Privy Councilor Advises Nation To Emulate Ants

[vermin on arrival]

i guess i disagree that democratic elections are a fundamental part of a democracy. in the usa you get the choice between person 1 and person 2. some choice that is.

I'm stunned. Well then, if elections aren't a fundamental part of democracy, than what is?

I'm really not sure how to reply to this. Granted, I'm an American, and I see that there is not a great deal of choice in America's election, and that the candidates don't always have such a great difference in their world views. However, at least there is some choice. Are you trying to say that Thailand under the CNS is more democratic than America?

[cmsally]

This got me thinking about one of Winston Churchill's quotes

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

You can find more here but I couldn't find one about ants

Winston Churchill quotes

[chevykanteve]

Unbelievable.

The privy council now openly supporting a society that is strictly and unquestioningly hierarchal where every animal knows its place in the ladder.

I interpret his statements the same way, i.e., in context of unquestioning hierarchy. Or to put it even more bluntly, and (forgive me if I say this) perhaps more aptly: a public summons to hearken to Confucian righteousness and ideals.

[Plus]

After the govt is selected (elected), it IS the father and the mother and the baby sitter. That's the definition of the govt.

democracies didnt happen by chance, they happened because people revolted against dictatorships ...

It doesn't matter which way democracy happened - the goverments didn't disappear.

The Father, and also the entity sometimes called Big Brother, is still there. The only difference that it's more widely accepted than dictatorships/monarchies etc. But even that is not often the case.

Again you are making up a definition as you go.

Any link from a reputable source that supports this rather fascinating definition of a democratically elected government?

I guess some people do have a problem with analogies. Like responsibility of the father/caregiver towards his dependants and the government's towards its citizens.

Elections is not the most fundamental principle of democracy, government's accountability before the citizens is a deeper principle, elections is only one manifestation of it.

[ColPyat]

I guess some people do have a problem with analogies. Like responsibility of the father/caregiver towards his dependants and the government's towards its citizens.

Elections is not the most fundamental principle of democracy, government's accountability before the citizens is a deeper principle, elections is only one manifestation of it.

You have obviously huge difficulties with the term "definition". Here is a brief definition for democracy. Nothing though about "father/caregiver" or "dependents" and similar rubbish.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/democracy

de·moc·ra·cy (d-mkr-s)

n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

2. A political or social unit that has such a government.

3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

4. Majority rule.

5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

[vermin on arrival]

I guess some people do have a problem with analogies. Like responsibility of the father/caregiver towards his dependants and the government's towards its citizens.

Elections is not the most fundamental principle of democracy, government's accountability before the citizens is a deeper principle, elections is only one manifestation of it.

You have obviously huge difficulties with the term "definition". Here is a brief definition for democracy. Nothing though about "father/caregiver" or "dependents" and similar rubbish.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/democracy

de·moc·ra·cy (d-mkr-s)

n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

2. A political or social unit that has such a government.

3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

4. Majority rule.

5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Thanks for the definition. I'm actually fairly amazed that there are people arguing this point. It seems that some people really don't understand something fundamental about democracy.

Of course, governments must also be transparent and accountable, but if there are no elections with more than one candidate, the government is not a democracy.

Now, one may prefer a government which doesn't have elections, but don't call it a democracy.

Edited June 6, 2007 by vermin on arrival

[rafval]

I changed my mind on this one, the opening post left out the entire context of his speach, I see it simply as a plee for peace after the court decission on trt. However the idea that Thailand needs to be more united is still untrue in my opinion, altho perhaps his message was for the army. Unity isnt neccasary for a prosperous and happy country, altho some may prefer to live in a place like North Korea, the problem in Thailand is simply that the leaders have absolute power, the democratic system works fine but if leaders can get away with breaking the law and changing it for there own personal gain democracy doesnt help much, Im not too clued up on the reasons, but it would seem to me that in a properly funtioning country charges could have been laid against Taksin and company with out having to remove them first.

