Can 1st World Singapore humbly learn from Thai Politics ?
-
It is amazing that His Majesty, the King of Thailand has given his enlightened personal views that are so contrary to the hardline self-conceited views of some omni-potent Political Rulers of Asia - from Singapore to Nepal.
Perhaps the proud leaders of a self-proclaimed First World Singapore can take time out to learn from His Majesty, the King of Thailand :
By the Thai Standards of Electoral Legitimacy - do our Single MPs or GRCs in Walk-over Constituencies hold any legitimacy - when it is not certain if they even have 20% of the electoral votes ?
HM asks courts to solve crisis
One-party election 'not democratic'
His Majesty the King has refused requests to invoke Article 7 of the constitution to end the political gridlock, saying it would be inconsistent with democracy. Instead, he asked the country's top courts to help solve the crisis. He also said a single-party election was not democratic.
''Do not abandon democracy,'' he said.
His Majesty said it was wrong to cite Article 7 and seek a royally appointed prime minister.
''That's not democratic rule. Excuse me for saying this, it's the kind of administration which disregards democratic rule. It's unreasonable,'' he said.
The King was speaking to groups of new judges appointed to the benches of the Supreme Administrative Court and other lower courts who were granted separate audiences at the Klai Kangwon Palace at Hua Hin in Prachuap Khiri Khan.
Article 7 has been the focus of demands by the People's Alliance for Democracy and the opposition Democrat party for the replacement of caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra by a royally installed head of government.
His Majesty said Article 7 did not permit the King to exercise power at whim.
''The article refers to the full effect of the constitutional monarchy. It doesn't permit the King to do whatever he wishes. If he did, it would be overstepping his mark, doing something beyond his authority. That's not democracy,'' he said.
The article does not provide the leeway for the King to issue any directives for the purpose of manipulation.
''Some people may say King Rama IX likes to do what he wants, but I've never done that,'' he said.
Since becoming King he had seen the constitution rewritten several times. He had never used the constitution or the law as a means to impose his will. If he had done so, the country would have collapsed a long time ago.
All laws had been properly decreed.
His Majesty said the parliament must have a quorum to convene. There must be 500 MPs present before the new parliament could open.
A parliament was not functional until there was a quorum. There may be attempts to work around it by convening the first meeting without a quorum.
''But that would be playing it by ear and muddling through,'' he said.
''You can't play it by ear in governing the country. You can't pass the buck and try to finish everything in haste. It's not right to dump it in the King's lap, which is worse,'' His Majesty told the judges.
People counted on the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, to uphold justice. They felt the courts were honest and knowledgable in the application of the law.
''If no one follows the law and righteous administration, the country will be in a shambles, as we are experiencing now, because we are short of the 500 MPs.
''It's not workable,'' he said.
He suggested the courts consult with other courts such as the Administrative Court on what steps should be taken. The courts must urgently decide, otherwise the country would collapse.
The King said it was a most critical time and the judges must do their duty.
The judges must consult knowledgable people, fashionably called the ''Nation's Saviours''. He said the term ''rescue the nation'' was often used but he did not know why the nation had to be rescued because it has not yet sunk to its demise.
Steps should be taken to prevent the nation from being shattered, so that people would not need to save it.
He said people across the country and worldwide still had faith in the Supreme Court judges, who were knowledgable people and had the determination to save the country in times of distress.
The King seriously advised the Supreme Administrative Court to intervene in the ''non-democratic'' general election to help the country get through its difficulties.
Addressing the Supreme Administrative Court judges, the King said the court should keep watch on the election because of its quick schedule and possible stalemate due to lone candidates standing in many constituencies.
An election where sole candidates from a single political party, in this case the ruling Thai Rak Thai, run in their constituency was ''non-democratic''.
''It is impossible for a democratic election to have one party, one man. One candidate does not equate with democracy,'' the King said.
The King said sole candidacies cannot lead to the full membership of the House because a sole candidate must have support from at least 20% of all eligible voters in a constituency.
The issue of a sole candidacy was important because it would never lead to the full membership of the House.
''If there are not enough elected people, then democratic rule cannot function,'' the King said.
The King said the court had the right to make its points about the election because the judges had sworn before him to work for democracy.
