Don’t waste coup – reform country, Yingluck tells junta

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

There was NO elected party removed by the coup. There was only a caretaker government which was removed by the courts.

 

The elected government as you call it was dissolved by Yingluck Shinawatra (who was the elected PM) 6 months previously after a disastrous attempt at trying to ram an amnesty bill through (not the one voted on earlier in the evening) and lying to the parliamentary opposition that there would be no further business that night.

Yes that sham .. sending the opposition home then voting on stuff.. that is how the Shin democracy works. You can't say Thailand lost a democracy.. there was never a real democracy. This was something that would not have happend in a real democracy 

[shanesox]

Abysmal failure ! Prevented mass demonstrations is the limit of its achievements


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[JAG]

2 hours ago, champers said:

A house with 5 corners?

A pentagon no less. 

 

Why not, they've got more than enough generals to staff it.....

[kareona]

4 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Totally agree Jim, But she wasn't removed by any coup. She dissolved parliament and became the caretaker PM. She was then removed by a court for an illegal abuse of power before the coup. The Shins PR team and sadly lazy journalists must think being removed by a coup sounds better as it represents her a a victim rather than a wrong doer.

 

The only things that was massively increasing under the Shins was, surprise surprise, their family fortune. 

 

If anybody thinks Thailand would have been better off under a Thaksin owned PTP once they got their hands on that 2.2 trillion baht loan they're living in cuckoo land.

'The only things that was massively increasing under the Shins was, surprise surprise, their family fortune. '

 

Do you know why the family fortunes of the Shins increased (they doubled) from 2000 to 2006?  That's because most of their fortune were in shares  and the stockmarket rose 100 percent from 2000 to 2006,  and telecommunication even more. If all the Shins would have tended only their gardens they would haven been twice as rich by 2006.

[heybruce]

 

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

What major reforms do you think the Shins should have done?  Has the military done any of these reforms?  Has the military reformed anything?

 

4 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Well, there are enough posts on TVF to inform you of the areas that people think should be reformed - the justice system and all elements therein; the lack of democracy and HR; the inequalities that pervade society; the poor education system; and the massive corruption that pervades all aspects of society,

 

Now you can tell us where the Shins reformed any of these? Yingluck and some nice photo shoots. Remember her standing in front of the no corruption sign? How ironic. She changed, or rather her brother changed ministers so rapidly it's hardly surprising nothing was really reformed.

 

As to day, not a lot. And as many point out on here, highly selective. 

 

But this article is about Yingluck. And she did little other than travel at tax payers expense and be a figure head.

So your short answer is "No, the military hasn't reformed anything."

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

Gee, breaking laws, lying, nepotism, human trafficking (oops, that's the military).

 

You list a lot of reasons for an election and a lot of reasons why voters should have chosen a different party, had they been given the chance.  In fact, the correct response the to situation was an election, not a coup.

 

4 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Indeed. But neither the Shins nor those opposing them would have accepted an election result peacefully; nor abide by any rules but their own. 

 

Is it really acceptable to have a non elected criminal whose a fugitive from justice, actually paying a salary to MP's who form the government and largest minority in parliament? And for those MP's and the partly leader, who happens to be his sister, trying to force an amnesty whitewash through for him without even bothering to follow parliamentary procedure? 

 

Seriously, do really think that should be allowed?

"But neither the Shins nor those opposing them would have accepted an election result peacefully; nor abide by any rules but their own."

 

That doesn't even qualify as speculation, it is total BS.  The military and the elites have repeatedly shown that they don't except election results peacefully when they don't like them, and do whatever it takes to topple democratic government at the first opportunity. 

 

We don't know how Shinawatra affiliated parties would do in the event of an election loss, since they have yet to lose an election.  However they have peacefully surrendered government twice during coups, and it's unlikely they would have objected to a legitimate electoral loss.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Come on, making the Yingluck, or should it be Thaksin, government look good. 555! That's stretching it too far.

Not a stretch at all,  Every crime you can pin on the Yingluck government has been committed by the military, and quite a few more in addition.

 

Your argument has always been that the elected government was bad, so having a military government that is worse is a good thing.  The lack of logic is obvious; you are not convincing anyone.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Yes that sham .. sending the opposition home then voting on stuff.. that is how the Shin democracy works. You can't say Thailand lost a democracy.. there was never a real democracy. This was something that would not have happend in a real democracy 

"there was never a real democracy"

 

Self-serving denial of reality--"I didn't like the elected government so I won't accept that it was democracy."

