From a strong PM to a strong, informed public
If the last constitution's major failure was that it produced a "prime minister who was too strong for Thai democracy", then the new charter being drafted should rectify that serious fault by creating a "strong, informed public".
This column should tell you how out of touch and intellectually bankrupt Thailand's intelligentsia is when The Nation's chief editor produces horrible writing like this.
How can a Constitution create a "strong, informed public?" This is the typical Thai mentality. Go for the empty sound byte and forget developing any ideas.
A Constitution is codified law. It isn't a school or a teacher or even a book. The law doesn't do anything to create a "strong, informed public" unless the law actually dictates that people are educated in ways that creates a "strong, informed public" and even then, there are still no guarantees. The only way to create a "strong, informed public" is if the public chooses to be "strong and informed,"which has nothing to do with what is written in a Constitution.
By the way, the last Constitution was not a failure. The people who swore to uphold the law are failures, liars and crooks, including those courts and agencies that were created to enforce the law.
And The Nation is a failure for not holding those figures responsible for protecting the Constitution and enforcing the law.
Thaksin was only a small part of a greater problem in Thai society, which is that nobody is willing to take responsibility for their democratic roles in society. And The Nation's staff is just as culpable for the failure of the last Constitution as Thaksin.
How do we get there? First, the people will only be able to be "stronger" than the chief executive if freedom of expression is firmly guaranteed under the new charter. The last constitution did provide that guarantee, however the "Thaksin regime" somehow managed to circumvent it by resorting to personal browbeating, unofficial coercion, financial co-opting, threats to pull advertising, and open, intimidating and expensive libel suits.
The guarantees the 1997 Constitution which enumerated freedom of expression were phony guarantees, because it had stipulations that allowed people to sue for defamation. Also, there were exceptions to free speech that said the nobody can say or do anything that was detrimental to national security or promote anything immoral. In other words, there was no freedom of expression at all, because the most politically provocative forms of speech were prohibited.
And this paragraph goes to the character of the Thai press. They don't print the facts because they are afraid of being sued and don't want to lose money. And even after the coup, with the freedom to print whatever it wants about Thaksin, it still hasn't uncovered Thaksin's nefarious empire and the bureaucract and politicians who profited from it.
The absence of organic laws to specify what constituted a "threat to press freedom" also contributed to the violation of the public's basic right to express disagreement with the powers-that-be. With that in mind, the constitution drafters will have to leave no stone unturned to make sure that participatory democracy is entrenched in the new charter to thwart any possibility of a "strong and irresponsible prime minister" usurping the powers of the man on the street, as was the case under Thaksin Shinawatra.
Who the fuck is Suthichai's copy editor? This writing is horrible.
Did hundreds of thousands of people protest Thaksin in the street? Yes
Thaksin was overwhelmingly elected by the people, twice.
How did he usurp people's power?
Exactly which powers did he take from the people and give to himself?
How is participatory democracy entrenched into a Constitution?
Organic laws will also have to be enacted to replace the current obsolete laws related to the print media, broadcasting laws and laws and regulations governing community radio and television outlets. Unless a genuine blueprint for media reforms is put into place - including the establishment of a truly independent "public broadcasting service", that no government can command and control - any claims about a "new era" of post-coup Thai politics would be nothing more than empty talk.
Which does Suthichai want? Organic laws or constitutional rights? How is the audience supposed to make a distinction? Again, more sloppy writing.
If politics isn't going to be confined to just a few thousand politicians exploiting the election game in a vicious cycle, the constitution writers will have to dramatically change their mindsets.
What the fuck does this mean? Look at this horrible writing.
The oft-cited refrain that a constitution is only as good as its "users" underscores the narrow notion that these "users" are exclusively a bunch of office seekers in political circles.
More horrible writing. Who are the "users?" The people or the politicians? "Oft-cited refrain?" "Underscores the notion?" How many more empty cliches will he use?
Nothing could be further from the truth. The constitution should in fact serve as the most important document at the public's disposal to protect them from those who would exploit the charter. The real "users" of the charter therefore should be the majority of Thai citizens, not a handful of politicians in the "inner circle".
A Constitution can protect people from those who exploit it? It doesn't protect anybody. All it does is enumerate rights and laws. Seriously, how do you "exploit" or be a "user" of a charter?
Wasn't The Nation calling for a royally appointed prime minister using a vague section of the Constitution to end the impasse last year?
In practice, such a guarantee would only be enforceable if the new constitution expands on clauses that protect the rights of local communities and upholds the public's role in a participatory democracy.
More horrible writing. What guarantee is he talking about? What does protecting the rights of local communities mean? What does upholding the public's role mean? A Constitution can't do any of these things. Human beings can only do these things.
What that means in effect is that this particular sector must be given full play in the new scheme of things - not just an afterthought or postscript, or a "sidebar", as we call an add-on news item in the newsroom.
More gibberish. Constitution or not, the people are responsible for taking care of sustaining their own political rights and democratic participation in their government. Sovereignty comes from the Thai people. Charter writers don't bestow rights. The only group that has acted against the sovereignty of the Thai people is the Thai military, which with guns and tanks and without any legal or popular legitimacy has temporarily granted themselves sovereign power over all the Thai people. And they did this without exhausting all the legal possibilities available in the 1997 Constitution or supplying any evidence to the public for deposing the democratically elected leader of the country. And The Nation, as a mouthpiece for the junta, hasn't provided any evidence also.
A real revolutionary approach towards creating a truly people-based democratic system - which would go a long way toward preventing the return of the likes of Thaksin and thwart any temptation for "knights on white horses" to come to the nation's rescue - would be to increase and expand the public's role in the law-making process, both in vital legal and budgetary matters.
How the fuck is this approach revolutionary? How would the public's role be increased and expanded? Why not just vote on every law through on-line voting? Now that is revolutionary.
Again, Suthichai is spouting a lot of bullshit without actually explaining what he means.
Decentralisation of administrative power has been a popular policy point for all politicians seeking votes from local villagers. Thaksin even used that theme as the platform to launch his highly dangerous and exploitative populist policy.
Of course, it was all a farce. What he trumpeted as "decentralisation" was in fact the "centralisation" of power for himself as premier.
It was a subtle, crafty plot for him to spend taxpayers' money to enhance his personal popularity at the expense of the long-term immunity and sustainability of the local communities.
Again, more bullshit. Suthichai says decentralization is good, but when Thaksin does decentralization it is bad, because when Thaksin spent money at the local level the people appreciated it and voted him into power again. So what if another politician did the same things? And what is wrong with Bangkok actually directing tax money to poor communities?
The charter writers will have to return the concept of "decentralisation" to its actual meaning, and emphasise its real value. In other words, what the new constitution should provide is a sense of pride and independence for the average Thai citizen, who knows deep in his heart that this new set of rules will make him prouder and stronger as an individuals and more powerful as part of an informed, caring and engaged society.
What is the actual meaning? What is the real value? What the fuck is he talking about? How can a Constitution provide a sense of pride and independence in the average Thai citizen? How does a piece of paper with writing on it create feelings of pride and independence? How does a piece of paper make the citizenry engaged and informed?
Suthichai Yoon
The Nation
How the fuck did this guy become editor of a major metropolitan newspaper when he writes worse than your below average high school student?
And how can this guy have the balls to talk about democracy when his newspaper helped legitimize the coup and is the lackey of a military dictatorship?
Some will say that I am defending Thaksin. I am not. Personally, I can't stand him and what he did. He could have resigned and saved a lot of people the grief. But my feelings and wants are not enough. The feelings of the Nation staff are not enough. The personal feelings of the junta generals are not enough. Just to say that Thaksin is a bad man is not enough. There was a constitutional process to get rid of him and it wasn't adhered to. A coup was not the last resort. And The Nation is the last media institution to give lectures on democracy when it is in the back pocket of the military junta and focuses more on Thaksin's international activities more than the political activities at home.
No comments:
Post a Comment