PM Prayut says there must be political reforms before an election

[NativeSon360]

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Seriously?  If you respect this self-serving douche you are in a small minority.  The fact that he bought his way to the top of a thoroughly corrupt military speaks volumes about the man's character.  Also, coup's aren't risky in Thailand, being elected is risky.

 

Don't confuse propaganda and harsh censorship laws that forbid criticism for respect.

 

I'm sure John F. Kennedy would definitely confirm your notion that being "elected" by the people, is risky.

Thank you for the clarity. I'm not much of a know-it-all, but please read my previously edited post update,

Edited September 1, 2016 by NativeSon360

[Winniedapu]

44 minutes ago, NativeSon360 said:

It is absolutely astounding to me, that so many farangs on this platform, have so many "knowledgeable" suggestions about "how" the body politics of the Thai government should function. Especially, when they (themselves) come from countries that are total economic-political circuses of their own. Should I name a few, of those other Red, White & Blue, so-called "First World" perfect countries?  Democracy is an over-rated, mercurial abyss of a political platform. Period! Sadam Hussein proved that much to be a fact!

 

 

The decision as to whether or not to believe or trust a person is generally based on one's perception of how that person looks and sounds, not whether that person has been honest or trustworthy previously. Sometimes it's based on obedience to what someone else has told them.

 

You probably base your perception of him on his appearance or what one of the local ladies has said.

 

What is probably astounding to you is not that so many farangs speak against the man (though that is certainly true and well-justified), but that so many people, who seem intelligent to you, don't agree with you, and you just don't understand how that could be.

 

But perhaps they just know more than you do. That's possible. No shame in that.

 

Winnie

Edited September 1, 2016 by Winniedapu

[heybruce]

29 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Seriously?  If you respect this self-serving douche you are in a small minority.  The fact that he bought his way to the top of a thoroughly corrupt military speaks volumes about the man's character.  Also, coup's aren't risky in Thailand, being elected is risky.

 

Don't confuse propaganda and harsh censorship laws that forbid criticism for respect.

 

 

21 minutes ago, NativeSon360 said:

I'm not a know-it-all, but please read my previous post, edited update,

I've reviewed your last few posts, I didn't see anything that causes me to reconsider my post.

 

I'm a retired officer from a military that doesn't stage coups.  I don't like generals that preside over a corrupt military and topple legitimate elected governments, in fact I hold them in contempt.  Also, my opinion of westerners who support these generals isn't very good.

[NativeSon360]

6 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

I've reviewed your last few posts, I didn't see anything that causes me to reconsider my post.

 

I'm a retired officer from a military that doesn't stage coups.  I don't like generals that preside over a corrupt military and topple legitimate elected governments, in fact I hold them in contempt.  Also, my opinion of westerners who support these generals isn't very good.

"I'm a retired officer from a military that doesn't stage coups" -

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, NativeSon360 said:

"I'm a retired officer from a military that doesn't stage coups" -

Do you dispute my post?

[NativeSon360]

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Do you dispute my post?

No, SIR! I wouldn't dare consider doing such an "intelligent" thing, 

Edited September 1, 2016 by NativeSon360

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, NativeSon360 said:

No, SIR! I wouldn't dare do such an "intelligent" thing, i.e., remembering John F. Kennedy!

I see, a conspiracy theorist.  I didn't know I was dealing with a member of the tin-foil hat brigade.

[NativeSon360]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I see, a conspiracy theorist.  I didn't know I was dealing with a member of the tin-foil hat brigade.

No, you don't see. Good morning, and have a blissful life, for the duration. Ciao!

Edited September 1, 2016 by NativeSon360

[heybruce]

25 minutes ago, NativeSon360 said:

No, you don't see. Good morning, and have a blissful life, for the duration. Ciao!

I did find one of your posts that puts you in perspective:

 

" I've smoked marijuana for 55-years."  http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/940685-survey-more-us-adults-use-marijuana-dont-think-its-risky /?page=2#comment-11107803

 

No doubt Prayut is proud to have you as a supporter.

