I’m running out time and will do more posting later.

BangkokPundit commented on the broad accusations of corruption against Thaksin. This is from December 2005
http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/thailand-and-corruption.html

Transparency International has a branch in Thailand. THey posted their Top Ten Myths about corruption in Thailand.
http://www.transparency-thailand.org/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=37

Khun Wihphu says that he believes Thailand is “100 times” more corrupt than the US. I would actually say that they are not far apart at all. As Wihphu correctly says, corruption is at nearly every level of society while it is primarily at the top in the US. But because top officials can declare that corruption is not really corruption (for example, torture isn’t torture) and rewrite the laws to make crimes no longer crimes, the statistics are hard to normalize.

About 20 years ago, Laura Summers of Hull University had a great analysis of corruption in Cambodian society. She said that it stems from an interpretation of Kamma, in which it is felt that corruption is one of the perks of having achieved status. She said that an impoverished system of accountability is the result, because nobody wanted to challenge higher-status people their “right” to steal from their constituents.
If anyone can find this online, it would be helpful.

Finally, we all owe Wihphu some praise for FINALLY stating that there is a huge difference between loving THIS king and assessing (and honestly discussing) the accomplishments of ANY Thai king (and the institution of the Monarchy itself). This is what the debate over lese majeste is, IMHO, primarily about.

Not at all. I’m not a frequent poster, but I do follow the comments closely. There’s probably nobody here with whom I agree 100%, but most seem committed to reasoned debate based on logic and facts. Many of the people here are academics or are familiar with academic literature, and tend to take a longer view of things.

Take this for example. Fifty years ago, it wasn’t uncommon to see writers argue that predominantly Roman Catholic countries were unfit for democracy. The arguments given then weren’t all too different from some of the arguments Wiphu advances now about Thailand’s unsuitability for democracy. The evidence cited then was the poor track-record of democracies outside of the English-speaking world and Scandinavia (mostly Protestant). The experience of the following 50 years has made such arguments almost laughable today.

No democracy is perfect. When Thaksin was at the height of his popularity, his defenders (which included most Thais back then, but thankfully not myself) argued this point to justify his rule. Now that Thaksin’s out of power, it’s the anti-Thaksin crowd that argues about the imperfections of democracy to justify their positions. So we can all agree that democracy isn’t perfect. And that gets us precisely nowhere. You have to consider the alternatives before you can argue that democracy isn’t suitable for Thailand. If not democracy, then what? How about a mix of “managed democracy,” royalism and bureaucratic polity? All right, that’s the system that Thailand has basically had since 1932. Has it worked up to now? One argument in favor is that perhaps it helped keep Thailand safe from communism during the Cold War. But whether you agree with that or not, that point is moot since the Cold War is over. So where does that leave us? Well, Thailand managed a rapid pace of economic growth in the 80s and 90s under the current system. But that system of management also gave us the 1997 crisis. Furthermore, while Thailand has seen some impressive economic growth over the years, economic and social disparities have risen, which have contributed greatly to the deep divisions in society today. Social divisions on this scale throughout world history are seldom the work of a single man (Thaksin, as his detractors would argue). Nor are social divisions unique to Thailand. In most countries, democratic political institutions develop in order to moderate and mediate these social tensions by giving different interests from various groups in society a seat at the table. It is because Thailand isn’t sufficiently democratic that it deprives many sectors of society a voice at the table. And it is because they are denied a voice that so many are willing to take to the streets.

That’s not to say that all would be fine and dandy if Thaksin had stayed in power. Thaksin was no revolutionary or reformer – IMHO, he was just merely a creature of the same establishment he’s now fighting against. Indeed, he originally came to power with support of the establishment. He didn’t want to overthow the establishment – he just wanted to ensure that he had a central role within that establishment. This eventually proved to be too much for the current leaders of the establishment (especially as Thaksin’s mass electoral base reduced the leverage the establishment had over him), and the rest is history.

Do you know that you do not need to conduct a protest in Thailand?
Isn’t that great?
In the US, American are require to have a permit.

I agree Thailand would do well to require demonstration permits be obtained through a fair and impartial process before groups can hold protests.

For any Thai out there, please email me at jkumpaar@hotmail.com if you have examples or any inputs. I think most non-Thais think we love our king for no reason, but we have a reason to love our CURRENT King.

Ironically, I think most foreign scholars are much better educated about the history of the Ninth Reign than the vast majority of Thais. There are many good reasons to support and respect the current King. The Thai media make sure that the Thai people are well aware of these. But there are also a lot of grey areas in Rama IX’s history as well. These are not widely reported. It’s hard to respect someone’s judgment if they’ve only heard one side of the story. My hunch is that most Thais (but not necessarily an overwhelming majority) would still respect the the King even if they saw the full record. So what’s wrong with openly discussing that record, especially if you’re so confident that Thai’s will always love Rama IX regardless?

2) Media in Thailand
3) Weak Laws in Thailand
4) Federal government of the United States versus Thailand
I will tell the flaws in the Thai system.
5) The King role as a mediator in case of conflict.
6) Present and the past King role in the Thai history.
7) History of the Thailand and Thai Kings.
Thai people itself
9) And More……

For any Thai out there, please email me at jkumpaar@hotmail.com if you have examples or any inputs. I think most non-Thais think we love our king for no reason, but we have a reason to love our CURRENT King.

USA turning into USSA (United Socialist of American) is also acceptable for me, I hope it does not happen but I think it will when 20 millions some American are turning 65 years in the next 2 or 3 years, that’s when social security and Medicaid/Medicare kicks in. The government will have to raise taxes on all of us. What is not acceptable to me is spending 800 billion for democratic system in Iraq. Plus more on the injured soldiers, estimate to be over a trillion because the survive rate is much higher due to the advance medical care in the battlefield unlike in the past wars where most died.

I’m looking forward to the “New World Order”, I wonder what that system will be like. Will it be democratic or something else?

You better give up.. like everyone else did.. it’s no point to argue with these people in new mandala.. Most of them here have already set target in their minds. They only want us to listen to what they say, telling us how they want Thailand to be. And Believe it or not, they will never ever agree to your argument in any kind. Your comment will always be wrong according to them, even though they’re trying to claim that this website is open for discussion.

Believe me if u want to live in peace. let them go. I did…

กมฺมุนา วตฺตตี โลโก

But my point to you was to encourage you to become informed so that your opinions mattered. At present they are rants not based on any knowledge (at least not displayed in what you write) and so cannot be considered informed opinion.

You want to keep posting uniformed tripe, keep at it.