Democrats oppose proposal for united front against ‘Thaksin regime’

[Smarter Than You]

40 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

There are no political parties that really represent the people. Just self interested regionally patronages based on old influential family hierarchies.

 

There isn't a robust fair equal to all justice system and no effective checks and balances with real teeth and impartiality.

 

Not one single government, elected or otherwise has shown any real interest in changing that.

 

There is no real deep desire to change. Until that in itself changes, nothing else will.

 

All this talk about some sort of revolution is nonsense. Simply won't happen

If there was no change under the elected governments of the past 17 years  - why did the elites feel it necessary for the series of military and judicial coups starting in 2005?

One side wants to keep things as they are, another wants a fairer distribution of the nations wealth.

There are huge differences, that is why there has been so many coups of late.

[Baerboxer]

7 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

How long  is long enough?

11 years do the trick for you?

 

Out in the "boonies" the people are buffalo, in Bangkok the people are sophisticated?

Nice.

 

People can vote for whomever they want for whatever reason they want - that is democracy.

Whichever party gets the most seats in the lower house forms government - that is democracy.

 

Tell me this, PTP have been muzzled for 3 years.

The entire apparatus of government has been actively and openly doing all they can do damage the PTP brand for three years - unchallenged.

A new rigged constitution has been thrust upon the nation through a rigged referendum, a constitution that's sole aim is to keep PTP out of power

Yet, PTP are still expected to win at least 220 of the 500 lower house seats in the next election.

PTP stand a good chance of getting to 251 seats on their own, which renders the 250 fully appointed military Senators null and void when it comes to selecting the PM.

Why is that?

 

Have you ever considered to take a minute and look at the other side?

Do PTP win election after election through bribery and coercion or do they win election after election because the alternatives are so, so bad?

 

 

 

 

11 years and only bothered joining this forum just over a year ago. Now sharing your special political insight. Right oh.

 

You should have read the forum rules when joining. It's against them to change what people say. Please show me where I say:

Out in the "boonies" the people are buffalo, in Bangkok the people are sophisticated?

Nice."

 

You have made that up. Please don't lie about comments I make. It puts everything you post into context.

 

Yet another "new joiner" who wants to claim the Shins are innocent, there's no influence, be that money or coercion on people voting, and that it's ok whatever the Shins do because the junta do worse (without any evidence of course).

 

 

[Smarter Than You]

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The lack of education has to do with successive government, including the Shin owned ones who were in power for most of this century, doing bugger all to rely reform education. Instead they simply allowed the corrupt system based on money changing hands to flourish. They also rotated ministers so often to give turns at the trough rather than actually doing anything. So please, let's not pretend the elected governments, especially Shin owned, are as honest as the day is long. 

 

If you stop your lobbying for the Shins, and read my posts then you'll see I say all governments, elected or otherwise. But let's not pretend any government this century has behaved any differently.

The Shins have been in power for how long?

Although they have won every election this millennia - how many of those 17 years were they unable to govern because of anti-democratic forces?

2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016 and 2017.

Kind of hard to hold them all that accountable isn't it?

 

Your position is what?

Both sides are <deleted> - so Thais should all ...?

What?

What should Thais do to save their country?

Accept eternal military rule?

Military rule which performs worse in every single thing that you criticise elected governments for.

 

It's a bit hot in the frying pan - lets jump in the fire and stay there forever.

 

The question is how to break the cycle?

Coup after coup is not leading the country anywhere.

Democracy, imperfect as it is, has to be given a chance to work.

 

 

[Srikcir]

18 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

 Ongart was referring to last week’s meeting between the Democrats and the PDRF.

A clear sign that the junta allows political meetings contravening its Directives but obviously for only those political organizations that are pro-military.

So far as the Democrat Party not willing to "hold hands" with the PDRF and the junta to oppose the PTP, I wouldn't rule out covert cooperation to assure election of Democrats to majority in the House and PM. In the past Abhisit has shown himself to be a willing political cut-out for the military to gain power. So you won't see Abhisit actually condemn this troika arrangement.

[Baerboxer]

5 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

If there was no change under the elected governments of the past 17 years  - why did the elites feel it necessary for the series of military and judicial coups starting in 2005?

One side wants to keep things as they are, another wants a fairer distribution of the nations wealth.

There are huge differences, that is why there has been so many coups of late.

 

Utter nonsense.

 

The Shins didn't want or do anything or reform anything in the interests of a fairer distribution of the nations wealth. If you think they did please detail them.

 

They were pocketing it themselves and their cronies.

 

Wake up to reality.

[Baerboxer]

1 minute ago, Smarter Than You said:

The Shins have been in power for how long?

Although they have won every election this millennia - how many of those 17 years were they unable to govern because of anti-democratic forces?

2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016 and 2017.

Kind of hard to hold them all that accountable isn't it?

 

Your position is what?

Both sides are <deleted> - so Thais should all ...?

What?

What should Thais do to save their country?

Accept eternal military rule?

Military rule which performs worse in every single thing that you criticise elected governments for.

 

It's a bit hot in the frying pan - lets jump in the fire and stay there forever.

 

The question is how to break the cycle?

Coup after coup is not leading the country anywhere.

Democracy, imperfect as it is, has to be given a chance to work.

 

 

 

So please tell us what exactly was it the Shins do, or wanted to do, whilst dominating control this century:

 

Change laws so they could sell the family business at vast profit and avoid paying tax.

Lend Thai treasury money at very low interest rate to Myanmar Junta so the can buy Shin Corp products and services

Abuse parliamentary procedure; more than once

Promise every child a tablet like Yingluck's; and deliver only a small amount of cheap Chinese crap ones

Threaten judges with dire consequences if they ruled against them

Started the rice scheme; but apparently failed to keep any financial and management accounts, manage it correctly or listen to warnings about it

Tried to force, again without parliamentary procedure being followed, a complete whitewash for the criminal that owns the party and paid a salary to all MP's - how democratic that is!

Lied to the people and when caught lied again, even saying it's ok to tell lies and lying is ethical!

 

Those are just off the top - perhaps you can share your list of their fantastic achievements?

 

And yes, I certainly did look.

[Smarter Than You]

8 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Utter nonsense.

 

The Shins didn't want or do anything or reform anything in the interests of a fairer distribution of the nations wealth. If you think they did please detail them.

 

They were pocketing it themselves and their cronies.

 

Wake up to reality.

So there is no 30 baht health care?

[Baerboxer]

4 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

So there is no 30 baht health care?

 

Check it was free before.

[Smarter Than You]

7 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Check it was free before.

Surprise, surprise - you are wrong again.

 

Thaksin Shinawatra introduced the universal health coverage scheme in 2001.

The scheme was called the ‘30 baht policy’ where people receive a ‘Gold Card’, allowing them to access medical treatment in their registered district with a co-payment cost of 30 baht per illness.

Then in 2008, PM Abhisit Vejjajiva changed it to a free healthcare service but most people still called it the ‘30 baht policy’.

 

Junta to get rid of Thaksin initiated universal healthcare | Prachatai ...

[Smarter Than You]

21 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

So please tell us what exactly was it the Shins do, or wanted to do, whilst dominating control this century:

 

Change laws so they could sell the family business at vast profit and avoid paying tax.

Lend Thai treasury money at very low interest rate to Myanmar Junta so the can buy Shin Corp products and services

Abuse parliamentary procedure; more than once

Promise every child a tablet like Yingluck's; and deliver only a small amount of cheap Chinese crap ones

Threaten judges with dire consequences if they ruled against them

Started the rice scheme; but apparently failed to keep any financial and management accounts, manage it correctly or listen to warnings about it

Tried to force, again without parliamentary procedure being followed, a complete whitewash for the criminal that owns the party and paid a salary to all MP's - how democratic that is!

Lied to the people and when caught lied again, even saying it's ok to tell lies and lying is ethical!

 

Those are just off the top - perhaps you can share your list of their fantastic achievements?

 

And yes, I certainly did look.

Lets see, how to match your Junta propaganda nonsense....hmmm.

 

How about with one word

 

Thaksinomics.

 

How bad is Thaksinomics? - New Mandala

 

Thaksinomics - Wikipedia

 

and this beauty

 

Thaksinomics return as Thai junta rethinks revival strategy | Reuters

 

I have a second word if your interested - Democracy.

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The trouble is Eric, as you know, that democratically elected governments also stole large sums of money. Indeed the last one had public plans to raise the bar on that. 

Difficult to agree with you on this one. Junta corruption has no peers. They either ignore like PM nephew corruption, intimidate like the Park corruption or eliminate the witnesses in the cells. Rest especially PTP got quick convictions, executive orders assets seizures and arrested for AA for critics.

 

Plus the military have been corrupted for decades and have set corruption at a ridiculous height. 

[jesimps]

17 hours ago, Get Real said:

Right now I am all for that. Just that I wanna go a little bit further with this. Maybe ban all the citizens from political positions, due to that nobody really can handle a work including being in a power position without taking unlawful advantage of it.

Talking of taking unlawful advantage of something.............

[Chris Lawrence]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Check it was free before.

Thailand's health care reform occurred in 2001. Called the "30 Baht Program," it was one of the largest and most ambitious health reforms ever undertaken in a developing country. The program both increased by fourfold the amount hospitals were paid to care for the poor - from 250 baht (about US$6) per enrollee per year to 1,200 baht (about US$35) - and reduced the copay for non-welfare residents to 30 baht (~$0.75). In effect, the reforms made access to health care in public facilities independent of a person's financial situation and equalized health care access for rich and poor. Read more from Asian Scientist Magazine at: https://www.asianscientist.com/2013/06/health/thailands-30-baht-healthcare-program-reduced-infant-mortality-2013

 

Also reduced infant mortality rate by 30%. 

 

Bareboxer, have you talked to the people in the country and got their views? 

 

If you have parallel thoughts to others its not worth trolling them to get reactions.

 

If you research some of the things said u might find that somethings said on here are factual.

 

Is universal health coverage ‘populist’? Calling a person or a policy ‘populist’ suggests that they are more self-serving than communal, more instinctive than rational, and more wasteful than sustainable. Is providing essential healthcare to all like this? No. Branding universal health coverage with the derogatory label ‘populist’ allows a group to benefit from anti-populism discourse. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/04/15/thai-public-health-care-suffering-by-association/

 

Just two pages I found while writing this. Might help you be better informed when trying to beat people up.

[Get Real]

6 minutes ago, jesimps said:

Talking of taking unlawful advantage of something.............

I know, but it might be an advantage that has to be taken, due to that remembering and learning aren´t the two strongest cards here.

[JAG]

  There are no political parties that really represent the people. Just self interested regionally patronages based on old influential family hierarchies.

 

There isn't a robust fair equal to all justice system and no effective checks and balances with real teeth and impartiality.

 

Not one single government, elected or otherwise has shown any real interest in changing that.

 

There is no real deep desire to change. Until that in itself changes, nothing else will.

 

All this talk about some sort of revolution is nonsense. Simply won't happen

 

I'm not so sure.

 

You may be right in as far as none of the political movements, now or in the recent past have shown any determined interest in making significant changes to "the system", although I would argue (as you probably expect) that one has flirted with the idea, attracting support because of that flirting, and if it had been allowed to remain in power may have had to take some steps to retain that support. Perhaps the risk of that was too great, so it had to be prevented from remaining in power, despite its electoral success.

 

As for the rapid revolutionary change foretold, well we just don't know if that appetite will be revealed, should a suitable catalyst arise.

 

"All this talk about some sort of revolution is nonsense. Simply won't happen" is a bold statement. I wonder how it would sound in classical French, early 20th century Russian or even 1970s Farsi?

 

 

 

 

 

[Sheryl]

Several bickering/flaming posts have been removed.

 

Please keep it civil and avoid personal attacks.

[tomwct]

7 hours ago, yellowboat said:

People keep saying the average Thai is not smart enough to elect the right candidate.  Look what they have to work with;  the bungling army and hi so's that call themselves democrats, but seem to benefit from deposing elected governments.  What choices does the average Thai have other than a Shinawarta ? 

Most Thai's will decide who gives the most, who promises the most, and how much money for my vote? That's Thai Democracy!

[Chris Lawrence]

The military government is not very different from Yingluck’s era, their anti-populist stance serves as a political machine to suppress democratic politics.

 

Since the 2014 coup started, the military junta has been the major beneficiary of the anti-populism frame.

 

While this ‘populist’ jargon sounds dangerous, unsustainable, or wasteful, it indeed has proved a fundamental value. All citizens have the right to access public healthcare and the state is obliged to ensure these rights.

 

Love or hate 'em the Shins won the country folk by 'populist' policy's. The majority of voters are country folk. 

 

There is a very powerful idea among royalists that Thailand needs to be ruled by 'good men' and liberal democracy is incompetent. Ignorant electorates can be easily duped by ill-intended politicians. This has paved a way to the establishment of an anti-electoral democracy.

 

So it is easy to turn an argument here on TV. Many here the word 'populist' policy's and draw back with Shin lover, red stooge? The current regime is knee-deep in it, by way of developing the armed forces. 

 

The real problem is how is the elephant in the room dealt with. It can come out in many forms. I have used some quotes from EastAsiaForum.

[Redline]

Reconciliation

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Difficult to agree with you on this one. Junta corruption has no peers. They either ignore like PM nephew corruption, intimidate like the Park corruption or eliminate the witnesses in the cells. Rest especially PTP got quick convictions, executive orders assets seizures and arrested for AA for critics.

 

Plus the military have been corrupted for decades and have set corruption at a ridiculous height. 

 

I don't disagree with you Eric. But let's not pretend that democratically elected governments, especially recent ones, are much different.

 

Just look at the antics of some of their well known senior "stars" and their families.

 

Nepotism, corruption, threatening the judiciary, and witnesses also disappearing or turning up deceased (just like the one witness to the Four Seasons saga; or HR activists; or to fatal shootings etc). 

 

Different and newer factions each trying to out due the traditional practitioners. Had you know who have got his hands on 2.2 trillion loan, with no accountability, then again the bar height would've increases.

 

How many senior PTP leaders, their relations and cronies have actually been convicted and imprisoned? The reality is only minions of either side, the expendable canon fodder, ever do time in prison.

 

 

[Eric Loh]

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I don't disagree with you Eric. But let's not pretend that democratically elected governments, especially recent ones, are much different.

 

Just look at the antics of some of their well known senior "stars" and their families.

 

Nepotism, corruption, threatening the judiciary, and witnesses also disappearing or turning up deceased (just like the one witness to the Four Seasons saga; or HR activists; or to fatal shootings etc). 

 

Different and newer factions each trying to out due the traditional practitioners. Had you know who have got his hands on 2.2 trillion loan, with no accountability, then again the bar height would've increases.

 

How many senior PTP leaders, their relations and cronies have actually been convicted and imprisoned? The reality is only minions of either side, the expendable canon fodder, ever do time in prison.

 

 

I can't comment on your ability to speculate and hyperbole and I really have no clue what you are instigating regarding the controversial  deaths of unrelated '4 seasons' devious character or the 'didn't happen' 2.2 T loan. However I can say that democratically elected governments are more transparent and the media has more freedom to write and the public has no fear to express their opinion in social media then the current junta government.   

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, JAG said:

I'm not so sure.

