PAD, Democracy and Labour Unions

[permanent_disorder]

The views of PAD leades are not necessarily ideas that even a majority of the people who have come out to support the PAD would share. From what I can make out, most of the ordinary people there have come together in the genuine hope of trying to clean up Thai politics. Naive perhaps, but I think if the PAD got anywhere near trying to make a reality of some kind of serious anti-democratic agenda their support would evaporate quickly.

you make it out based on what? just a feeling? naive perhaps? is there a survey out shows that the majority of PAD supporters don't share the views of the leaders? why they always go so crazy when Somsak Kosaisuck is speaking?

you mean, if PAD cult would really close to some kind of serious anti-democratic agenda with their "People's Revolution Government", those brave mini golf players would leave the town and go back to the south?

a street mob in rage with common sense? little bit clean up politics, but for sure nothing anti-democratic.

my theory is a lot of them have no idea whats going on, just a new fad, herd behavior and results of a brainwash.

[Bangyai]

The views of PAD leades are not necessarily ideas that even a majority of the people who have come out to support the PAD would share. From what I can make out, most of the ordinary people there have come together in the genuine hope of trying to clean up Thai politics. Naive perhaps, but I think if the PAD got anywhere near trying to make a reality of some kind of serious anti-democratic agenda their support would evaporate quickly.

Prachatai also makes this point. Many of the PAD supporters are sincere in their desire to clean up Thai politics and as such would gain much more support if they stuck to demonstrating against govournment corruption. Instead, the movement has been hijacked by the leaders who have an altogether different agenda which would mean that the voice of the Thai people would be even less heard in the corridors of power than it is at present.

No one is pretending that the PPP are not on Taksins payroll. Politics costs money and lots of it. But who is payrolling the PAD and what is their payoff. Sondhi has said that it is costing a million a day to provide ASTV coverage of the PAD demonstration. He is supposedly bankrupt so others must be putting up the cash. The PPP are consulting Taksin and the PAD are have consulted Prem .

For the Thai people its Hobsons choice. Its like having the choice of having buffalo poo or pig poo poored over your head. Neither has much appeal but is there a lesser of 2 evils ? If there is, many think it is not the PAD unless they show some willingness to compromise by ditching one or two of its sillier leaders, something that is not yet onthe event horizon.

[steveromagnino]

Not strange! Sondhi, one of the leaders of PAD is the owner of aSTV and Manager. What is strange is that they are permitted to broadcast his ridiculous, traitorous nonsense. New Zealand, my hometown, has strict rules on estbalishing a TV station, even a off word or prase from a guest presenter would cause the company problems. Here they are so liberal towards the media that any rubbish is permitted.

would you like to complete the picture and also point out that under TRT ITV belonged to him directly, and he used the AIS marketing budget to get the other private media players under his control (or the threat of law suits) while the other military and state broadcasters were all changed to have his own guys running channel 9, 5 and of course 11 is via PRD?

No?

And how about the rebranding of Channel 11 at a cost of 150m baht for a one night promo party and subsequent conversion to being a station to solely broadcast pro PPP stories with threat of firing for any journalists not willing to tow the line?

no?

As for NZ, evidently you might like to consider youtube and blogging; basically people have the ability to broadcast what they want; there are few controls on radio and basically none on magazines; the only controls are on TV. The amount of state censorship in NZ is WAY LESS than Thailand which, if you worked in media in both countries, I am sure you would already be aware of. To get my message on TV is a lot easier to persuade TVNZ to flick up my show no matter how harebrained than deal with the plethora of parties needed to secure airtime in Thailand.

ASTV is hysterically pro PAD obviously, the state broadcasters (9, NBT) take the opposite and Channel 5 (military) is somewhere in the middle; the private sector channels tend to sway and flow depending on who is paying them to say what.

[permanent_disorder]

Bangkok Post runs an article on the PAD cult related unions and consumer/public opionion.

too bad that the fair comment union thread got mixed up with more heated discussion.

Privileges of monopoly

By Boonsong Kositchotethana

Deputy Assignment Editor (Business), Bangkok Post

Members of the public, companies or anybody affected by the recent strikes by state enterprise workers sympathetic to the anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), should no longer tolerate the troubles inflicted on them.

For starters, consumers in general should be more conscious of their rights to essential infrastructure and public services, which these state enterprises with a monopolistic status are obliged to provide. The work stoppage by Bangkok Port workers, the sporadic rail strikes, mostly in the South, and the repeated threats to cut off utilities show a total disrespect of consumers' rights and a lack in the sense of duty and integrity among these striking workers. They unfairly took the consumers, the national economy and the whole country hostage, and in fact paralysed many sectors of the economy, disrupting export flow and worsening the situation of the tourism industry, to cite just a few examples....

...

Unfortunately, from the general public's front, the issue has not been taken up. Those self-proclaimed consumer rights campaigners - such as Rosana Tositrakul, a senator for Bangkok - have not spoken a word about this so far. (Ms Rosana is, of course, aligned with the PAD.)...

for all go here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/tops...=130879&p=3

upps, the PAD cult is everywhere. Rosana Tositrakul have also that function Secretary General of the Thai Holistic Health Foundation, wow that sounds cool, but is just another esoteric cult. it's not really academic, not really scientific or even rational. and no kidding holism in the history took big part in the occultism faction of the nazi movement, heinrich himmler, rudolf hess. a lot of studies on developments have roots in the german nazi time. thats not surprissing and new. it's worth to take a deep look at the nazis, they dont have been only a bunch of dumb brutalos. it was a social poples movement, eclectic, comprehensive with intellectuals, cultists, academics, reformists people with visions and great ideas, but went all perverted and is still dangerous and people fail for such ideas. study the history sets here the warning.

anyway Rosana Tositrakul is one key figure behind the PAD cult economy. and she is another main lunatic in the PAD team. remember the hateful, xenophobic rallies against singapore - rosana.

that cult leader who brings old women and little kids to PAD protest, claim kids re there out of free will. har, har those innocent children and loony geratics are a human shild of the PAD against police and good for the propaganda of a peaceful movement.

that woman run a business of natural and herbal medicine, the old heritage and cultural knowledge she call it. she don't have a degree in pharmacy, no degree in medicine and also no degree in business science just read some hippie books. as the food and drug administration under the TRT government, demand some scientific control for her "magic" pills, that was modern TRT politics, remind the nearly weekly articles in the newspaper how certain limit value of ingredients is to high in certain products. FDA did a good job, (down side the down size of red bull/kreating daeng, that have been real powerstuff before)

but rosana went bananas. how can hey dare those capitalistic liberals, the old knowledge of grandmas grandpa is the best medicine for thai people. since that time she his avid thaksin hater, against anything modern, antiglobal only irrational backwards and she go politics and run for office. part of the results you can red here

ANCHORMAN V ROSANA -Are you kidding me?

