Thread: Jatuporn: "I dare you to stage a coup"

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Thinking about it, the issue of fair justice goes beyond the idea of democracy. Do you think justice is fair even in modern democracies ? I don't think it is, so that debate is actually more philosophical than political.

Well I think your idea of justice belonging in the realms of philosophy rather than in reality is in line with your ultra conservative views, regressive and outdated, just as liberty, equality and fraternity is self serving and the omission of justice deliberate, then as now, you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

Well I think your idea of justice belonging in the realms of philosophy rather than in reality is in line with your ultra conservative views,

I don't see how, but you can elaborate. The question "how to make justice more equitable and effective" is a valid question, and I don't think Democracy has the answer to that question. Yes an independent judicial is necessary to "maintain" democracy, but it's not the beginning or the way to make Democratic reforms.

Democratic reforms start with the people attitude with their leaders.

Democratic reforms start with the people attitude to their leaders.

on contraire , I would suggest it starts with leaders attitudes to their people .

Originally Posted by DrB0b

This isn't really one of my points. I don't really believe Thaksin "woke the masses",

the "wake up call of the mass" happened in 1997, not before. That's when they realized they were governed by crooks (Thaksin was a junior minister then). I think a lot of farangs are missing that important event. It was a traumatic experience for all levels of Thai society. Everything was questioned then. It was a very interesting time in Thailand, Thai will open up and voice their opinion freely to anyone who wanted to hear them. A lot of positive attitude came from that period.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

No, in my opinion the key issue with Thaksin was that he did not gain or use power in the accepted way. He was not part of the patronage network, which had been so painstakingly rebuilt since it's almost fatal weakening in the 1930s. He showed, or attempted to show, that being part of this network, despite the intensive propaganda (on a almost North Korean scale) of the last few decades was not a pre-requisite of power. He also showed that development and progress could come from the government and not only from this network. Not that it had ever really come from this network but that this network had always taken the credit for any improvements in Thai life. He showed that this network was NOT the heart and soul of Thailand, as it had always claimed to be. This was his fatal error and this was the reason he had to be overthrown.

You are reading far too much in those events, it's much simpler than that.

Originally Posted by Mid

on contraire , I would suggest it starts with leaders attitudes to their people .

right and that's going to happen magically ?

no , blood will be split first

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Democratic reforms start with the people attitude with their leaders.

?

Well you're entitled to your opinion.

Democratic reforms historically have always come about by people resisting or overthrowing the conservative status quo of their leaders.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by DrB0b

This isn't really one of my points. I don't really believe Thaksin "woke the masses",

the "wake up call of the mass" happened in 1997, not before. That's when they realized they were governed by crooks (Thaksin was a junior minister then). I think a lot of farangs are missing that important event.

I agree that '97 was very important. Certainly the somewhat astonishing survival of Siam Cement and Siam Commercial Bank raised quite a few eyebrows. But it was only one of a series of events. Even you must be aware of the political chaos of much of the 60s, 70s, and 90s.

Is Butterfly trolling? Playing devils advocate? Senile? A Fascist? Or just dumb?

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

Democratic reforms historically have always come about by people resisting or overthrowing the conservative status quo of their leaders.

which is the people attitude toward their leaders,

revolutions are overrated and most are not successful. I don't think England had a revolution, and yet they are a democracy

Democracy by revolution is a rare event, an exception. Few succeeds.

Even the recent "Orange revolution" has failed. The bad guys have won again

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

Is Butterfly trolling? Playing devils advocate? Senile? A Fascist? Or just dumb?

having another meltdown Robs ? from I read recently, you seem a bit of a lightweight

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

Is Butterfly trolling? Playing devils advocate? Senile? A Fascist? Or just dumb?

having another meltdown Robs ? from I read recently, you seem a bit of a lightweight

Just answer the question.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Certainly the somewhat astonishing survival of Siam Cement and Siam Commercial Bank raised quite a few eyebrows.

Crown Property Bureau funded them, so adding additional capital seemed quite appropriate. Don't see anything wrong with that. If your wife was going to default on her loan, wouldn't you help her ?

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

Just answer the question.

make a reasonable case and maybe I will answer, for now you are just hurdling insults to get some attention

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Democratic reforms start with the people attitude with their leaders.

?

Well you're entitled to your opinion.

Democratic reforms historically have always come about by people resisting or overthrowing the conservative status quo of their leaders.

He's actually, probably unintentionally, making a good point. What he wrote is a very good description of what's become known as "Thai-Style Democracy", an endlessly repeated mantra over the last 60 years - there have been many editorials of the wonders of Thai-style democracy in the newspapers over the last few years. "Thai-style democracy" is not democracy as anybody else knows it, in fact it's not democracy at all which is why a double-check is always required when any Thai leader uses the word. "Thai Style democracy" is based on the (arguably fake) Sukothai-era inscription of Ramkhaemhaeng. Fundamentally "Thai-style" democracy says that a just and wise leader, being loved and supported by all the people, is the ultimate in democracy. That the leader is the embodiment of will of the people and thus this is the purest form of democracy. This is the conservative's definition of democracy in Thailand and for much of Thailand's history has been more or less state policy.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Even you must be aware of the political chaos of much of the 60s, 70s, and 90s.

they were marginal though, I think 1997 was far more traumatic, it was a bit hard to mask or hide with military intervention

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Certainly the somewhat astonishing survival of Siam Cement and Siam Commercial Bank raised quite a few eyebrows.

Crown Property Bureau funded them, so adding additional capital seemed quite appropriate. Don't see anything wrong with that. If your wife was going to default on her loan, wouldn't you help her ?

Where did the capital come from? Hint, it didn't come from the CPB. Why didn't any of the other banks get bailed out? And what about the outrageous buffering of Christiani and Nielsen?

Originally Posted by DrB0b

He's actually, probably unintentionally, making a good point.

you are twisting words in my mouth, when I say attitude, it means "activism", understanding what you are electing or getting as a leader. Your example is the other face of that coin, which is nothing more than utilizing that valid argument by some leader to "justify" their presence, which is of course quite cynical.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Where did the capital come from? Hint, it didn't come from the CPB. Why didn't any of the other banks get bailed out?

would need to look at the financial news back then, I might still have them. I think government intervened for the guarantee of deposits, but CPB was also involved and matched the government "guarantee" for some dodgy assets. This is from memory though.

other banks were bailed out actually, they didn't fail, they were acquired by other banks, SCB was usually the acquirer, again from memory.

the only things that was left to sink was those 57 infamous dodgy financial companies, basically private loan companies, there weren't banks, they had special legal structure, I think that structure has been scrapped since. They all collapsed but 3 I believe.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by DrB0b

He's actually, probably unintentionally, making a good point.

you are twisting words in my mouth

Fair enough. You made a terrible point. Is that better