Google
 

Monday, March 5, 2007

Either the Translation is Bad or HRC chairman Saneh Chararik is an Idiot.

Rights chief Saneh has no faith in 'egoistic' next charter


National Human Rights Commission chairman Saneh Chamarik talks to The Nation's Pravit Rojanaphruk about the junta-backed drafting of a new constitution.

What expectations do you have for the new charter compared with the 1997 Constitution?


I'm not a fan of the 1997 Constitution because it was geared towards looking for a "good person" [to run the country]. There won't be any progress if political reform ends with the search for good people. It's the same this time around and nobody is talking about [the majority of] the people.


How was the constitution geared for a good person? WTF? There were many mechanisms written in the last charter to counter the actions of bad politicians. None of them were used.


We need to first answer the question of what is the main problem in politics. What we call a democratic system in Thailand lacks a counter-balance to power. And, the challenge is how we can enable the people to act as checks and balances with the key being rural Thailand. It does not have real participation.


Counter-balance to power? What does that mean? Like I said, there were many mechanism in the last constitution that checked corruption and powerful politicians, and there were many mechanism that empowered the rural communities. The question should be: How come nobody used the last constitution as it was intended rather than throw it out and say it was bad.

But, I don't want to see decentralisation only on paper. Decentralisation must entail decentralising decision-making so local people can protect their resources and develop their economies and societies.


Some see the drafting of this charter as illegitimate and campaigns have been launched to oppose it. What about you?


I call this charter the "egoistic" charter. It's a projection of the egos of the drafters and that's why they're trapped in the nitty-gritty of mechanisms [to control and make politicians accountable].


Although in the 1997 version [drafters] went to hear various groups' opinions it was a ploy [to claim legitimacy].


Real participation by the people in the drafting is a prerequisite.


So how long will the new charter last?


I don't know but I have no faith in it. The elite often trick the grassroots. It's time to break away from this and awaken them. We're not starting from zero because they have been affected by oppression and exploitation for a long time.


Why has Thailand had so many constitutions?


Power-sharing has been between the military and politicians.


International capital flooded the country after the 1997 charter was penned and Thaksin's rule was that of local capitalism combined with international capital. So, I'm not surprised the Americans are pressuring [the current] charter drafting process. This is not sufficiency economy and [drafters] don't understand it. The public is there only to cast a vote.


These kooks always have to blame the Americans for everything. After the 1997 crisis, American capital fled Thailand like it had the plague. The Singaporeans and Taiwanese came in and bought like mad. It wasn't until 2001 or later, FDI had not recovered its pre-1997 levels. I saw the data on this a long time ago, so I'm not sure.

Regardless, what the hell did the constitution have to do with the inflow or outflow of FDI? This guy is a madman.


Given the short-lived nature of most constitutions should people pay attention to this one? Or should they look at other mechanisms to supplement a charter?


A constitution is but a document. The challenge is how we can turn it into a document that truly reflects the aspirations of the majority.

Love him or hate him, the majority overwhelmingly voted for Thaksin three times.


Constitution Drafting Assembly member Chermsak Pinthong said the "patronage system" was the biggest hindrance toward making any constitution effective. What's your view?


It's time we stopped talking about abstract things. What is a patronage system? All societies have patronage systems to a lesser or greater extent. The task is how [underprivileged] people can have economic freedom and educational reform. Many deceptions have been employed against the people, especially many abstract concepts.


As long as there's no local economic development, voters will remain patronised by local politicians.


Should articles legitimising the people's struggle against coups and against the tearing up of constitutions be included in future documents?


This article is laughable. The thing is, academics [who drafted the 1997 charter] didn't try to understand society but referred to John Locke's theory of a social contract. The right to overthrow a government always exists in a democratic system. So, I don't know why we need such an article. To draft a charter and then ask the public what it thinks is a deception.


Is it my imagination or is this man incredibly stupid? I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. It might just be a badly transcribed interview. If not, no wonder Thailand is sinking fast.

This dude's brain has definitely jumped the shark.

John Locke's theory of the social contract? Wasn't that Rousseau?

Patiwat confirms that Saneh is an idiot here

1 comment:

Patiwat said...

Saneh Chamarik is a bootlicking idiot. A few days after the coup, he said in an interview that "I do not think the coup was is about progression or regression of democracy, but about problem solving." (See here)

And this guy was/is the Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission!