Broad Reforms 'needed Now'

[webfact]

Broad reforms 'needed now'

By THE NATION ON SUNDAY

Published on September 6, 2009

Broad reforms 'needed now'

Calls for comprehensive reform are growing as the country struggles to achieve economic and political stability.

Academics shared opinions yesterday and warned that even if ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra washed his hands of politics, the country could still be haunted by the same old problems.

Only key changes designed to remove the root causes would ensure sustainable solutions, they said.

Many political pundits and academics at a seminar in Bangkok yesterday agreed that, as long as Thaksin continued his political activities, the country would not achieve reconciliation and undertaking political reforms would be problematic.

But some, such as Professor Amorn Chantarasomboon said there was no guarantee the country would achieve political stability even if Thaksin withdrew from politics.

"Because we do not know if a new government will run the country for self interest, as Thaksin governments did, because our political system now is actually a dictatorship by capitalists,'' Amorn said.

He said political reform had to be carried out simultaneously with administrative, legal, and justice reforms, if the country wanted to achieve sustainable stability.

The most urgent task for the government was to end the political mess, Amorn said, because once political stability returned, economic confidence would return and the economy would get back on track.

"The problem is who will sacrifice and pave the way for this reform,'' he said.

Amorn did not believe political reform should be undertaken by politicians, because they had a conflict of interest in doing such. He suggested two panels be appointed - one to rewrite the Constitution and another to check whether a new charter really could help solve the country's political woes.

Yesterday's seminar was organised by Chulalongkorn University and the People's Network for Election in Thailand (Pnet).

Meanwhile, retired police general Vasit Dejkunchorn said he had been told by unconfirmed but reliable sources that Thaksin had sent a huge amount of laundered money through other people's bank accounts to fund political activities and create political disturbances in the country.

Vasit, a former deputy police chief, believed many of Thaksin's red-shirt supporters were being used by him because they did not see through him.

"Education is the best medicine [to solve this]," he said. "Our country will not come to this point if people understand the politicians' true colour."

He said dissolving the Parliament was not a solution to national problems because a general election did not guarantee that the country would get "a new breed" of MPs or Senators who put the country's interests above their own.

Vasit agreed that greater public participation in political reform and constitution amendment would ensure that reforms met what the public needed and desired.

Pnet chairman General Saiyud Kerdphol urged Thaksin's family to stop him instigating political unrest and to face the justice system.

"If Thaksin accepts the justice system, he will surely get the clemency he wants. He will be much happier than now. After all he has also done many good things for the country,'' Saiyud said.

With the red shirts threatening to stage a mass rally, Saiyud voiced concern that the government may not be able to control Thaksin's supporters, even if the government invoked the Internal Security Act.

"If this is the case, the red shirts may provoke a military coup. We have to watch out because some military men may respond to the call. We have a lesson from history that only 21 military men can stage a coup,'' he said.

-- The Nation 2009/06/09

[justanothercybertosser]

Amorn did not believe political reform should be undertaken by politicians, because they had a conflict of interest in doing such. He suggested two panels be appointed - one to rewrite the Constitution and another to check whether a new charter really could help solve the country's political woes.

Yesterday's seminar was organised by Chulalongkorn University and the People's Network for Election in Thailand (Pnet).

...Pnet chairman General Saiyud Kerdphol ...

The usual elitist crap by a bunch of conservatives that have overstepped the lines by supporting the PAD protests last year.

Nowdays the ISIS events are intellectually far more challenging. But what is talked about there the traditional medias rarely report on fully.

[animatic]

"Because we do not know if a new government will run the country for self interest, as Thaksin governments did, because our political system now is actually a dictatorship by capitalists,'' Amorn said.

Conservative???

More like Gile's Chula-neo-commie buddy to me.

[Thai at Heart]

"Because we do not know if a new government will run the country for self interest, as Thaksin governments did, because our political system now is actually a dictatorship by capitalists,'' Amorn said.

Conservative???

More like Gile's Chula-neo-commie buddy to me.

It is more disturbing that so called "Academics" have only just noticed this as though this is a phenomenon that has reared it's ugly head in the last 10 years. Thai politics has always gone hand in hand with business, probably more so than any other Asian country.

There were books written long before Thaksin's peridod as PM explaining the connections between government and business. Obviously academia has been sleeping for the last 40 years or maybe they just aren't that academic.

This is one of the more astonishing statements however,

net chairman General Saiyud Kerdphol urged Thaksin's family to stop him instigating political unrest and to face the justice system.

"If Thaksin accepts the justice system, he will surely get the clemency he wants. He will be much happier than now. After all he has also done many good things for the country,'' Saiyud said.

Oh dear, there will be a lot of people who won't like that one. Begone Satan!

Edited September 6, 2009 by Thai at Heart

[justanothercybertosser]

"Because we do not know if a new government will run the country for self interest, as Thaksin governments did, because our political system now is actually a dictatorship by capitalists,'' Amorn said.

Conservative???

More like Gile's Chula-neo-commie buddy to me.

You have to learn about definitions.

Conservative does not equal capitalist. Communism does not equal anti-capitalism, in under-developed feudal or semi-feudal societies, according to Marxist theory, capitalists are the logical alliance with communists.

And especially in the Thai context - ultra-conservatives have very strong anti-market tendencies. And as we have seen in the PAD - confused communists who lack a theoretical background, market protectionist capitalists and feudalists make very easy bedfellows.

But i fear this turns a bit too complicated now...

And before you accuse me, no i am not a communist, i am liberal, in the traditional European sense - but i am not neo-liberal.

[dave_boo]

Y'all beat me to the commie undertones; but the other part that jumped out at me is the quote

"The problem is who will sacrifice and pave the way for this reform,'' he said.

Most academias have their head up in the clouds (or a more down to earth and decidedly more ordous place) to the point that they have the gall to actually ask this....what ever happened to actually going out and sacrificing yourself? Buddhist monks did that during the USA/Viet Nam war.

Amorn did not believe political reform should be undertaken by politicians, because they had a conflict of interest in doing such....He suggested two panels be appointed - one to rewrite the Constitution and another to check whether a new charter really could help solve the country's political woes......"Education is the best medicine [to solve this]," he said. "Our country will not come to this point if people understand the politicians' true colour."

And who will appoint those panels? Is he suggesting a popular vote to elect true legislators (a la Continental Congress) and another popular vote to elect those who will study the new Constitution and decide what its validity is?

Actually, at least the way that I read it, he wants the power to reside in academia's hands. Quotes such as above shine a spot light on his plan..."We'll educate them on how we think the country should run" "The politicians are all part of the 'good old boy' club and can't be trusted" "You'll be able to trust us...after you're educated of course...which you need to see talking point one about".

[Thai at Heart]

Vasit, a former deputy police chief, believed many of Thaksin's red-shirt supporters were being used by him because they did not see through him.

"Education is the best medicine [to solve this]," he said. "Our country will not come to this point if people understand the politicians' true colour."

I think he is trying to say that history has proven to the "reds" that they get the better deal from Thaksin, but once we educate them long enough they will learn to understand that we were right all along. All very cultural revolution and re-educational don't you think?

[LaoPo]

"Because we do not know if a new government will run the country for self interest, as Thaksin governments did, because our political system now is actually a dictatorship by capitalists,'' Amorn said.

Conservative???

More like Gile's Chula-neo-commie buddy to me.

Professor Amorn Chantarasomboon doesn't deserve to be called like that Animatic.

Not very chique and I didn't expect such words from you....but maybe I misunderstood; sometimes the choice of your wordings is not always understood by a simple mind like me

He's considered to be a very distinguished, influential and highly intelligent Thai and "identified as one of Thailand's 35 most influential intellectuals"*

That some do not agree with his views, he expressed at this seminar, doesn't mean he's wrong. Far from that I would think.

I consider his words as extremely brave and showing a courage rarely seen in political Thailand and to be respected.

He's not just your day-to-day Professor; he's one of the most influential people who was amongst the ones who drafted and wrote the 1997 constitution next to his fierce anti-Thaksin voice, already back in 2001 and later 2004/05.

Just reading the content about the good professor Amorn in Wikipedia, I would say, carefully, that I do not agree with his views, which would allow more power to certain people. That would be a step back in Thailand's difficult struggle for democracy.

I better leave it with that.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorn_Chantarasomboon

LaoPo

[dave_boo]

I think he is trying to say that history has proven to the "reds" that they get the better deal from Thaksin, but once we educate them long enough they will learn to understand that we were right all along. All very cultural revolution and re-educational don't you think?

And as being considered amongst the "most influential intellectuals" he would then have the power wouldn't he? I don't have an issue with an increase in anyone's education, however (Goodwin forgive me) how well did that work in 1930's Germany? Toppling one dicator only to raise another is of no help to anyone. Furthermore, what has he actually done to this point to demonstrate that he has actually sacrificed for the nation? Have any policies been enacted, on his behest, that have furthered the population's education?

Professor Amorn Chantarasomboon doesn't deserve to be called like that Animatic.

Not very chique and I didn't expect such words from you....but maybe I misunderstood; sometimes the choice of your wordings is not always understood by a simple mind like me

He's considered to be a very distinguished, influential and highly intelligent Thai and "identified as one of Thailand's 35 most influential intellectuals"*

That some do not agree with his views, he expressed at this seminar, doesn't mean he's wrong. Far from that I would think.

I consider his words as extremely brave and showing a courage rarely seen in political Thailand and to be respected.

