New Mandala

16 responses so far ↓

• 1 Artisi // Sep 10, 2008 at 3:46 pm

  While I tend to agree with some of the comments you have made it is easy to see what side you represent mainly due to the blatant misinformation given such as: ” Prime Minister Samak must resign because he appears on a TV cooking programme” the truth is he was not removed from office for appearing on TV but rather for accepting money for these appearences which is against the law as well as lying to the court. Your comment re “The anti-government fascist mob, who call themselves the “Peoples Alliance for Democracy”, are out to build an authoritarian New Order by provoking violent clashes and a coup.” is also pushing the boundary too far especially when their stated aim is directly related in trying to remove a corrupt nominee PM and government from power.

  However I am in full agrement with your statement;
  “The law was originally drafted in a futile attempt to reduce the influence of big business on Thai governments. It was not drafted to deal with cooking programmes.”
  Correct, it wasn’t drafted to deal with cooking programmes and isn’t this what has just been demonstrated by the courts – it was shown that PM has been found taking money from a business not for appearing on TV.
  Please report the truth – not a twisted version to suit your own agenda.

• 2 karmablues // Sep 10, 2008 at 6:37 pm

  I don’t think this is quite correct: Upholding the letter of the law, but ignoring the spirit of the law, the judges ruled that Samak must resign.

  In fact, it seems more that the judges emphasized the spirit of the law to interpret the letter (meaning) of the law. (this based on reports of bits and pieces of what the judges said, haven’t had chance to read whole verdict yet though)

  from CSM:
  Moreover, with its broad interpretation of the constitutional ban on moonlighting, the court has sent a clear message to Thai politicians who thrive on legal loopholes, says James Klein, country representative of the Asia Foundation. “Al Capone – they got him for tax evasion. They got this guy for doing a cooking show. It’s the principle,” he says.

  Dr. James Klein has been the country rep/director of Asia Foundation in Thailand since 1996. He oversees all programs and focuses on human rights, constitutional law and rule of law. He was also a Peace Corps volunteer in Khon Khaen during 1973 – 1976 and subsequently the director of the American University Alumni Bi-Cultural Center in Khon Kaen.

• 3 An Observer // Sep 10, 2008 at 6:37 pm

  Taking money from a business in a transparent way as in this case for being the host of a TV program should be legal. It is the corrupt form of taking it in kickbacks and bribes that should be targeted.

  That said, Thailand is becoming the laughingstock of the “Democratic” world in removing its PM from power while Government house is occupied by an anarchist mob whatever its stated intentions or claims of legitimacy may be. It wasn’t elected nor does it have a mandate to push its agenda.

  Today they (the PAD mob) moved their agenda further when they called for the removal of all politicians tainted by Thaksin. The rest of us stand by shaking our collective heads wondering, “What’s next?”

  Mr.Giles Ji Ungpakorn positions are well known and his book, A Coup for the Rich, is as topical today as when first appeared during the junta installed government.

• 4 Elli Woollard // Sep 10, 2008 at 9:51 pm

  Ji – while entirely agreeing with many of your points, especially the crying need for democracy, it might be worth pointing out that while Samak’s government may be elected, it is no more democratic than past Thai governments, due to the continued prevalance of vote-buying. This lack of democracy in the electoral process, of course, plays straight into the PAD’s hands; championing themselves as anti-corruption warriors, they can can claim to be restoring democracy – via the convenient mechanism of another military coup and then an appointed government.
  As you say, the present government has nothing to commend it (although I think some recognition should be given to Thaksin for introducing the Bt30 healthcare scheme – whatever else he did wrong, and he did a lot wrong, he should be acknowledged for his contribution towards cheap healthcare), and at least it was elected. But democratically elected? Hardly.
  What is equally disturbing is the emergence of rule by the judiciary. Once that happens, what hope is there for democracy? I wish you and others in the ’sorng mai ao’ camp the best of luck.

• 5 Ed Norton // Sep 11, 2008 at 12:15 am

  SCOOP!!! Abhisit is ready to be PM at the head of a national unity government. Yawn. This is where we have been going for some time…. The Dems are oh so boring and predictable. Never get elected, just wait for others to give you govt.