[NativeSon360]

43 minutes ago, Winniedapu said:

 

The decision as to whether or not to believe or trust a person is generally based on one's perception of how that person looks and sounds, not whether that person has been honest or trustworthy previously. Sometimes it's based on obedience to what someone else has told them.

 

You probably base your perception of him on his appearance or what one of the local ladies has said.

 

What is probably astounding to you is not that so many farangs speak against the man (though that is certainly true and well-justified), but that so many people, who seem intelligent to you, don't agree with you, and you just don't understand how that could be.

 

But perhaps they just know more than you do. That's possible. No shame in that.

 

Winnie

Again, duh! "It is absolutely astounding to me, that so many farangs on this platform, have so many "knowledgeable" suggestions about "how" the body politics of the Thai government should function. Especially, when they (themselves) come from countries that are total economic-political circuses of their own".

 

Now, what I do know is the value of minding my own "citizenship" business. If Thai Immigration policies do not change, to adversely affect my "guest" status in The Kingdom, and the Thai currency remains reasonably stable, then whatever else that transpires within Thai society is really none of my, or any other farang's business. No shame in "respecting" the turf-boundaries of other people either. Capisce?

[NativeSon360]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

I did find one of your posts that puts you in perspective:

 

" I've smoked marijuana for 55-years."  http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/940685-survey-more-us-adults-use-marijuana-dont-think-its-risky /?page=2#comment-11107803

 

No doubt Prayut is proud to have you as a supporter.

I am nether a supporter , nor a detractor of PM _ Mr.Prayuth. If your reading comprehension ability were on a par level with your pretentious, self-aggrandizing diatribes, then you would have more readily "grasped the drift" of my comment, in that gentleman's regard. 

 

The closing of this dialogue level begs the question ~

"You", were an commissioned officer, in the U.S. military? Huh? You should thank my lucky stars, that I missed the opportunity to serve under your  (ahem) command, especially, out in the bush . Capisce?

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, NativeSon360 said:

In addition, the Prayuth regime has earned the respect, and favor of the rank-and-file Thai people. The fact that he (Prayuth) put his own life "one-the_line", and managed a military coup, without resorting to violence, speaks volumes about man's character, and the culture that produced him. How many dictators have you ever heard of, who actually love their subordinated people?

 

Why not give credit, especially when the "achievement" credit has been earned, not bought. PM Prayuth has definitely earned it.

 

36 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I did find one of your posts that puts you in perspective:

 

" I've smoked marijuana for 55-years."  http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/940685-survey-more-us-adults-use-marijuana-dont-think-its-risky /?page=2#comment-11107803

 

No doubt Prayut is proud to have you as a supporter.

 

3 minutes ago, NativeSon360 said:

I am nether a supporter , nor a detractor of PM _ Mr.Prayuth. If your reading comprehension ability were on a par level with your pretentious, self-aggrandizing diatribes, then you would have more readily "grasped the drift" of my comment, in that gentleman's regard. 

 

The closing of this dialogue level begs the question ~

"You", were an commissioned officer, in the U.S. military? Huh? You should thank my lucky stars, that I missed the opportunity to serve under your  (ahem) command, especially, out in the bush . Capisce?

Gee, in your post above you seem to put General/Coup-Leader/Self--Appointed PM Prayut on something of a pedestal.  That, and your voluntary admission in a public forum that you are illegally using drugs in this country leads me to question your judgment.  No doubt others have questions about you as well.

 

To answer your final question; yes, I understand that you live in a fantasy world.

[Plutojames88]

13 hours ago, Winniedapu said:

 

 

"...although I believe he is trying his best to lead the country into better times."
 

I believe he is trying to make Thailand conform to his own idea of what Thailand should be. Loyal and unquestioning. He isn't interested in what is good for the people, though that's what he says. What he does shows he is interested in maintaining the status quo of privilege and wealth obtained by dishonest means.

 

"Getting the decent Thai elite"

 

I don't believe there are any decent Thai elite for the same reason as there are no vegetarian sharks. They didn't get where they are by being decent.

 

"and getting the boys already at the trough to give it up is even more unlikely"

 

That seems likely. The answer is to treat them like a dog who bites the hand which has been feeding it too well.

 

"...it might be an excuse to delay the election until other questions are answered."

 

That as an excuse seems highly likely, that nice Mr Prayuth will probably calculate the international community would swallow that whole. Many people think that elephants are a good solution to problems, as they used to be in ancient days - they had a necessary function to perform at that time. Times have changed, mankind has grown as a species and no longer needs beasts of burden. As the rogue elephants in some national parks show clearly, untrained and unrestrained elephants are usually the cause of problems, not the solution to them. Too big, too powerful, people fear them and they attack people who get in their way. No good at all. though of course, I have no idea at all how elephants found their way into this conversation..

 

Winnie

Yes elites are like sharks tearing the flesh of victims ....

These days they are endangered so I am told.

Protected.....but some will always hunt them down kill them and cut out their jaws.

[Rorri]

7 hours ago, NativeSon360 said:

Disenfranchising the power Elite, by military force, is a totally different (plain English) issue, compared to buying favour from the masses of the people, as TS did. Think, about it

This isn't about TS, think about it. About time you anti TS people got over it, we all know what he was like, but hey, he did do some good.... think about it.

[tomta]

I've been standing on the sidelines of Thaivisa for a while just reading with some interest. But NativeSon's comment here is wrong in so many ways that I must comment. 1. Whether General Prayuth has won the favour of the Thai people could only be determined by his standing in a proper and fair democratic election. 2. He did not put his life on the line. The amnesty that the junta enacted says that what he did and what he will do is now legal. Thus because of the Interim Constitution that he promulgated he cannot be charged for treason - a crime which carries the penalty of death.I think we can agree on this. Under the laws of the country at the time he seized power, he was guilty of treason. Incontrovertibly. If he wanted to put  his life on the line for the good of his country, he could have said, "We have taken over the country in an illegal coup. We did this to save the country. We believe that the situation was so dire that we had to go beyond the laws and beyond the constitution to save the country. We will not give ourselves an amnesty. When the time comes that we are no longer in control of the country - whether by our own voluntary relinquishment of power or through some other group seizing power - we are prepared to submit ourselves to the laws of the country that existed when we took power illegally. Our cause was so just and so necessary that we will be happy to suffer the death penalty for saving the country." The man who said that would have put his life on the line. The man who said that might, legitimately be considered a hero. General Prayuth did not. He gathered the two parties in a room and after a couple of hours declared their negotiations unsuccessful, and announced his takeover of power. His life on the line? No.  3. All coups are implicitly violent. The potential resort to violence is absolutely fundamental to the success of the coup. Thankfully, there was no massive slaughter. But violence was always there. We have guns. You will do what we say. That is violence. Invitations to attitude adjustment, even when they are couched in the language of "let's have a coffee and discuss things" are violent. I talked with a woman today who was invited to an "attitude adjustment" session. She's a very forthright, outspoken woman, a journalist. She faced a panel of senior officers. She said "I was an obedient child...Ka... Ka... Ka... ka... ka". Why? Because of the implicit threat of violence. Not necessarily smashing you in the face. Maybe Orwell was wrong there. But just making things a bit worse.. and then a bit worse.. and then a bit worse. The coup was violent. The degree of violence, the nature of the violence, can be argued. But a coup is violent by its very nature. 4. All dictators love their subordinated people. that's a no-brainer. 

 

[Srikcir]

21 minutes ago, tomta said:

we are prepared to submit ourselves to the laws of the country that existed when we took power illegally.

Just a note those laws were never rescinded by the Prayut junta and remain in force to this day - Organic Law Article 113 of the Penal Code. Organic laws must be approved by the Constitutional Court before passing into law, so in effect they have constitutional force. Even if the constitution has been abolished.

Why didn't the junta also abolished the relevant penal code related to treason? Perhaps because Prayut wanted that same law to protect the junta from a counter overthrow.

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

On 9/1/2016 at 9:14 PM, Winniedapu said:

 

Personally, yes, I think it does. History shows that great social change has to be forced on any system in which the feudal barons reign. They do not accept change easily as is being proved as we speak in Thailand. A dog who will not give up a bone to it's master must be persuaded to a changed behaviour. Sinc all animals respond to reward and punishment, punishment must be applied. In this case, assets must be forfeit, families exiled and treasonous soldiers shot.

 

Extreme? Perhaps, but then I think the rate of coups and new constitutions strongly propose that Thailand is a failed state, it complies with many of the classic indicators (Wikipedia has quite a good article on that). Intractable problems need strong solutions, and they must not be a short, sharp shock, human behaviour does not change instantly, it must be a prolonged and consistent campaign of rehabilitating the kleptocracy.

 

If you prefer it in these terms, the heavens require that all significant change in human affairs be paid for by a large blood sacrifice, and since I do not believe the kleptocracy will submit willingly to rehabilitation, a civil war is therefore both inevitable and necessary. Dogs do not willingly give up bones, they must be educated as to who the masters of the country are - and that is conveniently specified in the Constitution that the present regime tore up - the Thai people. The existing Thailand is, in my judgment, rotten. Knock it down and rebuild it - without the corrupters, cheats and and thieves.

 

There are only 2 kinds of people in this context. There are the builders-up and there are the knockers-down. Personally I am no good at building, that requires a different skill-set. The knockers-down have already been working hard, which explains some of the otherwise inexplicable things that have happened in Thailand over the past few years. The builders-up will come afterwards, first the knockers-down must hold sway for a time.

 

It's all a bit disappointing, but then I for one, see what has happened in Thailand, see what happened in Japan and numerous other countries over the same timescale, and am rightfully disappointed. It seems appropriate to wonder why i had to be that way. I do not advocate that Thailand should be like other countries, I believe that the Thai people should be allowed to develop a culture based on common consent rather than having one designed by the kleptocracy and used as a weapon against them. Thais must build a better nation, because their leaders (including Thaksin) have failed them, even though Thaksin bought some benefits to the man in the street as a key to unlock the door to untold riches for himself.

 

Personal opinion. For all those who have accused me of being anti-Thai, trust me, you could not possibly be more wrong. I see huge problems with Thais and their development, but I think I can also recognise what they could become, given the chance. Which so far, they haven't been.

 

Winnie

A very interesting reply. I am sad to say you are unfortunately most likely correct.

Considering your solution involves civil war and inevitable bloodshed, I wonder what will provoke the start and when it might happen...

Looks like we are looking at elephants in the room again, just when I was looking to enjoy a peaceful retirement.

Cheers.

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

On 9/1/2016 at 9:55 PM, JAG said:

Yes, initially "on the start line" you will probably see familiar faces. The last two elections were judged by reputable international  organisations to be basically fair, not perfect but essentially fair, so I think that could be done.

The point is that the freedoms that go with democratic government will allow popular and political pressure to reform effectively. The desire to gain election, and reelection will make that pressure more effective. The old faces will fall if they don't change. They may not be able to change - so they will fall.

You have to trust the electorate.

One of the elephants in the room is the economy. Permanent junta government will preclude significant investment, as it did in Burma.
Without that investment it will sink into decrepitude, as did Burma. Democracy will allow it to revive,  as again  was the case with Burma. 
 

In an ideal world I would agree, but the inherent greed and corruption in the systems will not allow that to happen here.

Trying to avoid economic meltdown and a dictatorship of one kind or another or a civil war has to be preferable. Reform is NOT easy and takes time.  Six years of checks and balances by a benevolent military could avoid all the turmoil, and lead to a decent political system that will continue the necessary reforms. Anyway I hope so.

My glass is half full, not half empty.

 

 

[heybruce]

56 minutes ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

In an ideal world I would agree, but the inherent greed and corruption in the systems will not allow that to happen here.

Trying to avoid economic meltdown and a dictatorship of one kind or another or a civil war has to be preferable. Reform is NOT easy and takes time.  Six years of checks and balances by a benevolent military could avoid all the turmoil, and lead to a decent political system that will continue the necessary reforms. Anyway I hope so.

My glass is half full, not half empty.

