chosen and by whom? As matters stand the predominant influence will be the feudal/ military/corporate elites that have arguably been at least as responsible as Thaksin for bringing the country to its ruinous state through their pig headedness and greed.

How on earth can these unelected discredited groups be responsible for making sure the government is acting in the interests of the people? Why not trust the Thai People to decide for themselves?

I have no objection to a partly appointed Senate and equally no objection to its challenging or temporarily blocking legislation.But it must ultimately be subordinate to the elected lower house.

[jayboy]

Oddly enough the former foreign minister Kasit seems to share my view.

http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20160310-ASIA-300-TAKING-A-PLUNGE/Viewpoints/Kasit-Piromya-Thai-conservatives-quest-for-power-courts-chaos?n_cid=NARAN012

[chainarong]

The Junta is on track for a totalitarian state, something we knew or some of us did , would happen...........................................

[brucec64]

Doing what they can to ensure the citizens are kept without a voice. Unless they have enough money to talk for them.

An unelected Senate? What kind of a democracy is that? Why, in Canada............oh, wait a minute, unelected, friends of political parties, filled with useless fossils that rarely attend and ex hockey players. Now that's a Senate the world should aspire to.

I am a long time proponent of having an elected senate in Canada. There was plenty of support for this in the west, but the east didn't want to lose its rubber, stamping, patronage, trough. Many things wrong with the Canadian system, but that is not what is being discussed here.

The Canadian system could be improved, but it is actually a true indirectly elected senate. Senate members are not elected, but they are appointed by the elected government. What Thailand is selling as "indirectly elected" is false because even the permanent senate proposed by Meechai is senators appointed by unelected groups. The fact that some of these groups may "elect" the senator is irrelevant because the professional groups are not elected by the people.

[smedly]

all of this raises a question that few here seem to understand -

Why have a senate, you have an elected government why is the senate even necessary

and like I said above - the senate is not the government, they don't make policy - they don't run the country, for me it is a mute point, I believe there should be a senate probably more so in Thailand than anywhere else considering how past governments have behaved

[smutcakes]

all of this raises a question that few here seem to understand -

Why have a senate, you have an elected government why is the senate even necessary

and like I said above - the senate is not the government, they don't make policy - they don't run the country, for me it is a mute point, I believe there should be a senate probably more so in Thailand than anywhere else considering how past governments have behaved

I don’t think anyone is saying there should not be a Senate, but having a handpicked Senate full of cronies of the current Government is not a practical or sustainable solution, as large amounts of them have already been serving in the current set up and its wide range of ‘bodies’, and seemingly nothing has been done, and nothing has improved, and no reform has been carried out, no increase transparency or reduction of cronyism/nepotism has occured so at the very least they have proved themselves incompetent. And that is before you even tried to dive deeper into their personal financial affairs…..

I think in practical terms having at least a partially appointed Senate is a good idea, as long as those appointed are being done so by groups of professional bodies, rather than the Civil sector picking among their own. In a country like Thailand this again creates issues as so many people in higher society in charge of professional bodies etc are politicized through family links, professional links etc etc.

This leaves the last version a fully elected Senate which no doubt would be prone to abuse. But like with politician elections just go this way. Eventually when they screw up the public pressure will reach a level when real change has to be made. Until the country makes big mistakes, suffers the consequences of the mistakes and through people power, there will repercussions for those persons, there is no better way to go IMO.

If they could find neutral, forward thinking, rational, YOUNGER people to be appointed to the Senate, I would 100% agree it is a good idea. Unfortunately they do not look for, or don’t want this, they just wheel out their mates and associates again and again, then full election should be the only way to go.

[smedly]

all of this raises a question that few here seem to understand -

Why have a senate, you have an elected government why is the senate even necessary

and like I said above - the senate is not the government, they don't make policy - they don't run the country, for me it is a mute point, I believe there should be a senate probably more so in Thailand than anywhere else considering how past governments have behaved

I don’t think anyone is saying there should not be a Senate, but having a handpicked Senate full of cronies of the current Government is not a practical or sustainable solution, as large amounts of them have already been serving in the current set up and its wide range of ‘bodies’, and seemingly nothing has been done, and nothing has improved, and no reform has been carried out, no increase transparency or reduction of cronyism/nepotism has occured so at the very least they have proved themselves incompetent. And that is before you even tried to dive deeper into their personal financial affairs…..

I think in practical terms having at least a partially appointed Senate is a good idea, as long as those appointed are being done so by groups of professional bodies, rather than the Civil sector picking among their own. In a country like Thailand this again creates issues as so many people in higher society in charge of professional bodies etc are politicized through family links, professional links etc etc.

