Amnesty for Former TRT Executives?

**Buksida** · 08-12-2011, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by sabang

Basically, what you Coup apologists are saying is that Thaksin was 'so bad' that a military putsch was justified.
You are plain wrong, and no impartial observer would say otherwise given the results.

This is not what Longway said, if your calling him or any others coup apologists then pls back it up with quote.
Longway's post was an excellent summary, the only thing I'd add is Thaksin's acquittal, despite being guilty, was were Thailand turned away from democracy. From then on things have just gotten worse.

**StrontiumDog** · 08-12-2011, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Calgary

I understand that the UDD is finally being forced to address a certain legislative reality.

It is a 'reality' that a UDD splinter group had as their primary rallying call.

The UDD has tried to avoid it, but recently making noises that they are adopting the stance organization wide, to be pressed upon the PTP Govt.

Care to be more specific?

**Calgary** · 08-12-2011, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by longway

One of these days you will realize you are not standing up to the undemocratic forces but supporting one faction of them.

I hope you are wrong about that.

No faction claiming to be "democratic" will ever be that in a pure sense of the word.

I am not naiive enough to expect perfection in this regard, especially here in Thailand.

I just hope those who I deem to be "democratic" are clearly more so, than those who I catagorize as undemocratic.

I will continue to sympathise with those who demonstrate the greater impulse in this regard.

To do otherwise and throw one's hands up in despair, is such negative territory that it would be no fun for a political junkie to discuss politics anymore, and would prompt one to vacate any interest in discussion forums like TD.

I will accept political conditions as they are (not as I would like them to be) and sympathise with those who are closer to my ideology of Democracy.

"Closer" is good enough for me, at this juncture of Thai political development.

**mao say dung** · 08-12-2011, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Buksida

From then on things have just gotten worse.

Indeed. Now, instead of only 20~% of the electorate having any real interest or investment in democratic politics, you have many more voters who actually care about who they vote for and therefore whether that vote is allowed to stand or not.

Of course, from an pro-democratic perspective this is a good thing.

It's a shame that said development has resulted in such rancorous division within the society, but when one side of the divide has all the guns and most of the money and can, whenever it chooses, simply deny the other side its democratic rights and does so without impunity, there is bound to be resentment and anger.

**longway** · 08-12-2011, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by mao say dung

Originally Posted by Buksida

From then on things have just gotten worse.

Indeed. Now, instead of only 20~% of the electorate having any real interest or investment in democratic politics, you have many more voters who actually care about who they vote for and therefore whether that vote is allowed to stand or not.

Of course, from an pro-democratic perspective this is a good thing.

It's a shame that said development has resulted in such rancorous division within the society, but when one side of the divide has all the guns and most of the money and can, whenever it chooses, simply deny the other side its democratic rights and does so without impunity, there is bound to be resentment and anger.

This is the annoying part of it, the reds won years ago, just wish they would do something useful with it.

If you are comparing economic well-being, citizen happiness, security, stability and all that stuff, this would be a different discussion.

Thanks for being so open about this aspect of it. Its nothing to take lightly. Especially when evaluating the claims made against a certain entity.

However, this is a discussion narrowly about the presence or absence of Democracy.

Even in this regard I think far more progress was made than in the majority of other SE asian countries. Not saying it was good, just saying it was on the right track.

**Calgary** · 08-12-2011, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by longway

However, this is a discussion narrowly about the presence or absence of Democracy.

Originally Posted by longway

Even in this regard I think far more progress was made than in the majority of other SE asian countries. Not saying it was good, just saying it was on the right track.

I am also an optimist Longway, and hope this continues.

There is still a "Longway" to go (pardon the pun)

**Rural Surin** · 08-12-2011, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Calgary

I am also an optimist Longway, and hope this continues.

What is your real stake in Thailand, Calgary?
...and others whom seem quite obsessed in nothing except promoting their blinded political theories.

Roots? Family?
What is it really?

