Thai opinion: Ask not what the Constitution can do for you

[webfact]

STOPPAGE TIME
Ask not what the Constitution can do for you
Tulsathit Taptim
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- There's a very thin line between poison and bitter pills. A case in point is the controversial charter draft, which will be put to a crucial vote less than a week from now. Will it kill Thailand, as many critics (some deserving close scrutiny themselves) would have us believe? Or will it "cure" the political illness that allegedly prompted the military to seize power over a year ago?

The problem has been exacerbated by a credibility issue surrounding both key critics and main proponents of the draft. On one side are politicians whose concept of democracy is limited to "election winners can do just about anything." On the other are those desiring to "right the wrong" by applying a few "wrongs" themselves. The former insist you can't revitalise democracy by killing it. The latter argue what is being killed is democracy's impostor.

The Pheu Thai Party, Thaksin Shinawatra and his sister Yingluck have come out all guns blazing against the charter draft. However, they are offering nothing new in its place. Their long and detailed criticism against the contentious draft can be summed up as follows: If enacted, it will be Thailand's worst-ever Constitution and will do nothing but undermine the country's democracy.

The criticism is repetitive but understandable. When politicians look at a Constitution, they see things differently from others. To them, "democracy" is about how much power "elected officeholders" or MPs should have, and there is little more to it than that. Politicians also have their own definition of "empowering the people", which is why their preaching about national, collective values should be taken with a grain of salt.

The said critics apparently care too much about how a government elected by the people can be undermined or susceptible to intervention by "undemocratic" elements. They have paid scant attention to how Thailand might forge a democratic system that can truly defend itself against such intervention. In other words, the "worried" critics have neglected to offer concrete proposals for how Thailand should fight corruption, which has been the source of political turmoil and the excuse for opportunistic interference.

Anyone who thinks a good charter means a healthy democracy should check out Thailand's history. Democracy can only be protected by the integrity of its own governments. It's as simple as that. The "most democratic Constitution" can never protect democracy, or even itself, for that matter. Just take a look at the fate of the 1997 "People's Constitution", which was revoked in the 2005 coup but whose values might have been trampled on earlier by politicians themselves.

We can have the world's best charter, on paper, but it can still be torn apart in the blink of an eye if politicians misbehave. So, the ultimate question is not how a Constitution should read, but what the likes of the Democrats, Pheu Thai, Chat Thai and other parties must do "for" the system. And what they must do is not covered in the charter. One thing that they must do is never seek a loophole to serve themselves and wrong the country.

Pheu Thai, Thaksin, Yingluck and other supporters of ballot-box democracy seem to think that corruption should be dealt with democratically. That idea is noble, but the truth is that Thai politicians have never allowed it to happen. A brief glance at the modern Thai history shows that the "democratic system" has been helpless when it comes to punishing corrupt politicians in power. The stark imbalance between the magnitude of corruption and the number of political officeholders punished for graft by the "democratic" Parliament tells the story.

To forge a genuine democracy, we must look beyond the ballot box and "empowerment" as it is defined by politicians. Genuine "empowerment" must serve national, not vested, interests. Voters should be empowered to judge politicians' performances, but not whether they take bribes or evade taxes. When democratic governments are clean, or when they can efficiently eradicate or punish wrongdoers among them, then and only then can we put our lives on the line when someone tries to change the system.

Anyway, whether this charter draft will "kill" or "cure" has to do more with the powers-that-be than with the critics. The charter draft is strewn with controversial clauses that worry even neutral observers. For example, it would allow the military junta to keep a firm hold on Thailand until a new, elected government is formed. And even after Thailand has a democratic government, a powerful reform-monitoring committee, to be formed by the current rulers, could still exert a lot of power.

Will the charter draft be poison or bitter medicine? This question might be irrelevant if fresh turmoil leads Thailand somewhere else entirely after next week's vote in the National Reform Council. The possibility of that happening, many will agree, is anything but remote.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Ask-not-what-the-Constitution-can-do-for-you-30267916.html

-- The Nation 2015-09-02

[tbthailand]

I wish anti-democrats like Tulsathit would stop "quoting" or paraphrasing real democrats like JFK. It makes me want to puke.

[MaxLee]

We're at an eternal loop named saving face and punish with defamation laws....