This leaves the last version a fully elected Senate which no doubt would be prone to abuse. But like with politician elections just go this way. Eventually when they screw up the public pressure will reach a level when real change has to be made. Until the country makes big mistakes, suffers the consequences of the mistakes and through people power, there will repercussions for those persons, there is no better way to go IMO.

If they could find neutral, forward thinking, rational, YOUNGER people to be appointed to the Senate, I would 100% agree it is a good idea. Unfortunately they do not look for, or don’t want this, they just wheel out their mates and associates again and again, then full election should be the only way to go.

good post but remember this is Thailand and their past political history is less that perfect, you only have to look at some of the people that have held office here and the stuff they have done, I don't support the army stepping in as they do but I also think the alternative would be significantly worse, Thailand has been on the brink several times in these last few years, it's not hard to imagine how that could have turned out when you look at what is going on in other countries right now throughout the world, humans are generally self destructive and evil, greed and power holds no bounds

As for the senate - the point I'm making is - what difference does it make at the end of the day, if the elected government behaves and doesn't attempt to push through amnesties for criminals or try and get rid of agencies that are there to combat corruption or try to amend the constitution in such a way that it thwarts checks and balances etc and runs the country properly with the peoples interest in mind as it is supposed to - what does it matter, the only people that lose are those that have ill intent which for me is a good thing no matter how you look at it, I honestly don't see what the issue is

[smutcakes]

all of this raises a question that few here seem to understand -

Why have a senate, you have an elected government why is the senate even necessary

and like I said above - the senate is not the government, they don't make policy - they don't run the country, for me it is a mute point, I believe there should be a senate probably more so in Thailand than anywhere else considering how past governments have behaved

I don’t think anyone is saying there should not be a Senate, but having a handpicked Senate full of cronies of the current Government is not a practical or sustainable solution, as large amounts of them have already been serving in the current set up and its wide range of ‘bodies’, and seemingly nothing has been done, and nothing has improved, and no reform has been carried out, no increase transparency or reduction of cronyism/nepotism has occured so at the very least they have proved themselves incompetent. And that is before you even tried to dive deeper into their personal financial affairs…..

I think in practical terms having at least a partially appointed Senate is a good idea, as long as those appointed are being done so by groups of professional bodies, rather than the Civil sector picking among their own. In a country like Thailand this again creates issues as so many people in higher society in charge of professional bodies etc are politicized through family links, professional links etc etc.

This leaves the last version a fully elected Senate which no doubt would be prone to abuse. But like with politician elections just go this way. Eventually when they screw up the public pressure will reach a level when real change has to be made. Until the country makes big mistakes, suffers the consequences of the mistakes and through people power, there will repercussions for those persons, there is no better way to go IMO.

If they could find neutral, forward thinking, rational, YOUNGER people to be appointed to the Senate, I would 100% agree it is a good idea. Unfortunately they do not look for, or don’t want this, they just wheel out their mates and associates again and again, then full election should be the only way to go.

good post but remember this is Thailand and their past political history is less that perfect, you only have to look at some of the people that have held office here and the stuff they have done, I don't support the army stepping in as they do but I also think the alternative would be significantly worse, Thailand has been on the brink several times in these last few years, it's not hard to imagine how that could have turned out when you look at what is going on in other countries right now throughout the world, humans are generally self destructive and evil, greed and power holds no bounds

As for the senate - the point I'm making is - what difference does it make at the end of the day, if the elected government behaves and doesn't attempt to push through amnesties for criminals or try and get rid of agencies that are there to combat corruption or try to amend the constitution in such a way that it thwarts checks and balances etc and runs the country properly with the peoples interest in mind as it is supposed to - what does it matter, the only people that lose are those that have ill intent which for me is a good thing no matter how you look at it, I honestly don't see what the issue is

My response if i was Thai would be, well i don’t want X.Y or Z to be on the Senate. I would like to select my representatives or indeed why can I as a Thai citizen not apply to be on the Senate. Why are these people privileged to the point that they are simply selected, by other non-elected people to sit on a board with massive sweeping powers over the people I elected to make the decisions. Why as a Thai citizen who all apparently have the same rights in the country can i not be on the Senate?

For me it would be the principle more than anything. I don’t trust the army to be neutral and do the best for the country, i don’t trust their intentions, they have proved time and time again to be incompetent, and questionable in many other areas.

If these appointed Senators are so honorable i would accept they be in the Senate on the condition they undergo a complete financial audit by an international auditor where they be compelled to provide all financial information- should anything be found irregular they agree to 10 years imprisonment for themselves and confiscation of all family assets. This would go for the persons appointing the Senators as well. Lets see how many of these people would still put their hands up to be Senators then.