By ML Nattakorn Devakula

Senator Rosana Tositrakul can be expected to block pro-investment/pro-business laws, cause disturbances to the otherwise smooth process of much-needed constitutional amendments, and last but not least be a nagging noise to rational people who work for a living.

...

e now get someone who can be expected to block pro-investment/pro-business laws, cause disturbances to the otherwise smooth process of much-needed constitutional amendments, and last but not least, be a nagging noise to rational people who work for a living, to those who are part of the real economy trying to bring about economic growth to this country.

Rosana almost single-handedly brought the downfall of PTT Public Company Limited, one of Thailand's most successful business conglomerates ever, which has become the pride and joy of the country's investment community. Her role in the nullification of the planned stock market listing of the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand clearly shows how she stands in the way of development and economics.

As unforgivable as these past two actions are, there is more where that came from. Implicitly, leading a crusade in the name of consumers - who are represented by organisations without even having the opportunity to play a role in the policy-making of these organisations - led to Rosana's very fame today.

...

Rosana should not represent a city that understands the values of the free market and capitalism. She should not represent a city that is attempting to become one of the thriving investment hubs of Asia. If there was a city she could represent, I was thinking Pyongyang or Caracas. Or maybe Havana, where she can join the new batch of Raulistas. Or even better, Sucre or La Paz, where she can wear similar native outfits to dance around with Evo Morales.

the silly PAD cult attemps to run/ruin business are an even bigger treat to the society than their anti democratics politics. failure in business leads to real misery. be on the alert

[steveromagnino]

ANCHORMAN V ROSANA -Are you kidding me?

By ML Nattakorn Devakula

Senator Rosana Tositrakul can be expected to block pro-investment/pro-business laws, cause disturbances to the otherwise smooth process of much-needed constitutional amendments, and last but not least be a nagging noise to rational people who work for a living.

...

OMG I am not a fan of the PAD but you cannot seriously be quoting Bleum, the idiot, Bluem the try hard, Bleum the guy completely owned and out of a job after his attempt to attack Rosana can you?

Total moron.

[Howsitgoin]

LaoPo, the Nazis came to power in Germany through the popular vote, using much the same tactics as the TRT and PPP.

10 Years before the NSDAP came to power the staged the ill fated "beer hall putsch".

TRT/PPP never attempted a putsch. On the opposite - they were removed by a Coup themselves. PAD though has created the atmosphere that made this coup possible, and applauded it. Many of their members and supporters took up positions during the military government, such as now Democrat MP Kraisak Choonhavan.

After the attack on NBT and the occupation of government house it should be clear that PAD is attempting a putsch, or at least is trying to force the military to step in again.

After NSDAP came to power they have straight away got rid of the system of democracy alltogether. TRT/PPP has been in power since 2001, with one break of 1 1/2 years military rule, and have never threatened the basic system (they have circumvented though many of the checks and balances).

PAD has a fuzzy ideology combining ultra-nationalism, warmongering, a dose of pseudo socialism, and cleverly uses invented traditions of a non-existing Thai history, that accomodates both extreme right wing and the loony left wing, not to dissimilar to early Nazi ideology.

PAD has as their open agenda to replace the one man one vote basic system with something else that yet has never been properly defined other than calling it "new politics".

PAD has shown with the brutal murder of a 56 year old man, and their lack of internal investigation of who committed that murder, that extreme violence is one of their tools despite their claims of "non-violence". TRT/PPP supporters have shown on many occasions that they are embracing violence as well - yet, in none of their actions against PAD they have committed murder. So far.

And the murder of Narongsak was plain murder, and not self defense as some claim. He was down, no threat, and was beaten unti his face caved in. Another man was beaten until his skull popped, he still fights for his life, and if he survives, will be a vegetable for the rest of his life. Many others, mostly old men too slow to escape, are still in hospital with serious injuries, such as fractured arms (typical defensive injuries) and head injuries.

PAD has so far completely failed to identify and deliver the murderers to justice.

Their "Naclop Srivichai" are not too dissimilar to the SA in its early days - brutal thugs in black uniforms, fanaticized to a point where murder to further their cause is acceptable.

There are far more similarities between PAD and the ealry NSDAP than between TRT/PPP and the Nazis.

There are many valid reasons to dislike TRT/PPP, but PAD has an openly anti democratic and ultra-nationalist agenda. Just as the early history of the NSDAP.

Only now a somewhat similar unstable political situation is created that might remind one of the weaknesses of the Weimar Republic (yet with clear differences), and which the NSDAP used to their advantage, just as PAD is now using to their advantage.

Because one does not support the government does not mean that one has to support PAD.

Fortunately, despite the efforts of PAD rabble rousing, most labor unions have not heeded Somsak Kosaisuk's call for a strike and support, and neither did the largest student's group. They have refused PAD because of their anti-democratic stand, and not because they support the government.

[LaoPo]

..well said Howsitgoin..well said !

LaoPo

[LooseCannon]

Once again 'Goodwin's Law' (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) has been proved to be correct.

The law states:

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Reductio ad Hitlerum

[Howsitgoin]

Once again 'Goodwin's Law' (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) has been proved to be correct.

The law states:

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Reductio ad Hitlerum

There's another famous proverb: If it looks like shit, and smells like shit, than it most likely is shit.

[wayfarer108]

Former prime minister Anand Panyarachun gives a public lecture on "Sustainable Democracy" in Belgium.

Sustainable Democracy

By Anand Panyarachun

Former Prime Minister of Thailand

Brussels, 24 June 2008

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a privilege to share with you some observations on sustainable democracy in a lecture series bearing the name of a great philosopher, thinker and a Nobel Laureate for economics. He won further plaudits for his work a few years ago as co-chair of the United Nations Panel on Human Security.

Professor Sen has inspired us all with his seminal contributions that, among others, have given new meaning to the ethical dimensions of the pressing economic and social challenges of our times. One of Professor Senกฆs most influential contributions is the concept of capability which places human freedom in the centre of the discourse on development.

