“The Asian Human Rights Commission, The Economist, several other rights groups and dozens of newspaper editorials are all stating that the present round of arrests relating to Thailand’s lese majeste law are politically motivated. Yet Amnesty International, despite their local researcher stating to a UK journalist in a telephone conversation that he considers the recent slew of arrests political, remains silent.
In previous messages to Amnesty International in the UK they have been presented with clear evidence that Amnesty International in Thailand had links to the PAD – an organisation widely considered to be fascistic in intent and action. The present Democrat Party government, who set in motion the recent oppression, would not be in power without PAD and military backing. In fact, several prominent PAD members who took part in the recent Bangkok airport occupations are now government ministers.
Amnesty International’s only reaction to this has been bland statements, dismissive in tone and empty of any meaningful message.
Quite clearly Amnesty International is dragging its heals regarding Thailand. As yet, they’ve offered no reasoning as to why this might the case.
At the present moment the entire debate around the application of Thailand’s lese majeste law is taking place in public – all arrests are in the public domain and even the names of Thai public figures opposed to the law’s recent applications has been widely distributed.
Yet Amnesty International refuse point blank to issue a single word even acknowledging that the application of lese majeste in Thailand may be an issue. Furthermore Amnesty International refuse to answer any question regarding their links to the PAD.”
This is posted by “Reg” at Bangkok Post on the Evans piece:
Grant Evans must be from another side of the tracks in Australia. I am just a couple of years younger than him, and his fond memories of a “naturalness” to monarchy were not my own experience. All of the working class kids around me thought the monarchy was something that the rich foisted on us. We avoided God Save the Queen in cinemas. We hated singing it in school. It was understood as part of a structure of control and domination that teachers enforced.
I recall my graduation from university in the early 70s, when people sat down when God Save the Queen was played.
Evans seems to discount the long history of republicanism in Australia that goes back to colonial times. He discounts its class nature – what else would one expect from a lapsed communist who embraces a bunch of conservative ideologies today?
If this statement is radical or even somehow “brave” for Thailand, then it shows how limited debate is. But, then again, if the Bangkok Post prints it, it is safe and mainstream I guess.
Are these the same Universal rights that the Thai’s show the Boat People form Burma ?
Or the way that Thai’s treat Thai ‘s.. ie; the police taking money from Thai’s poor or not for a traffic offence they have just made up..
The other day i saw a girl fall off her scooter after a pick up pulled out in front of her the 2 Thai’s did not even get out to see if she was alright, and neither did any of the policemen busy fining people for no helmuts, all cash in the back pocket.. They don’t respect each other most of them.
The fact that the people of Thailand revere and respect the King in a healthly way, is a good thing , i think it borders more on the line of Fear then respect..
That’s a very cheap way of eeling himself out of trouble. It has been his government that had tightened the screws. And then Abhisit in effect tells the police that they should not take his own government’s instructions and actions too seriously?
Ralph: I am not sure I have a particularly good answers to each of your questions, but here are some thoughts on the issues you have raised.
On the issue of the alliance between urban middle-class and rural masses, what I mean by urban middle class are the masses of middle-income voters (say, TB 10,000-100,000 a month) in Bangkok (not necessarily intellectuals). My point here is that while urban voters were almost single-handedly responsible for Suchinda’s removal in 1992, the fact that the movement was almost exclusively Bangkok-based prevented the events of Black May from resulting in even more sweeping change. This time, however, could well be different; *should* these urban voters rise up against the current government, the movement’s support is likely to have a much broader base of support in the provinces.
By the way, I am not saying this will happen or even that it’s likely to happen; large-scale mobilization is a decisively rare occurrence in any context. While I don’t really presume to have anything in the way of a workable action plan, I also think that the impetus for this kind of broad-based movement is most likely to come from the red camp. For it to be able to attract urban voters, however, I think it must do more to distance itself from Thaksin/TRT – that is, become more “orange” than “red.”
Good point about Khana Ratsadorn. However, remember that they came to power because they controlled a good chunk of the military and the bureaucracy, as opposed to broad-based popular support. In fact, they were so aware of being out of step with the rest of the country that they refused to allow the formation of political parties for the first 14 years of their rule. Any kind of “change from below” that seeks to displace the military-bureaucratic elites today needs the kind of mass support that Giles’ manifesto is guaranteed to alienate.