  And look over at Bangkok Pundit on the Dems and PAD. Excellent.

• 6 Johpa Deumlaokeng // Sep 11, 2008 at 2:08 am

  All sides buy votes, I have been around Thailand long enough to remember when the smaller town banks would run out of 20 baat notes in the days before an election.

  While Thaksin and his followers may have bought some votes outright, they also bought the hearts and minds of some of the rural populace by throwing them some bones ranging from the national subsidized health plan to, in one village I am close to, buying bicycles for the children to ride the distance to school. What Thaksin showed was that if you show, however superficially, that you care, pretend to care, or at least take notice of the poor, that you can win votes. So yes, I agree that, despite the many flaws of Thaksin and his followers, both political and personal flaws, they were by any measure democratically elected.

  In my opinion Achaan Ji remains the only public commentator who sees correctly through all the smoke and mirrors of Thai politics, or who at least shares my opinions, that both sides are mirror images of each other and it is all just one big circus with lots of side shows.

• 7 Elli Woollard // Sep 11, 2008 at 9:13 am

  Jopha – I wasn’t suggesting for a moment that Thaksin and his allies have been the only ones to buy votes (or indeed, that everything Thaksin did was bad. I’m not convinced that he genuinely cared for the poor, but even if his measures to help them were purely cynical vote-grabbers, at least they offered some real assistance).
  My point, rather, was that the Thai democractic process is deeply flawed, and that as a result, there is a vacuum into which organizations like the PAD are able to stampede, claiming they represent ‘true democracy’ when in fact they do nothing of the kind.
  Thaksin would certainly have won the 2001 and 2005 elections, and probably with a huge majority, even if some of his candidates (like those of every other party) had not resorted to vote-buying. In that sense, I guess, you could call his governments, and that of Samak, democratically elected. But where democracy is so tarnished, can it really be called democracy? I’m still not convinced.

• 8 Awzar Thi // Sep 11, 2008 at 4:37 pm

  Karmablues – Dr. James Klein was just another pathetic apologist for the military coup in 2006. So what’s the principle?

• 9 karmablues // Sep 12, 2008 at 3:41 am

  Awzar, I never knew about that. First time heard of him actually when saw the quote in news. Anyway, I do think the view of someone whom one can have more confidence about his impartiality would be more valuable. So here is Sunai’s opinion on the court decision:

  From IPS News Agency:

  “A standard is being affirmed by the courts on conflict of interest issues,” Sunai Phasuk, Thai researcher for the global rights lobby Human Rights Watch, said in an interview. “Those in power, no matter who they are, cannot violate the law or the constitution and expect to get away.”

  Sunai has often been critical of the military during the coup period as quoted in western media, eg.

  IHT:
  “We are deeply concerned about the very obvious intentions of the junta,” said Sunai Phasuk, the Thailand representative of Human Rights Watch. “They clearly wanted to stamp out Thai Rak Thai, or whatever it’s called now, from the political landscape, and that in itself is a very clear factor that can make the basis of free and fair elections look very bleak.”

  FT:
  “They accused Thaksin of manipulating the electoral process and abusing his mandate to put in strongman rule, but now they are doing the same thing,” says Sunai Phasuk, of the US-based Human Rights Watch.

  Now, back to Ajahn Giles’s piece: Rather than concentrating on serious issues like democratic legitimacy, murder in street fighting between the two opposing factions or trying to find a peaceful and democratic solution to the crisis, the courts chose to join in the political circus that is playing out.

  Blaming the Constitutional court here seems rather misplaced I think since for example the case of the murder, that is the job of the police to conduct the investigations and find the culprits. The courts cannot adjudicate a case that has not yet been fully investigated by police. Anyways, it would be the Criminal court, not the Constitutional court to deal with that case. And on the “trying to find peaceful and democratic solutions to the crisis” bit, not sure what kind of involvement by the judiciary Giles is expecting since it seems more the task of the politicians, PAD leaders, military, etc. to find solutions through negotiations and compromises. Civil society can also get involved by proposing ideas.

