Thaksin warns on democracy, economy in New Year message

[scorecard]

Well actually the junta did justify the coup pointing at the escalating violence, the shooting and grenade lobbing at anyone non-'pro-cone government'.

Of course the 'command a country from afar' is just the type of democracy any politician should carry close to his heart

The main instigators were those aligned with the military and who supported a coup.

Please have some semblance of moral integrity and recognize the instigation for what it was: An engineered justification for the overthrow of a democratically elected government and the suppression of habeas corpus and fundamental human rights. And before you offer up a dj jamie type of excuse, please note that the position of the EU.

'moral integrity', 'fundamental human rights', 'the position of the EU', how does that work g'kid?

Edited April 9, 2016 by scorecard

[MZurf]

"Thank goodness the recipe is not being well received by the Thai public anymore. Unless one refers to elections years ago to gauge his popularity."

How about verifying your assumption by holding elections?

I will wait for an answer but am 99 percent sure it will be in vain.

If the election process is run in the same manner as before, in that political parties can make crude and outrageous election promises that don't have to be explained, like for example saying, "ok, vote for us and we'll increase your monthly salary by 10,000 baht", then i think there is every chance you would get your wish of having a Shinawatra affiliated party in power.

This was the sort of technique that was employed with success at the last election, with promises concerning tablets, wages and other things were made, clearly without much thought if any as to actual implementation. Previously we had similarly ridiculous promises like solving the Bangkok traffic problem in six months. Of course the argument that gets made in favour of allowing this sort of practice, (that is much more tightly controlled in more advanced democracies where election promises do need to be more thoroughly explained) is that if a party doesn't live up to their campaign promises, they simply get voted out at the next election.

Unfortunately this doesn't necessarily work, at least not here, because in the interim four years between elections, a party can stack the cards in their favour, with little tricks like the controlling of the media, the dishing out personal amnesties, the placing of carefully selected people in to high ranking positions at organisations that should be serving as a check and balance on power, and the squashing of opposition with such tricks as million baht law-suits handed out left, right and centre... all of which can leave the country after four years effectively as a one party state, voters with no real choice, and with power deeply entrenched. This model of getting into power and then holding on to it has been seen successfully replicated in certain so called democratic countries many times. Cambodia and the Philippines are two such examples. Without military intervention over the last fifteen years, Thailand would have been another.

And when you throw into the mix the fact that, even without the above underhand tactics to contend with, the Democrats, who are no saints themselves and who are the only real current opposition, couldn't run a bath, much less a political campaign, another Shinawatra election victory seems to me to be a high possibility. Who else is there at this moment in time to fill in the power vacuum if and when the military step back? Nobody.

"This model of getting into power and then holding on to it has been seen successfully replicated in certain so called democratic countries many times. Cambodia and the Philippines are two such examples. Without military intervention over the last fifteen years, Thailand would have been another."

And just what is Thailand today? It's run by a military junta with an army strongman at the helm. The word to describe such a regime begins with a "D" but forum rules prevents me from spelling it out for you. So I guess you prefer that?

BTW, funny you should mention those two countries. Cambodia is run by a former military officer and the country is pretty much a basket case. The Philippines on the other hand have a military that stays in the barracks and is in a much, much better position.

[candide]

Thaksin must be friends with Pravit Rojanaphruk. If you want the anti junta stuff then just browse the two English language Thai news media outlets Khaosod and Prachatai.

I could be wrong though. Anyone else see a pattern emerging or am I the only one. Just saying, I'm all for press freedom as long as it is neutral and not bias.

Media don't need to be neutral as long as there is enough diversity of media with different opinions. What is more important is the reliability of information on which opinions are build.

Anyway, in the context of current Junta-related news, it seems difficult to find much positive opinion to express about it.

[Wilsonandson]

Thaksin must be friends with Pravit Rojanaphruk. If you want the anti junta stuff then just browse the two English language Thai news media outlets Khaosod and Prachatai.

I could be wrong though. Anyone else see a pattern emerging or am I the only one. Just saying, I'm all for press freedom as long as it is neutral and not bias.

Curiousity got the better of me, so after a bit of research I found this article very interesting.

http://nsnbc.me/2015/09/15/thailand-lobbyists-posing-as-journalists-endanger-true-journalism/

Interesting as Pravit went to Finland recently, this week in fact on an all expences paid trip.

History repeating itself again.

[candide]

Thaksin must be friends with Pravit Rojanaphruk. If you want the anti junta stuff then just browse the two English language Thai news media outlets Khaosod and Prachatai.

I could be wrong though. Anyone else see a pattern emerging or am I the only one. Just saying, I'm all for press freedom as long as it is neutral and not bias.

Curiousity got the better of me, so after a bit of research I found this article very interesting.

http://nsnbc.me/2015/09/15/thailand-lobbyists-posing-as-journalists-endanger-true-journalism/

Interesting as Pravit went to Finland recently, this week in fact on an all expences paid trip.

History repeating itself again.

Even if the information on which this article may be accurate (no idea, any reliable source confirming that pratchatai is financed by the US?), this article is an excellent example of "non-neutrality".

Tony Cartalucci is a known one-sided anti-thaksin, pro-junta, anti-US and NATO, pro- Russia and China, and anti-foreign NGO. He himself shows the same lack of neutrality that he reproaches Pravit.

Just one quote:"Thailand would benefit greatly by introducing legislation similar to that recently introduced in Russia forcing foreign-funded NGOs to disclose publicly and often their funding."

Anyway, as I said, he is quite welcome to express his opinion as long as contradicting opinions are also expressed in other media, and as long as the information and facts used are accurate (but I cannot check it).

[metisdead]

From the OP:

BANGKOK: -- Politicians must love their people or risk the extinction of democracy, Thailand's fugitive former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra told a gathering of supporters on Thursday, warning that Thais face tough times because of a weak economy.

In recent months, Thaksin, who was ousted by the army in 2006, has been increasingly vocal in his criticism of the ruling military government.