On democracy, Professor Sen has observed that, กงNo substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press.กจ

Today, when the profit motive often prevails over considerations of justice, equity and rights, Professor Senกฆs message on development, linking it with human freedom, democracy and a free press, is refreshing indeed.

With the end of the Cold War, Francis Fukuyama suggested that the end of history was upon us. Yet over a decade and a half later, the triumph of democracy has been less than absolute. Some countries have turned away from a liberal brand of democracy and embraced a more authoritarian one. A number of governments continue to be quite successful in keeping their political systems democracy-free while delivering the economic goods to their citizens. At the same time, some countries that have democratic systems seem to be struggling with issues of accountability and governance.

At first glance, this is somewhat surprising. Surely, democracy, with its obvious virtues, should have had no difficulty in taking root around the world. Yet for many countries, กงgovernment of the people, by the people and for the peopleกจ remains a tantalizing, elusive ideal.

The primary cause is in the struggle between those who govern and those who are governed. Aristotle proclaimed that, กงIf liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.กจ

In our own times, we face compelling questions:

X Why does democracy seem so fragile?

X What elements are required for a country to reach the threshold necessary to sustain democracy?

Let me share some insights from my experience as a prime minister committed to building democracy in Thailand, including through drafting a peopleกฆs constitution.

In doing so, I shall first turn to Mahatma Gandhi who articulated the organic nature of democracy, กงThe spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within.กจ Indeed, people have to want democracy.

In most of Europe, the evolution of democracy was slow and non-linear. European history is a chronicle of civil wars, revolutions and dictatorships. Yet democracy took root and today no rival political system challenges it in Europe.

If we take universal suffrage as the key event in western democracy, we find that the broad, inclusive participation of all citizens is little more than a hundred years old.

In the course of political natural selection, we all adapt to new technologies, as well as problems such as climate change and natural disasters. Over time, a democratic system is best able to adapt in the evolutionary process if its basic pillars are strong enough.

A contemporary metaphor for democracy is that of a software algorithm that produces the best possible political outcomes for any society. The intellectual code for this political software stretches back centuries, with Britainกฆs Magna Carta of 1215 as a convenient starting point.

There is an implicit premise that democracy is inherently better, more stable, rational, beneficial and legitimate than other forms of government. Winston Churchill aptly states that, กงNo one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time.กจ

The political process must be viewed along with the level of development. As development is uneven, so too is the state of democracy. Democracy and development are two sides of the same coin.

In my experience, there are a minimal number of pillars or key algorithmic modules that are needed to support the infrastructure needed for democracy. If you wish to build a bridge, there are principles of engineering that must be followed. Democracy, unlike bridge building, isnกฆt just science; it is also the art of the possible.

Education and Knowledge Sharing

Democracy starts with the wisdom of the voting public, however that wisdom is acquired. By that I mean a voting public that understands the issues it must deal with and the options it has. The voting public must also understand its responsibilities in a democracy and have access to the means to exercise choice in the democratic process.

The heart of democracy beats only with the participation of all citizens in exercising their rights --- first to raise for inclusion in the political agenda issues of concern to them and second to choose those whom they feel would best address their concerns in the political process.

In addition to responsible citizenship through participation in voting, democracy requires that citizens be well-informed of the issues that their communities and societies face in an increasingly globalizing and interconnected world.

A struggle in many developing countries is to channel resources to make education more relevant to the tasks of daily life, to change the emphasis from rote memorization to creativity and independent thinking and to extend the reach of education programmes, especially to girls and women in poverty. I am pleased to note the silver lining of progress in gender equality in the promotion of universal education. Such progress augurs well for creating the critical mass of informed voters needed to fuel democratic processes.

Asia has the distinction of being a region that has produced a significant number of democratically-elected women Heads of Government and State. An encouraging development in recent years is South Asiaกฆs efforts to ensure gender parity in the democratic process, with the requirement that a significant proportion of all elected functionaries must be women. We must now accelerate region-wide the advancement of girls and women for wider grass-root participation.

Education and the sharing of knowledge as a public good are important means of supporting the process for a strong countervailing force, to deter those who govern from abusing power.

In Asia as in the West, democracy is won not just through the ballot box. The real struggle is fought out on the streets by students, farmers, workers and other ordinary citizens who come out en masse to express their dissatisfaction. It was in Asia that Mahatma Gandhi crafted non-violence as a movement for political change. Subsequently, there have been street protests over the course of five decades in the Republic of Korea, and peopleกฆs power has swept across Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, as well as other countries. The flame of democracy also continues to burn brightly in South Asia, which has the largest and most active voter populations.

For democracy to live, citizens must resist the temptation of being complacent. Each community, workplace and school needs programmes for promoting grass-root democracy. An apathetic electorate is easy prey for any organized group to seize power by force or fraud, giving rise to totalitarianism.

In much of Asia where harmony is a core value and conflict avoidance a first response, our challenge is to embrace criticism, the weighing of pros and cons and disagreement, as part of the maturation of the democratic process in the Asian context.

Pillars of Democracy

In my view, there are seven main pillars of the architecture of democracy, namely, elections, political tolerance, the rule of law, freedom of expression, accountability and transparency, decentralization and civil society.

Elections

First, free and fair elections lend legitimacy to democracy by preventing one person or a small group in society from imposing certain vested interests on the general population. No one person or group should exercise a monopoly of power over the election process.

Political parties constitute a major instrument of constitutional democracy in which fundamental norms govern the political community and determine relations between the legislature, the people and the interactions among the centres of power. In a democracy, political parties can be formed and can campaign without intimidation. Some countries require political parties to have a minimum level of popular support before they can participate in elections. All political parties must also have access to a free media and other means to broadcast their election manifestos. The electoral process is supervised, monitored and carried out by a neutral body, often an election commission.

However, elections may be rigged and votes bought. Politicians who only appear in their constituencies to enhance their patronage power, to be photographed and filmed distributing largesse are sadly a familiar phenomenon in many countries.

A political establishment that ceases to reflect the aspirations of the citizens loses its political legitimacy. Once that happens, the political establishment could call for new elections. However, it may instead resort to the use of force, fear and intimidation to cling to power. And elections may be suspended or subverted.

Although elections are necessary and may be the most visible aspect of a democracy, there are many examples of the manipulation of election processes to aid and abet autocracy and tyranny. In themselves, elections do not suffice to ensure democracy.

Political Tolerance

The second pillar is political tolerance. Free and fair elections do not give a mandate to oppress or sideline those who have voted against the government. It also does not mean that the majority have the right to rob the minority of its civil liberties, rights, property or life. Tolerance is required for democracy to be sustained over the long run. If minority groups do not benefit equitably from the election process, there can be no peace. That absence of peace would make a mockery of efforts to be democratic.

In many countries, there are examples of rewards being given only for those voters who supported the ruling party, with neglect or punishment for those who voted for the opposition. The distribution of food, water supplies and development resources has been used as a weapon of control to win elections.

Post-election politics can be punitive on the losers. This happens when the elected government views the minorityกฆs participation in government as an obstacle, rather than finding a way to include the opposition in reasoned debate and, where appropriate, incorporate opposition positions into government policy.

Tolerance has to do with acceptance of diversity in society. It begins with the way children and young people are brought up. If we teach the young to believe in the principle of winner takes all, we impede the development of democracy. Instead, young people must learn that in an election what the winner earns is an on-going duty to strike a balanced consensus in society. Striking that balance is an art. .

Rule of Law

The third pillar of democracy is the rule of law. There has been much debate on the meaning of this. What is clear, though, is the close connection between the rule of law and democracy.

When the political process is subject to laws and a regulatory framework, it enables citizens to judge the lawfulness of the government. They can find answers to some key questions:

X Does the government govern according to the law or does it take the position that it is exempt from some inconvenient rules?

X Are procedures of government stable and within the law or does government act in an arbitrary fashion, arresting people who challenge its policies and depriving them of their liberty without due process?

I mentioned in my opening remarks the importance of the Magna Carta. That historical document enshrined due process of law. Habeas Corpus is one of the most cherished concepts contained in the Magna Carta. Habeas Corpus prevents arbitrary arrest, imprisonment and execution, by requiring such government action to be justified under law and ensuring the right to due process of the person detained. A political class, which accepts that official actions must comply with the law, is more likely to embrace democracy. Proper application of the rule of law puts a brake on any attempt to destroy liberty, seize property, or violate human rights. It also means that such rules apply across the board to all citizens.

When application of the rule of law is weak, corruption flourishes. Bribery, kickbacks, bid rigging, policy favours for family and cronies are well known in many countries. In these situations, those who seek enforcement of the law may face intimidation or reprisal.

Democracy becomes dysfunctional when the bureaucracy, the judiciary, the legislature, the private sector, the police and the military all use their power to enrich themselves and advance their own interests at the expense of civil society. Laws notwithstanding, corruption undermines the rule of law.

Judicial neutrality is a key premise of the rule of law. If judges apply one set of rules for those with wealth and influence and another set of rules for those without these assets, the entire political and judicial system falls into disrepute, eroding public trust in government institutions to deliver justice.

The rule of law is rooted in a system of moral values. In South Africa, for decades, the rule of law existed within an apartheid system. The law was based on the colour of oneกฆs skin. In a properly balanced political and legal system that protects the rights of citizens, those with a particular skin colour cannot use it to obstruct justice. Justice and equality are directly linked with the sustainability of democracy. Generally, once the rule of law is compromised, a regime, despite what it may otherwise profess, slips on its democratic credentials and loses its legitimacy.

The rule of law also has a final function. In a constitutional democracy like Thailand, the constitution defines the institutional arrangements that govern in a democracy. Democracy works best when its institutions and officials operate in a system with checks and balances. The rule of law defines the limits to political interference in decision-making processes. With the rule of law, the system is owned in common by all citizens who are subject to the same laws; those governing do not กงownกจ the system.

To ensure the functioning of the rule of law, it is vital that the integrity and independence of the judiciary and the entire justice system are not subject to undue influence and illegal intervention.

Freedom of Expression

The fourth pillar that sustains democracy is freedom of expression. What people in civil society are allowed to say, print, distribute and discuss is indicative of the democratic nature of a political system. A free press is a measure of the freedom of expression in a society. An Internet that is untrammeled by state control is another.

Few governments, democratic or otherwise, have a genuinely easy relationship with a free press. Yet, despite all its shortcomings, a free press, supported by open Internet access, is indispensable to keeping the public well informed as part of a functioning democracy. Even in an established democracy, government may seek to manipulate a free press into serving its own ends. Governments often conduct spin campaigns, to advance their agenda and dilute the power of independent media.

New technology is unleashing powerful new forces through quantum expansion of information dissemination and space for public discourse. The Internet has revolutionized participation in political debate and action and fostered the formation of e-communities. Mobile phones serve as critical means of facilitating rapid communication.

In countries with authoritarian practices, freedom of information is high on the governmentกฆs danger list. Such freedom, as represented by the new media, is a few clicks away on websites such as YouTube and on numerous subject-specific blogs. These new forces have made it much harder for governments to control the flow of information.

The fact remains that even democratically-elected governments will go to great lengths to manipulate public opinion whether on TV, in the print media or the Internet. State influence and control over the flow of information should give us pause. The trappings of democracy may appear healthy, but if freedom of information and press freedom are hollowed out, then democracy is compromised. Constant public vigilance remains instrumental in performing a check-and-balance role. This is not always easy, as the law in many developing democracies is neither supportive of freedom of information nor does it favour the press.

Freedom of expression was thought important enough to place in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights provides, กงEveryone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.กจ

Unless citizens have the right to express themselves in the political process, no government can be made accountable for its actions. However, no democracy has absolute freedom of speech.

The key is to balance national and societal interests to create and maintain the level of discussion required for participation in democracy to be meaningful, while drawing lines that take into account a countryกฆs history and cultural milieu. Each country places its own limitations on freedom of expression. What matters is that those limitations are not misused by political forces to limit public scrutiny of policies and actions that impact on the integrity of public goods. For example, if criminal libel laws effectively thwart whistle blowing on irregularities or corruption, democracy is diminished.

Democracy is about multiple voices. These may be contradictory; some may be more informed than others, while others may be personal opinion, gossip or speculation. That is a marketplace of ideas. As in all marketplaces, not everything is of equal value. So long as our institutions enable people to understand how to assess ideas in this marketplace, selecting the rigorous and rejecting the shoddy, democracy is not only sustained, it thrives.

With the Internet, globalization and mass communications, the marketplace of ideas draws from far beyond the borders of any single democracy. While such a marketplace can no longer be easily crafted and controlled by government, no single government can feel quite comfortable in invoking the means to silence dissent or whistle-blowers.

Accountability and Transparency

The fifth pillar of democracy is accountability and transparency. This means that institutions of government and individuals in those institutions must be held accountable for their actions. A government must be accountable to the people who elected it into power. Furthermore, it must be accountable to an independent judiciary or other impartial institutions established to check government action. Be it agricultural policy, fuel pricing or health care services, decisions must not advance the agendas of vested interest groups over the public interest.

Accountability and transparency essentially have the same purpose: to protect citizens against misguided policies or decisions that enrich a few at the expense of the many. When these two guardian angels are compromised, it is an alarm that good governance is at risk, and the democratic process has stalled.

Decentralization

The sixth pillar rests on local or provincial political empowerment. The closer the government is to the people governed, the more responsive the government is likely to be. At the same time, for decentralized democracy to work, there must also be a decentralization of funding, material and human resources and institutional capability.

Decentralization of the political process is another way to curb the concentration of power and influence exercised by political forces. Citizens become more aware, interested and willing to participate in democracy when they see their officials as neighbours and what is at stake as something close to home.

It is at the local level that we see the best example of how democracy is connected with the daily lives of citizens. The physical proximity of the neighbourhood has the same benefits as the online community of practice in a knowledge economy: people with common interests and shared values express and exchange views and insights, influencing one another. Citizensกฆ right of assembly and participation at the local level nurture the longevity of democracy in a society.

The creation of political parties at the local level facilitates the building of a representative democracy. Local participation by voters and candidates drawn from the same district or province gives credibility and legitimacy to the democratic process. The local administration becomes a training ground for future national leaders.

Civil Society

Civil society is the vital seventh pillar. An active civil society begins its engagement at the grassroots. Community forums, clubs, issue-focused activist groups, charities, cooperatives, unions, think tanks and associations fit under the broad umbrella of civil society. These groups are the participatory vehicles for sustaining grass-root democracy. There is a strong degree of volunteerism, shared interest and common values around which information is gathered, analyzed, views formed and advocacy pursued.

The health of a democracy may be measured by the authenticity of its civil society and the extent of citizen participation in public policy making. Civil society provides an important source of information for intelligent debate on matters of public interest. Civil society also provides a mechanism whereby the collective views of citizens can shape and influence government policy. By bringing into the public domain arguments and information as a context for examining policy, a democratic government is forced to present counterarguments or to modify its position. Such exchange is healthy for democracy. Finally, it is clear that when the deliberative process within a political system accepts the role played by civil society, it also implicitly agrees that citizens have a role to play in checking government decision-making. A vibrant civil society thus makes for more thorough decision-making in a democracy.

In many countries, there is a history of political patronage. The head of a political entity builds up a personal following whose loyalty is to the individual rather than to a political party or creed. When that happens, democracy cannot be easily sustained.

Leadership Qualities

The pillars of democracy that Iกฆve outlined above are necessary but insufficient without leaders to build and maintain the pillars of democracy.

They qualities of leadership for sustainable democracy are to be found in those who act in an honest, transparent and accountable manner. They are consensus builders, open-minded and fair. They are committed to justice and to advancing the public interest. And they are tolerant of opposing positions. Of course, it is often said that democracy is a messy way of governing and that the human condition is flawed. There is truth in both statements. But in admitting our limitations, let us strive to avoid the mistakes of the past and look forward to a new generation of leaders who can build on the lessons of the struggles of ordinary citizens for democracy.

SUMMARY

Iกฆve shared my observations of pillars that hold up the architecture for sustaining democracy.

To foster a sustainable democracy, a nation must focus its efforts on building a system that empowers people not only through the right to vote, but also through norms, institutions and values that support that right and make it meaningful.

What will sustain democracy is the shared realization that although democracy is far from perfect, the alternatives are even further from perfection. Some societies come to this realization sooner, others later. Some are experimenting to see if only parts of democracy, such as good governance and accountability, can be enjoyed without the burden of full-fledged democracy.

I wish them well. As long as they demonstrate a commitment to the larger welfare and well-being of the people and deliver public services, the majority of their people may well be content with the status quo and not protest.

One point in their favour in some fledgling democracies may be a sense of disappointment with representative democracy. Elected officials, instead of serving and protecting the public interest, serve their own interests and those of their cronies. They arrogate the right to dictate in the name of the majority, while riding roughshod over the minority. They become กงthe publicกจ and are no longer กงrepresentativesกจ.

For the past three decades or so, there has been a trend towards more direct, participatory democracy. In established democracies, this may be an incremental change. However, going from autocracy to mass participatory democracy is a big leap.

What is important is that the seeds of democracy must be homegrown, for it to be accepted and to function. Each society must work out its own contradictions, its own competing priorities.

Experience everywhere highlights the fragility of democracy. Even when seemingly well established, democracy can be subject to tampering, especially in times of crisis. I do not believe there is a democracy so strong that it is invulnerable to the greed and ambitions of men. To nurture and sustain democracy, its beneficiaries must also serve as its guardians; the common people must be ever vigilant and wise. For most of humanity, history has not ended. The struggle for and against democracy will continue far into the night.

* Amartya Sen Lecture Series on Sustainable Development, in association with the Cambridge Society, Oxford Society and Harvard Club, of Belgium.

[permanent_disorder]

Thai court rewards criminality

By Awzar Thi

Column: Rule of Lords

Hong Kong, China — History repeated itself in Thailand this week when a top court for the second time in as many years dissolved the biggest political party, along with two of its partners, and effectively banned its leader and executive members from politics.

The Constitutional Court, which inherited the job from an interim tribunal that issued a similar order against the former ruling party last May, unanimously disbanded the three coalition partners in accordance with section 237 of the 2007 Constitution. Under this remarkable clause, which an unelected panel wrote into the charter on behalf of the 2006 coup makers, political parties must be dissolved if it can be shown that they failed to prevent electoral offences from occurring in their ranks.

In football, this would be the equivalent of a rule that if one player gets a red card, the whole team is disqualified from the league, with the captain and coach sent into early retirement.

The ruling allowed the political extremists, who had brought thousands of human shields to occupy the airports for a week, to declare victory and go home in time for the king’s birthday on Friday.

Irrespective of the formal grounds for the sentence, in timing and content it has been perceived as endorsing the extremists’ ideology and goals. In effect, the court has indicated that while vote buying cannot be tolerated, hijacking public facilities, vandalizing property, shooting at people and vehicles, illegally detaining fellow citizens, attacking state officers and setting up a proxy police force not only can be tolerated but can even be rewarded. Perhaps appropriately, the verdict was handed down with pro-government demonstrators outside calling the judges stooges, forcing them to change venue and smashing a generator to shut off their electricity supply. The aggressive public attacks on the court and its personnel are unusual for Thailand, and speak not only to the intensity of the current conflict but also to how far vested interests have drawn the judiciary into the fray.

The judges insisted that having found the politicians guilty of wrongdoing they had no alternative other than to dissolve the three parties. But is this true? Could they not, in principle at least, have done otherwise? One problem is that the court was called to decide on a narrow legal question that was itself predicated upon a series of other significant political and judicial events over the last couple of years.

As has been customary in Thailand, the top courts did nothing in response to the 2006 military takeover, and allowed themselves to be used for its purposes. The May 2007 judgment tacitly endorsed the regime, and the court that sat this week was set up under the regressive Constitution that followed in its wake. This September, in an equally surreal judgment, it sacked the prime minister for cooking on television.

The court could not contradict the earlier rulings. Nor could it call into question the contents of the section upon which the fate of the government hung, and which the Parliament had been set to amend last month. But that does not mean that it had no alternative. Judges around the world have often refused to rule on pressing political questions, aware that to do so would damage the fragile public confidence in their work and threaten their integrity.

Perhaps the most significant case of this sort in recent years was that which handed George W. Bush his first term as U.S. president.

Although the Supreme Court then made itself responsible for sorting out the mess caused by ballot problems in Florida, four dissenting judges warned that it had been dragged into an issue that it could not satisfactorily resolve and to which it did not belong. One of them, Justice Stephen Breyer, recounted an important lesson from history to explain why.

In 1876, a panel was established to figure out who had won that year’s presidential election. Five of the 15 members were judges. They were expected, as in so many things in Thailand these days, to lend an air of impartiality and fairness.

One of the justices cast the deciding vote. The losing party accused him of accepting bribes, and he was widely lambasted. But whether he was dishonest or not is beside the point for the purposes of the historical lesson, Breyer made clear. What matters was that the presence of the judges did not give the panel more legitimacy.  “Nor did it assure the public that the process had worked fairly, guided by the law,” he wrote. “Rather, it simply embroiled Members of the Court in partisan conflict, thereby undermining respect for the judicial process.”

History has vindicated Breyer and his dissenting peers. Public esteem of the U.S. Supreme Court has slipped to perhaps its lowest level in decades, as a result of the judgment in favor of Bush over Al Gore, and other judgments since. The court may have put someone in government, but as in 1876 it did not give credibility to that person or government. It merely brought more censure and dispute to its own doors.

Thailand’s Constitutional Court has again taken someone out of government, but it too has not added credibility to anyone or anything. Instead, it has once more played the fool, and once more made a mockery of the justice that it purportedly represents.

Did it have an alternative? Of course it did. It could, and should, simply have refused to decide. That it didn’t is not for want of an alternative. It’s because it wasn’t looking for one.

http://ratchasima.net/2008/12/05/constitut...ds-criminality

(Awzar Thi is the pen name of a member of the Asian Human Rights Commission with over 15 years of experience as an advocate of human rights and the rule of law in Thailand and Burma.

______________________________________

note:

1. before the credibility got questioned. the Asien Human Rights Commision is a NGO. i recommend a look at http://www.ahrc-thailand.net and check the archive, the publication that are online.

you can find information about tak bai, the case of missing lawyer Somchai, the abduction and killings by kalasin police for example.

if you suspicious that AHRC is pro Thaksin, read the 2005 report: institutionalised torture, extrajudicial killings & uneven application of law in thailand.

2. read the text on the original page, because it contains a lot of hyperlinks that provide additional information.

[Koo82]

The judges insisted that having found the politicians guilty of wrongdoing they had no alternative other than to dissolve the three parties. But is this true? Could they not, in principle at least, have done otherwise? One problem is that the court was called to decide on a narrow legal question that was itself predicated upon a series of other significant political and judicial events over the last couple of years.

As has been customary in Thailand, the top courts did nothing in response to the 2006 military takeover, and allowed themselves to be used for its purposes. The May 2007 judgment tacitly endorsed the regime, and the court that sat this week was set up under the regressive Constitution that followed in its wake. This September, in an equally surreal judgment, it sacked the prime minister for cooking on television.

The court could not contradict the earlier rulings. Nor could it call into question the contents of the section upon which the fate of the government hung, and which the Parliament had been set to amend last month. But that does not mean that it had no alternative. Judges around the world have often refused to rule on pressing political questions, aware that to do so would damage the fragile public confidence in their work and threaten their integrity.

Thanks for posting this.

Tell me that the Constitution Court now starts to judge Democrat Party for buying votes.

The people who can save bloodshed now is the Court. But if the judges only judge one side, who can ever trust them?

Now I wish whatever Court could judge PAD leaders as quick as they judged the 3 parties PPP, CT and MT.

Or they won't do that because they have to concentrate on Peue Thai members.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Koo82

[permanent_disorder]

Is Sondhi's PAD now a brainwashed political cult?

By Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

Published on December 5, 2008

So the prophet said it over the weekend: "If by dying the country will improve, let death visit us today. It's better than being alive otherwise".

These Davidian-like words were from no other than the supreme prophet, Sondhi Limthongkul, leader of the self-styled anti-Thaksin and anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy on Saturday, as he anticipated a possible clash with the police as the government tried to re-capture Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi Airport, invaded and occupied by the protesters.

Today the PAD movement resembles a political cult. Sondhi himself was a former cheerleader of Thaksin Shinawatra but is now a repentant man on a mission to eradicate Thaksin and his proxy from power. This gives him an almost messianic aura and mission. And there are rituals PAD supporters have gone through over the past two years, in order to prepare them for their "final battle". Never mind if the expression "final battle" has been used many times by PAD leadership - like some born-again Christians who await the Judgement Day, the date can always be re-set to fit the expired deadline.

One daily ritual PAD followers and members go through at their protest sites is the highly frenzied clapping of hands and cheering, encouraged by their five leaders who appear on stage almost every evening. Co-leaders like Sondhi and Somsak Kosaisuk, and others, enter the stage and lift their hands with palms upward, exciting their followers into frenzies. There's also the daily queue for free donated hot meals at the site; and T-shirts glorifying the leaders and their cause to protect the monarchy and promote their controversial "New Politics" of governance. Daily one-sided news and analysis feeds followers through ASTV satellite television and the Manager Group of newspapers. Even plastic Swatch-like watches with faces of the five PAD co-leaders can be purchased for Bt199 at Government House.

This, along with the good and bad times, and the loss of life and injuries among fellow followers, has bonded them.

Gathering in large numbers creates a sense of what anthropologists call "communitas": a heightened bond which threatens law and order as the mob feels invincible and empowered by its sheer numbers.

This kind of ritual and experience has been fostered over the months and it's wrong to simply blame the leaders for brainwashing their followers. The supporters' frenzied response and support has created a mutual brainwashing of the leaders too. A leader like Sondhi must be heavily intoxicated by his own propaganda, as if he is capable of ordering his people to do anything and at whatever cost.

These prophets also promote the worshipping of the Thai monarchy institution. Everyone was encouraged to wear yellow, symbolising the present King. But whether people like Sondhi are true royalists is debatable. The media's inability to discuss the role of the Thai monarchy due to censorship laws and culture has hampered the analysis and understanding of the current political crisis, to say the least.

As for Thaksin. PAD followers do not just hate his actions but deeply abhor the man, his cronies and proxies including Somchai Wongsawat. Thaksin to them is like Satan, and must be destroyed.

It's thus a zero-sum game in their view and no price is too high. Never mind the Thai economy is now reeling from the shutting down of two airports, their prophet claims they would rather die than allow the current regime and Thaksin to cling to power.

Sondhi himself told the PM to first resign, then they would negotiate. But what is left to negotiate? Such a remark reflects how out of touch the PAD leader has become.

After months of mutual brainwashing, and with the majority of Thai mainstream media nurturing and uncritically psupporting them, these people no longer dwell in rationality, law and responsibility. By now, the PAD has grown into a self-righteous semi-fascist monster propelled by its own intolerant political cult willing to ruin Thailand in order to achieve its elusive political "salvation".

They may have left the airports now, but in their victory statement, the PAD leaders didn't even offer any word of apology or contrition for the immense damage they have caused.

The question now is what to do with these people who may return to the streets sooner than anyone expected?

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/05...cs_30090273.php

[Ulysses G.]

As for Thaksin. PAD followers do not just hate his actions but deeply abhor the man, his cronies and proxies including Somchai Wongsawat. Thaksin to them is like Satan, and must be destroyed. It's thus a zero-sum game in their view and no price is too high. Never mind the Thai economy is now reeling from the shutting down of two airports, their prophet claims they would rather die than allow the current regime and Thaksin to cling to power.

Sondhi himself told the PM to first resign, then they would negotiate. But what is left to negotiate? Such a remark reflects how out of touch the PAD leader has become.

This is the same thing that I find with the farang PAD apologists on Thai Visa and out on the street. They hate Thaksin so much that any price is worth paying to get rid of him, but if you pin them down, they will admit that he has never done anything that is all that evil (many will even admit that they think killing all the drug dealers might have improved the country), but that they are afraid that he will do something in the future. I'm sorry, but this is not a science fiction film. We can not convict people for what we think they might do.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Ulysses G.

[permanent_disorder]

This is the same thing that I find with the farang PAD apologists on Thai Visa and out on the street. They hate Thaksin so much that any price is worth paying to get rid of him, but if you pin them down, they will admit that he has never done anything that is all that evil (many will even admit that they think killing all the drug dealers might have improved the country), but that they are afraid that he will do something in the future. I'm sorry, but this is not a science fiction film. We can not convict people for what we think they might do.

it's the Beer Bars that got closed earlier under thaksin that does them make to such haters. they fail to see that behind such policy, thaksins longtime mentor and advisor Chamlong stands. the prohibitionist and uber moralist. after Chamlong left TRT, TRT or PPP still continue with such ideas like a ban on the sale of alcohol on buddhist holidays.

and in threads like this Crackdown-Alcohol-Public-Holidays you can spot a lot of them and see exposing themself how clueless they are and what might be the main motivation for their Thaksin hate and pro-PAD mumble.

and lots of envy on the money that this evil man has. nothing more.

but i would say, that it's possible to discuss a predicted future. and have a look a the posebilities that might be and come. and if one see a danger and dark clouds coming, he should get the chance to voice his concerns. elaborate and explain why he think so. then the audience will check is there rational significance and reason or at least a point or only Gagga.

but of course we can not convict people for what they might be do and put them in Schutzhaft or their family in Sippenhaft.

[Koo82]

We can not convict people for what we think they might do.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Koo82

[Koo82]

When did/will Mr. Somchai kill people???

Edited December 7, 2008 by Koo82

[LaoPo]

When did/will Mr. Somchai kill people???

Propaganda Koo82...nothing else. For falsely accusing ruling PM's and Ministers in the west you could be arrested...but I know TIT.

They should make banners telling WHO paid them...WHO fed them....WHO supplied drinks....

LaoPo

[permanent_disorder]

SINGING IN THE CROWD

Bangkok Post 07.12.2008

Kelly Newton-Wordsworth loves the King passionately, sings at PAD rallies, prays a lot, is not politically motivated and doesn't like to say "whatever!"

Voranai Vanijaka

People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) rallies are always a happening event. They're filled with an extensive selection of delicious foods and entertaining performances, not to mention shootings, bomb explosions, knife attacks and, of late, airport hijackings. Among the array of exciting activities, there is one special performance that may have raised a few eyebrows. On June 6, at Government House on Ratchadamnoen Nok Avenue, the sea of yellow shirts witnessed the first PAD performance of a blonde Australian lady singing (in English) her own composition, Long Live the King of Thailand.

Her name is Kelly Newton-Wordsworth, singer, farmer and green activist from Western Australia, aged ... well, she practises (in her own words) "the philosophy of agelessness".

June 6 marked the first of many performances by Ms Newton-Wordsworth for the PAD. She also has another song she's proud of, There must be Peace in Thailand. Both songs were released by her own Australian production company, Newtone Productions.

It begs the question then, what is an Aussie who has only been in the kingdom since March last year (before that, she has just "passed through" a few times), doing involving herself in local political unrest? You may be surprised (or not) at her answers.

Is she in agreement with the PAD that the People Power party-led government should not attempt to change the constitution?

"My singing isn't a political thing ... the constitution is for the Thai people. It's your country!" said the recording artist and environmentalist, who has performed at concerts and green festivals all over the world.

If the constitution isn't the issue, is it Thailand's embattled former premier Thaksin Shinawatra? "Well, I don't know him ... I only know what I read ... what I've been told ... so I don't know what to say about him. I've not watched television for many years. I've never seen a video of Thaksin, never seen any footage of him," she said, adding that she has no political affiliations.

