Yingluck to be Arrested

[Oliver]

Yes; to be with my boyfriend.
And as it happened, it's something we discussed on the phone only two days ago. I wouldn't choose to visit were it not for him, anymore than I'd have gone to Burma under its military dictatorship. On the other hand, I don't hold the Thai people responsible for the actions of the Junta; after all, the government that Thais elected was overthrown by a clique.... an unelected clique supported by the rich and powerful and, apparently, by some expats.

[Dodger]

If what the insiders are saying is true - arrangements may have been made to stage the exile of Yingluck to avoid an uprising by her supporters. In exchange, the 50 million baht that Yngluck had down on the table became one of those "donations". Of course that's just a drop in the bucket as compared to the frozen assets she would have confiscated.

This is the Thai way.

When a police officer gets his hand caught in the Corruption cookie jar he is simply removed from his position and given another assignment in another province somewhere. The only people who actually serve prison time for committing crimes in Thailand are the peasants.

[fountainhall]

Surely there is no one who does not accept that corruption is not just rife in Thailand, it is endemic. It occurs in various forms in virtually all walks of life from the poor to the mega-rich, law enforcement and the government. As the toothless Anti-Corruption Commission stated about two years ago, at the start of the 1990s the padding of government and other projects used to be in the region of 10% to 15%. 25 years later it had risen to between 30% and 50%! For foreigners to moan about it is pointless. It exists. That's the way it is.

I don't like it. I also don't like the way governments over decades have run the country. But it is not my country. I simply choose to live here and am happy that I am allowed to do so. If I was not happy here, I would move somewhere else. It's as simple as that.

Many around the world dislike the so-called communist government of China. It is no more communist now than Thailand's government is truly democratic. But it is a dictatorship. On the other hand, following the disastrous Cultural Revolution which only ended 40 years ago, would a democratic China have enabled 400 million to be pulled right out of poverty and the country to have become the second greatest economic power on the planet? Anyone who knows anything about Chinese history, especially recent history, realises that China would have disintegrated Balkans-style and its massive economic successes would never have happened. Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew was fond of admonishing the west for criticising Asian democracy, saying that western style democracy would not have worked in the post-colonial and largely poverty stricken continent. He talked of "democracy with Asian characteristics".

Singapore is hugely admired in the west. But most forget that Singapore remains to this day in all but name a one party dictatorship (as are Malaysia, Japan and some other countries). Elections are a sham. Even as late as 1984 when Singapore was already one of the Asian tigers, Lee said in an interview, “We have to lock up people, without trial, whether they are communists, whether they are language chauvinists, whether they are religious extremists. If you don't do that, the country would be in ruins.”

At some point there is likely to be a transition from quasi-dictatorships to more western style democracy. But until proper democratic institutions are put in place - including the rule of law, until people realise that votes mean more than putting a cross on a piece of paper and then getting lots of goodies despite their destructive cost to the state, until they are prepared to accept the peaceful transition of power and so on, democracy as it is thought of in the west will remain a pipe dream. And even today in the west, is it not a pipe dream in many countries? When around 45% of those able to vote in the 2016 US Presidential Election did not do so, how is that democracy at work? Shouldn't voting be compulsory - as it happens to be in Singapore?

[bobsaigon3]

Yes, but look what democracy gave us in the US on 20 January: a complete and utter disaster. By all means, let democracy in SE Asia have Asian characteristics. That could be no worse than being ruled by a Trump.

[Gaybutton]

The only people who actually serve prison time for committing crimes in Thailand are the peasants.

What about those 'gentlemen' in high positions who were convicted for complicity and just received 40-year-plus sentences?

look what democracy gave us in the US on 20 January

I don't blame democracy itself for that. I blame the method by which presidential elections work. If the USA had done away with the electoral college and went strictly by popular vote, which I think in this day and age should have been done long ago, Hillary Clinton would be president.

I do blame Congress for the present situation. There are certainly grounds for impeachment and conviction.

[fountainhall]

When a country like the USA and others in the west pride themselves as being beacons of democracy in an otherwise dark world, do you not think that the right to vote should be taken more seriously - in the sense that voting should be made mandatory, the duty of every citizen of voting age?

[Undaunted]

There are certainly grounds for impeachment and conviction.

There are several investigations going on at the moment, but only when and if evidence linking Trump directly to an impeachable offense will anything happen.

[Gaybutton]

voting should be made mandatory, the duty of every citizen of voting age?

I don't think so. I don't know how that could be enforced. There are too many circumstances that could prevent people from voting and I don't think I should have to explain myself to a police officer if he comes knocking at my door to find out why I didn't vote.

Also, suppose you don't like any of the candidates and don't want to vote for any of the choices. What do you do, write in 'None of the Above'?

I don't agree with the idea that voting is the duty of anyone. Nobody is obligated to even pay attention to politics if they don't want to. How would someone like that decide on the candidate to vote for? "Well, Mr. and Mrs. Cujones down the street told me to vote for Spiro Agnew."

If you want to see who I believe would have been a much more worthy candidate than Donald Trump, see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pit ... 37bb76e78c

Now, I think we're just a wee bit off topic.

[fountainhall]

I don't think so. I don't know how that could be enforced. There are too many circumstances that could prevent people from voting and I don't think I should have to explain myself to a police officer if he comes knocking at my door to find out why I didn't vote.

Yet 22 countries around the world make it mandatory to vote - and that includes Thailand, where I wonder how many individuals have any real sense of what the parties are offering and what the effect of their policies might be on the country as a whole! Others include Australia, Argentina, Belgium and Greece. That's around 750 million people. Australia has a fine of A$20 for not voting. Whether it is enforced, I have no idea, but clearly it aids the view that voting is an individual's civic duty.

Nobody is obligated to even pay attention to politics if they don't want to. How would someone like that decide on the candidate to vote for? "Well, Mr. and Mrs. Cujones down the street told me to vote for Spiro Agnew."

Isn't this one of the problems with western style democracy? In major elections the views of individual candidates actually mean precious little since politics is controlled in most countries by less than a handful of political parties and it is their platforms that are being voted for. And isn't that as much an issue in less politically developed countries like Thailand where vast numbers of voters do what the village heads and others tell them. Either that or it is the party which hands out the larger envelopes with the red notes in them! Add to that the fact that a seemingly large number of legislators are "on the take". So what incentive is there for any sense of a true political awareness?

[Gaybutton]

So what incentive is there for any sense of a true political awareness?

Feel free to start a new topic if you wish to continue discussing this. It has nothing to do with the Yingluck topic.