Thailand's Return to Democracy May Raise Tension

[heybruce]

31 minutes ago, heybruce said:

" Conjecture! I obviously am more adaptable to particular situations and am not sharing your view that the Thai military government is /repressive/; "

 

Adaptable, apathetic, whatever.  When you are going along with a military government that came to power by toppling an elected government in order to prevent new elections, I think the best thing that can be said about your attitude is that you are apathetic.

 

"they have never ever bothered me in any way yet give me the opportunity to live here as long as I wish which is translating into a wonderful lifestyle coupled with free movement!"

 

Yes, having money to spare in a country with poor, obedient peasants grasping at any opportunity for a better life can be 'pleasant'.  I take it you haven't made friends with any Thais and don't care about how this government is holding them and the country back.

 

" I preserve the view that idealists are dreamers and high-mindedness is unrealistic. "

 

Another rationalization for apathy.  I am a retired USAF officer who is appalled by the military coup. the ongoing military government, and the number of westerners who should know better but support this government.  I don't think it's unrealistic to expect democracy in Thailand, I think that's the best hope for the country's future.

BTW, what was wrong with life in Thailand during those brief periods of elected government?  I recall people being more relaxed, less paranoid, less whispering and looking over one's shoulder before discussing government and other topics.

[Baerboxer]

35 minutes ago, sawadee1947 said:

well, well this forum is always a place to learn. Today I learned to compare Thailand with Canada, UK and even Ireland....All the same, even UK is a Kingdom. Thank you, Beerboxer for that lesson

 

You do understand that Canada, the UK, Ireland and many more countries have appointed upper houses. 

 

But you stated that it's not a democracy if senators are appointed not elected. 

 

It's a bugger when reality doesn't fit your agenda, especially when it's so simple to check.

[Baerboxer]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

BTW, what was wrong with life in Thailand during those brief periods of elected government?  I recall people being more relaxed, less paranoid, less whispering and looking over one's shoulder before discussing government and other topics.

 

I don't disagree with a lot of what you post, which may surprise you.

 

I don't see all this paranoia, whispering or looking over one's shoulder - apart from reading it on here! 

 

Democracy isn't a off the shelf solution. The US has elected upper and lower chambers, and an elected president, state governors, city mayors, sheriffs and public officials. The UK has an elected lower house, appointed upper house, elected local government but mostly appointed officials. Canada and Ireland I know also have appointed upper houses. German has a federal constitution and proportional representation. Other European countries have their own variations.

 

So the democratic organization and process is different in different countries. In Asia, South America, and Africa, adoption of democracy has often led to corrupt governments, polarized wealth differences, poverty and poor services. A phenomenon in these countries also being the rise of powerful family political clans, based on old feudal power, tribal loyalty or a strong man leader. 

 

Although I agree that democracy is the answer and way forward I do wonder which model can be best used to help Thailand develop a model that suits Thailand. Not sure that sending various groups of politicians and academics on overseas trips to study other countries has actually been productive. Certainly doesn't seem to be any progress on that.

 

Democracy also means having a robust justice system, that fair, and applied to all evenly, without favor, prejudice and with consistency. Don't see much progress on that either.

 

Not sure what the answer is. But capitalism based democracy is not delivering for many countries anymore. It isn't addressing the world's imbalances and none of the models have produced harmonious societies. 

[wakeupplease]

10 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I don't disagree with a lot of what you post, which may surprise you.

 

I don't see all this paranoia, whispering or looking over one's shoulder - apart from reading it on here! 

 

Democracy isn't a off the shelf solution. The US has elected upper and lower chambers, and an elected president, state governors, city mayors, sheriffs and public officials. The UK has an elected lower house, appointed upper house, elected local government but mostly appointed officials. Canada and Ireland I know also have appointed upper houses. German has a federal constitution and proportional representation. Other European countries have their own variations.

 

So the democratic organization and process is different in different countries. In Asia, South America, and Africa, adoption of democracy has often led to corrupt governments, polarized wealth differences, poverty and poor services. A phenomenon in these countries also being the rise of powerful family political clans, based on old feudal power, tribal loyalty or a strong man leader. 

 

Although I agree that democracy is the answer and way forward I do wonder which model can be best used to help Thailand develop a model that suits Thailand. Not sure that sending various groups of politicians and academics on overseas trips to study other countries has actually been productive. Certainly doesn't seem to be any progress on that.

 

Democracy also means having a robust justice system, that fair, and applied to all evenly, without favor, prejudice and with consistency. Don't see much progress on that either.

 

Not sure what the answer is. But capitalism based democracy is not delivering for many countries anymore. It isn't addressing the world's imbalances and none of the models have produced harmonious societies. 

Well come on sunshine give us the Bareboxer version of how it all should be

 

Not NK or China please

[candide]

41 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

You do understand that Canada, the UK, Ireland and many more countries have appointed upper houses. 

 

But you stated that it's not a democracy if senators are appointed not elected. 

 

It's a bugger when reality doesn't fit your agenda, especially when it's so simple to check.

In those countries, senators are not appointed by the army or other components of the same dominant network.

Additionally, in some of the cases you mention, they can be nominated by elected people. Ex. In Canada. It is the PM who nominates senators and they are nearly never rejected by the governor.

[heybruce]

33 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I don't disagree with a lot of what you post, which may surprise you.

 

I don't see all this paranoia, whispering or looking over one's shoulder - apart from reading it on here! 

 

Democracy isn't a off the shelf solution. The US has elected upper and lower chambers, and an elected president, state governors, city mayors, sheriffs and public officials. The UK has an elected lower house, appointed upper house, elected local government but mostly appointed officials. Canada and Ireland I know also have appointed upper houses. German has a federal constitution and proportional representation. Other European countries have their own variations.

 

So the democratic organization and process is different in different countries. In Asia, South America, and Africa, adoption of democracy has often led to corrupt governments, polarized wealth differences, poverty and poor services. A phenomenon in these countries also being the rise of powerful family political clans, based on old feudal power, tribal loyalty or a strong man leader. 

 

Although I agree that democracy is the answer and way forward I do wonder which model can be best used to help Thailand develop a model that suits Thailand. Not sure that sending various groups of politicians and academics on overseas trips to study other countries has actually been productive. Certainly doesn't seem to be any progress on that.

 

Democracy also means having a robust justice system, that fair, and applied to all evenly, without favor, prejudice and with consistency. Don't see much progress on that either.

 

Not sure what the answer is. But capitalism based democracy is not delivering for many countries anymore. It isn't addressing the world's imbalances and none of the models have produced harmonious societies. 

There are many kinds of democracy, all flawed, all preferable to military rule.

 

What Thailand has now is not democracy.  If and when there are elections under the military's constitution it also will not be democracy.  Elected officials will be allowed to pass laws, but the military will overrule any that it doesn't like.  Also, as it has demonstrated repeatedly, if the military decides this experiment in "democracy" isn't going to its liking, the military will stage another coup.

 

A new democracy is never mature, it always takes time and a lot of trial and error before a system that suits the people and culture emerges.  However democracy must be allowed to proceed without military intervention for this to work.  The military does not allow that because the military, and those it serves, doesn't want "government of the people, for the people, and by the people".

 

I've come to the conclusion that Thailand isn't so much a country as an empire, the Bangkok Empire.  I won't expand on this too much or my post will be deleted, but I will point out that the military doesn't exist to protect the borders from external threats, but to control the population and protect certain people.  So long as the military serves the empire and not the people, there will never be democracy.

Edited August 11, 2017 by heybruce

[zzaa09]

Return to Democracy?  

 

When were the other times of real democratic rule?