 

Thailand had a democracy.  It wasn't perfect, but it was elected in a legitimate, internationally monitored election, and it was attempting to hold another election to give the people in Thailand a chance to choose their next government.  A choice that will be denied to the Thai people for the foreseeable future. 

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

A lot out in rural Thailand. Roads have been rebuilt and upgraded, the electricity supply improved, more water storage, more boreholes to supply water to thousands of villages nationwide, they are trying to reform local politics to make the Puu Yai Ban more accountable and only have a 4 year term instead of to the age of 60 they are forcing the mobile phone companies plus TOT and TOT to extend 4G coverage and fibre optics to as many small villages as possible.

 

Having looked once again at my list I believe you are right, they have achieved nothing. Either that or they have achieved a hell of a lot more than you realise.

 

But of course you would have little knowledge of that living in the city and hating the Junta as you do.

The infrastructure improvements you list are just standard progress in the rural areas.  They also are small compared to the improvements to infrastructure in rural areas made when Thaksin was in charge.

 

The low level "local politics" you mention may or may not be a good thing, but they in no way justify military rule.

[robblok]

"there was never a real democracy"
 
Self-serving denial of reality--"I didn't like the elected government so I won't accept that it was democracy."
 
Thailand had a democracy.  It wasn't perfect, but it was elected in a legitimate, internationally monitored election, and it was attempting to hold another election to give the people in Thailand a chance to choose their next government.  A choice that will be denied to the Thai people for the foreseeable future. 

Not perfect .... it was a fraud led by proxy by a convicted criminal. Come on that is not a democracy. Your deluding yourself. Getting voted in only does not make it a real democracy.

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

Not perfect .... it was a fraud led by proxy by a convicted criminal. Come on that is not a democracy. Your deluding yourself. Getting voted in only does not make it a real democracy.

More of the standard tripe. 

 

The only reason the current government isn't composed entirely of criminals is because of the blanket amnesties. 

 

The voters knew Yingluck would work closely with her brother and voted for her because of this.  It was there choice.  Letting the people choose who will govern them is the very definition of democracy.

 

The fact that the elected government (yes, those people running the caretaker government were elected) was trying to allow the people another choice is a demonstration of commitment to democracy.  Of course anti-democrats can't accept that.

[billd766]

Just now, heybruce said:

"there was never a real democracy"

 

Self-serving denial of reality--"I didn't like the elected government so I won't accept that it was democracy."

 

Thailand had a democracy.  It wasn't perfect, but it was elected in a legitimate, internationally monitored election, and it was attempting to hold another election to give the people in Thailand a chance to choose their next government.  A choice that will be denied to the Thai people for the foreseeable future. 

 

Democracy is not simply an election. It is all the things that follow from that election.

 

Transparency in government

No nepotism

Upholding the rules of law in ALL cases

Open and honest government

Morality

No corruption

 

This government is not really any better or any worse than previous governments going back to the coup of 1932.

 

In the UK, the country that I came from democracy has been an ongoing process for the last 1,200 years. Why do you expect Thailand to have progressed very far in only 85 years.

 

We also had a military coup back in 1642 by Oliver Cromwell who was also a signatory on the document condemning King Charles 1st to death. Forrtunately we moved on from those days but that was some 400 years after the Magna Carta and nearly 400 years ago.

 

[billd766]

30 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The infrastructure improvements you list are just standard progress in the rural areas.  They also are small compared to the improvements to infrastructure in rural areas made when Thaksin was in charge.

 

The low level "local politics" you mention may or may not be a good thing, but they in no way justify military rule.

 

Actually they are not standard progress at all. I have lived out here since 2003 under various governments and very few "governments", elected or not care about rural Thailand except coming up to an election.

 

Most of the Thai people I have talked to out here don't really care WHO is running the country as they know they won't anything and will be screwed in the process anyway.

Edited May 22, 2017 by billd766
bad spelling

[billd766]

12 minutes ago, heybruce said:

More of the standard tripe. 

 

The only reason the current government isn't composed entirely of criminals is because of the blanket amnesties. 

 

The voters knew Yingluck would work closely with her brother and voted for her because of this.  It was there choice.  Letting the people choose who will govern them is the very definition of democracy.

 

The fact that the elected government (yes, those people running the caretaker government were elected) was trying to allow the people another choice is a demonstration of commitment to democracy.  Of course anti-democrats can't accept that.

 

Letting the people choose who will govern them is the very definition of democracy.

 

No it isn't in any way the very definition of democracy. YOUR words not mine.

 

It is the first step for sure, but there has been NO second step from ANY government since I have been in Thailand going back to 1993.

