Jump to content

The Rumour Is That Thailand Is Actually Moving Forward


webfact

Recommended Posts

<br>
<br>Ah, I see.anyhow Redshirts and their aims etc are one thing and dissent and how a country deals with it are another.It's not really the policies of dissenters that should dictate how a country reacts to them, it is how a constitution deals with it in a "siwilai" way.breaking rules and conventions because you don't agree with a certain groups' policies only leads to further corruption of the rule of law.<br>
<br><br>Sadly one of the biggest corruptions of the rule of law and constitutional protection occurred when 2500 people were killed without trial under an elected government. To date no recent military government has come anywhere near that and you expect unelected governments to be brutal and yet the biggest brutality occurred under an elected one and there was even scant criticism of it in the country<br><br>Thailand has a long long way to go<br>
<br><br><div><div><div><p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font color="#000000"><font face="ArialMT, sans-serif"><font size="3">You're

absolutely right - the drugs massacres under Thaksin were appalling.</font></font></font></p>

<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font color="#000000"><font face="ArialMT, sans-serif"><font size="3">but</font></font></font></p>

<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font color="#000000"><font face="ArialMT, sans-serif"><font size="3">You

can't look at these events in isolation they all have cause and

effect.</font></font></font></p>

<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>

</p>

<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font color="#000000"><font face="ArialMT, sans-serif"><font size="3">No-one

in Thai politics seems to regard any democratic institutions as

sacrosanct......</font></font></font></p>

<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>

</p>

<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font color="#000000"><font face="ArialMT, sans-serif"><font size="3">These

unstable institutions that allowed Thaksin to misbehave,also allowed

those "Anti-Thaksin factions" to do so. They sought to

change things by further  undemocratic methods - a

coup.This was most probably a step backwards, making already shaky

democratic institutions even more shaky. </font></font></font>

</p>

<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>

</p>

<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font color="#000000"><font face="ArialMT, sans-serif"><font size="3">One

unwelcome result has been the return of the army to politics.every

time the army has been involved in a takeover or coup, it is

immediately followed by a rapid increase in the Army's budget and

also it should be noted that officers and ranks involved in the coup

received substantial "bonuses" and promotions financed from

the public purse.</font></font></font></p>

<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>

</p>

<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font color="#000000"><font face="ArialMT, sans-serif"><font size="3">Self-interest

again rears it's ugly head to subjugate any genuine attempts at

democracy.</font></font></font></p>

<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>

</p>

</div></div></div>

Edited by Deeral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Ah, I see.anyhow Redshirts and their aims etc are one thing and dissent and how a country deals with it are another.It's not really the policies of dissenters that should dictate how a country reacts to them, it is how a constitution deals with it in a "siwilai" way.breaking rules and conventions because you don't agree with a certain groups' policies only leads to further corruption of the rule of law.

Sadly one of the biggest corruptions of the rule of law and constitutional protection occurred when 2500 people were killed without trial under an elected government. To date no recent military government has come anywhere near that and you expect unelected governments to be brutal and yet the biggest brutality occurred under an elected one and there was even scant criticism of it in the country

Thailand has a long long way to go

You're absolutely right - the drugs massacres under Thaksin were appalling.but

You can't look at these events in isolation they all have cause and effect.

just as these unstable institutions allowed Thaksin to misbehave, so too did those "Anti-Thaksin factions" who sought to change things by further undemocratic methods - a coup.This was most probably a step backwards, making already shaky democratic institutions even more shaky. One unwelcome result has been the return of the army to politics.every time the army has been involved in a takeover or coup, it is immediately followed by a rapid increase in the Army's budget and also it should be noted that officers and ranks involved in the coup received substatial "bonuses" and promotions financed from the public purse.

Self-interest again rears it's ugly head to subjugate any genuine attempts at democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hammered.

"as China survived the economic crisis better than any developed country and is increasingly practicing a global foreign policy."

I doubt this is very accurate. Can you quote your source?

By Sherlock Ho Agencies 2010-01-22:

China claims that the GDP growth last year has reached 8.7%. However, over 150 million people have a daily income of less than $1 dollar(NT$31.9). These people account for more than one third of overall population in China, implying an extremely large poverty gap.According to reports of China media, the basic wages of farmers and workers in China Yangtze River and Pearl River Delta rarely rise over the past ten years. The weak middle class is almost crushed by soaring house prices and expenses of raising children and parents. The fledging middle class has diminished.Based on the definition issued by UN, he who earns less than 1 dollar per day falls into the category of extremely poor. A third of China people belongs to this group.

Wow. A third of their population survives on less than a dollar a day. How many western countries can boast this sort of economic prowess? Now I know why all the chinese embassies are clogged with people tring to immagrate from all the failed western countries.

Tongue in cheek...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<br>
<br>Ah, I see.anyhow Redshirts and their aims etc are one thing and dissent and how a country deals with it are another.It's not really the policies of dissenters that should dictate how a country reacts to them, it is how a constitution deals with it in a "siwilai" way.breaking rules and conventions because you don't agree with a certain groups' policies only leads to further corruption of the rule of law.<br>
<br><br>Sadly one of the biggest corruptions of the rule of law and constitutional protection occurred when 2500 people were killed without trial under an elected government. To date no recent military government has come anywhere near that and you expect unelected governments to be brutal and yet the biggest brutality occurred under an elected one and there was even scant criticism of it in the country<br><br>Thailand has a long long way to go<br>
<br><br><div><div><div><p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font color="#000000"><font face="ArialMT, sans-serif"><font size="3">You're

absolutely right - the drugs massacres under Thaksin were appalling.</font></font></font></p>

<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font color="#000000"><font face="ArialMT, sans-serif"><font size="3">but</font></font></font></p>

<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font color="#000000"><font face="ArialMT, sans-serif"><font size="3">You

can't look at these events in isolation they all have cause and

effect.</font></font></font></p>

<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>

</p>

<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font color="#000000"><font face="ArialMT, sans-serif"><font size="3">No-one

in Thai politics seems to regard any democratic institutions as

sacrosanct......</font></font></font></p>

<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>

</p>

<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font color="#000000"><font face="ArialMT, sans-serif"><font size="3">These

unstable institutions that allowed Thaksin to misbehave,also allowed

those "Anti-Thaksin factions" to do so. They sought to

change things by further  undemocratic methods - a

coup.This was most probably a step backwards, making already shaky

democratic institutions even more shaky. </font></font></font>

</p>

<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>

</p>

<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font color="#000000"><font face="ArialMT, sans-serif"><font size="3">One

unwelcome result has been the return of the army to politics.every

time the army has been involved in a takeover or coup, it is

immediately followed by a rapid increase in the Army's budget and

also it should be noted that officers and ranks involved in the coup

received substantial "bonuses" and promotions financed from

the public purse.</font></font></font></p>

<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>

</p>

<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font color="#000000"><font face="ArialMT, sans-serif"><font size="3">Self-interest

again rears it's ugly head to subjugate any genuine attempts at

democracy.</font></font></font></p>

<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>

</p>

</div></div></div>

It will be good when people do get control of politics not just by which better they get to elect, who will probably throw a bone while eating the meat, but also have involvement as representatives and those who choose their own party leaders etc. Still that is a long way off and there are a few other changes that will have be struggled through first

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hammered.

"as China survived the economic crisis better than any developed country and is increasingly practicing a global foreign policy."

I doubt this is very accurate. Can you quote your source?

By Sherlock Ho Agencies 2010-01-22:

China claims that the GDP growth last year has reached 8.7%. However, over 150 million people have a daily income of less than $1 dollar(NT$31.9). These people account for more than one third of overall population in China, implying an extremely large poverty gap.According to reports of China media, the basic wages of farmers and workers in China Yangtze River and Pearl River Delta rarely rise over the past ten years. The weak middle class is almost crushed by soaring house prices and expenses of raising children and parents. The fledging middle class has diminished.Based on the definition issued by UN, he who earns less than 1 dollar per day falls into the category of extremely poor. A third of China people belongs to this group.

Wow. A third of their population survives on less than a dollar a day. How many western countries can boast this sort of economic prowess? Now I know why all the chinese embassies are clogged with people tring to immagrate from all the failed western countries.

Tongue in cheek...........

Im talking in pure economic terms and the claim isnt that controversial. China as a country had a decline in growth while other countries went negative.. China then saw positive growth first. Im not talking about distribution of wealth which is a different thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

''If we could turn back time - if there were no coup, and we had let politics proceed according to democratic principles-we would not have ended up like this,'' Mr Surachart said.

I'm confused. How could politics have proceeded under democratic principles when Thaksin was stamping a great big jackboot all over them? These red-academics are trying to re-write history, or have got very short-term, selective memories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hammered.

Granted China came out of the "economic crisis" little changed with reference with what they had before, but they were not Robinson Caruso here. See below i think the word below, for some of these contries, is "survived" (stay alive, live, continue to exist, endure)

The Financial express. July 20 2009: Monday July 20 2009

The countries that have best survived the global recession are: Australia, China, India, Singapore, Hong Kong, Canada, Japan, Qatar, New Zealand, Malaysia, Sweden and Vietnam.

Servcorp InternationalBusiness Confidence Survey which was conducted in April 2009

International Ranks:

The countries perceived to be surviving the economic crisis the best, as voted by international businesspeople are:

Rank Country 1st Australia 2nd China 3rd equal India, Singapore 5th Hong Kong 6th Canada 7th equal Japan, Qatar 9th New Zealand 10th equal Malaysia, Sweden, Vietnam 13th equal Netherlands, United States of America 15th Indonesia 16th South America 17th France 18th equal Belgium, England, Korea, South Africa 22nd equal Austria, Taiwan 24th equal Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, Lebanon, Russia, United Arab Emirates 30th equal Brazil, Morocco, Philippines, Scotland, Sri Lanka, Syria, Thailand

Economic recession has hit countries of the entire world hard. It included even the most booming ones like India and China, where the estimated growth was not reached. In case of India, it happened to achieve lesser growth than the expected even though the economy did expand. So, a question remains which countries survived the economic recession best?

Answer – Australia

Read more: http://onehumanityplease.instablogs.com/entry/which-country-survived-the-economic-recession-best/#ixzz0zyOsnIez

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hammered.

"as China survived the economic crisis better than any developed country and is increasingly practicing a global foreign policy."

I doubt this is very accurate. Can you quote your source?

By Sherlock Ho Agencies 2010-01-22:

China claims that the GDP growth last year has reached 8.7%. However, over 150 million people have a daily income of less than $1 dollar(NT$31.9). These people account for more than one third of overall population in China, implying an extremely large poverty gap.According to reports of China media, the basic wages of farmers and workers in China Yangtze River and Pearl River Delta rarely rise over the past ten years. The weak middle class is almost crushed by soaring house prices and expenses of raising children and parents. The fledging middle class has diminished.Based on the definition issued by UN, he who earns less than 1 dollar per day falls into the category of extremely poor. A third of China people belongs to this group.

Wow. A third of their population survives on less than a dollar a day. How many western countries can boast this sort of economic prowess? Now I know why all the chinese embassies are clogged with people tring to immagrate from all the failed western countries.

Tongue in cheek...........

Apparently USA keeps 7% of their population on or below the poverty line (US own definition)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hammered.

"as China survived the economic crisis better than any developed country and is increasingly practicing a global foreign policy."

I doubt this is very accurate. Can you quote your source?

By Sherlock Ho Agencies 2010-01-22:

China claims that the GDP growth last year has reached 8.7%. However, over 150 million people have a daily income of less than $1 dollar(NT$31.9). These people account for more than one third of overall population in China, implying an extremely large poverty gap.According to reports of China media, the basic wages of farmers and workers in China Yangtze River and Pearl River Delta rarely rise over the past ten years. The weak middle class is almost crushed by soaring house prices and expenses of raising children and parents. The fledging middle class has diminished.Based on the definition issued by UN, he who earns less than 1 dollar per day falls into the category of extremely poor. A third of China people belongs to this group.

Wow. A third of their population survives on less than a dollar a day. How many western countries can boast this sort of economic prowess? Now I know why all the chinese embassies are clogged with people tring to immagrate from all the failed western countries.

Tongue in cheek...........

Im talking in pure economic terms and the claim isnt that controversial. China as a country had a decline in growth while other countries went negative.. China then saw positive growth first. Im not talking about distribution of wealth which is a different thing.

Unfortunately actually voting is only a tiny part of a functioning democracy and therefore the problem

Many middle-class Thais try to blame sections of the electorate for the problems - this flies in the face of democratic principles.....a sort of catch 22 that is used as a justification by other sections to claim the right to control by non-democratic means

Link to comment
Share on other sites

''If we could turn back time - if there were no coup, and we had let politics proceed according to democratic principles-we would not have ended up like this,'' Mr Surachart said.

I'm confused. How could politics have proceeded under democratic principles when Thaksin was stamping a great big jackboot all over them? These red-academics are trying to re-write history, or have got very short-term, selective memories.

THe point of a DEMOCRACY - is that with STABLE DEMOCRATIC institutions the behaviour of people like thaksin can and should be dealt with in a DEMOCRATIC way under the constitution and rule of law.. unfortunately some powerful factions decided not to do that and took the path of a coup. bo-one has argued that this was the only path and no-one has argued that Mr T was a satisfactory PM - again you cannot see thailand's political problems either in black and white or in terms of a single issue....the coup was just one in a long line of undemocratic events effectuated by various factions over the last few decades.THe fact that thailand does not have a stable long-term system of government is at least partly due to the coup, which again was a result of another faction believing it was their "right" to take control...ubnfortunately this time it was the army again who have been responsible for some of thailand's biggest governmental blunders

Link to comment
Share on other sites

''If we could turn back time - if there were no coup, and we had let politics proceed according to democratic principles-we would not have ended up like this,'' Mr Surachart said.

I'm confused. How could politics have proceeded under democratic principles when Thaksin was stamping a great big jackboot all over them? These red-academics are trying to re-write history, or have got very short-term, selective memories.

THe point of a DEMOCRACY - is that with STABLE DEMOCRATIC institutions the behaviour of people like thaksin can and should be dealt with in a DEMOCRATIC way under the constitution and rule of law.. unfortunately some powerful factions decided not to do that and took the path of a coup. bo-one has argued that this was the only path and no-one has argued that Mr T was a satisfactory PM - again you cannot see thailand's political problems either in black and white or in terms of a single issue....the coup was just one in a long line of undemocratic events effectuated by various factions over the last few decades.THe fact that thailand does not have a stable long-term system of government is at least partly due to the coup, which again was a result of another faction believing it was their "right" to take control...ubnfortunately this time it was the army again who have been responsible for some of thailand's biggest governmental blunders

Er, yeah,but you seem to have forgotten that Thaksin had undermined all the checks and balances put in place by the constitution and the rule of law was police officers going out shooting 2,500 people without charge, arrest or trial, oppositon MPs either being bought to join his 'coalition' or falling of balconies, newspaper's that printed any kind of criticism of the gov't being either sued or having attempted to buy them out and so on. That's what I meant by "jackboot". Thaksin's idea of democracy was little different in principle from the Burmese generals.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

''If we could turn back time - if there were no coup, and we had let politics proceed according to democratic principles-we would not have ended up like this,'' Mr Surachart said.

I'm confused. How could politics have proceeded under democratic principles when Thaksin was stamping a great big jackboot all over them? These red-academics are trying to re-write history, or have got very short-term, selective memories.

THe point of a DEMOCRACY - is that with STABLE DEMOCRATIC institutions the behaviour of people like thaksin can and should be dealt with in a DEMOCRATIC way under the constitution and rule of law.. unfortunately some powerful factions decided not to do that and took the path of a coup. bo-one has argued that this was the only path and no-one has argued that Mr T was a satisfactory PM - again you cannot see thailand's political problems either in black and white or in terms of a single issue....the coup was just one in a long line of undemocratic events effectuated by various factions over the last few decades.THe fact that thailand does not have a stable long-term system of government is at least partly due to the coup, which again was a result of another faction believing it was their "right" to take control...ubnfortunately this time it was the army again who have been responsible for some of thailand's biggest governmental blunders

Er, yeah,but you seem to have forgotten that Thaksin had undermined all the checks and balances put in place by the constitution and the rule of law was police officers going out shooting 2,500 people without charge, arrest or trial, oppositon MPs either being bought to join his 'coalition' or falling of balconies, newspaper's that printed any kind of criticism of the gov't being either sued or having attempted to buy them out and so on. That's what I meant by "jackboot". Thaksin's idea of democracy was little different in principle from the Burmese generals.

no I haven't.....your obsession with Thaksin is preventing you from seeing the whole picture. he was just one result of the situation in Thailand.

actually since Thaksin the constitution has been re-written and to most people's view regressively. There is now FAR more opportunity to suppress both press and perceived opposition by resoting to "the Law". THis is one of the main criticisms of the new constitution.THe legal system far from being an unbiased organ detached from politics is now more than ever a tool of the govt.

You need to look at what happened BEFORE Thaksin came to power to see why Thailand has such unstable governments.

you also need to let go of a partisan approach to understanding what is happening - it isn't a football match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no I haven't.....your obsession with Thaksin is preventing you from seeing the whole picture. he was just one result of the situation in Thailand.

actually since Thaksin the constitution has been re-written and to most people's view regressively. There is now FAR more opportunity to suppress both press and perceived opposition by resoting to "the Law". THis is one of the main criticisms of the new constitution.THe legal system far from being an unbiased organ detached from politics is now more than ever a tool of the govt.

You need to look at what happened BEFORE Thaksin came to power to see why Thailand has such unstable governments.

you also need to let go of a partisan approach to understanding what is happening - it isn't a football match.

The coup constitution had some progressive changes and some regressive changes.

I think most people agree that the current constitution needs some "improvements". Not everyone agrees on what those "improvements" should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually since Thaksin the constitution has been re-written and to most people's view regressively.

Could please provide the documentation that the majority of Thais view it as you portray them viewing it?

If you consider that your remark is in any way relevant or god forbid, clever then you are the prince of all rthat is fatuous and facile.

either take part in a reasoned argument or find something else to do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no I haven't.....your obsession with Thaksin is preventing you from seeing the whole picture. he was just one result of the situation in Thailand.

actually since Thaksin the constitution has been re-written and to most people's view regressively. There is now FAR more opportunity to suppress both press and perceived opposition by resoting to "the Law". THis is one of the main criticisms of the new constitution.THe legal system far from being an unbiased organ detached from politics is now more than ever a tool of the govt.

You need to look at what happened BEFORE Thaksin came to power to see why Thailand has such unstable governments.

you also need to let go of a partisan approach to understanding what is happening - it isn't a football match.

The coup constitution had some progressive changes and some regressive changes.

I think most people agree that the current constitution needs some "improvements". Not everyone agrees on what those "improvements" should be.

I think it wouldn't harm if you mentioned one addition in the new constitution you would consider progressive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually since Thaksin the constitution has been re-written and to most people's view regressively.

Could please provide the documentation that the majority of Thais view it as you portray them viewing it?

If you consider that your remark is in any way relevant or god forbid, clever then you are the prince of all rthat is fatuous and facile.

either take part in a reasoned argument or find something else to do!

Sorry if requesting some validity of a claim as an attempt to base the discussion in honesty has thrown you off.

Suffice to say, in the absence of such collaboration, your assessment is askew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it wouldn't harm if you mentioned one addition in the new constitution you would consider progressive?

I had read that there were more restrictions in it to stop corruption, but had to go looking for the details.

- More limits imposed on MPs - the PM, spouse and under-aged children have to declare assets, can not be involved in companies, especially media and telecoms.

- More detailed provisions for human rights for communities.

- Independent agencies have more power to protect people - eg NHRC can go to court on behalf of the people, which it couldn't do under the 97 constitution.

- Local government agencies have to submit plans and budgets to the people.

I could go on ... but only for one or two lines.

As I said, everyone thinks there can be improvements. The 1997 constitution could do with some improvements too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When all the other countries give priority to education, Thailand refuses to teach her children well. The move forward is inevitable.

To teach the children is dangerous for the establishment.

Now this is the Thai choice and it has to be respected. I guess most of the foreigners wish this move forward to avoid Thailand become a modern, transparent and... expensive country.

educate the masses in thailand , no thank you .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thailand is, what it is. Take the good with the bad, tend to your local community and take care of your family - the rest is just bullsh#t

'Tend to your local community'? Yes, if you want to be elected for local government, otherwise it's just 'take care of your family - the rest is just bullsh#t'.

Social responsibility is a profligate frivolity to many Thai people. To some because they can't afford it, to others because they don't give a f#*k. And why do those who can afford a social conscience choose to not give a f%^k? Now that would be an interesting debate.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it wouldn't harm if you mentioned one addition in the new constitution you would consider progressive?

I had read that there were more restrictions in it to stop corruption, but had to go looking for the details.

- More limits imposed on MPs - the PM, spouse and under-aged children have to declare assets, can not be involved in companies, especially media and telecoms.

- More detailed provisions for human rights for communities.

- Independent agencies have more power to protect people - eg NHRC can go to court on behalf of the people, which it couldn't do under the 97 constitution.

- Local government agencies have to submit plans and budgets to the people.

I could go on ... but only for one or two lines.

As I said, everyone thinks there can be improvements. The 1997 constitution could do with some improvements too.

THis is actually nonsense - are you trying to ssy that this is Constitution????? - these are precisely the pettifogging quibbles that have made the constitution unworkable - the examples you give are not particular parts of the constitution they are soundbites that are allegedly contained therein.

the older 1997 constitution had merits but the current one is really just intended to keep out voters from involvement in certain parts of government and to strength the ole of the army.

read up on the constitution! there's plenty to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...