 

You may be right in as far as none of the political movements, now or in the recent past have shown any determined interest in making significant changes to "the system", although I would argue (as you probably expect) that one has flirted with the idea, attracting support because of that flirting, and if it had been allowed to remain in power may have had to take some steps to retain that support. Perhaps the risk of that was too great, so it had to be prevented from remaining in power, despite its electoral success.

 

As for the rapid revolutionary change foretold, well we just don't know if that appetite will be revealed, should a suitable catalyst arise.

 

"All this talk about some sort of revolution is nonsense. Simply won't happen" is a bold statement. I wonder how it would sound in classical French, early 20th century Russian or even 1970s Farsi?

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have to disagree on this. 

 

Could you elaborate on the "flirting" of changes to the system you mention? 

 

Thaksin always talks of "democracy" but he/PTP were quick to kill the idea of elected provincial governors, preferring to place their own people in such roles. Theydid support an elected senate but wanted to scrap rules around family members of MP's being eligible and maximum terms of office. I think their changes were to create the Lee type strangle hold on Singapore or the Sen type on Cambodia. A party talking about democracy whilst weakening checks and balances and actively involved in corruption. Not much change there.

 

Interesting that what seemed to really rile people here was the injustice shown in the different treatment to rich and poor by the justice system. The anger at whitewash amnesties, hiso killers being let off with lenient sentences if even convicted, and the corruption that permeates so much. But then you read that so many people are actually fine with the corruption, especially if they benefit and it doesn't go to far. That willingness to let things ride is very strong. Things may change, but I doubt it. 

 

 

 

 

[YetAnother]

democrats didnt have a choice, they couldnt come out in public support of this

[chainarong]

Let the people decide .............................................

[yellowboat]

Just now, chainarong said:

Let the people decide .............................................

If they are allowed to do so.  So far they cannot congregate and their free speech is squelched.   Perhaps a political meeting disguised as a mamba line at one of those bars that have salsa.    

[Bastos60]

21 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

I take it by "Thaksin regime" they mean democratically elected government.

No they mean that a Thaksin puppet will head the government. While a politician is banned from actively participating in politics he has been the puppetmaster of a long
row of his confidants. His sister was only marginally allowed to run her own program. Why else would they each time install a brother-in-law etc....in a position as prime minister.

 

a Thaksin regime = democratically elected "puppet" government.

[Baerboxer]

7 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I can't comment on your ability to speculate and hyperbole and I really have no clue what you are instigating regarding the controversial  deaths of unrelated '4 seasons' devious character or the 'didn't happen' 2.2 T loan. However I can say that democratically elected governments are more transparent and the media has more freedom to write and the public has no fear to express their opinion in social media then the current junta government.   

 

I appreciate that English isn't your first language Eric. Speculate - isn't that what discussions are? Most if not all of your points are speculative, unless of course you have evidence you are going to share to prove them?

 

Anytime, when you're ready to post them.

 

Hyperbole, well if you have no clue then you don't really no if something is hyperbolic or not do you? So which is it?

 

PTP - you think they were transparent? Wonder why no accounts from the self financing flagship rice scheme have so far never been revealed? Media has more freedom - where you here when Thaksin had is little red card for journalists, regularly sued critics and media companies for comments he didn't like and when his little sister's government tried to get the cyber police to threaten prosecutions for even liking a post they didn't like (they backed off but they had the idea first)? Transparency - PTP cut the budget of the NACC by 50% although Yingluck did attend an anti corruption photo shoot and did declare there was no corruption in her government. She also said they wanted the 2.2 trillion loan off the books, away from parliamentary scrutiny and the AG. How transparent is that? And yes, there opponents and witnesses against them have also vanished mysteriously.

 

Transparency, accountability, freedom of speech and freedom of information; a robust fair and impartial justice system, and robust open checks & balances are all essential for a democracy to flourish. And the last democratically elected government did nothing about promoting or reforming any of that. Indeed, sadly, quite the opposite.

