Privy Councilor Advises Nation To Emulate Ants

[vermin on arrival]

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.

I never went down to the PAD demonstrations although a friend of mine did. My impression was that PAD Sonthi(as opposed to CNS Sonthi) was more just upset that he was not getting his fair share of the pie. In the end, I must admit that I really didn't care as long as someone opposed Thaksin. Before the PAD demonstrations, the opposition had been slowly but surely being muzzled, and it looked like it was only going to get worse.

Isn't that really the problem here. though? Neither side really respects democracy or has a culture of democracy. Thaksin made it fairly clear all the way through that he had no respect for it, was just using it as a tool, and was slowly trying to change how it was run here.

From what I hear, I'm really not a fan of the constitution being drawn up under the auspices of the CNS. I will be interested to read the final draft and the analyses of it after July 6. However, I'm also sure that I wouldn't have wanted Thaksin and his cronies to be overseeing the writing of it as he wanted to be.

[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.

I never went down to the PAD demonstrations although a friend of mine did. My impression was that PAD Sonthi(as opposed to CNS Sonthi) was more just upset that he was not getting his fair share of the pie. In the end, I must admit that I really didn't care as long as someone opposed Thaksin. Before the PAD demonstrations, the opposition had been slowly but surely being muzzled, and it looked like it was only going to get worse.

Isn't that really the problem here. though? Neither side really respects democracy or has a culture of democracy. Thaksin made it fairly clear all the way through that he had no respect for it, was just using it as a tool, and was slowly trying to change how it was run here.

From what I hear, I'm really not a fan of the constitution being drawn up under the auspices of the CNS. I will be interested to read the final draft and the analyses of it after July 6. However, I'm also sure that I wouldn't have wanted Thaksin and his cronies to be overseeing the writing of it as he wanted to be.

In addition to the rumpored Sondhi L. business conflict with Thaksin, also one of his flag ship ideologies was an extreme form of royalism along the lines of the revisionist book "Royal Power" by Pramuan Rujanaseri, another ex-TRT man who joined the PAD.

Sondhi L. and Chamlong, the two most important figures of the PAD were both strong Thaksin supporters, especially during the time of the human rights violations and the populistic programs. Chamlong in his first PAD speech even lauded Thaksin as having been a great Prime Minister during his first 4 years.

These people were not opposed to Thaksin real believers in democracy and the upholding of human rights were.

Yes, Thaksin wanted to change the way how things were run here, some of what he did was not very democratic, but other changes were more than necessary.

[vermin on arrival]

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

OK Plus, So which are you ant or human? Believe it or not, I'm human. (just a little joke)

Or more importantly, what do you support-democracy or some other political sytem. I'm very curious about where you are from and what your exact political beliefs are. Feel free to PM on this if you want.

I'm well aware of the flaws in democracy, especially that as practiced in the US where you usually need mega bucks to be a candidate for national political office, and where it can be very hard to buck the system if you go after vested interests, but I still think that at least in the developed nations it is the best way to go. The key is to make sure that the electorate is getting a solid education(which still hasn't really been done well in the US), and getting candidates which reflect the broad range of possible political viewpoints( which once again hasn't really been done well in the US) so that voters don't just spend the whole time picking the lesser evil.

In Thailand, the situation is certainly different. Maybe it should have started out as a more limited democracy as it did in Britain and the US(it would have been tough as no nation as really done that in modern times-they all seem to have jumped straight into universal suffrage)However, since the genie of universal suffrage has already been let out of the bottle, it doesn't seem that you can go back on this, or if you do offer a system that allows less real democracy than before, eventually there will be more bloodshed.

What do you think would be best for Thailand?

[vermin on arrival]

ColPyat:

In addition to the rumpored Sondhi L. business conflict with Thaksin, also one of his flag ship ideologies was an extreme form of royalism along the lines of the revisionist book "Royal Power" by Pramuan Rujanaseri, another ex-TRT man who joined the PAD.

Sondhi L. and Chamlong, the two most important figures of the PAD were both strong Thaksin supporters, especially during the time of the human rights violations and the populistic programs. Chamlong in his first PAD speech even lauded Thaksin as having been a great Prime Minister during his first 4 years.

These people were not opposed to Thaksin real believers in democracy and the upholding of human rights were.

Yes, Thaksin wanted to change the way how things were run here, some of what he did was not very democratic, but other changes were more than necessary.

Wow fast reply. I'm aware of Chamlong's past support for Thaksin as well(he introduced Thaksin to politics, correct?). My impression was that he came out after the sale of Shin Telecom because he thought that Thaksin had lost his moral authority to rule, or something like that. What is your take on this?

These people were not opposed to Thaksin real believers in democracy and the upholding of human rights were.

Your point here is that you think these people(Sonthi L. and Chamlong) were not opposed to Thaksin's main policies. Sonthi was just a business rival and Chamlong..?

You seem to be a strong supporter of democracy and human rights. Do you just support Thaksin as the lesser of two evils?

Edited June 8, 2007 by vermin on arrival

[ColPyat]

You seem to be a strong supporter of democracy and human rights. Do you just support Thaksin as the lesser of two evils?

Well, difficult question. I don't support Thaksin, but i see him as the lesser of many evils. Especially after i have figured out that the strongest argument against him, from my view - the drugwar killings - were a concerted effort of many powerful groups of the elite, and that it might not even have been initiated my him (there is some circumstantial evidence).

I found it very ironic when after all the allegations of human rights violations, the reason not to support Thaksin anymore for Chamlong, the founding member of the Young Turks turned Buddhist sectarian extreme nationalist, still good friend of of former leader of a secret assassination squad, was the sale of ShinCorp, which may have used certain loopholes in the law, but is not even yet proven entirely illegal. And even more ironic if you look at certain details of ShinCorp and its sale, details that cannot be debated here.

[vermin on arrival]

You seem to be a strong supporter of democracy and human rights. Do you just support Thaksin as the lesser of two evils?

Well, difficult question. I don't support Thaksin, but i see him as the lesser of many evils. Especially after i have figured out that the strongest argument against him, from my view - the drugwar killings - were a concerted effort of many powerful groups of the elite, and that it might not even have been initiated my him (there is some circumstantial evidence).

I found it very ironic when after all the allegations of human rights violations, the reason not to support Thaksin anymore for Chamlong, the founding member of the Young Turks turned Buddhist sectarian extreme nationalist, still good friend of of former leader of a secret assassination squad, was the sale of ShinCorp, which may have used certain loopholes in the law, but is not even yet proven entirely illegal. And even more ironic if you look at certain details of ShinCorp and its sale, details that cannot be debated here.

However, doesn't Thaksin as head of state bear responsibility for human rights abuses in the country under his watch (fair enough maybe others should be punished as well and not only him). He certainly was publicly talking in support of it regularly. Wasn't Milosevic's defense that he didn't order the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, even though he put everything into place for it before the war began? The only evidence against Milosevic I believe was circumstantial; I don't think that they ever found any paper or person saying the he had ordered them to massacre Muslims.

While the sale of Shin may have been legal, it really showed a leader who had lost his moral authority to rule in the eyes of the thai middle class(although I think he did many other bad things)after he had been pushing the payment of taxes as a national duty and hounding the middle classes to pay them, and who was abusing his position of authority in the country, especially when he had the parliament changing the laws so that the sale could go through. I mean this wasn't a few thousand dollar sale or a few hundred thousand dollars we are talking about-it was 2 billion.

If the details of the sale can't be debated here. Just PM them to me.

Edited June 8, 2007 by vermin on arrival

[Plus]

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

OK Plus, So which are you ant or human? Believe it or not, I'm human. (just a little joke)

Your login confused me right from the start, but now it's clear, thanks

Or more importantly, what do you support-democracy or some other political sytem.

I support system that makes people happy. We all have been taught that it must be a democracy, so it's a default option, but I'm not dogmatic about it. Whatever works. People and societies are different. There's no one size fits all instant solution.

messed up quotes...

Edited June 8, 2007 by Plus

[Old Man River]

I don't support Thaksin, but i see him as the lesser of many evils. Especially after i have figured out that the strongest argument against him, from my view - the drugwar killings - were a concerted effort of many powerful groups of the elite, and that it might not even have been initiated my him (there is some circumstantial evidence).

Circumstantial evidence? Don't believe it. After the fact support by people in Bangkok? Believe it.

[Plus]

Well, is Thaksin's finally got completely exonerated in Colpyat's view? We might eventually see complete convergence of Thai socialists with Thaksin's interests, even if it goes against my believe in humanity.

[ColPyat]

Circumstantial evidence? Don't believe it. After the fact support by people in Bangkok? Believe it.

Well, it's not a question of believing. One day we might find out the facts.

As to your second remark about fact and people in Bangkok, sorry, but you lost me there linguistically, sort of.

[AGareth2]

The rich man in his castle.

The poor man at his gate.

The good Lord created everything

And ordered their estate.