I and I expect many Thais would be open to that level of scrutiny and conditions. if they did it like that then i really would believe that having a clean Senate would have an upper hand and the trust of the populace. If I was then on the Senate, I would try and make the same scrutiny of the armed forces, police, judiciary, DSI, NACC personnel etc. See how long any MP/Senator would last if they tried to do that. But at least there might be some support from the populace. That would be a start in rooting out the corruption and discouraging the corrupt from attempting to be in power.

[heybruce]

all of this raises a question that few here seem to understand -

Why have a senate, you have an elected government why is the senate even necessary

and like I said above - the senate is not the government, they don't make policy - they don't run the country, for me it is a mute point, I believe there should be a senate probably more so in Thailand than anywhere else considering how past governments have behaved

I don’t think anyone is saying there should not be a Senate, but having a handpicked Senate full of cronies of the current Government is not a practical or sustainable solution, as large amounts of them have already been serving in the current set up and its wide range of ‘bodies’, and seemingly nothing has been done, and nothing has improved, and no reform has been carried out, no increase transparency or reduction of cronyism/nepotism has occured so at the very least they have proved themselves incompetent. And that is before you even tried to dive deeper into their personal financial affairs…..

I think in practical terms having at least a partially appointed Senate is a good idea, as long as those appointed are being done so by groups of professional bodies, rather than the Civil sector picking among their own. In a country like Thailand this again creates issues as so many people in higher society in charge of professional bodies etc are politicized through family links, professional links etc etc.

This leaves the last version a fully elected Senate which no doubt would be prone to abuse. But like with politician elections just go this way. Eventually when they screw up the public pressure will reach a level when real change has to be made. Until the country makes big mistakes, suffers the consequences of the mistakes and through people power, there will repercussions for those persons, there is no better way to go IMO.

If they could find neutral, forward thinking, rational, YOUNGER people to be appointed to the Senate, I would 100% agree it is a good idea. Unfortunately they do not look for, or don’t want this, they just wheel out their mates and associates again and again, then full election should be the only way to go.

good post but remember this is Thailand and their past political history is less that perfect, you only have to look at some of the people that have held office here and the stuff they have done, I don't support the army stepping in as they do but I also think the alternative would be significantly worse, Thailand has been on the brink several times in these last few years, it's not hard to imagine how that could have turned out when you look at what is going on in other countries right now throughout the world, humans are generally self destructive and evil, greed and power holds no bounds

As for the senate - the point I'm making is - what difference does it make at the end of the day, if the elected government behaves and doesn't attempt to push through amnesties for criminals or try and get rid of agencies that are there to combat corruption or try to amend the constitution in such a way that it thwarts checks and balances etc and runs the country properly with the peoples interest in mind as it is supposed to - what does it matter, the only people that lose are those that have ill intent which for me is a good thing no matter how you look at it, I honestly don't see what the issue is

"if the elected government behaves and doesn't attempt to push through amnesties for criminals"

What gives a bunch of unelected appointees the right to decide what constitutes proper behavior for an elected government? The voters get to do that during elections, or the courts do it if illegal acts are involved.

What if the elected government campaigned on a promise to revoke amnesties for coup leaders and won convincingly? What if this elected government not only revoked the amnesties for the coup leaders but then charged them with treason? That's how it would work in a normal democracy.

One of the functions of the appointed Senate is to protect the military from checks and balances. Too bad, it would do democracy in Thailand a world of good if an elected government could demonstrate to the military that it can no longer stage coups with impunity.

[smedly]

all of this raises a question that few here seem to understand -

Why have a senate, you have an elected government why is the senate even necessary

and like I said above - the senate is not the government, they don't make policy - they don't run the country, for me it is a mute point, I believe there should be a senate probably more so in Thailand than anywhere else considering how past governments have behaved

I don’t think anyone is saying there should not be a Senate, but having a handpicked Senate full of cronies of the current Government is not a practical or sustainable solution, as large amounts of them have already been serving in the current set up and its wide range of ‘bodies’, and seemingly nothing has been done, and nothing has improved, and no reform has been carried out, no increase transparency or reduction of cronyism/nepotism has occured so at the very least they have proved themselves incompetent. And that is before you even tried to dive deeper into their personal financial affairs…..

I think in practical terms having at least a partially appointed Senate is a good idea, as long as those appointed are being done so by groups of professional bodies, rather than the Civil sector picking among their own. In a country like Thailand this again creates issues as so many people in higher society in charge of professional bodies etc are politicized through family links, professional links etc etc.