''I ask you not to neglect democracy ... You must look carefully into administrative issues. If you cannot do it [solve the problem], then it should be you who resign, not the government, for failing to do your duty. Carefully review the vows you have made,'' said the King. -
His Majesty of Thailand is indeed the modern-day sage. No wonder he was held in deep esteem by his people as he is more than a monarch. He has kept up well with the time by consistently upholding the democratic processes in Thailand as seen by his refusals to allow any actions that may precipitate Thailand's election processes to a one-party rule or one-party domination.
I don't think there will be mention of such golden advice or successful democracies at work in our press. It will be foolish to disagree with successful democracies elsewhere or the King's golden advice. -
you may argue all that morals/freedom owns wealth, but which government has overall given its people a better life? the thai government or singapore government?
-
sad to say we are a controlled society.....Originally posted by vito_corleone:you may argue all that morals/freedom owns wealth, but which government has overall given its people a better life? the thai government or singapore government? 
-
no better life is in sight if there is no reform and checks and balances introduced. track record has been flimsy.Originally posted by vito_corleone:you may argue all that morals/freedom owns wealth, but which government has overall given its people a better life? the thai government or singapore government?
how's that for a volley.
-
What will constitute a better life ?Originally posted by vito_corleone:you may argue all that morals/freedom owns wealth, but which government has overall given its people a better life? the thai government or singapore government?
The interpretation will differ even amongst the Thais living in the rural province and one who lives in the City; and even more so between those in the far flung Northern, Eastern and Western provinces, from those living in the Southern provinces.
To compare the better living conditions between Thais and Singaporeans will be quite meaningless when using only the materialistic yardstick - as the value placed can be quite different.
To the Thai, a bowl of fresh rice harvested is a daily necessity that is easily attainable, and what does a Singaporean understand about the taste of freshly harvested rice - when Singaporeans only get "Royal Thai Umbrella" that is held in stock for at least six months to comply with Government requirements.
For the Thai, all the modern day amenities are within reach by honest work - and beyond a roof over the heads, a job to earn wages, there are also the common needs of clothings, TV, refrigerators, motorbike or car that are all within reach by today's living standard in Thailand.
Beyond the material values, the Art and Theatre scene is also thriving in Thailand, and its culture and tradition are values brought down by generations and not artificially researched and encouraged to be brought to life by some OMNIPOTENT WISHES.
Read the thread "Chicken Little", which describes the quality of life between a country chick and one who is caged and well looked after. -
A rather fairer and convincing comparison would be a country practising democracy system yet its population is make up off multi-ethnic groups, multi-religions and multi-culturals like my home, Singapore. Thailand is not.
-
the wolf vs the dog. one is free but hungry. the other is always a slave for his master but is well fed.
-
what if we swapped govts? thaksin comes here and PAP goes to Thailand. you think Thailand will become like us? you think we will become like Thailand?Originally posted by vito_corleone:you may argue all that morals/freedom owns wealth, but which government has overall given its people a better life? the thai government or singapore government?
think deeper. we are where we are, because of who we are, not because of any particular brand of leadership.
for a time, Peru elected a Japanese to be their prime minister. supposedly first world leadership should take Peru to first world status but it failed. one person cannot change the character of a nation. the nation is as the nation is ... -
not so well fed really, just more well fed than other dogs ... but that is enough to keep its tail wagging ...Originally posted by mistyblue:the wolf vs the dog. one is free but hungry. the other is always a slave for his master but is well fed. -
Thai are basically satisfied with their lives... they do not strive like crazy because they need the money... they strive like crazy "stress free" unlike singaporeans because those who strive want to; not because like singaporeans who die if they don't strive.Originally posted by vito_corleone:you may argue all that morals/freedom owns wealth, but which government has overall given its people a better life? the thai government or singapore government?
Nobody in Thailand says that it is better to die than to fall sick... the Thai government does not use sickness and disease as a means to get more money from the people and or in the name of "higher" standards, bankrupt the people when they fall sick. Sickness and diseases are mostly beyond people's control.
All Thai people pay 30 baht (less than S$1.50cents) when they fall sick. Sure, the service is bad and you get cheap medicine... you can afford it, go to the numerous private hospitals that are cheaper than Singapore government hospitals.
The Thai government does not for the sake of eliminating traffic jams tax the Thai people exorbitantly for transport. The rich get fedup because they rather pay and get rid of the jams... the rest of the people deal with the jams rather than pay the government. In the end the rich are OK because they have the money and means to overcome the traffic jams nuisence.
