New Mandala

15 responses so far ↓

• 1 Thai TV // Apr 17, 2008 at 12:53 am

  Let’s hope both sides will abide byt the law… An other coup would be disastrous for Thailand’s economy.

• 2 nganadeeleg // Apr 17, 2008 at 9:25 am

  Abide by which law?

  The one already in place, the one that used to be in place, or the one that will be in place?

• 3 witawat saengdee // Apr 17, 2008 at 11:20 am

  HMK first made the terrible mistake by dragging judicial people into the executive branch, in effect violating the principle of separation of power between the three main branches of democratic government. Somehow he was desperate to find a counterforce to the powerful executive branch then. Wittingly or not, he destroyed the very fiber of democracy and reemphasize his feudal role of god-king. Sadly, Thailand has been moving backward, as have its people. Today, we see Thai people immerse themselves in occult things more than ever.

• 4 Thai TV // Apr 17, 2008 at 1:54 pm

  Well, just applying and abiding by the laws of the current constitution (the one recently voted) would be a good start!

  And if any update is required for the constitution then may they follow a well-ordained and peaceful path.

  Whoever lead, the use or the threat of violence to seize power cannot be justified!

• 5 Observer // Apr 17, 2008 at 7:13 pm

  Thai TV,

  I agree with all of that, as long as you actually mean what you say.

  The law of the current constitution allows a majority of the combined parliament and senate to change it. Following the laws of the constitution are inherently “well-ordained” and peaceful” as long as no one outside the government uses or threatens violence.

  I do think this is what should happen regarding the dissolution issue. However, a more serious revision of the constitution that aims to improve the 1997 version using the broad public process that it was drafted under would be ideal as a longer term solution.Witawat,

  Witawat,

  Paul Handley’s essay on the Privy Council makes it sound like that mistake was made decades ago. The more recent mistake is not realizing that the time for a royally managed stage puppet government is long gone. I agree regarding the damage done.

  I’m not sure Thailand has been moving backwards. I actually think that the backwards elements have just been dragged into the light where we can see them.

• 6 fall // Apr 17, 2008 at 10:52 pm

  …applying and abiding by the laws of the current constitution
  …the use or the threat of violence to seize power cannot be justified

  The current constitution was put in place by seizing power, but seizing power cannot be justified.
  A conundrum, huh?

  The problem here aside from accepting the imposed current constitution is: Do current government have legal power to amend it? The current constitution does not say it cannot be change, and their drafter, in fact, encourage to vote yes then change later.

  So, if it is acceptable to amend the current constitution legally.
  Should citizen abide by the amended constitution? Does it also need another referendum?

• 7 nganadeeleg // Apr 18, 2008 at 9:51 am

  I don’t know of anyone saying it is not acceptable for a government to amend laws.

  What I think they are objecting to is amending laws to ’save ones skin’, rather than let the matter play out under the rules that were in place when the (alleged) offences occurred.

  Should such a precedent be set by elected governments?
  (as distinct from non elected junta’s)

  Even if the penalties appear harsh, all parties knew about the rules (or should have) – Oh we’ll just change the rules if we get caught, who cares about playing by the rules.
  (I wonder, what’s so bad about acting fairly and honestly, and expelling those who do not?)

  Where does the slippery slope end?

• 8 colonel jeru // Apr 18, 2008 at 3:25 pm

  I do not think we can fault Samak or his PPP cohorts for dishonesty. After all Samak had openly confessed to being a proxy for Thaksin and his political campaign to gain the Thai premiership (and was victorious by the way) was all about “pardoning” Thaksin and those 110 other former TRT executives banned from Thai politics for electoral fraud . . .

  “Saving one’s skin” is therefore totally acceptable and if that will require the total rewrite of the recent constitution (whether this was approved by 14-to-10 national referendum vote would be a moot point), then so be it – - – which should achieve to save every election-fraud prone MP from any future embarassment.

  While they are it . . . why not legalize election buying and totally grant immunity to every ELECTED official from persecution for corruption or similarly “politically motivated” malicious allegations?

  Now every Thai citizen, save the ELECTED elite, will be totally constitutionally constipated like their rural counterparts. Should we wonder Samak’s PPP and the Myanmar junta are such kissing buddies?

• 9 Dog Lover // Apr 20, 2008 at 5:21 am

  It is good to see the Democrats fulfilling their traditional role as the Royalist party. Chuan as the protector of Prem (and the monarchy) is rather fetching. It looks like the Dems are again hoping that government will fall to them rather than having to have policies that can get them elected. They are a hopeless bunch. Good grief, isn’t Samak giving them enough to work with?

  While on royal topics, it was also great to see the “good princess” providing her support for the Chinese government and their crushing of Buddhist protesters in Tibet. I’m no fan of religion of Dalai Lamas, but this support for authoritarianism is par for the course for the royals. Recall her father’s response to visiting Nobel laureates a few years ago.

• 10 colonel jeru // Apr 21, 2008 at 12:49 am

  Traditional roles? Shouldn\’t Samak and PPP be constitutionally bound to protect the institution of the Thai monarchy . . . and that extends to the Privy Council and Privy Council President Prem?

  And what may Thaksinistas, or Thaksin loyalists, particular role may be? More likely to propagating a culture of \”I\’m corrupt o-kay and you\’re corrupt o-kay and that\’s democracy and what do these idiots think we aspire for power for?\”

  I resent simplistic pigeon-holing of Thai political activists as either Royalists or Thaksinists (the latter do sound more sinister I believe), but New Mandala bloviathons can on forever on the theme of , negatively potrayed of course, Thai Royalists.

• 11 Dog Lover // Apr 21, 2008 at 2:18 am

  The Dems were formed as a Royalist party, they have no policies and all they do is sit around and wait for someone or something else to deliver power to them.

  And, Colonel, look back over your own posts for the dichotomous labeling of Thai politics. They are archived; you can’t wipe out the past record by suddenly becoming mellow about divisions in Thai society.

• 12 colonel jeru // Apr 22, 2008 at 6:33 pm

  I recalled posting a response on why the Dems qualify as a dog lover’s best friend?? It was something about the Dems not having sat on their asses to clean up the 1997 financial crisis mess left by PM Chavlit and his Deputy PM Thaksin at that time . . .

  But dog lovers do easily succumb to the charm of eloquent self-seeking charlatans posing as democracy champions and defenders of the poor . .

• 13 Pornthip // Apr 23, 2008 at 1:15 am

  มีเจตนาอะไร อีเพ็ญ คุณคือคนไทยไหม เรื่องในบ้าน ยังเอามาขายให้ต่างชาติเขาสมน้ำหน้าอีก อืมมม แย่จริง ๆ

  อี แข มีแต่คนหมาๆ อย่างแก อีควาย อีเปรต….
  ..อีพวกบ้าฝรั่ง อีคนถ่อย…

  ก็มีแต่แกที่โง่ให้ฝรั่งที่ไม่มีวัฒนธรรมมาดึงจมูก ขายได้แม้กระทั่งชาติบ้านเมือง

• 14 Teth // Apr 23, 2008 at 10:18 am

  คุณพรทิพย์ครับ ไม่ทราบว่าคุณเคยไปดูบัลเลต์หรือโอเปร่า หรืออ่านนวนิยายเช่นดอน คิโฮเต วรรณกรรมอย่างเช็คสเปียร์ กวีอย่างโฮเมอร์ หรือฟังเพลงคลาสสิก (ที่พระพี่นางฯ ทรงโปรดปราน) บ้างหรือเปล่าครับ? คุณเคยได้เที่ยวชมพระราชวัง โบสถ์ สถาตปัตยกรรมสวยๆ ในยุโรปหรือไม่? คุณเคยได้ฟังฝรั่งเขาวิพากษ์ปรัชญาหรือการเมืองในมหาวิทยาลัยที่มีอายุเป็นพันปีเช่นอ๊อกซ์ฟอร์ดกับแคมบริดจ์มาก่อนหรือเปล่า? คุณเคยเห็นอนุสาวรีย์แด่ผู้กล้าที่เสียสละชีพเพื่อปกป้องอุดมการณ์ของเขาหรือไม่? คุณเคยไปพิพิธภัณฑ์เพื่อชมศิลปะจิตรกรรมที่สวยสดงดงามของ ดา วินชี่ มิเคลแอ็งเจโล หรือเปล่า?

  แล้วคุณมีหน้าอะไรมาบอกว่าฝรั่งไม่มีวัฒนธรรม? สิ่งที่ตัวคุณเองพูด ได้พูดด้วยอารมณ์ ไม่ใช่สติ และทำให้ภาพลักษณ์ของคนไทยเสียหายยิ่งขึ้นอีก ทำให้เขาคิดว่าเราเป็นคนใจแคบ กบในกะลาที่ไม่รู้ว่าโลกกว้างเป็นเช่นไร

  ส่วนจักรภพ เขาจะพูดอะไรก็เรื่องของเขา เรื่องมันไม่ใช่เรื่องในบ้าน เพราะปัจจุบันนี้ คนทั่วโลกล้วนอยู่ในโลกเดียวกันทั้งสิ้น เป็นบ้านหลังใหญ่ของคนด้วยกัน อยากถามว่าคุณพรทิพย์เคยได้ฟังที่คุณจักรภพพูดจริงๆ หรือไม่? หรือว่าแค่อ่านคำแปลเพี้ยนๆ ของนายตำรวจที่ยื่นฟ้องทั้งคุณจักรภพกับนักข่าวบีบีซี? ถ้าหากคุณไม่เคยได้ลองอ่านดู กรุณาไปหาอ่านก่อนที่จะมาให้ความเห็นเยี่ยงนี้

  จึงเรียนมาเพื่อทราบ

• 15 Heri // Sep 1, 2008 at 2:42 am

  Thaksin’s loyalists depending and still stay in government? Peoples more and more angry! and the next angry…coup???..

Leave a Comment