He's not just your day-to-day Professor; he's one of the most influential people who was amongst the ones who drafted and wrote the 1997 constitution next to his fierce anti-Thaksin voice, already back in 2001 and later 2004/05.

Just reading the content about the good professor Amorn in Wikipedia, I would say, carefully, that I do not agree with his views, which would allow more power to certain people. That would be a step back in Thailand's difficult struggle for democracy.

I better leave it with that.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorn_Chantarasomboon

LaoPo

If you're simple minded I'm the village idiot...but there's a serious case of sour grapes going on here from my view. Upon review of his wikipedia article he doesn't seem as benevolent as some would like. For instance, it states that he "became a highly influential member of the Constitution Drafting Assembly". Then it lists the 'innovations' of the new constitution. The next section than describes Khun Amorn's current attitude.

Deconstructing all of this brings out some questions in my mind. First, if an innovation were an independent government agencies (such as the Constitutional Court), why was he questioning the credibility of it? Was he not involved with creating it?

If another innovation was a decenteralisation of power, why was he complaining about the 'tyranny of the majority'? Didn't moving the power out to the PEOPLE ensure that a small subset of people weren't controlling the unwashed masses?

Doesn't his calls for "establishment of a "third alternative party"" directly conflict with "mechanisms to increase political stability by favoring large parties over small ones - an attempt create a strong executive branch and discourage the formation of unstable coalition governments"?

So from me, obviously on the outside looking in, either he wasn't influential at all and is now attempting to correct those decisions that were made in the previous Constitution over his objections or he made what he assumes were some serious mistakes in drafting that Constitution and is now trying to correct them.

[animatic]

"Because we do not know if a new government will run the country for self interest, as Thaksin governments did, because our political system now is actually a dictatorship by capitalists,'' Amorn said.

Conservative???

More like Gile's Chula-neo-commie buddy to me.

Professor Amorn Chantarasomboon doesn't deserve to be called like that Animatic.

Not very chique and I didn't expect such words from you....but maybe I misunderstood; sometimes the choice of your wordings is not always understood by a simple mind like me

He's considered to be a very distinguished, influential and highly intelligent Thai and "identified as one of Thailand's 35 most influential intellectuals"*

That some do not agree with his views, he expressed at this seminar, doesn't mean he's wrong. Far from that I would think.

I consider his words as extremely brave and showing a courage rarely seen in political Thailand and to be respected.

He's not just your day-to-day Professor; he's one of the most influential people who was amongst the ones who drafted and wrote the 1997 constitution next to his fierce anti-Thaksin voice, already back in 2001 and later 2004/05.

Just reading the content about the good professor Amorn in Wikipedia, I would say, carefully, that I do not agree with his views, which would allow more power to certain people. That would be a step back in Thailand's difficult struggle for democracy.

I better leave it with that.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorn_Chantarasomboon

LaoPo

LaoPo thank you for that link.

Based on his statement above, and Rumfoord's comment on conservatives it just didn't sound right.

Seeing his credits, (lack of Wikipedia precisions aside.). he seems like a progressive thinker,

especially for here. Some might call progressives liberals disparagingly, but I don't, I think of them

as problem solvers.

High on his list of reforms would be canceling a clause that

bars members of the Parliament from standing independently.

This would be a usefull thing, leaves MP's free to make ANY alliance wit out penalty.

I stand gladly corrected on the man and his work,

if not the juxtaposition relating to the two comments together.

One isn't above so it isn't as obvious why I said it.

I just read a over the top diatribe by Giles; and I can't in good conscious link it here.

But this single comment seemed to resonate with it.

Certainly the comment "Dictatorship by Capitalists" fits the Thaksin years to a T,

and many others all too well. But Thaksin was the zenith so far.

So which is worse; Dictatorship by capitalists or fascists,

or is it a foregone conclusion the former likely/eventually becomes the other

to protect the trough if it is threatened? Where does the Singapore model fit in this?

Edited September 6, 2009 by animatic

[animatic]

"Because we do not know if a new government will run the country for self interest, as Thaksin governments did, because our political system now is actually a dictatorship by capitalists,'' Amorn said.

Conservative???

More like Gile's Chula-neo-commie buddy to me.

You have to learn about definitions.

Conservative does not equal capitalist. Communism does not equal anti-capitalism, in under-developed feudal or semi-feudal societies, according to Marxist theory, capitalists are the logical alliance with communists.

And especially in the Thai context - ultra-conservatives have very strong anti-market tendencies. And as we have seen in the PAD - confused communists who lack a theoretical background, market protectionist capitalists and feudalists make very easy bedfellows.

But i fear this turns a bit too complicated now...

And before you accuse me, no i am not a communist, i am liberal, in the traditional European sense - but i am not neo-liberal.

Maybe in theory,

but in practice it is not so cavalierly turned on it's head.

doublethink blackwhite malreported crimethink

Minitrue says back to the prolefeed now.