Thailand has never had a democracy, nor should it. A republic might better satisfy its needs.
‘Consent of the governed’ indeed… how about ‘informed concent?’
Here in the LOS, everyone wants to be top dog, or the leader, or ‘the man.’ Few will knowingly submerse themselves into a real democratic working group to achieve a solid political platform and then build on it for the benefit of the country. Lots of lip service, but little service.
“As Laos opens its doors to foreign investment a key issue is improving fiscal management so that its natural resources are utilised in a manner that supports poverty alleviation as well as economic growth.”
Don, thanks for your faith in the national survival instinct. They’ll have loads of pwès, alms giving and temple building as in the days of yore once they are rid of the three classic enemies – rulers, thieves and those full of hatred – rolled into one, out of the five in Burmese tradition, leaving only floods and fire. There’ll be sharing of merit for all sentient beings and for those who have fallen in the long struggle in particular.
Sharing in any of the progress and prosperity will be next as they build a new society where social justice, diversity, freedom of thought, opprtunity and creativity will flourish. Beyond that it’s going to be how they strive to strike a balance – the Middle Way – between tradition and modernity. They will attain their rightful place in the world.
Since you seem to be in love with USA so much, let me share with you US democratic principles:
From American Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Thomas Jefferson put forth the fundamental principle that governments in a democracy do not grant the fundamental freedoms; governments are created and are under a duty to protect those freedoms that every individual possesses by virtue of his or her existence (and not by virtue of constitutions or laws).
Therefore, violations of these fundamental rights are always wrong and can never be justified.
All of this also means, if you don’t believe in the theory of inalienable human rights (i.e. you still think that the question of human rights is one of opinion or “view” or something to be decided by elections) then you cannot be said to believe in democracy
As for the proposition that public policies (which are decisions made by human beings which have real effects on other human beings and therefore I would argue are inherently also questions of moral) should always ultimately be judged/decided by elections, I am surprised that you seem to put faith on there being a benevolent electorate who would as a matter of course always vote for the public good rather than self interest
Again to satisfy your love for USA, let me quote from another founding father, James Madison who recognised that voters may lack virtue and wisdom and so he did not place all his trust on them:
“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”
“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people [voters] is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
Now with voters which you naturally can’t always trust to make the right decisions, and with the “auxiliary precautions” (i.e. checks and balances) which the government had dedicated to subvert and eliminate, what happened? The fundamental rights of the citizens were being violated by the government with impunity.
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson would call Thailand’s democracy dsyfunctional.
Moe Aung: The Burmese are survivors. They have survived bad authoritarian governments for centuries dating back to Pagan and before. They will continue to do this against what westerners might consider impossible odds because this is part of their essential being. I am not sure what Burmese will ever do if life becomes easy for them. No doubt start to engage in frivolous and dysfunctional behavior like many wealthy people in both the third and the first worlds often do. I have great admiriation for the ability of the Burmese people to surmount the obastacles that face them on a daily basis and hope that this does not get lost in the process of change, whenever that does happen. This may be a good advertisement for the adversity theory of development.
Ref #13[I let karmablue answer that himself], but as someone living in Thailand, I can’t help to respond that a few years ago that would have been DEFINITELY been the case — Thais will hope some power above (Police, Army or someone in authority) will “Intervene” and let them “Right the Wrongs”. Perhaps a coup!
However—Now I think there is a glimmer of light that a non-soldier Thai can ‘right things wrong’. Its definitely refreshing to see people coming to the streets, out of their own will and take a decision on their standpoint (its easy because its a Moral Standpoint, not political standpoint). It shows that “We’re Not Sheep”.
I think as long as Thai begin to feel more ownership in their country — that Thailand is a matter of fact theirs, there will be more participation and the chance of getting a Morally Correct government the future is higher.
When you say “Coup” — it is interesting; There are rumours/theories that the ‘foxy’ Thaksin troup will stage a own coup of their own government in order to save the cornered Thaksin. On the other hand, there may be a ‘Whiter’ Coup that sees TRT turn to PPP and will eventually turn to another permutation — wasting more of the country’s time and resources- and decide to give a lending hand to prevent the vicious cycle to happen.
I really hope that the Coup option doesn’t happen, and that we can right our wrong our own way; I hope we can go the way of “Tom Yum”- initially not really knowing where we’re going – Sweet, Salty, Chilli or Sweet– and at the end, working out into a very good combination with Flying Colors!
Somsak says that “The issues of War on Drug and War on Terrerism are issues of public policy that have, ultimately, to be decided in elections.” This is true to the extent that both “wars” are conducted in accordance with the law. In an earlier post, I mentioned the War on Drugs framing it , as it is commonly understood, as a series of unsolved and essentially uninvestigated crimes. I also mentioned Tak Bai, a part of the war on terrorism which was equally criminal. (And despite Somsak’s assertion in a later post I don’t see a genuine investigation happening – has anybody been charged for anything let alone convicted? I’d be pleased if he could enlighten me. It happened quite a while ago now.) As many other posters are asking, I would also ask: “If a criminal act (regardless of the perceived morality of its intended outcomes) wins popular approval, does it become less criminal?”
Neither should it be said that criminal acts are perpetrated all the time and in many places so why should they be prosecuted here when they’re not prosecuted elsewhere. These acts are criminal acts under the laws of Thailand. It is bad that bad things are done in other parts of the world but generally irrelevant to this discussion.These are good laws and Thailand has many good laws. They should be used.
Can people vote to legalize crimes? Yes, if a political party or candidate stands up for office and says that certain categories of murder will retrospectively become allowable if I win office. I don’t think anyone has explicitly proposed this.
If there was a law that said anyone who is merely suspected of drug taking or drug trafficking can legitimately be executed without trial by the forces of the state, I could accept the logic. If there was a law that stated that disarmed and arrested protesters – no matter what their previous behaviour is supposed to have been – can be stacked in trucks in such a way that death or cripplement is inevitable, I could accept that logic.
Maybe such a law would be popular. I went to the protest against Tak Bai in Bangkok. A couple of hundred people in a city of how many millions.
But there is no such law that I am aware of. These actions are lawless but are increasingly seen as normalized and OK because people have accepted them. “We’re cleaning up the house, getting rid of the cockroaches”, as a couple of Bangkok Thais explained the war on drugs to me when it was in full swing. When humans are casually redefined as cockroaches we know what follows. Pesticide.
The actions that defined the war on drugs and those that continue to define the war on terrorism (see the shocking report in another blog where reportedly a young man was left for dead with his eyes put out) are so similar to those of the war on Communism where in the South of Thailand people were reportedly (I don’t have the references for either of these events at the moment but they’re not hard to find) boiled in oil drums or thrown out of planes. I guess that’s OK because the fall of the Berlin Wall has proved that communism was unpopular and never worked.
None of this means that the Thaksin Government did not have political legitimacy. Immediately after the coup, these issues were raised as part of the barrage and just as quickly dropped in favour of economic mismanagement issues which are legitimate political and electoral issues not coup-making issues. If the economy’s not working the way you want, vote for X or Y or Z. But when murder is committed, find those who are guilty and punish them.
Obviously, this is not easy and I’m not somebody who is called on to do the finding or the punishment but the issue seems clear to me.
No matter how often you call your antagonists stupid, it does not make your arguments any smarter.
You still stubbornly refuse to admit what you proposed in #9 and subsequent posts.
Let me cite another example (very hypothetical, but serves to illustrate the point) that might bring home what Somsak is really proposing.
Say Party Z campaigned in an election (NOT a referendum) on a policy to exterminate all persons born on Saturdays, and distribute their estate/belongings to the rest of the population.
If Party Z was elected (and they well might since 6 out of every 7 person might be incentivized enough to vote for it) and carried out its PUBLIC POLICY, all Somsak would say is “too bad”.
And it seems that it wouldn’t matter to Somsak whether Party Z carried out its policy pre- or post changing the law to legalize its action, because legitimacy had already been gained from the majority via the ballot box. The question of legality (let alone morality) of the action does not appear to come into it at all.
—
Re removal of King: you miss my point, showing your lack of lucidity. The King may be inviolate but there is no rule in the constitution that says the incumbent can only be removed from the role of monarch via a plebiscite (in fact I believe the constitution is complete silent on this). Nepal’s Dipendra conveniently died so we did not get to see an example of how the Nepalese would have worked it out, but likely the legislative branch would have to do it. I’m amazed you’d go the referendum route, risking the vote going the other way, when other avenues (which I loosely called judicial) were available.
—-
Re Nixon/Vietnam & Bush/Iraq = democracy malfunction. There is a key difference between Tak Bai and these examples. Vietnamese and Iraqis are not American citizens protected under the American ‘democratic’ system, therefore the fact that they were/are bombed & killed by the Americans says nothing about how well or badly the America ‘democracy’ is functioning. The American system is not there to protect the interests of non-Americans. But the American system IS there for Americans (as the Thai system should be there for Thais). If Nixon or Bush were found to have been personally responsible for >70 African Americans dying from suffocating in the back of a national guard truck somewhere in the US Deep South, sure as hell they’ll be prosecuted. And if Thaksin was found personally to be responsible for Tak Bai or War on Drugs (which I doubt he was), he should be prosecuted as well. And the same applies to the King, or the Privy Councilor, the General, and even the mun samparang farmer.
Thank you Stephen for your kind arbitration in a way. You can be detached, I assume, whereas the rest of us are rather emotionally involved to a degree. I too am not optimistic in the short term. What do you do when one side has all the guns? It’s the only factor that’s maintained the status quo. Regime change, I’d rather call a spade a spade, is what the people will achieve when the conditions are ripe.
Outsiders, East or West, can come up with any number of analyses and approaches, and they should in their dealings with Burma. Whether they’ll be listened to by either government or opposition is another question altogether. So I’m afraid you will, more likely than not, continue to be frustrated and even irritated by Burmese illogical behaviour for some time until and unless you come face to face with some illogical and unexpected outcome like the cyclone survivors pulling through against the odds.
Instead, I think one should ask what sort of protest forms are necessary in Thailand by reference to the authoritarian and oppressive nature of the TRT/PPP government
karmablues — you’re spot on! PAD is mainly a machine to rid the humanity-corrupting Thaksin Era.
I must admit, Its other good by-effects are to get so many people to involved in politics as Auditors and assume the role as True-Owners of Thailand – whether it be academics (like this Mandela Mob), University Students, to professional class persons, to patriotic housewives, etc. Never before has it made a Thai come out to defend for the country in true spirit.
As for my view, I think PAD is trying to prevent Thaksin from resurrection — TRT becomes PPP and now into another party some other form of Ghost wanting to continue to haunt Thailand (Thailand Pet Shop Boys sings: “What have I done to Deserve This?”) . As karmablues is probably implying, the current government is illegitimate anyway if it came to power by buying votes, supported by much of the Uneducated Gullible (who I consider victims) and the buyable Political Pr*st*tutes – excuse my language. Therefore such a kind of PAD ‘mob’ is in a different context in comparison to a normal protest in a fully 1st world, democratic country.
PAD does look Right side of the parliament (better than wrong side 😛 ), but IMHO, one of the very reason for its existence is for the “Love of Thailand” – because if you don’t love Thailand, then there’s someone who will happily sell out your country for a handsome profit. And because to “Love one’s King and Country” is something that everyone can understand – whether you’re uneducated or not. If PAD markets itself in other ways (academics trying to explain fiscal policy, corruption tactics, best practice politics ,etc), they will not be able to explain to the common Thai.
Stephan: You are right that a policy somewhere between the extremes is needed. The approaches now being followed both by Burmese activitists and international actors result largely from frustration, which is generally not a good basis for sound policy making. However, this has been going on for so long that it has become an ingrained habit and will be difficult, if not impossible, to change it appears. And in the meantime the Burmese people will continue to suffer, without much prospect of improvement in their situation. Fortunately the Burmese are very experienced at living under these conditions and thus do not even find it that unusual. They hope for the best but expect the worst, and that is what they get most of the time. I do not see any change in sight.
In undoubtedly democratic countries, such as Australia, the US, the UK, or Germany, I am quite sure that the governments would have dissolved such as protest rally.
Yes, but is Thailand an “undoubtedly democratic country”?
one should ask what sort of protest forms are democratically allowed by reference to the freedom of assembly.
Instead, I think one should ask what sort of protest forms are necessary in Thailand by reference to the authoritarian and oppressive nature of the TRT/PPP government
Don, none of us would be here if we are not entitled to an opinion. Most of us presumably have a day job, and are not into policy-making though your esteemed self may have been, given that you appear to be an old Burma hand. I’m sure you’ve actually seen a lot more of the country than I have with my limited means.
I doubt it if Burmese dislike of patronising, proselytising, agressive, greedy and meddling foreigners is likely to be wiped off the books ever. It is as you rightly said a historical product, and Jon’s knowledge of Burma as you may well be aware goes back for centuries, and we shall forever be grateful for his translation of U Kala’s Maha Yazawin-gyi chronicles and his articles on 16th C Burma.
Isolation I agree has been extremely detrimental to the country, and we do need outward looking leaders in future. Then again if I know the Burmese psyche well, a few Western educated Burmese are not likely to have a very significant impact if they shout until their faces go blue. They’ll know how to deal with opinionated busybody expats like yours truly. Policy makers anywhere in the world by nature are full of themselves, and hope alone won’t ever do the trick. Talk about stating the obvious.
Serious analysis based on the knowledge of historical and cultural factors for a sound policy approach sounds good and proper, though taking its own sweet time forever. And I do find it very helpful to find out what a certain cross section of learned opinion or gut feeling is like – the volunteer fighters, some of whom have impressed me and changed my view of them as mere mercenaries, as well as the pair of you. Not that I’ll be shaping any of the country’s policy but as they say comment is free.
(Sorry, no time for long response. got to go, having class in a minute.)
I guess in your world, she just HAS to accept that since the majority think its no big deal, all she can do is campaign to change people’s vote at the next elections…She should not expect equal access to justice under the law.
WHERE did I say that?
Again, should not lie when you can’t find evidence.
The Tak bai incident is being considered in court. WHERE did I write that i am against that case in court?
And..
Did I not write “PUBLIC POLICY”?
The issues of War on Drug and War on Terrerism are issues of public policy that have, ultimately, to be decided in elections.
So, if Les Majeste was abolished, all YOU would do is to educate the stupid ignorant masses (and I reckon you really do think of them as so) of 6 Tula and other abuses and then call for a referendum on the King? You would not try to seek justice through the justice system? I guess not, from your logic.
This just shows how stupid or innept you are.
Because the opposite of what you think is a critique-sarcasm of my view here would be that:
The kind of change effecting form of state, i.e. the removal of a King (especially in the context of the history of a country like, say Thailand, imagine how BIG the change) – – can or should be decided through court?
Are you crazy?
Referendum (a form of popular vote as in general elections), it requires! Exactly.
The fact that Thaksin and Co. have not been made accountable for Tak Bai, Kru Sae, war on drugs, and have gotten away with corruption, abuse of power, tax evasion, etc is overwhelming evidence of a democracy that wasn’t functioning.
So the fact that since Johnson, Nixon ,etc no president was ever brought to justice for the Vietnam war, and numerous wars after, is “overwhelming evidence of a democracy that wasn’t functioning”?
PERHAPS, it is. (This is not ironic statement.)
But then you have to show WHERE and IN WHAT WAY that it’s functioning, since by this criteria there seems to be no “functioning democracy” anywhere in the world. (This is exactly the position of the PAD)
Or, you could say that, as in cases all over world democracy, you try again to “seek justice” of your view (and ALL the incidents you cite are your view that is NOT share by a great number of people), ultimately through democratic process of general elections (e.g. elect new parliament/government that would enact new laws, new rules, new practices that would have satisfied your view of how conducts of leaders should be dealt with.)
I doubt that the PAD’s approach is covered by the right of assembly. It is not enough to merely adopt their view by hailing the effectiveness of protests in a democracy. Rather one should ask what sort of protest forms are democratically allowed by reference to the freedom of assembly. For making PAD’s opinion heard, you only need a protest march of a few hours. Moreover, they very openly declared that making their voices heard was not at all the main purpose of their activity. Rather, they expressly aimed for toppling this government and assuming power. In undoubtedly democratic countries, such as Australia, the US, the UK, or Germany, I am quite sure that the governments would have dissolved such as protest rally.
It seems to me that there is a broader dislike of elected politicians in some quarters, i.e. one that is not limited to anti-Thaksin feelings in the PAD alone. The Nation’s various writers have been in the business of bashing them for quite some time. If elected politicians do not subscribe to the moral guidelines issued by these quarters, what else logically remains than to limit the politicians’ role? Interestingly, Thailand’s first constitutions provided for a mixed system of selected and elected MPs. The ratio was 50:50. Now, Thai voters being a lot better educated than at those times, they should be allowed even less–30%? On Monday, I think, Nithi Eosriwonge had an article in Matichon in which he dealt with the depoliticization of politics aimed for by broad sectors of the middle class.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
Thailand has never had a democracy, nor should it. A republic might better satisfy its needs.
‘Consent of the governed’ indeed… how about ‘informed concent?’
Here in the LOS, everyone wants to be top dog, or the leader, or ‘the man.’ Few will knowingly submerse themselves into a real democratic working group to achieve a solid political platform and then build on it for the benefit of the country. Lots of lip service, but little service.
Can Laos avoid the resource curse?
“As Laos opens its doors to foreign investment a key issue is improving fiscal management so that its natural resources are utilised in a manner that supports poverty alleviation as well as economic growth.”
Another attempt to build a State in Laos?
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
Don, thanks for your faith in the national survival instinct. They’ll have loads of pwès, alms giving and temple building as in the days of yore once they are rid of the three classic enemies – rulers, thieves and those full of hatred – rolled into one, out of the five in Burmese tradition, leaving only floods and fire. There’ll be sharing of merit for all sentient beings and for those who have fallen in the long struggle in particular.
Sharing in any of the progress and prosperity will be next as they build a new society where social justice, diversity, freedom of thought, opprtunity and creativity will flourish. Beyond that it’s going to be how they strive to strike a balance – the Middle Way – between tradition and modernity. They will attain their rightful place in the world.
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
Re: Somask
Since you seem to be in love with USA so much, let me share with you US democratic principles:
From American Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Thomas Jefferson put forth the fundamental principle that governments in a democracy do not grant the fundamental freedoms; governments are created and are under a duty to protect those freedoms that every individual possesses by virtue of his or her existence (and not by virtue of constitutions or laws).
Therefore, violations of these fundamental rights are always wrong and can never be justified.
All of this also means, if you don’t believe in the theory of inalienable human rights (i.e. you still think that the question of human rights is one of opinion or “view” or something to be decided by elections) then you cannot be said to believe in democracy
As for the proposition that public policies (which are decisions made by human beings which have real effects on other human beings and therefore I would argue are inherently also questions of moral) should always ultimately be judged/decided by elections, I am surprised that you seem to put faith on there being a benevolent electorate who would as a matter of course always vote for the public good rather than self interest
Again to satisfy your love for USA, let me quote from another founding father, James Madison who recognised that voters may lack virtue and wisdom and so he did not place all his trust on them:
“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”
“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people [voters] is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
Now with voters which you naturally can’t always trust to make the right decisions, and with the “auxiliary precautions” (i.e. checks and balances) which the government had dedicated to subvert and eliminate, what happened? The fundamental rights of the citizens were being violated by the government with impunity.
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson would call Thailand’s democracy dsyfunctional.
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
Moe Aung: The Burmese are survivors. They have survived bad authoritarian governments for centuries dating back to Pagan and before. They will continue to do this against what westerners might consider impossible odds because this is part of their essential being. I am not sure what Burmese will ever do if life becomes easy for them. No doubt start to engage in frivolous and dysfunctional behavior like many wealthy people in both the third and the first worlds often do. I have great admiriation for the ability of the Burmese people to surmount the obastacles that face them on a daily basis and hope that this does not get lost in the process of change, whenever that does happen. This may be a good advertisement for the adversity theory of development.
Time to go home
Ref #13[I let karmablue answer that himself], but as someone living in Thailand, I can’t help to respond that a few years ago that would have been DEFINITELY been the case — Thais will hope some power above (Police, Army or someone in authority) will “Intervene” and let them “Right the Wrongs”. Perhaps a coup!
However—Now I think there is a glimmer of light that a non-soldier Thai can ‘right things wrong’. Its definitely refreshing to see people coming to the streets, out of their own will and take a decision on their standpoint (its easy because its a Moral Standpoint, not political standpoint). It shows that “We’re Not Sheep”.
I think as long as Thai begin to feel more ownership in their country — that Thailand is a matter of fact theirs, there will be more participation and the chance of getting a Morally Correct government the future is higher.
When you say “Coup” — it is interesting; There are rumours/theories that the ‘foxy’ Thaksin troup will stage a own coup of their own government in order to save the cornered Thaksin. On the other hand, there may be a ‘Whiter’ Coup that sees TRT turn to PPP and will eventually turn to another permutation — wasting more of the country’s time and resources- and decide to give a lending hand to prevent the vicious cycle to happen.
I really hope that the Coup option doesn’t happen, and that we can right our wrong our own way; I hope we can go the way of “Tom Yum”- initially not really knowing where we’re going – Sweet, Salty, Chilli or Sweet– and at the end, working out into a very good combination with Flying Colors!
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
Somsak says that “The issues of War on Drug and War on Terrerism are issues of public policy that have, ultimately, to be decided in elections.” This is true to the extent that both “wars” are conducted in accordance with the law. In an earlier post, I mentioned the War on Drugs framing it , as it is commonly understood, as a series of unsolved and essentially uninvestigated crimes. I also mentioned Tak Bai, a part of the war on terrorism which was equally criminal. (And despite Somsak’s assertion in a later post I don’t see a genuine investigation happening – has anybody been charged for anything let alone convicted? I’d be pleased if he could enlighten me. It happened quite a while ago now.) As many other posters are asking, I would also ask: “If a criminal act (regardless of the perceived morality of its intended outcomes) wins popular approval, does it become less criminal?”
Neither should it be said that criminal acts are perpetrated all the time and in many places so why should they be prosecuted here when they’re not prosecuted elsewhere. These acts are criminal acts under the laws of Thailand. It is bad that bad things are done in other parts of the world but generally irrelevant to this discussion.These are good laws and Thailand has many good laws. They should be used.
Can people vote to legalize crimes? Yes, if a political party or candidate stands up for office and says that certain categories of murder will retrospectively become allowable if I win office. I don’t think anyone has explicitly proposed this.
If there was a law that said anyone who is merely suspected of drug taking or drug trafficking can legitimately be executed without trial by the forces of the state, I could accept the logic. If there was a law that stated that disarmed and arrested protesters – no matter what their previous behaviour is supposed to have been – can be stacked in trucks in such a way that death or cripplement is inevitable, I could accept that logic.
Maybe such a law would be popular. I went to the protest against Tak Bai in Bangkok. A couple of hundred people in a city of how many millions.
But there is no such law that I am aware of. These actions are lawless but are increasingly seen as normalized and OK because people have accepted them. “We’re cleaning up the house, getting rid of the cockroaches”, as a couple of Bangkok Thais explained the war on drugs to me when it was in full swing. When humans are casually redefined as cockroaches we know what follows. Pesticide.
The actions that defined the war on drugs and those that continue to define the war on terrorism (see the shocking report in another blog where reportedly a young man was left for dead with his eyes put out) are so similar to those of the war on Communism where in the South of Thailand people were reportedly (I don’t have the references for either of these events at the moment but they’re not hard to find) boiled in oil drums or thrown out of planes. I guess that’s OK because the fall of the Berlin Wall has proved that communism was unpopular and never worked.
None of this means that the Thaksin Government did not have political legitimacy. Immediately after the coup, these issues were raised as part of the barrage and just as quickly dropped in favour of economic mismanagement issues which are legitimate political and electoral issues not coup-making issues. If the economy’s not working the way you want, vote for X or Y or Z. But when murder is committed, find those who are guilty and punish them.
Obviously, this is not easy and I’m not somebody who is called on to do the finding or the punishment but the issue seems clear to me.
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
No matter how often you call your antagonists stupid, it does not make your arguments any smarter.
You still stubbornly refuse to admit what you proposed in #9 and subsequent posts.
Let me cite another example (very hypothetical, but serves to illustrate the point) that might bring home what Somsak is really proposing.
Say Party Z campaigned in an election (NOT a referendum) on a policy to exterminate all persons born on Saturdays, and distribute their estate/belongings to the rest of the population.
If Party Z was elected (and they well might since 6 out of every 7 person might be incentivized enough to vote for it) and carried out its PUBLIC POLICY, all Somsak would say is “too bad”.
And it seems that it wouldn’t matter to Somsak whether Party Z carried out its policy pre- or post changing the law to legalize its action, because legitimacy had already been gained from the majority via the ballot box. The question of legality (let alone morality) of the action does not appear to come into it at all.
—
Re removal of King: you miss my point, showing your lack of lucidity. The King may be inviolate but there is no rule in the constitution that says the incumbent can only be removed from the role of monarch via a plebiscite (in fact I believe the constitution is complete silent on this). Nepal’s Dipendra conveniently died so we did not get to see an example of how the Nepalese would have worked it out, but likely the legislative branch would have to do it. I’m amazed you’d go the referendum route, risking the vote going the other way, when other avenues (which I loosely called judicial) were available.
—-
Re Nixon/Vietnam & Bush/Iraq = democracy malfunction. There is a key difference between Tak Bai and these examples. Vietnamese and Iraqis are not American citizens protected under the American ‘democratic’ system, therefore the fact that they were/are bombed & killed by the Americans says nothing about how well or badly the America ‘democracy’ is functioning. The American system is not there to protect the interests of non-Americans. But the American system IS there for Americans (as the Thai system should be there for Thais). If Nixon or Bush were found to have been personally responsible for >70 African Americans dying from suffocating in the back of a national guard truck somewhere in the US Deep South, sure as hell they’ll be prosecuted. And if Thaksin was found personally to be responsible for Tak Bai or War on Drugs (which I doubt he was), he should be prosecuted as well. And the same applies to the King, or the Privy Councilor, the General, and even the mun samparang farmer.
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
Thank you Stephen for your kind arbitration in a way. You can be detached, I assume, whereas the rest of us are rather emotionally involved to a degree. I too am not optimistic in the short term. What do you do when one side has all the guns? It’s the only factor that’s maintained the status quo. Regime change, I’d rather call a spade a spade, is what the people will achieve when the conditions are ripe.
Outsiders, East or West, can come up with any number of analyses and approaches, and they should in their dealings with Burma. Whether they’ll be listened to by either government or opposition is another question altogether. So I’m afraid you will, more likely than not, continue to be frustrated and even irritated by Burmese illogical behaviour for some time until and unless you come face to face with some illogical and unexpected outcome like the cyclone survivors pulling through against the odds.
Time to go home
Instead, I think one should ask what sort of protest forms are necessary in Thailand by reference to the authoritarian and oppressive nature of the TRT/PPP government
You mean a protest in the form of a coup?
Ends justify the means, I see.
Time to go home
explain in the last sentence of my post above means “explain easily in layman terms”
Time to go home
karmablues — you’re spot on! PAD is mainly a machine to rid the humanity-corrupting Thaksin Era.
I must admit, Its other good by-effects are to get so many people to involved in politics as Auditors and assume the role as True-Owners of Thailand – whether it be academics (like this Mandela Mob), University Students, to professional class persons, to patriotic housewives, etc. Never before has it made a Thai come out to defend for the country in true spirit.
As for my view, I think PAD is trying to prevent Thaksin from resurrection — TRT becomes PPP and now into another party some other form of Ghost wanting to continue to haunt Thailand (Thailand Pet Shop Boys sings: “What have I done to Deserve This?”) . As karmablues is probably implying, the current government is illegitimate anyway if it came to power by buying votes, supported by much of the Uneducated Gullible (who I consider victims) and the buyable Political Pr*st*tutes – excuse my language. Therefore such a kind of PAD ‘mob’ is in a different context in comparison to a normal protest in a fully 1st world, democratic country.
PAD does look Right side of the parliament (better than wrong side 😛 ), but IMHO, one of the very reason for its existence is for the “Love of Thailand” – because if you don’t love Thailand, then there’s someone who will happily sell out your country for a handsome profit. And because to “Love one’s King and Country” is something that everyone can understand – whether you’re uneducated or not. If PAD markets itself in other ways (academics trying to explain fiscal policy, corruption tactics, best practice politics ,etc), they will not be able to explain to the common Thai.
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
Stephan: You are right that a policy somewhere between the extremes is needed. The approaches now being followed both by Burmese activitists and international actors result largely from frustration, which is generally not a good basis for sound policy making. However, this has been going on for so long that it has become an ingrained habit and will be difficult, if not impossible, to change it appears. And in the meantime the Burmese people will continue to suffer, without much prospect of improvement in their situation. Fortunately the Burmese are very experienced at living under these conditions and thus do not even find it that unusual. They hope for the best but expect the worst, and that is what they get most of the time. I do not see any change in sight.
Time to go home
re #9
In undoubtedly democratic countries, such as Australia, the US, the UK, or Germany, I am quite sure that the governments would have dissolved such as protest rally.
Yes, but is Thailand an “undoubtedly democratic country”?
one should ask what sort of protest forms are democratically allowed by reference to the freedom of assembly.
Instead, I think one should ask what sort of protest forms are necessary in Thailand by reference to the authoritarian and oppressive nature of the TRT/PPP government
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
Don, none of us would be here if we are not entitled to an opinion. Most of us presumably have a day job, and are not into policy-making though your esteemed self may have been, given that you appear to be an old Burma hand. I’m sure you’ve actually seen a lot more of the country than I have with my limited means.
I doubt it if Burmese dislike of patronising, proselytising, agressive, greedy and meddling foreigners is likely to be wiped off the books ever. It is as you rightly said a historical product, and Jon’s knowledge of Burma as you may well be aware goes back for centuries, and we shall forever be grateful for his translation of U Kala’s Maha Yazawin-gyi chronicles and his articles on 16th C Burma.
Isolation I agree has been extremely detrimental to the country, and we do need outward looking leaders in future. Then again if I know the Burmese psyche well, a few Western educated Burmese are not likely to have a very significant impact if they shout until their faces go blue. They’ll know how to deal with opinionated busybody expats like yours truly. Policy makers anywhere in the world by nature are full of themselves, and hope alone won’t ever do the trick. Talk about stating the obvious.
Serious analysis based on the knowledge of historical and cultural factors for a sound policy approach sounds good and proper, though taking its own sweet time forever. And I do find it very helpful to find out what a certain cross section of learned opinion or gut feeling is like – the volunteer fighters, some of whom have impressed me and changed my view of them as mere mercenaries, as well as the pair of you. Not that I’ll be shaping any of the country’s policy but as they say comment is free.
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
the stupid ignorant masses (and I reckon you really do think of them as so
Did I not write that we should accept THEIR decision, democratically arrived at through elections?
If I did write that, how could you “reckon” I think them “stupid ignorant”?
But it’s the pretentious middle-class people like you who, I certainly insist, are stupid ignorant.
Even straight logical reasoning like this case you cannot make. So pathetic!
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
(Sorry, no time for long response. got to go, having class in a minute.)
I guess in your world, she just HAS to accept that since the majority think its no big deal, all she can do is campaign to change people’s vote at the next elections…She should not expect equal access to justice under the law.
WHERE did I say that?
Again, should not lie when you can’t find evidence.
The Tak bai incident is being considered in court. WHERE did I write that i am against that case in court?
And..
Did I not write “PUBLIC POLICY”?
The issues of War on Drug and War on Terrerism are issues of public policy that have, ultimately, to be decided in elections.
So, if Les Majeste was abolished, all YOU would do is to educate the stupid ignorant masses (and I reckon you really do think of them as so) of 6 Tula and other abuses and then call for a referendum on the King? You would not try to seek justice through the justice system? I guess not, from your logic.
This just shows how stupid or innept you are.
Because the opposite of what you think is a critique-sarcasm of my view here would be that:
The kind of change effecting form of state, i.e. the removal of a King (especially in the context of the history of a country like, say Thailand, imagine how BIG the change) – – can or should be decided through court?
Are you crazy?
Referendum (a form of popular vote as in general elections), it requires! Exactly.
The fact that Thaksin and Co. have not been made accountable for Tak Bai, Kru Sae, war on drugs, and have gotten away with corruption, abuse of power, tax evasion, etc is overwhelming evidence of a democracy that wasn’t functioning.
So the fact that since Johnson, Nixon ,etc no president was ever brought to justice for the Vietnam war, and numerous wars after, is “overwhelming evidence of a democracy that wasn’t functioning”?
PERHAPS, it is. (This is not ironic statement.)
But then you have to show WHERE and IN WHAT WAY that it’s functioning, since by this criteria there seems to be no “functioning democracy” anywhere in the world. (This is exactly the position of the PAD)
Or, you could say that, as in cases all over world democracy, you try again to “seek justice” of your view (and ALL the incidents you cite are your view that is NOT share by a great number of people), ultimately through democratic process of general elections (e.g. elect new parliament/government that would enact new laws, new rules, new practices that would have satisfied your view of how conducts of leaders should be dealt with.)
PA(S)D and a political revolution
Certainly the most insightful and historical background filled article that I’ve read for a long time. Featured in the Bangkok Post today, also:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/080708_News/08Jul2008_news24.php
Time to go home
I doubt that the PAD’s approach is covered by the right of assembly. It is not enough to merely adopt their view by hailing the effectiveness of protests in a democracy. Rather one should ask what sort of protest forms are democratically allowed by reference to the freedom of assembly. For making PAD’s opinion heard, you only need a protest march of a few hours. Moreover, they very openly declared that making their voices heard was not at all the main purpose of their activity. Rather, they expressly aimed for toppling this government and assuming power. In undoubtedly democratic countries, such as Australia, the US, the UK, or Germany, I am quite sure that the governments would have dissolved such as protest rally.
PA(S)D and a political revolution
It seems to me that there is a broader dislike of elected politicians in some quarters, i.e. one that is not limited to anti-Thaksin feelings in the PAD alone. The Nation’s various writers have been in the business of bashing them for quite some time. If elected politicians do not subscribe to the moral guidelines issued by these quarters, what else logically remains than to limit the politicians’ role? Interestingly, Thailand’s first constitutions provided for a mixed system of selected and elected MPs. The ratio was 50:50. Now, Thai voters being a lot better educated than at those times, they should be allowed even less–30%? On Monday, I think, Nithi Eosriwonge had an article in Matichon in which he dealt with the depoliticization of politics aimed for by broad sectors of the middle class.