It'll Only Get Messier

[webfact]

ASK THE EDITORS

It'll only get messier

By Tulsathit Taptim

The Nation

Tulsat(at)hotmail.com

Published on October 9, 2009

Thai political re-alignment, we only recently thought, had got to be slow because of the apparently irreconcilable Thaksin divide, but how wrong we may have been. At the current rate of widespread estrangement among "allies", our politics can sooner rather than later become a kindergarten classroom at war.

Take the constitutional amendment. The Democrats do not want it that much but are spearheading the move to fix the charter because they have to. Their coalition partners want it because they believe the existing Constitution benefits the two biggest parties, not them, in elections.

The Pheu Thai Party, meanwhile, may decry the current charter but, as a big party benefiting from the present electoral system, won't sacrifice its life to have it changed. This differentiates Pheu Thai from the red shirts who see the present Constitution as the key tool to keeping Thaksin Shinawatra at bay. But while the red shirts abhor this charter, they resent the proposed amendments that had nothing to do with helping Thaksin and they are advocating an idea to bring back the 1997 "People's Constitution".

The yellow shirts, on the other hand, have declared themselves defenders of the present Constitution, which they insist needs more time to prove its merits. This pits them directly against the Democrats, the reluctant sponsors of the proposed amendments. The sour relationship has been further strained when yellow-shirt leader Sondhi Limthongkul this week slammed Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva as being ungrateful toward those who put him in power.

Strangely enough, while the red and yellow shirts have different attitudes toward the current charter, they share the same hatred toward the proposed amendments. (For ironically different reasons, of course. The yellow shirts don't want the planned amendments to alter an "anti-Thaksin" Constitution whereas the red shirts don't want any "pretentious" amendment that would further reinforce the "anti-Thaksin" Constitution.)

A tantalising question is whether the red and yellow shirts would conspire to block the amendments. The Democrats and Pheu Thai, meanwhile, have been common beneficiaries of the existing charter so they have intriguing roles to play against or for each other. (It should also be mentioned here that it was Pheu Thai who had pushed for constitutional changes, only to become largely passive when their idea of a drastic amendment that would pave the way for quick return of banned politicians was rejected.)

As we can see, missiles will fly all over the kindergarten classroom with alliances disintegrating, shifting and reborn. When this is done, it could be a really big mess to clean up.

-- The Nation 2009/10/09

[Thailand]

This is assuming Thai politics reaches kindergarten levels.

[animatic]

This is a return to the self-interest driven mini-groups of regional players.

Each scraping and kicking for their corner of the troughs.

The benefit is it tends to keep the grander malicious or avaricious schemes in check,

but conversely hamstrings the rare, better properly laid plans that can benefit the body politic

and the people in general. Which is the greater gain, and greater loss?

[animatic]

A professionally designed, developed and societally accepted constitution arrived at during the time of a democratically elected, nationally representative Government....

(No Thaksin tirades please)

No tirades...

well then that blithely ignores the reasons why the "professionally designed"

'97 constitution was run over like a kitten by a dump truck, causing social disorder to this day.

If it had worked as well as the reds claim, the coup would never have happened.

But it didn't and we know the result; the rise over even bigger money politics

and subjugation of the checks and balances by even greater vested interests,

leading to proto-despotism and hyper-graft.

See, never used the T word once.

If a constitution doesn't address the greater over-arching problems of the nation,

then no matter what conditions prevailed when it was written,

it is an incomplete or deficient document to base a state upon.

And that sadly is the legacy of the 1997 Thailand constitution

Edited October 9, 2009 by animatic

[JR Texas]

A professionally designed, developed and societally accepted constitution arrived at during the time of a democratically elected, nationally representative Government

VS.

a coup originated, military constitution designed during the time of an unelected, unrepresentative Government

Do you try to fix the latter, or bring back the former?

IMHO, to try to fix the latter is akin to putting a new roof on crumbling walls.

We report...you decide

(No Thaksin tirades please)

Nothing like a divided populace--divided over trivial matters that will not impact their general quality of life--to maintain a status quo that favors a few families at the top.

Teaching the masses how to exploit themselves is a major component of what amounts to a global information war (not just in Thailand).

Control what they read, hear, see.........and you control decision making and behavior.

Divide them along illusory ideological lines, and you keep them from seeing the real problem.

Those that rule are fully aware of this.

It is odd that those that are being exploited still don't have a clue.

I wonder if a Thai version of JFK, RFK, or MLK will ever surface.

Massive and widespread social pressure does have an impact on liberal shifts in societies.........in America that "pressure" came in the form of the Vietnam War.

In Thailand perhaps the pressure for a shift towards liberal thinking (freedom in general) will come from economic forces.

Time will tell.

[animatic]

...

Control what they read, hear, see.........and you control decision making and behavior.

Divide them along illusory ideological lines, and you keep them from seeing the real problem.

Those that rule are fully aware of this...

You so succinctly sum up the TRT/PPP/PTP s.o.p. methodologies.

[Plus]

A professionally designed, developed and societally accepted constitution arrived at during the time of a democratically elected, nationally representative Government

VS.

a coup originated, military constitution designed during the time of an unelected, unrepresentative Government

False dichotomy.

It doesn't matter who the authors are, compare final products instead.

2007 constitution is better in many ways.

As for societal acceptance - there aren't any popular moves to protest anything in particular. People are either satisfied or don't care.

[slimdog]

A professionally designed, developed and societally accepted constitution arrived at during the time of a democratically elected, nationally representative Government

The 1997 Constitution was certainly designed, developed and written with a particular goal. Many of the new provisions were certainly innovative and it was a massive improvement on the 1991 Constitution. One of the reasons that the 1997 Constitution received widespread appeal, (although not by politicians) was that the writers looked at the main issues and tried to recognise their origins, and overcome this seemingly endless circle, whilst at the same time incorporate a far more social element into the supreme law.

Two years after the 1997 Constitution was passed into law, one of the drafters, Borwornsak Uwanno, wrote a paper explaining the reasoning behind the Charter.

Within this paper he explained what he termed the vicious circle of Thai Politics:

The Beginnings of the Vicious Circle of Thai Politics

In 1947, a military coup overthrew a civilian government, and this event marked the beginning of a vicious circle in Thai political development that would repeat itself right up to the last coup which occurred in February, 1991. This circle starts with increasing public pressure on the civilian regime (normally functioning with the approval of the military) usually fomented by its social, political and economic dysfunction. This dysfunction is typically exacerbated by the media reporting on the regime's overt corruption. This in turn provokes increasing political conflict between factions in the government coalition. Finally in compliance with the bureaucracy, the military steps in to restore order and establish a functional legislature, able to pass the laws the bureaucracy has drafted. Usually an interim constitution is quickly implemented followed by a permanent constitution with possibly an election to create an ostensibly civilian government. Once the government is up and running, it is allowed a honeymoon period where everyone settles back to the business of state affairs. But then rumours of corruption arise yet again. And renewed social and political turmoil causes the governmental factions to again turn on one another. And the vicious cycle begins yet again

I think Borwornsak Uwanno had a pretty good grasp of the situation

VS.

a coup originated, military constitution designed during the time of an unelected, unrepresentative Government

Whilst it is easy to write off the 2007 Constitution as just another Military Charter, it must be accepted that there are some generally good parts to it as well, particularly in the social and community aspects of the charter. These certainly go farther than the 1997 version.

Politically it is a mixture of 1991 and 1997 Charters with a few innovations. Whilst many people are against the new formula regarding the Senate make-up, it has to be remembered that the 1997 version never achieved its goals either, and I would have to conclude that whilst the current Senate is no worse than the previous chamber, it is not particularly any better either.

I do like the innovations regarding the Party List, both in calculating the number of members and the fact that it is regional.

Do you try to fix the latter, or bring back the former?

Both have their good points, although the 1997 Charter was at least well written without the Ambiguities that exist in the current charter.

[Gary A]

It could indeed get ugly. Thailand has the HAVES and the HAVE NOTS. The HAVES are of the "opinion" that the rest of the people are too stupid to vote. In actuality they are deathly afraid to give up their power bases. The HAVES are vastly outnumbered but they have been able, up to the present, to become even more wealthy off the backs of the majority. The elite stand between the market and the people who produce the products. Programs designed to aid the farmers are structured so that the aid ends up in the pockets of the middlemen and the wealthy farmers. The poor farmers get none of it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read about price supports and then NEVER get those prices. Price supports or not, the farmers receive whatever the middlemen are willing to pay.

[orly]

A professionally designed, developed and societally accepted constitution arrived at during the time of a democratically elected, nationally representative Government

The 1997 Constitution was certainly designed, developed and written with a particular goal. Many of the new provisions were certainly innovative and it was a massive improvement on the 1991 Constitution. One of the reasons that the 1997 Constitution received widespread appeal, (although not by politicians) was that the writers looked at the main issues and tried to recognise their origins, and overcome this seemingly endless circle, whilst at the same time incorporate a far more social element into the supreme law.

Two years after the 1997 Constitution was passed into law, one of the drafters, Borwornsak Uwanno, wrote a paper explaining the reasoning behind the Charter.

Within this paper he explained what he termed the vicious circle of Thai Politics:

The Beginnings of the Vicious Circle of Thai Politics

In 1947, a military coup overthrew a civilian government, and this event marked the beginning of a vicious circle in Thai political development that would repeat itself right up to the last coup which occurred in February, 1991. This circle starts with increasing public pressure on the civilian regime (normally functioning with the approval of the military) usually fomented by its social, political and economic dysfunction. This dysfunction is typically exacerbated by the media reporting on the regime's overt corruption. This in turn provokes increasing political conflict between factions in the government coalition. Finally in compliance with the bureaucracy, the military steps in to restore order and establish a functional legislature, able to pass the laws the bureaucracy has drafted. Usually an interim constitution is quickly implemented followed by a permanent constitution with possibly an election to create an ostensibly civilian government. Once the government is up and running, it is allowed a honeymoon period where everyone settles back to the business of state affairs. But then rumours of corruption arise yet again. And renewed social and political turmoil causes the governmental factions to again turn on one another. And the vicious cycle begins yet again

I think Borwornsak Uwanno had a pretty good grasp of the situation

VS.

a coup originated, military constitution designed during the time of an unelected, unrepresentative Government

Whilst it is easy to write off the 2007 Constitution as just another Military Charter, it must be accepted that there are some generally good parts to it as well, particularly in the social and community aspects of the charter. These certainly go farther than the 1997 version.

Politically it is a mixture of 1991 and 1997 Charters with a few innovations. Whilst many people are against the new formula regarding the Senate make-up, it has to be remembered that the 1997 version never achieved its goals either, and I would have to conclude that whilst the current Senate is no worse than the previous chamber, it is not particularly any better either.

I do like the innovations regarding the Party List, both in calculating the number of members and the fact that it is regional.

Do you try to fix the latter, or bring back the former?

Both have their good points, although the 1997 Charter was at least well written without the Ambiguities that exist in the current charter.

the written word no matter how good or bad is still a written word. it has very limited spaces to manoeuvre no matter well written or not. yes, the 1997 Charter is a commendable piece but, it still has yet to crystalize .....therein lies the thai tragedy.

will it take a jfk,mlk,et.al. or other major events to wake up the thais?

doubtful.

asian societies don't seem to work that way.....although many cracks are appearing since the advent of bill gates' internet.

[animatic]

Programs designed to aid the farmers are structured so that the aid ends up in the pockets of the middlemen and the wealthy farmers. The poor farmers get none of it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read about price supports and then NEVER get those prices.

Price supports or not, the farmers receive whatever the middlemen are willing to pay.

This last line is the root problem for the country.

No one dares lean on the middlemen hard enough to get them to act morally.

The upper middle men and exporters could still earn handsomely

and not leave the farmers in perpetual penury, but they gain a bit make more like it is.

The wealthy elite per se wouldn't see that much difference percentage wise,

if lower down the food chain things did change. But the lower middlemen

would not be able to aspire so freely towards an upper middle class

or a powerful puyai-ship position if things changed drastically.

Those wanting to control the very poor of course don't aim the blame

at those close to the poor farmers, since that is their control mechanism,

but the far removed 'Elite' which is an easy target,

but not near as much the problem as so oft stated.

Edited October 9, 2009 by animatic

[Flatouthruthefog]

It could indeed get ugly. Thailand has the HAVES and the HAVE NOTS. The HAVES are of the "opinion" that the rest of the people are too stupid to vote. In actuality they are deathly afraid to give up their power bases. The HAVES are vastly outnumbered but they have been able, up to the present, to become even more wealthy off the backs of the majority. The elite stand between the market and the people who produce the products. Programs designed to aid the farmers are structured so that the aid ends up in the pockets of the middlemen and the wealthy farmers. The poor farmers get none of it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read about price supports and then NEVER get those prices. Price supports or not, the farmers receive whatever the middlemen are willing to pay.

THIS is the very best standard of debate I have seen on this forum for some years! I am NOT being sarcastic.

Congratulations ladies and gents and keep it up!

Calling all Mods! Can you police other threads strictly enough to follow this good example? You may then start to bring back many lost readers..........!