Who supports true democracy? How the world views Thailand.

[Veto]

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/02/24/regional/regional_30096489.php
This article describes perfectly how the world views Thai democracy. The powers are shared between the military, the bureaucracy/aristocracy, and the political parties. Abhisit declares the status quo has returned.Thaksin era is gone.
Has anyone noticed this is the new enhanced forum?

[stilljustbrowsing]

Hi Veto, just read the directed post you gave. Never before have I read such contradictory writings that appear to be so good for everone.

[stilljustbrowsing]

Hi Veto, just read the directed post you gave. Never before have I read such contradictory writings that appear to be so good for everone.

[dpassmore]

Although I cannot comment how most of the world views Thailand, from a British perspective, I can add my own and fellow travellers views of the Kingdom. Unfortunately, there always seems to be something ongoing that is negative to any prospective visitor to Thailand. Disasters and negative events (natural and self inflicted) coupled with an unstable political situation and seemingly incessant corruption hardly inspires confidence for visitors to consider Thailand as a safe destination anymore.

Up and coming travel destinations such as Vietnam and Malaysia now seem the most viable alternative destination to South Asia. Unfortunately for Thailand, in particular during these difficult times, negative media reports, intolerance, corruption and instability are crippling the country which does not bode well for the economic future of Thailand. I am sure all the demonstrators believe they are acting in the best interest of their country, but the reality is they are destroying the image and economy of the nation.

Certainly, as a frequent visitor to Thailand, I will be considering alternative destinations - despite my love of the country - until such time I can travel with the knowledge I won't be held hostage at an airport, become threatened with mob violence where police turn a blind eye or walk the streets without fear of becoming a bombing victim, I will spend my money elsewhere.

Incidentally, this link provides British Foreign Office advice for travel to Thailand - unfortunately, it does not make for good reading.
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travelling-and ... 32.tomcat2

[Just-1-Voice2]

While I agree, in concept, that what happened at Gay was march was wrong, I do disagree that it carries as much, or more, of an “damaging image” to Thailand in the eyes of the rest of the world. When PAD took over the airport, peacefully or otherwise, Thailand was placed on the list of the “20 Most Dangerous Places To Visit” list. What happened at the Gay Rights parade didn’t even make international news.

I’m not saying issues dealing with Gay Rights should be ignored, but I can’t put that in the same category as taking over an international airport, which denied thousands of people their right to freedom of movement, cost this country millions of baht, and cost countless thousands their jobs.

The “Veil Of Smiles” has finally been snatched away to reveal the true Thailand to the rest of the world, and what the rest of the world sees is not something to their liking.

PAD (Which most consider as domestic terrorists) taking over an airport, attacking police, and various other crimes, while police were helpless to do anything, and the army flatly refusing to do anything.

The issues with the Boat People.

The violence in the southern provinces.

The murder of a Western Woman during the "Full Moon" festival

Most countries now appear to have travel warnings or advisories for those who are considering coming to Thailand. As a result, while tourism is down in Thailand, it is actually on the increase in Vietnam, Bali, and Malaysia, even in this time of global economic crisis.

Sunday, my wife and I went to the Walking Market here in Chiang Mai and there were a fair number of foreign tourists there. I tried to speak to as many of them as I could to get their impressions of Thailand. What I found interesting is that most of them actually booked their flights so they could fly directly to Chiang Mai from Singapore and thereby completely avoid Bangkok, which they all stated as being “too dangerous and too unstable”.

If you want to discuss the issues dealing with Gay Rights, that’s fine, but please do not compare what happened at their gathering to the actions of PAD and their takeover of the airports, because they are totally unrelated.

[prommee_NE]

J1V

Good to have someone with a sense of perspective back on the forum.

I Know that an International airport has to support International rules as part of an ICAO agreement...I just cannot find a link to the actual rule on the internet. PAD broke this International Law by stopping people flying out of an International Airport. Since they do not consider themselves terrorists...I believe they are subject to this International Law...and can be prosecuted in The Hague...has anyone tried to do this? I think there is a case here that could serve to re-unite Thailand.

No similar case for the Gays in Chang Mai though.

[Veto]

Hi Veto, just read the directed post you gave. Never before have I read such contradictory writings that appear to be so good for everone.

I take it that's a good thing. I was just trying to answer the question asked of this topic.
The status quo has returned to Thailand and according to Abhisit's statements, it's here to stay...reassuring the world who's in charge in Thailand.

[Just-1-Voice2]

I found this to be an interesting, and well written article in today's BP.

Anti-airport seizure draft is some joke!

By: Boonsong Kositchotethana
Published: 25/02/2009 at 12:00 AM
Newspaper section: News

Is the Abhisit Vejjajiva administration really serious about preventing the airports from being seized again, as the prime minister himself strongly pledged to the world recently?


Probably not - if one looks at how the authorities are pursuing charges against leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) for their siege of Suvarnabhumi and Don Mueang airports during Nov 25-Dec 4 last year.

