Discussions about the drafting of Thailand’s new constitution have a tendency to revert to the tired claim that the fault of the system lies with the voters who elected Thaksin. Consider this statement from today’s Bangkok Post (bought to my attention by Nganadeeleg):
But, in the end, a constitution no matter how good, is not the ultimate answer to political reform. It is just the tool by which a nation like Thailand fulfils its political aspirations - the success of which depends largely on the users of the charter. Which, in this case, means the politicians and, especially, the voters. If most of our voters continue to vote with their hearts rather than their minds, or continue to vote for whoever offers them the highest price, we will continue to have the same kind of unscrupulous politicians in parliament. And all the effort spent on writing the best ever constitution would have been a complete waste.
Of course, in this elitist discourse, the most problematic voters are the rural unsophisticates who provided Thaksin with his electoral mandate (three times). Rarely is attention given to the role of the educated middle class in obstructing democratic development by trashing the democratic system when it delivers a result they don’t like. So, I read with interest a piece by Jonathan Unger on China’s “conservative middle class”. His account of “the educated middle class vs democracy” casts helpful light on the constitutional hand-wringing of Thailand’s urban commentators:
The educated middle class is elitist. Many of its members do not want democracy—that is, multiparty elections for the nation’s top leaders. Nor did they want this at Tiananmen a decade and a half ago. They did not and do not want China’s peasant majority to play a decisive hand in deciding who rules. Most of them hold the rural populace in disdain, and their fear is that the peasants would be swayed by demagogues and vote-buying. They believe that the rural populace is not yet ready to participate in elections. This is ironic, since villagers have been the only ones in China who have been allowed to cast secret ballots to elect their locality’s leader.
Many members of the educated middle class are vaguely pro-democratic just so long as democracy can be put off to a future time.
35 responses so far ↓
1 Frustrated // Jan 4, 2007 at 5:53 pm
I’m not sure if our educated people are sophisticated voters. They have shown the world times and times again that they too fall for gullible propaganda.
2 Srithanonchai // Jan 4, 2007 at 6:48 pm
I’am not sure whether the Thai middle class actually is against democracy, or merely against the current shape of Thailand’s political system. I’m also not sure whether the middle class as a unified collective with a homogenous set of political preferences exist at all. Who were the voters of Bangkok who gave TRT an overwhelming victory in 2005? Only BKK’s slum people? At that time, the Democrats complained that their election campaign had been “too sophisticated” for the voters of Bangkok. Why does the BP finds “especially” the voters at fault? They have to cast their ballot for the candidates who actually run in their constituencies, not any ideally “good” candidates. It is most unfortunate that elite publications such as the BP still could not manage to develop a better understanding of Thai political structures.
3 jeplang // Jan 4, 2007 at 6:54 pm
During the Tiananmen Square protest as broadcast on Australian Tv,I remember a student protester being asked if democracy was for the [Chinese] peasants.He said “No”.
4 Vichai N. // Jan 4, 2007 at 10:35 pm
What is the point of this thread Andrew Walker.? The educated Thais possess a much deeper understanding of democracy whereas Andrew Walker remains fixated on election alone being enough to define democracy.
Educated Thais are no fools Andrew. Same as educated Aussies — there is more to democracy than a simple ballot and Andrew and majority of the Aussies understand this, but Andrew Walker will choose to weave his deception as a favour to his master Thaksin.
5 nganadeeleg // Jan 5, 2007 at 12:05 am
As I’ve said before: I can understand voting for Thaksin the first time, but not the second and third times.
Personally, I would try to find a minor party to vote for if I did not like the major parties, and if no such minor party exists I just write an appropriate message on my ballot paper.
(Yes – I know it’s democracy that gives me that freedom)
6 Jon Fernquest // Jan 5, 2007 at 12:22 am
“The educated middle class is elitist. Many of its members do not want democracy…”
Take for instance the killing lists that were cooked up during the drug wars. This was a very popular vote-getting policy par-excellence, a simple and appealing solution to many….who didn’t want to think very hard or bother themselves with ethical niceties like, for instance, that I find in the Buddhist scriptures which I read and the middle class is more likely to read and think about….what about the people who got stuck on the kill list because they were someone’s enemy…or they “looked” like or “seemed” real guilty, the false positives of the justice system…
What sometimes gets lost in the mass marketing exercise that elections are, is the traditional institutions and pillars of society, that glue the middle class together, like educators (lower level elites), the universities and the military (higher level elites), the King, the highest level elite whose words and deeds truly reflect ethical principles at the highest level and who represents the continuity and continued existence of the Thai state itself over hundreds of years. I think this is deeper and more important for most Thais than any abstract notion of “democracy” from the west, and so it should be. IMHO a political system will eventually evolve that best fits their needs.
Comparisons are really needed though. Thailand has got to where it is without being occupied by foreign troops or by being a brutal police state like South Korea was for many years. Life is better here than in any of the neighboring states.
IMHO the more complete documentation and making transparent of political institutions and their history that you see many on this blog doing and that Pasuk-Baker have done in their books is a major step towards a lasting constitution, the operation of which everyone can understand and respect.
7 Republican // Jan 5, 2007 at 12:36 am
The middle class is not big enough to influence the system on its own. It needs the academics as their political representatives. The difficulty for many Thai academics, however, especially the political scientists among them, is that, as Western-educated intellectuals living in a non-Western country they must pay lip service to “democracy”. They must “walk the walk”. They must look like Western-educated intellectuals, and therefore they must appear and sound as though they are democrats. But the problem is, as we have graphically witnessed over this last year, they are uncomfortable with the things that democracy brings with it: elected “immoral” politicians (in their eyes), capitalism, globalization, and especially the challenge to their position as moral authorities that elections bring. So they must play a double-game: on the one hand they use their overseas educational qualifications as collateral for positions in universities and other elite institutions, while on the other many of them are willing to subvert representative democracy by devaluing democratic elections and accepting positions in government bodies appointed by a military junta.
When one thinks about it, if anything, a genuine “Thai-Style Democracy”, that laughable concept that a number of eminent academics have been praising, would have to be a normal liberal democracy based on free and fair elections, since the academics, NGOs and even kharatchakan are always telling us that true “Thai values” are to be found in Thailand’s village communities where most of the electorate lives. Democratic elections are the conduit through which these values would flow through, influence and shape the Thai polity. But the “Thai-Style Democracy” of the academics and their middle class supporters is something very different; in fact, it is simply a disguise for “Ratchakan Democracy”, which, if anything, is far more “Western” than Thai, given that it is manipulated by Western-educated intellectuals. And it is not difficult to understand why a “Ratchakan Democracy” suits academics the best: because it is the system that best preserves their elite social position as moral authorities.
Of course, a Ratchakan Democracy is an oxymoron. One system serves the raja, while the other serves the people. Herein lies the crux of Thailand’s current political crisis.
8 bangkoker // Jan 5, 2007 at 1:53 am
coup coup coup…tons of sms’s flying around tonight (thursday) from farangs, from embassy security folks, from just about everyone…keep your ears tuned in.
9 Where is David? » Blog Archive » Are the middle class and democracy at odds in developing countries? // Jan 5, 2007 at 3:55 am
[...] Kind of a random title, I know, but I saw an interesting article at New Mandala bringing up this exact question, and it reminded me of some ideas I’d thought about before, mainly in China, but I’ll be considering its application to Thailand a bit in this article. [...]
10 fall // Jan 5, 2007 at 5:09 pm
So it all come down to this:
“Do you want to give voting power to rural people?”
What Thaksin did, aside from corruption scandal, was showing a new way to play politic in Thailand: populist policy. Now, we have two way to play, the old way and the new populist way. The populist way get the rural’s vote easier and cheaper in democratic election.
Instead of adapting to new playing style, old politician and military just try to revert Thailand back to the good old one days. Now, they seem to get it into their head that once the rural people tasted hope, it might be too sweet to let go. So, they try to make up dual-power senate to serve as elitist powerhouse. Kind of remind me of the Marie Antoinette social revolution.
By the way, Where is David. I doubt monopolize rice would really promote rice market(but flood control is sure thing). More like put a burden/corruption on government. Korea tried it, did not worked.
11 nganadeeleg // Jan 5, 2007 at 8:06 pm
I know democracy defenders like to play down Plato’s theory on the basis that he was talking about a different form of democracy 2300 years ago, but was he wrong?
12 Vichai N. // Jan 6, 2007 at 3:14 am
Fall – the rural poor always had voting power. It would be stupid to have a constitutional democracy where the majority of adult population would be denied the vote. That is most elementary Fall.
But iFall it would be wrong to insist that democracy begins and ends from majority votie That is ridiculous. A democracy is NOT a beauty contest Fall! Even in beauty contests, winners who cheat (giving favors to the judges) or failed to bring dignity to the beauty crown have often lost their crowns.
So stop your fixation on the ‘majority rural voters’ being disenfranchised Fall. Thaksin simply lost his legitimacy (or beauty crown) to rule, that is all because of his many unethical and criminal conduct.
13 fall // Jan 6, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Vichai – So the rural people get to vote IN, while middle-class bangkok get to decide who seem unethical OUT?
No matter who get appointed(past, present, or future), someone will loose their benefit from the new government. This kind of play would only lead to middle-class being manipulate as a tool to whoever loose interest from the new leader elected.
If “ethic” can be a sound reason for losing legitimatcy to rule, we could have a coup every other day(eg. Censorship on news, Lottery, Surayud forest land, Pridiyathorn 30%, etc. etc.). It just that different people have different set of acceptable political ethic. So, back at you, stop your fixation on “unethical” leader. It a joke enough already.
As quoted from the original post, this sentence doesnot really get enough important as it deserve: “Rarely is attention given to the role of the educated middle class in obstructing democratic development by trashing the democratic system when it delivers a result they don’t like.”
14 Vichai N // Jan 6, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Fall there are degrees of ethical transgressions and every person has their puke limits and that lincludes you too Fall.
Many in Bangkok reached their puke limits with the many Thaksin shenanigans. For me personally, my puke limit was reached when Thaksin went on with his extrajudicial rampage in that senseless anti-yaa baa drive. May others in Bangkok it seems puked at that Temasek-Shin deal.
Patiwat, Fall and Bangkok Pundit you three don’t seem to have any puke limits as far as Thaksin and that makes me wonder why.
15 Bangkok Pundit // Jan 8, 2007 at 1:44 am
Exactly Vichai once people have had enough of a politician they will vote for someone else, I believe that is called democracy. So yourself and many in Bangkok already reached that level. Others hadn’t though as the April 2006 demonstrated.
Everyone has different levels just like there are differences between you and many in Bangkok, but you always have to ask yourself is the alternative any better.
Given your dislike for Thaksin not adhering to the rule of law, I thought you would be interested in this quote from this article in IHT:
“People would like this government to take action, to solve problems and the law be damned,” said Ammar Siamwalla, a leading economist. “Don’t just stand there looking at law books.”
So who is to blame the people or the politicians? People get the politicians they deserve.
16 anon // Jan 8, 2007 at 5:22 am
BP, was that quote from Ammar taken from 2003 (Thaksin vs. drug-dealers) or from 2006 (Sonthi vs. Thaksin)?
17 Vichai N. // Jan 8, 2007 at 11:53 am
You do REALLY believe that Bangkok Pundit that politicians only have to be popular and be voted in and everything else be damned. I am NOT interested in Ammar’s opinion but yours Pundit.
Is that what your blogging website Pundit is all about? Accept the politicians – - their runaway tax evasions, corruption and murders even – if they have been voted in and NOT yet voted out. What about criminal abuses and violation of the constitution Pundit?
I am glad you are NOT in the constitutional drafting assembly Pundit. I wouud shudder to imagine how your constitution for Thailand will read like.
Surely Pundit you would accept that Thaksin’s abuses and scandals in USA or UK would have caused a Thaksin impeachment and jail term to follow after that.
18 anon // Jan 8, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Vichai, God forbid the 2008 constitution look exactly like the 1997 constitution!
The CDA should look at the most righteous constitution in Thai history: Sarit Thanarat’s 1959 charter.
That charter prevented any corrupt politicians from entering parliament, because it simply banned elections. All that was needed to appoint a Premier was the wise decision of His Majesty. The King’s choice was correct, of course. Sarit was a good man who never abused his power or got involved in scandals, or at least, the newspapers and media of the day never reported any scandals…
The kingdom was run by a Council of good people who everybody looked up to. And none of this disgusting populism – the rural poor knew their place then.
19 fall // Jan 8, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Vichai – Your opinion just state the exact state of problem. Everybody have their puke limit, me, you, Bkkpundit, bankok middle-class, rural people, etc. By stating that politician who are accuse of tax evasion, corruption, killing spree, etc. should not govern the country, you do realize that you are ENFORCING YOUR PUKE LIMIT on other?
It all come down to simple truth of life, (assumption) rural people does not CARE about all those stuff. Their vote in the past goes to whoever pay them the most or hold most influence in the area. After Thaksin populist’s policy, they shift their vote criteria to whoever promise them improvement in life and deliver, just as your vote goes to who ever promise prosecution of ex-PM and ethical politician. Now, this scare the old-school politician, cause they no longer can sit on their hand and just wait to pay-off the next election. Of course, the people suspect or know of all the vices, but it just does not fall into THEIR daily importance.
So it all come down to this:
“Do you want to give voting power to rural people?”
If so, “Do you(middle-class) willing to accept their chosen representative?”.
20 Vichai N. // Jan 9, 2007 at 12:08 am
I never did get to know Sarit Anon, much too young then. If you say Sarit was successful in eliminating corruption and the Kingdom was then run by good people, I may to try to take your word for it except your name Anonymous lacks credibility at all.
But we did have a good 1997 constitution Anon did we not? Too bad that Thaksin had to tear it to shreds with his subvertion and total disrespect thereof.
Maybe interim PM Surayud would succeed to oversee the write-up of a much better constitution this time – - that would prevent uncchecked Thaksin-like abuses in the future. The Thai people’s hopes ride with PM Surayud and his team.
But some malicious elements appear bent on disrupting PM Surayud’s goverment and the constitutional reform process. Anon you and I must resist these malicious elements if we cherish the rebirth of democracy in Thailand.
21 Republican // Jan 9, 2007 at 2:40 am
Sondhi Limthongkul and PAD Party with the CNS
ผู้จัดการ 8 มค. 50 Posted : 2007-01-08 20:18:50
วานนี้( 7 ม.ค.) พลพรรคพันธมิตรกู้ชาติได้มีการนัดรวมพลคนเสื้อเหลืองจัดงานเลี้ยงพบปะสังสรรค์กัน โดยมีแกนนำพันธมิตรประชาชนเพื่อประชาธิปไตยมาร่วมงานอาทิ นายสนธิ ลิ้มทองกุล พล.ต. จำลอง ศรีเมือง นายสมศักดิ์ โกศัยสุข นายสุริยะใส กตะศิลา พร้อมด้วย พล.อ.สพรั่ง กัลยาณมิตร ผู้ช่วยผู้บัญชาการทหารบก และผู้ช่วยเลขาธิการคณะมนตรีความมั่นคงแห่งชาติ (คมช.) กับแขกผู้มีเกียรติมาร่วมงานมากมาย ซึ่งงานนี้จัดขึ้นที่บ้านพักในซอยสุขุมวิท ของ ม.ร.ว รำพิอาภา เกษมศรี ส่วนบรรยากาศภายในงานนั้นเต็มไปด้วยความอบอุ่น ท่ามกลางงานเลี้ยงที่เรียบง่าย แต่เข้มข้นเมื่อบนเวทีได้มีการเปิดโอกาสให้แสดงความเห็นเกี่ยวกับสถานการณ์บ้านเมืองในปัจจุบัน
For pics see http://www.sameskybooks.org/webboard/show.php?Category=sameskybooks&No=715
22 Republican // Jan 9, 2007 at 2:43 am
Sondhi Limthongkul and Manager Staff Receive New Years’ Greetings from the Crown Prince and Family
พระบรม ทรงโปรด นสพ.ผู้จัดการ ทำมัยพวกนายด่าหา!