"Six years of checks and balances by a benevolent military could avoid all the turmoil, and lead to a decent political system that will continue the necessary reforms. Anyway I hope so."

 

I'm not sure what you have in that glass, but it isn't helping your thinking.  Note that the only specific "reforms" described by the military only apply to elected officials, who will have no real power under this constitution..  Nothing specific is proposed for the police or civil service, and nothing at all for the military.  Making elections meaningless and giving all power to unelected parts of the government with deeply entrenched corruption will safely protect these corrupt practices from outside interference.

 

Thailand has a thoroughly corrupt military that didn't improve things after the preceding twelve coups.   I have no hope for a better outcome this time.

Edited September 2, 2016 by heybruce

[MaxLee]

On 8/31/2016 at 4:20 AM, webfact said:

PM says there must be political reforms before an election

 

Yup, for an election-collection, that will never ever dever be, not in 5 years, not in 20 years,.... not in 100 years,..... not ever in our Thai life times.......

[baboon]

6 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

In an ideal world I would agree, but the inherent greed and corruption in the systems will not allow that to happen here.

Trying to avoid economic meltdown and a dictatorship of one kind or another or a civil war has to be preferable. Reform is NOT easy and takes time.  Six years of checks and balances by a benevolent military could avoid all the turmoil, and lead to a decent political system that will continue the necessary reforms. Anyway I hope so.

My glass is half full, not half empty.

 

 

A simple question: What qualifies the military to run this country? To write constitutions and laws? To manage the economy any better than train drivers or TV repairmen? 'Guns' doesn't count.

[dbrenn]

Prayuth is a complete hypocrite. 

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, baboon said:

A simple question: What qualifies the military to run this country? To write constitutions and laws? To manage the economy any better than train drivers or TV repairmen? 'Guns' doesn't count.

Thailand has had 20 constitutions since 1932, you'd think they'd have lots of people with experience in writing them.  Yet immediately after this 100+ page monster was "approved" in a sham referendum, the junta started amending it and debating its interpretation.

 

That's a minor point compared to the junta's other crimes, but I'd like to see the junta fans spin it in a positive manner.

[lucky11]

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Thailand has had 20 constitutions since 1932, you'd think they'd have lots of people with experience in writing them.  Yet immediately after this 100+ page monster was "approved" in a sham referendum, the junta started amending it and debating its interpretation.

 

That's a minor point compared to the junta's other crimes, but I'd like to see the junta fans spin it in a positive manner.

 

 'Sham referendum' - why was it a sham referendum? Oh!! I know, because the answer to the questions didn't match your ideology or bias on the matter.

 

 Would it still have been a sham referendum if they had voted no to the two questions? My bet is that you would deem it a fair referendum had this scenario been returned.

[heybruce]

25 minutes ago, lucky11 said:

 

 'Sham referendum' - why was it a sham referendum? Oh!! I know, because the answer to the questions didn't match your ideology or bias on the matter.

 

 Would it still have been a sham referendum if they had voted no to the two questions? My bet is that you would deem it a fair referendum had this scenario been returned.

Seriously?  Discussing the referendum in an "impolite" manner was punishable by ten years in prison, government sponsored propaganda was rampant, and the only choices the voters had were:

 

1.  Continued military rule under the constitution written by the junta.

 

or:

 

2.  Continued military rule under a constitution to be chosen by the military. 

 

Consider a referendum with the choices:

 

1.  Return to TRT government under Thaksin.

 

or:

 

2.  Return to PTP government under Yingluck.

 

This referendum would have greater legitimacy than the sham in August, it would return Thailand to an elected government.  However I suspect you would object to a referendum of this nature regardless of the outcome.

 

BTW, I would call the August referendum a sham regardless of the outcome.

 

Edit:  It's also worth remembering that the August referendum was not monitored; we have to take the junta's word for it that the constitution was approved.  There was nothing to prevent them from reporting any result they wanted.

Edited September 3, 2016 by heybruce

[debate101]

18 minutes ago, lucky11 said:

 

 'Sham referendum' - why was it a sham referendum? Oh!! I know, because the answer to the questions didn't match your ideology or bias on the matter.

