NCPO would select all 250 senators under EC draft

[JAG]

45 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Hmmmm.  Thaksin was ousted because he was corrupt and broke the law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shinawatra#The_ouster

Again, he was kicked out well before there was another election.  The February 2014 election was a result of the previous government trying to ram through legislation to give him an amnesty.  The election was well after the spark that caused the political problems.  You have to get to the source.  Not the aftermath.

 

And yes, they stepped on too many toes. Thus, my comment they were arrogant.  If they hadn't been, we might not be where we are today. 

 

Doesn't really fit in with Sutheps boasts that he had discussed ousting the Pheu Thai government with the military and others well before the amnesty was floated does it?

 

The overthrow of that government was very probably on the cards from the moment it began to dawn on them that Abhisit was going to lose the election. That was the source.

 

The February 2014 election was an entirely constitutional response to extra parliamentary opposition (a phrase which rather dignifies Suthep's  thugs). Faced with the demonstrations Yingluck offered the Thai Electorate the opportunity to decide. I really can't think of a less arrogant political response than that. There was after all no constitutional requirement to respond to Suthep's bellowing at all.

 

As ever in these debates on this forum the question has to be asked, just why was the election blocked, and why did the police, military and courts allow it to be blocked, with I might add the enthusiastic collusion of the Democrats?

 

As ever in these debates on this forum, this inconvenient question goes unanswered by those who claim the coup was the only solution.

 

In reality of course, it was blocked, as was the October 2006 election, because the party favoured by the "establishment" was on course for defeat.

 

So here we are, with a junta busily cementing itself in place (a la Burma) for the foreseeable future. Until the wheels come off....

Edited September 27, 2016 by JAG

[Retiredandhappyhere]

Fortunately, the whole world understands Thailand  and appreciates everything the Junta has done to move the country forward. 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

No if they had not worked to get Thaksin home this would not have happened... so by serving that convicted criminal instead of the normal people we are here where we are today. Even the PTP admits that it was a mistake. 

They tried to pass an amnesty bill, it upset opponents and their own supporters, so they dropped it.  That in no way justified the coup.   Had there not been an amnesty bill Suthep and the people he works for would have found another excuse for a coup.

 

The coup was staged to prevent the proposed election, and the military wanted to prevent the election for reasons that can't be discussed here.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, sujoop said:

The senate was designed to provide checks & balances to the ruling party controlled house.
 

However, during the years when Thaksin was prime minister, the senate became dominated with spouses and relatives from his political party and affiliated / purchased party MPs. The senate was supposed to be non-political, but became  loaded with the spouses of MPs from the ruling party which meant that Thaksin’s political machine could override the intent of the constitution for a neutral senate that could check the expected overreach of the elected.
   

Thus in the 2007 constitution following Thaksin's exile, the chamber was changed to a minority appointed Senate whereby 76 Senators were directly elected from the 76 Provinces and Bangkok, while the other 74 were appointed from various sectors by the Senate Selection Committee.

But then in 2013 the upper house passed a bill for amnesty in the middle of the night (primarily designed to free Thaksin from charges and allow him to return). The Senate  which would likely have narrowly passed the bill ultimately rejected it following massive protests.
   

Also in 2013 the Thaksin-backed Govt tried to amend the constitution to return to of a fully elected Senate which would allow husbands, wives and  relatives of ruling House MP's to become Senators (again effectively removing all impartiality, thus removing the very checks & balances to the governing party controlled house - the very purpose the Senate was meant for).  Further, the Thaksin-backed Puea Thai Govt proposed a bill which would remove the rights of citizens to petition the constitution court and instead all charges against the Govt would have to be lodged firstly to the Govt appointed Attorney General, who would then deem if a charge 'merited' being sent on to the court.
 

Thaksin also had relatives appointed to head both the Military and Police, plus appointed 'trusted' allies in key positions such as CHALERM as JUSTICE Minister... (however these appointments are within the purview of the ruling party, no matter how obviously controlling or repugnant).
   

Thus, this is just a small example of how various Thaksin controlled Govt's have systematically abused, diverted, subverted and corrupted not only the checks and balances of government but the very intent of democracy.