**SteveCM** · 08-12-2011, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by longway

...the reds won years ago...

Straight questions:

whom do you define as "the reds"?
what do you define as "won"?
how long is "years ago"?

**StrontiumDog** · 08-12-2011, 01:25 PM

Thaksin's fate hinges on reconciliation: PM - The Nation

Thaksin's fate hinges on reconciliation: PM

December 8, 2011 1:05 pm

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra on Thursday said the progress of national reconciliation would dictate the fate of her brother Thaksin Shinawatra.

"Everything will depend on bringing about reconciliation," she said.

Yingluck said the issue about Thaksin would be resolved once unity, equality and fairness in law enforcement prevail.

"If all sides abide by the principle of equality and the rule of law, then there will be a resolution for one another," she said.

The Nation

**StrontiumDog** · 08-12-2011, 01:27 PM

^ Yingluck coming out once again with her oft heard "rule of law" lines...

**Butterfly** · 08-12-2011, 01:42 PM

^ yeah basically what she is saying that the rule of law should let her brother get away with breaking the law, as per the elite rule of law

**longway** · 08-12-2011, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by SteveCM

Originally Posted by longway

...the reds won years ago...

Straight questions:

whom do you define as "the reds"?
what do you define as "won"?
how long is "years ago"?

The electorate - and by extension the red leadership who claim to represent them, though I have my doubts that they really do. How long can the facade be maintained?

I think the military, bureaucracy and the police have been eclipsed as a means wielding political power in Thailand, that's what I mean by won. The electorate not strong enough to have its way without compromise, alliances and some strategic thinking on choosing its battles though. And its doing it very badly.

That would depend on how you look at it, but with hindsight I would say 2006, though perhaps it can be said to earlier than that, at some point the balance tipped. I know its ironic to define the year of the coup as the year of the victory, but was a desperate stop gap measure of people whose backs were against the wall, and proved the power of the electorate.

**SteveCM** · 08-12-2011, 05:16 PM

^Thanks for the straight answers.

As I've raised before (https://teakdoor.com/1863112-post58.html), the last major survey - conducted Sept/Oct 2010 - identified only 14% as "red/leaning red" (7% each). Thus still only a small - if significant and vocal - part of the electorate. While they may well have been more likely to vote on July 3, it still leaves a much larger proportion of the PT-voting electorate to account for. It's also possible, of course, that many of that remainder were voting anti-Dem rather than pro-PT.

Not sure if by "bureaucracy" you mean the upper-echelon movers and shakers and their connections? If you do, I think the effect is more a move in the shading than an actual eclipse - and what has moved before can move again. Assuming that the military have largely accepted the conventional/widespread wisdom that another coup (at least in "normal" circumstances.....) is out, I think that still leaves them as a looming presence that any government views as needing to be catered to - both in terms of material goodies and their declared prime objective of what they exist to protect. With the noises coming from both Chalerm and MICT on increasingly firm anti-LM protection (plus what seem to be signals of the government staying noticeably "hands-off" where existing cases are concerned), I'm inclined to agree that the military have been (for now) almost neutralised as a threat - to the point where it seems unlikely that a Dem/PAD/military grouping could make much headway. I've said before that I see this as likely the new government shoring up what it views as a dangerously vulnerable flank; whether they're over-reacting to the danger is in itself an interesting issue. I'm a bit puzzled that you include the police in that trio at all; my take is that they haven't been much of a factor/force in the political/power equations - except by inaction.

Choosing the 2006 date is interesting..... and I would argue/agree that it's actually earlier that the tipping became obvious - at least by the 2005 election. I think the coup was certainly a recognition that the electorate were highly likely to repeat the 2005 result in late 2006 - as they largely did in late 2007 and, of course, 2011.

But I'm still left with that question of seeming to equate "reds" with the main body of the electorate - or directly with PT, come to that. Correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you said.