Finally, about Thai culture. It is precisely because Thai culture is such a flimsy, amorphous concept that proponents of democracy have a lot of room to maneuver within discursive frames that are acceptable in contemporary Thailand. The key here is to push for radical change in ways that don’t appear quite so radical. Successful dissidents are generally quite good at claiming “backward legitimacy” – that is, the consistency of reform with a country’s history and traditions (which, again, are so open to alternative interpretation as to allow for almost any such claim). My point is not that there is any such thing as a clearly definable “Thai culture,” but rather quite the opposite. It’s precisely because it is so hard to define that it is possible to ground in it even pretty subversive agendas.
A tragic aspect of this issue is not so much that Ye Mint Aung reflects the “official Myanmar position” (which he does; see, for example, NLoM, Jan 31, “Bengalis from the neighbouring country illegally immigrated to Rakhine region of Myanmar”), but that he reflects a view widespread in civilian circles. Although, of course, discriminatory views regarding Muslims and/or Burmese of South Asian ancestry are not held across the board, and one occasionally does hear the admonishment:
Oh great! Maitri is another royalist who doesn’t know the history of the place they hold dear. I don’t recall exactly when it was that Siam was officially a Buddhist kingdom? But is is good to see that the royalists are out of the closet on 1932 and openly proclaiming attributes that would be recognised by the extreme right in many parts of the world. Let’s bring back slavery as well.
God help Thailand is people like Red Giles ever take power. We can look to our east or west to see what socialism does to any country that adopts this sickening ideology. Left-wing Westernizers like Giles, Taksin, and all their cohorts have lost touch with what it means to be a Thai. They would be more at home in Hollywood than in Bangkok.
Thailand is a Buddhist and the Thai people will never adopt the ideas of Giles Ungpakor with his advocacy of abortion, republicanism, and surrender to the Muslims of the south. Instead, we should return to what we are: the natural order of Thai civilization.
Look at Russia, After suffering under 70 years of Socialism, they are now returning to their historic and religious roots. We Thais should do the same. It is past time to undo the tragedy of 1932 and, once again, become officially the Buddhist Kingdom of Siam, wherein we can find the true spirit of being Thai.
Thanks kjf for your response. Intentional ambiguities aside – which were they? – let me respond in a way that keeps the thread going on these issues.
kjf: The best hope for real democratization in Thailand is an alliance of the provincial masses and those urban middle income voters who have largely been on the fence over the past few years (applauding, perhaps, the case made in support of the coup but never particularly enthusiastic about either the PAD or military rule).
RK: Well it might be the best hope, I am not sure. It depends a bit on one’s reading of the politics of the urban middle class. Frankly, this class is rather too diverse to be able to detect a tendency. Sure, some sat on the fence, but others clearly didn’t. So an alliance is likely to result from some parts of the middle class (academics, intellectuals perhaps?) to elements of the vast, unorganised rural poor (which might those be?).
If one reads the Ji manifesto, it seems that he agrees and sees that he has a potential role. But where is the organisation? Ji seems to think it comes from the Red movment, if it breaks from the dominance of the “Thaksin will save us” perspective. Perhaps.
What do you see as a way to organise this cross-class alliance?
kjf: Because of recent events, that alliance seems to me to be more workable now than it has been at any point in modern Thai history.
RK: Ji seems to agree. But I still don’t see the mechanism for the alliance. How is it done?
kjf: Generally speaking, real democratization is only achievable by effectively using discourse that is acceptable in current Thai society
RK: A truism perhaps? But see the initial announcements of the khana ratsadon. Who would have claimed those as compatible with “Thai culture”?
kjf: as opposed to appear to want to burn the whole house down (which makes any “democratic movement” must easier to demonize and repress). Hence the references to (highly idealized) aspects of the Thai past that any such movement might be able to evoke for the purposes of mobilization. This, incidentally, is why I thought Giles’ statement (which I had not read prior to publishing the post) was in fact quite counterproductive. If the goal is “democracy,” I would argue that the way to achieve it is to make a case for its compatibility with Thai culture, as opposed to tainting the case with ideologies most people in Thailand find distasteful or downright heretical.
RK: How do you know what is acceptable and what isn’t? What constitutes “Thai culture”? It is clear that what you call “Thai culture” is a recent invention. No culture is unchanging. It would seem to me that a call to alternative political arrangements can be powerful in many societies that have languished under repressive and corrupt regimes. Why not Thailand? Why is Thailand different?
OK Jesse, even if your ‘when in Rome‘ argument made sense, what are your feelings about Thai’s being nonsensically charged under this law for political purposes?