 

This brings us to the current very sad state of affairs (brought upon by Mr Thaksin himself one might argue). As a direct result, the Senate will now be appointed for a period of 5 years preventing any further ram-rodding through self-serving bills in the wee hours. Meanwhile, the house majority can still choose it's PM and pass bills (whilst being baby-sat which unfortunately has been proven highly necessary).

 

Identify the events that could not have been dealt with by the courts or the voters.

 

Explain how a military that stages frequent coups with impunity provides checks and balances.  How does this ultimate abuse of power serve to prevent abuse of power?

 

I love this part:

 

"Thaksin also had relatives appointed..."

 

Have you been following the stories of Prayut's brother and nephew?  We're still waiting for the checks and balances on those activities.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, sujoop said:

The senate was designed to provide checks & balances to the ruling party controlled house.
 

However, during the years when Thaksin was prime minister, the senate became dominated with spouses and relatives from his political party and affiliated / purchased party MPs. The senate was supposed to be non-political, but became  loaded with the spouses of MPs from the ruling party which meant that Thaksin’s political machine could override the intent of the constitution for a neutral senate that could check the expected overreach of the elected.
   

Thus in the 2007 constitution following Thaksin's exile, the chamber was changed to a minority appointed Senate whereby 76 Senators were directly elected from the 76 Provinces and Bangkok, while the other 74 were appointed from various sectors by the Senate Selection Committee.

But then in 2013 the upper house passed a bill for amnesty in the middle of the night (primarily designed to free Thaksin from charges and allow him to return). The Senate  which would likely have narrowly passed the bill ultimately rejected it following massive protests.
   

Also in 2013 the Thaksin-backed Govt tried to amend the constitution to return to of a fully elected Senate which would allow husbands, wives and  relatives of ruling House MP's to become Senators (again effectively removing all impartiality, thus removing the very checks & balances to the governing party controlled house - the very purpose the Senate was meant for).  Further, the Thaksin-backed Puea Thai Govt proposed a bill which would remove the rights of citizens to petition the constitution court and instead all charges against the Govt would have to be lodged firstly to the Govt appointed Attorney General, who would then deem if a charge 'merited' being sent on to the court.
 

Thaksin also had relatives appointed to head both the Military and Police, plus appointed 'trusted' allies in key positions such as CHALERM as JUSTICE Minister... (however these appointments are within the purview of the ruling party, no matter how obviously controlling or repugnant).
   

Thus, this is just a small example of how various Thaksin controlled Govt's have systematically abused, diverted, subverted and corrupted not only the checks and balances of government but the very intent of democracy.

 

This brings us to the current very sad state of affairs (brought upon by Mr Thaksin himself one might argue). As a direct result, the Senate will now be appointed for a period of 5 years preventing any further ram-rodding through self-serving bills in the wee hours. Meanwhile, the house majority can still choose it's PM and pass bills (whilst being baby-sat which unfortunately has been proven highly necessary).

 

" The senate was designed to provide checks & balances to the ruling party controlled house. "

 

"The senate was supposed to be non-political..."

 

Where did this come from?  In a fully elected Senate, as provided for under the 1997 constitution, how does one guarantee that the party that dominates the house doesn't also dominate the Senate?  How can a fully elected Senate be non-political?

 

Is it possible you are describing your views on how things should be, not the government provided for in the 1997 constitution?

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Hmmmm.  Thaksin was ousted because he was corrupt and broke the law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shinawatra#The_ouster

Again, he was kicked out well before there was another election.  The February 2014 election was a result of the previous government trying to ram through legislation to give him an amnesty.  The election was well after the spark that caused the political problems.  You have to get to the source.  Not the aftermath.

 

And yes, they stepped on too many toes. Thus, my comment they were arrogant.  If they hadn't been, we might not be where we are today. 

I see.  Do you maintain the military should rule because it is uncorrupt and doesn't break the law?

 

Nice link.  It helps explain why Thaksin kept winning elections:

 

" Thaksin's most effective policies were reducing rural poverty^[29] and the introduction of universal healthcare, allowing him to galvanise the vast and largely untapped support base of the rural poor, especially in the populous northeast.^[66]"

 

^"Thaksin's economic policies helped Thailand recover from the 1997 Asian financial crisis and substantially reduce poverty. GDP grew from 4.9 trillion baht in 2001 to 7.1 trillion baht in 2006. Thailand repaid its debts to the International Monetary Fund two years ahead of schedule.

