Cases for and against ‘national government’

[webfact]

OPINION

Cases for and against ‘national government’

By Tulsathit Taptim 
The Nation

 

Things that are good are not necessarily feasible, especially in politics. This may apply to the prospective “national government”, which has been mooted amidst all the doom and gloom concerning the next general election. There are negatives associated with the idea, but the biggest one has to do with what has been happening, and will happen, otherwise anyway.

 

So, my list of pros and cons of a “national government” will start with that.

 

There will be no checks and balances. When a country has a “national government”, there will be no parliamentary opposition. Many consider this a major flaw of the idea, although they may have overlooked the fact that genuine checks and balances had never been efficient in the Thai system anyway. Granted, a “national government” would not have to endure a no-confidence debate, but if our censure debate had really constituted checks and balances, would we have ended up here to begin with?

 

There will not be blood. When Thailand is concerned, a national government would include the much-maligned military, the much-maligned Democrats and the much-maligned Pheu Thai Party. In other words, no much-maligned people would be left on the opposite side.

 

There would be no massive street protests and nobody would attempt to bomb them.

 

There are merits in “keeping the enemy closer”. That there would be no opposition doesn’t really mean there would be no leaks on corruption. When “enemies” work closely together, they tend to keep their eyes on one another, out of jealousy or whatever. Of course, there would be no parliamentary opposition to follow up on valuable leaks, but we have social media, don’t we?

 

We may at long last be able to put the right men in the right jobs. The winner-takes-all system is flawed democracy. Ask the Americans.

 

You deserve good rulers, not election winners. It’s as simple as that. A national government could provide a better pool of capable human resources. For example, if Pheu Thai is good at handling healthcare, let it do it. The same goes for the Democrats’ better records on, say, education.

 

But enemies are not supposed to work together as their conflicts could drag down the entire executive apparatus. All Thais are familiar with a children’s tale about how unified sparrows trapped under a hunter’s net managed to survive by lifting it through harmonious takeoff attempts, and how disunited sparrows are doomed under a similar trap. Will the military, Democrats and Pheu Thai be unified sparrows?

 

And the brave new world requires more political unity than ever. If the military controls the Interior Ministry; Pheu Thai the Public Health Ministry and the Labour Ministry; and the Democrats the Education Ministry and the Science Ministry, what would the implementation of, say, a policy to deal with our ageing society be like? Issues such as ageing or digital learning need government agencies to work like one.

 

There are such things as constructive rivalry, though. You are at your best when your opponent breathes down your neck. Or it can be said that instead of making a man reputed for mocking the law justice minister, a political party may at long last try someone with real integrity, just to look good when compared with rivals.

 

If it doesn’t work, it’s tantamount to sweeping everything under the carpet. Allowing problems or conflicts to remain and fester will only make their imminent explosion stronger.

 

At least that’s what many opposed to the national government idea think. Will a national government make the yellow-red divide go away? Not many people are confident that it will.

 

New charter?

 

What’s next if it works? This will be a big headache. Thailand’s constitutions, whether written by elected representatives, military nominees with good intentions, or “dictators in disguise”, all support the “winner-takes-all” system, in which election losers go straight to the opposition bloc no matter how better they may have been on certain administrative issues or how narrow the margins of their defeats are. If the “national government” system worked, would that require a rethink on a national scale – in other words, a new charter?

 

Coke and Pepsi are the same. Flawed democracy gives advertising more importance than it deserves, meaning “similar products” rely on quality of advertising rather than quality of action. This has made political parties, in Thailand at least, more alike than they care to admit. They all depend on propaganda, nepotism and the excuse of “conspiracy!” when accused of corruption. A national government would not effectively take care of those flaws, but it could turn the similarities into something worthwhile rather than destructive.

 

What do we need the election for, then? Exactly. This is a very strong argument against the idea of a national government. Although the fact that an argument is strong does not necessarily mean that it’s foolproof. That’s my two cents on the procs and cons. A national government could be a solution for, or a main cause of, future trouble. It depends on your perspective.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/opinion/30345490

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-05-16

[YetAnother]

33 minutes ago, webfact said:

It depends on your perspective.

