Even your last question is not a particularly contentious one, I think. Different people have different priorities. And the judge the sincerity of any of them is a pretty subjective exercise. In politics as in life, maintaining purity is just about impossible.

Thanks for answering such a personal question. I admit that I did ask the wrong question. Sorry about that. In fact, I just want to know if you’re aware of the reason behind the amendment, regarding the senate issue. And, judging from you information, I’m quite certain that you know. So I will not go into details.

Let me tell you my opinion about this issue: I admit that “the amendment” is such a drawback, pulling me one step backwards from the real democracy. However, when we want to achieve something, don’t you think that we should do it slowly –step by step– and not overthrow it completely in just one act?

As for my last question, I totally agree with you. However, I asked that question in general sense, regardless of the current situation here.

And, as for the demands issue, I understand your point but still don’t understand why people cannot be true to oneself. If one wants real democracy, shouldn’t one just ask for real democracy. Why one has to build some tangible targets just to get people on one’s side. That sounds like bad karma to me.

And, lastly, you words: …listing democracy last doesn’t necessarily make it least…

Do you really believe in this? From your explanation, I’m sory to tell you that I’m still not buying it!

Never really agreed with many of your comments before, but agree with you wholeheartedly this time round. I cannot understand the pro-pad type always clamoring for Thaksin’s and the “red” blood and totally ignoring the PAD crimes and immunity. In fact auto-immunity for anyone who’s backed by the elite-military complex.

The list is long as you say, but who cares. Pad types wear SF99 sunglasses

On the three demands, yes, in an ideal world, the call for democracy should top the list. But to be strictly pragmatic about it, it is hard to rally people around a general concept — you want tangible targets. It’s an organizing gimmick. Anyway, listing democracy last doesn’t necessarily make it least. In some forms of rhetoric, you build up to your main point.

As for the senate — I’m not sure what is at issue here, and certainly don’t see what it has to do with me being Thai or not.

But since I am curious to see what you have to say, I will answer your question. I am not Thai. But if you are a recent college graduate or younger, I have lived in Thailand longer than you have. And I am old enough to remember what terrible things happened the last time the Thai establishment felt under threat. Anyone else there out there recall the morning-after shock of Socialist Party leader Boonsanong’s assassination? (And I cannot pass up the observation that justice was never done in his case, as in so many others of the era.)

I’m not quite sure what you are getting at in your last question, but I’d like to see equal justice under law (e.g., no de facto impunity for PAD and other anti-Thaksin types), an impartial and apolitical judiciary (does that really need any explanation?), no ex post facto laws, a responsible press (I can dream…), the army staying in its barracks… the list is quite long.

According to my view of democracy, what the PAD’s asked for is not the real democracy. It is called, put it in your words, “Thai-style democracy.” And, I see it just as that. That’s why I’s saying that “During this period, I don’t see anyone asking for the real DEMOCRACY.” By “anyone” here I mean “the anti-PAD.” And, I still remember what they’re trying to do during that time.

Your words: But these (anti-PAD) people also were seeking more real democracy…in trying to amend the 2007 constitution…

Just early this evening, the leader (?) of the anti-PAD has just announced their demands: (The Nation) “…Prem, Surayud Chulanont and Chanchai Likhitjittha must resign as privy councillors. In the second point of demands,…Abhisit must resign as the prime minister. In the third demand, the red-shirted people also called for democratic reform…”

Funny enough, the demand for the democratic reform, which I take it to mean the ask for the real democracy, is at the last place. If I were him I would put this demand in the first place.

Anyway, I agree with you on the point that the 2007 (2550) constitution (in my views, may appear to be inferior to the 1997 (2540) constitution –still not sure, need more time to consider it in depth– and) should need amendments on some points. However, as for the issue of senate, let me ask you if you’re Thai before we could talk about this issue further. Please don’t consider my question as an insult.

Lastly, what do you think should come before the call for the real democracy? Just want to know other opinion.

I think perhaps you are too narrowly focused on one side. The PAD and its backers were asking very strongly for what they called real democracy. Certainly you saw that. There were endless words spoken in 2007 and 2008 about “Thai-style democracy.”

As to other people, I believe that in their view, they had nothing to ask for because they thought they already had it, an elected government.

But these (anti-PAD) people also were seeking more real democracy, in their different way of looking at it, in trying to amend the 2007 constitution (which among other things rolled back the idea of an all elected senate, as I am sure you know.)

Whether all of them were sincere or actually had a hidden agenda is another question, which could also be applied to the PAD.

So to a great extent, I’m afraid the answer to your question: “Do you think there would be a call for the real democracy if PT was the government?” would depend upon who is defining real democracy and how.

I’m sure many people will continue to work toward what they believe in. But that may not be what you or I believe in.

For your question: Would Abhisit be prime minister today if the army hadn’t staged the September 2006 coup?

What I could tell you is that only God knows, if you believe in God, as we cannot alter what’s already happened.

