Peter,
It’s more a bias towards the democratic process.
As we have established, the opposition/old elite has clearly lots of powers, agencies with the assignment to provide checks and balances are most of the time clearly aligned against the current government (which is not really a bad thing, though the bias should be more rational from time to time).
I have no real sympathy for Thaksin and I am quite sure in a different time under a different constitution he would have been quite an ugly dictator, but I really have only disdain for the old elite and their whistle-mob, who don’t want to give away even the meager scraps the poor got from Thaksin and who look down one the vast majority of the population with disgust.
Yeah, the Chinese will deal with this Rohingya/Muslim menace including stray dogs named “Kalar Ma” in Burma (Mian-Dian is the proper name for that Chinese Protectorate!), the same way they are dealing with the Uyghurs in Sinkiang (not to mention those “self-enlightening” Buddhist monks in Tibet, where caterpillar fungus grows)
Zhongguo Zhongguo ├╝ber alles und ├╝berall
LOL
Andrew: the data you present is extremely useful and raise a number of points:
1.’All boats rise with the tide’ seems to sum up the figures. Increasing incomes (which as several comments imply is not necessarily the same as increasing prosperity let alone Bhutanesque happiness)seem have have been uniform across all levels.
2.It is interesting that, whilst income inequality has shown little decline, at least the usual mantra (that ‘the rich get richer while the poor…..’)does not seem to apply.
3. T F Rhoden’s comment could be addressed, Andrew, a) if you showed the Lorenz Curve for different dates (that curve simply being the graphical equivalent of the Gini Coefficient and b) if you indicated how many sub-sets of the total were used in calculating the Gini Coefficient (since there would be some differences in the result [the GC] if the raw data were grouped by deciles (subsets of 10% of the total), quintiles (subsets of 20%) or quartiles. Even so, the GC is almost universally used as THE measure of income inequality because it is – so far – the best measure devised.
4. At all dates shown the GC is VERY high.
5. It may be useful to remember that effectively the GC indicates how much of the total of the income of the population being considered would have to be redistributed in order to achieve total equality of income.
Your bias in favor of Thaksin is abundantly clear. I am sure if you accumulated wealth, avoided paying taxes, and ran a country like a fiefdom, I doubt you would be afforded amnesty by any party or nation. Thaksin is just like former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori who also avoided taxes (and had to flee Peru for Japan), accumulated massive wealth, and ran Peru like his own fiefdom.
Sure, he distributed money to the Peruvian poor and fought the terrorist Sendoro Luminoso (Shining Path) Maoist movement, killing many extremists (for which he was praised) and many innocent Peruvians ‘caught in the crossfire (for which he is not).
Thaksin will not be remembered by history as a competent, honest, fair, democratic, non-tyrannical, and patriotic leader, anymore than you can make Durian smell like Chanel No. 5.
“Ghost” advises us that there is “deep and widespread disgust at Thaksin.” Well, why not? After all, TRT and its successors managed to divert some hogs-at-the-trough monies from old-money/military elite types to the needs of working-class Thais. So why shouldn’t there be “disgust” for the coup-deposed Thaksin on the part of the elite?
o Asked if the ongoing political turmoil has had an effect on their plans to vote in the Feb 2 polls, 52.6% said ‘yes’. Of those who said ‘yes’, 34.3% would wait to evaluate the situation before deciding to turn out; 18.3% said it discourages them from voting.
o 47.4% said the turbulence has no effect at all; 23.4% of this group said they would cast votes; 24% said they felt they must turn out as it is their duty under the democratic system.
o Asked whether they would vote if the election takes place on Feb 2, 79.6% of the polled people said yes, 9.9% said they would not and 10.5% were unsure.
o Asked if the Feb 2 election should go ahead, 51.5% of them said yes, 28.1% said there should be national reform before an election, and 20.4% said the scheduled election should be postponed.
o Asked whether they would support a coup by the armed forces if the situation escalates with more violence, death and injuries, 56% said no, 21.6% said yes, and 22.4% were unsure.
What are to make of this poll? Some details are available about the methodology and sample makeup at the Bk Univ website (url below). It is based on a random sample of 1,018 persons, geographically distributed, a range of ages and occupations. It was a telephone survey. The methodology for acquiring phone numbers is not described, nor how they handled unanswered calls. Nothing is said about whether there was an effort to include cell phones as well as land lines — one gets a more representative sample with cell phones included. The demographics of the sample suggest that the pool of persons interviewed skews away from rural people, farmers and such. One sees that in the 30+% of the sample with bachelors and post-graduate degrees and in the lack of an ‘agricultural worker’ category in the occupations.
So it is perhaps all the more remarkable that it shows 80% intending to vote and just 28% supporting ‘reform before elections’.
Unfortunate CURRENT reality is Chinese are buying up all the prime land in Mandalay and now Rangoon especially in industrial areas and has a COT ACROSS the country like dagger Pipelines every one is so delighted to have and are buying every thing they want including dogs and women.
And Chinese (spelt Khin Shwe) run the so-called parliament whatever the dress up clown congregation people spend tens of thousands of dollars every single day to support.
Yet mighty Burmese are delighted to be “maids” in Hong Kong (as Hong Kong wants to get rid of the Filipino as they want to screw them about the Spratley)and bully the Kalars.
The Sit-tut, the slaves of the Chinese, is simply neurotic bullies unfortunately supported by the honourable “International Communities: and academics, journalists, etc. and loyal opposition. Poor Burma! Poor poor people of Burma, including the Kalars!
Actually, this is not what Sven wrote about, because none of the above was a supposed tyrant, whatever their corruption. Besides, factual mistakes abound.
Taiwan: Chen Shuibian did have financial scandals, but the DPP rule ended with election. I must note that Chen’s 2004 reelection was the only time ever that (slightly) more than half Taiwanese voted for the DPP, and the DPP had most of the electorate against them most of the time (including all legislative elections during Chen’s tenure). This is why his control was limited, and while the bureaucracy and the Taipei people were indeed mostly pro-KMT, they never turned to illegal obstruction, nay a coup d’état.
Japan: The Socialists ruled as part of an unlikely coalition of everyone-but-LDP that broke down early in its second year. After this happened, Murayama formed a cabinet (as the first Socialist PM since 1947) in coalition with LDP, no less.
Korea: No, the liberals have not remained in power. Actually, Park Geun-hye is Park Chung-hee’s own daughter. Again, the liberals lost power in regular election (2008).
“As to the alleged shooter i have photographed, police had to let him go as there was not enough evidence. That does happen. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat ….” – Nick Nostitz
My my my! That is quick. But if Nick Nostitz (chronicler to the Red cause) is satisfied that justice had been served, that the captured shooter (of many Reds btw) had to be set free by the police because ‘there was NOT enough evidence’, I guess everything must be all right.
AND YET that ‘not enough evidence’ disturbs me, and again, I could smell a rotten fish in this ‘captured shooter story of Nick-N’:
(a) Nick-N had. photo evidence of the capture of this alleged shooter of Red sympathizers at Rajmangala Stadium.
(b) The shooter was captured by the Reds, and there MUST have been a gun as evidence.
(c) Nick-N captured a photograph of a Red victim who identified the captured shooter as the very same assasin who shot him in the arm! This must be damning evidence and by itself would have been enough to indict the shooter and keep the suspect in custody thru trial.
But Nick-N seems very satisfied that indeed there is ‘lack of evidence’, satisfied enough to wisely quote: “Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat ….”
That’s Latin btw, and I checked the translation ‘the presumption of innocence must be upheld however damning the evidence especially if the suspect is a Red’.
Compassion and also reason go out of the window when the need to defend one side of the argument regardless of the facts is absolutely paramount. It is called bigotry.
Thanks Peter for your examples, and I am sure during the course of the democratic process you could find numerous other countries, where the separation of powers is taken to an extreme or where other factors sharply limit the powers of a government (US presidents regularly loosing the majority in at least one chamber of congress midterm would be one). But that was not my point. My point was that you can hardly call it a dictatorship or even a dictatorship under the mask of democracy (like the protesters do with all their stupid comparisons “Do you know who was also elected…”)
It’s not a dictatorship when a PM can loose his job for a cooking show, it’s not a dictatorship when it’s impossible to get an amnesty for the supposed dictator in six years, it’s not a dictatorship when the election-laws are constantly changed so the opposition gets better results, and it’s not a dictatorship, when the constitutional court, rather than deciding about the constitutionality of a project, decides politically (like they did with the high-speed-railway that they though “Thailand doesn’t need”).
So now that we have established that the Shinawatras can’t really be described as tyrants with a firm control of Thailand, why don’t we let democracy run it’s course instead of getting rid of it.
You seem eager to ignore the fact that the anti-government protests are a legitimate expression of deep and widespread disgust at Thaksin and his proxies cynical ‘gaming’ of the democratic system to entrench themselves in power, and that the election boycott by the Democrat Party is a way of drawing attention to this.
As I am getting rather sick and tired of all the nonsense surrounding the Malaysian Constitution, much of which is crap, I would like to set the historical record straight, for Malaysians and non-Malaysians unfamiliar with the events of that period.
All that is lost in all the wrangling over ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ is the fairly obvious historical fact that is was the British who set up a Malay civil service and aristocratic leadership (the Tunku) and the Malaysian Constitution is not some handiwork of Malay or Bumiputera intellectuals or nationalists (would that it were), but of British colonial planning, for the rather obvious reason that Malays at the time were either poor semi-literate kampung dwellers or rich aristocracy (Rajahs and Royals) who followed whatever the British wanted. Middle-class Malays did not come into real existence until about 30 years later. The British imported Tamils to work the rubber plantations and then ignored them, and the Chinese came to work the tin mines and start businesses and were also summarily ignored by the British.
One would think, listening to Perkasa, that Ibrahim Ali or Mahathir (God or ‘Allah’ help us) wrote the Malaysian Constitution. Far from it, not even Ahmad Boestamam, Ishak Mohammad and other Malay anti-colonial nationalists wrote the Constitution. The Reid Commission that devised the constitution consisted of Royalty from each of the Malay states in the Federated Peninsula, Tunku Abdul Rahman, and the British High Commissioner; there were no Malay or Bumiputera kampung dwellers, no middle-class Malays, no Malay nationalists, and in fact, no non-Malays at all; it was a pact between the British High Commissioner and the Malay aristocracy, as represented by the Tunku at the federal level, and the State Rulers (Royals all to the last letter), leaving out 99 % or more of Malaya’s population.
In all this back-and-forth, it is conveniently forgotten (perhaps for ideological reasons), that were there no British in 1957, subsequently, there would be no Constitution, as inconvenient as that may be for some Malaysians to hear, lest genteel Royal and politically-connected sensibilities be harmed by historical facts. If kampung dweller’s sensibilities, as well as those of non-Malays, are injured by history, that is a different matter entirely than my having to assuage Dr Mahathir’s over burdensome ego, and I would completely understand why poor Malays, Bumiputeras and non-Malays might feel disenfranchised, particularly Bumiputeras, Orang Asli, and Tamil plantation workers, who seem entirely forgotten all together in the whole process. Given this well-documented history, on what basis does Perkasa and its cohorts claim ownership of the Constitution ?
They aren’t British, they aren’t royalty, Mahathir is arguably not even a (full) Malay,
and Ibrahim Ali’s constituency wasn’t even involved in the Constitution’s inception, rightly or wrongly. As the British are no longer in Malaysia, except as tourists, expats and CEOs, and Dr Mahathir tried to clip the wings of Royal authority and their (former) unlimited use of power, and as the Tunku’s UMNO is not at all that of PM Najib’s UMNO, and including the later addition of Sarawak and Sabah to the Malaysian federation, I see only two legitimate possibilities for Constitutional ownership: It belongs only to the Royalty, in which case I would argue for a people’s revolution in Malaysia, or it belongs to nobody in particular, which perforce means, it belongs to EVERYBODY in Malaysia.
When Chen Shui Bian became President of Taiwan in 2000, replacing many many years of Kuomintang Nationalist control of Taiwan under Lee Teng-Hui (after Cheng Kai Shek), during Chen’s semi pro-Independence eight years in government, ALL the judiciary, reigns of power, money, control of the Taiwanese social hierarchy remained with the
opposition Nationalists (exactly fitting your putative paradigm). Chen and his party had little control, and in fact due to internal scandals, in 2008 lost power back to the Kuomintang Nationalists. So, there is one example.
Secondly, during their brief reign in power, the Japanese Socialist Party, which broke up almost continuous LDP control of Japan’s purse strings, judiciary and every aspect of Japanese society, remained weak though the LDP now found itself in opposition. In the next election, the JSP lost because of their weak leadership and the LDP returned to power.
Third example: When Liberal Kim Dae-jung came to power in South Korea, in 1998, it was the first time that a liberal opposition party had broken the conservative stranglehold over Korea first established under strongman Rhee Syng-man and continued under Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan. Kim broke the political barrier and brought a liberal party to Seoul
which, unlike Taiwan and Japan, remains in power, and for the first time in East Asian history, a woman (Park Guen-hye) is the incumbent female President of a very aternalistic society. Nevertheless, the judiciary, the corporate world, the monied classes, and the paternalistic hierarchy remain in control of the autocratic conservative opposition parties.
When Marcos fell, Corazon Aquino came to power and replacing the old elite in the Palace which continues under the leadership of liberal-leaning Benigno Aquino III (‘Noy Noy’ Aquino). However, the judiciary in Manila remains traditional and conservative, Noy Noy’s party is not wealthy and most Filipino CEOs and monied classes support conservative opposition parties which control the purse strings. These are all examples of your ‘paradigm.’
Finally, hypothetically, were any of the Malaysian opposition parties to come to power (unlikely, but theoretically possible) and take over Putrajaya, there is no doubt whatsoever that UMNO, even as an opposition party, would still control the judiciary, control society, hold the purse strings (as none of the Malaysian opposition parties have nearly as much money as UMNO), and would dominate the political scene, even out of power.
I have provided you four example (Taiwan, Korea, Japan, and the Philippines) and one
hypothetical example (Malaysia) where what you describe above happened in three countries. The fact that Thailand is in good company with democratic and stable Japan, Taiwan and Korea (the Philippines is truly democratic, but not always stable and very corrupt), should tell you something fairly obvious, that like Taiwan, Korea, Japan, and
even the Philippines (corrupt but democratic), the obvious take-home message is that, like the Philippines, Thailand may be corrupt and is still a monarchy, but the other message is that Thailand IS A Democracy, irrespective of its serious problems. I have now answered your question.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Middle class rage threatens democracy
Peter,
It’s more a bias towards the democratic process.
As we have established, the opposition/old elite has clearly lots of powers, agencies with the assignment to provide checks and balances are most of the time clearly aligned against the current government (which is not really a bad thing, though the bias should be more rational from time to time).
I have no real sympathy for Thaksin and I am quite sure in a different time under a different constitution he would have been quite an ugly dictator, but I really have only disdain for the old elite and their whistle-mob, who don’t want to give away even the meager scraps the poor got from Thaksin and who look down one the vast majority of the population with disgust.
Sleeping dogs
Yeah, the Chinese will deal with this Rohingya/Muslim menace including stray dogs named “Kalar Ma” in Burma (Mian-Dian is the proper name for that Chinese Protectorate!), the same way they are dealing with the Uyghurs in Sinkiang (not to mention those “self-enlightening” Buddhist monks in Tibet, where caterpillar fungus grows)
Zhongguo Zhongguo ├╝ber alles und ├╝berall
LOL
Thaksinomics, poverty and inequality
Andrew: the data you present is extremely useful and raise a number of points:
1.’All boats rise with the tide’ seems to sum up the figures. Increasing incomes (which as several comments imply is not necessarily the same as increasing prosperity let alone Bhutanesque happiness)seem have have been uniform across all levels.
2.It is interesting that, whilst income inequality has shown little decline, at least the usual mantra (that ‘the rich get richer while the poor…..’)does not seem to apply.
3. T F Rhoden’s comment could be addressed, Andrew, a) if you showed the Lorenz Curve for different dates (that curve simply being the graphical equivalent of the Gini Coefficient and b) if you indicated how many sub-sets of the total were used in calculating the Gini Coefficient (since there would be some differences in the result [the GC] if the raw data were grouped by deciles (subsets of 10% of the total), quintiles (subsets of 20%) or quartiles. Even so, the GC is almost universally used as THE measure of income inequality because it is – so far – the best measure devised.
4. At all dates shown the GC is VERY high.
5. It may be useful to remember that effectively the GC indicates how much of the total of the income of the population being considered would have to be redistributed in order to achieve total equality of income.
Middle class rage threatens democracy
Sven,
Your bias in favor of Thaksin is abundantly clear. I am sure if you accumulated wealth, avoided paying taxes, and ran a country like a fiefdom, I doubt you would be afforded amnesty by any party or nation. Thaksin is just like former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori who also avoided taxes (and had to flee Peru for Japan), accumulated massive wealth, and ran Peru like his own fiefdom.
Sure, he distributed money to the Peruvian poor and fought the terrorist Sendoro Luminoso (Shining Path) Maoist movement, killing many extremists (for which he was praised) and many innocent Peruvians ‘caught in the crossfire (for which he is not).
Thaksin will not be remembered by history as a competent, honest, fair, democratic, non-tyrannical, and patriotic leader, anymore than you can make Durian smell like Chanel No. 5.
Middle class rage threatens democracy
Jim: You do yourself a disservice with this sort of underhanded misrepresentation – I said wide, not narrow.
Middle class rage threatens democracy
“Ghost” advises us that there is “deep and widespread disgust at Thaksin.” Well, why not? After all, TRT and its successors managed to divert some hogs-at-the-trough monies from old-money/military elite types to the needs of working-class Thais. So why shouldn’t there be “disgust” for the coup-deposed Thaksin on the part of the elite?
Middle class rage threatens democracy
Well summed up.
Middle class rage threatens democracy
Let’s say ‘tyrannical’ then.
Middle class rage threatens democracy
Your premise that the Democrats, out of power, are ‘Dictators’ or ‘supposed Dictators’ is unsubstantiated, as is the original premise itself.
Middle class rage threatens democracy
There is polling data from a Bangkok University Research Institute survey reported in the 24 January Bangkok Post (http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/391266/about-80-would-vote-if-feb-2-polls-go-ahead-says-pollster):
o Asked if the ongoing political turmoil has had an effect on their plans to vote in the Feb 2 polls, 52.6% said ‘yes’. Of those who said ‘yes’, 34.3% would wait to evaluate the situation before deciding to turn out; 18.3% said it discourages them from voting.
o 47.4% said the turbulence has no effect at all; 23.4% of this group said they would cast votes; 24% said they felt they must turn out as it is their duty under the democratic system.
o Asked whether they would vote if the election takes place on Feb 2, 79.6% of the polled people said yes, 9.9% said they would not and 10.5% were unsure.
o Asked if the Feb 2 election should go ahead, 51.5% of them said yes, 28.1% said there should be national reform before an election, and 20.4% said the scheduled election should be postponed.
o Asked whether they would support a coup by the armed forces if the situation escalates with more violence, death and injuries, 56% said no, 21.6% said yes, and 22.4% were unsure.
What are to make of this poll? Some details are available about the methodology and sample makeup at the Bk Univ website (url below). It is based on a random sample of 1,018 persons, geographically distributed, a range of ages and occupations. It was a telephone survey. The methodology for acquiring phone numbers is not described, nor how they handled unanswered calls. Nothing is said about whether there was an effort to include cell phones as well as land lines — one gets a more representative sample with cell phones included. The demographics of the sample suggest that the pool of persons interviewed skews away from rural people, farmers and such. One sees that in the 30+% of the sample with bachelors and post-graduate degrees and in the lack of an ‘agricultural worker’ category in the occupations.
So it is perhaps all the more remarkable that it shows 80% intending to vote and just 28% supporting ‘reform before elections’.
Here’s that url: http://bangkokpoll.bu.ac.th/poll/result/poll667.php?pollID=530&Topic=%A1%D2%C3%E0%C5%D7%CD%A1%B5%D1%E9%A7%B7%E8%D2%C1%A1%C5%D2%A7%A4%C7%D2%C1%A2%D1%B4%E1%C2%E9%A7%B7%D2%A7%A1%D2%C3%E0%C1%D7%CD%A7&fileDoc=poll667.pdf
Middle class rage threatens democracy
Do all (or any) of your examples involve a ‘supposed tyrant/dictator/autocrat’ ?
Sleeping dogs
Unfortunate CURRENT reality is Chinese are buying up all the prime land in Mandalay and now Rangoon especially in industrial areas and has a COT ACROSS the country like dagger Pipelines every one is so delighted to have and are buying every thing they want including dogs and women.
And Chinese (spelt Khin Shwe) run the so-called parliament whatever the dress up clown congregation people spend tens of thousands of dollars every single day to support.
Yet mighty Burmese are delighted to be “maids” in Hong Kong (as Hong Kong wants to get rid of the Filipino as they want to screw them about the Spratley)and bully the Kalars.
The Sit-tut, the slaves of the Chinese, is simply neurotic bullies unfortunately supported by the honourable “International Communities: and academics, journalists, etc. and loyal opposition. Poor Burma! Poor poor people of Burma, including the Kalars!
Middle class rage threatens democracy
How are Democrats feeling disenfranchised? Do they think the military are losing their capacity to stage coups?
Middle class rage threatens democracy
Actually, this is not what Sven wrote about, because none of the above was a supposed tyrant, whatever their corruption. Besides, factual mistakes abound.
Taiwan: Chen Shuibian did have financial scandals, but the DPP rule ended with election. I must note that Chen’s 2004 reelection was the only time ever that (slightly) more than half Taiwanese voted for the DPP, and the DPP had most of the electorate against them most of the time (including all legislative elections during Chen’s tenure). This is why his control was limited, and while the bureaucracy and the Taipei people were indeed mostly pro-KMT, they never turned to illegal obstruction, nay a coup d’état.
Japan: The Socialists ruled as part of an unlikely coalition of everyone-but-LDP that broke down early in its second year. After this happened, Murayama formed a cabinet (as the first Socialist PM since 1947) in coalition with LDP, no less.
Korea: No, the liberals have not remained in power. Actually, Park Geun-hye is Park Chung-hee’s own daughter. Again, the liberals lost power in regular election (2008).
Ramkhamhaeng: A view from inside the stadium
“As to the alleged shooter i have photographed, police had to let him go as there was not enough evidence. That does happen. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat ….” – Nick Nostitz
My my my! That is quick. But if Nick Nostitz (chronicler to the Red cause) is satisfied that justice had been served, that the captured shooter (of many Reds btw) had to be set free by the police because ‘there was NOT enough evidence’, I guess everything must be all right.
AND YET that ‘not enough evidence’ disturbs me, and again, I could smell a rotten fish in this ‘captured shooter story of Nick-N’:
(a) Nick-N had. photo evidence of the capture of this alleged shooter of Red sympathizers at Rajmangala Stadium.
(b) The shooter was captured by the Reds, and there MUST have been a gun as evidence.
(c) Nick-N captured a photograph of a Red victim who identified the captured shooter as the very same assasin who shot him in the arm! This must be damning evidence and by itself would have been enough to indict the shooter and keep the suspect in custody thru trial.
But Nick-N seems very satisfied that indeed there is ‘lack of evidence’, satisfied enough to wisely quote: “Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat ….”
That’s Latin btw, and I checked the translation ‘the presumption of innocence must be upheld however damning the evidence especially if the suspect is a Red’.
Bangkok’s last Red Shirt fortress
Compassion and also reason go out of the window when the need to defend one side of the argument regardless of the facts is absolutely paramount. It is called bigotry.
Middle class rage threatens democracy
Thanks Peter for your examples, and I am sure during the course of the democratic process you could find numerous other countries, where the separation of powers is taken to an extreme or where other factors sharply limit the powers of a government (US presidents regularly loosing the majority in at least one chamber of congress midterm would be one). But that was not my point. My point was that you can hardly call it a dictatorship or even a dictatorship under the mask of democracy (like the protesters do with all their stupid comparisons “Do you know who was also elected…”)
It’s not a dictatorship when a PM can loose his job for a cooking show, it’s not a dictatorship when it’s impossible to get an amnesty for the supposed dictator in six years, it’s not a dictatorship when the election-laws are constantly changed so the opposition gets better results, and it’s not a dictatorship, when the constitutional court, rather than deciding about the constitutionality of a project, decides politically (like they did with the high-speed-railway that they though “Thailand doesn’t need”).
So now that we have established that the Shinawatras can’t really be described as tyrants with a firm control of Thailand, why don’t we let democracy run it’s course instead of getting rid of it.
Middle class rage threatens democracy
You seem eager to ignore the fact that the anti-government protests are a legitimate expression of deep and widespread disgust at Thaksin and his proxies cynical ‘gaming’ of the democratic system to entrench themselves in power, and that the election boycott by the Democrat Party is a way of drawing attention to this.
The end of constitutionalism in Malaysia
As I am getting rather sick and tired of all the nonsense surrounding the Malaysian Constitution, much of which is crap, I would like to set the historical record straight, for Malaysians and non-Malaysians unfamiliar with the events of that period.
All that is lost in all the wrangling over ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ is the fairly obvious historical fact that is was the British who set up a Malay civil service and aristocratic leadership (the Tunku) and the Malaysian Constitution is not some handiwork of Malay or Bumiputera intellectuals or nationalists (would that it were), but of British colonial planning, for the rather obvious reason that Malays at the time were either poor semi-literate kampung dwellers or rich aristocracy (Rajahs and Royals) who followed whatever the British wanted. Middle-class Malays did not come into real existence until about 30 years later. The British imported Tamils to work the rubber plantations and then ignored them, and the Chinese came to work the tin mines and start businesses and were also summarily ignored by the British.
One would think, listening to Perkasa, that Ibrahim Ali or Mahathir (God or ‘Allah’ help us) wrote the Malaysian Constitution. Far from it, not even Ahmad Boestamam, Ishak Mohammad and other Malay anti-colonial nationalists wrote the Constitution. The Reid Commission that devised the constitution consisted of Royalty from each of the Malay states in the Federated Peninsula, Tunku Abdul Rahman, and the British High Commissioner; there were no Malay or Bumiputera kampung dwellers, no middle-class Malays, no Malay nationalists, and in fact, no non-Malays at all; it was a pact between the British High Commissioner and the Malay aristocracy, as represented by the Tunku at the federal level, and the State Rulers (Royals all to the last letter), leaving out 99 % or more of Malaya’s population.
In all this back-and-forth, it is conveniently forgotten (perhaps for ideological reasons), that were there no British in 1957, subsequently, there would be no Constitution, as inconvenient as that may be for some Malaysians to hear, lest genteel Royal and politically-connected sensibilities be harmed by historical facts. If kampung dweller’s sensibilities, as well as those of non-Malays, are injured by history, that is a different matter entirely than my having to assuage Dr Mahathir’s over burdensome ego, and I would completely understand why poor Malays, Bumiputeras and non-Malays might feel disenfranchised, particularly Bumiputeras, Orang Asli, and Tamil plantation workers, who seem entirely forgotten all together in the whole process. Given this well-documented history, on what basis does Perkasa and its cohorts claim ownership of the Constitution ?
They aren’t British, they aren’t royalty, Mahathir is arguably not even a (full) Malay,
and Ibrahim Ali’s constituency wasn’t even involved in the Constitution’s inception, rightly or wrongly. As the British are no longer in Malaysia, except as tourists, expats and CEOs, and Dr Mahathir tried to clip the wings of Royal authority and their (former) unlimited use of power, and as the Tunku’s UMNO is not at all that of PM Najib’s UMNO, and including the later addition of Sarawak and Sabah to the Malaysian federation, I see only two legitimate possibilities for Constitutional ownership: It belongs only to the Royalty, in which case I would argue for a people’s revolution in Malaysia, or it belongs to nobody in particular, which perforce means, it belongs to EVERYBODY in Malaysia.
Middle class rage threatens democracy
Yes Sven, I can:
When Chen Shui Bian became President of Taiwan in 2000, replacing many many years of Kuomintang Nationalist control of Taiwan under Lee Teng-Hui (after Cheng Kai Shek), during Chen’s semi pro-Independence eight years in government, ALL the judiciary, reigns of power, money, control of the Taiwanese social hierarchy remained with the
opposition Nationalists (exactly fitting your putative paradigm). Chen and his party had little control, and in fact due to internal scandals, in 2008 lost power back to the Kuomintang Nationalists. So, there is one example.
Secondly, during their brief reign in power, the Japanese Socialist Party, which broke up almost continuous LDP control of Japan’s purse strings, judiciary and every aspect of Japanese society, remained weak though the LDP now found itself in opposition. In the next election, the JSP lost because of their weak leadership and the LDP returned to power.
Third example: When Liberal Kim Dae-jung came to power in South Korea, in 1998, it was the first time that a liberal opposition party had broken the conservative stranglehold over Korea first established under strongman Rhee Syng-man and continued under Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan. Kim broke the political barrier and brought a liberal party to Seoul
which, unlike Taiwan and Japan, remains in power, and for the first time in East Asian history, a woman (Park Guen-hye) is the incumbent female President of a very aternalistic society. Nevertheless, the judiciary, the corporate world, the monied classes, and the paternalistic hierarchy remain in control of the autocratic conservative opposition parties.
When Marcos fell, Corazon Aquino came to power and replacing the old elite in the Palace which continues under the leadership of liberal-leaning Benigno Aquino III (‘Noy Noy’ Aquino). However, the judiciary in Manila remains traditional and conservative, Noy Noy’s party is not wealthy and most Filipino CEOs and monied classes support conservative opposition parties which control the purse strings. These are all examples of your ‘paradigm.’
Finally, hypothetically, were any of the Malaysian opposition parties to come to power (unlikely, but theoretically possible) and take over Putrajaya, there is no doubt whatsoever that UMNO, even as an opposition party, would still control the judiciary, control society, hold the purse strings (as none of the Malaysian opposition parties have nearly as much money as UMNO), and would dominate the political scene, even out of power.
I have provided you four example (Taiwan, Korea, Japan, and the Philippines) and one
hypothetical example (Malaysia) where what you describe above happened in three countries. The fact that Thailand is in good company with democratic and stable Japan, Taiwan and Korea (the Philippines is truly democratic, but not always stable and very corrupt), should tell you something fairly obvious, that like Taiwan, Korea, Japan, and
even the Philippines (corrupt but democratic), the obvious take-home message is that, like the Philippines, Thailand may be corrupt and is still a monarchy, but the other message is that Thailand IS A Democracy, irrespective of its serious problems. I have now answered your question.