"it depends" is a cheap way out of saying something but, in effect, saying nothing

[meechai]

There is no case for a National Government

 

If instead Military & Police would do the job they were sworn to do there would be no problem

upholding the law of the government elected by the people

 

If instead Yellow or Red mobs are allowed to run free while police & military do nothing then of course rinse & repeat as

military claim yet again a need for themselves to seize power

[Samui Bodoh]

What an idiot. Excuse me, what an Idiot.

 

Where does one begin with idiocy like this? How about; who decides who becomes the Prime Minister? If you ask the parties if they favour a 'National Government', I suspect that they will all say "sure, as long as we are the PM". And how exactly does that decision get made? The author does not say.

 

Who would get which ministries? The author says "...For example, if Pheu Thai is good at handling healthcare, let it do it. The same goes for the Democrats’ better records on, say, education...", but somehow doesn't explain exactly who would decide this. Some people might think PTP is good on Health, some might think the Dems are good on Health. Who decides? Some might think the PTP is better on Education while others think it is the Dems. The author doesn't say how a decision is made.

 

The parties will somehow work together, says the author. How exactly? The author does not say. One of the biggest battles inside any government (majority or coalition) is the allocation of monies to Ministries. Why exactly will this NOT lead to massive infighting? The answer is it will, and the author doesn't say how this would be resolved.

 

Finally, how does one judge the effectiveness of the various entities in the 'National Government' when their term ends? If they are all in it together, then they all share responsibility for its actions. How to judge? The author does not say.

 

This is one of the most idiotic and stupid articles I have ever seen. The author seems to have a 'bureaucratic' mindset where there is an answer to a problem rather than many possible answers, and that the idea of accountability does not exist. This attitude is truly scary; there is nothing more horrendous or terrifying than government by Bureaucracy; ask the old Soviet Union.

 

Politics is about the interplay of ideas where the people are asked to judge on a regular basis. If the ideas are good and the implementation of those ideas are done well, then the government should continue. If the opposition has better ideas or the implementation is done badly, then the people should remove the government.

 

Thailand's problem is that the PTB have stolen decision-making power away from the people. And that is why Thailand is where it is.; divided against itself under an authoritarian military.

 

The Thai people deserve better than this.

 

[Cadbury]

Vietnam seems to have what is described as a "national government" and that seems to work reasonably well. It is a single-party socialist republic run by a National Assembly of 500 people and headed up by a Prime Minister. Those people are elected to office by the various People's Councils/Committees throughout the Country. The judiciary is independent of the executive.

By contrast when Thailand gets it's "national government" it will be run by one man alone, military style, with his majority puppet members of parliament doing and voting exactly how they are instructed by him.

So much for democracy and elections in Thailand.

[Lungstib]

And just who would decide which institutes should be included in a 'national government'?  I have always been amazed at the audacity of certain groups which think they have the absolute right to partake in government without the citizens of Thailand having an input. Just why should the NLA be made up from 4 groups? What makes military people better at govt than say doctors, dentists, lawyers or teachers? It sounds easy, create a national govt but its who gets left out that worries me.

[Eligius]

The term, 'national government', always reminds me of the British Government headed up by Churchill during the years of World War Two. The battle then was against an outside enemy - the enemy of encroaching fascism.

 

In Thailand's case, the enemy is within - and that enemy is precisely those Thai fascists who go around advocating 'national government' - instead of full democracy and power to the Thai people!

 

[smutcakes]

40 minutes ago, Cadbury said:

Vietnam seems to have what is described as a "national government" and that seems to work reasonably well. It is a single-party socialist republic run by a National Assembly of 500 people and headed up by a Prime Minister. Those people are elected to office by the various People's Councils/Committees throughout the Country. The judiciary is independent of the executive.

By contrast when Thailand gets it's "national government" it will be run by one man alone, military style, with his majority puppet members of parliament doing and voting exactly how they are instructed by him.

So much for democracy and elections in Thailand.

Vietnam is okay for now, but they will start to run into problems as well. Social media will start to open up there and criticism of the corruption, largess of those National decision makers will slowly grow as well as resentment as to why a revolving door of appointed Committee's, councils etc all appointed among themselves have control over 90 million people with few outsiders of the club being allowed in. They are going great guns at the moment, but they will start to run into problems in their development the same as Thailand has in one way or another.

[Anak Nakal]

National government against outside people.

Thailand problem inside Thailand.

[candide]

2 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Finally, how does one judge the effectiveness of the various entities in the 'National Government' when their term ends? If they are all in it together, then they all share responsibility for its actions. How to judge? The author does not say.

That's a key issue. If there is no distinct majority that can be voted out, nobody will feel responsible and the only important issue will be how to share bribes. Italian politicians with their "combinazione" will look pale compared to their Thai counterparts.

.

[Eric Loh]

Article not worth reading. Incoherent and lacking intelligence. Poor attempt at undermining democracy and advocating continue military dominance. 

[Srikcir]

10 hours ago, webfact said:

The winner-takes-all system is flawed democracy

Isn't that the concept behind every coup: winner takes all, eliminates any opposition and serves only an elitist minority group which even Prayut has termed a politburo (as in a one-party communist nation)?

Sorry, that is not flawed democracy. Prayut calls it Thai Style Democracy aka an abortion of democracy.

[baboon]

10 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

What an idiot. Excuse me, what an Idiot.

 

Where does one begin with idiocy like this? How about; who decides who becomes the Prime Minister? If you ask the parties if they favour a 'National Government', I suspect that they will all say "sure, as long as we are the PM". And how exactly does that decision get made? The author does not say.

 

Who would get which ministries? The author says "...For example, if Pheu Thai is good at handling healthcare, let it do it. The same goes for the Democrats’ better records on, say, education...", but somehow doesn't explain exactly who would decide this. Some people might think PTP is good on Health, some might think the Dems are good on Health. Who decides? Some might think the PTP is better on Education while others think it is the Dems. The author doesn't say how a decision is made.

 

The parties will somehow work together, says the author. How exactly? The author does not say. One of the biggest battles inside any government (majority or coalition) is the allocation of monies to Ministries. Why exactly will this NOT lead to massive infighting? The answer is it will, and the author doesn't say how this would be resolved.

 

Finally, how does one judge the effectiveness of the various entities in the 'National Government' when their term ends? If they are all in it together, then they all share responsibility for its actions. How to judge? The author does not say.

 

This is one of the most idiotic and stupid articles I have ever seen. The author seems to have a 'bureaucratic' mindset where there is an answer to a problem rather than many possible answers, and that the idea of accountability does not exist. This attitude is truly scary; there is nothing more horrendous or terrifying than government by Bureaucracy; ask the old Soviet Union.

 

Politics is about the interplay of ideas where the people are asked to judge on a regular basis. If the ideas are good and the implementation of those ideas are done well, then the government should continue. If the opposition has better ideas or the implementation is done badly, then the people should remove the government.

 

Thailand's problem is that the PTB have stolen decision-making power away from the people. And that is why Thailand is where it is.; divided against itself under an authoritarian military.

 

The Thai people deserve better than this.

 

Cheers for posting. This is one of those OPs you read and wonder if it is just you or is the article complete balls. Complete balls, then... 

[KiwiKiwi]

11 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

What an idiot. Excuse me, what an Idiot.

 

Where does one begin with idiocy like this? How about; who decides who becomes the Prime Minister? If you ask the parties if they favour a 'National Government', I suspect that they will all say "sure, as long as we are the PM". And how exactly does that decision get made? The author does not say.

 

Who would get which ministries? The author says "...For example, if Pheu Thai is good at handling healthcare, let it do it. The same goes for the Democrats’ better records on, say, education...", but somehow doesn't explain exactly who would decide this. Some people might think PTP is good on Health, some might think the Dems are good on Health. Who decides? Some might think the PTP is better on Education while others think it is the Dems. The author doesn't say how a decision is made.

 

The parties will somehow work together, says the author. How exactly? The author does not say. One of the biggest battles inside any government (majority or coalition) is the allocation of monies to Ministries. Why exactly will this NOT lead to massive infighting? The answer is it will, and the author doesn't say how this would be resolved.

 

Finally, how does one judge the effectiveness of the various entities in the 'National Government' when their term ends? If they are all in it together, then they all share responsibility for its actions. How to judge? The author does not say.

 

This is one of the most idiotic and stupid articles I have ever seen. The author seems to have a 'bureaucratic' mindset where there is an answer to a problem rather than many possible answers, and that the idea of accountability does not exist. This attitude is truly scary; there is nothing more horrendous or terrifying than government by Bureaucracy; ask the old Soviet Union.

 

Politics is about the interplay of ideas where the people are asked to judge on a regular basis. If the ideas are good and the implementation of those ideas are done well, then the government should continue. If the opposition has better ideas or the implementation is done badly, then the people should remove the government.

 

Thailand's problem is that the PTB have stolen decision-making power away from the people. And that is why Thailand is where it is.; divided against itself under an authoritarian military.

 

The Thai people deserve better than this.

 

 

"The Thai people deserve better than this."

 

Seriously? Why? A people gets the government it deserves. All you and I can do is watch from a convenient vantage point. Personally I think the whole Thai edifice ought to be brought crashing down, but that's going to be a big ask, even for a population who are so good at forking things up as Thais.

 

[MrJohnson]

26 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

"The Thai people deserve better than this."

 

Seriously? Why? A people gets the government it deserves. All you and I can do is watch from a convenient vantage point. Personally I think the whole Thai edifice ought to be brought crashing down, but that's going to be a big ask, even for a population who are so good at forking things up as Thais.

 

A bit harsh. I'm assuming you are a New Zealander. If so, you are lucky enough to have inherited the Westminster system. Not perfect but a better system of government that most others that exist . Not all Thais are greedy, rich, selfish, uninformed etc. They deserve better than what they have. Unfortunately, in terms of political development they are about 700 years behind the British. That doesn't mean there isn't some hope. There are lots of Thais who have political views that are quite progressive, but in case you haven't noticed, these can get you into a whole lot of trouble. I'm hopeful that there can and will be change without bloodshed. Because if you are saying the whole edifice should be brought crashing down then there will be bloodshed. I for one certainly do not want to see that. And I live here. Certainly not a very convenient vantage point.

[metisdead]

A troll post has been removed as well as a reply. 

[KiwiKiwi]

9 minutes ago, MrJohnson said:

A bit harsh. I'm assuming you are a New Zealander. If so, you are lucky enough to have inherited the Westminster system. Not perfect but a better system of government that most others that exist . Not all Thais are greedy, rich, selfish, uninformed etc. They deserve better than what they have. Unfortunately, in terms of political development they are about 700 years behind the British. That doesn't mean there isn't some hope. There are lots of Thais who have political views that are quite progressive, but in case you haven't noticed, these can get you into a whole lot of trouble. I'm hopeful that there can and will be change without bloodshed. Because if you are saying the whole edifice should be brought crashing down then there will be bloodshed. I for one certainly do not want to see that. And I live here. Certainly not a very convenient vantage point.

 

 

Fair enough. I would prefer the non-violent ways but they don't work. Every single country that ever wrested power from the feudal barons, did so through violence - it's inevitable. Other than that, I accept your points. I also live here, but I've assiduously developed a reputation locally such that nobody is likely to give me a problem. Yes, I am a new Zealander.

 

I accept your viewpoint, if you've been here for 10 years or less, come back in another 5 and read my view again. I'll wager $100 yours will have changed.,

[Eligius]

38 minutes ago, MrJohnson said:

A bit harsh. I'm assuming you are a New Zealander. If so, you are lucky enough to have inherited the Westminster system. Not perfect but a better system of government that most others that exist . Not all Thais are greedy, rich, selfish, uninformed etc. They deserve better than what they have. Unfortunately, in terms of political development they are about 700 years behind the British. That doesn't mean there isn't some hope. There are lots of Thais who have political views that are quite progressive, but in case you haven't noticed, these can get you into a whole lot of trouble. I'm hopeful that there can and will be change without bloodshed. Because if you are saying the whole edifice should be brought crashing down then there will be bloodshed. I for one certainly do not want to see that. And I live here. Certainly not a very convenient vantage point.

Very good post, Mr. Johnson. I agree with you that there are quite a number of Thais who do hold progressive, democratic and justice-orientated views - I've met many of them. Yet having progressive and democratic views is one thing: having mental and physical COURAGE and GUTS is quite another. I have known (and know) highly educated Red Shirts - Ph.D.s and similar - who detest the junta; but when given even the slightest opportunity to rebel, to kick over the traces, to say NO to the entire rotten Thai hierarchical system (even in the smallest, symbolic ways)  - they baulk and funk it. No physical or moral courage. It is very, very sad to witness this (and I have witnessed it often).

 

I do not see how, realistically, Thailand can now liberate itself from tyranny save through violence (and I don't welcome that or long for it). The junta have got EVERYTHING so stitched up - legally, constitutionally, militarily - that no attempt at genuine political change through reason, debate and 'lawfulness' can possibly work now. The junta have made sure that the ONLY practical way for Thais to be free is if they physically turn on their slave-owners in their MILLIONS. The slave-owners are astute and realise that nowhere near that number of people will attack them. They probably reckon with pockets of violence (tens of thousands of people) - and they know that they can easily quell and crush such uprisings , as they did in 2010, and as they did also in earlier decades. That brutal slaughter of hundreds of human beings will mean nothing to the junta (who know nothing of humanity, after all) - but it will terrify the rest of the Thai populace into renewed submission (as we have seen for the past four long years).

 

The future is pretty much determined (although life is never ENTIRELY predictable, of course - thank God). The near future for Thailand is likely to be more of the same - the same old hierarchy, the same old lies to the public, the same old deceits, the same old intelligence-insults, the same old oppression, the same old appalling 'education', the same old massive wealth divide, the same old .... Thai-niyom.

 

And why? 

 

BECAUSE THE THAIS EN MASSE HAVE ALLOWED - AND ARE ALLOWING -  IT ALL TO HAPPEN, DAY IN, DAY OUT.

 

[Samui Bodoh]

20 minutes ago, Eligius said:

Very good post, Mr. Johnson. I agree with you that there are quite a number of Thais who do hold progressive, democratic and justice-orientated views - I've met many of them. Yet having progressive and democratic views is one thing: having mental and physical COURAGE and GUTS is quite another. I have known (and know) highly educated Red Shirts - Ph.D.s and similar - who detest the junta; but when given even the slightest opportunity to rebel, to kick over the traces, to say NO to the entire rotten Thai hierarchical system (even in the smallest, symbolic ways)  - they baulk and funk it. No physical or moral courage. It is very, very sad to witness this (and I have witnessed it often).

 

I do not see how, realistically, Thailand can now liberate itself from tyranny save through violence (and I don't welcome that or long for it). The junta have got EVERYTHING so stitched up - legally, constitutionally, militarily - that no attempt at genuine political change through reason, debate and 'lawfulness' can possibly work now. The junta have made sure that the ONLY practical way for Thais to be free is if they physically turn on their slave-owners in their MILLIONS. The slave-owners are astute and realise that nowhere near that number of people will attack them. They probably reckon with pockets of violence (tens of thousands of people) - and they know that they can easily quell and crush such uprisings , as they did in 2010, and as they did also in earlier decades. That brutal slaughter of hundreds of human beings will mean nothing to the junta (who know nothing of humanity, after all) - but it will terrify the rest of the Thai populace into renewed submission (as we have seen for the past four long years).

 

The future is pretty much determined (although life is never ENTIRELY predictable, of course - thank God). The near future for Thailand is likely to be more of the same - the same old hierarchy, the same old lies to the public, the same old deceits, the same old intelligence-insults, the same old oppression, the same old appalling 'education', the same old massive wealth divide, the same old .... Thai-niyom.

 

And why? 

 

BECAUSE THE THAIS EN MASSE HAVE ALLOWED - AND ARE ALLOWING -  IT ALL TO HAPPEN, DAY IN, DAY OUT.

 

Hi Eligius

 

I am not going to write out a long argument; perhaps one of these days we can go at it via PM and not on a public forum! 

 

For tonight;

• No one believed that the victory in Burma against the military was possible. It happened.
• No one believed that the victory in Malaysia against a ruling party of 60 years+ who held all the cards (sound familiar?) was possible. It happened.
• Thais, in one form or another have been fighting for their political rights since 1973 and thousands have died, tens of thousands have been injured and people have suffered greatly. You are doing a dis-service to those people. True they did not win, but their effort should be respected.
• This is a fight for the Thais. I share your desire to see the Thai people have the same, full political rights that I enjoy in my country and you enjoy in yours, but this is not our country. Thais must fight this fight and they must fight this fight in their way. I think we both would like to see the forces of goodness win and win quickly, but it is not our fight.
• If you are a beer drinker, put your feet up and have a beer. If your are a Whiskey drinker, put your feet up and have a glass. If you are neither a beer nor Whiskey drinker, then learn! 

Stay well, my friend!