[Baerboxer]

12 minutes ago, wakeupplease said:

Well come on sunshine give us the Bareboxer version of how it all should be

 

Not NK or China please

 

I really wish I knew mate. I know several academics in the US, much more clever than I, professors, futurologists, who ponder that question. If they come up with an answer I'll let you know! Beyond me.

 

But look at what's going on all over. Climate change, the division of wealth, lawlessness, wars all over the place, terrorism, increases in population and the looming prospect of water and food shortages becoming real issues.

 

Communism failed. Has capitalism reached the end of it's usefulness? Do we need a world government? Or do we need less government but more localized? And whilst democracy in principle is fine, which model do we adopt - federal, proportional representation, based on wealth, etc etc.

 

Sorry, I have no answers mate, only questions. But when people glibly state that "returning to democracy" is the answer, well what do they actually mean by that?

 

The two most populous countries are China and India. The latter prides itself on being the world's largest democracy. The former has been a communist dictatorship since WW11. They perhaps provide some comparison.

[Baerboxer]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

There are many kinds of democracy, all flawed, all preferable to military rule.

 

What Thailand has now is not democracy.  If and when there are elections under the military's constitution it also will not be democracy.  Elected officials will be allowed to pass laws, but the military will overrule any that it doesn't like.  Also, as it has demonstrated repeatedly, if the military decides this experiment in "democracy" isn't going to its liking, the military will stage another coup.

 

A new democracy is never mature, it always takes time and a lot of trial and error before a system that suits the people and culture emerges.  However democracy must be allowed to proceed without military intervention for this to work.  The military does not allow that because the military, and those it serves, doesn't want "government of the people, for the people, and by the people".

 

I've come to the conclusion that Thailand isn't so much a country as an empire, the Bangkok Empire.  I won't expand on this too much or my post will be deleted, but I will point out that the military doesn't exist to protect the borders from external threats, but to control the population and protect certain people.  So long as the military serves the empire and not the people, there will never be democracy.

 

A fledgling democracy, whatever the model, will never thrive and develop, without a consensus of the people and a robust justice system to protect it. 

I can't think of one Asian country where democracy really exists. Mostly because of that lack of robust independent justice system. 

 

 

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

Return to Democracy?  

 

When were the other times of real democratic rule?

When there was an elected government that tried to hold new elections so the people could choose the next government.  It happened twice this century, though people who don't want to admit they are anti-democracy don't want to admit it.

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

A fledgling democracy, whatever the model, will never thrive and develop, without a consensus of the people and a robust justice system to protect it. 

I can't think of one Asian country where democracy really exists. Mostly because of that lack of robust independent justice system. 

 

South Korea, Japan, Taiwan are stable examples.  None are perfect, but all are stable with rule of law. 

 

Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, and maybe a few others are examples of works in progress.  A lot of work remains, but a combination of a reasonably free press and militaries that don't seem inclined to stage coups means the governments must fear the people and work to keep them happy.

 

Thailand was briefly an example of a work in progress, but the military put an end to that.

[Baerboxer]

12 minutes ago, candide said:

In those countries, senators are not appointed by the army or other components of the same dominant network.

Additionally, in some of the cases you mention, they can be nominated by elected people. Ex. In Canada. It is the PM who nominates senators and they are nearly never rejected by the governor.

 

Each country that appoints them has it's own process. But the poster I replied to stated that if senators are appointed then it's not democratic. Therefore regardless of process he was implying countries like Canada aren't democratic.

 

Equally you could say that in those countries someone would never be allowed to own a political party, pay MPs a salary, and dictate what they do and how they vote. 

And in those countries, they have robust justice systems to ensure laws are respected.

[observer90210]

To avoid any tension, jail all the cheats who drive taxis and tuk tuk's!!

[Baerboxer]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

South Korea, Japan, Taiwan are stable examples.  None are perfect, but all are stable with rule of law. 