Income in the northeast, the poorest part of the country, rose by 46% from 2001 to 2006.^[67] Nationwide poverty fell from 21.3% to 11.3%.^[29] Thailand's Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, fell from .525 in 2000 to .499 in 2004 (it had risen from 1996 to 2000) ).^[68] The Stock Exchange of Thailand outperformed other markets in the region. After facing fiscal deficits in 2001 and 2002, Thaksin balanced the national budget, producing comfortable fiscal surpluses for 2003 to 2005. Despite a massive program of infrastructure investments, a balanced budget was projected for 2007.^[69] Public sector debt fell from 57 per cent of GDP in January 2001 to 41 per cent in September 2006.^[33][34] Foreign exchange reserves doubled from US$30 billion in 2001 to US$64 billion in 2006.^[70]"

 

A reason frequently given for electing corrupt politicians in Latin America is "He'll steal, but he'll get things done."  I think there is no question that this thoroughly corrupt military steals.  Will the military government get things done?

 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

There was a coalition change and that is totally legal and normal in countries all over the world. That brought Abisith into power. That is legal, the PTP had a coalition with Newin and he broke off formed a new goverment with the Democrats. 

That is how it happend. 

Is this totally legal and normal all over the world?:

 

"Thailand's new, fresh-faced, Oxford-educated prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, says that the government will investigate the allegations against the army. But the army in effect put Mr Abhisit in power, when its chief orchestrated defections by a chunk of the previous governing coalition that had been led by allies of Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister whom the army pushed out in 2006. Mr Abhisit's dependence on the generals means he is unlikely to be able to probe army misdeeds very thoroughly. The colonel alleged to have organised the dumping of refugees at sea is also accused of overseeing an atrocity against Muslims in Thailand's strife-torn southern provinces in 2004."    http://www.economist.com/node/13024576

Edited September 27, 2016 by heybruce

[tbthailand]

Interesting analysis of recent events related to the constitution.  Also known as "Elite rule with elections".

 

 

[craigt3365]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

I see.  Do you maintain the military should rule because it is uncorrupt and doesn't break the law?

 

Nice link.  It helps explain why Thaksin kept winning elections:

 

" Thaksin's most effective policies were reducing rural poverty^[29] and the introduction of universal healthcare, allowing him to galvanise the vast and largely untapped support base of the rural poor, especially in the populous northeast.^[66]"

 

^"Thaksin's economic policies helped Thailand recover from the 1997 Asian financial crisis and substantially reduce poverty. GDP grew from 4.9 trillion baht in 2001 to 7.1 trillion baht in 2006. Thailand repaid its debts to the International Monetary Fund two years ahead of schedule.

Income in the northeast, the poorest part of the country, rose by 46% from 2001 to 2006.^[67] Nationwide poverty fell from 21.3% to 11.3%.^[29] Thailand's Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, fell from .525 in 2000 to .499 in 2004 (it had risen from 1996 to 2000) ).^[68] The Stock Exchange of Thailand outperformed other markets in the region. After facing fiscal deficits in 2001 and 2002, Thaksin balanced the national budget, producing comfortable fiscal surpluses for 2003 to 2005. Despite a massive program of infrastructure investments, a balanced budget was projected for 2007.^[69] Public sector debt fell from 57 per cent of GDP in January 2001 to 41 per cent in September 2006.^[33][34] Foreign exchange reserves doubled from US$30 billion in 2001 to US$64 billion in 2006.^[70]"

 

A reason frequently given for electing corrupt politicians in Latin America is "He'll steal, but he'll get things done."  I think there is no question that this thoroughly corrupt military steals.  Will the military government get things done?

 

Absolutely do not believe the military should rule...and do believe they are corrupt.  Just want blame placed properly.  If Thaksin hadn't gotten so greedy, he'd probably still be in power.  Same with his sister.  The military coup was done for a reason.  Not just a whim.  Like that or not.

 

I'm not in favor of coups.  I'm also not in favor of corrupt politicians.  This vicious cycle can't be stopped until they reform the judiciary.  Sadly, none in power want to do this.  Too many skeletons in the closets.

[Srikcir]

58 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Sadly, none in power want to do this.

Sadly, the problem extends more likely throughout the whole of Thai society and not confined to only those in power. Despite his election by a majority of the electorate, Thaksin still operated according to the customs and traditions of the Thai elite.