 

 Would it still have been a sham referendum if they had voted no to the two questions? My bet is that you would deem it a fair referendum had this scenario been returned.

 

It was a sham because one side of the debate was systematically surpressed, and government agencies were heavily involved in promoting one outcome while having a conflict of interest in doing so. There was no true choice for the people aside from accepting a terrible charter or having another terrible one drawn up at a great loss of time and expense for the country. If the results had been negative, they would have been legitimate because they would have been in spite of the rigging and not because of it. How many times do we have to go over this? It's not difficult to understand!

[debate101]

If a student cheats on a test and still fails, it is a legitimate failure, but if they pass, it was done illegitimately. Comprende?

[lucky11]

6 minutes ago, debate101 said:

 

It was a sham because one side of the debate was systematically surpressed, and government agencies were heavily involved in promoting one outcome while having a conflict of interest in doing so. There was no true choice for the people aside from accepting a terrible charter or having another terrible one drawn up at a great loss of time and expense for the country. If the results had been negative, they would have been legitimate because they would have been in spite of the rigging and not because of it. How many times do we have to go over this? It's not difficult to understand!

 

 misinformation (from those openly against it or with those concerned that their corruption gravy train was going to be left in the sidings) were thwarted, quite rightly so.

 

It could be argued, that failing to prevent the 'YES' side in the BREXIT referendum from distorting/massaging the facts led indirectly to the UK leaving Europe as they kept on hammering the point of how much we paid in and what we got out was distorted in favour of the EU.

 

 Did you not notice that those complaining about the charter were the self serving politicians (from both sides) that had the most to lose from this.

 

The people had the choice to vote yes or no to BOTH questions, correct? The question of appointed senators is self explanatory and the citizens of Thailand were happy for this to happen.

 

I hope that you are not going to rant on about politicians being fine, upstanding, honest officials elected to represent the interests of their community to the best of their abilities!! 

[lucky11]

28 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Seriously?  Discussing the referendum in an "impolite" manner was punishable by ten years in prison, government sponsored propaganda was rampant, and the only choices the voters had were:

 

1.  Continued military rule under the constitution written by the junta.

 

or:

 

2.  Continued military rule under a constitution to be chosen by the military. 

 

Consider a referendum with the choices:

 

1.  Return to TRT government under Thaksin.

 

or:

 

2.  Return to PTP government under Yingluck.

 

This referendum would have greater legitimacy than the sham in August, it would return Thailand to an elected government.  However I suspect you would object to a referendum of this nature regardless of the outcome.

 

BTW, I would call the August referendum a sham regardless of the outcome.

 

Edit:  It's also worth remembering that the August referendum was not monitored; we have to take the junta's word for it that the constitution was approved.  There was nothing to prevent them from reporting any result they wanted.

 

 

1.  Return to TRT government under Thaksin.

 

or:

 

2.  Return to PTP government under Yingluck.

 

If these were the two questions in the referendum - sham or not a sham?

[Eligius]

46 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Seriously?  Discussing the referendum in an "impolite" manner was punishable by ten years in prison, government sponsored propaganda was rampant, and the only choices the voters had were:

 

1.  Continued military rule under the constitution written by the junta.

 

or:

 

2.  Continued military rule under a constitution to be chosen by the military. 

 

Consider a referendum with the choices:

 

1.  Return to TRT government under Thaksin.

 

or:

 

2.  Return to PTP government under Yingluck.

 

This referendum would have greater legitimacy than the sham in August, it would return Thailand to an elected government.  However I suspect you would object to a referendum of this nature regardless of the outcome.

 

BTW, I would call the August referendum a sham regardless of the outcome.

 

Edit:  It's also worth remembering that the August referendum was not monitored; we have to take the junta's word for it that the constitution was approved.  There was nothing to prevent them from reporting any result they wanted.

The above is just about a perfect post, Heybruce. Don't know how it could be bettered. I am impressed by the way you have eloquently communicated the heart of the matter in just a few hard-to-dispute factual points. Of course - not everyone will share my admiration for what you have written (I wonder who such persons will be ...?).