The government allows private individuals to operate "motorcyle service" to help people overcome the jams and build MRT and BTS to help overcome the jams. If you still want to own cars, no problem, you deal with the jams.
Becuase there is no "jam tax," taxis are cheaper, transport is cheaper and everybody is happier.
You see, Thai people like the Thai King are honest people. When they say they are a democracy, they are a democracy. Press freedom, multi political parties; freedom to protest peacefully..... unlike certain dishonorable people who say one thing and do another and do things that they prefer and wipe out the small individuals....
If the so called dishonorable people are sincere, they could have changed the law to ensure that libel laws are changed so that there is a cap to the amount that can be awarded.... if the dishonorable people are sincere they could have changed the laws to allow proportional representation....
no these dishonorable people say that they are for democracy but in their own hearts they are dictators who will pull wool over anybody's eyes to exploit them and then sell them a nice story about how good their lives are.
Unfortunately as I am beginning to understand, most people are proned to the expliotation of conmen especially when the conmen holds impressive titles and sell themselves in the propaganda press.... at the same time suppressing the truth from emerging. -
learn from thailand? erm, what's there 2 learn from? Learn how 2 protest just because the PM sell off Shin Corp to Singapore Temasek? Learn how 2 get their PM 2 step down? Learn how 2 be now in a crisis like them? the king should mind his own country first, before telling people what 2 do.
-
1st off, what is legal (selling off Shin) is not necessarily "right."Originally posted by nanren4ever:learn from thailand? erm, what's there 2 learn from? Learn how 2 protest just because the PM sell off Shin Corp to Singapore Temasek? Learn how 2 get their PM 2 step down? Learn how 2 be now in a crisis like them? the king should mind his own country first, before telling people what 2 do.
--- suing SDP is "legal" but obnocsious behavior.
Gerrymandering is "legal" but dishonorable.
Killing off good potential opposition supporters through "legal" means then claim that opposition cannot field "worthy" candidates is behavior of conmen.
If Taksin is not pushed off... Thailand people will soon be suffering like the average Singaporeans at the mercy of the obnocsious, dishonorable conmen. -
saw this quoted in another thread
----
What type of singaporean are u?
So, you criticise the judiciary, you are SCANDALISING it.
You criticise PAP leaders (for eg. SDP), you are DEFAMING them.
You criticise the govt, you are DISLOYAL.
You migrate, you are a QUITTER.
You ask about the govt reserves & investment, you can not know cos it's NATIONAL SECURITY.
You ask for press freedom, you are a WESTERN LIBERAL.
You ask for more attention to mandarin teaching in schools, you are a CHINESE CHAUVINIST.
You travel overseas to talk to Int'l Organisations (for eg. CSJ), you are a TRAITOR.
You ask for more help to be given to the poor, you are BANKRUPTING Singapore.
BUT if you join the PAP, you are an ELITE right at the top of the list of RIGHTEOUS MEN. -
Uniquely Singapore.
PeasantMoNkEy (PMonkey10) -
R u laughing at the Thais or at urself...Originally posted by nanren4ever:learn from thailand? erm, what's there 2 learn from? Learn how 2 protest just because the PM sell off Shin Corp to Singapore Temasek? Learn how 2 get their PM 2 step down? Learn how 2 be now in a crisis like them? the king should mind his own country first, before telling people what 2 do.
-
As you may be aware, the KING forms the head of a MONARCHY, and under the constitution is not involved in the daily running of the country. That job is designated to the govt.Originally posted by nanren4ever:learn from thailand? erm, what's there 2 learn from? Learn how 2 protest just because the PM sell off Shin Corp to Singapore Temasek? Learn how 2 get their PM 2 step down? Learn how 2 be now in a crisis like them? the king should mind his own country first, before telling people what 2 do.
The King is indeed REVERED by his people and may be able to influence his people to some extent. But he certainly cannot 'tell the people' what to do.
Simply put, he is a mere figurehead with symbolic power only. -
Dun kpkb la...Singapore looks nice and clean clean nia...But do we feel happy? But for the Thais...their government loves them charge their citizens very low electricity,water,taxes etc etc etc....And let me tell u something..the Thais have alot more fun then us...stressfree..freedom..contented...smile....They have a beautiful land..full of beautiful beaches..mountains..beautiful girls..good and cheap roadside food...Good major disco clubs shopping..EVERYTHING....So who is better off then who? Some of us 30yrs old plus liao still live with parents...u called tat life? OMFG......~~