To reform or not to reform, before or after the election - that is the question: Thai opinion

[webfact]

TELL IT AS IT IS
To reform or not to reform, before or after the election - that is the question
Pornpimol Kanchanalak

BANGKOK: -- Thailand is in a conundrum, politically. The tangled webs of conflict are so knotted that no parties see a clear way out.

As our leader, the prime minister should be held responsible for what is happening to the country. She must be held responsible because, as head of the government, the buck stops with her.

She and her coalition must be held answerable because it was them who knowingly and earnestly broke the rule of law and forsook the principle of democracy. They unanimously and unilaterally rejected the ruling of the Constitutional Court - a legal and legitimate entity under the Constitution - when it did not please them or serve their whim. The picture of them locking hands, their faces smiling as they pledged unity in denying the authority of the court, outraged the sensibilities of law-abiding citizens. It was then that the prime minister and her coalition lost their legitimacy to govern. It was then that they deserved to be called outlaws. Instead, they remain on their high horses, talking down to protesters, preaching the need to respect rule of law. A law that only they, the privileged, the real elite, have the right to violate.

The prime minister played victim when tens of thousands marched in the streets calling for her resignation. She shed tears, pleading with a straight face that she had done everything she could and asking what more could anyone want from her.

However, it's not a question of what she could do, but what she is doing.

She has been touring the countryside on so-called roving Cabinet meetings. At every stop, taxpayer's money was thrown at villages, local communities and canvassers in preparation for the upcoming election. This was declared legitimate and legal because it was the government that did it - the law was never referred to. Meanwhile, the Department of Investigation earnestly seeks the heads of opposition leaders, recalling the 1950s FBI witch-hunts under J Edgar Hoover. This is aimed at intimidating the opposition into submission, and again, it is deemed legal and legitimate.

This week, the prime minister conveniently took half of the proposal put forward by seven independent organisations calling for a royal decree to pave the way for a genuinely independent body for political reform. Opting for the decree would have meant relinquishing her control over the composition of the body. So instead she chose to exercise her authority as prime minister to set up her own reform body.

By these actions, what the prime minister has been doing is moving a non-violent political conflict towards an armed struggle. If this comes to pass, she will blame it squarely on the dissidents.

The same process turned Nelson Mandela, by nature a conciliator who argued for restraint with his more headstrong colleagues, into commander-in-chief of the armed wing (the "Spear of the Nation") of the African National Congress. Margaret Thatcher called the ANC a "typical terrorist organisation", effectively labelling Mandela a terrorist. Mandela chose to spurn an offer of early release from prison if he publicly denounced violence.

Many argue that Mandela's goal was to force the government to the negotiation table, not to seize power by force. However, truth be told, it was Mandela who said that "the attacks of the wild beast cannot be averted only with bare hands". The government's repression left him no choice.

Another great dissident-turned-president, Vaclav Havel, described in one of his essays how Czech citizens were forced to "live within a lie" under the communist regime. In describing his role, he wrote, "We never decided to become dissidents. We have been transformed into them, without quite knowing how, sometimes we have ended up in prison without precisely knowing how. We simply went ahead and did certain things that we felt we ought to do, and that seemed to us decent to do, nothing more nor less." His many stays in prison did not deter him from doing the things that he felt he ought to do. All through the years, he argued that political change could only come through civic initiatives, not through official institutions.

Here in Thailand, people in government still insist that we, the powerless, should suspend our disbelief and trust the government, even after it broke the law to serve its own political interest.

Last week, a doctor who professed he was no political activist pleaded for reforms before the election. His reason was simple and based on his own experience as a physician.

He asked if it was right for a person with a sexually transmitted disease to ask someone to go to bed with him/her first, and then go to a doctor after they were both infected. Rather, wasn't it right to first cure the disease before asking someone else to enter into a relationship?

The government is playing a dangerous game. Every day it is deliberately stoking the fires for armed struggle, a "people's revolution". The prime minister has not done everything she could. She is the commander-in-chief, not a victim. She and her government were the first ones to break the law and violate the principle of democracy. Now, how convenient it is for her to ask the dissidents to do otherwise. How can she ask the people to believe in the old money politics and to trust her to hold a genuinely honest and transparent election and then launch political reform? What incentive for reform will freshly elected politicians have? By the time they get elected, they will be preoccupied with making money to reimburse themselves, and paying back political favours. We will end up in the same reeking place we tried to run away from.

Thomas Paine (1736/7-1809), whose ideas inspired the US Constitution, said it succinctly: "A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody."


-- The Nation 2013-12-28

[noikrit]

Good article ..... Interesting .....

[kotsak]

The last sentence in the article sums it up perfectly about politics..

[Roadman]

Oh Khun Pornpimol.... Like a Red rug to the Khwai.... :)

[whybother]

Actually, that is two questions.

Sent from my phone ...

[Bender]

To reform or not to reform, before or after the election - that is the question

actually, the real question is , do you will hold an election on the 2 february?

after what suthep and the amart want, its an another coup problem !

[Time Traveller]

Unfortunately these political experts haven't yet realized that when Suthep says "reform" he really just means the exact same political system just as long as Shinawatras and his proxies don't participate.

[twinpin]

Does reform mean removing the right to vote from the uneducated. Only people with a BA or higher level of education allowed to cast a vote. What is this reform ?

i would like to know just what it is that needs reforming.

[winstonc]

if reform is before no one can complain as i see it...but im sure some will ..either on here or in government/or suphep....

[MaxLee]

To reform or not to reform, before or after the election - that is the question

"Thailand is in a conundrum, politically. The tangled webs of conflict are so knotted that no parties see a clear way out."

"you do it my way or the highway...."

"No you do it MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY

[noitom]

Who is on first, What's his name is on second, and I don't know is on third. Abbot and Costello had Thailand in mind 60 years ago.

[backtonormal]

Reforms...what are the reforms? Can anybody list any of the reforms this man keeps ranting on about... and please list some of your "300 members who are ready to sit on the PDRC". More faceless people financed my even more faceless people.

[bigbamboo]

To reform or not to reform....... that is not the question. The question is before or not before the election.

The issue is straightforward enough. Without reform now Sooty will continue to cry havoc and nothing will change because the pro reformers simply do not trust Tiny Tears to keep her promises after the election. Sooty is a politician himself and he of all people must know what inveterate liars they are.

[GeorgeO]

To reform or not to reform, before or after the election - that is the question

actually, the real question is , do you will hold an election on the 2 february?

after what suthep and the amart want, its an another coup problem !

Bender, you are clearly one of the blind being led by the blind.

All around us we see the voice of reason which clearly recognises that the election cannot go ahead without reforms first of all being put in place. The business community, educational institutions, the EC, and now, even the Army.

The Army Chief came out with a clear warning to YL yesterday, and still she sits on her high horse telling everyone that she (or should we say Thaksin?) knows better...!!

If she continues to insist that the elections go ahead, then she will be responsible for seeing her government ousted once and for all, albeit quite sadly, by yet another coup...!

[billzant]

Whether she is giving money to the poor for electoral purposes does not matter because the needy are receiving at least something. The rest of the rich choose not to give money, that is their democratic right. Yet they then complain that the poor won't vote for them. Why should they?

All kinds of sophistry and blame-slinging can't cover this up. The rich try to make the issue reform and Thaksinocracy but if they don't stop hoarding their money to the detriment of poor Thai people how can there be a resolution?

[Bender]

honestly these yellow thugs want reform?

this guy must be under yabba, he is alone against a dozen policeman, but still with his long knife he want to ... hurt!

[Scamper]

Fabulously written.

[ggold]

Whether she is giving money to the poor for electoral purposes does not matter because the needy are receiving at least something. The rest of the rich choose not to give money, that is their democratic right. Yet they then complain that the poor won't vote for them. Why should they?

All kinds of sophistry and blame-slinging can't cover this up. The rich try to make the issue reform and Thaksinocracy but if they don't stop hoarding their money to the detriment of poor Thai people how can there be a resolution?

Whether she is giving money to the poor for electoral purposes does not matter because the needy are receiving at least something

Even if it makes the whole country poor!

The rest of the rich choose not to give money, that is their democratic right. Yet they then complain that the poor won't vote for them. Why should they?

So Thaksin was giving his own money away? I seriously doubt that! We all know where the money came from, And they couldn't even do that right.

All kinds of sophistry and blame-slinging can't cover this up. The rich try to make the issue reform and Thaksinocracy but if they don't stop hoarding their money to the detriment of poor Thai people how can there be a resolution?

Surely you realize the ones hoarding the money are those in government. They are stealing for themselves not for the people.

But you could say the poor and needy are not getting anything, because they are a smaller number of people than the rice farmers, their vote isn't important. But I expect a few rice farmers will be joining the ranks of the poor and needy, as they now have no money because the government don't have the money to pay them.

There will always be poor and needy, but in the great scheme of things their needs are not paramount to a resolution of the political problems, and never will be!

[Emdog]

"She is the commander-in-chief, not a victim" Hmmm didn't the head of army say "anything can happen" the other day? Not "I will follow the orders of the commander-in-chief". I would assume therefore she is not the commander in chief. BBC pointed out military has led coups 11 times in Thailand.... they are the power.

Reforms are called for, but protestors and Suthep are profoundly unforthcoming as to what their "reform" will mean, other than some unelected panel. Devil is in the details. Reminds me of Nixon before 72 election with declarations of "Peace is at hand" etc. Won the election and then we had the Christmas bombing campaign. Great plan. Reform does not equal improve always. Reform as in "put in the good old boys we had before" isn't enough.

[farang000999]

A Thai wrote that?

[worgeordie]

Something needs to be done BEFORE the election,as that will

just be a waste of money,when so much has already been

lost,

If not, its going to be the same,one family running the country as

their own fiefdom,and anybody who thinks they are doing this for

the good of Thailand is as disillusioned as all those Reds in Isan

and the North.if they wanted to help Thailand the whole family

should exit stage left,and quietly,don't look back.

regards Worgeordie

[FiftyTwo]

The French and Pol Pot knew how to handle embedded authority.

Let's hope the yellow shirts don't force the red shirts to learn the same lesson.

[mudscrubber]

Fabulously written.

Yes. It might have been written by Orwell...as a parody written in doublespeak. Imagine comparing the Bangkok elites and industrialists who support the PDC to Nelson Mandela and company. Of course, the more appropriate analogy would be to compare these elites to the minority Afrikaners who ruled South Africa for so long. So much misinformation packed into one editorial. The gist of it is, though, is the same as that voiced by an abusive spouse: "It's your fault I hit you because you make me angry. Just do as I say and I will stop."

Truly vile.

[fab4]

There is just so much wrong with this article rant it's difficult to know what to say

"The government is playing a dangerous game. Every day it is deliberately stoking the fires for armed struggle"

Does this idiot mean to be taken seriously? Is suthep the epitome of mild mannered restraint? Christ on a bike, it makes you want to the <deleted>

Edited December 28, 2013 by fab4

[animatic]

"They unanimously and unilaterally rejected the ruling of the Constitutional Court - a legal and legitimate entity under the Constitution - when it did not please them or serve their whim. The picture of them locking hands, their faces smiling as they pledged unity in denying the authority of the court, outraged the sensibilities of law-abiding citizens. It was then that the prime minister and her coalition lost their legitimacy to govern."

This vignette shows what this violence is built upon.

A dictator so controlling the parliamentary process,

he can force the MP's into doing HIS bidding and ignore the courts.

And they only backed down a bit when the people rose up,

but that was too little too late. The cat is out of the bag Elvis has left the building.

[Neurath]

"Last week, a doctor who professed he was no political activist pleaded for reforms before the election. His reason was simple and based on his own experience as a physician.

He asked if it was right for a person with a sexually transmitted disease to ask someone to go to bed with him/her first, and then go to a doctor after they were both infected. Rather, wasn't it right to first cure the disease before asking someone else to enter into a relationship?"

If they're both infected with a sexually transmitted disease, it won't make any difference whether they go to the doctor before or after going to bed. And if the doctor ("reform") has no cure for the disease there's probably no point in going to see him or her at all. Best if both infected parties are sent to the political equivalent of a TB sanitarium.

The idea that there is any set of new constitutional or legal arrangements that can stop or stifle "corruption" is more the problem than the solution. Sitting beneath any such new set will be the very same cultural practices that will be their undoing.

[Balance]

In the U.S. the issues are the same as here, in Thailand. The rich and powerful believe only they have the right to govern, or rule. The lackey class and the Republican Party who serve the elites and get rich by doing so certainly agree. Since the 1980's, the working class has been frightened into voting against their own interests. But there is a problem. The Republicans can no longer win a national election because the majority of voters do not agree with their policies. Their solution to this problem is to vote in "reforms" that make it much harder for minority groups, students and workers to vote. They tried this in 2010 and it pissed off so many people that more of the "wrong" people voted than before. So, most likely next year they will lose again.

Why is all of this happening? The answer is pretty straight forward; in 20 years white people will no longer be the majority. African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians together will be the majority. These groups are politically liberal and over 60% of them vote for the Democratic Party, and they largely believe that the people with money should not control politics.

I have only been in Thailand for a few years, but there seem to be some similarities. The bottom line is that a Democracy means that power will be shared and more people will want a share of the wealth of a country, like good education, decent health care, a social safety net. If a party stands for these things, they will tend to win. Thailand is simply learning these things now, but I would suggest that the the genie is out of the bottle and will not not go back in. The sooner that Thai politics and the politicians accept this the sooner real reforms can take place and the promise of a democratic Thailand be realized.

[surangw]

bottom line, honest persons don't get involved in politics

[tilac2]

Good article ..... Interesting .....

You think this is a good article? Don't you think that to quote the following is a bit inflammatory?:

"He asked if it was right for a person with a sexually transmitted disease to ask someone to go to bed with him/her first, and then go to a doctor after they were both infected. Rather, wasn't it right to first cure the disease before asking someone else to enter into a relationship?"

I have been watching www.blueskychannel.tv.com. They are broadcasting speeches from Democracy monument from Mr Suthep and others. Watch and see what you think. They have an English language section with language like "we have a messy dirty house... we want a clean house".

I think this may be preparatory to a coup. I hope I am wrong.

[Neurath]

Good article ..... Interesting ..... alt=thumbsup.gif pagespeed_url_hash=1443177670>

You think this is a good article? Don't you think that to quote the following is a bit inflammatory?:

"He asked if it was right for a person with a sexually transmitted disease to ask someone to go to bed with him/her first, and then go to a doctor after they were both infected. Rather, wasn't it right to first cure the disease before asking someone else to enter into a relationship?"

I have been watching www.blueskychannel.tv.com. They are broadcasting speeches from Democracy monument from Mr Suthep and others. Watch and see what you think. They have an English language section with language like "we have a messy dirty house... we want a clean house".

I think this may be preparatory to a coup. I hope I am wrong.

You can watch the whole "dirty House...we want a clean House" online - with production values and background music not dissimilar to what you would see in a cinema before a movie. It's a pretty pathetic piece of of advertising (propaganda, if you like).