 

  A possible cause for Thailand's and the SE Asia's embracement of corruption and elitecism is that they did not experience the Age of Enlightenment as did Europe and North America - with the late exception of Japan and South Korea under the tutlage of Western military and civilian presence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

[mtls2005]

"I'm shocked."

 

Seems the Organic Laws will be more important than the "Constitution".

 

The lengths they're going to control the "Thai-style" democrazy is amazing.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Absolutely do not believe the military should rule...and do believe they are corrupt.  Just want blame placed properly.  If Thaksin hadn't gotten so greedy, he'd probably still be in power.  Same with his sister.  The military coup was done for a reason.  Not just a whim.  Like that or not.

 

I'm not in favor of coups.  I'm also not in favor of corrupt politicians.  This vicious cycle can't be stopped until they reform the judiciary.  Sadly, none in power want to do this.  Too many skeletons in the closets.

Which brings us back to the point made many times before:  corrupt politicians can be removed peacefully through an election.  Corrupt military governments can not.  For this reason it is ridiculous to suggest that military governments and democracies are comparable.

 

When a society that has never known anything but massively corrupt autocratic government finally gets democracy (real, long-term democracy, not the kind that Thailand has had) it can take many election cycles before corruption raises to the top of the voters priorities.  That is why it can take many years, sometimes a generation or more, before the voters get serious about electing honest politicians. 

 

Democracy will take a long time to bring about clean government in Thailand.  However military rule will never bring about clean government in Thailand.

 

The military coup occurred for a reason, but the reason was not corruption, or the amnesty bill, or to bring about "reconciliation".  These were just excuses.  The military coup was staged to protect a corrupt system and an institution that can't be discussed here.

Edited September 28, 2016 by heybruce

[craigt3365]

43 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Which brings us back to the point made many times before:  corrupt politicians can be removed peacefully through an election.  Corrupt military governments can not.  For this reason it is ridiculous to suggest that military governments and democracies are comparable.

 

When a society that has never known anything but massively corrupt autocratic government finally gets democracy (real, long-term democracy, not the kind that Thailand has had) it can take many election cycles before corruption raises to the top of the voters priorities.  That is why it can take many years, sometimes a generation or more, before the voters get serious about electing honest politicians. 

 

Democracy will take a long time to bring about clean government in Thailand.  However military rule will never bring about clean government in Thailand.

 

The military coup occurred for a reason, but the reason was not corruption, or the amnesty bill, or to bring about "reconciliation".  These were just excuses.  The military coup was staged to protect a corrupt system and an institution that can't be discussed here.

Agreed!  Sadly, the last government committed various abuses that were overlooked as they controlled the police and judiciary.  Russia is a democracy.  But not really.  So is North Korea.  But both are basically run by the military.  Argue against the government and you're gone.

 

Thailand needs a clean government.  It's up to the politicians to do this.  Sadly, they've not shown they are capable of this.  Reform of the judiciary is desperately needed.

 

The coup occurred because civilians protesting in the streets were be slaughtered.  The civilians were protesting due to shenanigans done by the previous government.  Stop the shenanigans and maybe the coups will stop?  Go to the source....

[Alive]

Well, Craig a lot of people see the abuses coming from other sources than government. you should know that. And the judiciary has a much longer history of supporting certain groups in Thailand at the expense of justice for all. That is still happening presently now. What you call success benefits one group really not the whole political system. The people controlling things are for one side rather than for objective justice and democracy. They have an agenda which isn't about corruption but rather about keeping and empowering their friends. This is the way many see it.

 

You also have your view of history and regularly bring up "violence". That's your view. Many, I'd say the vast majority, don't see it your way. Bangkok is the home of the group this government supports. It is as easy as walking out their front doors to put people on the street. When the other 50+ million people need to be heard they have to travel for hours and hours, some more than 8 hours to show their existence and be seen in front of the cameras. That's just a fact that the people in Bangkok seem to ignore. Nothing in Thailand is black and white and so simple to understand. History ( although heavily whitewashed by many governments ) still is available and can show the truth about Thailand's real problems and their true causes.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Agreed!  Sadly, the last government committed various abuses that were overlooked as they controlled the police and judiciary.  Russia is a democracy.  But not really.  So is North Korea.  But both are basically run by the military.  Argue against the government and you're gone.