• 10 David Brown // Sep 17, 2008 at 7:42 pm

  someone else commented that the courts are being used, as intended and setup by the military junta, to attack democratically elected governments detail by detail

  elsewhere I have commented somewhat of a private theory that:

  “the advantage of democratically elected government is they are more open and transparent than the usual government run by secret, corrupt, powerful (Bangkok) elites who do their deals over golf which like the confessional hides all secrets…

  so what do we want, corruption you dont know about (for example a lot of powerful people siphoning funds from the underground lottery) or corruption the legal system can investigate and deal with?

  The TRT was less corrupt than previous governments and there was less corruption in Thai society than in previous governments. cracking down on drugs/dark influences (i.e mafia gangs). legalising the underground lottery, the village fund and greater access to personal credit. Mafia gangs who demanded money from motorcycle taxis were severely crippled.

  But mostly it was the rich and military elite that were living off these
  scams and crimes that were affected. It is mainly the poor and
  lower-middle class who benefited.

  This is why the PAD and their backers are trying so hard to revert to
  the old pattern where they controlled the funds. They hate the idea that ordinary people have gained some measure of control and influence in the way Thailand is governed.

  and just add another comment for those that mention farang democratic governments… the most infamous scam in those societies is that the rich find loopholes to legally avoid tax, its not a political problem at all, its a legal problem… so the Thai rich should just start studying tax law instead of trying to destroy their maturing democratic society ‘

  and by the way and relevant……….

  the Nation reports today that the court has a problem because there is no “hard” evidence to convict in the Ratchadaphisek land case

  I guess they mean there is no actual evidence only some “soft” emotional, non-objective claims to go on

  so, a delay is convenient to hide the result pending some political or other change that will benefit the PAD and the courts other mates.

• 11 Marty // Sep 29, 2008 at 12:46 pm

  I agree with you on most points. I have often said that if all the farmers got together and formed a strong organization or political party they would take over Thai politics and probably do a good job at government. Running a country is not much different than running a business or a farm. But alas, we all know that farmers aren’t allowed in government as most don’t have degrees.

  To comment on the Samak issue. The court went way beyond, “Upholding the letter of the law, but ignoring the spirit of the law.” They went as far as inventing their own meaning for “Employment” and refused to use the definition as set down in Thai Organic Law. This is like the retroactive law that was used to dissolve the TRT. In Thailand it seems, if you are on the hit list, we will just invent laws and definitions that suit the case to get the outcome we want. That’s not called justice, that’s called injustice.

• 12 David Brown // Oct 1, 2008 at 3:12 pm

  thanks Marty for that bit on the courts…

  so the court bent the law…

  just like I think they want to do in the land case

  I wonder if Elli has got around to convincing herself that democracy is more the process of giving people the opportunity to secretly vote for who they want rather than whatever rallying, vote swaying, threats and promises that go around it

  democracy exists as long as eligible voter rolls are inclusive and free of manipulaion and the voting process is reasonably verified.

  I havent seen anyone make any allegations that there were any significant violations of the rolls, the secrecy or the collection and counting of votes… have you?

  therefore its democratic… accept it!

• 13 Marty // Oct 2, 2008 at 3:30 pm

  Well as the court is the law and law is open to interpretation lets say they interpreted it in their own way to get the result that was wanted. It’s no different than the Constitutional court rendering a verdict in the TRT case and using the new law retroactively. It’s hard to know if you are breaking the law if it hasn’t been written at the time you allegedly broke it. It’s no different than if they install a stop sign at the end of your street and you diligently stop every time all of a sudden you get a ticket in the mail saying you ran the stop sign a month before it was installed.

  The TRT retroactive verdict was to make the TRT and it’s executives extinct, and that didn’t work too well when the election came around. The Samak verdict was used the same way. Both execution by the judiciary.

  The last election was probably the fairest one yet and all the independent observers said so. There were a few instances that stood out – the EC printed way more ballots than eligible voters even though only about 60% ever votes., and in some areas the police and Army confiscated the ballots overnight so they could be “counted” in the morning. By the morning everyone knew the junta’s fix was dead having been shot down by the voters and the PPP was the winner. This then brought a rash of complaints to the EC almost exclusively against the PPP where in the real world they were no better or worse than the other parties, at least in the North where we live.

  The PPP legitimately won the election over huge odds and conspiracies to have the Democrats be the winner but in the end they were only the whiners. The third hand, and I have been convinced there is one for a long time, has now backed the PAD to try and figure a way to disenfranchise the rural vote. All we that hope for a democracy in thailand can pray for is they don’t succeed.

• 14 Artisi // Oct 2, 2008 at 4:00 pm

  Marty
  I think a check of the facts and truthful comment would be worthwhile in relation to PPP and its right to rule. It (PPP) didn’t win the election outright and therefore doesn’t have the mandate to rule in its own right – it only came to power with the help of other minor parties. Further, buying votes is a fair election so long as it’s your team that are doing the buying – but it now seems that the courts don’t think that the election was all that fair after all- how many have been caught out and given their marching order?
  As for the third hand, very obvious – but not spoken about in Thailand for good reason.

• 15 Marty // Oct 3, 2008 at 3:51 am

  Artisi it’s simple to figure out who won the election PPP received 233 seats it’s nearest rival the Democrats received 165. This was not an outright majority but it was a win especially when you count in the smaller parties. Now the Constitutional court broke up the TRT and some factions formed their own parties. Phracharaj (RPP) was a faction of the old TRT with 4 seats, Phak Matchima Thippathai was also formed out of the TRT with 7 seats, Chat Pattana (17) was formed after the breakup of the TRT with TRT members and Pua Paendin (8)is comprised of half old TRT members.

  Most of the small parties broke away from the TRT but still comprise the old TRT members. If you look at their platforms in the last election they are all surprisingly similar to the PPP and the old TRT. If you look at it this way the old TRT actually won the election, sort of poetic justice after their attempted eradication.

  So who won the election? Who knows but it’s easy to see who lost it, the Democrats did even with huge help from the junta the majority of Thai’s, you know Chamlong’s stupid uneducated rural people that shouldn’t be allowed to vote, voted for who they wanted PPP. The democrats even ran on a modified TRT platform, the problem is they only show up north of Bangkok at election times and the people remember they didn’t even get table scraps from them when they ran the country. It will be a long time before they make inroads in the north.

  Buying votes is never fair but by using the statement the way you do shows me you don’t understand what it is about. Vote buying was introduced by the Military not by Thaksin, the TRT or the PPP. It’s not money for a vote it’s to show the voter that the candidate appreciates his support. The democrats were giving away movie tickets, is that any better. In the north and northeast it shows the voter that the candidate is worthy of the position and the prestige that comes with it and that he appreciates the support of the voter. The practice of showing support is deeply rooted in the northern culture long before there were even elections.

  The EC, who was appointed by the Junta remember, singled out the PPP for election fraud. The last election they, and their small coalition partners, had almost 70% more complaints than in any previous election. Normally complaints are even across the board party to party. From what I saw there was actually less money changing hands because in the north and northeast Martial Law was in effect during the election process and the PPP candidates were all closely tracked by the military.

  We are not talking about the same third hand. I feel it is a group of individuals, not a single one, that want to usurp power from the government and put their own system in place so they can control things again.

• 16 Ed Norton // Oct 3, 2008 at 7:48 am

  I would like to respond to Artisi , taking this comment seriously: “I think a check of the facts and truthful comment would be worthwhile in relation to PPP and its right to rule. It (PPP) didn’t win the election outright and therefore doesn’t have the mandate to rule in its own right – it only came to power with the help of other minor parties.”

  I take it that this comment means that Artisi considers that only a party that wins a majority of seats in parliament can claim a mandate to rule. The comment is a bit unclear, so I am interpreting a little. If it is the case that an absolute majority makes a legitimate government, then Thailand has only had one. And that was TRT in 2005.

  I’m not about to debate the second point on vote-buying as that has been done at length elsewhere, including within the Election Commission, by academic researchers and independent observers of the election.

Leave a Comment