Yes, principally, military intervention in politics is simply unacceptable. Even I agree with this basic principle. But, to be honest, it is such a relief that the coup did take place at that time, considering the situation here. I know saying something like that is really stupid. But let me ask you this: Do you think that the army should wait until some people get killed–it’s really likely that some people would get killed?

Regarding Khun Abhisit’s path to power, I just need “proof” for the claim that –put it in your words– his path to the top was facilitated by extra-legal means — starting with the 2006 coup, and in a more immediate sense, the illegal actions of the PAD and the continuing interference of the military in the political process, including the pressure applied by Gen. Anupong – well-reported by the press – in the days immediately prior to the parliamentary vote to seat Abhisit.

When I say “proof”, I mean something touchable, something like documents, tape or VDO records of meetings, etc., not just what the press reports–because we cannot know if the report is true– or what we have deduced ourselves from what we’ve heard.

I don’t deny the fact that there are the 2006 coup and the illegal actions of the PAD. But for the claim “the continuing interference of the military in the political process, including the pressure applied by Gen. Anupong – well-reported by the press – in the days immediately prior to the parliamentary vote to seat Abhisit”, I cannot accept it.

Let me remind you something. There was a general election in December 2007, remember? First, we have Mr. Samak and then Mr. Somchai as PM. During this period, I don’t see anyone asking for the real DEMOCRACY. But just as Khun Abhisit’s come into the power, there comes a call for real DEMOCRACY. I believe I see a broken link on the line connecting the coup and Abhisit’s rise to power.

Let me ask you one last question, just for now: Do you think there would be a call for the real democracy if PT was the government?

What you seem you be saying is right, that in a strictly technical sense, Abhisit came to power within the legal framework of Thai democracy.

The problem is his path to the top was facilitated by extra-legal means — starting with the 2006 coup, and in a more immediate sense, the illegal actions of the PAD and the continuing interference of the military in the political process, including the pressure applied by Gen. Anupong – well-reported by the press – in the days immediately prior to the parliamentary vote to seat Abhisit.

I daresay many people share your opinion that Abhisit is the best possible choice for PM in a less than sterling field.

But many people also believe it is even more important to take a stand on the principle that military intervention in politics is simply unacceptable.

I’m not sure what you mean by hard evidence, and perhaps what I consider the fairly self-evident events of last year don’t meet your criteria.

OK, then, I’ll offer a more simple proposition. Would Abhisit be prime minister today if the army hadn’t staged the September 2006 coup?

Some people treat the coup as if it was an act of God, something unchallengeable. Actually, it was an illegal and undemocratic intervention into politics (no matter how many ex post facto justifications are manufactured for it).

So I am contending that at a minimum, there is a line connecting the coup and Abhisit’s rise to power. Unless your “understanding about DEMOCRACY and Thai Constitution” leaves room for coups, I think you will understand my point.

One small friendly suggestion: don’t go apologizing in advance for your English language skills – it just comes across as a plea for special treatment. Your post is perfectly understandable. People on this blog will judge you by what you have to say, not how you say it (assuming you keep within the range of decency and avoid personal attacks).

I just couldn’t understand this matter:

What makes so many people think that DEMOCRACY is the answer to my country???

Having said that I, PERSONALLY, have no problem with “DEMOCRACY” or even “COMMUNISM”. I just couldn’t understand it, really.

What makes so many people believe that DEMOCRACY is the key and suitable for any country in this world in the same way???

Could someone explain it to me, please???

To be honest, I didn’t vote Khun Abhisit just because the fact that he’s graduated from Oxford University. He got my vote because he appears to be the PM I’m waiting for for so long. So, I did exercise my rights, didn’t I?

From my understanding about DEMOCRACY and Thai Constitution, I don’t see anything wrong about how he’s become Thai PM. Still, I don’t understand how so many people believe that he’s come into the power with the support of the military and bla bla bla….I know to say something like that makes me look really naive and stupid. But as a big fan of CSI, isn’t it true and correct that before we can accuse someone of doing something, we should have solid evidence first. So, for me, INNOCENCE UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. And, it would be really greatful if someone here could provide me with hard evidence agains that claim.

Thanks in advance.

Hint#2: Please try not to embarrass yourself and Oxford U. any more than you already have, by casting aspersions upon the intelligence of others, because your writing is littered with errors.

Hint#3: As a long time U.S. resident (over 30 years), I have no emotional attachment to any Thai politicians, but I will stand and fight with Thai people for democracy. Democracy may not be perfect (and it probably never will be), but I would rather live under a democratic system than under military gun barrels any day.

Hint#4: You apparently think that Oxford U. is the ultimate place for higher learning, but in reality, there has been a brain drain from the U.K. to the U.S. top Universities for more than two decades. Here’s one of many examples; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/flight-of-the-dashing-dons-ferguson-joins-brain-drain-to-us-606972.html

Noi