**Itchy** · 08-12-2011, 07:42 PM

It took the United States 144 years to become a democracy (passing of the 19th Amendment), The UK took several hundred years to move from Feudalism to Democracy, as did all the nations of Europe - Yet we expect Thailand to achieve this in less than 80 years (while perhaps forgetting it was a military coup that brought an end to absolute monarchy in Thailand).

Democracy my ass.

**Gerbil** · 08-12-2011, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Calgary

Originally Posted by longway

why is it that Thailand was one of the most democratic countries in SE Asia.

Election results being repeatedly negated via many coups, does not a Democratic country make.

I realize that a North Korea makes Thailand appear democratic, but that doesn't make Thailand historically a Democratic country.

"Repeated coups" are the "canary-in-the-mine".

"By their works shall ye know them."

Fuck me Nugget Ferret. Geography one of the other many things you know nothing about? North Korea is not part of SE Asia.

**mao say dung** · 08-12-2011, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by Itchy

It took the United States 144 years to become a democracy (passing of the 19th Amendment), The UK took several hundred years to move from Feudalism to Democracy, as did all the nations of Europe - Yet we expect Thailand to achieve this in less than 80 years (while perhaps forgetting it was a military coup that brought an end to absolute monarchy in Thailand).

[QUOTE="Itchy"]

I don't think anyone would deny either of the points you make here, and as far as they go they are valid points.

But... you are using the word "democracy" as if it had one rather simple meaning. It doesn't, which is why the US was referred to as a democracy long before the passing of the 19th amendment. It is also true that the US continued to democratize after 1920, and not until 1964 were voter registration requirements "equalized" to enfranchise more black voters. Some would argue the process is still continuing today.

Countries that started on the road to some version of full democracy after the 1st WW were working in a very different context than those that started while the ancien regimes of Europe were still very much in power, so there is no reason that they would necessarily take as long as Britain and the US. Japan and South Korea provide Asian examples and their democratic developments (and their democracies) are very different from what happened in "Western" countries. 80 years is by no means too short a time.

And you seem to think that the movement from absolute monarchy to democracy is a particularly long one. Do you know how long absolute monarchy lasted in Thailand? It certainly wasn't any kind of "native tradition" here.

And the military coup that took place in 1932 was ostensibly led by mainly European educated civilians, with disgruntled Young Turk officers jumping on late but, tragically, effectively. It was this mix, IMO, that provided the mold that shaped the future of democratic reform in Thailand and it is still shaping Thai politics today, although not to the extent it did before Sarit took the helm.

Point is, this is a watershed moment in the history of democratic development in Thailand, and as is the case with watersheds (in one sense of the term), things could go either way over the next few years. And that is not to say that Thailand is on the verge of somehow completing the democratic project, any more than the US was when the 19th amendment passed.

**Itchy** · 08-12-2011, 09:45 PM

MSD, I agree with everything you say, my point is that democracy, if that is where Thailand is going (and I see solid arguments on both sides of the colour divide that suggest otherwise) is not something that happens overnight or in isolation from a nation's culture and history.

Much is made of the part the Aristocracy are alleged to play in the defeat of democracy in Thailand, little is said of the part Thailand's culture of Patronage plays and absolutely nothing is said of the part played by Thailand's wealthy Chinese Thai Commercial Oligarchy (within which Thaksin resides).

Worst of all is the fact (and it is becoming increasingly obvious) that the popular vote of the Red Shirt Movement has been highjacked by a 'Government' which fails to act for the nation as a whole, ignores the people who voted it into power (other than offering a few crumbs) and acts only for its own self interest.

The inevitable conclusion is that the Red Voters have been hoodwinked by the same old faces, the same old families and the same old firm.

Until and only until, the Red Shirt Movement, or any other Thai popular movement, selects its own candidates and votes its own candidates into power there will be no democracy in Thailand.

Until then Thai Parliament shall remain the reserve of those same old faces, those same old families and that same old firm.

Red or Yellow, only the colour changes and most are willing to swap sides provided they keep their snout in the trough.