 

[Siripon]

28 minutes ago, Eligius said:

Very good post, Mr. Johnson. I agree with you that there are quite a number of Thais who do hold progressive, democratic and justice-orientated views - I've met many of them. Yet having progressive and democratic views is one thing: having mental and physical COURAGE and GUTS is quite another. I have known (and know) highly educated Red Shirts - Ph.D.s and similar - who detest the junta; but when given even the slightest opportunity to rebel, to kick over the traces, to say NO to the entire rotten Thai hierarchical system (even in the smallest, symbolic ways)  - they baulk and funk it. No physical or moral courage. It is very, very sad to witness this (and I have witnessed it often).

 

I do not see how, realistically, Thailand can now liberate itself from tyranny save through violence (and I don't welcome that or long for it). The junta have got EVERYTHING so stitched up - legally, constitutionally, militarily - that no attempt at genuine political change through reason, debate and 'lawfulness' can possibly work now. The junta have made sure that the ONLY practical way for Thais to be free is if they physically turn on their slave-owners in their MILLIONS. The slave-owners are astute and realise that nowhere near that number of people will attack them. They probably reckon with pockets of violence (tens of thousands of people) - and they know that they can easily quell and crush such uprisings , as they did in 2010, and as they did also in earlier decades. That brutal slaughter of hundreds of human beings will mean nothing to the junta (who know nothing of humanity, after all) - but it will terrify the rest of the Thai populace into renewed submission (as we have seen for the past four long years).

 

The future is pretty much determined (although life is never ENTIRELY predictable, of course - thank God). The near future for Thailand is likely to be more of the same - the same old hierarchy, the same old lies to the public, the same old deceits, the same old intelligence-insults, the same old oppression, the same old appalling 'education', the same old massive wealth divide, the same old .... Thai-niyom.

 

And why? 

 

BECAUSE THE THAIS EN MASSE HAVE ALLOWED - AND ARE ALLOWING -  IT ALL TO HAPPEN, DAY IN, DAY OUT.

 

Too much nonsense in the above post.

Thais overthrew the military regimes of 1973 and 1992 by mass demonstrations.

2010 was Thaksin's attempt to wrest back his seized assets by using the poor as cannon fodder. It was not a mass movement of genuine democracy.

Thailand is very diverse- rubber planters have nothing in common with sugar cane growers, for example, except for concern about crop price.

Motorcycle taxi drivers on Sukhumvit have nothing in common with factory workers in industrial estates.

Some of those factory workers earn over 25,000 baht a month with overtime and get annual bonuses of 3 months or more.

Some of those motorcycle taxi drivers earn more than 500 baht a day.

Look at all the houses built upcountry and the pick-ups parked in most driveways.

All bought on hire purchse, but there they sit, being paid off month by month by siblings of the house owners.

And you hope for a revolution by the 'slaves'!

  

 

 

[observer90210]

Nothing will progress, until street or counter level corruption, is not ruthlessly erradicated within the government servants.

 

Next step would be to improve the training of the bureaucrats and sack those too lazy to do their jobs and who tend to invent their own rules just to shoove off the hot potato to somebody else, next day !

 

Then perhaps, it may be constructive to consider things on a political level...

[Eligius]

30 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Hi Eligius

 

I am not going to write out a long argument; perhaps one of these days we can go at it via PM and not on a public forum! 

 

For tonight;

• No one believed that the victory in Burma against the military was possible. It happened.
• No one believed that the victory in Malaysia against a ruling party of 60 years+ who held all the cards (sound familiar?) was possible. It happened.
• Thais, in one form or another have been fighting for their political rights since 1973 and thousands have died, tens of thousands have been injured and people have suffered greatly. You are doing a dis-service to those people. True they did not win, but their effort should be respected.
• This is a fight for the Thais. I share your desire to see the Thai people have the same, full political rights that I enjoy in my country and you enjoy in yours, but this is not our country. Thais must fight this fight and they must fight this fight in their way. I think we both would like to see the forces of goodness win and win quickly, but it is not our fight.
• If you are a beer drinker, put your feet up and have a beer. If your are a Whiskey drinker, put your feet up and have a glass. If you are neither a beer nor Whiskey drinker, then learn! 

Stay well, my friend!

 

As always, you make good and valid points, Samui Bodoh.

 

But on Malaysia, I would say: the election there was not TOTALLY fake and contrived, as it will be in Thailand (that makes a huge difference).

 

As for your example of Burma, that is perhaps an unhappy one too. It is generally held that, for all the window-dressing, the military are still in control. Listen to what CNN said in an article at the end of last year:

 

'The military junta, which ruled the country with an iron fist from 1962 until 2011 -- arresting democracy advocates including Suu Kyi, imposing martial law and killing protestors -- still controls the security forces, the police and key cabinet positions in the government. And there's nothing Suu Kyi can do about it.'

 

That is something similar to what Thailand faces after the definitely 'fake' elections (if ever they happen). The junta leaders and their friends will still essentially be in control.

 

As for the Thai protesters who have died / been injured in the past in their struggle for freedom: I TOTALLY respect them and admire them. That is my point! I admire guts and courage. But a few thousand out of a nation of nearly 70 million  is woefully inadequate, I am afraid ...

 

Anyway, let's hope that somehow things can get better for the Thais. I am on the side of the forces of Goodness, like you. I might be a bit more pessimistic than yourself (after all, I am a non-drinker - ha ha!), but I certainly yearn for a Thailand that is free and where people are no longer treated as exploitable serfs.

 

All the best to you too, Samui!

 

[KiwiKiwi]

14 hours ago, Eligius said:

Very good post, Mr. Johnson. I agree with you that there are quite a number of Thais who do hold progressive, democratic and justice-orientated views - I've met many of them. Yet having progressive and democratic views is one thing: having mental and physical COURAGE and GUTS is quite another. I have known (and know) highly educated Red Shirts - Ph.D.s and similar - who detest the junta; but when given even the slightest opportunity to rebel, to kick over the traces, to say NO to the entire rotten Thai hierarchical system (even in the smallest, symbolic ways)  - they baulk and funk it. No physical or moral courage. It is very, very sad to witness this (and I have witnessed it often).

 

I do not see how, realistically, Thailand can now liberate itself from tyranny save through violence (and I don't welcome that or long for it). The junta have got EVERYTHING so stitched up - legally, constitutionally, militarily - that no attempt at genuine political change through reason, debate and 'lawfulness' can possibly work now. The junta have made sure that the ONLY practical way for Thais to be free is if they physically turn on their slave-owners in their MILLIONS. The slave-owners are astute and realise that nowhere near that number of people will attack them. They probably reckon with pockets of violence (tens of thousands of people) - and they know that they can easily quell and crush such uprisings , as they did in 2010, and as they did also in earlier decades. That brutal slaughter of hundreds of human beings will mean nothing to the junta (who know nothing of humanity, after all) - but it will terrify the rest of the Thai populace into renewed submission (as we have seen for the past four long years).

 

The future is pretty much determined (although life is never ENTIRELY predictable, of course - thank God). The near future for Thailand is likely to be more of the same - the same old hierarchy, the same old lies to the public, the same old deceits, the same old intelligence-insults, the same old oppression, the same old appalling 'education', the same old massive wealth divide, the same old .... Thai-niyom.

 

And why? 

 

BECAUSE THE THAIS EN MASSE HAVE ALLOWED - AND ARE ALLOWING -  IT ALL TO HAPPEN, DAY IN, DAY OUT.

 

 

Fully agree. Sad but very true. Sometimes it seems that the faculty of learning from experience has bypassed Thais altogether, at the slightest whiff of a penalty to be paid for sticking to a matter of principle, they're off and running for the hills.

 

Courageous they may be in their national anthem, but not in reality.

 

 

 

[Eric Loh]

14 hours ago, Eligius said:

But on Malaysia, I would say: the election there was not TOTALLY fake and contrived, as it will be in Thailand (that makes a huge difference).

Not sure what you meant by fake but if you meant vote buying and populist polices like in Thailand, Malaysia has all of that. For 40+ years, BN had unfettered control of the nation's courts and coffers. The coalition thrived by unfailingly delivering huge cash handouts at election time. Cars were offered as lucky draw prices for people attending their ceremahs (election campaigns). The media was at his disposal and journalists Najib didn't like, he shut down. Political foes were shoved into prison. Laws like the Computer Crime Act and a fake news law were introduced to silence the media and the people. Constituencies boundary were re-aligned to disadvantage the opposition. I stayed in Malaysia for 15 years and followed the election closely with my friends there. Rest was history as the electorate had enough of his excesses and furiously displayed their anger at the ballot box showing people's power can be effective to throw out a corrupt incumbent elected leader. You don;t need the military to do the people's job. The military is only delaying democracy and has a self serving agenda.