 

Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, and maybe a few others are examples of works in progress.  A lot of work remains, but a combination of a reasonably free press and militaries that don't seem inclined to stage coups means the governments must fear the people and work to keep them happy.

 

Thailand was briefly an example of a work in progress, but the military put an end to that.

Fair point. I wasn't including Japan as I tend to think of them as one of the developed nations. South Korea as just shown that Presidents and senior business leaders aren't above their law, bravo; not sure about Taiwan. Haven't been there since 94.

 

The work-in-progress countries you mention are all suffering from corruption. India, where I lived for a few years, has terrible corruption at state and federal level, a slow bureaucratic justice system but the military would never dream of staging a coup. The Indian press is cutting. I remember when state governments changed it was common for the incoming party to throw the previous incumbents in jail and charge them with corruption - and the favor would be returned next time! Elections were always interesting - I remember one party delivering hundreds of TV sets, and food parcels to rural villages. I'm sure the others have their nuances.

 

Not sure Thailand ever progressed as far as that. 

[JAG]

25 minutes ago, candide said:

In those countries, senators are not appointed by the army or other components of the same dominant network.

Additionally, in some of the cases you mention, they can be nominated by elected people. Ex. In Canada. It is the PM who nominates senators and they are nearly never rejected by the governor.

Moreover, the appointed upper houses in those countries are essentially revising chambers, whose powers do not extend to overruling the elected house, nor do they select or have a formal say in the selection of the Prime Minister

[Eric Loh]

19 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

Fair point. I wasn't including Japan as I tend to think of them as one of the developed nations. South Korea as just shown that Presidents and senior business leaders aren't above their law, bravo; not sure about Taiwan. Haven't been there since 94.

 

The work-in-progress countries you mention are all suffering from corruption. India, where I lived for a few years, has terrible corruption at state and federal level, a slow bureaucratic justice system but the military would never dream of staging a coup. The Indian press is cutting. I remember when state governments changed it was common for the incoming party to throw the previous incumbents in jail and charge them with corruption - and the favor would be returned next time! Elections were always interesting - I remember one party delivering hundreds of TV sets, and food parcels to rural villages. I'm sure the others have their nuances.

 

Not sure Thailand ever progressed as far as that. 

Yes terrible corruption but none of the countries need a coup to clean up corruption. They place the trust in the people hands. No one trust the military. Oh sorry maybe you is the exception. 

[JAG]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

snip...But when people glibly state that "returning to democracy" is the answer, well what do they actually mean by that?

...snip

if I may butt in, as one who consistently argues for a "return to democracy".

The first, and fundamental step, is to return to selecting the government through the ballot box in a free election. It doesn't really matter which system, variants of proportional representation or the "first past the post system", as long as the result broadly reflects the will of the electorate, and as long as that result is respected by all elements within society, irrespective of wealth (class) and political leaning.

 

Thailand has, in theory, all the other requirements of a democratic government, a codified judicial system, a potentially  effective civil service, proper political parties, a comprehensive broadcasting system and press and umpteen constitutions on file to choose from. They are all bedeviled of course by corruption, and that corruption will only be removed by the insistence of the people, and that means by an elected government. Under a consistent run of elected governments, with personal and political freedoms these institutions can begin to function as thy should, and provide the checks and balances which worked poorly before, and simply don't exist at present.

 

Now I've been accused as touting elections as a "panacea". Thy are not, but they are the first step in the process of producing a robust democratic government. Without them, and without them being free and unfettered, no further steps can be taken.

 

One further point, elections will end the effective disenfranchisement of a large proportion (arguably a majority) and a geographically concentrated one, of the people of this country. This will stop the inevitable growing disenchantment with the  rule by  a small group with particular influence and wealth, centered in Bangkok. Disenchantment which I am convinced could if not halted result in revolt. Revolt which in my opinion, as a retired  professional soldier, the army is quite frankly unlikely to be able to defeat. 