 

 

 

 

[Chris Lawrence]

3 minutes ago, Bastos60 said:

No they mean that a Thaksin puppet will head the government. While a politician is banned from actively participating in politics he has been the puppetmaster of a long
row of his confidants. His sister was only marginally allowed to run her own program. Why else would they each time install a brother-in-law etc....in a position as prime minister.

 

a Thaksin regime = democratically elected "puppet" government.

At the end of the day, the pendulum has swung.

 

General Prayuth heads a regime with no democratic pretences, ruling with absolute power. The military dominates politics, epitomised by the general himself becoming prime minister.

 

Today the NLA is filled not with business cronies and spouses of politicians but with military classmates and siblings, who in turn chose Prayuth as prime minister.

 

Like a politburo, the NCPO is thus the nexus of this interim governing structure, comprising the NLA, cabinet, and NRC. This monopoly of power is reminiscent of the Thaksin juggernaut a decade ago. It was a parliamentary dictatorship then as it is now. But the fundamental difference is that the current authoritarian period completely bypassed the electorate.

 

Do people remember what happened or do they make it up as they go?

 

Unaccountable power with absolute authority and direct rule is inadvisable.

 

Past experiences in the 1960s, early 1970s and 1991–1992 have shown that such governments eventually end in tears.

[Chris Lawrence]

11 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I appreciate that English isn't your first language Eric. Speculate - isn't that what discussions are? Most if not all of your points are speculative, unless of course you have evidence you are going to share to prove them?

 

Anytime, when you're ready to post them.

 

Hyperbole, well if you have no clue then you don't really no if something is hyperbolic or not do you? So which is it?

 

PTP - you think they were transparent? Wonder why no accounts from the self financing flagship rice scheme have so far never been revealed? Media has more freedom - where you here when Thaksin had is little red card for journalists, regularly sued critics and media companies for comments he didn't like and when his little sister's government tried to get the cyber police to threaten prosecutions for even liking a post they didn't like (they backed off but they had the idea first)? Transparency - PTP cut the budget of the NACC by 50% although Yingluck did attend an anti corruption photo shoot and did declare there was no corruption in her government. She also said they wanted the 2.2 trillion loan off the books, away from parliamentary scrutiny and the AG. How transparent is that? And yes, there opponents and witnesses against them have also vanished mysteriously.

 

Transparency, accountability, freedom of speech and freedom of information; a robust fair and impartial justice system, and robust open checks & balances are all essential for a democracy to flourish. And the last democratically elected government did nothing about promoting or reforming any of that. Indeed, sadly, quite the opposite.

 

 

 

 

The word is 'diatribe'.

 

You don't make sense. You never tidy anything up, but go on and on and on with rubbish.

 

Get over it. 

 

 

[Bastos60]

8 minutes ago, Chris Lawrence said:

At the end of the day, the pendulum has swung.

 

General Prayuth heads a regime with no democratic pretences, ruling with absolute power. The military dominates politics, epitomised by the general himself becoming prime minister.

 

Today the NLA is filled not with business cronies and spouses of politicians but with military classmates and siblings, who in turn chose Prayuth as prime minister.

 

Like a politburo, the NCPO is thus the nexus of this interim governing structure, comprising the NLA, cabinet, and NRC. This monopoly of power is reminiscent of the Thaksin juggernaut a decade ago. It was a parliamentary dictatorship then as it is now. But the fundamental difference is that the current authoritarian period completely bypassed the electorate.

 

Do people remember what happened or do they make it up as they go?

 

Unaccountable power with absolute authority and direct rule is inadvisable.

 

Past experiences in the 1960s, early 1970s and 1991–1992 have shown that such governments eventually end in tears.

 

don't get me wrong, I am not really a supporter for a junta government, but I wasn't a particular supporter of Thaksin after the coup in 2006. 
It was far to obvious that he was the only real 'boss' of each consequent government installed by his TRT family.

If only they have let go of the pm post in government during their last 'reign' and had someone in place that was not related to him, the problems would have been
far less extensive. 

 

At some point, that power corrupts, and only leaves behind a disillusioned population.