**tomta** · 08-12-2011, 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by longway

The question is not whether was it[ the thaksin goevrnment] good or bad? The question is could anyone else have done better? Last edited by longway : Today at 11:08 AM.

Neither of these is the question.

I thought Thaksin's government was bad and that many people, including myself, could have done better. The Army also thought it was bad and thought they could do better.

But the Thai electorate thought otherwise as is their prerogative. Democracy is not about getting a "good' government. It's about getting a government that the people have chosen. they have every right to elect bad governments if that's what they want.

**Itchy** · 08-12-2011, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by tomta

Democracy is not about getting a "good' government. It's about getting a government that the people have chosen. they have every right to elect bad governments if that's what they want.

Indeed, many of the modern history's most vile regimes came to power on the back of a popular vote (through appeal to Nationalism, Popularism or Religion).

**tomta** · 09-12-2011, 02:09 AM

Originally Posted by Itchy

Quote: Originally Posted by tomta View Post Democracy is not about getting a "good' government. It's about getting a government that the people have chosen. they have every right to elect bad governments if that's what they want. Indeed, many of the modern history's most vile regimes came to power on the back of a popular vote (through appeal to Nationalism, Popularism or Religion).

Ah yes, Godwin's Law very quickly put into action. Well done, Itchy.

The Thaksin regime, as we all know, after one month in power organized the burning of the Reichstag, made the army swear an oath of allegiance to the fuhrer Thaksin, sent the Democrats and PAD to Dachau, stripped the Jews of their citizenship and civil rights, took back the Rhineland, Austria and Sudetenland and then invaded Cambodia.

By the way there is just one little thing you're missing in that trinity of Nationalism, Popularism or Religion. And think about who has appealed to it most.

**sabang** · 09-12-2011, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by Itchy

a 'Government' which fails to act for the nation as a whole, ignores the people who voted it into power ... and acts only for its own self interest

I'm of the view it's very early to be either castigating or lauding the Yingluck administration, but what has this government actually done that might lead you to think that?

**LooseBowels** · 09-12-2011, 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by Thaihome

You cannot come up with one instance in which a Democrat PM was not eleceted by a parlimentary vote of elected MP's.

Being a self professed supporter of Parliamentary democracy, TH, and the way the dems were installed, would you agree that taksin's removal from office was against the Parliamentary democracy you expouse to support .

Waiting and laughing at you

**LooseBowels** · 09-12-2011, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by mao say dung

Originally Posted by Buksida

From then on things have just gotten worse.

Indeed. Now, instead of only 20~% of the electorate having any real interest or investment in democratic politics, you have many more voters who actually care about who they vote for and therefore whether that vote is allowed to stand or not.

Of course, from an pro-democratic perspective this is a good thing.

It's a shame that said development has resulted in such rancorous division within the society, but when one side of the divide has all the guns and most of the money and can, whenever it chooses, simply deny the other side its democratic rights and does so without impunity, there is bound to be resentment and anger.

And don't forget the PAD yellow amart nutter stated faschist objective to ethnically cleanse the issarn region.

**LooseBowels** · 09-12-2011, 05:19 AM

Before any meaningful discussion about thai democracy can occur , you have to ask yourself if there is room for amart supported military junta coups, and coup-issued law in that democracy.

If you answer yes, you are a supporter of anti-democracy forces of evil, and cannot hold any credible position regards thai democracy.

**LooseBowels** · 09-12-2011, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by tomta

It's about getting a government that the people have chosen. they have every right to elect bad governments if that's what they want.

Indeed, good in who's eyes, bad in who's eyes.

And if the voters think they are good (PT coalition), they will vote em in again.

And if the voters think they are bad(amart junta proxy dems), they will vote em out.

Its called electoral democracy, and the PAD yellow amart nutters on here should go see what its all about.

You cant argue with that

Thread: Amnesty for Former TRT Executives?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions