British foreign secretary urges Thailand to uphold democracy

[darren84310]

"This is a matter for the people of Thailand, but I hope their political leaders will find a way forward," he said.

Can't see anything wrong with what he said.

A good and sensible statement from the British foreign secretary.

May be he failed as PM....but he is doing a good job now.

Agree he said nothing wrong. However, he was never PM. He was opposition leader when Tony Blair was practically unbeatable.

He would make a good PM now, pity Thailand don't have many politicians of his caliber.

Hahaha - Hague is a failed politician Governing with a party with a 27% mandate - learn about you own country PLEASE before instructing ours!

I assume you are Thai.... in what way was I instructing your country?

[darren84310]

Want to see if we get the same "mind your own business, solve your own problems at home" comments.

Farang don't quite understand Thais.

It is not that Thais do not want election.

The majority people want election after reform.

2 things you are wrong about.

1. I think if you had a poll of farangs, the percentage that would vote for reform/election would be higher than the percentage that would vote for election/reform. (my opinion)

2. I don't think that if you had the same poll with Thais you would get that same result, because the red shirts want the election first and they are the majority.

I completely sympathise with your fight, but please don't assume farangs don't understand Thais, some do and some don't.

Generally farangs understand democracy far better than Thais, and Thais say they want democracy.

[55Jay]

sure sure and everyone else is a saint and Thailand has such a stable system. Your a child with a childish outlook, too bad for your country with people of so narrow vision and opinion of others with any different views.

The world is not impressed and neither are the majority of your countrymen.

Take care little bird lest you fly too close to the sun, with those illusions of grandeur your liable to get singed.

oh now whos being childish? boohoo you hate Thailand and disrespect us so much but still live here and meddle in our affairs - you have no idea what the majority of "my countrymen think - youre not Thai! You just pretend and play at being a red shirt upholding the great Shinawat democracy - there are things that Thai people know that foreigners can never have any idea of red shirts and yellow shirts are Thai people.

Thailand that you see in your eyes is the tip of the iceberg that we Thais know - before you tell me to take care let me ask you - a red shirt a yellow shirt and a farang with views like ours - which other would the red shirt and the yellow shirt protect if they really had to make a choice. Your views on this site are like owning tickets for an event that has finished. You cannot and never will be part of this country - you cant own anything and you cant vote - you only pay us money that we laugh as we take - those are laws that EVERY Thai will never break!!

As a Thai, your command of English is commendable.

[NCFC]

As for William Hague, well, he comes from a country that has no written constitution and a half appointed half hereditary Upper House. I believe they call them "Lords".

And it has delivered strong and decisive government for 100s of years.

That the UK does not have one single document that can be called a constitution does not mean that it has no rules. The Thai revolution of 1932 sought to model its constitutional monarchy on the UK. I'm not sure how they went about this - as even some British constitutional experts seem to get lost in the tangle of power relationships at times - but it would be an onerous task to try and fully duplicate such a system. Thailand has structures such as a Privy Council and House of Lords (Senate) but I don't think anything resembling The Crown.

It could be said that the British public are duped into a veneer of democracy behind which lurks an older oligarchic structure. The British republican revolution didn't last very long. If the Thai constitution appears designed so that all roads lead to the Senate, and beyond, try reading about the powers vested in The Crown.

So a question must arise as to why this Thai experiment is not working - assuming, of course, that it isn't. One key aspect that makes the copying of the British model so difficult is that it is based on centuries of laws. Laws that have not so much sought to define the power of the rulers but more the powers of the individual in defence from the rulers, be they monarchs or governments. Many new states place their Constitution as the first source of the law of the land - changing the Constitution thereby changes the laws. In the UK, the law, the common law, comes first and the relationships of power are imbedded within the law.

What is the history of Thai law? Anyone? Well, it looks like the Laws of Manu were used before the creation of the modern state. I assume that body of Hindu laws was somehow scrapped - I don't know - but it leaves the country without a legal history, or structure, or culture. Where the UK has evolved from the Magna Carta to the Poll Tax , Thailand has lurched from one crisis to another. Reforms don't need to take 800 years, but they do need to aim at the right targets.

I think if there is one defining difference it is the law of the land; a respect for the law not as absolute truth but as the battleground to define rights and privileges and powers. Corruption is endemic in this world, but the way to fight it is through the courts. To try and reform democracy and corruption are the wrong targets; what needs reforming in Thailand is the law.

Focus27 congratulations on writing one of the first posts that attempts to look at the underlying problems in a non-partisan way.

I stand to be corrected but I think one major difference between English and Thai civil law is that the concept of precedence does not apply in the Thai system. This IMO is a serious weakness

Precedence constrains the power of judges to make decisions on a case-by-case basis. In Thailand judges are free to ignore similar cases.

Precedence encourages transparency because a judge will refer to previous cases in his ruling and so one can follow his line of thinking. He must also define where facts of a case are different so that precedence does not apply.

Finally precedence promotes fairness because a judge has to follow decisions of previous judges thereby people are judged equally.

The law in Thailand needs to be reformed in order to tackle corruption. The concept of precedence is something that will help reign in the power of judges.

A small step perhaps, but a necessary one.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Edited January 30, 2014 by NCFC

[LarryBird]

It also might have to do with the fact that in one country, in general people obey the laws, and in another, they do everything to break the law.

[jayboy]

William Hague the British Foreign secretary is a career politician who has never had a real job like most of the political class including the British prime minister Cameron and "leaders" of the opposition, Milliband and Clegg whom all support the Anti-democratic (note not "un" democratic) European Union.

So this man is in no position to lecture Thailand when he and his ilk have robbed the U.K of its own democracy by signing away British sovereignty to a foreign power without asking the British people first!

I don't disagree with your general point but you have not chosen the best example in William Hague.He had a successful career at Mckinsey before entering politics.What is more he is a talented historian having published very well received lives of Pitt the Younger and William Wilberforce.What a pity he was propelled prematurely to the Tory party leadership.He is a highly intelligent likeable politician devoid of side.And in excessively class conscious Britain he is a proud Yorkshireman whose manner and accent don't put the rest of the nation's back up.

[focus27]

As for William Hague, well, he comes from a country that has no written constitution and a half appointed half hereditary Upper House. I believe they call them "Lords".

And it has delivered strong and decisive government for 100s of years.

That the UK does not have one single document that can be called a constitution does not mean that it has no rules. The Thai revolution of 1932 sought to model its constitutional monarchy on the UK. I'm not sure how they went about this - as even some British constitutional experts seem to get lost in the tangle of power relationships at times - but it would be an onerous task to try and fully duplicate such a system. Thailand has structures such as a Privy Council and House of Lords (Senate) but I don't think anything resembling The Crown.

It could be said that the British public are duped into a veneer of democracy behind which lurks an older oligarchic structure. The British republican revolution didn't last very long. If the Thai constitution appears designed so that all roads lead to the Senate, and beyond, try reading about the powers vested in The Crown.

So a question must arise as to why this Thai experiment is not working - assuming, of course, that it isn't. One key aspect that makes the copying of the British model so difficult is that it is based on centuries of laws. Laws that have not so much sought to define the power of the rulers but more the powers of the individual in defence from the rulers, be they monarchs or governments. Many new states place their Constitution as the first source of the law of the land - changing the Constitution thereby changes the laws. In the UK, the law, the common law, comes first and the relationships of power are imbedded within the law.

What is the history of Thai law? Anyone? Well, it looks like the Laws of Manu were used before the creation of the modern state. I assume that body of Hindu laws was somehow scrapped - I don't know - but it leaves the country without a legal history, or structure, or culture. Where the UK has evolved from the Magna Carta to the Poll Tax , Thailand has lurched from one crisis to another. Reforms don't need to take 800 years, but they do need to aim at the right targets.

I think if there is one defining difference it is the law of the land; a respect for the law not as absolute truth but as the battleground to define rights and privileges and powers. Corruption is endemic in this world, but the way to fight it is through the courts. To try and reform democracy and corruption are the wrong targets; what needs reforming in Thailand is the law.

Focus27 congratulations on writing one of the first posts that attempts to look at the underlying problems in a non-partisan way.

I stand to be corrected but I think one major difference between English and Thai civil law is that the concept of precedence does not apply in the Thai system. This IMO is a serious weakness

Precedence constrains the power of judges to make decisions on a case-by-case basis. In Thailand judges are free to ignore similar cases.

Precedence encourages transparency because a judge will refer to previous cases in his ruling and so one can follow his line of thinking. He must also define where facts of a case are different so that precedence does not apply.

