Thailand Politics

[Giotto]

Giotto,

I respect your passion. It conveys a genuine caring for Thailand and for the country's majority population. However, I'm not convinced the Shinawatra's and Pheu Thai care about the country or it's people as much as you, not that the people who are currently running the country care more than the people they deposed.

I think it is obvious many of Pheu Thai's programs, the rice scheme (scam) in particular, were transparent attempts to buy votes; and it, the rice scheme, was economically unsustainable. Everyone who knew anything about commodity trading warned the government it would not work. Pheu Thai's leadership chose to ignore those warnings, while managing to skim enough to do quite nicely personally.
...

PK,

I could write pages now, but I try to reduce this comment to the minimum.

The yellow side of the political spectrum has run this country for nearly 60 years, and they did NOTHING for the poor people of the North / North-East. TRT, PT etc. Is not the action, it is the REACTION!

Now. I would never expect me to write anything to justify what the Shins have done to this country, and I really don't want this to be misunderstood as such. But at least they have initiated MORE POSITIVE developments for the poor in the first 5 years of their governance than those yellow governments in nearly 60 years. Yellow governments are those elected (long time ago), those appointed (several), those following coups that installed benevolant interim governments (e. G. 2006), those following coups when the military took over positions as PM and developed a kind of dictatorship (yeah, this happens from time to time) and those coups that simply installed tyrants (Thanom etc.).

I also did not like the rice scheme, and I have written about this before. Nevertheless this is a different issue. Or do you think it gives a general the right to overthrow a democratically elected government? Do you really believe that the rice scheme was the reason for this coup? Do you really believe that the possible death Thai people caused by the PDRC demonstrations justify this coup?

The PT government tried before to change the constitution from 2007 that all senators should be elected, no senator to be appointed any more. For me as a simple democrat this makes sense. For the Constitutional Court decided:

"The majority of the nine judges ruled that making the Senate fully elected would 'destroy the checks and balances' and could lead to a seizure of power in the Parliament. ".

Ahhhh. Later then there was the strong movement of the yellows to get all those impeached who had voted IN FAVOUR of this constitutional amendment. There were even several calls and court cases to charging those parliamentarians with Lse-majest.

Now we have the situation that somebody simply overthrows the constitution that was approved from the people (with a VERY small margin, because it was already a YELLOW constitution) and signed by the King! And this is - Ok? No Lse-majest? No protest from the Constitutional Court? No nothing, all good?

Look, guys, I don't understand this! Somebody might explain this to me. Show me the chapter of the constitution that allows a general to overthrow a government for certain reasons. I have missed this chapter up to now. But I cannot read Thai.

But then - there are mechanisms in all constitutions that allow institutions or specific people to dissolve a parliament under certain circumstances. A very respected person here in Thailand could do this, and the people would accept this. The same person has signed the constitution and the rice scheme related laws!

But as I know - none of those people have asked the Generals to take over power.

So what? You want to talk about the rice scheme? Or - some others come up with Hugo Chavez? Or with arguments like "Democracy = Mob Rule" ?

That's ridiculous!


Giotto

[Giotto]

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/o...for-bad-acting


Giotto

[Goatscrot]

I wouldn't say the growth under Taksin was 'astounding', merely acceptable or normal for a lower-middle income developing country. The astounding growth in Thailand was in the 80s and early 90s.

To be fair, the Thai population is now no longer growing, and is rapidly aging, so growth will inevitably be much lower than it was during the 80s-90s, and even somewhat lower than during the Taksin years, when the working age population had yet to begin to stagnate.

But your larger point - that his government was far from leftist - is certainly quite true. And I wonder if this might explain why the US prefers democracy in Thailand - a far more stable and productive route to continued/enhanced Wall Street colonization than the crude old methods used during the Cold War.

Yes, their population pyramid inverted in 97. That and their increasing demand and hence need to import more and more gas and oil could quite possibly be their undoing. Electricity prices will double in the next 10 years bringing them in line with the other nations in SE Asia. Cost of labor is already higher and with potential changes to the Foreign Business Act in the works, Thailand will be far less attractive to businesses and investors. Of course the powers that be here are already so wealthy they just don't care, wishing instead to hold onto power at all costs, even if it means wrecking the economy.

[Opebo]

Thailand was far from leftist under the Shins. The economy grew at an astounding rate and the nation actually started to develop a middle class.

I wouldn't say the growth under Taksin was 'astounding', merely acceptable or normal for a lower-middle income developing country. The astounding growth in Thailand was in the 80s and early 90s.

To be fair, the Thai population is now no longer growing, and is rapidly aging, so growth will inevitably be much lower than it was during the 80s-90s, and even somewhat lower than during the Taksin years, when the working age population had yet to begin to stagnate.

But your larger point - that his government was far from leftist - is certainly quite true. And I wonder if this might explain why the US prefers democracy in Thailand - a far more stable and productive route to continued/enhanced Wall Street colonization than the crude old methods used during the Cold War.

[Goatscrot]

If Thai were the lingua franca of the entire civilized world, you can bet your ass I'd be reasonably fluent in Thai if I had all the education she supposedly had, and if I were elected to be the spokesman for the entire United States. Khunying Yingluck sounded like a bar girl. Which is fine if you're a bar girl. After a bazillion baht of education at the finest schools, and to sound like that, well, I don't know if she's to blame or the abysmal Thai education system.

No, poor Hugo wasn't interested in making me happy. And all of his supposedly good intentions have failed miserably. Unless you consider poverty and bankruptcy a success, in which case he's been successful beyond his wildest dreams. So, let's see. You think that instituting policies to make people without money happy are a good idea. In practice that seems to be things like destroying free enterprise, punishing the "rich" and redistributing wealth. All of which gets one handily reelected by the mobs, but drives away the producers of said wealth. In the end, you get Detroit. So, let's allow the mob to rule. What could go wrong?

Nobody here is justifying a coup. But the alternative in Thailand appears to be a leftist dictatorship, continually "democratically reelected" by mobs demanding more and more taxpayer money. (Oddly, Venezuela again springs to mind). Neither are appealing. What's your solution?

Thailand was far from leftist under the Shins. The economy grew at an astounding rate and the nation actually started to develop a middle class. Yes, they threw some bones to the poor, and it got them the votes, but in the end they were very pro-biz. He ran the nation like it was his biz and he was the CEO. That was a threat to the established power structure and they were having none of it and none of the middle class thing either. At what point did the economy stall in the '00's? After the first coup and when the Dems were in power. PT came back in and growth.

[Opebo]

I'm fascinated by the little kerfuffles recently between the junta and American diplomats. To those in the know: why do the Americans (apparently) prefer the elected leadership this time, unlike back in the Cold War days, and do you think they'll be able to get what they want?

I don't know the answer, but I do think its apparent that being in America's doghouse can be a very uncomfortable place to be, no matter how much support you get from China.

[LaoMan]

Yep,

That's the kind of bullshit I am listening to here in Bangkok all the time. Go ahead, justify coups! Must be fun somehow...

As for the facts:

Yingluck was not expected to have any intellectual capacity. She was a proxy for others, as we all know. Still - I hope you speak as well Thai as she speaks English.

What was a "nice place" for people with money was not necessarily a "nice place" for poor people living there. And Chavez was not really interested in making YOU happy.

As for Hitler & Mussolini - that kind of argumentation is so much out of line that commenting makes no sense at all. But you should read a bit about the "Ermaechtigungsgesetz":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

Giotto

What Giotto has posted is largely correct. The new "PM" is totally self serving and behaves like a spoiled brat. Thailand is now as bad as any dictatorship with its re education. I hope the US punishes Thailand by cutting off aid as all western countries should do.

[Paul Kausch]

Giotto,

I respect your passion. It conveys a genuine caring for Thailand and for the country's majority population. However, I'm not convinced the Shinawatra's and Pheu Thai care about the country or it's people as much as you, not that the people who are currently running the country care more than the people they deposed.

I think it is obvious many of Pheu Thai's programs, the rice scheme (scam) in particular, were transparent attempts to buy votes; and it, the rice scheme, was economically unsustainable. Everyone who knew anything about commodity trading warned the government it would not work. Pheu Thai's leadership chose to ignore those warnings, while managing to skim enough to do quite nicely personally.

Thailand will never afford a decent standard of living to the majority of its people without major changes, especially in the agricultural sector. There are too many people using too many resources producing too little for farmers to achieve a decent living. But if not agriculture, what will these people do? What are they prepared to do? In the short term the government could offer decent health care and a subsidized food program. Pheu Thai provided low cost health care to the poor, but it didn't bother to figure out how to pay for it and the result was another unsustainable program. The long term solution is to provide all Thai's with an opportunity for a decent basic education, the equivalent of high school in a developed country, and vocation-technical training to prepare people for decent paying jobs. Then of course the country needs to create those jobs. Ironically, many people in my country, the USA, clamor for the same things, though I think my country's problems are not so much a lack of opportunities as a lack of desire to take advantage of opportunities that exist.

I have little faith in politicians of any flavor. Almost all seem to be opportunists, and those who are not are soon corrupted or driven out of the business. Politicians dare not allow an honest person to succeed in politics. It seems to me the world is made up of a few people who are givers, a few people who are takers and a lot of people who are taken. It has always been that way and may always be that way, though I for one choose not to lose hope. As individuals we are left with a fundamental decision. Will we be part of the problem or part of the solution?

PK.

[Phordphan]

Yep,

That's the kind of bullshit I am listening to here in Bangkok all the time. Go ahead, justify coups! Must be fun somehow...

As for the facts:

Yingluck was not expected to have any intellectual capacity. She was a proxy for others, as we all know. Still - I hope you speak as well Thai as she speaks English.

What was a "nice place" for people with money was not necessarily a "nice place" for poor people living there. And Chavez was not really interested in making YOU happy.

As for Hitler & Mussolini - that kind of argumentation is so much out of line that commenting makes no sense at all. But you should read a bit about the "Ermaechtigungsgesetz":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933


Giotto

If Thai were the lingua franca of the entire civilized world, you can bet your ass I'd be reasonably fluent in Thai if I had all the education she supposedly had, and if I were elected to be the spokesman for the entire United States. Khunying Yingluck sounded like a bar girl. Which is fine if you're a bar girl. After a bazillion baht of education at the finest schools, and to sound like that, well, I don't know if she's to blame or the abysmal Thai education system.

No, poor Hugo wasn't interested in making me happy. And all of his supposedly good intentions have failed miserably. Unless you consider poverty and bankruptcy a success, in which case he's been successful beyond his wildest dreams. So, let's see. You think that instituting policies to make people without money happy are a good idea. In practice that seems to be things like destroying free enterprise, punishing the "rich" and redistributing wealth. All of which gets one handily reelected by the mobs, but drives away the producers of said wealth. In the end, you get Detroit. So, let's allow the mob to rule. What could go wrong?

Nobody here is justifying a coup. But the alternative in Thailand appears to be a leftist dictatorship, continually "democratically reelected" by mobs demanding more and more taxpayer money. (Oddly, Venezuela again springs to mind). Neither are appealing. What's your solution?

[Giotto]

Succession Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Pa..._of_Succession

In regards of females Section 13:

Section 13 As it is deemed to be untimely for a princess to ascend the throne as a sole sovereign of Siam, inclusion of princesses in the line of succession shall be categorically prohibited.

Amendments in the constitutions of 1997 and 2007:

"In the case where the throne becomes vacant and the king has not appointed his heir under paragraph one, the Privy Council shall submit the name of successor to the throne under Section 22 to the Council of Ministers [cabinet] for further submission to the National Assembly for approval. For this purpose, the name of a princess may be submitted. Upon the approval of the National Assembly, the president of the National Assembly shall invite such successor to ascend the throne and proclaim such successor king

Section 10:

"Whoever is to ascend to the throne should be one from the masses fully respect and can be contentedly taken as their protector. Therefore any member of the royalty whom the multitude holds as loathsome, such person should foreswear the path to succession in order to remove the worry from the king and the people from the realm."



Giotto

[Giotto]

I'm not convinced that Yingluck had the intellectual capacity to run a restaurant, let alone Thailand. Dayum, it was a hoot to listen to her give a speech in English.

As nice as it sounds, "Democratically Elected" is worthless. Hitler & Mussolini were democratically elected to their parliament seats and properly appointed to higher power. And we see where that led. I don't know if you've been to Venezuela, but what used to be a nice place was turned into an absolute shithole thanks to a democratically elected Hugo Chavez.

To simplify, Democracy = Mob Rule. Mob rule is verrrryyy rarely a good thing, especially when you have a large group of people who are poorly educated and have their hands out.

Yep,

That's the kind of bullshit I am listening to here in Bangkok all the time. Go ahead, justify coups! Must be fun somehow...

As for the facts:

Yingluck was not expected to have any intellectual capacity. She was a proxy for others, as we all know. Still - I hope you speak as well Thai as she speaks English.

What was a "nice place" for people with money was not necessarily a "nice place" for poor people living there. And Chavez was not really interested in making YOU happy.

As for Hitler & Mussolini - that kind of argumentation is so much out of line that commenting makes no sense at all. But you should read a bit about the "Ermaechtigungsgesetz":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933


Giotto

[The Cane]

As nice as it sounds, "Democratically Elected" is worthless. Hitler & Mussolini were democratically elected to their parliament seats and properly appointed to higher power. And we see where that led. I don't know if you've been to Venezuela, but what used to be a nice place was turned into an absolute shithole thanks to a democratically elected Hugo Chavez.

Didn't Saddam get "100%" of the vote LOL!

