Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Floatplane
The point I was making is that Thailand has been held up as a model for the whole SEA region,
Well god have mercy on the SE Asia region! (sure better than other SE Asian countries, but it is hardly a model of efficient government/burocracy)
|
I don't see where the argument is here, Thailand has recovered economically and politacally from the problems of 1997 and stands (or stood up until yesterday) head and shoulders above all of her neigbours. Where was the Laos, Burmese, Cambodian PMs scheduled to speak to the UN? Thailand had worked itself onto the world stage politically, and now they put tanks on the streets.
I don't compare the situation in Thailand to Burma, only the perception of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Floatplane
Show me a government anywhere in the world, including ours, who have not had allegations of sleaze/corruption/nepotism levelled at them; it goes with the territory.
Surely you are not meaning to excuse/accept corruption in Thailand on account of there being corruption in other countries? Sure there is corruption all over the world, but there are degree/levels of corruption and accountability – you cannot lump every government in the world together.
|
I accept it as a fact of politics, I don't know enough about the allegations against Thaksin and they are utterly irrelevant to my mind. You either have a democratically elected government or you don't.
If any serving politicians break the laws of the land they should be brought lawfully before the courts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Floatplane
Military coup's are a dangerous relic of the past and, in my humble opinion, have absolutely no part to play in a modern democracy.
Are you saying Thailand under Thaksin was modern democracy in which the PM served the electorate above serveing himself and his cronies? .
|
No, I'm saying that Thailand was a fledgling democracy which was beginning to get itself heard on the world stage. This has put paid to any notions of them being regarded as a modern democracy and set them back alongside Burma, Laos, Cambodia
et al as another SEA basket case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Floatplane
How will it set Thailand back by years?.
|
In the perception of the country, in the eyes of those who have never been. Can you imagine any leader of Thailand now being invited to speak at the UN any time soon?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Floatplane
What happens if the generals don't like the next guy? Same again?
Let us hope so, if he is as much a blight on the country as Thaksin..
|
This is what I don't get, and the same argument I hear from the missus. Thaksin took over a complete mess in 1997, the baht was crippled and the country was all but bankrupt.
His vision of running the country like a business may well have had it's flaws, but the country has seen an unprecedented of stability and economical growth. Can you honestly look back at the last ten years of Thailand's history and call it failure? I just honestly can't see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Floatplane
[Why was Thakisn still PM anyhow? He got a red card early in they year and then came back on as a substitute. Crazy! As least the military acted as a referee even if the crowed didn’t.?
|
That was possibly the big mistake, he should have resigned then and left with some dignity. The military is not tasked to be a referee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Floatplane
[Democracy is only as effective as the electorate’s political awareness. If the electorate is not politically aware then they are open to abuse. Should you allow that abuse in the name of democracy, or should you step in?
As you said, Thaksins supporters are in the rural areas? Why do you suppose that is?
|
Phewee, where to start? And more importantly, where to stop? Given recent history elsewhere, the political ignorance of the masses has to be the very worst of reasons for military intervention surely?
Just because you disagree with the majority of the people does not make you right; you are either running a constitutional democracy, warts and all, or you are not.
If the opposition feel so strongly why not express it democratically? If this general has been dismissed and believes that others would run the country more successfully why would he not become a politician? He would have had the time on his hands would he not?
Democracy at the end of a gun barrel is no democracy at all. The right to vote, and the right of the ignorant masses to an opinion, is a fundamental building block in any modern society.
If the farmers want Thaksin because he has helped them buy a new pickup and has put rice on the table, then he wins. Are we living in a world where the 'intellectual elite' tell the masses what is good for them?