 

That's what I mean by a "return to democracy". The last paragraph is why I believe that it is a matter of urgency.

Edited August 11, 2017 by JAG

[Squeegee]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

There are many kinds of democracy, all flawed, all preferable to military rule.

 

What Thailand has now is not democracy.  If and when there are elections under the military's constitution it also will not be democracy.  Elected officials will be allowed to pass laws, but the military will overrule any that it doesn't like.  Also, as it has demonstrated repeatedly, if the military decides this experiment in "democracy" isn't going to its liking, the military will stage another coup.

 

A new democracy is never mature, it always takes time and a lot of trial and error before a system that suits the people and culture emerges.  However democracy must be allowed to proceed without military intervention for this to work.  The military does not allow that because the military, and those it serves, doesn't want "government of the people, for the people, and by the people".

 

I've come to the conclusion that Thailand isn't so much a country as an empire, the Bangkok Empire.  I won't expand on this too much or my post will be deleted, but I will point out that the military doesn't exist to protect the borders from external threats, but to control the population and protect certain people.  So long as the military serves the empire and not the people, there will never be democracy.

 

Bangkok Empire, A.K.A. Project Thai....

 

"We're all Thai here" was genius but is inevitably going the same way as The American Dream and Britannia ruling the waves. I still cannot help but wonder at those whose choice of better-the-devil-you-know is authoritarian feudalists over democratic process. Baffling.

[metisdead]

Posts containing possibly dangerous comments have been removed. 

[phycokiller]

42 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Yes terrible corruption but none of the countries need a coup to clean up corruption. They place the trust in the people hands. No one trust the military. Oh sorry maybe you is the exception. 

I dont think its too controversial to mention as its public information, but Thailand is a monarchy, and the monarchy is the head of the military. not implying anything at all, just pointing out a small difference between those countries and Thailand

[sawadee1947]

3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

You do understand that Canada, the UK, Ireland and many more countries have appointed upper houses. 

 

But you stated that it's not a democracy if senators are appointed not elected. 

 

It's a bugger when reality doesn't fit your agenda, especially when it's so simple to check.

there was a mistake:

It's so good to have you in this forum. When I

have your age I hope having achieved your wisdom. Please let us take part in your qualified outpourings for ever

[baboon]

2 hours ago, JAG said:

Moreover, the appointed upper houses in those countries are essentially revising chambers, whose powers do not extend to overruling the elected house, nor do they select or have a formal say in the selection of the Prime Minister

Or indeed the power to simply dismiss the government, which I believe this politburo will have.

[uptheos]

Return to democracy, they're having a laugh aren't they?

 

When was the last time the military was accountable to the government and couldn't step in whenever they chose?

[greenchair]

12 hours ago, SouthernDelight said:

What restrictions are you currently experiencing?

He's being very careful everytime he posts on tv or fb , keeping in mind that a mistake a share a like might land him in prison. 

Is that a restriction? ?

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, JAG said:

if I may butt in, as one who consistently argues for a "return to democracy".

The first, and fundamental step, is to return to selecting the government through the ballot box in a free election. It doesn't really matter which system, variants of proportional representation or the "first past the post system", as long as the result broadly reflects the will of the electorate, and as long as that result is respected by all elements within society, irrespective of wealth (class) and political leaning.

 

Thailand has, in theory, all the other requirements of a democratic government, a codified judicial system, a potentially  effective civil service, proper political parties, a comprehensive broadcasting system and press and umpteen constitutions on file to choose from. They are all bedeviled of course by corruption, and that corruption will only be removed by the insistence of the people, and that means by an elected government. Under a consistent run of elected governments, with personal and political freedoms these institutions can begin to function as thy should, and provide the checks and balances which worked poorly before, and simply don't exist at present.

 

Now I've been accused as touting elections as a "panacea". Thy are not, but they are the first step in the process of producing a robust democratic government. Without them, and without them being free and unfettered, no further steps can be taken.