If we talk about the principle of Universal Human Right…then don’t you think the Thais have the rights to respect and revere their King and uphold the law, in which the country sees is best for them.
What most people in the west think is that the 65 million people in Thailand are so backward because their laws restrict them from what many in the west think is the rights everyone should have. But we’re ignoring the fact that this may be what they want to believe in. This maybe something that is important to them. Surely, they have the right to think and decide for themselves.
Sometimes we have to look beyond our belief, judgment and society and stop imposing that we think is right on other people. It is right that everyone should have the rights to basic rights and needs, freedom of speech, etc, but think about it…is there really such a thing as a Universal Human Rights?
I think we need to be more open-minded when we travel to other countries and respect the law. Taking action in what we believe in is a good thing, but respecting others’ beliefs and culture is also appropriate when you’re on ther others’ soil. We should ask ourelves…are we doing this because these people are being deprived of thier rights and need our help or are we doing this because we think we are more superior…we are right and they are wrong?
H, from a copy I have seen the book is definitely innocent. What is not innocent is the motives of the Thai authorities who brought the charge against Harry and the Thai legal system for perpetuating this huge travesty of justice. ‘Anonymous’ above has a point about the Australian authorities not helping. They must be very embarrased if harry wrote to the Australian Ambassador in Bangkok before publishing the book. Like Asia Books Limited, the Australian authorities must also have thought the book was acceptable at the time. Instead of the Australian authorities looking to redeem themselves, provide real help and apologise to Harry for the mess they have contributed to, they abandon him.
Every country, there are rules that we do not agree, however, you must follow the law in the particular country you are in.
He is well awared of the consequences and yet he chose to do it. No matter how many copies the book’d sold, he still broke the law in the kingdom of Thailand !
I bought your book at Coolangatta airport on one of my many trips back and forth to Sydney from the Gold Coast and I couldn’t put it down. I was trying to look you up on the net to see if they’d made a documentary about you yet and I came across this site. Low and behold, Dave Everett is posting! Just wanted to say hi and I really enjoyed your book. You couldn’t have scripted a movie any better!
PS. I’m going for my JOES day in 2 weeks. Any pointers? I’d love to see the look on the interviewers face when I walk into my interview and tell them I’d chatted to Dave Everett about career options in the Defence Force.
Someone asked about prominent people petitioning for changes to the lese majeste law. Yes, on 26 January 2009 a gorup of 38 senators asked for a meeting to work out more rigid and enhanced enforcement of the law.
thanks for your considered response… I also am happy to try for joint understanding
with regard to Giles #4
I think some transition to full abolishment of lese majeste as special constitution and law provisions such as you propose would be helpful in gaining acceptance
I expect that the Monarch could be provided with some sort of secretariat function which perhaps could be called the privy council but without the powers it seems to currently possess and specifically not staffed by persons that retain linkage with the military, perhaps forbidden to hold any other posts or privileges
Briefly, it seemed to me that Thaksin was prepared to go back to the people when under threat and, I guess this was untested, was prepared to accept if the people voted him or his party down.
This is the test and accountability of democracy. As it stands I dont believe that could or would have ignored a negative vote by a majority of the people.
So your allegation that he was or would “practise tyranny” is not proved. In my judgement you should learn from our experiences in Australia and the USA where many, many people protested and objected to Howard and Bush but still accepted the majority vote through about 8 long years in each case!
Democracy is very simple and effective but requires committment and acceptance of the power of the ballot box to work!
Find and support a leader that can reduce the power of the army and everything else will fall into place!
If you find such a leader dont cruel his pitch just when he is getting organised!
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Abhisit on lese majeste
From a source
“The Asian Human Rights Commission, The Economist, several other rights groups and dozens of newspaper editorials are all stating that the present round of arrests relating to Thailand’s lese majeste law are politically motivated. Yet Amnesty International, despite their local researcher stating to a UK journalist in a telephone conversation that he considers the recent slew of arrests political, remains silent.
In previous messages to Amnesty International in the UK they have been presented with clear evidence that Amnesty International in Thailand had links to the PAD – an organisation widely considered to be fascistic in intent and action. The present Democrat Party government, who set in motion the recent oppression, would not be in power without PAD and military backing. In fact, several prominent PAD members who took part in the recent Bangkok airport occupations are now government ministers.
Amnesty International’s only reaction to this has been bland statements, dismissive in tone and empty of any meaningful message.
Quite clearly Amnesty International is dragging its heals regarding Thailand. As yet, they’ve offered no reasoning as to why this might the case.
At the present moment the entire debate around the application of Thailand’s lese majeste law is taking place in public – all arrests are in the public domain and even the names of Thai public figures opposed to the law’s recent applications has been widely distributed.
Yet Amnesty International refuse point blank to issue a single word even acknowledging that the application of lese majeste in Thailand may be an issue. Furthermore Amnesty International refuse to answer any question regarding their links to the PAD.”
Abhisit on lese majeste
This is posted by “Reg” at Bangkok Post on the Evans piece:
Grant Evans must be from another side of the tracks in Australia. I am just a couple of years younger than him, and his fond memories of a “naturalness” to monarchy were not my own experience. All of the working class kids around me thought the monarchy was something that the rich foisted on us. We avoided God Save the Queen in cinemas. We hated singing it in school. It was understood as part of a structure of control and domination that teachers enforced.
I recall my graduation from university in the early 70s, when people sat down when God Save the Queen was played.
Evans seems to discount the long history of republicanism in Australia that goes back to colonial times. He discounts its class nature – what else would one expect from a lapsed communist who embraces a bunch of conservative ideologies today?
If this statement is radical or even somehow “brave” for Thailand, then it shows how limited debate is. But, then again, if the Bangkok Post prints it, it is safe and mainstream I guess.
Lèse majesté and Harry Nicolaides
Are these the same Universal rights that the Thai’s show the Boat People form Burma ?
Or the way that Thai’s treat Thai ‘s.. ie; the police taking money from Thai’s poor or not for a traffic offence they have just made up..
The other day i saw a girl fall off her scooter after a pick up pulled out in front of her the 2 Thai’s did not even get out to see if she was alright, and neither did any of the policemen busy fining people for no helmuts, all cash in the back pocket.. They don’t respect each other most of them.
The fact that the people of Thailand revere and respect the King in a healthly way, is a good thing , i think it borders more on the line of Fear then respect..
Abhisit on lese majeste
That’s a very cheap way of eeling himself out of trouble. It has been his government that had tightened the screws. And then Abhisit in effect tells the police that they should not take his own government’s instructions and actions too seriously?
Grant Evans has an intesting article on lese majeste in today’s Bangk0k Post: http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/11535/modern-monarchy-and-inviolability
Giles leaves Thailand
Ralph: I am not sure I have a particularly good answers to each of your questions, but here are some thoughts on the issues you have raised.
On the issue of the alliance between urban middle-class and rural masses, what I mean by urban middle class are the masses of middle-income voters (say, TB 10,000-100,000 a month) in Bangkok (not necessarily intellectuals). My point here is that while urban voters were almost single-handedly responsible for Suchinda’s removal in 1992, the fact that the movement was almost exclusively Bangkok-based prevented the events of Black May from resulting in even more sweeping change. This time, however, could well be different; *should* these urban voters rise up against the current government, the movement’s support is likely to have a much broader base of support in the provinces.
By the way, I am not saying this will happen or even that it’s likely to happen; large-scale mobilization is a decisively rare occurrence in any context. While I don’t really presume to have anything in the way of a workable action plan, I also think that the impetus for this kind of broad-based movement is most likely to come from the red camp. For it to be able to attract urban voters, however, I think it must do more to distance itself from Thaksin/TRT – that is, become more “orange” than “red.”
Good point about Khana Ratsadorn. However, remember that they came to power because they controlled a good chunk of the military and the bureaucracy, as opposed to broad-based popular support. In fact, they were so aware of being out of step with the rest of the country that they refused to allow the formation of political parties for the first 14 years of their rule. Any kind of “change from below” that seeks to displace the military-bureaucratic elites today needs the kind of mass support that Giles’ manifesto is guaranteed to alienate.
Finally, about Thai culture. It is precisely because Thai culture is such a flimsy, amorphous concept that proponents of democracy have a lot of room to maneuver within discursive frames that are acceptable in contemporary Thailand. The key here is to push for radical change in ways that don’t appear quite so radical. Successful dissidents are generally quite good at claiming “backward legitimacy” – that is, the consistency of reform with a country’s history and traditions (which, again, are so open to alternative interpretation as to allow for almost any such claim). My point is not that there is any such thing as a clearly definable “Thai culture,” but rather quite the opposite. It’s precisely because it is so hard to define that it is possible to ground in it even pretty subversive agendas.
