Am I the only one getting increasingly pissed off by such comments? Yes, there was a military coup which toppled Thaksin's government. But was there - or was there not - a subsequent general election? And did not as a result of that election Thaksin's proxy party win the majority of votes and cobble together a solid coalition government? And were not 2 prime ministers, members of that very party, then found guilty of corruption by the courts and forced to resign? And did not one of the factions supporting Thaksin's proxy party then switch its support to the Deomcrats which then ended up with a majority in parliament? And is it not entirely unusual in democracies around the world that minority parties can form governments in the middle of a parliament's life without the need for a new election - e.g. Israel and italy? So what's undemocratic about all this post coup wheeling and dealing and the Demoocrats actually being in power? I really would like to know!

Of course, corruption has greased the wheels of Thai democracy for a long, long time. But do you seriously believe that the reason Thaksin came to power was only because he had the best policies? Of course not. He would probably never have reached that goal without the billions of Baht paid out in bribes to villagers around the country and other shenanigans.

I agree his policies once in power were populist. hence his ability to get re-elected with ease - an election which probably required less in bribes :-) But I firmly believe his ruthlessness (killing 2,500 people in cold blood and then declaring publicly that Thailand no longer had a drug problem!!), corruption and self-enriching schemes whilst in power (tell me: how as Prime Minister can you make almost US$2 BILLION by selling your share in a telecoms utility to an overseas government and within DAYS pass a law enabling you to avoid paying one satang of tax on that gain?), justified the coup. Ferdinand Marcos would have blushed at such blatant, open public manipulation of the system - at least in the first few years of his long reign of corruption.

But be that as it may, to talk about the need to restore democracy in Thailand is puerile. Thai-style democracy has never gone away! But if you want guaranteed free and fair elections, then you first have to eliminate the rampant corruption which in a recent survey places Thailand as the 17th (out of 18) most corrupt country in Asia. And how, pray tell, do you achieve that?!

Probably. Your rather superficial analysis fails completely to mention the partisan role of the Courts. In a Western democracy, which you try to invoke as somehow comparable to the Thai situation, the independence of the judiciary is a given, and shifting coalition partners occur entirely within the legislative wing. The role of the Thai courts is clearly part of a completely compromised set of institutions. The situation cannot be resolved until the death of the King who must bear total responsibility for this mess through his meddling via intermediaries. I don't think his death will solve the problem but it will at least reduce the number of players. As I'm having too much fun in Bangkok right now I haven't gone looking, but a friend tells me that the latest Economist magazine says the same sort of thing. When I'll be back after this trip depends on Bhumi's state of health.

I've made my point in answer to that of another poster and I stick to it. Since I do not think a political discussion is necessarily the aim of this Board, I will not take this further. Indeed with the lese majeste laws (like them or not) that may be rather difficult ground.

But since you have taken me to task re the Courts, let me just add that I did highlight the endemic corruption in all walks of life - and in my book that encompasses all organisations, not necessarily political. Nothing can change to my way of thinking until corruption is weeded out from public life. That is the cancer. Get rid of it, and there is a chance that a more traditional style of democracy may work.

What a cop out (or two). Having made a rather long post on political discussion you now want to shut the discussion down, deeming it irrelevant to the Board (it is, but why then start it up in the first place?). And why should any of us care about, let alone support, censorship - which is what lese majeste is all about?