Charter voting registration ends today; only one percent signs up

[halloween]

Thanks. The comparison is still irrelevant, and BTW, I am from Afghanistan not USA so the workings of the great Satan are of little interest.

You're from Afghanistan and you're complaining about Thai voting patterns? Sorry, I am completely incapable of supplying comparison data.

Not really, no. That was just to challenge your assumptions. My country just narrowly voted to make the worst decision in 43 years, which was almost immediately regretted by many of those who voted for it, will probably lead to the break up of the "United" Kingdom, has opened up divisions between young and old and between region and region, and will impoverish the country for the next 10 years at least. It all happened because one party needed the votes of the right wing nationalists to stay in power so they promised to delegate to the "man/woman in the street" a decision which was too complex to be properly understood and too important to be taken without a proper understanding, and should have been taken by their elected government which on the whole recognised the folly of Brexit.

And I am not complaining about Thai voting patterns - Thailand repeatedly elects the Government which the majority wants and the military repeatedly overthrows it at the behest of the powerful minority. Under the circumstances I fully understand anyone who refuses to participate in sham democracy which this referendum is an example of. The choice between approve this b...............t charter or else we will simply write another one is no choice at all and the people recognise that their power to change anything without an outright rebellion is non-existent. Why should they be falling over themselves to participate in this charade? they will simply wait until a mass movement of some sort captures their imagination and then make their feelings known - hopefully in a peaceful way.

Hmmm, UK voters shouldn't have been asked to vote on Brexit, but Thai voters are OK to vote on a complicated rice scam that appeared to offer them huge benefits. Uh-huh.

If you " fully understand anyone who refuses to participate in sham democracy" then you should understand the necessity for a coup, and a try at something different. It seems the people are certainly not prepared to rise up in outright rebellion, ergo are willing to try something different, something which attempts to reduce the criminal element in government. Perhaps if they don't like it they will rebel.

Until then, that you don't like it is of little consequence.

BTW do you campaign at home against appointees to the house of lords?

[tuanku]

Thanks. The comparison is still irrelevant, and BTW, I am from Afghanistan not USA so the workings of the great Satan are of little interest.

You're from Afghanistan and you're complaining about Thai voting patterns? Sorry, I am completely incapable of supplying comparison data.

Not really, no. That was just to challenge your assumptions. My country just narrowly voted to make the worst decision in 43 years, which was almost immediately regretted by many of those who voted for it, will probably lead to the break up of the "United" Kingdom, has opened up divisions between young and old and between region and region, and will impoverish the country for the next 10 years at least. It all happened because one party needed the votes of the right wing nationalists to stay in power so they promised to delegate to the "man/woman in the street" a decision which was too complex to be properly understood and too important to be taken without a proper understanding, and should have been taken by their elected government which on the whole recognised the folly of Brexit.

And I am not complaining about Thai voting patterns - Thailand repeatedly elects the Government which the majority wants and the military repeatedly overthrows it at the behest of the powerful minority. Under the circumstances I fully understand anyone who refuses to participate in sham democracy which this referendum is an example of. The choice between approve this b...............t charter or else we will simply write another one is no choice at all and the people recognise that their power to change anything without an outright rebellion is non-existent. Why should they be falling over themselves to participate in this charade? they will simply wait until a mass movement of some sort captures their imagination and then make their feelings known - hopefully in a peaceful way.

Hmmm, UK voters shouldn't have been asked to vote on Brexit, but Thai voters are OK to vote on a complicated rice scam that appeared to offer them huge benefits. Uh-huh.

If you " fully understand anyone who refuses to participate in sham democracy" then you should understand the necessity for a coup, and a try at something different. It seems the people are certainly not prepared to rise up in outright rebellion, ergo are willing to try something different, something which attempts to reduce the criminal element in government. Perhaps if they don't like it they will rebel.

Until then, that you don't like it is of little consequence.

BTW do you campaign at home against appointees to the house of lords?

UK voters elected a government to make hard decisions on their behalf. Thai voters also elected a Government to do the same thing. There was no referendum on the rice purchase programme but like any election promise it was designed to appeal to a proportion of the electorate. Both promises, the one of an in-out referendum and the one on the rice scheme, probably shouldn't have been made but once made and the Governments elected, had to be acted upon. That is how democracy works.

How can you possibly imagine a coup to be "something different" Thailand is well known for its coups, and not one of them has benefited the country (as a whole) in any measurable way. However they have enriched the military, entrenched the power of the kakocracy and put billions into the pockets of the elite, while holding back progress in developing a better democratic model. If you keep pressing the reset button it is really hard to move forward. Coups are part of the reason Thai voters have not learned how to choose decent politicians. They keep the country in democratic "infancy"

The party I vote for at home is not really part of this discussion, but it is the one most likely to end the appointment system to the Lords.

[heybruce]

Thanks. The comparison is still irrelevant, and BTW, I am from Afghanistan not USA so the workings of the great Satan are of little interest.

You're from Afghanistan and you're complaining about Thai voting patterns? Sorry, I am completely incapable of supplying comparison data.

Not really, no. That was just to challenge your assumptions. My country just narrowly voted to make the worst decision in 43 years, which was almost immediately regretted by many of those who voted for it, will probably lead to the break up of the "United" Kingdom, has opened up divisions between young and old and between region and region, and will impoverish the country for the next 10 years at least. It all happened because one party needed the votes of the right wing nationalists to stay in power so they promised to delegate to the "man/woman in the street" a decision which was too complex to be properly understood and too important to be taken without a proper understanding, and should have been taken by their elected government which on the whole recognised the folly of Brexit.

And I am not complaining about Thai voting patterns - Thailand repeatedly elects the Government which the majority wants and the military repeatedly overthrows it at the behest of the powerful minority. Under the circumstances I fully understand anyone who refuses to participate in sham democracy which this referendum is an example of. The choice between approve this b...............t charter or else we will simply write another one is no choice at all and the people recognise that their power to change anything without an outright rebellion is non-existent. Why should they be falling over themselves to participate in this charade? they will simply wait until a mass movement of some sort captures their imagination and then make their feelings known - hopefully in a peaceful way.

Hmmm, UK voters shouldn't have been asked to vote on Brexit, but Thai voters are OK to vote on a complicated rice scam that appeared to offer them huge benefits. Uh-huh.