From a (not so) diplomatic mind
A tragic aspect of this issue is not so much that Ye Mint Aung reflects the “official Myanmar position” (which he does; see, for example, NLoM, Jan 31, “Bengalis from the neighbouring country illegally immigrated to Rakhine region of Myanmar”), but that he reflects a view widespread in civilian circles. Although, of course, discriminatory views regarding Muslims and/or Burmese of South Asian ancestry are not held across the board, and one occasionally does hear the admonishment:
сААсАпсАЬсАмсА╕сАЬсАКсА║сА╕сАЬсА░сАШсА▓ сАДсАлсА╕сАБсА░сАЬсАКсА║сА╕сАДсАлсА╕сАШсА▓
Giles leaves Thailand
Oh great! Maitri is another royalist who doesn’t know the history of the place they hold dear. I don’t recall exactly when it was that Siam was officially a Buddhist kingdom? But is is good to see that the royalists are out of the closet on 1932 and openly proclaiming attributes that would be recognised by the extreme right in many parts of the world. Let’s bring back slavery as well.
From a (not so) diplomatic mind
Does Ye Mint Aung give us a fair understanding of the official Myanmar position on the Rohingya?
That’s a rhetorical question, right?
Giles leaves Thailand
God help Thailand is people like Red Giles ever take power. We can look to our east or west to see what socialism does to any country that adopts this sickening ideology. Left-wing Westernizers like Giles, Taksin, and all their cohorts have lost touch with what it means to be a Thai. They would be more at home in Hollywood than in Bangkok.
Thailand is a Buddhist and the Thai people will never adopt the ideas of Giles Ungpakor with his advocacy of abortion, republicanism, and surrender to the Muslims of the south. Instead, we should return to what we are: the natural order of Thai civilization.
Look at Russia, After suffering under 70 years of Socialism, they are now returning to their historic and religious roots. We Thais should do the same. It is past time to undo the tragedy of 1932 and, once again, become officially the Buddhist Kingdom of Siam, wherein we can find the true spirit of being Thai.
Giles leaves Thailand
Thanks kjf for your response. Intentional ambiguities aside – which were they? – let me respond in a way that keeps the thread going on these issues.
kjf: The best hope for real democratization in Thailand is an alliance of the provincial masses and those urban middle income voters who have largely been on the fence over the past few years (applauding, perhaps, the case made in support of the coup but never particularly enthusiastic about either the PAD or military rule).
RK: Well it might be the best hope, I am not sure. It depends a bit on one’s reading of the politics of the urban middle class. Frankly, this class is rather too diverse to be able to detect a tendency. Sure, some sat on the fence, but others clearly didn’t. So an alliance is likely to result from some parts of the middle class (academics, intellectuals perhaps?) to elements of the vast, unorganised rural poor (which might those be?).
If one reads the Ji manifesto, it seems that he agrees and sees that he has a potential role. But where is the organisation? Ji seems to think it comes from the Red movment, if it breaks from the dominance of the “Thaksin will save us” perspective. Perhaps.
What do you see as a way to organise this cross-class alliance?
kjf: Because of recent events, that alliance seems to me to be more workable now than it has been at any point in modern Thai history.
RK: Ji seems to agree. But I still don’t see the mechanism for the alliance. How is it done?
kjf: Generally speaking, real democratization is only achievable by effectively using discourse that is acceptable in current Thai society
RK: A truism perhaps? But see the initial announcements of the khana ratsadon. Who would have claimed those as compatible with “Thai culture”?
kjf: as opposed to appear to want to burn the whole house down (which makes any “democratic movement” must easier to demonize and repress). Hence the references to (highly idealized) aspects of the Thai past that any such movement might be able to evoke for the purposes of mobilization. This, incidentally, is why I thought Giles’ statement (which I had not read prior to publishing the post) was in fact quite counterproductive. If the goal is “democracy,” I would argue that the way to achieve it is to make a case for its compatibility with Thai culture, as opposed to tainting the case with ideologies most people in Thailand find distasteful or downright heretical.
RK: How do you know what is acceptable and what isn’t? What constitutes “Thai culture”? It is clear that what you call “Thai culture” is a recent invention. No culture is unchanging. It would seem to me that a call to alternative political arrangements can be powerful in many societies that have languished under repressive and corrupt regimes. Why not Thailand? Why is Thailand different?
So I guess I am still asking, How?
Volunteering to fight in Burma
Hi George,glad you enjoyed the book. Hope it put things in perspective for you. Good luck with the interview.Cheers,Dave
The medieval price
OK Jesse, even if your ‘when in Rome‘ argument made sense, what are your feelings about Thai’s being nonsensically charged under this law for political purposes?