This leaves the last version a fully elected Senate which no doubt would be prone to abuse. But like with politician elections just go this way. Eventually when they screw up the public pressure will reach a level when real change has to be made. Until the country makes big mistakes, suffers the consequences of the mistakes and through people power, there will repercussions for those persons, there is no better way to go IMO.

If they could find neutral, forward thinking, rational, YOUNGER people to be appointed to the Senate, I would 100% agree it is a good idea. Unfortunately they do not look for, or don’t want this, they just wheel out their mates and associates again and again, then full election should be the only way to go.

good post but remember this is Thailand and their past political history is less that perfect, you only have to look at some of the people that have held office here and the stuff they have done, I don't support the army stepping in as they do but I also think the alternative would be significantly worse, Thailand has been on the brink several times in these last few years, it's not hard to imagine how that could have turned out when you look at what is going on in other countries right now throughout the world, humans are generally self destructive and evil, greed and power holds no bounds

As for the senate - the point I'm making is - what difference does it make at the end of the day, if the elected government behaves and doesn't attempt to push through amnesties for criminals or try and get rid of agencies that are there to combat corruption or try to amend the constitution in such a way that it thwarts checks and balances etc and runs the country properly with the peoples interest in mind as it is supposed to - what does it matter, the only people that lose are those that have ill intent which for me is a good thing no matter how you look at it, I honestly don't see what the issue is

"if the elected government behaves and doesn't attempt to push through amnesties for criminals"

What gives a bunch of unelected appointees the right to decide what constitutes proper behavior for an elected government? The voters get to do that during elections, or the courts do it if illegal acts are involved.

What if the elected government campaigned on a promise to revoke amnesties for coup leaders and won convincingly? What if this elected government not only revoked the amnesties for the coup leaders but then charged them with treason? That's how it would work in a normal democracy.

One of the functions of the appointed Senate is to protect the military from checks and balances. Too bad, it would do democracy in Thailand a world of good if an elected government could demonstrate to the military that it can no longer stage coups with impunity.

in your opinion

[heybruce]

I don’t think anyone is saying there should not be a Senate, but having a handpicked Senate full of cronies of the current Government is not a practical or sustainable solution, as large amounts of them have already been serving in the current set up and its wide range of ‘bodies’, and seemingly nothing has been done, and nothing has improved, and no reform has been carried out, no increase transparency or reduction of cronyism/nepotism has occured so at the very least they have proved themselves incompetent. And that is before you even tried to dive deeper into their personal financial affairs…..

I think in practical terms having at least a partially appointed Senate is a good idea, as long as those appointed are being done so by groups of professional bodies, rather than the Civil sector picking among their own. In a country like Thailand this again creates issues as so many people in higher society in charge of professional bodies etc are politicized through family links, professional links etc etc.

This leaves the last version a fully elected Senate which no doubt would be prone to abuse. But like with politician elections just go this way. Eventually when they screw up the public pressure will reach a level when real change has to be made. Until the country makes big mistakes, suffers the consequences of the mistakes and through people power, there will repercussions for those persons, there is no better way to go IMO.

If they could find neutral, forward thinking, rational, YOUNGER people to be appointed to the Senate, I would 100% agree it is a good idea. Unfortunately they do not look for, or don’t want this, they just wheel out their mates and associates again and again, then full election should be the only way to go.

good post but remember this is Thailand and their past political history is less that perfect, you only have to look at some of the people that have held office here and the stuff they have done, I don't support the army stepping in as they do but I also think the alternative would be significantly worse, Thailand has been on the brink several times in these last few years, it's not hard to imagine how that could have turned out when you look at what is going on in other countries right now throughout the world, humans are generally self destructive and evil, greed and power holds no bounds

As for the senate - the point I'm making is - what difference does it make at the end of the day, if the elected government behaves and doesn't attempt to push through amnesties for criminals or try and get rid of agencies that are there to combat corruption or try to amend the constitution in such a way that it thwarts checks and balances etc and runs the country properly with the peoples interest in mind as it is supposed to - what does it matter, the only people that lose are those that have ill intent which for me is a good thing no matter how you look at it, I honestly don't see what the issue is

"if the elected government behaves and doesn't attempt to push through amnesties for criminals"

What gives a bunch of unelected appointees the right to decide what constitutes proper behavior for an elected government? The voters get to do that during elections, or the courts do it if illegal acts are involved.

What if the elected government campaigned on a promise to revoke amnesties for coup leaders and won convincingly? What if this elected government not only revoked the amnesties for the coup leaders but then charged them with treason? That's how it would work in a normal democracy.