[Seastallion]

I wish anti-democrats like Tulsathit would stop "quoting" or paraphrasing real democrats like JFK. It makes me want to puke.

The quote is paraphrased and apt. And addreessed to the politicians, not the people.

He's saying the politicians (on both sides), should be asking that question, because thus far, especially on the Thaksin side, any constitution has been viewed as to how it can help each individual politician retain and use power, and resist any constitution that deprives him/her of power or corruption opportunities.

It's a good article.

[Roadman]

Excellent summary article.

[ramrod711]

Pheu Thai, Thaksin, Yingluck and other supporters of ballot-box democracy seem to think that corruption should be dealt with democratically. That idea is noble, but the truth is that Thai politicians have never allowed it to happen. A brief glance at the modern Thai history shows that the "democratic system" has been helpless when it comes to punishing corrupt politicians in power. The stark imbalance between the magnitude of corruption and the number of political officeholders punished for graft by the "democratic" Parliament tells the story.

Well said, politicians and powerful,wealthy people are given every opportunity to escape prosecution, or just escape.

[Charlie Croker]

'Democracy can only be protected by the integrity of its own governments.'

That's the crux of this situation isn't it. Thaksin and his cronies want to ensure their wholesale rampant looting of the state is protected by 'democratic privilege'.

How many years of rice scams by another name where denied to Yingluck's government after she was democratically voted out of her job by her peers, with a vote of no confidence.

The present administration want to shackle future governments, to be accountable for their decision making and government spending. As well as taking responsibility for their actions as the rest of us have to. Without the protection of political office.

The new constitution affords a much more direct route to taking away power from governments who are considered unacceptable. And yes I see the pitfalls in this outlook.

As the article says governments are judged by their integrity. If Yingluck hadn't tried to force a backdoor pardon for her fugitive brother, and support widespread corruption she would still be in office.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Charlie Croker

[ramrod711]

'Democracy can only be protected by the integrity of its own governments.'

That's the crux of this situation isn't it. Thaksin and his cronies want to ensure their wholesale rampant looting of the state is protected by 'democratic privilege'.

How many years of rice scams by another name where denied to Yingluck's government after she was democratically voted out of her job by her peers, with a vote of no confidence.

The present administration want to shackle future governments, to be accountable for their decision making and government spending. As well as taking responsibility for their actions as the rest of us have to. Without the protection of political office.

The new constitution affords a much more direct route to taking away power from governments who are considered unacceptable. And yes I see the pitfalls in this outlook.

As the article says governments are judged by their integrity. If Yingluck hadn't tried to force a backdoor pardon for her fugitive brother, and support widespread corruption she would still be in office.

she would still be in office. she might still be in office.....if the farmers hadn't lynched her by now.

[Blackfalds]

"....which will be put to a crucial vote less than a week from now"

Wow, another arrogant, looking-down-the-nose belittling of readers intelligence. As if these people represent political diversity. The same thing as some time ago, the media dutifully reported on discussions where these anti-democrats supposedly had a fierce discussion about some issue or other, instead of speaking in an echo chamber. Depicting a vote between political brothers-in-arms is "crucial and debatable"???...How can one not be scornful.

" Or will it "cure" the political illness that allegedly prompted the military to seize power over a year ago?"

Again, the media perpetuating the big lie...depicting contrived political conflict as being valid.

Suggesting political diversity is "political illness" again assaults one's intelligence.

" On one side are politicians whose concept of democracy is limited to "election winners can do just about anything"

Wow, this baby is loaded with one-sided, screwed up thinking about politics. This quote a throw-in supporting their anti-politician ideology as cover for assaulting Democracy.

"The Pheu Thai Party, Thaksin Shinawatra and his sister Yingluck have come out all guns blazing against the charter draft. However, they are offering nothing new in its place."

OK, Can't resist a bit of anti-Yingluck'ism. Reducing the former Prime Minister as a "sister"...This sister would 'kick ass' in any election going forward and they know it....But never mind that,.... "Not offering anything new"? They mean "reform" as code for their anti-democratic charter and an extreme lurch away from Democracy?

I can see why those incapable of functioning effectively in an Electoral and Parliamentary Democracy need change. Their arrogance due to their Elitist roots, prevents them from accepting that they need changing, instead of bastardizing a Democratic system to suit their deficiencies. And don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that Thai Democracy was perfect...Far from it....But imperfect Democracy beats the hell out of where these people are taking the country now.

Enough..... These quotes come from just the first three paragraphs of this article........I shudder to think what the rest entails.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Blackfalds

[Blackfalds]

I wish anti-democrats like Tulsathit would stop "quoting" or paraphrasing real democrats like JFK. It makes me want to puke.

The quote is paraphrased and apt. And addreessed to the politicians, not the people.

He's saying the politicians (on both sides), should be asking that question, because thus far, especially on the Thaksin side, any constitution has been viewed as to how it can help each individual politician retain and use power, and resist any constitution that deprives him/her of power or corruption opportunities.

It's a good article.

"It's a good article"

And your comments will be lauded by those who share the anti-politician ideology as cover for their anti-democracy.

In that light, it is a good comment for them.

[Blackfalds]

'Democracy can only be protected by the integrity of its own governments.'

That's the crux of this situation isn't it. Thaksin and his cronies want to ensure their wholesale rampant looting of the state is protected by 'democratic privilege'.

How many years of rice scams by another name where denied to Yingluck's government after she was democratically voted out of her job by her peers, with a vote of no confidence.

The present administration want to shackle future governments, to be accountable for their decision making and government spending. As well as taking responsibility for their actions as the rest of us have to. Without the protection of political office.

The new constitution affords a much more direct route to taking away power from governments who are considered unacceptable. And yes I see the pitfalls in this outlook.

As the article says governments are judged by their integrity. If Yingluck hadn't tried to force a backdoor pardon for her fugitive brother, and support widespread corruption she would still be in office.

"If Yingluck hadn't tried to force a backdoor pardon for her fugitive brother, and support widespread corruption she would still be in office"

Another take on suggesting that the coup was "issue driven"

Parliament is the place for addressing political issues, and elections to test their veracity.

It is a direct comment on how much validity the issues mentioned in above quote had, that they cancelled an election to avoid the electorate scrutiny. Their fear of this is all one needs to know about their smoke.

The coup was not issue driven, as their constitution shows. It exposes their true intention all along. Although they seek cover under the code-word "reform"

[noitom]

This Thai writer first plagiarizes the words of a true statesman and leader and then puts together an incoherent pice of gibberish.

[Seastallion]

'Democracy can only be protected by the integrity of its own governments.'

That's the crux of this situation isn't it. Thaksin and his cronies want to ensure their wholesale rampant looting of the state is protected by 'democratic privilege'.

How many years of rice scams by another name where denied to Yingluck's government after she was democratically voted out of her job by her peers, with a vote of no confidence.

The present administration want to shackle future governments, to be accountable for their decision making and government spending. As well as taking responsibility for their actions as the rest of us have to. Without the protection of political office.

The new constitution affords a much more direct route to taking away power from governments who are considered unacceptable. And yes I see the pitfalls in this outlook.

As the article says governments are judged by their integrity. If Yingluck hadn't tried to force a backdoor pardon for her fugitive brother, and support widespread corruption she would still be in office.

"The authority of the State can never be an end in itself; for, if that were so, any kind of tyranny would be inviolable and sacred. If a government uses the instruments of power in it’s hands for the purpose of leading a people to ruin, then rebellion is not only the right but also the duty of every individual citizen"

Some will agree with the quote, but resent it and dismiss it. It's from Mein Kampf. It's apt, though.

[toybits]

Why? Because it will be torn up to shreds at the very next instance?

[Seastallion]

This Thai writer first plagiarizes the words of a true statesman and leader and then puts together an incoherent pice of gibberish.

No plagiarism, it's a well known quote, hardly needing attribution, and besides that he's paraphrased.

If you think that is gibberish, then I suspect you speak a diffeent language to most of us here.

[LannaGuy]

Funny how this writer misses out the Democratic Party ALSO comes out against the Charter? now why's that? a piece of biased nonsense again from the amarts newspaper that does not even mention their own Party are against it!

Nice to see PTP and the Dems at last stand up for the democratic principal as one

Suthep supports it so that's a pretty good reason to reject it anyway lol

It will be passed as the people do not want to be ruled by the Army Junta and they will think 'half a loaf is better than none'

Edited September 2, 2015 by LannaGuy

[Seastallion]

Funny how this writer misses out the Democratic Party ALSO comes out against the Charter? now why's that?

If you read with a balanced eye, you will realise that this writer notes that the critics of the charter, no matter what political persuasion, are critical only for it's impinging on their perceived right to unfettered power.

Nevertheless, even if the writer only points out one party, the point he makes is absolutely valid. The Charter should not be about what it does for politicians, it should be about what it does for the people and should certainly be about restricting what any politician, of any coloured shirt, can do.

[LannaGuy]

Funny how this writer misses out the Democratic Party ALSO comes out against the Charter? now why's that?

If you read with a balanced eye, you will realise that this writer notes that the critics of the charter, no matter what political persuasion, are critical only for it's impinging on their perceived right to unfettered power.

Nevertheless, even if the writer only points out one party, the point he makes is absolutely valid. The Charter should not be about what it does for politicians, it should be about what it does for the people and should certainly be about restricting what any politician, of any coloured shirt, can do.

...but not what the Army can do

[tbthailand]

I see that some posters like this article.

It makes sense that they do because Tulsathit is a diehard anti-democratic royalist mouthpiece and makes a number of fake arguments that his side repeat and repeat, some of them are arguments which I see repeated by equally undemocratic Falangs here.

The first is that democracy cannot exist in Thailand until corruption is defeated.

• This is a favorite refrain of the elites. It's a fake argument.
• But since corruption will always exist, it is an argument that fits the anti-democratic agenda perfectly
• Tulsathit, like all other elites, think that only politicians are corrupt, ie; the good generals who "save" the country every time (for the elites) are just good people with the country's best interests at heart. That too is complete nonsense
• The only solution Tulsathit and his friends see to corruption is an undemocratic solution - surprise surprise, they hate democracy, so that is the goal of the fake argument

The second fake argument is that elected governments "can do just about anything"

• this is also called "parliamentary dictatorship" by anti-democrats, or
• it is just called the "democracy trap" by the current, self-appointed, "PM"

The reality is, even in Thailand under the last military constitution, much less the 1997 constitution, politicians and parliament have rules and must follow them. When you notice that the first court complaint was lodged against the PTP government in August of 2011, then you can see that the anti-democrats, in fact, use the "rule of law" to their full advantage. But when it suits them, as in 2014, even with the courts and the NACC hounding the government with legal cases, they pretend that the politicians are untouchable and only the Generals can, once again, save the country.

Given that Tulsathit's own position is blatantly anti-democratic, he must also try to smear his opponents. The next fake argument is that people who want a democratic constitution are only interested in how much power elected governments have, and "there is little more to it than that". Tulsathit could at least expend a bit more effort to disparage democratic people, but I serious doubt his overall level of intelligence in the first place. But as for his fake argument:

• He is trying, again, to tie political power to corruption - this time without stating it explicitly.
• This apparently, is supposed to support his other fake argument, that "true" democracy cannot exist until corruption is eliminated.
• He dismisses with such ease, the fact that elected governments are elected to represent the people and must therefore, have the means of governing. This is a core aspect of democracy and anti-democrats hate it because they want the government to represent, and benefit, them, and them only.

Another gem of a moronic fake argument is that defending the constitution depends on the behavior of politicians. He, like so many anti-democrats, feel the need to skate on this dangerously thin ice, since they are the ones who tear up constitution after constitution, even the ones they write themselves. First,

• Illegal behaviour by politicians must be, and is, dealt with by the legal system. Their "misbehaviour" is no justification for a coup.
• Defending the constitution means that all parties follow the constitution which is another dangerous point for the anti-election, anti-democrats and their military buddies who sat on the side lines while their fake-crisis and the PDRC interrupted the very constitutional process called for in a crisis : an election.
• Tulsathit and his friends know this which is why they must always always always make corrupt politicians the boogeymen and pretend that the only "solution" is the army.

In general, this guy is not only a diehard anti-democrat, but all of his articles which I have seen posted in The Nation follow this same level of base, moronic, logic to support the cause of the military/elite alliance that has kept a grip on the country since the mid 50s.

[The Deerhunter]

Funny how this writer misses out the Democratic Party ALSO comes out against the Charter? now why's that?

If you read with a balanced eye, you will realise that this writer notes that the critics of the charter, no matter what political persuasion, are critical only for it's impinging on their perceived right to unfettered power.

Nevertheless, even if the writer only points out one party, the point he makes is absolutely valid. The Charter should not be about what it does for politicians, it should be about what it does for the people and should certainly be about restricting what any politician, of any coloured shirt, can do.

Thank you! Well answered! Specific criticism of one party merely serves as as an example to make the point. It applies equally to all parties. Anyone could see this, assuming they wanted to, even through red tinted glasses. The criticisms and examples apply to all parties and all politicians, yes, even the Dems, but at least some of them would be bright enough to understand the points made in the editorial. Methinks that some people continue to over estimate the universal popularity of the Shin family based on the rabid reverence in their own captive provinces!

[LannaGuy]

Funny how this writer misses out the Democratic Party ALSO comes out against the Charter? now why's that?

If you read with a balanced eye, you will realise that this writer notes that the critics of the charter, no matter what political persuasion, are critical only for it's impinging on their perceived right to unfettered power.

Nevertheless, even if the writer only points out one party, the point he makes is absolutely valid. The Charter should not be about what it does for politicians, it should be about what it does for the people and should certainly be about restricting what any politician, of any coloured shirt, can do.

Thank you! Well answered! Specific criticism of one party merely serves as as an example to make the point. It applies equally to all parties. Anyone could see this, assuming they wanted to, even through red tinted glasses. The criticisms and examples apply to all parties and all politicians, yes, even the Dems, but at least some of them would be bright enough to understand the points made in the editorial. Methinks that some people continue to over estimate the universal popularity of the Shin family based on the rabid reverence in their own captive provinces!

of course! of course! just 'slipped his mind' that the Party that is closest to the right wingers will actually vote AGAINST the Charter! how remiss...

the 'writer', in mentioning only the Shins, PTP and Yingluck showed NO BIAS whatsoever how silly of me to even think such a thing

so there we have it

"serves as an example to make the point"

so let's use Donald Trump to "serve as an example to make the point" that all Republicans are right wing loonies, there that feels better already

Edited September 2, 2015 by LannaGuy

[The Deerhunter]

Funny how this writer misses out the Democratic Party ALSO comes out against the Charter? now why's that?

If you read with a balanced eye, you will realise that this writer notes that the critics of the charter, no matter what political persuasion, are critical only for it's impinging on their perceived right to unfettered power.

Nevertheless, even if the writer only points out one party, the point he makes is absolutely valid. The Charter should not be about what it does for politicians, it should be about what it does for the people and should certainly be about restricting what any politician, of any coloured shirt, can do.

Thank you! Well answered! Specific criticism of one party merely serves as as an example to make the point. It applies equally to all parties. Anyone could see this, assuming they wanted to, even through red tinted glasses. The criticisms and examples apply to all parties and all politicians, yes, even the Dems, but at least some of them would be bright enough to understand the points made in the editorial. Methinks that some people continue to over estimate the universal popularity of the Shin family based on the rabid reverence in their own captive provinces!

of course! of course! just 'slipped his mind' that the Party that is closest to the right wingers will actually vote AGAINST the Charter! how remiss...

the 'writer', in mentioning only the Shins, PTP and Yingluck showed NO BIAS whatsoever how silly of me to even think such a thing

so there we have it

"serves as an example to make the point"

so let's use Donald Trump to "serve as an example to make the point" that all Republicans are right wing loonies, there that feels better already

Re Trump. I have said many times that the presence of a black american Muslim president for two terms and the possible return of Hillary to the WH are more an indictment on the Republicans being unable to find a credible candidate than an indictment on those (many) who voted democrat probably more against the loonie Republican candidate, than for Obama. I mean Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump. OMG!!!! Of course, Trump doesn't live as close to Russia as Palin does so he probably doesn't understand Foreign policy as well as she does. As for the rest of your reply, please do not try to explain it any more or you may only serve to confuse yourself further. I have no idea what you were trying to say. I did understand the Trump Right Wing loonie thing. Please understand that not all republicans are right wing loonies, no more than all Lanna-identifying TVF posters are raving Lanna secessionists. They both share the same problem, though. Their choice of politicians to represent them.

[Seastallion]

Funny how this writer misses out the Democratic Party ALSO comes out against the Charter? now why's that?

If you read with a balanced eye, you will realise that this writer notes that the critics of the charter, no matter what political persuasion, are critical only for it's impinging on their perceived right to unfettered power.

