Abhisit urges politicians to restore public faith, warns against return to status quo

[selftaopath]

On 1/2/2017 at 7:27 AM, gk10002000 said:

there is going to be an election?  Exactly what posts are open to being elected?  And even if there are elections, I would think the Thais would be so unininterested and dispassionate about them because they know that at any time the next military coup may happen?

I told - around here - if people are not PAID for their vote they don't vote. Ahhhhhh must be Thai democracy?

[Ricardo]

31 minutes ago, selftaopath said:

I told - around here - if people are not PAID for their vote they don't vote. Ahhhhhh must be Thai democracy?

 

The finest democracy that money can buy !

[smedly]

3 hours ago, halloween said:

 

f you are in favor of unconstrained, elite rule, like we had with PTP, come out and say it. There wasn't any democracy and there wasn't going to be any democracy, just wealthy criminals raping the nation, ignoring its laws to benefit themselves.

100% correct, not to mention when the ordinary people took to the streets to object they were murdered routinely and the police stood by and did nothing, the redshirt terrorists had established training camps in the north and there were threads of partition (which in my opinion was treason) - there was evil at work and everyone with a brain knows exactly where it was coming from.

 

Democracy requires a strong constitution and justice system with laws that are enforced  holding everyone accountable - no elected government in Thailand has ever tried it or wanted it because they are too busy filling their own pockets and enriching themselves

[smedly]

3 hours ago, debate101 said:

 

Elections, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, human rights not subordinate to vaguely-defined "good morals," a people's constitution written by elected representatives of the public, limited channels for governmemt propaganda, military in the barracks, positive international relations with other democratic countries... Open your eyes, man! These were all concession won by the Black May 1992 uprising. They would never have been given freely.

you're having a laugh right ?

[smedly]

3 hours ago, Srikcir said:

US democracy first came from a revolution against a foreign power - it was not a civil war.

it came from conflict

[halloween]

3 hours ago, debate101 said:

 

Elections, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, human rights not subordinate to vaguely-defined "good morals," a people's constitution written by elected representatives of the public, limited channels for governmemt propaganda, military in the barracks, positive international relations with other democratic countries... Open your eyes, man! These were all concession won by the Black May 1992 uprising. They would never have been given freely.

 

And how were the rights to ignore the law, to have your militia intimidate and kill opposition voices, to waste billions of public funds on cockamamey schemes with no chance of success, to abandon the duty of management won. In an election?

[debate101]

5 minutes ago, halloween said:

 

And how were the rights to ignore the law, to have your militia intimidate and kill opposition voices, to waste billions of public funds on cockamamey schemes with no chance of success, to abandon the duty of management won. In an election?

They weren't, and they go to demonstrate the relatively weak levels of democratisation, education, awareness, and political participation that still plagued the country. The public could not provide enough constraints on elites to prevent these things fron happening.

 

However, individuals were freer to speak out, report it, mobilize and vote against it. This was a major step forward on the democracy spectrum. Demonstrations against Thaksin's corruption were positive developments. Attempts to incite violence, calls for military intervention, and sabotaged elections weren't so much. You convince the public, offer them a better deal, and win at the ballot box. If you can't do these things, at least have the balls to say you don't want democracy.

 

The highest echelon of Thai elite have never wanted democracy and have fought it bitterly for a century. 

 

 

 

 

[debate101]

35 minutes ago, smedly said:

you're having a laugh right ?

Nope. I remember being able to openly speak about politics in public, having my rights, even as a non-citizen, protected under the constitution and having to pay less taxes and getting access to essentially free emergency medical care because of it, Thai leaders meeting with American and European leaders cordially, streers free of soldiers, television news that wasn't just propaganda, uncensored media, rapid economic growth, and friendly smiles everywhere. How about you?

[halloween]

8 minutes ago, debate101 said:

They weren't, and they go to demonstrate the relatively weak levels of democratisation, education, awareness, and political participation that still plagued the country. The public could not provide enough constraints on elites to prevent these things fron happening.

 

However, individuals were freer to speak out, report it, mobilize and vote against it. This was a major step forward on the democracy spectrum. Demonstrations against Thaksin's corruption were positive developments. Attempts to incite violence, calls for military intervention, and sabotaged elections weren't so much. You convince the public, offer them a better deal, and win at the ballot box. If you can't do these things, at least have the balls to say you don't want democracy.

 

The highest echelon of Thai elite have never wanted democracy and have fought it bitterly for a century. 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, people were much freer to speak out and mobilize. They were also much more likely to be killed by the ruling party's criminal supporters, agitated and led by the mercenaries of UDD, and without intervention of the police. Should the answer have been civil war or military intervention?

Edited January 3, 2017 by halloween

[baboon]

5 minutes ago, halloween said:

 

Yes, people were much freer to speak out and mobilize. They were also much more likely to be killed by the ruling party's criminal supporters, agitated and led by the mercenaries of UDD, and without interention of the police. Should the answer have been civil war or military intervention?

Well since civil war wasn't on the cards, you are presenting a fake dilemma.

[halloween]

4 minutes ago, baboon said:

Well since civil war wasn't on the cards, you are presenting a fake dilemma.

 

Tell that to those making plans for secession. Or did you forget about that?

[debate101]

13 minutes ago, halloween said:

 

Yes, people were much freer to speak out and mobilize. They were also much more likely to be killed by the ruling party's criminal supporters, agitated and led by the mercenaries of UDD, and without intervention of the police. Should the answer have been civil war or military intervention?

If they wanted democracy, then civil disobedience. That's how it's done. If military fascism and the death of democracy were the goals, then a coup was the right answer

[baboon]

1 minute ago, halloween said:

 

Tell that to those making plans for secession. Or did you forget about that?

Fine. If anyone reading this was making plans for secession, a civil war was never on the cards and Halloween presented a fake dilemma. Happy now?

[halloween]

2 minutes ago, debate101 said:

If they wanted democracy, then civil disobedience. That's how it's done. If military fascism and the death of democracy were the goals, then a coup was the right answer

Any faint trace of democracy died when Thaksin decided his political party needed a militia to reduce opposition. Stopping the killing, wounding and intimidation of legitimate protesters and innocent children was the right thing to do. You might be willing to let others die for you ephemeral ideals, I am not. It isn't surprising that most Thais seem to agree.

[halloween]

4 minutes ago, baboon said:

Fine. If anyone reading this was making plans for secession, a civil war was never on the cards and Halloween presented a fake dilemma. Happy now?

 

its still BS

[baboon]

1 minute ago, halloween said:

 

its still BS

I keep telling you that, but it is you who still insists on maintaining this 'civil war' flumadiddle. 

[candide]

Civil war: the ultimate proof according to the Junta! :)

 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/national/aec/30245999

 

[Scott]

Inflammatory post and replies removed.   Keep the discussion civil or face a suspension.