แหล่งที่มา http://www.manager.co.th/Home/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9500000002089
สมเด็จพระบรมฯ พระราชทาน ส.ค.ส.แก่หนังสือพิมพ์ผู้จัดการ
โดย ผู้จัดการออนไลน์ 8 มกราคม 2550 17:27 น.
สมเด็จพระบรมโอรสาธิราชฯ สยามกุฎราชกุมาร พระราชทาน ส.ค.ส.ปี 2550 แก่คณะเจ้าหน้าที่ และพนักงานหนังสือพิมพ์ผู้จัดการ โดยภายในมีพระฉายาลักษณ์ของพระบรมโอรสาธิราชฯ ทรงฉายกับ พระเจ้าวรวงศ์เธอ พระองค์เจ้าศรีรัศมิ์ พระวรชายาฯ และพระฉายาลักษณ์ทรงฉายกับ พระเจ้าหลานเธอ พระองค์เจ้าพัชรกิติยาภา พระเจ้าหลานเธอ พระองค์เจ้าสิริวัณณวรีนารีรัตน์ และพระเจ้าหลานเธอ พระองค์เจ้าทีปังกร รัศมีโชติ
ทั้งนี้ ภายในมีข้อความพระราชทานแก่เหล่าพนักงานหนังสือพิมพ์ผู้จัดการ ต่อจากตราพระนามาภิไธยย่อ ม.ว.ก.ที่อยู่ตรงกลางของส่วนแรก เป็นภาษาอังกฤษว่า” SEASON’S GREETINGS AND BEST WISHES A VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR” พร้อมลงพระนามาภิไธย และลงท้ายว่า FROM THEIR HIGHNESSES THE CROWN PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF THAILAND
23 Republican // Jan 9, 2007 at 3:02 am
More pics from Sondhi Lim’s Party with CNS available at http://www.manager.co.th/Home/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9500000002187 and http://www.manager.co.th/MetroLife/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9500000002096
24 Bangkok Pundit // Jan 9, 2007 at 8:52 am
Anon: It was in reference to 2006, but if I am understanding your point correctly it could apply to anything. Some supporters of the coup had hoped that there would be a strict adherence to the rule of law by the new government, but the result of this strict adherence has been growing impatience by the populace. Ammar’s quote was simply highlighting this out
Then again a strict adherence to the rule of law does not always bring about results that people see as being just or moral. Just for you Kuhn Vichai, what if the CNS asked the NLA to implement a new law that said, “Any person who has been a registered member of TRT and the Democratic Party must be executed immediately”. The rule of law won’t help you overturn such a law.
Vichai:
You do REALLY believe that Bangkok Pundit that politicians only have to be popular and be voted in and everything else be damned. I am NOT interested in Ammar’s opinion but yours Pundit.
I suggest you read my comment again instead of wildly implying I believe something I don’t. If Thaksin had reached my “puke limit”, should I would have said so.
What about criminal abuses and violation of the constitution Pundit?
Yawn, another Vichai rant about Thaksin. As I have said on numerous occasions, I have no problems with people being prosecuted if they breach the law. I am not going to bother to repeat myself again to you.
Surely Pundit you would accept that Thaksin’s abuses and scandals in USA or UK would have caused a Thaksin impeachment and jail term to follow after that.
But which Thai PM has not been affected by corruption scandals (scandal as opposed to a breach of law by the PM)? Corruption scandals have plagued every government. Should we impeach them all? Now, you seem to suggest that Thaksin breached a certain threshold of illegality and this makes him bad and he should be punished whereas others shouldn’t be punished. If you think this you are entitled to your opinion.
On the issue of abuses, even the mighty Prem or Surayud could be facing some problems if they were in some western countries. They are not though and neither is Thaksin.
2nd Anon: Some people might not get your sarcasm
25 nganadeeleg // Jan 9, 2007 at 9:28 am
Pundit said: ‘If Thaksin had reached my “puke limit”, should I would have said so’
Are you trying to say that you did not reach your “puke limit” with Thaksin?
If so, then I think you have highlighted a major problem with democracy in that it lowers the bar as to what is expected from leaders and government.
I find it sad that so many voters have such high puke thresholds, and have also noticed that the ‘puke threshold’ is much lower for non elected leaders/governments.
If the ‘puke threshold’ was lower for elected governments, then perhaps we would get better quality leaders.
It’s rather ironic that people choose to vote in tyrants, and complain when junta installed leaders are too soft because they try to work within the law.
26 Frustrated // Jan 9, 2007 at 12:27 pm
nganadeeleg,
As I have said earlier that as long as their major interests are served most people tend to ignore small little things that they don’t like. People puke limits or thresholds may vary for different things depending on the person, their present and past experience. For example for people who have seen their love ones were destroyed by drugs may not see the war on drugs campaign of Thaksin’s government as disgusting or something to be puked as others who do not have such experience. Some may even see it as an appetizer. I do not think the puke thresholds can be universally applied. People who are benefit from TRT party policies may have very low puke thresholds for global abusive behaviour, inefficient, incompetent of the people with guns and tanks that people did not choose to do the job for them in the first place. People puked already when they saw tanks running around Bangkok streets. It was just disgusting and a lot more disgusting for most people when they knew more about coup.
27 Republican // Jan 9, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Self Sufficiency Wardrobe for 2007: In case Thais were planning to try out this year’s fashions they should think again. Ratchakan has been campaigning heavily through the media and other organs for Thai subjects – sorry, citizens – to wear their yellow shirts EVERY day this year.
28 nganadeeleg // Jan 9, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Frustrated said: “as long as their major interests are served most people tend to ignore small little things that they don’t like.”
You have highlighted the major problem (Seeking to have your interests served).
How about seeking what is just/right/fair rather than self interest?
29 Vichai N // Jan 10, 2007 at 1:02 am
Pundit said: “Then again a strict adherence to the rule of law does not always bring about results that people see as being just or moral. Just for you Kuhn Vichai, what if the CNS asked the NLA to implement a new law that said, “Any person who has been a registered member of TRT and the Democratic Party must be executed immediately”. The rule of law won’t help you overturn such a law.”
I am left guessing about what you wish to impart about rule of law with yoiur above posting. I can only guess you want to justify Thaksin’s expedient disregard of rule law to accomplish results with his extrajudicial killings in Y03 during his senseless anti-yaa baa war.
What is the point of a hypothetical question Pundit because then you will get an entirely useless hyothetical answer in return?
But Thaksin breaking the rule of law with his extrajudicial slaughter of thousands of ’suspcts’ was real Pundit and nothing hypothetical about that. Further it was totally senseless. We have to remember that at that time Thaksin’s TRt party had absolute control of the parliament and therefore Thaksin, as PM, would have passed any legislation that he wished at that time to mete the most punitive punishment in the world to drug dealing as total deterrent to yaa baa dealing or other drugs. That was what Thaksin should have done to make a lasting impression against drug abuse. But Thaksin instead chose expediency, to be popular, to show he can be God perhaps and Thaksin resorted to mass murder of innocents and the defenseless which broke Thailand’s rule of law. I will also have to agree with Kraisak Choonhavan that Thaksin’s extrajudicial rampage resulting in slaughter of thousands was indeed a crime against humanity.
If Pundit, Patiwat and Fall will condone Thaksin’s extrajudicial crime, these three will condone any Thaksin misdeeds.
30 Naphat // Jan 10, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Vichai: The funny thing is that it seems that the CNS seems to be condoning the ‘Thaksin’s extrajudicial crime’ too. I haven’t heard much word on some effort on by the current government to bring charges against Thaksin (last I heard was some comments by Kraisak that you mention, but I haven’t been following the news regularly). Prosecution for the human rights violations would involve digging through the chain of command in the police — I’m pessimistic that the government would be able to stomach rocking the boat in that way.
31 fall // Jan 10, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Vichai – Huh? What does my (presume) condone of Thaksin’s-crime-against-humanity got to do with “Do middle-class willing to accept rural people chosen representative?”.
Because I am not crying for blood and gore, so I must be condoning any Thaksin misdeeds? Unless your next response is reasonable or relate to the topic, please do not expect my reply.
nganadeeleg –
“…‘puke threshold’ is much lower for non elected leaders/governments”
Actually, this sound normal, in my opinion.
“If the ‘puke threshold’ was lower for elected governments, then perhaps we would get better quality leaders.” – Agreed.
32 Vichai N. // Jan 11, 2007 at 12:13 am
Fall I thought it was very clear even for the near blind.
But for your sake I will simplify. If you Fall will accept a murderer for your Prime Minister, you will accept anybody no matter how rotten, how crooked or how criminal. Is there a crime more heinous than murder Fall?
Now to reply to your question. Decent Thai people will NOT accept a murderer to be their leader, even id such leader was elected or re-elected by majority vote of the rural people. And that IS the problem.
Popular will can be wrong . . but if they err grossly as to continue to vote in a criminal, a murderer who violated the rule of law and the basic human rights of my fellow Thais, popular will mean shit.
33 Vichai N. // Jan 11, 2007 at 3:21 am
Sorry Naphat I forgot to respond but belatedly. I guess ‘belatedly’ too is perhaps how justice will be served to Thaksin Shinawatra for his criminal abuses, specifically on the extra-judicial murders he directed against thousands of suspected villagers during his anti-yaa baa campaign of Y03.
Let us take Pinochet as a benchmark. He lost his power in 1990 but he was finally indicted in Y2006, 16 years later. For Saddam too, justice took much longer to be served.
But because murder is such a heinous crime there is no statute of limitations thereof.
So do be optimistic and never give up Naphat. Justice too will be served to Thaksin Shinawatra even if belatedly.
34 fall // Jan 11, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Vichai – Now this is a good statement. Decent Thai will NOT accept murderer to be their leader. As in, will not accept a military commander, who does not order his soldier to STOP shooting civilian-student or directly insult a man cause him to commit suicide, to become PM?
Or as in, will not accept someone whose regime approve anti-immigrant policy, which cause people cargo being dump over board in ocean?
Scream something out really loud, get a well known opposition party to sit in, combine with some half-known academia. Wa-lah! Perfect recipe for manipulating middle-class. Work like a charm, every coup.
35 Vichai N. // Jan 11, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Now you gibber Fall.
Why can you not just say it straight Fall: “Thaksin was wrong, criminally wrong, when he carried out that senseless slaughter of Y2003 defenseless and poor villagers during his anti-yaa baa madness.”
Once you find your ‘puke threshold’ Fall, you will be Free.
Fall – Now repeat after me – “Thaksin was . . . . .”
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.