Finally precedence promotes fairness because a judge has to follow decisions of previous judges thereby people are judged equally.

The law in Thailand needs to be reformed in order to tackle corruption. The concept of precedence is something that will help reign in the power of judges.

A small step perhaps, but a necessary one.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Thanks. I tried to condense it into a forum post and not a treatise, but yes, one fundamental concept of common law is precedence. Merely fiddling with a constitution is just a preparation for the next scam to be unleashed.

However, before being accused of promoting an alien system to the precious Thai people, let me say that before a system of law can be implemented there must be a cohesive philosophy of law. What Roman law and British common law have in common is a basic philosophy that power should not be exercised arbitrarily... by anybody, and that with freedoms come responsibilities and hence consequences.

Although overwhelmingly Buddhist, Thailand has retained a lot of brahminical Hindu customs and attitudes, no doubt from the historical use of the laws of Manu, as stated before. However, there does seem to be a body of philosophy and ethics that every Thai is familiar with and (from my experience) respects: Buddhism.

I think Thailand could do worse than look towards Buddhism as a foundation for a functioning and respected law of the land. If they truly believe in karma (as opposed to it being another whitewashing technique) then that too can be part of the law. I don't expect a Thai age of enlightenment, just a bit more... maturity.

[LomSak27]

Limeys, always sticking their nose in other countries affairs. Concern yourself about Northern Ireland and sod off Nigels.

[Jonmarleesco]

This is the same prat, Willie 'the Vague' Hague, who is directly responsible for GCHQ and its recently revealed shenanigans - now looking ever closer to illegality. He couldn't spell democracy if it only had one syllable.

[Jonmarleesco]

Limeys, always sticking their nose in other countries affairs. Concern yourself about Northern Ireland and sod off Nigels.

I thought Limeys were English, not American?

[NCFC]

Limeys, always sticking their nose in other countries affairs. Concern yourself about Northern Ireland and sod off Nigels.

You make a good point to reference Northern Ireland where there were some similarities to Thailand situation today in that the minority would not accept the wishes of the majority and neither side would compromise.

Of course we shouldn't over simplify the situation or the comparison because in Thailand the minority are economically, judicially and militarily very powerful.

But the point can be made that a kind of peace has returned to Northern Ireland because 1) one generation has died out 2) both sides eventually compromised.

Perhaps Thailand needs to learn from this example. Compromise is necessary. A society has to be inclusive of all its members. And hopefully it can be achieved within the current generation.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[pnu]

democracy is dead.
all is run by banks and giant cooperation'
If there is to be democracy in any country also in Thai. you first need a sovereign national economy.
then you need a different system for voting.. 2 monkeys on a ballot just ain't gonna cut it.

after genuine economics and genuine democracy is installed, investigations should commence to who sold all the resources and got all the bank bailouts

the resources of Thai should support the Thai people..

this can be said in many countries but apparently most people don't want liberty or are to miseducated to see that they don't have it. Humanly sad really.
วิษณุ

[darren84310]

People like Hague should stick to sorting out the mess that they have created in their own country as opposed to poking their nose into other countries business. Of course Hague comes from a party with a long tradition of supporting dictators and is currently a ruling party that has no real clear mandate to govern, if we were to listen to the arguments of our Red Shirt sympathizers on here, who overthrew a democratically elected coalition preciously.

Just for recollection purposes

Uuuummmm!!!!!...... He is foreign secretary!

[BlueNoseCodger]

What about USA?

USA is behind elections in Thailand. This is why Suthep and Abhisit keep visiting and writing love letters trying to woo them over to their side.

So, Yingluk has always wanted to know who was behind 2010? The NSA would have the details, who gave what order to whom. The locations from their cell phones, the conversations, the emails, the orders sent from their computers, who financed it, the lot.

2006 coup? Maybe they don't have it in detail but I bet they have at least the computer orders, and cell phone logs, financial details, etc.

Suthep's latest power grab? dam_n straight they have all his comms, every last bit of his 'plebs coup' attempt, they will have details of. The money trail is always the big show of who is behind what.

So now is the time to do something useful with that NSA trove of data and start releasing it.

You want democracy US/UK? You have all this spy data on Sutheps lot. So release it.

Edited January 31, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[puck2]

Is it possible to talk about the content in a bucket when the bucket is empty?

That's what Mr. Hague was doing when talking about to "uphold democracy" in Thailand.