If she has no opinion on the constitution or Thaksin, why then is she a part of the biggest political and social upheaval in Thailand in over a decade?

"I'm a foreigner ... I may not understand many things ... but I've learned many things. Everyone has their own mind, their own opinion ... things happen because people don't understand. When I came to the PAD, I started to think and learn ..."

Ms Newton-Wordsworth said she once slept in the grounds of Australia's Parliament House to protest (successfully) against forest encroachment.

What has she learned? "I've seen something in the PAD that I have never seen anywhere else in the world ... thousands of people in a place for almost six months ... as far as I know, this is the longest protest of its kind in the world ..."

Is patience the valuable lesson here? Well, there's more to it than that. "They are standing up for what they believe in ... and it seems to be they love the King ... I mean, they're all wearing yellow for the King!" said Ms Newton-Wordsworth, who dislikes "Western cynicism" and the "whatever" culture championed by Western teens.

"You know how they go 'whatever' at everything?" she said, making the quote gesture, but quickly adding that, "Most people in the world are very good people".

Ms Newton-Wordsworth also said she has received emails from Thai people all over the world thanking her for her contributions and her love for the King.

The singer, who's currently searching for a record deal in Thailand, explains how she first became involved with the PAD through a Thai friend who produced her song, Long Live the King of Thailand.

"How I started? A friend of mine said people were saying negative things about the King ... so I came to sing Long Live the King of Thailand."

The story of Ms Newton-Wordsworth and the King of Thailand goes like this: She first found out about the King from an in-flight documentary on a Thai Airways International flight from Western Australia, and in her own words: "I knew nothing about him ... but I knew when I saw his face ... the way he held the hands of the people ... I had tears flowing down my face ... this was the first time I really knew about King Bhumibol.

"I became involved because I love the King. I love his philosophy and thoughts ... his farming [agricultural projects] ... many of the things he talks about, I understand," she said.

Ms Newton-Wordsworth has been a bio-dynamic farmer for over 20 years and won the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Rural Woman of the Year Award for the Great Southern region of Western Australia for her work in the field of sustainable agriculture. Currently, her husband William manages the farm, while her two youngest children, Vincent, 15, and Grace, 12, are in school. Kelly also has an older daughter, Tara, 20.

"I've never known of a leader, a king, a member of the royal family ... spending so much time, dedicated to finding solutions ... to make any difference he can for the lives of the Thai people," Ms Newton-Wordsworth said, comparing His Majesty with leaders elsewhere.

With her love of peace and the King, does she then condone PAD violence and its storming, on the night of Nov 25, of Suvarnabhumi airport?

"I live my life through prayer ... with my family. It might sound strange ... when we pray about things ... if it comes to us that I [should] sing ... then I sing. I've experienced many miracles in my life. I am a Christian."

But (again), does she condone the violence? After a moment's thought, she explained: "Sometimes people feel they've just had enough and do things they don't normally do ... like when I slept on the grounds of the [Australian] parliament." Although she insisted there should be no violence, saying that: "People of all religions should pray for peace in Thailand ... I just want to sing and pray."

Would she sing for the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD)? "I'd have to pray about it ... if it comes in prayer ... yes. I would give whatever God wants me to give."

http://www.bangkokpost.com/071208_Brunch/0...008_brun001.php

___________________________________________________________________________

note: long text to read, i know. but that australian woman is a "funny".

author Voranai Vanijaka has also a mission, to prove that the falang can not understand thai politics. remember the patpong ping pong ball democracy text? but is it here the case? is there intended irony inside? or did Voranai finally found the falang who can understand? ultramarin Yellow and in a lives in a bizarre dreamworld like him.

[jdinasia]

As for Thaksin. PAD followers do not just hate his actions but deeply abhor the man, his cronies and proxies including Somchai Wongsawat. Thaksin to them is like Satan, and must be destroyed. It's thus a zero-sum game in their view and no price is too high. Never mind the Thai economy is now reeling from the shutting down of two airports, their prophet claims they would rather die than allow the current regime and Thaksin to cling to power.

Sondhi himself told the PM to first resign, then they would negotiate. But what is left to negotiate? Such a remark reflects how out of touch the PAD leader has become.

This is the same thing that I find with the farang PAD apologists on Thai Visa and out on the street. They hate Thaksin so much that any price is worth paying to get rid of him, but if you pin them down, they will admit that he has never done anything that is all that evil (many will even admit that they think killing all the drug dealers might have improved the country), but that they are afraid that he will do something in the future. I'm sorry, but this is not a science fiction film. We can not convict people for what we think they might do.

LOL,

Thaksin apologists think that 2600+ extra-judicial murders (many of them being murders of innocent people), Tak Bai,

selling off national interests, profiteering etc are not issues

[Ulysses G.]

That is pretty much business as usual in this part of the world and most Thais are glad he killed the drug dealers.

Why the obsession with Thaksin?

[mc2]

Is Sondhi's PAD now a brainwashed political cult?

By Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

Published on December 5, 2008

So the prophet said it over the weekend: "If by dying the country will improve, let death visit us today. It's better than being alive otherwise".

That statement from him is insane. "Let us visit death today". Another jonestown cult leader of paranoia and hysteria.

If Sondhi didnt get what he wanted he would probably make his zombies drink punch in a final protest.

Sondhi should take his zombies in the middle of Issan and make a new community, separate from the normal Thais where he cant bother us. He could call the place "SondhiTown" .

Either that or make a political party and shutup.

[permanent_disorder]

LOL,

Thaksin apologists think that 2600+ extra-judicial murders (many of them being murders of innocent people), Tak Bai,

selling off national interests, profiteering etc are not issues

read again, it's about ' how out of touch the PAD' are and willing to pay any price in their hate

just scroll little bit up to Post #101 Thai court rewards criminality and you will find those murder crimes mentioned and pointed out.

these crimes happen during a time moralists like sondhi and chamlong have been best buddies of thaksin. that was not an issue for them.

if that all is just "LOL" for you, it looks like you don't take it to serious neither.

find excuses for murder and manslaughter and other ugly violence or denying that such things happen, PAD apology, is the main purpose of all your unsubstantial 2 liner "contribution" to the forum.

why you don't take your "LOL" and go to a sauna and beer bar forum and flame people there?

"selling of national interests", that is just stupid nazi propaganda, you can discuss that here: in PAD propaganda thaksin is the the money jew . "profiteering" is the same nazi BS.