"Those in politics must love people. If they don't love people, democracy will die," Thaksin said in a Skype telephone address to the gathering to mark the Thai New Year that starts next week. He did not elaborate on his remarks, however.

This topic is about the current political situation in Thailand, it is not about Thaksin's war on drugs,off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[Siripon]

Thaksin and Newin recommended Issan switch to planting rubber trees, it takes 7 years before any return on capital can be tapped, look at the price now, 17 baht a kilo after 7 years on investment - a sick joke.

Rice all strains from wherever 15,000 baht a tonne, don't worry farmers we'll soon corner the world market forcing the price up.

Another poor joke.when you see world prices now.

He's full of nonsense but the poor will follow him because of the goodies promised and you can't blame them for that.

[rubl]

Can anyone explain why anybody is still printing stuff from this convicted criminal ?

Because, like it or not, he still matters politically. I mean, if he didn't matter who would the junta use as a bogeyman to justify overthrowing the elected government and then cling to power using excuses a particularly naive three year old can see through??

Well actually the junta did justify the coup pointing at the escalating violence, the shooting and grenade lobbing at anyone non-'pro-cone government'.

Of course the 'command a country from afar' is just the type of democracy any politician should carry close to his heart

"Well actually the junta did justify the coup pointing at the escalating violence..."

Yes, they did. Hmmm, wonder who had a finger in that??

"...non-'pro-cone governmen"

Huh??? Is this some kind of secret junta fanboy speak?

Excuses and all that. A case of clumsy fingers That should read "non-'pro-clone government'".

No idea who had his fingers in the cowardly night attacks on those who dared to oppose the Isaan darling. More than one hundred grenades on the protesters the BP mentioned two years ago.

As for the 'junta fanboy speak', do you really need to use such cheap labels to justify your existence ?

[rubl]

Well actually the junta did justify the coup pointing at the escalating violence, the shooting and grenade lobbing at anyone non-'pro-cone government'.

Of course the 'command a country from afar' is just the type of democracy any politician should carry close to his heart

The main instigators were those aligned with the military and who supported a coup.

Please have some semblance of moral integrity and recognize the instigation for what it was: An engineered justification for the overthrow of a democratically elected government and the suppression of habeas corpus and fundamental human rights. And before you offer up a dj jamie type of excuse, please note that the position of the EU.

Ah , so the protesters are to be blamed. Luckily the red-shirts were quickly controlled by the Pheu Thai party list MPs and UDD leaders (blanket amnesty for the 'right' people only and 'look they protest against your PM'). The remaining protesters were a bit tougher, even the hundred grenades on them by cowards in the night didn't stop them (numbers by BP).

BTW EU? Don't you Brits want to leave us in the EU?

[MZurf]

Can anyone explain why anybody is still printing stuff from this convicted criminal ?

Because, like it or not, he still matters politically. I mean, if he didn't matter who would the junta use as a bogeyman to justify overthrowing the elected government and then cling to power using excuses a particularly naive three year old can see through??

Well actually the junta did justify the coup pointing at the escalating violence, the shooting and grenade lobbing at anyone non-'pro-cone government'.

Of course the 'command a country from afar' is just the type of democracy any politician should carry close to his heart

"Well actually the junta did justify the coup pointing at the escalating violence..."

Yes, they did. Hmmm, wonder who had a finger in that??

"...non-'pro-cone governmen"

Huh??? Is this some kind of secret junta fanboy speak?

Excuses and all that. A case of clumsy fingers That should read "non-'pro-clone government'".

No idea who had his fingers in the cowardly night attacks on those who dared to oppose the Isaan darling. More than one hundred grenades on the protesters the BP mentioned two years ago.

As for the 'junta fanboy speak', do you really need to use such cheap labels to justify your existence ?

"That should read "non-'pro-clone government'"."

Ah, now I understand, you mean those opposed to elected governments.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Wilsonandson]

Thaksin must be friends with Pravit Rojanaphruk. If you want the anti junta stuff then just browse the two English language Thai news media outlets Khaosod and Prachatai.

I could be wrong though. Anyone else see a pattern emerging or am I the only one. Just saying, I'm all for press freedom as long as it is neutral and not bias.

Curiousity got the better of me, so after a bit of research I found this article very interesting.

http://nsnbc.me/2015/09/15/thailand-lobbyists-posing-as-journalists-endanger-true-journalism/

Interesting as Pravit went to Finland recently, this week in fact on an all expences paid trip.

History repeating itself again.

Even if the information on which this article may be accurate (no idea, any reliable source confirming that pratchatai is financed by the US?), this article is an excellent example of "non-neutrality".

Tony Cartalucci is a known one-sided anti-thaksin, pro-junta, anti-US and NATO, pro- Russia and China, and anti-foreign NGO. He himself shows the same lack of neutrality that he reproaches Pravit.

Just one quote:"Thailand would benefit greatly by introducing legislation similar to that recently introduced in Russia forcing foreign-funded NGOs to disclose publicly and often their funding."

Anyway, as I said, he is quite welcome to express his opinion as long as contradicting opinions are also expressed in other media, and as long as the information and facts used are accurate (but I cannot check it).

Thanks for telling me. I've had such a laugh researching Tony. He's a character, if he exists, wonderful. There's one article about Nazi's in the white house. Ha, ha, ha. Still, not all he says may be complete bs. Do you think Tony is Michael Yon? Oh off topic, umm.

I'm not anti Thaksin or pro junta but how can there be all this talk of A.A in the Thai media, anti junta, this and that and they get away with it. That led me to believe the conspiracy theory Tony told of U.S and Thai media working hand in hand. Some of it must be partially right, it's not complete bs is it?

[Shawn0001]

Who? I have a vague recollection of someone... Didn't my vague recollection have a brother or sister that did something? I have distant memories of people wearing coloured shirts or something....

The junta has the perfect weapon: time.Thais (like most people, especially kids) get easily bored and forgetful unless they are constantly stimulated which is the agenda. OK, perhaps they haven't considered the resurrection of the "Shirts" before, during or after the next election, if there is one, But it seems they are either boring people into forgetting what colour shirt they are or making people not care. I live in staunch red shirt country, but i haven't seen anyone wearing a Taksin shirt, hanging Taksin posters outside their house or spoken to any opinionated person for over six months.