 

Having an election does not mean that there is democracy in a country. Would you say, for example that Zimbabwe, N Korea, China or Russia were democratic countries? After all they held elections too. How about Saudi Arabia as a democratic country?

 

See my post #102 for a clearer definition of democracy or even look here.

 

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/democracy

 

democracynoun

uk /dɪˈmɒk.rə.si/ us /-ˈmɑː.krə-/

B2 [ U ] the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves:

The government has promised to uphold the principles of democracy.

The early 1990s saw the spread of democracy in Eastern Europe.

B2 [ C ] a country in which power is held by elected representatives:

Few of the Western democracies still have a royal family.

More examples

A strong opposition is vital to a healthy democracy.

There cannot be true democracy without reform of the electoral system.

Sweden is often held up as an example of a successful social democracy.

The recent free elections mark the next step in the country's progress towards democracy.

Western governments should be giving more aid to the emerging democracies of the Third World.

Edited May 22, 2017 by billd766
Added extra text

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Letting the people choose who will govern them is the very definition of democracy.

 

No it isn't in any way the very definition of democracy. YOUR words not mine.

 

It is the first step for sure, but there have been NO second step from ANY government since I have been in Thailand going back to 1993.

A few references for you:

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

 

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/democracy

 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/democracy

 

What dictionary do you use?

[billd766]

25 minutes ago, heybruce said:

More of the standard tripe. 

 

The only reason the current government isn't composed entirely of criminals is because of the blanket amnesties. 

 

The voters knew Yingluck would work closely with her brother and voted for her because of this.  It was there choice.  Letting the people choose who will govern them is the very definition of democracy.

 

The fact that the elected government (yes, those people running the caretaker government were elected) was trying to allow the people another choice is a demonstration of commitment to democracy.  Of course anti-democrats can't accept that.

 

Nobody voted for Yingluck in Thailand as she did not stand for election in ANY parliamentary election seat. She was however #1 for a party list seat. Easy to be #1 when your brother owns the party.

 

Just in case I am wrong could you please tell us all when parliamentary seat she contested and won?

Edited May 22, 2017 by billd766

[heybruce]

18 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Democracy is not simply an election. It is all the things that follow from that election.

 

Transparency in government

No nepotism

Upholding the rules of law in ALL cases

Open and honest government

Morality

No corruption

 

This government is not really any better or any worse than previous governments going back to the coup of 1932.

 

In the UK, the country that I came from democracy has been an ongoing process for the last 1,200 years. Why do you expect Thailand to have progressed very far in only 85 years.

 

We also had a military coup back in 1642 by Oliver Cromwell who was also a signatory on the document condemning King Charles 1st to death. Forrtunately we moved on from those days but that was some 400 years after the Magna Carta and nearly 400 years ago.

 

Democracy exists when the people choose who will govern them.  Everything else is details.

 

Thailand lacked the qualities you wanted to see in government, and it is even further from these qualities under military rule.  However that does not change the fact that the legitimately elected government was democratic, and the coup undemocratic.

 

The United States had many flaws in its early democracy, so serious it required a constitutional convention to replace the Articles of Confederation with the current US Constitution.  The constitution had to be interpreted, amended, and tested with a civil war since then.  The government is decidedly not perfect, but it is a functioning democracy.

 

Funny thing about the evolution of the United States into a functioning democracy, the right of the people to choose was never denied.  To my knowledge not holding elections was never seriously considered.  Even in the midst of a bloody civil war there were national elections.  Thailand has never been given a chance to evolve in that manner, has it?

 

You and others see Thailand taking a huge step back from democracy and celebrate it.  Why?

[billd766]

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

A few references for you:

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

 

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/democracy

 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/democracy

 

What dictionary do you use?

 

Just in case you have some trouble reading it was this one.

 

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/democracy

 

Are you disagreeing with what they say?

 

Is it incorrect in any way,shape or form?

 

If it is then please write to them, coping TVF and explain where they are wrong.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Nobody voted for Yingluck in Thailand as she did not stand for election in ANY parliamentary election seat. She was however #1 for a party list seat. Easy to be #1 when your brother owns the party.

 

Just in case I am wrong could you please tell us all when parliamentary seat she contested and won?

Her party won.  That's how the constitution written by the military after the 2006 coup required elections to be conducted.  Once her party won it chose her to be PM.  None of the voters were surprised by this, in fact it was promised and expected.

[billd766]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Democracy exists when the people choose who will govern them.  Everything else is details.

