| |
China Sailor
|
I love the fact that everyone is arguing about the symptoms and not discussing the root causes.
It is just like blaming the rise of the Nazi Party and WWII on Adolf Hitler without considering the effects of the Treaty of Versailles on both the German people and the World Economy as a whole.
Lets get down to root causes here. The reason that Thaksin is so beloved by the 'Reds' is that for whatever reason, fair or foul, he has taken the issues that the lower working class Thai has to heart and took some action to provide some redress.
On the other hand the Royalists, Intellectuals, and Merchant classes have refused to even consider the concerns of the working class and in fact have continued to enact policies to maintain the current class system of privilege and discrimination.
If Thaksin were to suddenly disappear from the face of the Earth that would not cause a stop to the instability and disruption that is being caused by the Reds.... oh it may abate for awhile but it will rise again as sure as the sun rises in the east.
The only way for Thailand to regain the stability and growth it has enjoyed for the last 20 years is by addressing the issues of the working poor and taking action to ensure that their voices are heard and that the oppression from corrupt officials is punished.
The PRC has recognized this and the recent Party Congress has taken action to correct these issues in Chinese Society.
The Indian Government has recognized this and is beginning some 'baby-steps' to do the same.
Both Brazil and Argentina have realized that unless the needs of the masses are considered stability is not possible.
Finally do you think the 'dog and pony' show that the American Government is putting on to 'punish' the financial industry for their excesses is because they want to do the 'right thing'.... hell no.... it is all to appease the average American voter before the next election.
Until Abhsit and the Parliament take action to seriously address the issues of the Reds, there will be not stability and no peace...
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 11:40 pm on May 2, 2010
|
|
Adventure Guy
|
Kaymanx: "A democratic protest ought to feature unarmed peaceful people, to my mind."
They tried that. That the citizens had no peaceful choice is far too evident from their lengthy peaceful requests followed by relatively very peaceful demonstrations (until the opponent's military started firing) seeking nothing more than another democratic election, as opposed to the continuing actions of the unelected rulers who risk rebellion and a civil war by refusing a peaceful offer to immediately dissolve their illegitimate parliament. Thus allowing themselves to buy time to change constitutional laws to further their illegitimacy and thus negate any future hope of representative government. Simultaneously stalling to consolidate military allegiance through high level firings and appointments. The Thai government has in fact even banned well-meaning Noble Peace recipients from attempting to barter a peaceful solution and have even forbid them from contact with the rebels.
The right of revolution or rebellion is enshrined throughout history in some of the greatest writings on the rights of man and consequently in the constitutional laws of nations dedicated to those rights. It is found as early as in the Zhou Dynasty of China, an Europe in the Magna Carta, in the United States Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, in the French Revolution's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, etc., etc.
The Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776 proclaimed as inherent in the natural rights of men, the right to rebel against oppressive government, stating that "all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people” and that "whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal." The right to for citizens to bear arms is an integral principle.
There could not be a more clear case than in Thailand, for far too many good reasons as China Sailor has elaborated well, with a disenfranchised majority, where a minority of the wealthy in Bangkok, aligned with a military under their control, effected a coup against a duly elected though admittedly corrupt premiere who was a champion of the economically oppressed rural majority of the population, then compounded that with further illegal dissolution of another premiere to appoint a leader of their own minority choice.
Significant in all of this is the absolutely illegal banishment of an entire political party for the wrongdoings of some of its individual members, as Mr. Alan has so well elaborated.
While I could spend days countering the justifications of Kaymanx, his lengthy attempt to compare corporations to a political party are like comparing apples to...well...zebras... perhaps. While he is certainly correct that laws hold individuals and corporations equally responsible, he is totally misguided in making any analogy to the treatment of entire political parties as one entity. Doing so is not a legal act as he tries to equate, but is a heinous political act in itself and is just one more act of tyranny to add to the others.
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Sensual Bangkok Women
Posted on: 11:46 pm on May 2, 2010
|
|
Kaymanx
|
AdventureGuy, Mr.Alan
1. Before you go overweight on the analogy I drew between banning of corporate entities and outlawing political parties, bear in mind that the overexposure of this one point, out of several I made in my previous posts, resulted from Mr.Alan’s bombast that: (i) the very concept of banning an entire entity was practiced only in banana republics and (ii) that such banning would never be allowed in the USA and “would be rejected by the US Supreme Court by a 9-0 vote, by both right wing and left wing judges in the US.” This was a sweeping, absurd and false claim which implied that a defensive, or reactive, or corrective (whatever) measure, like banning, taken in the rest of the world was defective in American eyes – and, by default, by democratic standards. The links I provided were meant to show that Mr.Alan’s overreaching claim on US law and “banana republics” itself stood on a banana peel.
But, going by his dismissive ‘blah blah’ response it is clear that democratic principles of having a receptive mind, and being open to correction, are too difficult to heed for some hard core preachers.
2. I would also suggest you re-read my earlier post (of 10:32 pm on May 1, 2010). I once again stress that such a ban of a political party would not have been necessitated in the first place IF the party itself practiced internal democracy. That is the first thing any political party owes to its voters whom it promises a democratic government. If party members had protested when the founder committed mega frauds and brazenly outraged democratic institutions to strengthen his position, I am sure they would themselves have ejected him in time and saved their party – and their country. That would have been heroic, and even raised their image in the eyes of the general public and brought them many additional voters. More importantly it would have avoided the widespread perception that it was only a tool of abuse and self-aggrandizement in his hands.
Note that such inner party democracy IS quite common in many other Asian countries which therefore rarely see political parties banned. Politicians in many Asian nations today are quite quick to pull their colleagues within the party down and, all other considerations aside, this in itself is a big assurance to voters that the party is democratic and vibrant and is bigger than the individual.
3. Why all this long debate on the “symptoms,” as China Sailor pointed out ? Note that the Reds themselves are not talking about welfare measures or poverty alleviation. They are not talking about the neglect of Issan, the farmers, the sick, the poor, or education in the villages, employment, medical care, or better wages and support for the have-nots. If they are indeed focusing on all these issues in the Thai language, and losing it in the English translation appearing in the English media and internet posts, then I apologise to them and withdraw my comments.
But, as events have unfurled over the months, their focus itself is on the “symptom” (to use China Sailor’s description) of undemocratic practice. Therefore I argue that while debating on the “symptoms,” attention must not be taken away from the crimes of subversion and totalitarianism that the Thaksin administration was perpetuating. And they are employing outrageously violent means that are tantamount to waging war against their own nation.
What is Thaksin himself talking about ? He is only talking about the illegitimacy of the present government thereby riveting all the world’s attention on this “symptom.” IN the present confrontation, has he anywhere referred to his agenda of welfare and prosperity for the masses and the neglect of the poor by the elite ? If he has and I have not seen them, kindly produce the web links, or other reading reference, here so I, like many others, could be better educated, and learn to appreciate the virtues of this man.
4. As I said earlier, Thaksin and his cronies would have been more effective in their fightback if he had returned to Thailand to be with his supporters. Why is he running scared when he has the backing of so many armed supporters ? If he was fighting for welfare of the masses he ought to be physically present on the streets and in the provinces now when his constituents need him most. Why is he manipulating them from outside, rolling in airconditioned luxury, while the rest of the country remains traumatized ? The great social reformers and champions of the poor in Asia and Africa walked among their people, lived in withering conditions, spent time in jail, and never minted millions while setting off armed insurgency in their own countries.
5. AdventureGuy: It is ridiculous to justify their resort to armed, vicious tactics by conjuring up an image of vulnerability of the poor masses. Storming the APEC meet last year, the Chula hospital this year, threatnening to destroy skytrain installations, threatening to kill the prime minister … you justify these ? If so, you have only fallen in the trap set up by the reds for sympathizers like you.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 4:34 am on May 3, 2010
|
|
Shredded Wheat
|
Quote: from Mr Alan on 8:57 pm on May 2, 2010
...But to ban a political party is a tyranny which cannot be allowed to stand...
Surely there are situations where the banning of a political party is justified? These red shirts and their bully boy antics make me think of the Nazis.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Sexy Bangkok Girls
Posted on: 10:42 am on May 3, 2010
|
|
Mr Alan
|
Quote: from Shredded Wheat on 10:42 am on May 3, 2010
Surely there are situations where the banning of a political party is justified? These red shirts and their bully boy antics make me think of the Nazis.
There might be situations were a party is baned because it advocates the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government. The Nazi Party (or Communist Party) are not baned from competing in elections the US.
Since the current Thai government was installed into power via a military coup, and was kept in power in spite of being defeated at the polls in the next election, it should be the current party in power that is banned. This is common sense.
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 1:19 pm on May 3, 2010
|
|
Mr Alan
|
Quote: from Kaymanx on 4:34 am on May 3, 2010
AdventureGuy, Mr.Alan
1. Before you go overweight on the analogy I drew between banning of corporate entities and outlawing political parties, bear in mind that the overexposure of this one point, out of several I made in my previous posts, resulted from Mr.Alan’s bombast that: (i) the very concept of banning an entire entity was practiced only in banana republics and (ii) that such banning would never be allowed in the USA and “would be rejected by the US Supreme Court by a 9-0 vote, by both right wing and left wing judges in the US.” This was a sweeping, absurd and false claim which implied that a defensive, or reactive, or corrective (whatever) measure, like banning, taken in the rest of the world was defective in American eyes – and, by default, by democratic standards. The links I provided were meant to show that Mr.Alan’s overreaching claim on US law and “banana republics” itself stood on a banana peel.
(i) What I suggested is that someone who did not understand the difference between baning a commercial entity that committed a crime versus a banning a entire political party based on corruption charges of one of its members, might be from a banana republic, and I was merely inquiring as to which one you are from? But let me be more specific--your reasoning is defective, not necessarily the rest of the world outside the USA.
(ii) My point was that both liberal and conservative members of the US Supreme Court (who rarely seem to agree on anything these days) would be unanimous in their condemnation of banning a political party based on corruption charges against one (or any number) of its members.
But, going by his dismissive ‘blah blah’ response it is clear that democratic principles of having a receptive mind, and being open to correction, are too difficult to heed for some hard core preachers.
The blah blah was not dismissive, but was to save space. Your posts ramble on forever, and there is no good reason to quote them in their entirety.
2. I would also suggest you re-read my earlier post (of 10:32 pm on May 1, 2010). I once again stress that such a ban of a political party would not have been necessitated in the first place IF the party itself practiced internal democracy. That is the first thing any political party owes to its voters whom it promises a democratic government.
Ridiculous. There is no legal or moral requirement that a political party select their candidates via democratic means. The only requirement is that the election run by the government be democratic.
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Beautiful Thai Girls
Posted on: 1:48 pm on May 3, 2010
|
|
S M E G M A
|
Quote: from Mr Alan on 1:19 am on May 4, 2010
Since the current Thai government was installed into power via a military coup, and was kept in power in spite of being defeated at the polls in the next election, it should be the current party in power that is banned.
Some things in that sentence don't make sense.
First the actual Thai government was not installed into power via a military coup. After the coup there were elections.
Now, if you mean that the actual government was installed after a coup had previously happened, this would also be true of previous governments (there had been many coups during the XX century) as it will be true of all those to come. Anything happening in the future in Thailand will always be "after the 2006 coup". All future governments will be after the 2006 coup.
And second, "the next election" hasn't yet taken place, so how can the current government be kept in power in spite of being defeated in the next election?). Also, maybe Alan is confused about how democracy works in parliamentary systems; the head of government doesn't need to come from the party that gets the most seats, i.e. could be from a "defeated" party.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 6:09 pm on May 3, 2010
|
|
Mr Alan
|
I am well aware of how a PM is elected by Parliament. Which is why outlawing the opposition party because of the behavior of one member who may have been convicted of corruption is unacceptable.
Your example of the PM coming from the defeated party explains why banning a corporate entity is not anything like banning a political party, because members of Parliament can vote however they which regardless of which party they belong to and regardless of their party "leaders" tell them.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Active Thai Girls
Posted on: 6:30 pm on May 3, 2010
|
|
PussyLover 69
|
Report from Bangkok Post dated Tuesday 4 May 2010 :-
PM proposes Nov 14 poll date - Red shirt leaders push case for an amnesty
=======================================
Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has offered to hold a general election on Nov 14 as part of a plan to achieve national reconciliation.
Mr Abhisit said in a television appearance last night for the first time a general election would be held on Nov14 - but only if five objectives underpinning a national conciliation were achieved.
They are: the monarchy must not be used as a tool in political conflicts; the country must be reformed by tackling economic disparities and inequality; the media must refrain from reports which exacerbate social or political conflicts; an independent fact-finding panel must be appointed to review fatal incidents involving security forces and protesters; and the reconciliation process must be carried out with the cooperation of all sides.
"Today, we seek to mend political disputes stemming from many causes," the prime minister said.
"The problems have accumulated over the years and deepened the divisions in society. The answer to the crisis at hand which I'd like to put forward today is that we must initiate a process of reconciliation."
Mr Abhisit said the five objectives were floated after he held extensive discussions with many affected parties.
The Nov 14 election would involve dissolving the House between 45 and 60 days in advance, according to the constitution. That meant the dissolution would be fixed sometime between the end of August or early September.
In earlier negotiations with the red shirt core leaders, the government proposed to dissolve the House and call for a fresh election in nine months, or around December. The red shirt leaders rejected the proposal.
The movement initially pressed for a dissolution within 15 days before changing it to a dissolution of the House immediately. It later relaxed the demand and demanded a dissolution within a month.
A political source said prior to Mr Abhisit's announcement last night the government and the red shirt leaders had been in talks about the timing of the dissolution of the House.
The red shirt leaders said an amnesty decree should be passed to exonerate protesters who had violated the law.
The government said it was open to talks about establishing an amnesty for people who had violated the emergency law that prohibits political gatherings of more than five people, but it could not offer an amnesty for those who had committed criminal offences.
UDD leader Veera Musikhapong said the reconciliation road map was "interesting" but UDD leaders wanted to hear the views of several parties such as the public, the media and the political parties. They would hold a meeting today to make a decision.
The issue of the reconciliation road map was unveiled by Mr Abhisit on Sunday when he gave an interview to Kyodo News.
Meanwhile on Monday, the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) stepped up its offensive against the protesters. It said it was prepared to use armoured vehicles in its operation to retake Ratchaprasong intersection and said it could not guarantee the safety of armed red shirt leaders.
In its renewed threat to use force to disperse the red crowds, CRES spokesman Sansern Kaewkamnerd said the army was instructed to mobilise armoured vehicles for use in military actions.
He also voiced suspicions about the red shirts' reluctance to open the area in front of Chulalongkorn Hospital along Ratchadamri Road.
"Why wouldn't they release the area? Are they hiding weapons in Lumpini Park?" he asked.
Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban, in his capacity of director of the CRES, said yesterday the use of force could not be ruled out because some of the protesters were armed.
"We will give them enough time... enough that everyone in this country knows that the rally is illegal and they cannot say they don't know," he said.
Mr Suthep said government forces to be used in the operation would be from the military, police and civilians.
Asked if the government intended to capture the red shirt leaders, dead or alive, Mr Suthep said: "How can I guarantee their safety?"
An army source said Monday the government was again forcing the military's hand to launch a crackdown. Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwon and army chief Anupong Paojinda were uneasy about the latest push, the source said.
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 6:35 pm on May 3, 2010
|
|
Valetta
|
If the only feature a political system absolutely had to possess, in order to be called "a democracy",was that popular elections be held at more or less regular intervals,then almost all world nations could be said to be democracies.
In fact so many obviously undemocratic nations call themselves " democratic " that the word has acquired a bad name.
The label that is attached to a political system does not of itself ensure a just and fair society.
Unless a political system has checks and balances that work effectively to produce outcomes, which distribute a nation`s wealth equitably among all its people,there is always going to be discontent that will from time to time result in civil unrest, and violence.
"Democracies"that are most successful in achieving a just and fair society have a genuine separation of powers that ensures the executive is not so independent that it can ignore the wishes of the popularly elected legislature while,at the same time, does not have its powers so restricted as to be incapable of taking decisive action,especially when a national emergency arises.
But a proper balance between the legislative and executive arms of government is not enough to ensure the outcome of a just and fair society.A truly independent judiciary is essential to ensure that government itself observes,and enforces its laws.A truly independent judiciary will,by virtue of its independence, have the opportunity to make its decisions in accordance with the law,and without fear or favour.
However,even when a separation of powers is embedded within a nation`s legislative,executive,and judicial framework the outcome of a just and fair society is not guaranteed.That outcome also requires the lawmakers,politicians,and judicial officers to be honest,reasonably competent and,above all,to have a sincere belief in the necessity for an effective separation of powers.
Taking all these requirements into account,it is no wonder that even those democracies who openly advocate a separation of powers often fall well short of achieving a just and fair society.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill,democracy is not a perfect system,merely the least worst we have devised to date.
Taking into account Thailand changed only in 1932 from an absolute monarchy to a nominally constitutional one,without any previous history of institutions which could be remotely described as democratic,it is not surprising its susequent history has been one of regular military coups,vote buying,political and judicial corruption,and royal intervention in the political process.
But I do think that there is emerging, among all sections of Thai society,a realisation that things need to change.This is reflected in the aims of PM Abhisit which he set out today when announcing the 14th November as a date for national elections.
There seems to be a growing acceptance that the poorer members of Thai society should have a greater share of the nation`s wealth,with better educational opportunities.
There also seems to be a general acceptance of a need for changes to be made to the post coup Constitution,particularly with respect to the powers of the electoral court to dissolve a whole political party for the sins of a few of its officials.After all there are proceedings now before the court to dissolve Abhisit`s own party,but unlike the proceedings which resulted in the dissolution of the party of the Red Shirts,the proceedings threatening Abhisit have been repeatedly adjourned.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 8:23 pm on May 3, 2010
|
|
| |
|
