Could Singapore have done better without democracy ?

siaokao SG

I agree.. as such, I propose Singapore Idol contest be changed to a Group Representation Format (GRF) to prevent marginalization of minority contestants. Laughing

Atobe SG

A perspective of the Thai Military Coup from a Thai Historian, and with the paragraphs marked in 'RED' being events that should be familiar to us.

Extracted from The Star:

Coup a step forward for Thai democracy
By SHAHANAAZ HABIB

PETALING JAYA: Is the coup in Thailand that deposed a democratically-elected Prime Minister a step backward for the country?

No, said Thai historian Dr Kobkua Suwannathat-Pian.

On the contrary, she believes, that the Sept 19 coup is actually the way forward for democracy for Thailand.

Democracy took a beating under the leadership of Thaksin Shinawatra, she noted.

The constitution, which used to be good when it was drafted, had been manipulated in such a way that all the institutions which were supposed to be the safeguards of democracy had failed, she said.

It could not save the rights of individuals, provide safeguards against practices of corruption or from politicians who are not honest from continue doing what they were doing.

The political situation could not be solved constitutionally because the Prime Minister refused to step down and the constitution could not force him out.

The country was at an impasse and there was no way out, added Dr Kobkua, a former professor of history at Universiti Tenaga Nasional.

So for her, while the coup may not be the best way forward but its a way forward.

It gives you time to stop and take stock of whats happened since the coup in 1992 until now. A lot of things happened that damaged democratic principles.

This coup is another step in the process of democratising Thailand. Without it, I think we will definitely go backwards, she stressed.

But if the putsch was a step towards democratisation, why did the coup leaders move backwards by introducing draconian regulations such as the clampdown on the press and banning political parties and gatherings?

Dr Kobkua said this was to prevent a counter-coup from Thaksin loyalists.

Going by the past coups, she said, there was a format the coup leaders would adopt.

Firstly, they would take over all the strategic facilities such as communication, government offices, the military power base and the palace.

Secondly, they would announce that they had taken over power and thirdly they would get the blessings of the King and announce it.

Then, they would ban political parties, abolish the constitution and put freedom of the press under scrutiny.

Thats the format of the coup to make sure that control is complete. And whoever wants to do a counter-coup will not have the opportunity. Dont forget Thaksin also has supporters in the military, she said.

Dr Kobkua is of the view that once an interim premier is put in place in about two weeks and an interim constitution drawn up, the controls would normally be lifted and the tight rein on the media and assembly would be relaxed again.

Stressing that she did not support coup detats, Dr Kobkua however pointed out that this latest one was different.

The Suan Dusit poll done a day after the coup showed that 82% of the people in the city supported it and 86% of those in the countryside normally a Thaksin power-base backed it.

The surprising thing was to find rural people supporting it. It has never happened before that both city and countryside folks support a coup, she added.

Dr Kobkua does not think the growing violence in southern Thailand was the main reason that forced the military to stage this coup.

If that is the main reason, it would have happened a long time ago not now, she said.

Rather, she sees it as a power struggle and a clash of personalities and policies of Thaksin and army commander-in-chief Gen Sonthi Boonyaratkalin.

Gen Sonthi, a Muslim and the first to rise to such a high post, got the job unexpectedly. A quiet and professional man, he was never close to Thaksin nor did he have the support of political personalities behind him.

It was former Prime Minister and chairman of the Privy Council Gen Prem Tinsulanonda, and former army commander-in-chief Gen Surayuth Chulanont, also a Privy councillor, who recommended Gen Sonthis name to the King.

But Thaksin and Gen Sonthi clashed from the start on the policy to be used in the restive south.

The Prime Minister was always for using force to show the separatists that they cannot win. But Gen Sonthi said no we must talk to them and find out what the grudges are and do whatever we can to put it right, said Dr Kobkua.

So Gen Sonthi did not get the confidence of the prime minister and was not given the authority to co-ordinate the solving of the problem in the south.

Dr Kobkua noted that if Gen Sonthi had been Thaksins good friend, in all probability the coup would not have happened.

Word out was that Gen Sonthi was going to be moved to an inactive post in the annual military reshuffle that was coming up.

Dr Kobkua believed that another reason the coup leaders decided to go for it was because a democratic reform movement had planned to carry out protests in Bangkok on Wednesday.

The government's side had planned to counter this move by calling on their own supporters.

There was bound to be trouble. I dont think Thailand could afford this so someone had to do something, she said.

And now with the coup, the Thai historian thinks that this would be the best time to find an acceptable solution to the problem in the south.

She said that while Thailand would never allow the southern provinces to secede, there might be a middle ground where both sides could give and take.

The problems in the south have been there since 1902, she noted, adding that the majority in the Muslim south have come to accept the government in Bangkok.

Dr Kobkua noted that the situation only flared up from time to time when the south felt they had been unfairly treated.

In the 1980s and 1990s the situation was calm. It turned violent again two years ago.

Dr Kobkua attributed this to the fact that Thaksin did very little for the south as he did not get 100% support in the elections. Hence he channelled aid and economic development elsewhere.

There must be something the central government can do now to make life better in the south. A majority do not support violence. They just want to be fairly treated and get a fair share of the countrys wealth, she said.

She said the situation in Thailand would be normal as long as the coup leaders kept their word.

They need to set up an interim government in two weeks, hold elections within the next 12 months and bring in a stronger democratic government that would serve the interests of all.

But if doesnt what then?

That would be sad. It would mean that the military would carry on and that would be a step backward, she said.

oxford mushroom SG

Atobe is ranting as usual after his usual dose of magic mushrooms...he cannot see what the rest of the world sees...this military coup against a democratically elected government shows the failure of democracy in Thailand.

Money politics? Thaksin has made life better for the rural poor, repaid Thailand's debts to the IMF after the 1997 Asian financial crisis and made Thailand one of the most successful economies in Southeast Asia. Atobe prefers to ignore that and support politics of power through the barrel of a gun.

With Opposition supporters like that, PAP has nothing to fear.

iveco SG

So in your opinion democracy sucks? Why are ALL the EU memebr states democratic then?

charlize SG

I recommend Francis Fukuyama's The End of History for your daily bedtime reading. Laughing

Atobe SG

Originally posted by oxford mushroom:

Atobe is ranting as usual after his usual dose of magic mushrooms...he cannot see what the rest of the world sees...this military coup against a democratically elected government shows the failure of democracy in Thailand.

Money politics? Thaksin has made life better for the rural poor, repaid Thailand's debts to the IMF after the 1997 Asian financial crisis and made Thailand one of the most successful economies in Southeast Asia. Atobe prefers to ignore that and support politics of power through the barrel of a gun.

With Opposition supporters like that, PAP has nothing to fear.

The failure in democracy is when a strong person believe too much in his own super-natural ability, his own gifted superior intellect, his own greatness in his own making of history - to the extent that he will even change a well grounded Constitution to perpetuate his cycle of actions to achieve his own designed outcome.

Is there not some similarities between Thaksin - who probably believed himself to be equal to Singapore's LKY ?

Both came up the ladder from humble political beginnings, with the support of the masses - espousing grandiose speech of 'freedom of man and liberty from oppressive legislations'; yet when they are comfortably set in their seat of power, they begin to tinker with the Constitution to strengthen and perpetuate the legitimacy of their position.

' Power corrupts absolutely ' rings true as the sharp resonance of the bell.

Is anyone denying the fact that Thaksin had brought Thailand out of the shambles of its economic debacle of 1997, as much as LKY had brought Singapore out of the third world environment - (by the standards of 2006) ?

What were the causes - as seen from the eyes of the Thai - that had caused the Thais to be unappreciative of Thaksin ?

Did you purposefully ignore the statements of a Thai Historian, as appearing above in green and on Page 1 of this thread; peferring to stick to your preconceived ignoramus opinions ?

It was the Thai King who had sanctioned the proposal from the Secretary of the Privy Council - to allow the Thai Army to restore the continued polarisation of Thai society; and the coup was clearly not an initiative from the Military.

Even if Thailand is not rated as a First World Nation, its Citizens have the opportunity of experiencing all the rudiments and trappings of democratic life for more then 15 years; and they have paid their price in blood with the 1992 Student Revolution against the Autocratic Military Rule.

Should not a First World Singapore have a better idea of Democracy ?

Should we be surprise that even a well educated person as yourself will have such 'poor democratic conciousness' as the largely poorer educated Singaporeans ?

Ironically, three days before the Thai Military takeover, MM LKY had spoken on the possibility of using the SAF to correct an election anomaly in a 'freak result' that allow an Opposition Party to form a government, and giving them access to the huge largesse of the Singapore Reserves.

He had cleverly advocated [i]the use of the SAF to restore democracy, by kicking out a corrupt government.

Surely having shared the same food of Foreign Talents as MM LKY has had - him from Cambridge, and you probably from Oxford ? - both of you will probaly make good bedfellows sharing the same concepts on the practicability of Democracy in Asia ?