If you " fully understand anyone who refuses to participate in sham democracy" then you should understand the necessity for a coup, and a try at something different. It seems the people are certainly not prepared to rise up in outright rebellion, ergo are willing to try something different, something which attempts to reduce the criminal element in government. Perhaps if they don't like it they will rebel.

Until then, that you don't like it is of little consequence.

BTW do you campaign at home against appointees to the house of lords?

tuanku: "Thailand repeatedly elects the Government which the majority wants and the military repeatedly overthrows it at the behest of the powerful minority."

Very true, and an excellent summary of 'democracy' in Thailand.

halloween: "If you " fully understand anyone who refuses to participate in sham democracy" then you should understand the necessity for a coup, and a try at something different."

Absolute nonsense. There was nothing sham about democracy before the coup, as evidenced by the elected government's attempt to hold another election and allow the voters a choice. The coup was held to prevent that election and protect vested interests during an upcoming transition.

Also, coups to protect the traditional power structure are not "something different" in Thailand. Keeping the military out of politics and allowing democracy to stay in place through repeated elections would be something different.

[halloween]

tuanku: "Thailand repeatedly elects the Government which the majority wants and the military repeatedly overthrows it at the behest of the powerful minority."

Very true, and an excellent summary of 'democracy' in Thailand.

halloween: "If you " fully understand anyone who refuses to participate in sham democracy" then you should understand the necessity for a coup, and a try at something different."

Absolute nonsense. There was nothing sham about democracy before the coup, as evidenced by the elected government's attempt to hold another election and allow the voters a choice. The coup was held to prevent that election and protect vested interests during an upcoming transition.

Also, coups to protect the traditional power structure are not "something different" in Thailand. Keeping the military out of politics and allowing democracy to stay in place through repeated elections would be something different.

If you think the previous democracy was acceptable, that is up to you. I have a few problems with it, most of which I have stated before. Perhaps you would like to give us your views on:

1/ MPs accepting payments from 3rd parties http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/gifts

2/ Allowing a fugitive criminal access to cabinet meetings https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/pol/cabinetconfidentiality.pdf

3/ appointment via party list of unsavoury characters to high office https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalerm_Yubamrung

4/ suborning of high ranking police to ignore blatant crimes http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/ex-dsi-chief-tarit-pengdit-amassed-346-million-baht-ill-gotten-wealth/

5/ blatant conflicts of interest, lying to parliament http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmcode/1885/188502.htm

I have provided links to US, Oz and UK parliamentary rules. Note that items 1 and 2 are criminal offences in those countries, item 5 is more a code of honour (try explaining that to PTP).

[halloween]

tuanku: "Thailand repeatedly elects the Government which the majority wants and the military repeatedly overthrows it at the behest of the powerful minority."

Very true, and an excellent summary of 'democracy' in Thailand.

halloween: "If you " fully understand anyone who refuses to participate in sham democracy" then you should understand the necessity for a coup, and a try at something different."

Absolute nonsense. There was nothing sham about democracy before the coup, as evidenced by the elected government's attempt to hold another election and allow the voters a choice. The coup was held to prevent that election and protect vested interests during an upcoming transition.

Also, coups to protect the traditional power structure are not "something different" in Thailand. Keeping the military out of politics and allowing democracy to stay in place through repeated elections would be something different.

If you think the previous democracy was acceptable, that is up to you. I have a few problems with it, most of which I have stated before. Perhaps you would like to give us your views on:

1/ MPs accepting payments from 3rd parties http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/gifts

2/ Allowing a fugitive criminal access to cabinet meetings https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/pol/cabinetconfidentiality.pdf

3/ appointment via party list of unsavoury characters to high office https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalerm_Yubamrung

4/ suborning of high ranking police to ignore blatant crimes http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/ex-dsi-chief-tarit-pengdit-amassed-346-million-baht-ill-gotten-wealth/

5/ blatant conflicts of interest, lying to parliament http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmcode/1885/188502.htm

I have provided links to US, Oz and UK parliamentary rules. Note that items 1 and 2 are criminal offences in those countries, item 5 is more a code of honour (try explaining that to PTP).

[MZurf]

tuanku: "Thailand repeatedly elects the Government which the majority wants and the military repeatedly overthrows it at the behest of the powerful minority."

Very true, and an excellent summary of 'democracy' in Thailand.

halloween: "If you " fully understand anyone who refuses to participate in sham democracy" then you should understand the necessity for a coup, and a try at something different."

Absolute nonsense. There was nothing sham about democracy before the coup, as evidenced by the elected government's attempt to hold another election and allow the voters a choice. The coup was held to prevent that election and protect vested interests during an upcoming transition.

Also, coups to protect the traditional power structure are not "something different" in Thailand. Keeping the military out of politics and allowing democracy to stay in place through repeated elections would be something different.

If you think the previous democracy was acceptable, that is up to you. I have a few problems with it, most of which I have stated before. Perhaps you would like to give us your views on:

1/ MPs accepting payments from 3rd parties http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/gifts

2/ Allowing a fugitive criminal access to cabinet meetings https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/pol/cabinetconfidentiality.pdf

3/ appointment via party list of unsavoury characters to high office https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalerm_Yubamrung

4/ suborning of high ranking police to ignore blatant crimes http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/ex-dsi-chief-tarit-pengdit-amassed-346-million-baht-ill-gotten-wealth/

5/ blatant conflicts of interest, lying to parliament http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmcode/1885/188502.htm

I have provided links to US, Oz and UK parliamentary rules. Note that items 1 and 2 are criminal offences in those countries, item 5 is more a code of honour (try explaining that to PTP).

And? How does this in any way excuse a military takeover? Are things better today? Really??

5555555555!

[halloween]

tuanku: "Thailand repeatedly elects the Government which the majority wants and the military repeatedly overthrows it at the behest of the powerful minority."

Very true, and an excellent summary of 'democracy' in Thailand.

halloween: "If you " fully understand anyone who refuses to participate in sham democracy" then you should understand the necessity for a coup, and a try at something different."

Absolute nonsense. There was nothing sham about democracy before the coup, as evidenced by the elected government's attempt to hold another election and allow the voters a choice. The coup was held to prevent that election and protect vested interests during an upcoming transition.

Also, coups to protect the traditional power structure are not "something different" in Thailand. Keeping the military out of politics and allowing democracy to stay in place through repeated elections would be something different.

If you think the previous democracy was acceptable, that is up to you. I have a few problems with it, most of which I have stated before. Perhaps you would like to give us your views on:

1/ MPs accepting payments from 3rd parties http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/gifts

2/ Allowing a fugitive criminal access to cabinet meetings https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/pol/cabinetconfidentiality.pdf

3/ appointment via party list of unsavoury characters to high office https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalerm_Yubamrung

4/ suborning of high ranking police to ignore blatant crimes http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/ex-dsi-chief-tarit-pengdit-amassed-346-million-baht-ill-gotten-wealth/

5/ blatant conflicts of interest, lying to parliament http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmcode/1885/188502.htm

I have provided links to US, Oz and UK parliamentary rules. Note that items 1 and 2 are criminal offences in those countries, item 5 is more a code of honour (try explaining that to PTP).

And? How does this in any way excuse a military takeover? Are things better today? Really??

5555555555!

As usual you avoid the point, that things WILL BE better in the future, as well failing to even approach the issues raised. I suppose that is to be expected of a self-claimed non-aligned critic.

[MZurf]

tuanku: "Thailand repeatedly elects the Government which the majority wants and the military repeatedly overthrows it at the behest of the powerful minority."

Very true, and an excellent summary of 'democracy' in Thailand.

halloween: "If you " fully understand anyone who refuses to participate in sham democracy" then you should understand the necessity for a coup, and a try at something different."

Absolute nonsense. There was nothing sham about democracy before the coup, as evidenced by the elected government's attempt to hold another election and allow the voters a choice. The coup was held to prevent that election and protect vested interests during an upcoming transition.

Also, coups to protect the traditional power structure are not "something different" in Thailand. Keeping the military out of politics and allowing democracy to stay in place through repeated elections would be something different.

If you think the previous democracy was acceptable, that is up to you. I have a few problems with it, most of which I have stated before. Perhaps you would like to give us your views on:

1/ MPs accepting payments from 3rd parties http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/gifts

2/ Allowing a fugitive criminal access to cabinet meetings https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/pol/cabinetconfidentiality.pdf

3/ appointment via party list of unsavoury characters to high office https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalerm_Yubamrung

4/ suborning of high ranking police to ignore blatant crimes http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/ex-dsi-chief-tarit-pengdit-amassed-346-million-baht-ill-gotten-wealth/

5/ blatant conflicts of interest, lying to parliament http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmcode/1885/188502.htm

I have provided links to US, Oz and UK parliamentary rules. Note that items 1 and 2 are criminal offences in those countries, item 5 is more a code of honour (try explaining that to PTP).

And? How does this in any way excuse a military takeover? Are things better today? Really??

5555555555!

As usual you avoid the point, that things WILL BE better in the future, as well failing to even approach the issues raised. I suppose that is to be expected of a self-claimed non-aligned critic.

"As usual you avoid the point, that things WILL BE better in the future......"

And just what makes you think that things WILL BE better in the future?? Please elaborate because this is something no junta supporter wants to answer.

[Eric Loh]

tuanku: "Thailand repeatedly elects the Government which the majority wants and the military repeatedly overthrows it at the behest of the powerful minority."

Very true, and an excellent summary of 'democracy' in Thailand.

halloween: "If you " fully understand anyone who refuses to participate in sham democracy" then you should understand the necessity for a coup, and a try at something different."

Absolute nonsense. There was nothing sham about democracy before the coup, as evidenced by the elected government's attempt to hold another election and allow the voters a choice. The coup was held to prevent that election and protect vested interests during an upcoming transition.

Also, coups to protect the traditional power structure are not "something different" in Thailand. Keeping the military out of politics and allowing democracy to stay in place through repeated elections would be something different.

If you think the previous democracy was acceptable, that is up to you. I have a few problems with it, most of which I have stated before. Perhaps you would like to give us your views on:

1/ MPs accepting payments from 3rd parties http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/gifts

2/ Allowing a fugitive criminal access to cabinet meetings https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/pol/cabinetconfidentiality.pdf

3/ appointment via party list of unsavoury characters to high office https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalerm_Yubamrung

4/ suborning of high ranking police to ignore blatant crimes http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/ex-dsi-chief-tarit-pengdit-amassed-346-million-baht-ill-gotten-wealth/

5/ blatant conflicts of interest, lying to parliament http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmcode/1885/188502.htm

I have provided links to US, Oz and UK parliamentary rules. Note that items 1 and 2 are criminal offences in those countries, item 5 is more a code of honour (try explaining that to PTP).

And? How does this in any way excuse a military takeover? Are things better today? Really??

5555555555!

Hallowen conveniently omitted another link related to the extra-constitutional overthrow of an elected government is not only illegal but amounts to the high crime of treason. Bigotry?

[heybruce]

tuanku: "Thailand repeatedly elects the Government which the majority wants and the military repeatedly overthrows it at the behest of the powerful minority."

Very true, and an excellent summary of 'democracy' in Thailand.

halloween: "If you " fully understand anyone who refuses to participate in sham democracy" then you should understand the necessity for a coup, and a try at something different."

Absolute nonsense. There was nothing sham about democracy before the coup, as evidenced by the elected government's attempt to hold another election and allow the voters a choice. The coup was held to prevent that election and protect vested interests during an upcoming transition.

Also, coups to protect the traditional power structure are not "something different" in Thailand. Keeping the military out of politics and allowing democracy to stay in place through repeated elections would be something different.

If you think the previous democracy was acceptable, that is up to you. I have a few problems with it, most of which I have stated before. Perhaps you would like to give us your views on:

1/ MPs accepting payments from 3rd parties http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/gifts

2/ Allowing a fugitive criminal access to cabinet meetings https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/pol/cabinetconfidentiality.pdf

3/ appointment via party list of unsavoury characters to high office https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalerm_Yubamrung

4/ suborning of high ranking police to ignore blatant crimes http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/ex-dsi-chief-tarit-pengdit-amassed-346-million-baht-ill-gotten-wealth/

5/ blatant conflicts of interest, lying to parliament http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmcode/1885/188502.htm

I have provided links to US, Oz and UK parliamentary rules. Note that items 1 and 2 are criminal offences in those countries, item 5 is more a code of honour (try explaining that to PTP).

I never said I liked the PTP government, just that it was up to the voters or the courts to remove it, not the military. There are political activities in my country which are legal that I think shouldn't be, yet I don't call for a military coup. Regarding your list:

Were any of those things illegal under the constitution written for the military after the 2006 coup?

Will any of those things be illegal under the draft constitution going to referendum?

Have governments in your country ever been guilty of anything on your list, and did you call for a military coup in response?

Are military coups legal in the US, Oz, or the UK?

Most important, and least likely to be answered, why do you prefer a thoroughly corrupt military government that will stay in power as long as it likes to an elected government that can be peacefully removed by the voters?

Edited July 8, 2016 by heybruce

[halloween]

tuanku: "Thailand repeatedly elects the Government which the majority wants and the military repeatedly overthrows it at the behest of the powerful minority."

Very true, and an excellent summary of 'democracy' in Thailand.

halloween: "If you " fully understand anyone who refuses to participate in sham democracy" then you should understand the necessity for a coup, and a try at something different."

Absolute nonsense. There was nothing sham about democracy before the coup, as evidenced by the elected government's attempt to hold another election and allow the voters a choice. The coup was held to prevent that election and protect vested interests during an upcoming transition.

Also, coups to protect the traditional power structure are not "something different" in Thailand. Keeping the military out of politics and allowing democracy to stay in place through repeated elections would be something different.

If you think the previous democracy was acceptable, that is up to you. I have a few problems with it, most of which I have stated before. Perhaps you would like to give us your views on:

1/ MPs accepting payments from 3rd parties http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/gifts

2/ Allowing a fugitive criminal access to cabinet meetings https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/pol/cabinetconfidentiality.pdf

3/ appointment via party list of unsavoury characters to high office https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalerm_Yubamrung

4/ suborning of high ranking police to ignore blatant crimes http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/ex-dsi-chief-tarit-pengdit-amassed-346-million-baht-ill-gotten-wealth/

5/ blatant conflicts of interest, lying to parliament http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmcode/1885/188502.htm

I have provided links to US, Oz and UK parliamentary rules. Note that items 1 and 2 are criminal offences in those countries, item 5 is more a code of honour (try explaining that to PTP).

I never said I liked the PTP government, just that it was up to the voters or the courts to remove it, not the military. There are political activities in my country which are legal that I think shouldn't be, yet I don't call for a military coup. Regarding your list:

Were any of those things illegal under the constitution written for the military after the 2006 coup?

Will any of those things be illegal under the draft constitution going to referendum?

Have governments in your country ever been guilty of anything on your list, and did you call for a military coup in response?

Are military coups legal in the US, Oz, or the UK?

Most important, and least likely to be answered, why do you prefer a thoroughly corrupt military government that will stay in power as long as it likes to an elected government that can be peacefully removed by the voters?

Hang about, I wasn't talking about the PTP government which merely used the available rules, I was highlighting the problems with Thai democracy. Whether or not those issues will be addressed is another matter, if not now, hopefully sometime in the future. But they are certainly not desirable traits in a real democracy, which was the whole point. If you find those things acceptable then advocate business as usual. If you don't ask for change.

Have governments been guilty, no. Members have, and been prosecuted/punished/resigned.

Military coups are illegal everywhere. How is that relevant to the measure of a democracy where MPs take regular bribes, and criminal politicians rob the populace?

I don't PREFER a military government, but I will accept one temporarily to change a corrupt democracy, hopefully to something better. Cue the monkey with his evolution theory.

[halloween]

Hallowen conveniently omitted another link related to the extra-constitutional overthrow of an elected government is not only illegal but amounts to the high crime of treason. Bigotry?

Good on you Eric, have a quick snipe with an unsupported claim, but avoid the issues being discussed. Is removing criminals from office a criminal offence? Should PTP have been allowed to borrow B2.2 trillion to prop up their rice scam?

[heybruce]

tuanku: "Thailand repeatedly elects the Government which the majority wants and the military repeatedly overthrows it at the behest of the powerful minority."

Very true, and an excellent summary of 'democracy' in Thailand.

halloween: "If you " fully understand anyone who refuses to participate in sham democracy" then you should understand the necessity for a coup, and a try at something different."

Absolute nonsense. There was nothing sham about democracy before the coup, as evidenced by the elected government's attempt to hold another election and allow the voters a choice. The coup was held to prevent that election and protect vested interests during an upcoming transition.

Also, coups to protect the traditional power structure are not "something different" in Thailand. Keeping the military out of politics and allowing democracy to stay in place through repeated elections would be something different.

If you think the previous democracy was acceptable, that is up to you. I have a few problems with it, most of which I have stated before. Perhaps you would like to give us your views on:

1/ MPs accepting payments from 3rd parties http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/gifts

2/ Allowing a fugitive criminal access to cabinet meetings https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/pol/cabinetconfidentiality.pdf

3/ appointment via party list of unsavoury characters to high office https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalerm_Yubamrung

4/ suborning of high ranking police to ignore blatant crimes http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/ex-dsi-chief-tarit-pengdit-amassed-346-million-baht-ill-gotten-wealth/

5/ blatant conflicts of interest, lying to parliament http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmcode/1885/188502.htm

I have provided links to US, Oz and UK parliamentary rules. Note that items 1 and 2 are criminal offences in those countries, item 5 is more a code of honour (try explaining that to PTP).

I never said I liked the PTP government, just that it was up to the voters or the courts to remove it, not the military. There are political activities in my country which are legal that I think shouldn't be, yet I don't call for a military coup. Regarding your list:

Were any of those things illegal under the constitution written for the military after the 2006 coup?

Will any of those things be illegal under the draft constitution going to referendum?

Have governments in your country ever been guilty of anything on your list, and did you call for a military coup in response?

Are military coups legal in the US, Oz, or the UK?

Most important, and least likely to be answered, why do you prefer a thoroughly corrupt military government that will stay in power as long as it likes to an elected government that can be peacefully removed by the voters?

Hang about, I wasn't talking about the PTP government which merely used the available rules, I was highlighting the problems with Thai democracy. Whether or not those issues will be addressed is another matter, if not now, hopefully sometime in the future. But they are certainly not desirable traits in a real democracy, which was the whole point. If you find those things acceptable then advocate business as usual. If you don't ask for change.

Have governments been guilty, no. Members have, and been prosecuted/punished/resigned.

Military coups are illegal everywhere. How is that relevant to the measure of a democracy where MPs take regular bribes, and criminal politicians rob the populace?

I don't PREFER a military government, but I will accept one temporarily to change a corrupt democracy, hopefully to something better. Cue the monkey with his evolution theory.

"I was highlighting the problems with Thai democracy."

You ignore, as always, the big problem with Thai democracy; an above the law military that stages coups and trashes constitutions with impunity. The flaws you seem so upset about are trivial details compared to that.

"If you find those things acceptable then advocate business as usual. If you don't ask for change."

Ask for change? Did the military ask "Mother may I?" before staging the most recent coup? And how does another coup qualify as change?

Pull your head out of the sand, or where ever you keep it. Thai democracy was flawed, as all democracies are. However only a fool or a toadie would back a corrupt, human rights abusing military government that can't be peacefully removed over an elected government.

Do you know anything about recent world history, especially as it pertains to democracy vs military rule? I'll give you the bottom line in advance: In a society with gross inequities just emerging from a prolonged period of on-and-off military rule, it is normal for the society to go through a period of corrupt democracy with politicians that get elected by 'populist policies' which relieve inequity. Once the voters are confidant the military coups are over and the worst of the inequity has been eliminated, they will turn their attention to clean government.

Latin American countries went through regular cycles of weak democracies and military coups for much of the twentieth century. During this time the military and its allies concentrated power and wealth near the capitals and big cities where it could be easily controlled. Of course the generals also made themselves obscenely rich through corruption. Why not? They weren't just above the law, they were the law. Much like present day Thailand.

Gross social inequity arose; peasants in the provinces lived in extreme poverty while the generals and allies grew rich. After the military was finally sent back to the barracks and democracy returned, the voters elected corrupt politicians for decades with the rationale "He'll steal but he'll get things done." Only after the worst of the social inequities had been addressed and the public was confident that the military wouldn't stage another coup did the voters make clean government a priority, as is currently happening in Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil and Argentina.

Look at Thailand before Thaksin. 90% of government investment went to Bangkok. Bangkok was building state of the art infrastructure, and the military and well connected families were getting very rich, while the north and northeast lived in third world conditions. Thaksin promised better and partially delivered by building roads, schools and clinics in the neglected areas. By 2012 'only' 72% of government investment was going to Bangkok--which is outrageous but an improvement. Thaksin stole, but he got things done.

However the generals in Thailand have no intention of following the Latin America path, they have no intentions of putting their troops back in the barracks and staying out of politics. People like you who insist military rule is acceptable because the evolving democracy isn't perfect are useful dupes for the military.

Once again, why do you prefer a corrupt, human rights abusing military government that can't be removed peacefully to an elected government that can be removed by an election?

"I don't PREFER a military government, but I will accept one temporarily to change a corrupt democracy..."

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. How many military governments has Thailand had, and when has one of them ever lead to a democracy that meets your standards? If the answer is none, what does that say about your insanity?

[Eric Loh]

Hallowen conveniently omitted another link related to the extra-constitutional overthrow of an elected government is not only illegal but amounts to the high crime of treason. Bigotry?

Good on you Eric, have a quick snipe with an unsupported claim, but avoid the issues being discussed. Is removing criminals from office a criminal offence? Should PTP have been allowed to borrow B2.2 trillion to prop up their rice scam?

What can I say after Bruce's excellent to the point rebuttal. Shallow, trivial, irrelevant and diversion from you as usual. Totally missing the big picture.

[Alive]

So the 20 million Thais are going to have to travel on that long weekend to vote? Gonna be a mess. Many BKK unis start the monday after but have activities for new students the week before. Prayuth and cronies are screwing over those kids. Factories will have to deal with travel by employees. The BKKers will comfortably vote because most of them work locally. Rural folks get screwed with all this travel on the same days back and forth to the countryside. They do see their families but waste a lot of time and money. But the plan is all for Bangkok and they don't complain enough about that so they lose out. They've got to fight for change.

[rubl]

Now where could that apathy be coming from?

The truth is, Mr. Happy Face Friday Evening and His Friends, are not going away, regardless of the vote outcome. Perhaps the Thai people are being rational.

The truth is that you state your opinion, as non-involved foreigner.

Now we know that in 2007 and 1997 the number of people reading the draft constitution was in the very low numbers. Most just voted as told, for or against. Why would that be different now?

The Thai version of the draft charter has been available since end of March. That's more than three months ago. We had posters suggesting to be against, no need to read, and now complaints of 'where is it', 'we have no time to read'. Last will be the 'it doesn't matter'.

Consistency? Yes, in the negative waves, Moriarty.

Edited July 9, 2016 by rubl

[phoenixdoglover]

Now where could that apathy be coming from?

The truth is, Mr. Happy Face Friday Evening and His Friends, are not going away, regardless of the vote outcome. Perhaps the Thai people are being rational.

The truth is that you state your opinion, as non-involved foreigner.

Now we know that in 2007 and 1997 the number of people reading the draft constitution was in the very low numbers. Most just voted as told, for or against. Why would that be different now?

The Thai version of the draft charter has been available since end of March. That's more than three months ago. We had posters suggesting to be against, no need to read, and now complaints of 'where is it', 'we have no time to read'. Last will be the 'it doesn't matter'.

Consistency? Yes, in the negative waves, Moriarty.

Where do you get this "non-involved" description?

At the least, many of us posting here are involved, not as citizens, but as people with strong ties and commitments to Thailand. As for myself, I have a definite personal interest in the outcome of the Charter vote and the course of the country.

I think I am very much entitled to an opinion, as is everybody else here.

I agree people here are negative about the Junta, the referendum, and the Charter. There are good reasons for that, and there are some posters who combine that with negative opinions in general. This isn't new.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 Eye using Tapatalk

[GeorgesAbitbol]

Galling isn't it, that they trust their military to do the right thing by the nation much more than the criminals they elect?

They do?? How do you figure that? Has there been an election I missed that proved your rather laughable statement? Or did you just pull it out of a certain place?

You see, to me it isn't galling at all if the Thai population elects to be ruled by the military. What's galling is that the military prevents them from doing so.

Keep singing your one note song. If it isn't "election" it's nothing.

The junta has been encouraging people to read the new charter, to register to vote, and to vote, without propagandists getting to spew their crap. I explain their indifference by trust, whereas you don't seem to have an explanation.

BTW the election will be after the new charter is installed. The junta won't be on the ballot. And yes, I would rather see anybody else running this country than a venal career criminal. Why you ignore his crimes because he is popular is the mystery.

What you call propaganda is freedom of speech.

Opposing the army to criminals is just showing your lack of knowledge regarding Thai History and army involvment in most of the thai citizen massacres for more than 60 years now.

How is the river Kwai those days? You have asweet bridge there to live under frim what i have heard..

[Thechook]

I guess 99% know it is pointless voting and the results are already known in this secretive sham referendum.

[rubl]

Now where could that apathy be coming from?

The truth is, Mr. Happy Face Friday Evening and His Friends, are not going away, regardless of the vote outcome. Perhaps the Thai people are being rational.

The truth is that you state your opinion, as non-involved foreigner.

Now we know that in 2007 and 1997 the number of people reading the draft constitution was in the very low numbers. Most just voted as told, for or against. Why would that be different now?

The Thai version of the draft charter has been available since end of March. That's more than three months ago. We had posters suggesting to be against, no need to read, and now complaints of 'where is it', 'we have no time to read'. Last will be the 'it doesn't matter'.

Consistency? Yes, in the negative waves, Moriarty.

Where do you get this "non-involved" description?

At the least, many of us posting here are involved, not as citizens, but as people with strong ties and commitments to Thailand. As for myself, I have a definite personal interest in the outcome of the Charter vote and the course of the country.

I think I am very much entitled to an opinion, as is everybody else here.

I agree people here are negative about the Junta, the referendum, and the Charter. There are good reasons for that, and there are some posters who combine that with negative opinions in general. This isn't new.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 Eye using Tapatalk

So you stated your opinion as involved foreigner. Fine, no problem. The only problem was in your "The truth is ...".

My observation is that the negatives here seem all for a return to the previous state, remote control by a criminal fugitive. No real structural sound comments to improve the situation and build up a real democracy. Only the usual 'let's have a vote' as if that works when people don't even seem aware of a referendum while all foreigners know such.

Edited July 10, 2016 by rubl

[MZurf]

Now where could that apathy be coming from?

The truth is, Mr. Happy Face Friday Evening and His Friends, are not going away, regardless of the vote outcome. Perhaps the Thai people are being rational.

The truth is that you state your opinion, as non-involved foreigner.

Now we know that in 2007 and 1997 the number of people reading the draft constitution was in the very low numbers. Most just voted as told, for or against. Why would that be different now?

The Thai version of the draft charter has been available since end of March. That's more than three months ago. We had posters suggesting to be against, no need to read, and now complaints of 'where is it', 'we have no time to read'. Last will be the 'it doesn't matter'.

Consistency? Yes, in the negative waves, Moriarty.

Where do you get this "non-involved" description?

At the least, many of us posting here are involved, not as citizens, but as people with strong ties and commitments to Thailand. As for myself, I have a definite personal interest in the outcome of the Charter vote and the course of the country.

I think I am very much entitled to an opinion, as is everybody else here.

I agree people here are negative about the Junta, the referendum, and the Charter. There are good reasons for that, and there are some posters who combine that with negative opinions in general. This isn't new.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 Eye using Tapatalk

So you stated your opinion as involved foreigner. Fine, no problem. The only problem was in your "The truth is ...".

My observation is that the negatives here seem all for a return to the previous state, remote control by a criminal fugitive. No real structural sound comments to improve the situation and build up a real democracy. Only the usual 'let's have a vote' as if that works when people don't even seem aware of a referendum while all foreigners know such.

"My observation is that the negatives here seem all for a return to the previous state, remote control by a criminal fugitive."

Actually, your observation is wrong. What I and many other TVF posters (correct me if I'm wrong) are for is a return to democracy, where there are checks and balances in place that can oust a government without resorting to weapons.

Yes, the democracy the military (yet again) overthrew was a seriously flawed one, but a whole lot better than having a bunch of unelected dinosaurs who's main concern is making sure they never again are denied access to the trough. Remember how they promised to root out corruption, nepotism and to treat everyone equally? How is that going??

"No real structural sound comments to improve the situation and build up a real democracy."

So are you saying that the present junta are structurally improving the situation and building a real democracy?? And just how are they doing this?

Please list their achievements so far. Come on now, it shouldn't take you long!

[Holy Cinema]

Galling isn't it, that they trust their military to do the right thing by the nation much more than the criminals they elect?

They do?? How do you figure that? Has there been an election I missed that proved your rather laughable statement? Or did you just pull it out of a certain place?

You see, to me it isn't galling at all if the Thai population elects to be ruled by the military. What's galling is that the military prevents them from doing so.

Keep singing your one note song. If it isn't "election" it's nothing.

The junta has been encouraging people to read the new charter, to register to vote, and to vote, without propagandists getting to spew their crap. I explain their indifference by trust, whereas you don't seem to have an explanation.

BTW the election will be after the new charter is installed. The junta won't be on the ballot. And yes, I would rather see anybody else running this country than a venal career criminal. Why you ignore his crimes because he is popular is the mystery.

Stevie Wonder called to ask for his glasses back.

[halloween]

"My observation is that the negatives here seem all for a return to the previous state, remote control by a criminal fugitive."

Actually, your observation is wrong. What I and many other TVF posters (correct me if I'm wrong) are for is a return to democracy, where there are checks and balances in place that can oust a government without resorting to weapons.

Yes, the democracy the military (yet again) overthrew was a seriously flawed one, but a whole lot better than having a bunch of unelected dinosaurs who's main concern is making sure they never again are denied access to the trough. Remember how they promised to root out corruption, nepotism and to treat everyone equally? How is that going??

"No real structural sound comments to improve the situation and build up a real democracy."

So are you saying that the present junta are structurally improving the situation and building a real democracy?? And just how are they doing this?

Please list their achievements so far. Come on now, it shouldn't take you long!

"......where there are checks and balances in place that can oust a government without resorting to weapons."

And in the interest of true democracy, those checks and balances had their funding reduced by 60%. Oh and let's have an amnesty that covers the government in case a 60% reduction isn't enough. Of course, the ""without weapons" doesn't include "government supporters" who feel they have the right to kill protesters, and a few kiddies as collateral damage.

Tell us again about your lack of bias, I need a another good laugh.

[MZurf]

"My observation is that the negatives here seem all for a return to the previous state, remote control by a criminal fugitive."

Actually, your observation is wrong. What I and many other TVF posters (correct me if I'm wrong) are for is a return to democracy, where there are checks and balances in place that can oust a government without resorting to weapons.

Yes, the democracy the military (yet again) overthrew was a seriously flawed one, but a whole lot better than having a bunch of unelected dinosaurs who's main concern is making sure they never again are denied access to the trough. Remember how they promised to root out corruption, nepotism and to treat everyone equally? How is that going??

"No real structural sound comments to improve the situation and build up a real democracy."

So are you saying that the present junta are structurally improving the situation and building a real democracy?? And just how are they doing this?

Please list their achievements so far. Come on now, it shouldn't take you long!

"......where there are checks and balances in place that can oust a government without resorting to weapons."

And in the interest of true democracy, those checks and balances had their funding reduced by 60%. Oh and let's have an amnesty that covers the government in case a 60% reduction isn't enough. Of course, the ""without weapons" doesn't include "government supporters" who feel they have the right to kill protesters, and a few kiddies as collateral damage.

Tell us again about your lack of bias, I need a another good laugh.

" Oh and let's have an amnesty that covers the government in case a 60% reduction isn't enough. "

Are you still bleating on about the attempted amnesty of the YL government, or are you finally owning up to the shameful amnesty the junta gave itself?

" Tell us again about your lack of bias, I need a another good laugh."

You misunderstand (yet again). I'm totally biased for elected governments and against juntas.

[halloween]

"My observation is that the negatives here seem all for a return to the previous state, remote control by a criminal fugitive."

Actually, your observation is wrong. What I and many other TVF posters (correct me if I'm wrong) are for is a return to democracy, where there are checks and balances in place that can oust a government without resorting to weapons.

Yes, the democracy the military (yet again) overthrew was a seriously flawed one, but a whole lot better than having a bunch of unelected dinosaurs who's main concern is making sure they never again are denied access to the trough. Remember how they promised to root out corruption, nepotism and to treat everyone equally? How is that going??

"No real structural sound comments to improve the situation and build up a real democracy."

So are you saying that the present junta are structurally improving the situation and building a real democracy?? And just how are they doing this?

Please list their achievements so far. Come on now, it shouldn't take you long!

"......where there are checks and balances in place that can oust a government without resorting to weapons."

And in the interest of true democracy, those checks and balances had their funding reduced by 60%. Oh and let's have an amnesty that covers the government in case a 60% reduction isn't enough. Of course, the ""without weapons" doesn't include "government supporters" who feel they have the right to kill protesters, and a few kiddies as collateral damage.

Tell us again about your lack of bias, I need a another good laugh.

" Oh and let's have an amnesty that covers the government in case a 60% reduction isn't enough. "

Are you still bleating on about the attempted amnesty of the YL government, or are you finally owning up to the shameful amnesty the junta gave itself?

" Tell us again about your lack of bias, I need a another good laugh."

You misunderstand (yet again). I'm totally biased for elected governments and against juntas.

So you don't want to discuss the 60% reduction in the "checks and balances in place that can oust a government without resorting to weapons."?

Or why a government that has obeyed the law requires an amnesty? Do you know of any other democratic governments that have tried to pass themselves an amnesty?

[MZurf]

"My observation is that the negatives here seem all for a return to the previous state, remote control by a criminal fugitive."

Actually, your observation is wrong. What I and many other TVF posters (correct me if I'm wrong) are for is a return to democracy, where there are checks and balances in place that can oust a government without resorting to weapons.

Yes, the democracy the military (yet again) overthrew was a seriously flawed one, but a whole lot better than having a bunch of unelected dinosaurs who's main concern is making sure they never again are denied access to the trough. Remember how they promised to root out corruption, nepotism and to treat everyone equally? How is that going??

"No real structural sound comments to improve the situation and build up a real democracy."

So are you saying that the present junta are structurally improving the situation and building a real democracy?? And just how are they doing this?

Please list their achievements so far. Come on now, it shouldn't take you long!

"......where there are checks and balances in place that can oust a government without resorting to weapons."

And in the interest of true democracy, those checks and balances had their funding reduced by 60%. Oh and let's have an amnesty that covers the government in case a 60% reduction isn't enough. Of course, the ""without weapons" doesn't include "government supporters" who feel they have the right to kill protesters, and a few kiddies as collateral damage.

Tell us again about your lack of bias, I need a another good laugh.

" Oh and let's have an amnesty that covers the government in case a 60% reduction isn't enough. "

Are you still bleating on about the attempted amnesty of the YL government, or are you finally owning up to the shameful amnesty the junta gave itself?

" Tell us again about your lack of bias, I need a another good laugh."

You misunderstand (yet again). I'm totally biased for elected governments and against juntas.

So you don't want to discuss the 60% reduction in the "checks and balances in place that can oust a government without resorting to weapons."?

Or why a government that has obeyed the law requires an amnesty? Do you know of any other democratic governments that have tried to pass themselves an amnesty?

" So you don't want to discuss the 60% reduction in the "checks and balances in place that can oust a government without resorting to weapons."?"

Uh, no.

" Or why a government that has obeyed the law requires an amnesty? Do you know of any other democratic governments that have tried to pass themselves an amnesty?"

Do you have any idea how hypocritical you sound obsessing about the attempted amnesty when your junta gave themselves the mother of all of them?

Rethorical question, of course.

[Holy Cinema]

"My observation is that the negatives here seem all for a return to the previous state, remote control by a criminal fugitive."

Actually, your observation is wrong. What I and many other TVF posters (correct me if I'm wrong) are for is a return to democracy, where there are checks and balances in place that can oust a government without resorting to weapons.

Yes, the democracy the military (yet again) overthrew was a seriously flawed one, but a whole lot better than having a bunch of unelected dinosaurs who's main concern is making sure they never again are denied access to the trough. Remember how they promised to root out corruption, nepotism and to treat everyone equally? How is that going??

"No real structural sound comments to improve the situation and build up a real democracy."

So are you saying that the present junta are structurally improving the situation and building a real democracy?? And just how are they doing this?

Please list their achievements so far. Come on now, it shouldn't take you long!

"......where there are checks and balances in place that can oust a government without resorting to weapons."

And in the interest of true democracy, those checks and balances had their funding reduced by 60%. Oh and let's have an amnesty that covers the government in case a 60% reduction isn't enough. Of course, the ""without weapons" doesn't include "government supporters" who feel they have the right to kill protesters, and a few kiddies as collateral damage.

Tell us again about your lack of bias, I need a another good laugh.

Your beloved Junta holds zero moral high ground when it comes to killing protestors, and collateral damage.

[Holy Cinema]

"My observation is that the negatives here seem all for a return to the previous state, remote control by a criminal fugitive."

Actually, your observation is wrong. What I and many other TVF posters (correct me if I'm wrong) are for is a return to democracy, where there are checks and balances in place that can oust a government without resorting to weapons.

Yes, the democracy the military (yet again) overthrew was a seriously flawed one, but a whole lot better than having a bunch of unelected dinosaurs who's main concern is making sure they never again are denied access to the trough. Remember how they promised to root out corruption, nepotism and to treat everyone equally? How is that going??

"No real structural sound comments to improve the situation and build up a real democracy."

So are you saying that the present junta are structurally improving the situation and building a real democracy?? And just how are they doing this?

Please list their achievements so far. Come on now, it shouldn't take you long!

"......where there are checks and balances in place that can oust a government without resorting to weapons."

And in the interest of true democracy, those checks and balances had their funding reduced by 60%. Oh and let's have an amnesty that covers the government in case a 60% reduction isn't enough. Of course, the ""without weapons" doesn't include "government supporters" who feel they have the right to kill protesters, and a few kiddies as collateral damage.

Tell us again about your lack of bias, I need a another good laugh.

" Oh and let's have an amnesty that covers the government in case a 60% reduction isn't enough. "

Are you still bleating on about the attempted amnesty of the YL government, or are you finally owning up to the shameful amnesty the junta gave itself?

" Tell us again about your lack of bias, I need a another good laugh."

You misunderstand (yet again). I'm totally biased for elected governments and against juntas.

So you don't want to discuss the 60% reduction in the "checks and balances in place that can oust a government without resorting to weapons."?

Or why a government that has obeyed the law requires an amnesty? Do you know of any other democratic governments that have tried to pass themselves an amnesty?

And the checks and balances that are in place now?

[heybruce]

Now where could that apathy be coming from?

The truth is, Mr. Happy Face Friday Evening and His Friends, are not going away, regardless of the vote outcome. Perhaps the Thai people are being rational.

The truth is that you state your opinion, as non-involved foreigner.

Now we know that in 2007 and 1997 the number of people reading the draft constitution was in the very low numbers. Most just voted as told, for or against. Why would that be different now?

The Thai version of the draft charter has been available since end of March. That's more than three months ago. We had posters suggesting to be against, no need to read, and now complaints of 'where is it', 'we have no time to read'. Last will be the 'it doesn't matter'.

Consistency? Yes, in the negative waves, Moriarty.

Where do you get this "non-involved" description?

At the least, many of us posting here are involved, not as citizens, but as people with strong ties and commitments to Thailand. As for myself, I have a definite personal interest in the outcome of the Charter vote and the course of the country.

I think I am very much entitled to an opinion, as is everybody else here.

I agree people here are negative about the Junta, the referendum, and the Charter. There are good reasons for that, and there are some posters who combine that with negative opinions in general. This isn't new.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 Eye using Tapatalk

So you stated your opinion as involved foreigner. Fine, no problem. The only problem was in your "The truth is ...".

My observation is that the negatives here seem all for a return to the previous state, remote control by a criminal fugitive. No real structural sound comments to improve the situation and build up a real democracy. Only the usual 'let's have a vote' as if that works when people don't even seem aware of a referendum while all foreigners know such.

"My observation is that the negatives here seem all for a return to the previous state, remote control by a criminal fugitive."

I knew you'd bring it up. But, but, but....Thaksin!

rubl's view--"remote control by a criminal fugitive" is unacceptable, even though it was promised in the 2011 election campaign and is what the voters wanted, even though it was legal under the constitution written for the military after their last coup, even though the government was attempting to hold an election to let the voters change their minds.

Heavy handed, human rights trampling control by a military guilty of crimes far worse than Thaksin is fine. The fact that the junta can't be removed without bloodshed, no problem. The fact that it's been tried many times since the 1932 coup without leading to democracy and a military that stays out of politics, not a concern. Who knows, maybe it will be twentieth time lucky. http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21693251-some-generals-come-up-new-plan-saving-thailand-democracy-twentieth-time-lucky

Too bad so few people agree with you.

[heybruce]

"My observation is that the negatives here seem all for a return to the previous state, remote control by a criminal fugitive."

Actually, your observation is wrong. What I and many other TVF posters (correct me if I'm wrong) are for is a return to democracy, where there are checks and balances in place that can oust a government without resorting to weapons.

Yes, the democracy the military (yet again) overthrew was a seriously flawed one, but a whole lot better than having a bunch of unelected dinosaurs who's main concern is making sure they never again are denied access to the trough. Remember how they promised to root out corruption, nepotism and to treat everyone equally? How is that going??

"No real structural sound comments to improve the situation and build up a real democracy."

So are you saying that the present junta are structurally improving the situation and building a real democracy?? And just how are they doing this?

Please list their achievements so far. Come on now, it shouldn't take you long!

"......where there are checks and balances in place that can oust a government without resorting to weapons."

And in the interest of true democracy, those checks and balances had their funding reduced by 60%. Oh and let's have an amnesty that covers the government in case a 60% reduction isn't enough. Of course, the ""without weapons" doesn't include "government supporters" who feel they have the right to kill protesters, and a few kiddies as collateral damage.

Tell us again about your lack of bias, I need a another good laugh.

" Oh and let's have an amnesty that covers the government in case a 60% reduction isn't enough. "

Are you still bleating on about the attempted amnesty of the YL government, or are you finally owning up to the shameful amnesty the junta gave itself?

" Tell us again about your lack of bias, I need a another good laugh."

You misunderstand (yet again). I'm totally biased for elected governments and against juntas.

So you don't want to discuss the 60% reduction in the "checks and balances in place that can oust a government without resorting to weapons."?

Or why a government that has obeyed the law requires an amnesty? Do you know of any other democratic governments that have tried to pass themselves an amnesty?

Do you genuinely want to discuss the budget cut in the ineffective anti-corruption office, or are you just grasping at straws?

Do you want to discuss an amnesty considered and rejected, in accordance with the constitution written for the military after their 2006 coup, and compare it with the amnesty the military could only grant itself after overthrowing the government and suspending the constitution?

Will you finally explain to us why you think this corrupt military which is guilty of far worse crimes than the Shinawatra's, and can not be removed without bloodshed, is better than the government that could be removed with an election? Can you explain why, after all the coups, all the military governments, and all the constitutions since 1932, you think this time military rule will lead to wonderful democracy that meets your standards from day one?