 

One further point, elections will end the effective disenfranchisement of a large proportion (arguably a majority) and a geographically concentrated one, of the people of this country. This will stop the inevitable growing disenchantment with the  rule by  a small group with particular influence and wealth, centered in Bangkok. Disenchantment which I am convinced could if not halted result in revolt. Revolt which in my opinion, as a retired  professional soldier, the army is quite frankly unlikely to be able to defeat. 

 

That's what I mean by a "return to democracy". The last paragraph is why I believe that it is a matter of urgency.

"Like" wasn't good enough.  Well stated JAG!

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, phycokiller said:

I dont think its too controversial to mention as its public information, but Thailand is a monarchy, and the monarchy is the head of the military. not implying anything at all, just pointing out a small difference between those countries and Thailand

Clever dodge.  Why deal with reality when one can hide behind censorship?  Especially harsh censorship in present day Thailand.

[yellowboat]

20 hours ago, SouthernDelight said:

What restrictions are you currently experiencing?

Immigration policies of traveling across overland borders only twice a year, visa exempt, is one.  For those of us who live near the Thai border, who only wish to engage in purchasing of items in Thailand, it is a severe inconvenience not to mention just bad economics for Thailand.  

 

Though Thailand has always had stifling policies about foreigners conducting business within its borders, the junta's strict enforcement has made the country economically less attractive. 

 

And yourself ?  Are you excited by the current state of Thailand ?

[yellowboat]

20 hours ago, heybruce said:

TV was flooded by comments from people cheering the coup in the days, weeks, and months after it happened.  People constantly amaze me with their stupidity.

True but they are mostly gone now.  Even those remaining, who ardently support the junta, are less vocal and slightly less defensive.   Those who defended the coup may now see what a setback it has become for the country. 

 

Elected governments worked better in Thailand, as they had to behave to remain in office.  Coup leaders, the current one especially, only fear the outside world which has less influence.  Their poor behavior cannot be reflected in a lack of votes. 

[StraightTalk]

2 hours ago, yellowboat said:

Immigration policies of traveling across overland borders only twice a year, visa exempt, is one.  For those of us who live near the Thai border, who only wish to engage in purchasing of items in Thailand, it is a severe inconvenience not to mention just bad economics for Thailand.  

 

Though Thailand has always had stifling policies about foreigners conducting business within its borders, the junta's strict enforcement has made the country economically less attractive. 

 

And yourself ?  Are you excited by the current state of Thailand ?

Well, I personally would expect that legislated rules are enforced alas they can be interpreted in other respects or ways by an administrative unit of government - this is widely known but certainly not unique to a specific government/country.

I am sure you've overcome already these perceived inconvenience(s) and are judicious for not letting these diminish your well-earned life-style.

I personally have no complains nor am experiencing any displeasures.

As a guest to a country I ascertain to recognize and earnestly respect cultural particulars. And if a country extends graciously its hospitality and granting long-term stay I feel that it is not my place to comment publicly on their internal affairs.

[yellowboat]

On 8/12/2017 at 0:23 PM, SouthernDelight said:

I am sure you've overcome already these perceived inconvenience(s) and are judicious for not letting these diminish your well-earned life-style.

Overcome but none the less resentful.  No longer a fan of Thailand.  Have taken a greater liking to its neighbors judiciously working towards mutual benefit to preserve a better than okay life style.  Thailand is just a drag now business wise.  

On 8/12/2017 at 0:23 PM, SouthernDelight said:

I personally have no complains nor am experiencing any displeasures.

As a guest to a country I ascertain to recognize and earnestly respect cultural particulars. And if a country extends graciously its hospitality and granting long-term stay I feel that it is not my place to comment publicly on their internal affairs.

Well you are paying guest, and if you pay you have a say to a certain extent.  

 

My Thai colleagues and friends are not excited by the future.  The excitement of years ago no longer exists.