[rychrde]

Every country has a ruling elite, including all our wonderful western democracies. The attempt by the west to spread democracies around the world is an attempt to weaken those countries and thereby bribe their way into an accommodating government. They can, and do, bribe their way directly with unelected rulers but much easier to have more control. there are some atrocious democratically elected governments around the world, so democracy per se cannot change that. Democracies in the west have grown organically, OK some had revolutions whereas others slowly changed the rules. The UK is a great example of the changing face of democracy, and of how many meanings the word can have. Universal suffrage, which is what most of us now mean by democracy, is a pretty recent phenomenon.

Coming back to Thailand, I really don't see why they don't just have a long hard think about what would work best for them - even if that means having some 'old style' democracy short of universal voting. Most Thais I've spoken to about it here in the country are just confused about the arguments, the process or even what it is trying to achieve. They don't even care that much about voting, just that they get people in power who will help their lives in general.

As to democracy's superiority, there have been many great periods in human history, how many of them were under democracies?

rych

[ColPyat]

As to democracy's superiority, there have been many great periods in human history, how many of them were under democracies?

rych

Would you mind giving us some examples of those great periods, please.

But have a careful thought before, because recorded history over a long period time, until very recently, was the record how the rulers wanted to be remembered, and often had very little resemblance to how the average population felt and lived. That has to be carefully pieced together with archeology and such, and gives us often a very different picture.

[rychrde]

As to democracy's superiority, there have been many great periods in human history, how many of them were under democracies?

rych

Would you mind giving us some examples of those great periods, please.

But have a careful thought before, because recorded history over a long period time, until very recently, was the record how the rulers wanted to be remembered, and often had very little resemblance to how the average population felt and lived. That has to be carefully pieced together with archeology and such, and gives us often a very different picture.

This could all go way off topic but, to pick one... La Serenissima, the Republic of Venice.

I agree about your point that many ordinary folks suffered under 'great' periods, but we haven't yet seen heaven on earth.

rych

[ColPyat]

This could all go way off topic but, to pick one... La Serenissima, the Republic of Venice.

I agree about your point that many ordinary folks suffered under 'great' periods, but we haven't yet seen heaven on earth.

rych

For its time Venice was very advanced, and a pillar of light.

For its time.

Heaven we haven't seen, and we won't. Any utopian system based on ideology mostly will end in the opposite.

Modern democracy is definitively a huge advancement to what was there before (that does not include the ones who abuse this system though, but every system has those).

What we have now in Thailand, and what is expressed by the Privy Council member here is though much closer a utopian system than modern democracy.

[Dakhar]

You know if a falang said to a Thai, "Ya'l folks need to behave like ants....." I don't think that would go over too well.

Simply amazing, I choose not to drink the punch, thankyou.

[kenk3z]

Speaking in a generalization, worker ants don't need much in the way of health care either........ You just push the dead ones out of the nest, and more will be born to take their place. This sounds a lot more like a Chinese philosophy than supposedly "modernized" Asia.

kenk3z

[Plus]

I guess some people do have a problem with analogies. Like responsibility of the father/caregiver towards his dependants and the government's towards its citizens.

You have obviously huge difficulties with the term "definition". Here is a brief definition for democracy. Nothing though about "father/caregiver" or "dependents" and similar rubbish.

de·moc·ra·cy (d-mkr-s)

bla bla bla

You should look up definitions of subjects in question, ie. responsibilities of fathers and governments, not something entirely different, like democracy.

Then you should probably look up obligations of governments in democracies and monarchies/dictatorial countries. The main difference would be accountability before the people, which I duly mentioned right from the start.

[rychrde]

My point - and picking Venice was perhaps a lucky accident - was that if this country really doesn't want a representative democracy western-style then why don't they stop pretending and put something in place that works.

Venice was a republican oligarchy, run by a cabinet with a prime minister and overseen by a senate. All positions were nominated, usually the wealthiest people held power. The system was largely inherited from republican Rome, where the senators were wealthy individuals but the plebs could elect tribunes, who had the power to veto any nonsense from the senate but could not initiate legislation. Unfortunately, Rome suffered from numerous fools who seized power as caesars, Venice made sure they didn't repeat that mistake and lasted for some 1000 years.

So if Thais want an alternative, there's one.

The thing that seems devastating in Thailand is how the oligarchy here is fighting amongst itself. This is seriously bad. Perhaps if they had co-opted Taksin, British-style into their club, this would not have happened. One thing about successful oligarchies is to make the people wealthier just as the top gets wealthier.

rych

[ColPyat]

You should look up definitions of subjects in question, ie. responsibilities of fathers and governments, not something entirely different, like democracy.

Then you should probably look up obligations of governments in democracies and monarchies/dictatorial countries. The main difference would be accountability before the people, which I duly mentioned right from the start.

As "fathers" are not elected, they have nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever, unless you believe that contributing a similarly wrong analogy makes the first one any less offensive.

Anyhow, this tit for tat gets boring. Just drop it.

[ColPyat]

My point - and picking Venice was perhaps a lucky accident - was that if this country really doesn't want a representative democracy western-style then why don't they stop pretending and put something in place that works.

Venice was a republican oligarchy, run by a cabinet with a prime minister and overseen by a senate. All positions were nominated, usually the wealthiest people held power. The system was largely inherited from republican Rome, where the senators were wealthy individuals but the plebs could elect tribunes, who had the power to veto any nonsense from the senate but could not initiate legislation. Unfortunately, Rome suffered from numerous fools who seized power as caesars, Venice made sure they didn't repeat that mistake and lasted for some 1000 years.

So if Thais want an alternative, there's one.

The thing that seems devastating in Thailand is how the oligarchy here is fighting amongst itself. This is seriously bad. Perhaps if they had co-opted Taksin, British-style into their club, this would not have happened. One thing about successful oligarchies is to make the people wealthier just as the top gets wealthier.

rych

Venice may have been a pillar of light for its times, but try to introduce such a system there today...

The problem is with Thailand that the system does not function. It hasn't for a very long time, and that has more to do with the infights of the oligarchy than people "not being ready for a modern democracy".

People such as the offending Privy Council Member, and the ideas proposed by them are important parts of this dysfunctional system.

Everyting else than a step to a modern democracy in Thailand is not going to work. Too much blood has been spilled already to reach the little that has been taken away recently. If not more blood is going to be spilled, then the present powers should forget everything that will not directly lead to a modern democracy, including these ideas of "Thai style democracy" and "guided democracy".

[Plus]

Walk before you run. Democracy must be earned, not imposed in one sweeping move.

Easy come, easy go. Look at 1997 Constitution - it was drawn by elites, given to people, who then screwed up by eagerly supporting Thaksin while he was smashing their shiny new Constitution, best they ever had, to pieces.

It was the elites and the middle class who objected, maybe because they actually took interest in drafting some ten years ago.

>>>>>

So in a democracy you get to elect your farther, BUT, whoever is elected, has to provide for the family just the same.

Same with governments - they still have to do their government duties regardless of being elected or selected, and the worker ants still have to go and search for food just like citizens still have to pay taxes, no matter who is in power.

No matter what the government is, citizens have to submit themselves to its power and perform their respective duties. In democracies they do it voluntarily, in dictatorships they are forced to, either way they still have to do it.

If they refuse to shovel the shit, either in a democracy or under totalitarian regime, the system breaks down and the society stops to function.

There always must be someone to shovel the shit and there always must be someone to collect the taxes, do police work, export stuff, sell stuff and so on.

The job has to be done. Period. Endless squabbling over who will do this and who will do that will not get people anywhere.

Social cohesion is of utmost importance, democracies are supposed to bring better cohesion, but in reality this is not always the case.

[ColPyat]

Social cohesion is of utmost importance, democracies are supposed to bring better cohesion, but in reality this is not always the case.

Yes, mein Fuhrer!

[rafval]

problem is that that system eventually weakened Venice until eventually it could no longer defend itself

My point - and picking Venice was perhaps a lucky accident - was that if this country really doesn't want a representative democracy western-style then why don't they stop pretending and put something in place that works.