 

Thailand needs a clean government.  It's up to the politicians to do this.  Sadly, they've not shown they are capable of this.  Reform of the judiciary is desperately needed.

 

The coup occurred because civilians protesting in the streets were be slaughtered.  The civilians were protesting due to shenanigans done by the previous government.  Stop the shenanigans and maybe the coups will stop?  Go to the source....

Go to the source?  The source is the military.  The coup occurred because the military and those it supports wanted a royalist government in place for the upcoming transition.

 

The amnesty bill, rapidly dropped, provided a pretext for Suthep to go to the streets, however if there had been no amnesty bill he would have found another pretext.  The military held back on acting in hopes the violence would escalate and make the coup more acceptable to the world, when the violence declined and the protests ran out of momentum it staged the coup anyway. 

 

There was no valid justification for the coup, but in a country that has had 13 successful military coups in 84 years, the only justification the military needs is that a coup serves its interests.  In Thailand, no government can be sufficiently well-behaved to prevent a coup that the generals find in their interest.  Since corruption is very much in the generals' interests, Thailand will never have democracy or clean government until the military stops staging coups and stays out of politics.

 

BTW:  Civilians being slaughtered?  Suthep and his minions succeeded in using violence to provoke violence, but it never reached a level to justify a coup. Besides, if the protests were turning violent, why didn't the military simply break up the protests, as they did in 2010?

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Go to the source?  The source is the military.  The coup occurred because the military and those it supports wanted a royalist government in place for the upcoming transition.

 

The amnesty bill, rapidly dropped, provided a pretext for Suthep to go to the streets, however if there had been no amnesty bill he would have found another pretext.  The military held back on acting in hopes the violence would escalate and make the coup more acceptable to the world, when the violence declined and the protests ran out of momentum it staged the coup anyway. 

 

There was no valid justification for the coup, but in a country that has had 13 successful military coups in 84 years, the only justification the military needs is that a coup serves its interests.  In Thailand, no government can be sufficiently well-behaved to prevent a coup that the generals find in their interest.  Since corruption is very much in the generals' interests, Thailand will never have democracy or clean government until the military stops staging coups and stays out of politics.

 

BTW:  Civilians being slaughtered?  Suthep and his minions succeeded in using violence to provoke violence, but it never reached a level to justify a coup. Besides, if the protests were turning violent, why didn't the military simply break up the protests, as they did in 2010?

The amnesty bill was not rapidly dropped.  You do remember the street protests, right?  This was the spark.  The amnesty bill....

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Exactly.  Please tell the politicians this.

[Eric Loh]

8 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Exactly.  Please tell the politicians this.

 

Dont forget telling the soldiers. 18 times doing the same thing and learn nothing. 

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

 

Dont forget telling the soldiers. 18 times doing the same thing and learn nothing. 

Agreed!  Both sides are doing the same thing....and learning nothing.

[NongKhaiKid]

24 minutes ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

 

They never have before, even when the military is in charge.

 

The source is the military and the fact it operates to protect its own interests and the interests of a minority of Thai elites and not the electorate, whom it is meant to serve.

 

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

And isn't insanity doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

[Srikcir]

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

The coup occurred because civilians protesting in the streets were be slaughtered.

Oddly, despite the imposition of martial law by the military under Gen. Prayut to quell political violence, Suthep continued his campaign to topple the elected government. Suthep rejected martial law saying, "We will still keep fighting --- we have not won at all ... The announcement of martial law has no effect and is in no way an obstacle to our fight." 

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/specialreports/focusthailand/thai-protest-leader-vows-to-keep-fightin/1114118.html

It does seem that Suthep was not worried about any alleged violence directed towards the PDRC protestors and viewed the military more as an ally.

[heybruce]

 

40 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The amnesty bill was not rapidly dropped.  You do remember the street protests, right?  This was the spark.  The amnesty bill....

Right. You ignore everything else and pretend it's all the fault of the PTP and the amnesty bill.  Of course the military bares no responsibility for the coup. 

Edited September 28, 2016 by heybruce

[craigt3365]

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Right. You ignore everything else and pretend it's all the fault of the PTP and the amnesty bill.  Of course the military bares no responsibility for the coup. 

