the guardian is great.

on the question of whether the coup will help the progress of democracy in thailand, jonathan fenby writes:

If, on the other hand, the Thai generals conform to the habitual military pattern, south-east Asia would find itself with army-ruled Thailand sitting next to army-ruled Burma and nearby to Singapore, dominated by one party.

it’s always lovely to see our island country quoted in the press, and even better to know that it’s cheek by jowl with burma.

at least singapore still has elections and parliament and all that wayang stuff so we’re definitely one up on burma (nyah nyah) since it doesn’t even pretend to give anyone democratic freedoms. elections? what’s that?

but seriously, i hope singaporean politicians realise that this ought to signal substantive reform and change, and not the easier tightening of the already uncomfortable noose around freedom’s neck.

+ + + + + 2141hrs edit + + + + +

i think i’d like to add further that whilst there are a lot of countries calling for the ‘return to democracy’ in thailand, it is my opinion that the democracy that existed in the period before the coup was a false democracy.

thaksin, although democratically elected once upon a time, has failed to act like a defender of freedom and democracy for quite a while. the reports of alleged nepotism, cronyism and other under-hand dealings are for the public record.

coups get a bad name, mostly deservedly. however, if this coup does actually achieve its aims, a new prime minister is in place in two weeks, and the elections take place when they are supposed to, then this glitch in the democratic machine is perfectly okay by me.