[Wolvenvacht]

I think I would disagree slightly. Thai succession has always followed male primogeniture. In fact, I believe that the 1924 Palace Law of Succession codified it. A woman was forbidden to be the monarch until sometime in the late '90s, I think. But a woman can only ascend the throne if she's approved by the Privy Counsel.

Nope. Male primogeniture is only the "back-up" position.

This is what the Palace Law states:

Section 5 – The king has the sole power and prerogative to designate any descendant of the royal family as heir to the throne, depending on his judgement and trust placed on the ability of the said person to succeed him.

Section 6 – Once the king has designated the heir to the throne and has had such designation proclaimed to members of the royal family, officials and the public at large, the position of such heir is secure and indisputable. When the necessary time comes, the said heir shall immediately ascend the throne to succeed the late king in accordance with the latter's wish.

Section 7 – The king has the sole power and prerogative to remove the heir to the throne from his position. Anyone who has been removed from the position of heir to the throne shall be considered as excluded from any claim to succession and his name shall be removed from the line of succession. His sons and his entire lineage of direct descendants shall also be excluded from the line of succession. The king has the sole power and prerogative to exclude any member of the royalty from the line of succession.

If and only if, the reigning King did not appoint a successor, then there is a back-up cascade of successors (as per Section 9):

1. The first-born son of the king and queen;.

2. The first-born son of the said prince and his royal consort;.

3. Younger sons, in order, of the said prince and his royal consort;.

4. The second-born son of the king and queen when the first-born son is deceased and has no male children;.

5. The first-born son of the second-born son of the king and queen if the second-born son is deceased;.

6. Younger sons, in order, of the second-born son (and so on).

[Phordphan]

Hmmmm ...

I was never a friend of the Shinawatra dynasty. But at least this related governments were democratically elected. They made mistakes - but they were democratically elected !!!

...


I am so sick and tired of those fucking generals taking over power, having not clue at all, not being able to run the country at all and robbing the country of its forward developing momentum and forcing it to loose another 10 years (per coup). The intellectual capacity of those people is very very limited. They are not capable of running a complex country like Thailand. But - they hold the power with the support of a group of never learning conservative power players aged 80 ++ ... who think they do it right for Thailand and just create the next catastrophe.

I'm not convinced that Yingluck had the intellectual capacity to run a restaurant, let alone Thailand. Dayum, it was a hoot to listen to her give a speech in English.

As nice as it sounds, "Democratically Elected" is worthless. Hitler & Mussolini were democratically elected to their parliament seats and properly appointed to higher power. And we see where that led. I don't know if you've been to Venezuela, but what used to be a nice place was turned into an absolute shithole thanks to a democratically elected Hugo Chavez.

To simplify, Democracy = Mob Rule. Mob rule is verrrryyy rarely a good thing, especially when you have a large group of people who are poorly educated and have their hands out.

[Member #4698]

And most of the people I talk to here in Thailand (99 %, of the Thais and the Farang Business Guys) support the coup! Farangs support a coup!!! If I ask them what they would do if a coup happens in their home country they argue "This is Thailand, and here we need this kind of measures". I argue: it's about values, and a coup is IN GENERAL NEVER acceptable. Fuck. I am so sick and tired about what is going on in this country!!!!! FUCK THE GENERALS!!!
Giotto

I say shag everybody: the reds and the yellows. I asked my favorite Go Go girl which side she was on and at first she was reticent to say, but then after a little friendly coaxing on my part, she admitted she was a red shirt fan. Why? She couldn't say except that she is from Isan and her family are rice farmers.

You think it is any different in the good ol' USA? Forgetaboutit. America is going to hell in a hand basket just like Thailand. No worse. Red shirt/yellow shirt translates into progressive/conservative Obama-Clinton/Romney-Bush. Neither side can talk to each other and reach a compromise. It is all political theater and a majority of the American people don't know anything or give a shit. Turns out, a real functioning Democracy is a very fragile form of government that requires a lot from its citizens. It amazes me that the American grand experiment has lasted as long as it has. But the system is falling apart now and America appears to be heading into a dictatorship of the dumb and consenting. We still have the constitution, but it is starting to mean anything the ruling party wants it to mean. Sometimes I get really discouraged and think that what the USA needs is a coup, just like Thailand, a time out, in order to get back to a level playing field and some political sanity. Maybe every 250 years or so you have to clean house and start over. Or maybe Democracies are very rare forms of government and by their innate nature can not last for very long and that it is going to take a thousand years or more before we will see another functioning Democracy come along again.

All I know is, I would rather be hanging out in Thailand shagging pretty Thai girls, and eating great food than living in the USA sitting in a ring side seat watching the end of the world as we know it.