Lèse majesté and Harry Nicolaides
If we talk about the principle of Universal Human Right…then don’t you think the Thais have the rights to respect and revere their King and uphold the law, in which the country sees is best for them.
What most people in the west think is that the 65 million people in Thailand are so backward because their laws restrict them from what many in the west think is the rights everyone should have. But we’re ignoring the fact that this may be what they want to believe in. This maybe something that is important to them. Surely, they have the right to think and decide for themselves.
Sometimes we have to look beyond our belief, judgment and society and stop imposing that we think is right on other people. It is right that everyone should have the rights to basic rights and needs, freedom of speech, etc, but think about it…is there really such a thing as a Universal Human Rights?
I think we need to be more open-minded when we travel to other countries and respect the law. Taking action in what we believe in is a good thing, but respecting others’ beliefs and culture is also appropriate when you’re on ther others’ soil. We should ask ourelves…are we doing this because these people are being deprived of thier rights and need our help or are we doing this because we think we are more superior…we are right and they are wrong?
Lèse majesté and Harry Nicolaides
H, from a copy I have seen the book is definitely innocent. What is not innocent is the motives of the Thai authorities who brought the charge against Harry and the Thai legal system for perpetuating this huge travesty of justice. ‘Anonymous’ above has a point about the Australian authorities not helping. They must be very embarrased if harry wrote to the Australian Ambassador in Bangkok before publishing the book. Like Asia Books Limited, the Australian authorities must also have thought the book was acceptable at the time. Instead of the Australian authorities looking to redeem themselves, provide real help and apologise to Harry for the mess they have contributed to, they abandon him.
The medieval price
Every country, there are rules that we do not agree, however, you must follow the law in the particular country you are in.
He is well awared of the consequences and yet he chose to do it. No matter how many copies the book’d sold, he still broke the law in the kingdom of Thailand !
Volunteering to fight in Burma
Hi Dave (Everett),
I bought your book at Coolangatta airport on one of my many trips back and forth to Sydney from the Gold Coast and I couldn’t put it down. I was trying to look you up on the net to see if they’d made a documentary about you yet and I came across this site. Low and behold, Dave Everett is posting! Just wanted to say hi and I really enjoyed your book. You couldn’t have scripted a movie any better!
PS. I’m going for my JOES day in 2 weeks. Any pointers? I’d love to see the look on the interviewers face when I walk into my interview and tell them I’d chatted to Dave Everett about career options in the Defence Force.
Cheers,
George
A chance to discuss media freedom
Frank: I asked about this, and I had heard that something more positive was being arranged. It maybe that it is the list that is publicised by rabid royalists-PADites at:
http://www.angkor.com/2bangkok/2bangkok/forum/showthread.php?p=24593#post24593
Note the Manager stories claiming treason and so on.
A chance to discuss media freedom
Someone asked about prominent people petitioning for changes to the lese majeste law. Yes, on 26 January 2009 a gorup of 38 senators asked for a meeting to work out more rigid and enhanced enforcement of the law.
Giles leaves Thailand
nganadeeleg
thanks for your considered response… I also am happy to try for joint understanding
with regard to Giles #4
I think some transition to full abolishment of lese majeste as special constitution and law provisions such as you propose would be helpful in gaining acceptance
I expect that the Monarch could be provided with some sort of secretariat function which perhaps could be called the privy council but without the powers it seems to currently possess and specifically not staffed by persons that retain linkage with the military, perhaps forbidden to hold any other posts or privileges
Briefly, it seemed to me that Thaksin was prepared to go back to the people when under threat and, I guess this was untested, was prepared to accept if the people voted him or his party down.
This is the test and accountability of democracy. As it stands I dont believe that could or would have ignored a negative vote by a majority of the people.
So your allegation that he was or would “practise tyranny” is not proved. In my judgement you should learn from our experiences in Australia and the USA where many, many people protested and objected to Howard and Bush but still accepted the majority vote through about 8 long years in each case!
Democracy is very simple and effective but requires committment and acceptance of the power of the ballot box to work!
Find and support a leader that can reduce the power of the army and everything else will fall into place!
If you find such a leader dont cruel his pitch just when he is getting organised!
Giles leaves Thailand
David: You don’t need to wonder. Just read my comment.
When reading Giles “manifesto” or “announcement,” in style and content, I was reminded of the first announcement of the People’s Party in 1932.