Is it pathetically ironical that learned persons like LKY and yourself - (one who boast of the value of FT for Singapore, and the other boasting of recruiting FT for Singapore ) - will have such derisive ideas of Asian Democracy, and will pour ridicule and contempt on fellow Asians embracing such democratic dreams as the First World Idealists ?

At least, MM LKY had found use of the Democratic precepts to indulge his ambitions in cleverly disguise forms; while with all your intellect, you are only at best settle to be a knave in LKY's chambers.

Are mushrooms magic ?

It is a surprise for you to speak of magic mushrooms; surely you have not begun to embrace the curative magic of mushrooms such as ling zhi in TCM ?

Then again it is no surprise at your derogatory tone in the remark made, since as a western trained doctor - you have already shown prejudice and derogatory attitude towards TCM in your previous posts in this sgForums.

If only you had shown some respect to the potency of TCM, you will also enjoy mushrooms; but I am more fortunate in that I can accept mushrooms cooked in both the Western and Asian Kitchens.

oxford mushroom SG

BANGKOK - AS A socialist and one who protested against the coup in Thailand with the slogan, 'No to Thaksin...No to the coup', I wish to explain the democratic alternatives to the coup.
The present coup leaders claim that 80 per cent of the Thai people supported it. If so, and the 16 million people who voted for deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra on April 2 have now really changed their minds, these military men should have taken an alternative road.

Months, if not years, ago, they should have set up a political party and taken part in the elections which were being called. With their 80 per cent backing, they would have beaten the Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party. It is no secret that the Democrat Party, which supports the coup, boycotted the April 2 polls because they knew they would lose. And they knew they would also lose the next scheduled polls.

Did Mr Thaksin and TRT win successive elections with convincing majorities because they cheated? There is no evidence that the 16 million people who voted for this party were forced to do so. There were no armed men forcing them to vote in any particular manner. I voted on April 2 against TRT and I did not feel that anyone was watching me. Did TRT give money to voters? Probably, but so too did the Democrats, Chart Thai and Mahachon parties. Did this affect the outcome of the vote? No. Why not?

In his book, Tale Of Two Democratic Cities, Anek Laothamatas argues that it is necessary to build political parties with real policies which can win votes in the countryside. This would end or reduce the system of patronage and money politics. The book was written before TRT was even established.

What TRT actually did was spend some time building up policies that would correspond with the needs and demands of various sectors of society. They won the elections on those policies, especially with the first-ever universal health-care scheme and provision for village funds. They won again last year and this year because they carried out those policies.

The Democrats lost because they spent all the time attacking the health-care scheme and other social benefits on the basis that these destroyed 'fiscal discipline'. While they were in power after the Asian economic crisis, the Democrats, like all neo-liberals, felt that it was not against 'fiscal discipline' to use Thai money to pay off the non-performing loans created by the rich. Some years ago, I shared platforms with spokesmen for TRT and the Democrats. I attacked TRT's abuses of power and criticised the Democrats for not having any policies. It did not take a genius to work these facts out.

Yes, the TRT government was one of big business and it also carried out neo-liberal policies for business interests such as privatisation and free trade agreements. There was no difference from the Democrats there. But worse still, TRT committed gross human rights abuses in the war on drugs and in the country's troubled south, and it is responsible for the abduction and presumed death of defence lawyer Somchai Nilapaichit. There was also corruption, but this is a common phenomenon in Thai politics.

There is an arrogant and anti-democratic camp that argues that the rural and urban poor do not understand democracy. Not only are the poor uneducated, but they also lack information, so we are told.

'Democracy,' say these undemocratic and elitist liberals, is where a government does not bow to the wishes and demands of the electorate. For them to give people what they want is like giving sweets to children - a bad thing because all their teeth will rot later.

So if the poor cannot come to their senses and vote for a nice party like the Democrats, which will cut their social benefits and village funds (in the national interest of course), then the poor do not deserve the vote. These people called for the use of Section 7, where His Majesty the King appoints an alternative government in a crisis. This did not happen, but a coup did take place later, which these so-called liberals now support.

Over a year ago, a number of us set up the Peoples Coalition Party in order to campaign against war, state violence and neo-liberalism. We called for the establishment of a social democratic welfare state, funded by progressive taxation of the rich. Not many people have joined us in building an alternative party which could offer real benefits to the poor majority.

So what now? The one thing I have learnt over the years, with encouragement from my parents, was never to trust a military dictatorship. A coup is not 'reform'. Dictatorship is not 'democracy'. The military cannot be trusted. Democracy has taken a serious step backwards.

But Thai democracy, like democracy anywhere, is and always will be built from below by social movements. That is why true supporters of democracy must stand together and demand that the military leave politics and that the 1997 Constitution be immediately restored, along with all democratic rights.

The military has no right to stage a coup or tear up the Constitution, just as Mr Thaksin had no right to commit gross human rights abuses or to avoid paying tax. The military also has no right to appoint a temporary government. Such a government, if necessary, should be elected under the supervision of the old Parliament, the new and old Senate and real representatives of the social movements. It should have only one important job: to organise political and social reform, involving representatives from all sectors of society, especially the majority who are farmers, blue-collar and white-collar workers.

The writer teaches in the Faculty of Political Science at Chulalongkorn University.

THE NATION/ASIA NEWS NETWORK
(Straits Times 27 Sep)

oxford mushroom SG

No, I didn't say that it sucks...Rather, Atobe indirectly argued that it failed when he thought the Thai military coup was a good thing to get rid of an unpopular PM. The point is, he is popular among the MAJORITY of Thai people, mainly the rural poor. That is why the Opposition parties boycotted the snap election called early in the year...they knew they COULD NOT WIN.

Critics of Thaksin had to resort to a military coup of get rid of him, because in a one man-one vote system, the Thai Opposition Parties could not get rid of him through the electoral polls. Indeed, in a sense, the military was right in saying that they were forced to launch a coup. They could never get rid of Thaksin through democratic process for the forseeable future, as long as he still enjoys tremendous support of the MAJORITY of thye population.

If people like Atobe think it is a good thing to get rid of whoever they do not like against the wishes of the MAJORITY by military force rather than the electoral process, then it only goes to show that democracy does not always work, does it?

LazerLordz SG

I still believe that the coup leaders are backed politically by the PAD.

Look at the initial troop movements, the 1st Division's commander..he has urban links.

4getmenot SG

Originally posted by oxford mushroom:

No, I didn't say that it sucks...Rather, Atobe indirectly argued that it failed when he thought the Thai military coup was a good thing to get rid of an unpopular PM. The point is, he is popular among the [b]MAJORITY of Thai people, mainly the rural poor. That is why the Opposition parties boycotted the snap election called early in the year...they knew they COULD NOT WIN.

Critics of Thaksin had to resort to a military coup of get rid of him, because in a one man-one vote system, the Thai Opposition Parties could not get rid of him through the electoral polls. Indeed, in a sense, the military was right in saying that they were forced to launch a coup. They could never get rid of Thaksin through democratic process for the forseeable future, as long as he still enjoys tremendous support of the MAJORITY of thye population.

If people like Atobe think it is a good thing to get rid of whoever they do not like against the wishes of the MAJORITY by military force rather than the electoral process, then it only goes to show that democracy does not always work, does it?[/b]

The Thai army was just doing wat LKY was hinting them to do... 'if the government is corrupt, the millitary must step in..' Rolling Eyes

In case you didn't notice, the rural poor also supported the coup. If he did enjoyed a tremendous majority support of the Thai population, there wouldn't be a bloodless coup not to say a coup even. Neither was there a massive thousand marches on the streets protesting against the coup.

The change of the constitution laws to benefit himself and his cronies even led to resignation of his own internal key members who were against it.

If Thaksin is clean, he would have returned by now and confronted for whatever wrong doings that has being accused against him. Instead of avoiding all the issues and 'taking a long deserved holiday'.. whos he trying to kid?

iveco SG

Who or what is the PAD?

oxford mushroom SG

Friend, read the above article by the lecturer of Political Science at Chulalongkorn University. The protests against Thaksin were by the middle classes in Bangkok, not the rural poor. The reason why the Opposition Parties did not dare to stand against TRT at the last election was becuise they knew they would lose.

A military coup is an affront to democracy. That they had to resort to it instead of participating in the electoral process attests to the failure of democracy in Thailand.

Atobe SG

Originally posted by oxford mushroom:

No, I didn't say that it sucks...Rather, Atobe indirectly argued that it failed when he thought the Thai military coup was a good thing to get rid of an unpopular PM. The point is, he is popular among the MAJORITY of Thai people, mainly the rural poor. That is why the Opposition parties boycotted the snap election called early in the year...they knew they COULD NOT WIN.

Critics of Thaksin had to resort to a military coup of get rid of him, because in a one man-one vote system, the Thai Opposition Parties could not get rid of him through the electoral polls. Indeed, in a sense, the military was right in saying that they were forced to launch a coup. They could never get rid of Thaksin through democratic process for the forseeable future, as long as he still enjoys tremendous support of the MAJORITY of thye population.

If people like Atobe think it is a good thing to get rid of whoever they do not like against the wishes of the MAJORITY by military force rather than the electoral process, then it only goes to show that democracy does not always work, does it?

No indeed, you could not have been so capable with brevity in words that asserts Democracy sucks - which is so resolutely and eloquently provocative, and with much more attention grabbing effect.

"Atobe indirectly argued that it failed when he thought the Thai military coup was a good thing to get rid of an unpopular PM"

Did I argue that Democracy "failed when the Thai Military Coup was a good thng to get rid of an unpopular PM" ?

How did that flow of thought that originate from your mental faculty now becomes a product of mine ?

Did you not attempt to be provocative with your statement that "The coup in Thailand proves that democracy does not always work" ?

Was the military coup initiated by Thaksin's critics - (meaning his political opponents) - or was the military coup initiated by the Privy Council within the Royal Court ?

Is it not logical that the Thai King - being the Father Figure of all Thais - should be concern after seeing the serious social and economic rift that is tearing his people apart as a result of the errant policies of Thaksin ?

Even within the ranks of Thaksin's own party and government, his ministers and party members have also defected from Thaksin some months before the crisis came to a boil that forced Thaksin to step down for a short period.

When a corrupt person that has become entrenched by changing the rules of the game that brought him to power, democracy has already taken a major blow.

How else can a democratic country - that has been hijacked by an Autocrat - redirect itself from the misguided policies back on course to the decided path of Democracy that has been chartered in blood ?

Is the Thai King suppose to sit back and let the democratic experiment run its full course knowing that Thai blood will be spilled when Thaksin is allowed to continue with his own way ?

Where did Thaksin go wrong, after having been popularly elected ?

Did you read the commentator's report in the Sunday Times and in the Straits Times - especially during the week immediately after the Military Coup ?

If you had done so, perhaps your views may not be so pessimistic, as Thailand is more fortunate than Singapore, in that Thailand has a revered King who is neutral to all the politics, and merely act as a 'referee' on the sideline to ensure that the peaceful process will prevail.

The Military Coup is similar to a Police raid into a gangster's stronghold, and removing the gangster chief from strangling and sucking the blood of the community in which it has entrenched itself.

There can only be a sense of immense relief and positive outlook for the future after the Autocrat has been removed from office.

The aspiration of the community will be the next step to be fulfilled after the removal of the societal tumour

The Thai King and the Thai Military had saved the Thais and Thailand from a corrupt Autocrat, who had been slowly changing the ground rules of Thai Politics, muzzling the press, and even begun to plant his own cronies into positions of influence and power within the military, Thai economy, and even in the Judiciary.

Thaksin have been accused of corruption since 2004, as he was seen to be helping himself and his own although seemingly growing the economy to help the Thais.

If ever in the 'not too distant future', Singapore should see a popularly elected politician turn into an Autocrat, and without a neutral arbiter of an independent Judiciary or Presidency, can Singaporeans have any courage in our heart - similar to the Thais - to stand up against the Power of ONE ?

ShutterBug SG

Hail, factual Atobe!

Wind6 SG

Damm, u r gd in reasoning, atobe.

tanjun SG

Originally posted by Atobe:
Singapore should see a popularly elected politician turn into an Autocrat, and without a neutral arbiter of an independent Judiciary or Presidency, can Singaporeans have any courage in our heart - similar to the Thais - to stand up against the Power of ONE ?
[/color]

[/b]

That depends. When crisis comes, it can be a motivating force for singaporeans to stand up against the Power of One.

4getmenot SG

If you want to use an article by a lectuerer of Political Science at Chulalongkorn University back your claim, so be it.. Rolling Eyes , of course the opposition parties would knew they would lose...the electoral comittee were all pro-thaksin remember? i recalled the committee was deemed illegal by the supreme court of thailand..correct me if i'm wrong. If the Thai Millitary Coup was indeed an affront to democracy.. why does our mm say the millitary shud step in if the government is 'corrupted'? Rolling Eyes afterall wasn't it our ppl in the first place that democratically voted this 'corrupted' ppl into the office?? Mr. Green

4getmenot SG

yup, we all unite and end up with only 'One' escaping.. Mr. Green

Rock^Star SG

Hahaha!

Atobe - Anti PAP

Mushroom - Pro PAP

vito_corleone SG

why do you even bother reading the LEE TIMES? Laughing

« Previous Page Next Page »