Abhisit Vejjajiva Elected New Prime Minister Of Thailand

[Ulysses G.]

I was a big reader all of my life and I put off attending University until I was 27 years old.

I often tell people that about the only new thing that I really learned there, of any importance, was what people were referring to when they talked about Pavlov's dogs. Everyone always assumes that you know already.

I also learned that I would not have missed a lot intellectually, if I had just kept reading and never attended at all. This is really the most important lesson of University as far as I can see.

Edited December 20, 2008 by Ulysses G.

[Steve2UK]

I think many are forgetting one important thing: the poor will never be fairly represented until the shameful law that states only those with a university degree are able to run for parliament is repealed. I didn't see that great saviour of the poor (what a dangerous myth that has become) even talking about doing so in all the years he was in power.

I totally agree. To be honest, I didn't know that it's a requirement and I suspect many others didn't until you raised it, but I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise - given Thailand's fixation with having a degree (even a "you're sure not to fail" bought-and-paid-for one) for just about any "white collar" job.

I have no idea what the qualifications are in my country. Do you know what they are in your country? I would be surprised if they aren't similar.

OMR - qualifications for what? To be a UK MP - receiving the most votes cast for a candidate in the constituency where you stand (degrees don't come into it). Oh - and not being a lord or certified insane. For a "white collar" job - varies........ many require a degree, many don't. I'm half-German and I remember it being a requirement to have a qualification from a "Handelsschule" (trade school/college) or "Berufsschule" (vocational school/college) even to work in a regular shop - so I'm not unfamiliar with the notion of other countries requiring qualifications for relatively "basic" jobs as compared to the UK.

My comment about Thailand's fixation (which wasn't intended to be emotional or even all that critical) is that I observe that a Thai pretty much has to have a degree even to work as a bank clerk, let alone in the civil service. Other countries, other ways - up to them.

I also 100% agree with the main paragraph in ballpoint's follow-up post. We'll hopefully agree to disagree about whether teachers should be expected/required to have a degree; I don't have any principled objection to a teacher not having a degree - I just see it being very hard to operate in practice. Frankly, I see that issue as wholly irrelevant to the issue raised in ballpoint's first post - the degree requirement for Thai MP's.

Edit: More posts appeared as I was typing. My thanks to the estimable Meerkat for that good news and my apologies for appearing to repeat some of what ballpoint said in his later post.

PS - I didn't get a degree, but I have a Diploma in Stage Management from the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art - and I think I got just a measly second in the University of Life............ so there.

Edited December 20, 2008 by Steve2UK

[ballpoint]

Imagine what Einstein could have been if he had attended university.

[Steve2UK]

Imagine what Einstein could have been if he had attended university.

Da_n! I wish I'd said that........

And I wrote the script for a dramatised biography of him............ oh, the shame.

I also wrote one about Hitler and he rose quite far without having a degree..... Hmmm, no - you're right......... best not to go there........

Edited December 20, 2008 by Steve2UK

[baht&sold]

Christmas/New Years wish for Thailand

[h90]

Imagine what Einstein could have been if he had attended university.

Da_n! I wish I'd said that........

And I wrote the script for a dramatised biography of him............ oh, the shame.

I also wrote one about Hitler and he rose quite far without having a degree..... Hmmm, no - you're right......... best not to go there........

Hitler wanted to painting, but university rejected him twice.

If they would have taken him, he might got a well known artist.

[animatic]

No, I have NEVER "herd of sarcasimn?" Is it like a herd of gazelle?

Interesting concept Herd Sarcasm one starts and the rest follow,

often right over the edge in to a real casm.

We are social lemmings cleaving to a group to feel like

our fears are not felt in a vacuum.

Of course fears make groups demean the opposition philosophy's adherents,

or a directed perceived object of fear, and so like lemmings continue beyond all reasonings

to justify large baseless hates to remain part of the group.

Us vs Them political divide and conquier. One of the age old technics to hold

or extract power from the body politic.

I see what appears much the same in TVF.

Once you have staked out a territory you NEVER back track,

never consider exentuations, never consider new info.

ONLY repeat ad nausium the same thought self-re-enforcing patterns that

convienantly validate your earlier feelings.