Investigations into the case have been painfully slow, as police remain confused, intentionally or not, as to what charges they would press against the PAD leaders, despite the abundant evidence.

The draft bill on anti-airport seizure which was recently approved by the Cabinet appears to be more proof of the lack of any serious intention to keep airports off-limits to political rallies.

The draft contains a ridiculously light penalty for any attempt to seize Suvarnabhumi Airport, the heart and soul of Thailand's air transport hub around which much of the Thai economy is built. It is highly offending that the proposed punishment for a crime that causes the national economy a massive heart attack and ruins the country's international image carries a measly fine of between 500 and 10,000 baht!

Why on earth is serious criminal punishment conspicuously absent from the draft? The fine print in the five-step measures laid down recently by a Transport Ministry-appointed committee set up to restore Thailand's air transportation, is equally laughable and a reflection of the intent.

First, it calls for the dispatch of officials to negotiate with protesters before they reach the airport. Second, if the demonstration shows signs of being prolonged, the Airports of Thailand Plc (AoT) should set aside an area within Suvarnabhumi Airport but outside the passenger terminal, for them to congregate. Third, find spare channels for passengers to enter and exit the airport.

Fourth, step up security checks along passages to the airside, including aprons and air traffic control tower. Fifth, the AoT needs to conduct anti-airport seizure drills every year.

In the event that demonstrators are in great numbers, the AoT should coordinate with the police and military for support in crowd control.

Both the draft law and the measures are clearly superficial and aimed only at pacifying anxious members of the public and the international community that there would not be a recurrence of airport seizures.

It also raises the suspicion that the Abhisit government came up with such a draft bill only to dissuade the red-shirted opposition protesters from following in the footsteps of the yellow-shirted dissidents by taking over Bangkok's airports and creating another disaster for the whole country.

Unfortunately, the contents of the draft law and the five-step action plan are undoubtedly ineffective, if not openly inviting demonstrators to hold the country hostage to fulfil their political ambitions.

One question springs to mind: Is the anti-airport seizure draft bill and action plan needed in the first place?

There exists a penal code (sections 135/1 and 132/2 amended in 2003) which classifies the seizure of airports as an act of terrorism, a crime subject to a fine of between 60,000 and 1 million baht, as well as the death penalty.

The penalty is harsh enough to deter any more crime - but only if the authorities enforce the rule of law. (My highlight)

In fact, the five-step action plan was "practised" by the AoT during the last airport blockage, and it proved completely futile. When the AoT sent out an SOS to army Commander-in-Chief Gen Anupong Paojinda and the National Police Commission to dispatch reinforcements as the situation at Suvarnabhumi was getting out of hand, it simply fell on deaf ears. The previous government, the PAD and the armed forces were too busy playing their own game and were insincere about unlocking the political stalemate that was devastating the country.

The Abhisit government needs to do a better job to convince us that it is dead serious about preventing history from repeating itself, and must indiscriminately allow existing laws to take their course.

Thailand has paid dearly for the PAD's senseless and embarrassing action: 210 billion baht in losses and causing the country's GDP to contract for the first time in nearly a decade in the fourth quarter to minus 4.3% year-on-year.

The blockade left some 350,000 visitors stranded and prevented 3.4 million tourists from visiting Thailand, severely denting the kingdom's tourist-friendly image.

Boonsong Kositchotethana is Deputy Assignment Editor (Business), Bangkok Post.

As I stated before, if the police are really searching for evidence, just go watch the old new clips from television and they'll have all they want & need

[Ian]

Returning to the topic theme, just what is true democracy? If one looks around the world there are many countries calling themselves democratic, China, America, Britain etc, yet one is a one party system with a Chairman, one has a President and the other a Constitutional Monarch and Prime Minister.
Can democracy be defined as Freedom of speech or transparency of government, is so there is no democratic country.
"Rule of the people by the people for the people", sounds nice, but is it possible. After all who are the people, are they the teenagers, the senile geriatrics, the mentally disturbed? Do we then mean rule by the majority, yet in some African nations 45% of the population are under 16, is democracy possible with such a demographic?
Standing back and looking globally it seems, at least to me, that the most democratic countries are those in which the opposition parties are nearly as strong as the ruling party. This is the case in most western countries including America and Britain, at election times a one or two percent swing in the electorate determines the outcome.
Thus it seems that most countries can be judged as a democracy by the strength of the opposition, a strange inversion of logic. On this basis China is clearly undemocratic.
What about Thailand? At the moment there is only one powerful party, the military (oops I mean Democrats), so Thailand is not a real democracy either, Yet there is a growing opposition party so a balanced democracy might be possible. It is not important what this opposition calls itself, the important thing is that it must grow to nearly equal the strength of the other party. When this happens automatic checks and balances are created, each party watches the other for missdeeds.
Can such a party grow when opposed by the army, only time will tell.

[Non Aligned Bangkok]

True democracy means that non elected public servants do not have the right to a public political position.
You can judge for yourselves who this should apply to!