Find content
Male
phiphidon, on Today, 10:10 , said:
rubl, on Today, 01:07 , said:
"Thailand and Thaksin Shinawatra: From Election Triumph to Political Decline
by Michael H. Nelson
eastasia.at
Vol. 4, No. 2, December 2005
ISSN 1684-629X
Before the latest general election on 6 February 2005, critical political observers had perceived Thailand's incumbent prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, as a threat to the country's fledgling democracy.[ii] It seemed that (for reasons of centralizing personal power) he did not accept the democratic rules of the game, but rather tried to narrow down the public political space, infiltrate the constitutional checks-and-balances system, and control the public access to information regarding the government's performance. This was accompanied by the implementation of a multitude of 'populist' policies that accrued tangible benefits to the great majority of voters. They repaid Thaksin's performance at the helm of government with an overwhelming election triumph. Even the voters in Bangkok, who were considered politically sophisticated and thus perhaps inclined to counter any authoritarian tendencies, convincingly backed Thaksin. Only the South withheld support, largely because of the government's mishandling of the Muslim insurgency, such as the incidents at Krue Se mosque and the Tak Bai police station, which cost dozens of lives.
Corruption and cronyism
With a majority of 375 to 125 seats in the House of Representatives, one could thus have expected the continued smooth running of the country by following Thai Rak Thai's election slogan 'Four years of repairs – four years of construction.' It is all the more surprising that, at the end of 2005, Thaksin's rule seems to rest on shaky grounds."
http://www.eastasia....2/article01.htm
Note that tiny word in the beginning sentence, in front of political observers, "Critical" political observers. But it is good that you have read the papers of the man you disparaged earlier as just a "visiting scholar" and see fit to post some of his output. At the end of that text he wrote this;
"Finally, some thought ought to be given to the question of what and who might come after Thaksin".
Quote
In the Thai context, the problem of giving too much power to one group was seen as one the fundamental flaws of the 1997 Constitution. The argument was that the concentration of power in the executive, as existed under Thaksin, led to many abuses..............
..................So what was the drafters solution? Give more power to the judiciary and bureaucrats to control the elected politicians. Here is an English translation from the Highlights of the Draft Constitution B.E. 2550 from the CDA:
Members of the Senate will be free from the dominance of political parties since they will be selected from provinces and, separately, from occupational groups (Section 106), not through election which is prone to political meddling. With the proposed selection process, Thai politics will cease to be the exclusive preserve of elected politicians, but will belong to the people from diverse backgrounds, areas, occupations, and genders while opening up opportunities to the socially underprivileged as well (Section 108 paragraph two).
COMMENT: Yes, "political meddling" no need for pesky elections.
Here is Thitinan (cache):
A seven-member panel comprising the heads of two state agencies, anti-graft and election commissions along with three courts are to vet the senatorial appointments. The 160 appointed senators _ one for each of the country's 76 provinces and 84 others _ are supposed (but not guaranteed) to represent a diverse and balanced range of professions.
In turn, the Senate is tasked with endorsing the nomination and selection of the most senior members of these agencies. Such an arrangement may lead to quid-pro-quo outcomes and collusion in high places.
I have summarised the Senate provisions below:
From s106, there will be 160 Senators who will be appointed by HM the King from a recommendation/offer from the Selection Committee.
From s107, the Selection Committee shall comprise of the President of the Constitution Court, President of the Election Commission, President/Chairman of the National Counter Corruption Commission, Parliamentary Ombudsman, Auditor-General, one representative of the Supreme Court, and one representative of the Supreme Administrative Court.
From s108, the Selection Committee will select from the Senators as follows (1) select one appropriate person from each province from a pool of applicants, and (2) selection appropriate persons from names recommended/offered from various organisations (องค์กรต่าง ๆ) in the academic, private, government, professional, and other sectors.
In choosing the Senators, the Selection Committee shall take into account their knowledge and expertise or experience who will help carrying out the work of the Senate. When selecting those with knowledge, it should be knowledge from different fields. Also, equality of the sexes and giving opportunities from those lacked opportunities.
NOTE: Under s256, government officials can't be Senators so I assume what they mean by the "government sector" is retired government officials.
COMMENT: So will guard us from the guardians? As Thitinan states they choose each other and are accountable only to each other..........
............ Suriyasai Katasila, secretary-general of the Campaign for Popular Democracy:
...the charter had both strengths and weaknesses but the task ahead was to raise the level of the people's participation in politics. He attacked the increased authority and role of the judiciary as a weak point of the charter.
"I don't believe the courts are the answer to a sustainable solution and don't believe the courts can be accountable under the charter."
An academic on one of the most serious problems behind the new powers which will be held by the judiciary:
[i]"They are giving power to the courts and in the end things will not be negotiable, because they will claim to be doing it in the name of the King and those criticising the court may be held for contempt of court," said Naruemon Tabchumpon, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University.
http://bangkokpundit...s-custodes.html
So, in effect Thailand has gone from one (perceived) extreme to another and nothing but 5/6 years of grief to show for it. Thaksin could arguably be said to be the catalyst (but as others have said he was "made" by the existing power brokers, the amart) but the Coup and the problems from then on was certainly the reaction..
Although that opinion piece gives an interesting personal perspective on the the political life of Thaksin so far. However, its fair to say its not definative as it contains no verified facts or citations, as such you are right to back away from your assertation that Thaksin was the Prime Minister of Thailand in June 2006.