Why change with the buzz feels good and there is a validation of your beliefs.

.

Animatic - greetings .

IMO, much truth in what you write here - an interesting insight. Taking you at your word, may I suggest that your observations would carry more weight if you also included your view of those posting as per the quote you excerpted at the beginning of your own post - which comes from the same member who several times gratuitously quoted "silent coupe (sic)" in post after post [all but the first instance have now been deleted by Mods - along with whatever actual/valid points were being made by that writer].

I am personally not well disposed to the use of such highly emotive terms as "Nazi" out of their original context - e.g. "Grammar Nazi". Colourful it may be, but I find that kind of purple prose distasteful and inherently distorting - aside from the fact that I have personal (i.e. family) reasons for not wanting to see it misused (i.e. out of context) and thereby IMO devalued. Perhaps that's seen by some as a "bias" - but I don't allow it to blind me.

It follows that I am not happy that a TV member would use a Sondhi-Hitler picture collage as an avatar - any more than I see any value in other members posting less than flattering pictures of Abhisit from university or campaigning days, repeatedly raising questions about a Thaksin daughter's sexuality or seeing fit to mock another member's typing mistake or language error......... and so on and so on. To me these are all reprehensible and usually say more about the writer than they illuminate any point he/she may be trying to make. More importantly, to varying extents maybe, they must inherently devalue otherwise potentially valid points made in the same post or elsewhere by the same member. Tedious to repeat it but - so much heat and so little light.

Returning to your later points, I find myself wondering whether some posters have a mirror next to the computer and confuse the two when they write accusing others of (blinding) bias. You wrote once: "Have bias, will scrawl". It's a telling phrase - and very, very neat - but I think we do well to distinguish between having a point of view (and working with/from that) and real bias in the sense of being so blinded by it that we (often wilfully, it seems) block out another "point of view" and/or source of information to consider. From what you say, I infer that you see yourself as receptive to and ready to take on board other views and the information included to support them. I would certainly hope that's true in the fact as well as the claim - it's certainly a trait that I endorse 100% and try to operate for myself in developing my own perspective.

P.S. I actually took your spelling of "casm" as a clever play on words from "sarcasm". But that's perhaps just another bias of mine coming out....... loving what language can do and putting it through its paces.

Thank you for the kind words.

I fear I was short on punctuation.

In this case I thought using the line that made the metaphor and not personalizing it,

MIGHT make it less likely to be glossed over in some quarters.

Let the concept stand for itself, rather that dive off the precipice and hope that

history will see it in a better light.

Thank you also for remembering "Have bias will scrawl."

I found that if I feel COMPELLED to flame, tis best with a blunted point.

Slap a group silly rather than an individual specifically.

A old biker/drummer friend once called me Blunt Much Makeyerpoint.

That I am afraid was the ne plus ultra of his wit on his best day.

In the trenches or scattershot guerilla warfare of though and rebuttle,

sometimes the grey, amorphous, middle ground is the HARDEST to describe and subscribe to.

And yet likely the central pivot of the simmering humanity involved in the dispute.

[h90]

I doubt that this 70/30 idea will help much, but it is not undemocratic and that "the poor will not be allowed to vote" is a plain lie intended to seed hate between people.

You already don't think it will work and we have not even gone into about a million reasons why.

To me, it just sounds like one will have to pay off the elected representatives instead of the voters and that is no kind of progress. It all sounds like what we called a big clusterfcuk when I was in the military.

If it would be like you say "like one will have to pay off the elected representatives instead of the voters" it would be a big progress! Because now there is vote buying on both levels. At the elections and MP buying.

But I agree it is not much progress. Proportional elections on all levels: Town, Area, country would fix many of the problems.

[Meerkat]

I double-checked to make sure I wasn't posting incorrectly:

The MP requirements are under Section 101 (no degree), Cabinet under 174 (Bachelor's and up), and Senator under 115 (same as for the Cabinet).

ballpoint, yes please do spread the word to your friends in the villages. As you say, it was widely unknown that the situation had changed (I was only corrected myself a couple of months ago).

Of course if you're angling for one of the appointed Senate seats, getting pally with one of the (only) seven judges that do the appointing might be said by some to be an unwritten requirement...

I, of course, would never countenance such an insinuation.

[Mobi]

You can't even be a supervisor in a factory without a certain level of education, no matter how smart you are.

All the senior jobs , and many of the lesser jobs are closed to those without a degree.

It is all nepotism, contacts and bullshit degrees.

Promotion on merit doesn't exist in Thai society.

So it's hardly surprising that a degree is required to become an Member of the cabinet or a Senator. Previously all MP's had to hold a degree.

But easy to buy if you have the money.

Edited December 20, 2008 by Mobi

[younghusband]

Why is it bad to have a minimum requirement of holding a degree to be an MP?

Do you think it is bad that teaching needs a degree?

JD, I think we'd both agree that to be a reasonably competent politician

you need a fairly good level of education, knowledge and developed reasoning skills.

A university education is one way of setting someone on the path to this,

and a university degree may be a helpful indicator of someone's competence in certain areas.

However, if the requirement for a degree existed in the UK

we would have missed out on some of the most influential and visionary politicians

in the modern era.

Aneurin Bevan is one example; a son of a miner who left school at 13

and was only later given a scholarship to study at a college

that got his formal educational up to university ENTRY standards.

Isn't there another point here? In most developed economies, although the playing field isn't entirely level, most intelligent kids of whatever social background get the chance of a tertiary education.In the UK only fifty years ago this was not the case and your example of the brillliant Aneurin Bevin is a good one.Oddly enough, under Thai rules, neither Winston Churchill nor Jim Callaghan would have qualified.

Here in Thailand only the most ignorant, prejudiced or simply dense would argue that all kids have a reasonably fair shot at a university education.The logic of the university degree requirement for becoming a Thai MP is rather obvious.

[henryalleman]

I know you mean that 70/30 thing, but it is impossible to bend it that way that it means the poor shouldn't be able to vote.

I don't agree with that 70/30 idea but the poor won't be allowed to vote is a plain propaganda lie.

Yes, the poor will be allowed to vote, but their vote won't be worth spit! What is the difference?

Many Thai thinkers -- not just the Pad -- are suggesting an electoral system where candidates run as representatives of differing geographic and/or economic/professional/trade sectors of the population.

Furthermore many countries around the world which have bicameral legislative bodies use one house -- often the more powerful house, at least for certain kinds of legislation -- as a way to reserve representation for certain societal groups and/or to place a further check on the power of the lower house.

Belgium is a good example, with a partially appointed Parliament (Senate made up of 40 directly elected politicians and 21 representatives appointed by the 3 community parliaments, 10 coopted senators and the children of the king; Chamber's 150 reps elected under a proportional voting system from 11 electoral districts). In Luxembourg one entire chamber is appointed, one elected. Germany's Bundesrat is appointed by the respective state governments, and it has the final say in disputes among states and between the states and the federal government. Last I checked, the UK didn't elect its House of Lords either.

Other examples include Argentina, Austria, Belize, Canada ('members of the Senate, whose seats are apportioned on a regional basis, are chosen by the Prime Minister and formally appointed by the Governor General, and serve until age 75'), India and Jordan.

UG, even your own USofA has indirect presidential and vice presidential elections where delegates represent the states, not the entire American population. American presidential elections are effectively an amalgamation of 51 separate and simultaneous elections (50 states plus the District of Columbia), rather than a single national election.

The Pad is not a political party but a protest movement led by a coalition of NGOs and state labour unions calling for political change in the belief that majoritarian democracy doesn't work in Thailand. Outside the Alliance, many respected Thai thinkers, eg, Dr Prawase Wasi, Dr Chai-anan Samudavanija and Sulak Sivaraksa, are also advocates of a proportional electoral approach.

Thaksin/TRT/PPP/PTP/etc, meanwhile, have a vested interest in maintaining majoritarian elections, since they are readily manipulated through payoffs and patronage. The Democrats do as well, in times when they carry the vote. There are alternatives where more sectors of society are invested with political power, in which the majority do not dominate the minority and where the MPs represent a broader cross-section of society.

Belgium is a good example, with a partially appointed Parliament (Senate made up of 40 directly elected politicians and 21 representatives appointed by the 3 community parliaments, 10 co opted senators and the children of the king; Chamber's 150 reps elected under a proportional voting system from 11 electoral districts)

I like to adjust a few things

The political influence of the senate is very limited. Because its considered as an reflection chamber, and there are plans to reform the Senate or even abolish it completely.

And yes the 3 children of the Monarch are senators and they have theoretically a voting right, but if tomorrow they cast their vote, the politicians and the public will send them home in tar and feathers.

And all the appointed members by the 3 communities are elected proportional by the proportional elected MP's of the regional parliaments. Also the 10 co opted senators represents each 1 province and are chosen by consensus between the parties who are proportional elected in the province council.

In fact all appointed senators or co opted senators are chosen proportional by consensus between the political parties. In most cases they are fin de carriere politicians or picked up politicians who don't get enough vote for a seat in the parliament. To choose the co opted senators is all wheeling and dealing between the political parties so that one party don't have more co opted senators than the other one.

So the partially elected senate is a great democratic deficit, that's why there plans to abolish it.

because its completely useless.

If you comment the Belgian political system you must keep in mind its all about not to disturb a very complicated fine tuned balance of powers between different linguistic communities and regions, political parties( may not forget we don't have national parties), the social midfield organisations, employers and trade unions. Its in fact not so democratic at all.

Compare with Belgium the Thai political system is a very simply kindergarten play.

I know its but I had to explain this, to show why an partially elected parliament is an democracy unworthy.

[henryalleman]

I know you mean that 70/30 thing, but it is impossible to bend it that way that it means the poor shouldn't be able to vote.

I don't agree with that 70/30 idea but the poor won't be allowed to vote is a plain propaganda lie.

Yes, the poor will be allowed to vote, but their vote won't be worth spit! What is the difference?

as always complete nonsense.....

Please educate yourself a little bit before you just post something wrong.

(beside that I don't like that 30/70 system much, a clear proportional system would be better)

I'm educated enough to know that it won't be the poor appointing their so-called "representatives".

By the way congratulations on finally passing your GED!

I know you won't pick it up and you'll continue to post lies, but I try to explain again.

The initial idea, and it wasn't more than an idea from brainstorming was:

You have basically elections like now (more or less) but they fill only a part of the parliament: what you call the 30 % elected one.

The poor the rich, farmers and bank manager vote the same.

That 70 % (and 70 was just an idea) get ELECTED within their profession, like the rice farmer elect someone out of their community, the academics elect someone, the state labor elect someone, the factory labor elect someone from their own.

As there are more rice farmer than academics they will elect more MPs than academics. So everyone is elected, the same for the poor and for the rich.

Actually now the poor have no democratic rights, they loose their rights for 200 Baht and I don't see one MP representing poor rice farmer in the Parliament.

I doubt that this 70/30 idea will help much, but it is not undemocratic and that "the poor will not be allowed to vote" is a plain lie intended to seed hate between people.

this is a very paternalistic and undemocratic point of view, this will create an cast society. And I truly hope nobody of us including yourself want that.

[henryalleman]

NO, in Constitutional European monarchies the title of Supreme Commander-in-chief GIVEN to the monarch is just an honorary title. The highest military rank is chief of staff, who is following orders of the minister of defence ergo the government. Even in war time the monarch is not an acting commander -in-chief. <snip>

I will agree that monarchs do well to consider an example of what can happen if exercising the post. But then, dismissing prime ministers is also dangerous, as we have seen in Australia, and as, moving away from legality, the Thai Army has decided.

The role of the monarch varies between countries - but it is not always 'just' an honorary title. While it's true that Queen Elizabeth (or her nominal reprentative in Australia, the Governer General) have no role in 'marshalling the troops', this position is entrusted to them as a safety net. In the event of a (severe) internal crisis you may find that they can step in to stop the government doing crazy things, and a desperate public would support them, but its as much a moral as legal authority.

I don't think the powers of the head of state in the UK are clearly defined. They are in Australia, but even there a lot of the Governer Generals 'recognised' powers actually stem from convention (what previous Governer Generals decided to do) rather than from the constitution. There's always room for a new precedent to be set, and I think a government that ordered the army to slaughter civilians would suddently discover that the head of state was in fact the top of the food chain.

In the event of a (severe) internal crisis you may find that they can step in to stop the government doing crazy things, and a desperate public would support them, but its as much a moral as legal authority.

Its the duty of the parliament to prevent that the government do stupid things.

In case of such event the Monarch can only be an intermediary with who politicians can speak freely because their conversations with the Monarch will be protected by the "Colloque Singulier" that's why an Monarch can de-mine an political situation.

But this is not meaning he have political power, he only has as much power as the politicians are willing to give him.

[aromsia]

God there are just pages and pages of this stuff.

After all this time...good God..

Don't people, by now, realize that this was always about the rich and well-connected classes using a bunch of old chinese-thai grannies and poodle-carrying girls from hi-so families to occupy government/airports, etc, to ensure that the corrupt privildges of those behind the scenes (built up by their grandfathers) weren't interupted by one-person-one-vote ever again?

I find it incredible that anybody is still saying "Thaksin, Thaksin, Thaksin." Yes, he's a corrupt pr&ck too - we get it. But guess what - that's not what this is all about. Democracy in Thailand is dead as a doornail at present - and the foreigners here and elsewhere who supported the PAD and this goofy government that has hijacked power have a lot to answer for. Those of you who fit this description should be held accountable for this mess as well as the PAD in my estimation.

[Johpa]

That's good news, and I stand corrected. Shame it wasn't more advertised though, recently I was having this conversation in the Isan village I live with a group including the headman and a couple of Or-Bor-Tor, and they all assured me the degree was still necessary. I'll have to educate them. Unfortunately, it will still take a while, if ever, for the poor to trickle through.

One also does not need a degree to run for head of the local Tambon Development District, your Or-Por-Tor, or OPT for short. The OPT, in many places, has become the lead government agency in development and modernization of the rural communities and has far more direct impact upon the lives of the people than even the District Offices, the Amphoes. This has been a significant change around our home where 20 years ago everything went through the far more distant Amphoe offices.

My brother in-law worked in the local OPT and also ran in the election to head the office even though he has no formal college degree. He did not win that election but does have a large enough political following in the area to attract the attention of the political parties who have toyed with the idea of him running as an MP. They don't seem to have an issue with him not having a college degree, but this may partially be explained by the fact that many of them refuse to believe that he has no degree as they have a hard time accepting that someone who does not have a degree can be more educated and articulate than themselves. Crikey, a college degree in Thailand or one of those store-bought degrees from the pay-your-way BA colleges in the US favored by many scions of those in Bangkok mean relatively little.

[henryalleman]

I know you mean that 70/30 thing, but it is impossible to bend it that way that it means the poor shouldn't be able to vote.

I don't agree with that 70/30 idea but the poor won't be allowed to vote is a plain propaganda lie.

Yes, the poor will be allowed to vote, but their vote won't be worth spit! What is the difference?

as always complete nonsense.....

Please educate yourself a little bit before you just post something wrong.

(beside that I don't like that 30/70 system much, a clear proportional system would be better)

I'm educated enough to know that it won't be the poor appointing their so-called "representatives".

By the way congratulations on finally passing your GED!

I know you won't pick it up and you'll continue to post lies, but I try to explain again.

The initial idea, and it wasn't more than an idea from brainstorming was:

You have basically elections like now (more or less) but they fill only a part of the parliament: what you call the 30 % elected one.

The poor the rich, farmers and bank manager vote the same.

That 70 % (and 70 was just an idea) get ELECTED within their profession, like the rice farmer elect someone out of their community, the academics elect someone, the state labor elect someone, the factory labor elect someone from their own.

As there are more rice farmer than academics they will elect more MPs than academics. So everyone is elected, the same for the poor and for the rich.

Actually now the poor have no democratic rights, they loose their rights for 200 Baht and I don't see one MP representing poor rice farmer in the Parliament.

I doubt that this 70/30 idea will help much, but it is not undemocratic and that "the poor will not be allowed to vote" is a plain lie intended to seed hate between people.

I think many are forgetting one important thing: the poor will never be fairly represented until the shameful law that states only those with a university degree are able to run for parliament is repealed. I didn't see that great saviour of the poor (what a dangerous myth that has become) even talking about doing so in all the years he was in power.

think many are forgetting one important thing: the poor will never be fairly represented until the shameful law that states only those with a university degree are able to run for parliament is repealed.

Indeed this is very undemocratic. I, know MP's who are blue color workers on a assembly line of a car factory, and she is a dam_n good MP, who eloquent speaks in the parliament straight to the point.

[h90]

You can't even be a supervisor in a factory without a certain level of education, no matter how smart you are.

All the senior jobs , and many of the lesser jobs are closed to those without a degree.

It is all nepotism, contacts and bullshit degrees.

Promotion on merit doesn't exist in Thai society.

So it's hardly surprising that a degree is required to become an Member of the cabinet or a Senator. Previously all MP's had to hold a degree.

But easy to buy if you have the money.

I must agree: in history there were a lot great person in politics which had no degree, and in some factories you have people getting promoted even they don't have a degree.

That part in the constitution is should be deleted. Another point is of course that a degree in Thailand is not worth the paper. There are some "Universities" in Thailand even my dog would pass (and even without corruption, as long as he pays the fees).

[henryalleman]

Imagine what Einstein could have been if he had attended university.

Da_n! I wish I'd said that........

And I wrote the script for a dramatised biography of him............ oh, the shame.

I also wrote one about Hitler and he rose quite far without having a degree..... Hmmm, no - you're right......... best not to go there........

Stalin went to college

[animatic]

Imagine what Einstein could have been if he had attended university.

Da_n! I wish I'd said that........

And I wrote the script for a dramatised biography of him............ oh, the shame.

I also wrote one about Hitler and he rose quite far without having a degree..... Hmmm, no - you're right......... best not to go there........

Stalin went to college

Kubla Kahn didn't.

[henryalleman]

I think many are forgetting one important thing: the poor will never be fairly represented until the shameful law that states only those with a university degree are able to run for parliament is repealed. I didn't see that great saviour of the poor (what a dangerous myth that has become) even talking about doing so in all the years he was in power.

I totally agree. To be honest, I didn't know that it's a requirement and I suspect many others didn't until you raised it, but I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise - given Thailand's fixation with having a degree (even a "you're sure not to fail" bought-and-paid-for one) for just about any "white collar" job.

I have no idea what the qualifications are in my country. Do you know what they are in your country? I would be surprised if they aren't similar.

OMR - qualifications for what? To be a UK MP - receiving the most votes cast for a candidate in the constituency where you stand (degrees don't come into it). Oh - and not being a lord or certified insane. For a "white collar" job - varies........ many require a degree, many don't. I'm half-German and I remember it being a requirement to have a qualification from a "Handelsschule" (trade school/college) or "Berufsschule" (vocational school/college) even to work in a regular shop - so I'm not unfamiliar with the notion of other countries requiring qualifications for relatively "basic" jobs as compared to the UK.

My comment about Thailand's fixation (which wasn't intended to be emotional or even all that critical) is that I observe that a Thai pretty much has to have a degree even to work as a bank clerk, let alone in the civil service. Other countries, other ways - up to them.

I also 100% agree with the main paragraph in ballpoint's follow-up post. We'll hopefully agree to disagree about whether teachers should be expected/required to have a degree; I don't have any principled objection to a teacher not having a degree - I just see it being very hard to operate in practice. Frankly, I see that issue as wholly irrelevant to the issue raised in ballpoint's first post - the degree requirement for Thai MP's.

Edit: More posts appeared as I was typing. My thanks to the estimable Meerkat for that good news and my apologies for appearing to repeat some of what ballpoint said in his later post.

PS - I didn't get a degree, but I have a Diploma in Stage Management from the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art - and I think I got just a measly second in the University of Life............ so there.

Franckly I don't see theb point where a teacher in a crafts school should have an degree. Its more important that he have good technical skills and now how to inspire his students.

[animatic]

I have no degree in my speciality,

When I learned most of it there WAS no degree available,

but for 15 years a certain college level school

tried to recruit me to teach there in their new 'degree' program.

Some things there is just no substitute for actually doing it for several dozen years.

[jasreeve17]

Imagine what Einstein could have been if he had attended university.

Da_n! I wish I'd said that........

And I wrote the script for a dramatised biography of him............ oh, the shame.

I also wrote one about Hitler and he rose quite far without having a degree..... Hmmm, no - you're right......... best not to go there........

Stalin went to college

Kubla Kahn didn't.

? Many universities in Outer Mongolia in the 12th century were there? Managed to rule the largest empire the World has ever seen though...

But, your focus is interesting in so much as it's consistent, PADites do tend to live a few centuries out of date; you know, before democracy became common...

[henryalleman]

I have no degree in my speciality,

When I learned most of it there WAS no degree available,

but for 15 years a certain college level school

tried to recruit me to teach there in their new 'degree' program.

Some things there is just no substitute for actually doing it for several dozen years.

I don't have any degree, start to work when I was 15, but had an rather successful career,( middle management).

but I regret I do not have an degree in filosofy and didn't study Latin and ancient Geeck, because its give you a wider perspective on things, andi n all honesty sometimes I feel sometimes handicapted by that lack of knowledge,because i had to find out everything by the university of life, and that was not always easy.

[Plus]

Democrats will certainly embark on some sort of constution amendment and I expect someone would raise "new politics" ideas there. PAD proposed it in the middle of a war, there will be significant resistance just due to the bad memories of those days, but if the idea is repackaged and presented by someone else, it might get some traction, though I have no idea how far they are prepared to go with it. It would all depend on political mood next year, on how Abhisit goes with "reds" of all hues, they need to build some mutual trust to start.

Thailand has an advantage of being very easy on consitutions, they can write a new one every year and no one would care, so a complete overhaul would not be as psychologically difficult as in the US, for example. Over there they all talk about changes all the time but they are restricted by their existing constitution and all the relevant laws that cannot be touched. So they legalised lobbists to deal with "interest groups" in a roundabout way instead of directly including them in the proces as legitimate players. Apparently they are not satisfied with the results, but what else would you expect - it's a patch up job, trying to squeeze modern reality into centuries old sacred tradition.

If you drop all the baggage and start from square one - what kind of government would be most suitable for demands of the 21st century? What should be qualifications for each and every ministry or for lawmakers? How most suitable candidates can be selected?

I don't think that you'd come up with anything resembling the current system. Geographical representation simply doesn't make much sense - these jobs should go to skilled and experienced professionals from their respective fields that have little to do with geography.

The society itself is changing dramatically, too. People's connections to each other are not location based anymore, especially in the cities. I guess an average "modern" person knows ten times more people through work, school, interest group, fitness club or Internet than his direct neighbours. Communities are not geography based anymore. If these people were to pick someone to represent them, they wouldn't even think of the guy next door, unless they are voting for a local governing body.

This changing reality needs to be reflected in the political system, too.

>>

Steve, I know very well that they devil is in the details, but I also don't see any reason to discuss the details at the moment - not until the general direction is agreed upon by Thais so we know what is coming.

I also understand your concern that there could be undue pressure with the professional assosiations. In a way it is unavoidable - this kind of pressure to toe the line exist within any society, any group. I don't think it should a major concern, though - for one thing it can't get any worse than now. You want to find fascism in Thailand - just look how political parties operate internally.

The goal would be to make professional groups to be open and democratic themselves, but I don't think they should put that in constitution, though - too many details. I don't think they should put even the number of those groups and number of represenatitives from each one into consitution - too many details, too inflexible.

Don't forget that the system is only as good as people themselves. You need people to catch the idea of openness and accountability, they will do the rest, whatever system they are placed under. You need to start somewhere, set an example, protect anbd nurture it, give people taste, create a trend. I don't think it would be possible under the current "winner takes all" system unless the winner is dedicated to spead of democracy, which seems to be the case now. Will Democrats inspire a change in people themselves? If they do, maybe we won't even need "new politics" altogether, after all it was born only as a response to bad people taking over the political system. PAD didn't think about the most suitable form of government for modern age at all.

[jasreeve17]

What is new politics?

I cannot take seriously people who use this term...

[Crushdepth]

Its the duty of the parliament to prevent that the government do stupid things.

Problem is that they *are* the government (or one arm of it anyway) and sometimes they get out of hand, and in some countries the monarch has an important role to play as a safeguard.

In case of such event the Monarch can only be an intermediary with who politicians can speak freely because their conversations with the Monarch will be protected by the "Colloque Singulier" that's why an Monarch can de-mine an political situation.

But this is not meaning he have political power, he only has as much power as the politicians are willing to give him.

Well, your country might have a different system, but in Australia and probably most other Commonwealth countries the head of state is not just a figurehead but does have legal powers, though they may not be clearly defined and vary from country to country. As an example, the Governor General of Australia can sack the government (and once did) or individual ministers, and has the power to refuse bills.

In practice and by convention, the Governor General almost always follows the advice of the government. But he/she doesn't have to. And the heads of states of some other countries that are dear to our hearts (but which we cannot name for fear that over enthusiastic mods will torch this whole thread) play a broadly similar role.

[NCFC]

Bangkokpost 19-Dec-2008

Meanwhile, Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban said he does not know about Mr Nipit's revelation to the media that an 80 million baht donation was given to the party.

But he insisted that the party will not offer anything back to any donor.

His statement came after Mr Nipit, a fellow southerner, said the party is being influenced by business groups.

"If

the person who said this can prove that I sell any cabinet post, then I

will resign from all positions in the Democrat party," Mr Suthep said.

Mr

Suthep said that he tipped Mr Veerachai as a cabinet member

because of his close connections with the Chinese business community

and his expertise in economic affairs.

Mr Veerachai is said to

have edged out Mr Nipit for the post of PM's Office minister in the

final cabinet line-up of the ruling party.

So 80 million is the price for a cabinet seat. Gee it didn't take the Democrats very long to get their noses in the trough. I wonder if the judiciary will investigate?

[permanent_disorder]

Imagine what Einstein could have been if he had attended university.

Da_n! I wish I'd said that........

And I wrote the script for a dramatised biography of him............ oh, the shame.

I also wrote one about Hitler and he rose quite far without having a degree..... Hmmm, no - you're right......... best not to go there........

Hitler wanted to painting, but university rejected him twice.

If they would have taken him, he might got a well known artist.

nah, hitler kept doing the arty way, a modern way of art. he wrote a book, took acting lessons, did tours through germany, shows on makeshift stages & arenas, street art perfomance and flash mobs in front of the parliament. the avantgardist entertained and educated the people with his vanguard multi media art. notable work: he designed the völkisch state and society as a Gesamtkunstwerk. with that show he performed all over europe. albeit the star number one his was a man of modest appetite, and only ate only side dishes - always avoiding meat. 1945 he took a break and had made no public appearances since then.

the 2004 sighting turned out as an impersonator stunt by the current bearer of the Iffland-Ring, that became later an internet meme.

einstein instead, after he got his degree in physics on the ETH he did only few years real work (patent office) but returned to university and did all this nerdy academical stuff, not for the people but on this higher education level and even there nobody really understand him. he got somekind of famous price for a 16 pages long paper on the photoelectric effect. later he went little bit gaga, wrote the president a letter to build the atomic bomb and spent his final decades trying to develop a Weltformel, a Final Theory of everything. important fact: he never reached the level of his peak performance during his patent office years again. 1954 he became vegetarian but died on year later.

posthumous fame: a talking parrot is named after einstein.

Edited December 20, 2008 by permanent_disorder

[Wiresok]

The PAD's requirement for the 70/30 split would just be the starting point.

If the PAD have 70% appointed stitched up, whats the point of the elected 30% ,what are they going to be doing, permanent opposition?.

The 70% would soon become 100%.

Also ,the PAD movement's leaders have gone so far as to call the rural poor "too ignorant and uneducated to vote ", that sounds to me as an aim to "deny the poor people a vote".

I would like the PAD leaders and apologists to explain exactly what this means, and how far it goes, and where it ends.

I am interested to know the PAD's views on,

1.One person one vote.

2.Ethnic Cleansing.