One of the functions of the appointed Senate is to protect the military from checks and balances. Too bad, it would do democracy in Thailand a world of good if an elected government could demonstrate to the military that it can no longer stage coups with impunity.

in your opinion

Very astute observation. Yes, in my opinion democracy is better than military rule, and staging a coup against an elected government is...I can't get specific or the post will be deleted and my posting privileges suspended again. We're not allowed to be honest here. Of course censorship is one of the characteristics of military rule that junta enthusiasts insist is no big deal.

Clearly in your opinion military rule, even rule by a corrupt, self-serving military such as this one, is better than democracy.

[smedly]

good post but remember this is Thailand and their past political history is less that perfect, you only have to look at some of the people that have held office here and the stuff they have done, I don't support the army stepping in as they do but I also think the alternative would be significantly worse, Thailand has been on the brink several times in these last few years, it's not hard to imagine how that could have turned out when you look at what is going on in other countries right now throughout the world, humans are generally self destructive and evil, greed and power holds no bounds

As for the senate - the point I'm making is - what difference does it make at the end of the day, if the elected government behaves and doesn't attempt to push through amnesties for criminals or try and get rid of agencies that are there to combat corruption or try to amend the constitution in such a way that it thwarts checks and balances etc and runs the country properly with the peoples interest in mind as it is supposed to - what does it matter, the only people that lose are those that have ill intent which for me is a good thing no matter how you look at it, I honestly don't see what the issue is

"if the elected government behaves and doesn't attempt to push through amnesties for criminals"

What gives a bunch of unelected appointees the right to decide what constitutes proper behavior for an elected government? The voters get to do that during elections, or the courts do it if illegal acts are involved.

What if the elected government campaigned on a promise to revoke amnesties for coup leaders and won convincingly? What if this elected government not only revoked the amnesties for the coup leaders but then charged them with treason? That's how it would work in a normal democracy.

One of the functions of the appointed Senate is to protect the military from checks and balances. Too bad, it would do democracy in Thailand a world of good if an elected government could demonstrate to the military that it can no longer stage coups with impunity.

in your opinion

Very astute observation. Yes, in my opinion democracy is better than military rule, and staging a coup against an elected government is...I can't get specific or the post will be deleted and my posting privileges suspended again. We're not allowed to be honest here. Of course censorship is one of the characteristics of military rule that junta enthusiasts insist is no big deal.

Clearly in your opinion military rule, even rule by a corrupt, self-serving military such as this one, is better than democracy.

That is not my opinion at all and if you actually read any on my posts you would know that, I am no junta enthusiast but I have also seen how so called democracy has not worked here time and time again with rotten governments causing people justifiably to take to the streets because of their power abuse - we all know how it works

A properly written constitution and enforcement of law would go a long way to solving the issues, it is clear that Thai (in fact all)governments need a very strict well understood framework to work within and powerful agencies in place to deal with them when they abuse, it is actually no different in the west, The US constitution started with a few smart men writing rules for all to follow - it was not done from within a democracy but helped set the framework for one to develope, it was written on the backend of wars and severe civil conflict, although not perfect there was a genuine enthusiasm for all to develop and make it work.

The abuse here is on many fronts and they all need dealt with, no elected government has ever made any attempt to address it (and no previous constitution has ever been written properly to effectively stamp it out) simply because they are enriching themselves, the Thai system is rotten to the core simply because the framework has never been written properly to address it, and everyone with a brain can see that, it needed to change, is Prayuth the man to do it - only time will tell, neither you or me knows how this will turn out, I am willing to give it a chance because I see no alternative except conflict and I am certain that there are evil people that would like to see a civil war here and have already made several attempts to start one.

Certain Thai people believe that winning an election gives the ultimate power to do as they like, I have heard this many times and is fundamentally flawed, the ultimate power is not the government - it is the constitution (all the people) - the framework that it provides along with laws and social structure.

Certain people are claiming this constitution is not democratic - my interpretation of that statement is - this constitution doesn't allow us to have ultimate power to abuse and forces the elected government to work within a framework of rules.......well here's the rub, THAT IS EXACTLY HOW IT SHOULD BE

[docshock13]

Oddly enough the former foreign minister Kasit seems to share my view.

http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20160310-ASIA-300-TAKING-A-PLUNGE/Viewpoints/Kasit-Piromya-Thai-conservatives-quest-for-power-courts-chaos?n_cid=NARAN012

Fantastic article. Thx for the link. The author sums up the situation (and recent political history of Thailand (since the abdication)) clearly and succinctly. I particularly liked how he explained how the current PTB, came to enjoy their position and status over last the near century. Great read!

[metisdead]

An insulting post has been removed as well as the replies. You have every right to express your opinion about the topic, you may disagree, but it must be done in a civil manner.