I live in staunch red shirt country, but i haven't seen anyone wearing a Taksin shirt, hanging Taksin posters outside their house or spoken to any opinionated person for over six months.

And you think that is because they have "forgotten"???? The lady facing sedition charges for holding a red bowl in a photo? The man who had his merchandise confiscated because his logo was of a square headed man who vaguely resembled Thaksin? It is a serious crime at the moment to show support for Thaksin, nothing has actually changed, no one has forgotten.

[Shawn0001]

I'm a thief,a robber,ive plundererd my own country,ive done all i can to keep the people ignorant and uneducated,i sold off Thai companys to feather my own nest.Ive done all these things and my sister is doing the same thing.But i love Thai people!

You clearly know nothing about Thaksin. He has his faults, serious ones. But the things you accuse him of are laughable. Thaksin doubled the Thai economy, a bigger increase than any other Thai PM in living history. He brought at least one university to every state, hardly "keeping the people uneducated", and the company he sold was his, he formed the company, and he had to sell it according to the Thai constitution before taking office. Always funny when people blindly repeating the oppositions lies, Thaksin was a thief and a murderer, criticize him for what he did wrong.

[candide]

Thaksin must be friends with Pravit Rojanaphruk. If you want the anti junta stuff then just browse the two English language Thai news media outlets Khaosod and Prachatai.

I could be wrong though. Anyone else see a pattern emerging or am I the only one. Just saying, I'm all for press freedom as long as it is neutral and not bias.

Curiousity got the better of me, so after a bit of research I found this article very interesting.

http://nsnbc.me/2015/09/15/thailand-lobbyists-posing-as-journalists-endanger-true-journalism/

Interesting as Pravit went to Finland recently, this week in fact on an all expences paid trip.

History repeating itself again.

Even if the information on which this article may be accurate (no idea, any reliable source confirming that pratchatai is financed by the US?), this article is an excellent example of "non-neutrality".

Tony Cartalucci is a known one-sided anti-thaksin, pro-junta, anti-US and NATO, pro- Russia and China, and anti-foreign NGO. He himself shows the same lack of neutrality that he reproaches Pravit.

Just one quote:"Thailand would benefit greatly by introducing legislation similar to that recently introduced in Russia forcing foreign-funded NGOs to disclose publicly and often their funding."

Anyway, as I said, he is quite welcome to express his opinion as long as contradicting opinions are also expressed in other media, and as long as the information and facts used are accurate (but I cannot check it).

Thanks for telling me. I've had such a laugh researching Tony. He's a character, if he exists, wonderful. There's one article about Nazi's in the white house. Ha, ha, ha. Still, not all he says may be complete bs. Do you think Tony is Michael Yon? Oh off topic, umm.

I'm not anti Thaksin or pro junta but how can there be all this talk of A.A in the Thai media, anti junta, this and that and they get away with it. That led me to believe the conspiracy theory Tony told of U.S and Thai media working hand in hand. Some of it must be partially right, it's not complete bs is it?

As I wrote I'm waiting for more reliable source than this guy.

More generally, the opposition between the 2 main political factions issue is mingled with a democracy issue. As one faction is more likely to be elected (whatever its merits may be) and therefore is in favour of election (unlike the other faction), it is not surprising that pro-democracy organisations or media (Thai or foreign) find themselves on the same side.

[Johnniey]

Can anyone explain why anybody is still printing stuff from this convicted criminal ?

Khun Thaksin still holds in some quarters of Thailand power and influence and whether you like it or not , Thaskin is a Thai problem not a Farangs.

You obviously weren't here when Taksin was was deputy PM to Big Jew, them PM and all the tings he did to make things more expensive and inconvenient for foreigners.

[jayboy]

"Thank goodness the recipe is not being well received by the Thai public anymore. Unless one refers to elections years ago to gauge his popularity."

How about verifying your assumption by holding elections?

I will wait for an answer but am 99 percent sure it will be in vain.

If the election process is run in the same manner as before, in that political parties can make crude and outrageous election promises that don't have to be explained, like for example saying, "ok, vote for us and we'll increase your monthly salary by 10,000 baht", then i think there is every chance you would get your wish of having a Shinawatra affiliated party in power.

This was the sort of technique that was employed with success at the last election, with promises concerning tablets, wages and other things were made, clearly without much thought if any as to actual implementation. Previously we had similarly ridiculous promises like solving the Bangkok traffic problem in six months. Of course the argument that gets made in favour of allowing this sort of practice, (that is much more tightly controlled in more advanced democracies where election promises do need to be more thoroughly explained) is that if a party doesn't live up to their campaign promises, they simply get voted out at the next election.

Unfortunately this doesn't necessarily work, at least not here, because in the interim four years between elections, a party can stack the cards in their favour, with little tricks like the controlling of the media, the dishing out personal amnesties, the placing of carefully selected people in to high ranking positions at organisations that should be serving as a check and balance on power, and the squashing of opposition with such tricks as million baht law-suits handed out left, right and centre... all of which can leave the country after four years effectively as a one party state, voters with no real choice, and with power deeply entrenched. This model of getting into power and then holding on to it has been seen successfully replicated in certain so called democratic countries many times. Cambodia and the Philippines are two such examples. Without military intervention over the last fifteen years, Thailand would have been another.

And when you throw into the mix the fact that, even without the above underhand tactics to contend with, the Democrats, who are no saints themselves and who are the only real current opposition, couldn't run a bath, much less a political campaign, another Shinawatra election victory seems to me to be a high possibility. Who else is there at this moment in time to fill in the power vacuum if and when the military step back? Nobody.

This doesn't really add up.You object to political parties campaigning on populist measures - yet to some extent all campaign promises are populist measures.It's reasonable to ask that campaign promises are costed out - but that function cannot be delegated to some state quango.In the UK, the NHS and indeed the whole massive benefits system are populist measures beyond any ever contemplated in Thailand.You are all over the place with your examples anyway, the negligible tablets programme and the irrelevant traffic point.People like you never mention the massive skew of expenditure towards middle class urban residents in Bangkok - a populist measure if there ever was one.

You make ridiculous charges that Thailand was on the road to becoming another Cambodia ignoring the fact that Yingluck's government was checked at every turn.Above all you show no trust in the Thai people and equally you ignore that all political movements decline over time.You emerge as an apologist for repression.You never seem to understand that to defeat the influence of Shinawatra, it's necessary for the Democrats to reform.You seem to see to see the Junta and their stooges as the solution whereas for most Thais they are the problem.

[rixalex]

"This model of getting into power and then holding on to it has been seen successfully replicated in certain so called democratic countries many times. Cambodia and the Philippines are two such examples. Without military intervention over the last fifteen years, Thailand would have been another."

And just what is Thailand today? It's run by a military junta with an army strongman at the helm. The word to describe such a regime begins with a "D" but forum rules prevents me from spelling it out for you. So I guess you prefer that?

BTW, funny you should mention those two countries. Cambodia is run by a former military officer and the country is pretty much a basket case. The Philippines on the other hand have a military that stays in the barracks and is in a much, much better position.

Like you, I don't like the current situation we have, but where i suspect we differ is that i blame the politicians to a large degree for what we have now, because it has been their mass corruption and gross incompetence that has laid the grounds for military intervention. To be clear, no, i'm not saying the military is driven by altruistic and noble desires, and that is why they intervened, what i'm saying is that without the mass corruption and gross incompetence, the military wouldn't be able to step in and take over without a real mass uprising - not one of these organised and paid events that happen months and months after the event. I'm not even talking about running the country cleanly. Nobody really expects that of a Thai politician or political party. I'm just talking about not being so blatant and extreme about it. It's not really asking too much is it?

As to Cambodia and the Phillipines, yes, i'm aware that Cambodia is run by a former military officer. So? The model i mentioned of taking power and entrenching yourself in it via a faux democracy can and has been successfully replicated by people from all sorts of backgrounds, including military, police, entrepreneurial, political. A military background probably makes it a bit easier as they already wield significant power, but failing that, say for example a background in the police force, with some good chums in the military, and a massive resource of funds, would be a great start.

The Phillipines suffered for decades at the hands of one family that had a total grip on power in spite of a supposed democracy. The country is doing well since it expunged itself of this cancer. So what is your point?

[rixalex]

This doesn't really add up.You object to political parties campaigning on populist measures - yet to some extent all campaign promises are populist measures.It's reasonable to ask that campaign promises are costed out - but that function cannot be delegated to some state quango.In the UK, the NHS and indeed the whole massive benefits system are populist measures beyond any ever contemplated in Thailand.You are all over the place with your examples anyway, the negligible tablets programme and the irrelevant traffic point.People like you never mention the massive skew of expenditure towards middle class urban residents in Bangkok - a populist measure if there ever was one.

You make ridiculous charges that Thailand was on the road to becoming another Cambodia ignoring the fact that Yingluck's government was checked at every turn.Above all you show no trust in the Thai people and equally you ignore that all political movements decline over time.You emerge as an apologist for repression.You never seem to understand that to defeat the influence of Shinawatra, it's necessary for the Democrats to reform.You seem to see to see the Junta and their stooges as the solution whereas for most Thais they are the problem.

Firstly i don't object to populist measures, i object to the practice of being able to promise whatever you like to win power. There has to be some holding to account beyond the ballot box because otherwise political parties will simply take the view that even if they get voted out in four years, it will have been worth it. There are indeed rules in place in most democracies regarding this - things that you can't promise - and my point was simply that i would like to see the rules here stiffened up and enforced more strictly.

Secondly, the Yingluck government was not checked at every turn. Had it been, certain disasters may have been avoided.

Thirdly, my lack of trust is in Thai politicians and a political system that can be severely bent, not in Thai people.

Lastly. where do i state or even imply that the junta is the solution? The solution is a democratic system that properly holds politicians to account, and a new breed of politician and political party which comes to power with an actual vision for the country, not just for their own bank account. That is when things may change. Until then, expect the same old cycle.

[jayboy]

This doesn't really add up.You object to political parties campaigning on populist measures - yet to some extent all campaign promises are populist measures.It's reasonable to ask that campaign promises are costed out - but that function cannot be delegated to some state quango.In the UK, the NHS and indeed the whole massive benefits system are populist measures beyond any ever contemplated in Thailand.You are all over the place with your examples anyway, the negligible tablets programme and the irrelevant traffic point.People like you never mention the massive skew of expenditure towards middle class urban residents in Bangkok - a populist measure if there ever was one.

You make ridiculous charges that Thailand was on the road to becoming another Cambodia ignoring the fact that Yingluck's government was checked at every turn.Above all you show no trust in the Thai people and equally you ignore that all political movements decline over time.You emerge as an apologist for repression.You never seem to understand that to defeat the influence of Shinawatra, it's necessary for the Democrats to reform.You seem to see to see the Junta and their stooges as the solution whereas for most Thais they are the problem.

Firstly i don't object to populist measures, i object to the practice of being able to promise whatever you like to win power. There has to be some holding to account beyond the ballot box because otherwise political parties will simply take the view that even if they get voted out in four years, it will have been worth it. There are indeed rules in place in most democracies regarding this - things that you can't promise - and my point was simply that i would like to see the rules here stiffened up and enforced more strictly.

Secondly, the Yingluck government was not checked at every turn. Had it been, certain disasters may have been avoided.

Thirdly, my lack of trust is in Thai politicians and a political system that can be severely bent, not in Thai people.

Lastly. where do i state or even imply that the junta is the solution? The solution is a democratic system that properly holds politicians to account, and a new breed of politician and political party which comes to power with an actual vision for the country, not just for their own bank account. That is when things may change. Until then, expect the same old cycle.

I'm sorry but that was a very unsatisfactory response.At the last election each party campaigned on policies designed to win power - as in every democracy.

You take the view that politicians are wicked and are only interested in making money while they are in power.This is precisely the view of the self appointed good people who are attempting to impose their agenda on the country.

You refer to rules in democracies preventing politicians from promising too much.No idea what you are referring to.I do not see how Thailand can tighten up on rules which don't exist.The solution to the problem is vigorous political debate.

If you do not think the Yingluck government was not checked at every turn you were either not paying attention or blinded by the Suthep agenda.

I kind of agree with your last para although you include the lazy assumption that politicians are only in it for the money.You also find it hard to accept the Thai people must have the chief influence.Of course politicians need to improve their act and in my view the Democrats have generally underperformed appallingly in this regard - because we expected so much more from the likes of Abhisit.

[rixalex]

I'm sorry but that was a very unsatisfactory response.At the last election each party campaigned on policies designed to win power - as in every democracy.

You take the view that politicians are wicked and are only interested in making money while they are in power.This is precisely the view of the self appointed good people who are attempting to impose their agenda on the country.

You refer to rules in democracies preventing politicians from promising too much.No idea what you are referring to.I do not see how Thailand can tighten up on rules which don't exist.The solution to the problem is vigorous political debate.

If you do not think the Yingluck government was not checked at every turn you were either not paying attention or blinded by the Suthep agenda.

I kind of agree with your last para although you include the lazy assumption that politicians are only in it for the money.You also find it hard to accept the Thai people must have the chief influence.Of course politicians need to improve their act and in my view the Democrats have generally underperformed appallingly in this regard - because we expected so much more from the likes of Abhisit.

As i said, there are certain rules in most democracies about what can be promised and what can't. Of course that doesn't prevent parties from promising things that they don't end up delivering, but it does help prevent the more crude and outrageous ideas at winning power being employed. I'm surprised someone as well read as you think they don't exist at all.

I don't know exactly what the rules are regarding this in Thailand, but i do know they exist as after the last election campaign, there was an inquiry as to whether PTP had broken them. It was deemed not which isn't particularly surprising when considering how they were also somehow deemed to not have broken any rules about proxies leading the country on behalf of overseas convicted criminals. As with the assets concealment case back in 2001, i think it was a case of the persons involved with making the decision not being brave enough to go against the will of the people. Somewhat understandable if wrong.

You state that, "at the last election each party campaigned on policies designed to win power". I recall that the Democrats put forward a plan to increase the minimum wage in stages, to make it manageable for employers, to decrease possible redundancies and to prevent rapid inflation that would wipe out any benefit for employees. PTP on the other hand simply promised a massive overnight increase. If your only interest was in was winning power, it's obvious which election promise you would go with.

All i am saying is that i would like to see a bit more responsibility enforced upon political parties so that they can't trot out any old promise they like without being able to explain costings and such. I can of course understand why you might be against that.

If you think that Yingluck was checked at every turn, it was you who wasn't paying attention. She wasn't checked at every turn and when she was checked, it was invariably not the usual democratic bodies designed to keep a check on power, but rather by an unsavory street crusader. The fact that her being kept in check was reliant upon someone like him, shows you how badly the political system was failing to do its job.

Finally, as for the Dems, they should just disband and give up. Maybe one or two of them could start something new but the majority have failed and i believe are part of the old political establishment that will be forever tainted by all the lies and corruption.

[jayboy]

I'm sorry but that was a very unsatisfactory response.At the last election each party campaigned on policies designed to win power - as in every democracy.

You take the view that politicians are wicked and are only interested in making money while they are in power.This is precisely the view of the self appointed good people who are attempting to impose their agenda on the country.

You refer to rules in democracies preventing politicians from promising too much.No idea what you are referring to.I do not see how Thailand can tighten up on rules which don't exist.The solution to the problem is vigorous political debate.

If you do not think the Yingluck government was not checked at every turn you were either not paying attention or blinded by the Suthep agenda.

I kind of agree with your last para although you include the lazy assumption that politicians are only in it for the money.You also find it hard to accept the Thai people must have the chief influence.Of course politicians need to improve their act and in my view the Democrats have generally underperformed appallingly in this regard - because we expected so much more from the likes of Abhisit.

As i said, there are certain rules in most democracies about what can be promised and what can't. Of course that doesn't prevent parties from promising things that they don't end up delivering, but it does help prevent the more crude and outrageous ideas at winning power being employed. I'm surprised someone as well read as you think they don't exist at all.

I don't know exactly what the rules are regarding this in Thailand, but i do know they exist as after the last election campaign, there was an inquiry as to whether PTP had broken them. It was deemed not which isn't particularly surprising when considering how they were also somehow deemed to not have broken any rules about proxies leading the country on behalf of overseas convicted criminals. As with the assets concealment case back in 2001, i think it was a case of the persons involved with making the decision not being brave enough to go against the will of the people. Somewhat understandable if wrong.

You state that, "at the last election each party campaigned on policies designed to win power". I recall that the Democrats put forward a plan to increase the minimum wage in stages, to make it manageable for employers, to decrease possible redundancies and to prevent rapid inflation that would wipe out any benefit for employees. PTP on the other hand simply promised a massive overnight increase. If your only interest was in was winning power, it's obvious which election promise you would go with.

All i am saying is that i would like to see a bit more responsibility enforced upon political parties so that they can't trot out any old promise they like without being able to explain costings and such. I can of course understand why you might be against that.

If you think that Yingluck was checked at every turn, it was you who wasn't paying attention. She wasn't checked at every turn and when she was checked, it was invariably not the usual democratic bodies designed to keep a check on power, but rather by an unsavory street crusader. The fact that her being kept in check was reliant upon someone like him, shows you how badly the political system was failing to do its job.

Finally, as for the Dems, they should just disband and give up. Maybe one or two of them could start something new but the majority have failed and i believe are part of the old political establishment that will be forever tainted by all the lies and corruption.

You will have to do a lot better than this.I asked you to be specific about the rules governing what can be said by a political party during election campaigns.You talked about such rules in most democracies but as far as I know there are no such rules in the US, the UK and Western Europe.You do not even demonstrate there are any such rules in Thailand apart from a vague reference to the Junta's political campaign against the Shinawatras.

I too would like to see the political parties being more responsible in Thailand though I am less keen on you on 'enforcing'.Who does the enforcing? There should be a vigorous election debate between the two main parties.Opposition parties should be allowed to work with the civil service bureaucracy to spell out the detail and cost of their election programmes.The findings could be made public and signed off by both civil servants and party officials.There should be extensive coverage in the media.Propaganda outlets like those of the army would be scrutinised for bias.For the time being the Democrats are the only party with the potential to take on the Shinawatras.They should reform themselves and do so with vigour - and abandon their shameful behaviour over the last few years as poodles to the old order.

[billd766]

Well well.

Thaksin speaks and Reuters prints it.

Having read the item by Reuters I found that they had missed something from it.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/headlines/PMS-DECLARATIONDemocracy-is-not-my-goal-90316.html

A change of heart from Thaksin perhaps?

I am sorry if this seems over long but the whole article has no paragraphs and it is much longer than this.

PM'S DECLARATION:'Democracy is not my goal'

December 11, 2003 12:00 am

Thaksin suggests he'll block any move for amendments to rein in his power Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra yesterday revealed for the first time the value he places on democracy, saying it was not the foremost thing Thailand needed. In a candid statement made ominous by its release on Constitution Day, Thaksin said that as long as the country could progress and the people were happy, he was not concerned about the means used. "Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it's not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned," he said. "Democracy is just a tool, not our goal. The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness and national progress." In a comment to counter calls for constitutional amend- ments that would support the sputtering checks-and-balances mechanism, the prime minister hinted that he would block the campaign to amend the charter, an issue that could cause a fall-out between him and his Chat Thai Party allies. "Democracy is a vehicle," Thaksin said. "We can't drive a Rolls-Royce to a rural village and solve people's problems. A pickup truck or good off-road car will do. We just need to think carefully and make the right choices." Amid threats of total domination by the ruling Thai Rak Thai Party, the minor coalition partner, academics and opposition MPs agree there is an urgent need to sharpen the teeth of independent constitutional bodies and empower a parliamentary system of checks and balances. "I don't think there's a need to amend the charter right now," said Thaksin. "Maybe they want to because they want to censure me in Parliament." Many rules within the Constitution are said to be playing into the hands of Thaksin as they seem to ease his on-going consolidation of power and expansionist philosophy. Among them is the requirement that a censure motion against the prime minister has to be signed by at least 200 MPs. Before leaving for the Asean-Japan summit in Tokyo, Thaksin avoided actually naming the Chat Thai Party, which has proposed a public referendum to amend the Constitution coinciding with the 2005 general election. "If they really want to do it for good reasons, why didn't they do it earlier when they had enough support in Parliament?" Thaksin said. "There's no real need to change the highest law at the moment. If we do have implementation problems, we can review the Constitution's organic laws."

and what is your point? I can't see any contradiction. This interview is 13 years ago. Compare Obamas's interviews 13 years ago with the way he TRIES to govern his country. Or Cameron...or...or...or.

But you will explain to me?

Do you truly believe that Thaksin has changed in the last 13 years?

The same Thaksin who repeatedly said that he was finished with Thai politics and would never be involved in them again.

The same Thaksin who owns the PTP lock stock and barrel and paid all the MPs of that party a salary as well.

The same Thaksin who, through his clone, (his words not mine) tried to ram an amnesty bill through parliament at 4.30 am>

If I have to explain to you that leopards can't and don't change their spots there is little hope for you.

Meanwhile keep on bashing current government. It seems to be what you do best.

Here we go again. Even we farangs are devided into 2 parties though we have no influence in anything what happens in Thailand.

BTW 13 years is indeed a long time. How YOU were looking 13 years ago? or talking? Or have opinions? You don't want to tell me honestly that you didn't change you mind in these years......

The difference between Thaksin and me, is that I was never a politician, never owned a political party, never been convicted of a fine, never been a fugitive from justice and rarely promised anything that I couldn't or wouldn't be able to deliver.

Honestly yes I have changed my mind over the past years and I had great hopes of Abhisit and the Democrats but now I believe that the Democrats HAVE to jettison the old guard and bring in new blood if they have any hopes of winning a "fair" election. Also I believe that Abhisit, while a nice guy, is the Democrats biggest problem as while he and the old guard who still run the Democrat party can never win.

A new Democratic party under Korn Chatikavanij (I had to go to Wikipedia to spell his name correctly) and a totally new party management may stand a chance of winning.

Any party that has a connection with Thaksin will not be allowed to play the political game under the current government and TBH I don't think that there is anybody good (honest) enough in Thai politics to become PM. There are very few political parties who are not run by political dinosaurs who would WANT to be in politics for all of the Thai people rather than the family/crony political parties of the past several decades.

Yes I have had opinions but the one I have had about Thaksin has never changed from the first time I was in Thailand in 1993. That opinion never changed as Thaksin has never changed.

I had great hopes and opinions of the current government when they took over back in 2013 but sadly for me those hopes and opinions have changed from good to bad since they have been in power.

The current PM has/had never been a politician so I had hopes from him but now I think that he is not a lot better or worse than any other person with close to absolute power.

[djjamie]

Eh, actually he remains the most favourite criminal fugitve, the number one in public relations and the best at being Amply Rich.

How to make a convicted criminal fugitive, accused mass murderer, accused terrorist popular.

Sprinkle in a bit of "Robert Amsterdam" and add "supporting US interests" despite having to abuse democracy to do it. Cook in Dubai for 10 years and serve with dollars dollops of hypocrisy.

Thank goodness the recipe is not being well received by the Thai public anymore. Unless one refers to elections years ago to gauge his popularity. AND "All the people I talk to love thaksin" does not count as gauging his popularity. I know some have and will say that again and if that fails they show a photo of thaksin in front of 30 000 screaming red shirts and say "See he is popular"

"Thank goodness the recipe is not being well received by the Thai public anymore. Unless one refers to elections years ago to gauge his popularity."

How about verifying your assumption by holding elections?

I will wait for an answer but am 99 percent sure it will be in vain.

When they are held and the majority decide they do not like thaksin or his parties after the contempt they showed for the majority you will be the first to state "rigged elections". One of your peers that stated it will be a rigged election received a "like" from you a few days ago so in essence you agree with me yet of course you will not recognise it.

Threatening your own supporters (farmers) if they protest does not win votes.

The ethos by the thaksinites is respect the majority when they vote in agreeance with what they want and dismiss their voice when they don't. A previous constitution referendum cemented this ethos.

99% heay? Surprised it is not 99.7%.

Take care my friend and look forward to further contributions from you on this forum. In fact I think there is a 99.78% chance you will reply to me.

Edited April 10, 2016 by djjamie

[MZurf]

Eh, actually he remains the most favourite criminal fugitve, the number one in public relations and the best at being Amply Rich.

How to make a convicted criminal fugitive, accused mass murderer, accused terrorist popular.

Sprinkle in a bit of "Robert Amsterdam" and add "supporting US interests" despite having to abuse democracy to do it. Cook in Dubai for 10 years and serve with dollars dollops of hypocrisy.

Thank goodness the recipe is not being well received by the Thai public anymore. Unless one refers to elections years ago to gauge his popularity. AND "All the people I talk to love thaksin" does not count as gauging his popularity. I know some have and will say that again and if that fails they show a photo of thaksin in front of 30 000 screaming red shirts and say "See he is popular"

"Thank goodness the recipe is not being well received by the Thai public anymore. Unless one refers to elections years ago to gauge his popularity."

How about verifying your assumption by holding elections?

I will wait for an answer but am 99 percent sure it will be in vain.

When they are held and the majority decide they do not like thaksin or his parties after the contempt they showed for the majority you will be the first to state "rigged elections". Threatening your own supporters (farmers) if they protest does not win votes.

The ethos by the thaksinites is respect the majority when they vote in agreeance with what they want and dismiss their voice when they don't. A previous constitution referendum cemented this ethos.

99% heay? Surprised it is not 99.7%.

Take care my friend and look forward to further contributions from you on this forum.

" When they are held..."

Unfortunately the "when" is decided by an unelected person and his cronies so this might take a while. And even if they are held the junta is doing its very best to make sure it doesn't matter who win.

" ...and the majority decide they do not like thaksin or his parties after the contempt they showed for the majority you will be the first to state "rigged elections".

Untrue. Unlike you and the junta you support I will accept any choice the Thai people makes in a free and fair election (verified by international observers).

Quite frankly, you accusing me of not accepting an election result is laughable. Pot, kettle, black.

" Threatening your own supporters (farmers) if they protest does not win votes. "

Huh?

" The ethos by the thaksinites is respect the majority when they vote in agreeance with what they want and dismiss their voice when they don't. A previous constitution referendum cemented this ethos."

Again, huh?

"99% heay? Surprised it is not 99.7%"

Sorry to disappoint you but only the propaganda department of the junta operate with such ridiculous figures.

Edited April 10, 2016 by MZurf

[djjamie]

"Thank goodness the recipe is not being well received by the Thai public anymore. Unless one refers to elections years ago to gauge his popularity."

How about verifying your assumption by holding elections?

I will wait for an answer but am 99 percent sure it will be in vain.

When they are held and the majority decide they do not like thaksin or his parties after the contempt they showed for the majority you will be the first to state "rigged elections". Threatening your own supporters (farmers) if they protest does not win votes.

The ethos by the thaksinites is respect the majority when they vote in agreeance with what they want and dismiss their voice when they don't. A previous constitution referendum cemented this ethos.

99% heay? Surprised it is not 99.7%.

Take care my friend and look forward to further contributions from you on this forum.

" When they are held..."

Unfortunately the "when" is decided by an unelected person and his cronies so this might take a while. And even if they are held the junta is doing its very best to make sure it doesn't matter who win.

" ...and the majority decide they do not like thaksin or his parties after the contempt they showed for the majority you will be the first to state "rigged elections".

Untrue. Unlike you and the junta you support I will accept any choice the Thai people makes in a free and fair election (verified by international observers).

Quite frankly, you accusing me of not accepting an election result is laughable. Pot, kettle, black.

" Threatening your own supporters (farmers) if they protest does not win votes. "

Huh?

" The ethos by the thaksinites is respect the majority when they vote in agreeance with what they want and dismiss their voice when they don't. A previous constitution referendum cemented this ethos."

Again, huh?

"99% heay? Surprised it is not 99.7%"

Sorry to disappoint you but only the propaganda department of the junta operate with such ridiculous figures.

Huh? Short memory heay. You inadvertently cemented that you do not acknowledge when the majority vote against what you believe.

Take care my friend.

Edited April 10, 2016 by djjamie

[MZurf]

"Thank goodness the recipe is not being well received by the Thai public anymore. Unless one refers to elections years ago to gauge his popularity."

How about verifying your assumption by holding elections?

I will wait for an answer but am 99 percent sure it will be in vain.

When they are held and the majority decide they do not like thaksin or his parties after the contempt they showed for the majority you will be the first to state "rigged elections". Threatening your own supporters (farmers) if they protest does not win votes.

The ethos by the thaksinites is respect the majority when they vote in agreeance with what they want and dismiss their voice when they don't. A previous constitution referendum cemented this ethos.

99% heay? Surprised it is not 99.7%.

Take care my friend and look forward to further contributions from you on this forum.

" When they are held..."

Unfortunately the "when" is decided by an unelected person and his cronies so this might take a while. And even if they are held the junta is doing its very best to make sure it doesn't matter who win.

" ...and the majority decide they do not like thaksin or his parties after the contempt they showed for the majority you will be the first to state "rigged elections".

Untrue. Unlike you and the junta you support I will accept any choice the Thai people makes in a free and fair election (verified by international observers).

Quite frankly, you accusing me of not accepting an election result is laughable. Pot, kettle, black.

" Threatening your own supporters (farmers) if they protest does not win votes. "

Huh?

" The ethos by the thaksinites is respect the majority when they vote in agreeance with what they want and dismiss their voice when they don't. A previous constitution referendum cemented this ethos."

Again, huh?

"99% heay? Surprised it is not 99.7%"

Sorry to disappoint you but only the propaganda department of the junta operate with such ridiculous figures.

Huh? Short memory heay.

Take care my friend.

Wow! Powerful arguments, can't really counter them.

[djjamie]

" When they are held..."

Unfortunately the "when" is decided by an unelected person and his cronies so this might take a while. And even if they are held the junta is doing its very best to make sure it doesn't matter who win.

" ...and the majority decide they do not like thaksin or his parties after the contempt they showed for the majority you will be the first to state "rigged elections".

Untrue. Unlike you and the junta you support I will accept any choice the Thai people makes in a free and fair election (verified by international observers).

Quite frankly, you accusing me of not accepting an election result is laughable. Pot, kettle, black.

" Threatening your own supporters (farmers) if they protest does not win votes. "

Huh?

" The ethos by the thaksinites is respect the majority when they vote in agreeance with what they want and dismiss their voice when they don't. A previous constitution referendum cemented this ethos."

Again, huh?

"99% heay? Surprised it is not 99.7%"

Sorry to disappoint you but only the propaganda department of the junta operate with such ridiculous figures.

Huh? Short memory heay.

Take care my friend.

Wow! Powerful arguments, can't really counter them.

Huh?

[rubl]

Well actually the junta did justify the coup pointing at the escalating violence, the shooting and grenade lobbing at anyone non-'pro-cone government'.

Of course the 'command a country from afar' is just the type of democracy any politician should carry close to his heart

"Well actually the junta did justify the coup pointing at the escalating violence..."

Yes, they did. Hmmm, wonder who had a finger in that??

"...non-'pro-cone governmen"

Huh??? Is this some kind of secret junta fanboy speak?

Excuses and all that. A case of clumsy fingers That should read "non-'pro-clone government'".

No idea who had his fingers in the cowardly night attacks on those who dared to oppose the Isaan darling. More than one hundred grenades on the protesters the BP mentioned two years ago.

As for the 'junta fanboy speak', do you really need to use such cheap labels to justify your existence ?

"That should read "non-'pro-clone government'"."

Ah, now I understand, you mean those opposed to elected governments.

Thanks for clearing that up.

No, those opposed to a government with a pretty face as PM and run by a criminal fugitive, the one from the topic warning about democracy.

[MZurf]

"Thank goodness the recipe is not being well received by the Thai public anymore. Unless one refers to elections years ago to gauge his popularity."

How about verifying your assumption by holding elections?

I will wait for an answer but am 99 percent sure it will be in vain.

When they are held and the majority decide they do not like thaksin or his parties after the contempt they showed for the majority you will be the first to state "rigged elections". Threatening your own supporters (farmers) if they protest does not win votes.

The ethos by the thaksinites is respect the majority when they vote in agreeance with what they want and dismiss their voice when they don't. A previous constitution referendum cemented this ethos.

99% heay? Surprised it is not 99.7%.

Take care my friend and look forward to further contributions from you on this forum.

" When they are held..."

Unfortunately the "when" is decided by an unelected person and his cronies so this might take a while. And even if they are held the junta is doing its very best to make sure it doesn't matter who win.

" ...and the majority decide they do not like thaksin or his parties after the contempt they showed for the majority you will be the first to state "rigged elections".

Untrue. Unlike you and the junta you support I will accept any choice the Thai people makes in a free and fair election (verified by international observers).

Quite frankly, you accusing me of not accepting an election result is laughable. Pot, kettle, black.

" Threatening your own supporters (farmers) if they protest does not win votes. "

Huh?

" The ethos by the thaksinites is respect the majority when they vote in agreeance with what they want and dismiss their voice when they don't. A previous constitution referendum cemented this ethos."

Again, huh?

"99% heay? Surprised it is not 99.7%"

Sorry to disappoint you but only the propaganda department of the junta operate with such ridiculous figures.

Huh? Short memory heay. You inadvertently cemented that you do not acknowledge when the majority vote against what you believe.

Take care my friend.

See you edited your post after my reply.

So, tell me how (in your mind) I inadvertently cemented my undemocratic creds?

You do know that just because you repeat something over and over again doesn't make it true?

A junta supporter like you cannot accuse an election supporter like me of not accepting election results without looking like a complete......

[heybruce]

"Well actually the junta did justify the coup pointing at the escalating violence..."

Yes, they did. Hmmm, wonder who had a finger in that??

"...non-'pro-cone governmen"

Huh??? Is this some kind of secret junta fanboy speak?

Excuses and all that. A case of clumsy fingers That should read "non-'pro-clone government'".

No idea who had his fingers in the cowardly night attacks on those who dared to oppose the Isaan darling. More than one hundred grenades on the protesters the BP mentioned two years ago.

As for the 'junta fanboy speak', do you really need to use such cheap labels to justify your existence ?

"That should read "non-'pro-clone government'"."

Ah, now I understand, you mean those opposed to elected governments.

Thanks for clearing that up.

No, those opposed to a government with a pretty face as PM and run by a criminal fugitive, the one from the topic warning about democracy.

"No"? BS!

The PTP government you clearly hate was elected in an internationally monitored election. During the election and after the PTP made no secret of the fact that it was consulting with Thaksin. These consultations were legal; it doesn't matter that you didn't like them.

You lied rubl, you are clearly opposed to that elected government, and eager to avoid new elections in a real democracy because you know you once again won't like the results.

BTW, their was no escalating violence to justify the coup. The protesters had retreated to Lumpini Park and were fading fast. The coup was staged because the anti-democrats were afraid the scheduled July elections would be successful.