 

Thailand lacked the qualities you wanted to see in government, and it is even further from these qualities under military rule.  However that does not change the fact that the legitimately elected government was democratic, and the coup undemocratic.

 

The United States had many flaws in its early democracy, so serious it required a constitutional convention to replace the Articles of Confederation with the current US Constitution.  The constitution had to be interpreted, amended, and tested with a civil war since then.  The government is decidedly not perfect, but it is a functioning democracy.

 

Funny thing about the evolution of the United States into a functioning democracy, the right of the people to choose was never denied.  To my knowledge not holding elections was never seriously considered.  Even in the midst of a bloody civil war there were national elections.  Thailand has never been given a chance to evolve in that manner, has it?

 

You and others see Thailand taking a huge step back from democracy and celebrate it.  Why?

 

The topic is NOT the US Constitution is case you don't understand but it is about the Junta and Yingluck.

[heybruce]

24 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Actually they are not standard progress at all. I have lived out here since 2003 under various governments and very few "governments", elected or not care about rural Thailand except coming up to an election.

 

Most of the Thai people I have tlaked to out here don't really care WHO is running the country as they know they won't anything and will be screwed in the process anyway.

And I compare what I saw in the north in 2000 with what I saw when I returned in 2006.  However I will find hard data about regional GDP, infrastructure investment, etc. later, I'm busy now.  The number will bear out my claim.

[heybruce]

Just now, billd766 said:

 

The topic is NOT the US Constitution is case you don't understand but it is about the Junta and Yingluck.

It's also not about your recollections of English history, but you brought them up.

[billd766]

Just now, heybruce said:

Her party won.  That's how the constitution written by the military after the 2006 coup required elections to be conducted.  Once her party won it chose her to be PM.  None of the voters were surprised by this, in fact it was promised and expected.

 

Absolutely correct. So NOBODY voted for Yingluck, only for the party.

 

Is that correct?

Just now, heybruce said:

It's also not about your recollections of English history, but you brought them up.

 

So I was off topic.

 

Find somebody who cares and tell them.

[saminoz]

Guys, can you take your discussion one to one?

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Just in case you have some trouble reading it was this one.

 

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/democracy

 

Are you disagreeing with what they say?

 

Is it incorrect in any way,shape or form?

 

If it is then please write to them, coping TVF and explain where they are wrong.

From your preferred link:

 

democracy

noun

uk /dɪˈmɒk.rə.si/ us /-ˈmɑː.krə-/

B2 [ U ] the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves:

 

I don't know how a nation of millions would have power held directly by the people, that sounds like a recipe for anarchy.  However I agree with the elected representatives part.  What's your point?

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Absolutely correct. So NOBODY voted for Yingluck, only for the party.

 

Is that correct?

 

So I was off topic.

 

Find somebody who cares and tell them.

Are you now arguing that parliamentary democracy is not democracy?

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, saminoz said:

Guys, can you take your discussion one to one?

Sorry, but the junta huggers have very few arguments that hold up.  One of their favorites is that it wasn't really a democracy before the coup because they didn't like what the elected government was doing.  I'm trying to shut that nonsense down, but some people don't like to relinquish a nonsense idea.

[robblok]

Sorry, but the junta huggers have very few arguments that hold up.  One of their favorites is that it wasn't really a democracy before the coup because they didn't like what the elected government was doing.  I'm trying to shut that nonsense down, but some people don't like to relinquish a nonsense idea.

Not non sense.. if voting is just one part of a democracy.. they vote in north Korea too. Get the picture.. its more then voting there are other rules and YL and her mob broke them. Give me an example of a real democracy that is led by a convicted criminal by proxy and i concede im wrong otherwise accept it was NOT a real democracy. It just had parts of a democracy.

[baboon]

18 minutes ago, saminoz said:

Guys, can you take your discussion one to one?

I hope not. This is a very interesting exchange of views.

[heybruce]

9 minutes ago, robblok said:

Not non sense.. if voting is just one part of a democracy.. they vote in north Korea too. Get the picture.. its more then voting there are other rules and YL and her mob broke them. Give me an example of a real democracy that is led by a convicted criminal by proxy and i concede im wrong otherwise accept it was NOT a real democracy. It just had parts of a democracy.

In North Korea people have no choice in who they vote for.  In Thailand in 2011 people had a choice and made their preference clear.  The fact that they chose Thaksin's sister with the expectation that she would be taking advice from Thaksin does not change the fact that they chose who wold represent them in government.

 

Clearly you don't like the results of the 2011 election and the government chosen by the people.  That doesn't make it undemocratic.  The people chose their representatives in government.  It was democratic, by definition.