Could Singapore have done better without democracy ?
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
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.
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.
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. -
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) -
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.Originally posted by iveco:So in your opinion democracy sucks? Why are ALL the EU memebr states democratic then?
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? -
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. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
The Thai army was just doing wat LKY was hinting them to do... 'if the government is corrupt, the millitary must step in..'
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]
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? -
Who or what is the PAD?Originally posted by LazerLordz: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. -
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.Originally posted by 4getmenot:The Thai army was just doing wat LKY was hinting them to do... 'if the government is corrupt, the millitary must step in..'
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?
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. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
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.
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?
"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 ? -
Hail, factual Atobe!
-
Damm, u r gd in reasoning, atobe.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
That depends. When crisis comes, it can be a motivating force for singaporeans to stand up against the Power of One.
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] -
If you want to use an article by a lectuerer of Political Science at Chulalongkorn University back your claim, so be it..Originally posted by oxford mushroom: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. , 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'? afterall wasn't it our ppl in the first place that democratically voted this 'corrupted' ppl into the office?? 
-
yup, we all unite and end up with only 'One' escaping..Originally posted by tanjun:That depends. When crisis comes, it can be a motivating force for singaporeans to stand up against the Power of One. -
Hahaha!
Atobe - Anti PAP
Mushroom - Pro PAP -
why do you even bother reading the LEE TIMES?Originally posted by robertteh:[quote="szhcornan73"]
Britain does not fare well in democracy ? Whose opinion is that? Any proof? How does one measure success ? Over what time frame ?
Has Singapore produced more notable and noble-class scientists and explorers than Britain. Has any of our ministers or doctors or engineers outperformed their counter-parts in advanced researches?
Under pseudo- or leadership democracy, our leaders have provided some forms of basic needs to the people. Wages have gone up and housing are provided to the people at an accelerated rate from 1965 to about 1970s.
After that, due to narrow policies aimed at enriching the government and public sector, people's sector has suffered and general wages of majority of citizens have been coming down. Property values have dropped. Majority of the citizens who have bought their HDB flats have been burdened with high mortgage debts.
It is questionable Singapore under guided democracy or pseudo-democracy has indeed succeed beyond 1970s.
Since 1970s, the private sector has been laboring under high costs of doing business.
Whereas democracy like Finland and western European countries have continued to make progress economically and socially and become technologically competitive, through broad-based education, Singapore's guided democracy could only claim success and has to resort to tweaking of election processes by GRC and electoral redrawing and suing of oppositions.
People's living standards are dropping to the third world as compared with their better days in the 1980s whereas their costs of living is rising to the first world.
So can we really claim to have been successful under whatever is our system. Can the newspapers tell or handle truths? Why can't our Straits Times write more objectively ? Is is not the result of guided democracy where newspapers are subject to government 's control in the way their journalists write about government policies and their actions which causes many problems as reported under the post "20 Major government policy errors".
...to continue..
-
and i suppose the possibility of the thai military pointing their guns at the royal family is an invalid and an impossible notion?Originally posted by Atobe:[color=darkred]
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. -
Originally posted by vito_corleone:
Can we in ' materialistic Singapore ' appreciate or even attempt to fathom the deep respect and 'love' that the Thais show to the Royal Family ?
and i suppose the possibility of the thai military pointing their guns at the royal family is an invalid and an impossible notion?
It was the Thai Students' Revolution of October 1973 that threw decades of corrupt and inept Military Dictatorship, and returned Thailand to Constitutional Rule under their revered King.
From the CIA Factbook, Thailand has a population of 64,631,595 - of which those who are in the 15 to 64 years age group will number 22,331,312 males, and 22,880,588 females - combined together will total 45,211,900 - and the Thai military is drawn from the Thai population.
Will the Thai Military confront its own blood relations ?
In any confrontation can the Thai military even overwhelm another People's Revolution similar to that that occurred in 1970s ?