Venice was a republican oligarchy, run by a cabinet with a prime minister and overseen by a senate. All positions were nominated, usually the wealthiest people held power. The system was largely inherited from republican Rome, where the senators were wealthy individuals but the plebs could elect tribunes, who had the power to veto any nonsense from the senate but could not initiate legislation. Unfortunately, Rome suffered from numerous fools who seized power as caesars, Venice made sure they didn't repeat that mistake and lasted for some 1000 years.

So if Thais want an alternative, there's one.

The thing that seems devastating in Thailand is how the oligarchy here is fighting amongst itself. This is seriously bad. Perhaps if they had co-opted Taksin, British-style into their club, this would not have happened. One thing about successful oligarchies is to make the people wealthier just as the top gets wealthier.

rych

[vermin on arrival]

Walk before you run. Democracy must be earned, not imposed in one sweeping move.

Easy come, easy go. Look at 1997 Constitution - it was drawn by elites, given to people, who then screwed up by eagerly supporting Thaksin while he was smashing their shiny new Constitution, best they ever had, to pieces.

It was the elites and the middle class who objected, maybe because they actually took interest in drafting some ten years ago.

>>>>>

So in a democracy you get to elect your farther, BUT, whoever is elected, has to provide for the family just the same.

Same with governments - they still have to do their government duties regardless of being elected or selected, and the worker ants still have to go and search for food just like citizens still have to pay taxes, no matter who is in power.

No matter what the government is, citizens have to submit themselves to its power and perform their respective duties. In democracies they do it voluntarily, in dictatorships they are forced to, either way they still have to do it.

If they refuse to shovel the shit, either in a democracy or under totalitarian regime, the system breaks down and the society stops to function.

There always must be someone to shovel the shit and there always must be someone to collect the taxes, do police work, export stuff, sell stuff and so on.

The job has to be done. Period. Endless squabbling over who will do this and who will do that will not get people anywhere.

Social cohesion is of utmost importance, democracies are supposed to bring better cohesion, but in reality this is not always the case.

In my view, Thaksin certainly was doing all he could do to subvert the 1997constitution and the functioning of real democracy in Thailand, and the middle clas was rightly angry with him for this. It is a good thing that he is gone.

However, your view that somehow democracies are supposed to be neat and orderly has no real basis in any democracy I've seen. Democracy is a disorderly mess of different endlessly squabbling interests, which must learn to compromise if the system will suceed. It's not a neat system, and this is what can give people who are new to it difficulties in adjusting to it. In the early stages, they frequently just elect a strong man who can make order as they were used to before. Their may be more social cohesion because all people believe that they have a stake in society, but that does not mean that things aren't messy.

People in a democracy learn to accept authority even if they have not voted for the ruling party, but they feel free to express their discontent in many different ways. They certainly don't view the government as a father and them as children. At least, not if they are experienced with life in a democratic system. In a true democracy, they realize that that they, the people, are sovereign and the government rules at their whim.

While they may accept their roles in in society, if they become discontented enough with the government, they may stop shoveling shit and do what they feel is necessary to change their society and government.

Maybe Thailand is not ready for this kind of democracy, especially with the lack of real universal education and lack of a real culture of democracy. However, it doesn't seem that you can turn back the clock. This will most likely end in failure and further bloodshed

Edited June 6, 2007 by vermin on arrival

[ColPyat]

In my view, Thaksin certainly was doing all he could do to subvert the 1997constitution and the functioning of real democracy in Thailand, and the middle clas was rightly angry with him for this. It is a good thing that he is gone.

I thought so too until i saw the first PAD demonstrations, and had to realize that his vocal opposition was even less interested in what i understand under democracy - striving for a society of equal opportunities for all, with elected representatives.

[Plus]

However, your view that somehow democracies are supposed to be neat and orderly has no real basis in any democracy I've seen. Democracy is a disorderly mess of different endlessly squabbling interests, which must learn to compromise if the system will suceed.

Right, and if they don't, and continue to squable, the unshovelled shit piles up. The "mess" in advanced democracies is on a different scale from the mess somewhere like Bagladesh.