Nevertheless, even if the writer only points out one party, the point he makes is absolutely valid. The Charter should not be about what it does for politicians, it should be about what it does for the people and should certainly be about restricting what any politician, of any coloured shirt, can do.

...but not what the Army can do

Of course. A firm hand is needed at this point.

It needs a situation of "Do what I say, don't do what I do", and the OP concedes the army (and supporters) doing just that, "On one side are politicians whose concept of democracy is limited to "election winners can do just about anything." On the other are those desiring to "right the wrong" by applying a few "wrongs" themselves."

The ONLY way to prohibit the mindset of "election winners can do just about anything" (and you have to agree that that mindset has to be eliminated or prevented from acting), is to suspend democracy for the time being. By very definition of the word ("democracy"), and by the very obvious actions of politicians in the past. If we don't have a firm hand now, it will al just repeat.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Seastallion

[MZurf]

Funny how this writer misses out the Democratic Party ALSO comes out against the Charter? now why's that?

If you read with a balanced eye, you will realise that this writer notes that the critics of the charter, no matter what political persuasion, are critical only for it's impinging on their perceived right to unfettered power.

Nevertheless, even if the writer only points out one party, the point he makes is absolutely valid. The Charter should not be about what it does for politicians, it should be about what it does for the people and should certainly be about restricting what any politician, of any coloured shirt, can do.

Methinks that some people continue to over estimate the universal popularity of the Shin family based on the rabid reverence in their own captive provinces!

And methinks that some people under estimate the unpopularity of the Bangkok based "elite".

[MZurf]

Funny how this writer misses out the Democratic Party ALSO comes out against the Charter? now why's that?

If you read with a balanced eye, you will realise that this writer notes that the critics of the charter, no matter what political persuasion, are critical only for it's impinging on their perceived right to unfettered power.

Nevertheless, even if the writer only points out one party, the point he makes is absolutely valid. The Charter should not be about what it does for politicians, it should be about what it does for the people and should certainly be about restricting what any politician, of any coloured shirt, can do.

...but not what the Army can do

Of course. A firm hand is needed at this point.

It needs a situation of "Do what I say, don't do what I do", and the OP concedes the army (and supporters) doing just that, "On one side are politicians whose concept of democracy is limited to "election winners can do just about anything." On the other are those desiring to "right the wrong" by applying a few "wrongs" themselves."

The ONLY way to prohibit the mindset of "election winners can do just about anything" (and you have to agree that that mindset has to be eliminated or prevented from acting), is to suspend democracy for the time being. By very definition of the word ("democracy"), and by the very obvious actions of politicians in the past. If we don't have a firm hand now, it will al just repeat.

Yes, because we have all seen how the army has fixed the country after the last 20 or so coups.

Are you effin serious???

[lildragon]

I see that some posters like this article.

It makes sense that they do because Tulsathit is a diehard anti-democratic royalist mouthpiece and makes a number of fake arguments that his side repeat and repeat, some of them are arguments which I see repeated by equally undemocratic Falangs here.

The first is that democracy cannot exist in Thailand until corruption is defeated.

• This is a favorite refrain of the elites. It's a fake argument.
• But since corruption will always exist, it is an argument that fits the anti-democratic agenda perfectly
• Tulsathit, like all other elites, think that only politicians are corrupt, ie; the good generals who "save" the country every time (for the elites) are just good people with the country's best interests at heart. That too is complete nonsense
• The only solution Tulsathit and his friends see to corruption is an undemocratic solution - surprise surprise, they hate democracy, so that is the goal of the fake argument

The second fake argument is that elected governments "can do just about anything"

• this is also called "parliamentary dictatorship" by anti-democrats, or
• it is just called the "democracy trap" by the current, self-appointed, "PM"

The reality is, even in Thailand under the last military constitution, much less the 1997 constitution, politicians and parliament have rules and must follow them. When you notice that the first court complaint was lodged against the PTP government in August of 2011, then you can see that the anti-democrats, in fact, use the "rule of law" to their full advantage. But when it suits them, as in 2014, even with the courts and the NACC hounding the government with legal cases, they pretend that the politicians are untouchable and only the Generals can, once again, save the country.

Given that Tulsathit's own position is blatantly anti-democratic, he must also try to smear his opponents. The next fake argument is that people who want a democratic constitution are only interested in how much power elected governments have, and "there is little more to it than that". Tulsathit could at least expend a bit more effort to disparage democratic people, but I serious doubt his overall level of intelligence in the first place. But as for his fake argument:

• He is trying, again, to tie political power to corruption - this time without stating it explicitly.
• This apparently, is supposed to support his other fake argument, that "true" democracy cannot exist until corruption is eliminated.
• He dismisses with such ease, the fact that elected governments are elected to represent the people and must therefore, have the means of governing. This is a core aspect of democracy and anti-democrats hate it because they want the government to represent, and benefit, them, and them only.

Another gem of a moronic fake argument is that defending the constitution depends on the behavior of politicians. He, like so many anti-democrats, feel the need to skate on this dangerously thin ice, since they are the ones who tear up constitution after constitution, even the ones they write themselves. First,

• Illegal behaviour by politicians must be, and is, dealt with by the legal system. Their "misbehaviour" is no justification for a coup.
• Defending the constitution means that all parties follow the constitution which is another dangerous point for the anti-election, anti-democrats and their military buddies who sat on the side lines while their fake-crisis and the PDRC interrupted the very constitutional process called for in a crisis : an election.
• Tulsathit and his friends know this which is why they must always always always make corrupt politicians the boogeymen and pretend that the only "solution" is the army.

In general, this guy is not only a diehard anti-democrat, but all of his articles which I have seen posted in The Nation follow this same level of base, moronic, logic to support the cause of the military/elite alliance that has kept a grip on the country since the mid 50s.

Nail hit on quite a few heads there. Great post!

[Emster23]

I think he lifted the wrong phrase from former US president. Should have gone with "What's good for General Motors Thai ruling elite is good for the country"

"the presence of a black american Muslim president for two terms" <deleted>? Suggest you take a look at Constitution: religious test to hold office has been gone a few hundred years, and also no qualification as to race of President either. Just thought you might want to know....

[Eric Loh]

Funny how this writer misses out the Democratic Party ALSO comes out against the Charter? now why's that? a piece of biased nonsense again from the amarts newspaper that does not even mention their own Party are against it!

Nice to see PTP and the Dems at last stand up for the democratic principal as one

Suthep supports it so that's a pretty good reason to reject it anyway lol

It will be passed as the people do not want to be ruled by the Army Junta and they will think 'half a loaf is better than none'

You got to add ex PDRC and PAD co-leader Thavorn Senniam to the funny list of those who are against the draft constitution and conveniently left out. That will make die-hard right wingers likeTulsathit and Suthep much a shrinking minority in their support of the junta. Prayuth seem to be listening more and I think some controversial elements in the charter will be dropped.

[LarryBird]

It fascinates me that Thais think their laws matter. They could have the most beautifully drafted legal documents in history, and it would mean nothing because no one plans to follow the law. It's only something you look to work around...

Edited September 2, 2015 by LarryBird

[phycokiller]

Funny how this writer misses out the Democratic Party ALSO comes out against the Charter? now why's that?

If you read with a balanced eye, you will realise that this writer notes that the critics of the charter, no matter what political persuasion, are critical only for it's impinging on their perceived right to unfettered power.

Nevertheless, even if the writer only points out one party, the point he makes is absolutely valid. The Charter should not be about what it does for politicians, it should be about what it does for the people and should certainly be about restricting what any politician, of any coloured shirt, can do.

...but not what the Army can do

Of course. A firm hand is needed at this point.

It needs a situation of "Do what I say, don't do what I do", and the OP concedes the army (and supporters) doing just that, "On one side are politicians whose concept of democracy is limited to "election winners can do just about anything." On the other are those desiring to "right the wrong" by applying a few "wrongs" themselves."

The ONLY way to prohibit the mindset of "election winners can do just about anything" (and you have to agree that that mindset has to be eliminated or prevented from acting), is to suspend democracy for the time being. By very definition of the word ("democracy"), and by the very obvious actions of politicians in the past. If we don't have a firm hand now, it will al just repeat.

the only problem is is does repeat, as has been seen many times. this is because the army profits from corruption just as much as the government, neither wants the current system to change, the only change we see is who now collects the proceeds. only a true democratic process, ie a system where the general public has some input, can change this and that sure isnt happening yet