The military did the coup because of what the politicians did.  Cause and effect.  Again, I'm not in favor of the military ruling this country!  Just can't blame them for everything bad that's happening here.  No amnesty probably would have averted a coup.  It was the spark.

[Snig27]

20 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The military did the coup because of what the politicians did.  Cause and effect.  Again, I'm not in favor of the military ruling this country!  Just can't blame them for everything bad that's happening here.  No amnesty probably would have averted a coup.  It was the spark.

 

1

 

You seriously believe this? Crikey. I know it's the military's justification for the coup you are reciting by rote, but surely nobody actually believes it?? The whole purpose of the coup and the conspiracy to ensure there was one had nothing to do with the amnesty. 

Edited September 28, 2016 by Snig27

[JAG]

43 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The military did the coup because of what the politicians did.  Cause and effect.  Again, I'm not in favor of the military ruling this country!  Just can't blame them for everything bad that's happening here.  No amnesty probably would have averted a coup.  It was the spark.

 

You can't or won't answer the question in post #63 will you?

 

Let me remind you: "just why was the election blocked, and why did the police, military and courts allow it to be blocked,?"

 

Answer that question and you have the real reason for the coup. If you claim that the amnesty bill was the spark, why do you ignore everything that took place in the months between the "spark" and the coup, especially the entirely constitutional attempt to hold a general election.

Edited September 28, 2016 by JAG

[greenchair]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the appointed senate only supposed to be in place for 5 years while the country was "transitioning to democratic rule "  I'm confused. 

[craigt3365]

47 minutes ago, JAG said:

 

You can't or won't answer the question in post #63 will you?

 

Let me remind you: "just why was the election blocked, and why did the police, military and courts allow it to be blocked,?"

 

Answer that question and you have the real reason for the coup. If you claim that the amnesty bill was the spark, why do you ignore everything that took place in the months between the "spark" and the coup, especially the entirely constitutional attempt to hold a general election.

Maybe I'm seeing the wrong one, but I don't see a question in #63.

 

I 100% agree with you!  The election was a sham, from both sides of the political spectrum.  PTP tried to ram it through as they knew they'd win, the yellow shirts tried to stop it.  But!  That wasn't the spark.  It was the amnesty vote.  After that, I 100% agree with you!!!! LOL

[MZurf]

The military did the coup because of what the politicians did.  Cause and effect.  Again, I'm not in favor of the military ruling this country!  Just can't blame them for everything bad that's happening here.  No amnesty probably would have averted a coup.  It was the spark.

" The military did the coup because of what the politicians did. "

The military did the coup to finally get rid of a competing (for power and money) group. The Thai armed forces' primary task is to protect the power and wealth of those who control it.
If you see any altruistic motives behind what the junta is doing then I am curious to know how you got to that conclusion.
The twelve preceeding coups didn't change a thing. To me it is obvious that nothing has fundamentally changed after coup # 13 - except for the snouts at the trough, of course. And that is what it's all about.

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, MZurf said:

" The military did the coup because of what the politicians did. "

The military did the coup to finally get rid of a competing (for power and money) group. The Thai armed forces' primary task is to protect the power and wealth of those who control it.
If you see any altruistic motives behind what the junta is doing then I am curious to know how you got to that conclusion.
The twelve preceeding coups didn't change a thing. To me it is obvious that nothing has fundamentally changed after coup # 13 - except for the snouts at the trough, of course. And that is what it's all about.

Thaksin certainly was a threat.  No doubt about it.  The reason so many went to the streets when they tried to ran that amnesty bill through.

 

I see no altruistic motives.  On either side.  Both are bad.  Agreed?

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

The military did the coup because of what the politicians did.  Cause and effect.  Again, I'm not in favor of the military ruling this country!  Just can't blame them for everything bad that's happening here.  No amnesty probably would have averted a coup.  It was the spark.

For some reason you just refuse to assign full responsibility for the coup where it belongs, with the military.  You refuse to accept that if there had been no amnesty bill that Suthep, the military, and the powers behind them would have found some other pretext.  In your mind the coup was the government's fault for doing things you and the elite didn't like, and you didn't want to wait for an election to see what the majority of voters thought about the government's actions.

 

We are in agreement on one thing, if there had been no amnesty for the coup leaders, and if past amnesties were provoked, coups would end in Thailand.