People in a democracy learn to accept authority even if they have not voted for the ruling party, but they feel free to express their discontent in many different ways. They certainly don't view the government as a father and them as children.

I don't know about your father, but chidren express their discontent with thier father's rules all the time. In the end they have to accept them, though. Don't forget that the large part of farther children relationship is asking for money and favours, not only following rules.

In a true democracy, they realize that that they, the people, are sovereign and the government rules at their whim.

I don't know anyone who seriously thinks that the government rules at HIS whim. Children have far better success rate with their fathers than citizens with their governments.

The point is - you have to accept the govts. authority, even if only in the short term. Democracy doesn't save you from that. It's not anarchy.

While they may accept their roles in in society, if they become discontented enough with the government, they may stop shoveling shit and do what they feel is necessary to change their society and government.

Guess what they will do next? Shovel the shit. Someone always have to be there to shovel the shit, unless they devise a shitless society.

I'm not arguing that it's easier for people to improve their society in a democracy, but they can't refuse work altogether.

[rafval]

Demcracy isn't meant to create a perfect harmonious society, that isnt necasary or desirable, its simply a way of finding a middle ground without going to war, it doesnt mean that the extremists will stop being extreme etc, but one problem with democracies is where the borders are drawn up, and in true democracies the people should decide, so for eg in the south they should be given a referendum on whether they want to be part of Thailand or a seperate state

[chanchao]

minimum wage workers in the West are miserable. they think they deserve more money. they do everything with the attitude that there boss is a jerk. alot of you seem to be advocating this same communistic attitude. the advice being offered here is inline with buddhism. if his anthill ideology eats you up so much, just go back to your country where cynicism is the number one human trait.

You really are quite a few cherries short of a pie aren't you? In line with Buddhism? The absolute main virtue of Buddhism is 'to seek the truth' and yes modesty and generally not craving fame, fortune or pleasure are encouraged as a means to stay focussed on that goal. However ant-like mindless subservience to the state and its leaders is not. That is in fact called 'fascism' and indeed if ants excel at anything then it's running a perfect fascist society.

Now, obviously I'm not accusing anyone from advocating fascism, but at the very least it's a very unfortunate analogy. And, as has been said by someone else here, privy counsellors are very smart people so for sure they will know that Thailand is about as far away from an ant-like society as you can possibly get. Anyone who has supervised Thai staff/workers at some project or construction job will know what I'm talking about, it's like trying to herd cats.

At the risk of being accused of being pessimistic again, let's have another gem from todays news:

"The Constitution Tribunal would not tolerate "non-academic" criticism over its rulings of the dissolution cases of the Thai Rak Thai Party and the Democrat Party, tribunal secretary-general Paiboon Warahapaitoon said Wednesday. He warned those insulting the judges would be put in jail. -- Source: The Nation.

Again an example of a group of people who think they're so much above the common ants that not only won't they listen to criticism, they threaten to squash people who they consider not worthy.

[vermin on arrival]

People in a democracy learn to accept authority even if they have not voted for the ruling party, but they feel free to express their discontent in many different ways. They certainly don't view the government as a father and them as children.

I don't know about your father, but chidren express their discontent with thier father's rules all the time. In the end they have to accept them, though. Don't forget that the large part of farther children relationship is asking for money and favours, not only following rules.

In a true democracy, they realize that that they, the people, are sovereign and the government rules at their whim.

I don't know anyone who seriously thinks that the government rules at HIS whim. Children have far better success rate with their fathers than citizens with their governments.

The point is - you have to accept the govts. authority, even if only in the short term. Democracy doesn't save you from that. It's not anarchy.

Plus,

I think your use of the father and children analogy is very inappropriate. It implies a respect for the government and leaders and a paternalism by leadership that is really lacking in at least any developed democracies. The leaders and government are consistenetly pilloried by the press and people who are in opposition. I think if you asked anyone in England or the US if they felt this way, they would have a scathing critique of this viewpoint.

In America, I think most people feel that in the last analysis they have sovereign power. I certainly did not mean that it was at the whim of the individuals in the state,and if you view it that way you are seriously misinterpreting what I stated. To say that no one seriously believes that the "people" have sovereign power is inaccurate.

Certainly in the short term, the government possesses authority. However, it is taught to us in school that political power rests with us, and the government can only ride roughshod over us if we allow it. We have many forms of recourse when or leaders behave poorly. First, you can vote the bums out in the next election. The man can be impeached. You can even recall the leader as happened with the governor in California. In addition, you can affect policy through protest and active dissent as public opinion is a force to be reckoned with.

Certainly in a fledgling democracy like Thailand without proper respect for democracy, and with many other forces at work, people might not think that. However, to say that that is the case in advanced democracies is , I believe, incorrect.

I never meant to imply that a democracy was an anarchic state with no authority, or that people didn't have unpleasent jobs which they might have to do.

Edited June 7, 2007 by vermin on arrival

[SiamSquare123]

thailand is better off under an absolute monarchy imho

[vermin on arrival]

thailand is better off under an absolute monarchy imho

Hey Man,

If that is what you really want, I'm glad that you are honest enough to say so.

[Plus]

I think your use of the father and children analogy is very inappropriate. It implies a respect for the government and leaders and a paternalism by leadership that is really lacking in at least any developed democracies. The leaders and government are consistenetly pilloried by the press and people who are in opposition. I think if you asked anyone in England or the US if they felt this way, they would have a scathing critique of this viewpoint.

Ask them how they feel about their fathers. It doesn't imply only respect (if there's any left), but also a heavy load of demands and expectations, and teeanage anger, too.

In the end you'll have to submit, though.

Same with the state and all our freedoms - you can talk a lot about it and even do something, but you can't challenge state power, it will come down like a ton of bricks on you. You can argue politics but you don't defy taxmen. Western states are far stronger than they appear. Definitely stronger than states like Thailand where you don't have as much freedom but you can bribe your way out of any conflict or into any office.

.. it is taught to us in school that political power rests with us, and the government can only ride roughshod over us if we allow it. We have many forms of recourse when or leaders behave poorly. First, you can vote the bums out in the next election. The man can be impeached. You can even recall the leader as happened with the governor in California. In addition, you can affect policy through protest and active dissent as public opinion is a force to be reckoned with.

That's an illusion of power. "People" didn't recall governor of California, Republican backed Arnold Swarznegger campaigned for that. "People" didn't try to impeach Bill Clinton either.

G W Bush' re-election is a perfect example of "people power". Money can buy popularity.

Power beats people.

"the government can only ride roughshod over us if we allow it" - in practice you are given a chance but not the means. Very few people have the ability to fight against the government and far fewer can possibly succeed. When they do, it is put in the text books as if it's a normal occurence.

I never meant to imply that a democracy was an anarchic state with no authority, or that people didn't have unpleasent jobs which they might have to do.

There are two issues here - ants vs humans and democracy vs non-democracy.

On the first issue my point is that both ant and successful human societies rely on the authority and social cohesion to work.

On the second issue my point is that democracies achieve that cohesion in agreeable way while dictatorships force it on people.

Either way societies without authority (anarchies) or without social cohesion (people squabbling with each other at the expense of neglecting their duties) cannot function.

[The Skipper]

Privy Councilor advises nation to emulate ants

The Privy Councilor advised the nation to apply the ant's way of life in their daily lifestyle, especially the virtues of perseverance, endurance, cooperation, and self dependence.

Privy Councilor Ampol Senanarong (อำพล เสนาณรงค์ ) hosted the opneing of a museum building at Kasetsart University, which aims to function as a center of research. Mr. Ampol conducted a speech on Living like Ants under a Self Sufficient Economy. He said that despite the ant's small stature, the animal is hard-working, possesses great fortitude, cooperation, and self dependence.

The Privy Councilor said that members of society are currentl lacking in virtue, with lack of kindness, selflessness, or morality. Mr. Ampol revealed that if humans acted like ants, then the nation will develop further.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 04 June 2007

Hmm, That sounds more like lines from a script,.... for the next Forest Gump movie.

.....or the Twilite Zone