New Mandala

21 responses so far ↓

• 1 sackman // Dec 2, 2008 at 5:15 pm

  A judicial coup indeed. As a thai, I think this is a deceitful scheme that doesn’t even have a good camouflage. People will see through this. The court has lost its credibility. I hope this incident will open more eyes. PPP might be gone but People Power will grow stronger.

• 2 Tony Loader // Dec 2, 2008 at 5:20 pm

  Well, that’s coup #19 done. All fixed in time for the big day.

  The army didn’t even have to get the tanks out this time - they got the courts to do their dirty work for them.

  Congratulations, Thailand!

  PS: Can we now have the photo of boofhead removed from the homepage?

• 3 max // Dec 2, 2008 at 5:51 pm

  can we get a translation?

• 4 hrk // Dec 2, 2008 at 7:04 pm

  Under the given circumstances, only an enlightened government is able to solve the problems the country is facing, especialy in a period of a global financial crisis. Since 1932 it has been shown that elected governments tend to be inefficient, and elections do not work, because they do not raise the best of the best into positions of political power. A government is needed that is not only interested in power, but as well in responsibility! Such a government has to be based on Dharma in order to be above petty political struggles for power and economic gain and mere individual or vested interests. In other words, a Chakravartin and/or Dharmaraja is needed. As an intermediate measure, a regent should take over until monarchic rule can fully be established.

• 5 Pracharat // Dec 2, 2008 at 7:41 pm

  I am not sure weather hrk means what he says or he just sarcasm but I would like to give the power back to the monarch. We will learn how efficient(or inefficient) absolute monarchy is in Modern world.

• 6 Colum Graham // Dec 2, 2008 at 7:53 pm

  Complete farce. Perhaps tomorrow The Nation will be running pitchfork and hay-bail adverts with bulk discount coupons.

• 7 Anthony // Dec 2, 2008 at 8:29 pm

  hrk, your suggestion is interesting and may have broad appeal. How, practically, do you think such an intermediate administration might be established? By royal decree, parliamentary vote, coup or otherwise?

• 8 Srithanonchai // Dec 3, 2008 at 12:13 am

  hrk: hee hee hee

• 9 Mariner // Dec 3, 2008 at 12:52 am

  If the Supreme Court truly reached its decision quite unmoved by the protests of the PAD then one wonders just what it is that the mayhem wrought by the yellows actually achieved -quite simply nothing or, at least, certainly not the avowed aim of bringing down the government, Credit for which goes to the military appointed judges.

  On the other hand, if the courts bowed to PAD pressure (i.e. departed from their avowed obligation to consider the strict legalistic merits of the case) then this is a sorry day for those of us who look forward to an independent and impartial judiciary.

  I’m left with a simple question: Why didn’t Chamlong and Co hold off the protests until the the court announced its verdict? All sorts of misery could have been avoided.

• 10 Nick // Dec 3, 2008 at 1:31 am

  hrk,

  The only check and balance that meets your requirement is, of course, HM The King.

  Dec. 5th, ya’ll. Just wait.

• 11 R. Dayley // Dec 3, 2008 at 2:35 am

  Pracharat and hrk,

  Absolute monarchy in the modern world? Do you really want to extend les majesty to every decision of the all-powerful royal government? If you do, an underground opposition to the ruling monarch will inevitably form over time (Khana Ratsadorn could resurrect). Revisiting the history of Rama VII might be useful here.
  Also, before taking on absolute power, advice from ex-King Gyanendra of Nepal would be prudent. His grab of absolute power led to the end of monarchy in Nepal. And “regency”? Try reading Nepal’s history on regency and convince yourself that its a good idea for Thailand.

• 12 MawHom // Dec 3, 2008 at 3:21 am

  Max: The statement makes several points about the procedure used by the Constitutional Court (not allowing all witnesses for PPP to speak; allowing PPP only 2 hours to present its case) as well as calling into question the integrity of some of the members of the Court (one member’s wife is alleged to have been active in PAD demonstrations). It ends by noting that these irregularities are likely to lead Thai people to call the integrity of the court into question, and to see the ruling as an alternative means of accomplishing a coup.

  The real question is whether Thaksin will direct Puea Thai–the new container for old TRT and PPP MPs–to appoint one of his sisters as its head. If that’s the case, and if they continue to maintain a solid majority in parliament, then we can expect a massive–and more violent–resurgence of PAD activity.

  The ruling of the Constitutional Court is merely a brief reprieve designed to save face for a certain someone’s upcoming birthday. Once Puea Thai regroups, you can expect the last week to be replayed, with a vengeance.

• 13 JaiYenJohn // Dec 3, 2008 at 3:23 am

  Maybe Somchai and the TRT/PPP can take over Chiang Mai International Airport until this ruling is reversed? I hear that’s very effective.

• 14 fall // Dec 3, 2008 at 3:33 am

  PPP gone, but every problems remain…

  …especially how would ANY government deal with the fact that Thai military would not follow order they do not like.

• 15 max // Dec 3, 2008 at 7:47 am

  MawHom: Thank you very much, I truly appreciate it.

  How long will the PAD, basically a court-backed crony militia, be able to get away with destroying the country and labelling its opposition (The majority of Thais, Thai-Laos, and Thai Khmers) as ciphers for Thaksin when it is so clear that they are but the tools of the ‘educated’, ‘enlightened’, and ’superior’ folks who have bankrolled this supremely disingenuous, spiteful, and malicious campaign of terror.

• 16 Tony Loader // Dec 3, 2008 at 9:36 am

  If there is now to be an interim administration, does that imply new elections in the near future?

  If so, then now is the ideal opportunity for the PAD to form a new party, stack their party list ticket with their ‘good and able’ people, and take their agenda to the electorate. This then would act as a true test of the national support they claim to have.

  Should they win government (seems unlikely), then under a democratic system the Thai constituency must live with their decision (also seems unlikely). If not, then form a robust opposition acting within parliament. Simple.

• 17 max // Dec 3, 2008 at 11:40 am

  how about the PAD leaders and their guards get thrown in jail for a very long time, never to destroy the credibility of the country’s institutions again?

  According to the legal standards followed by the Consitutional Court, the authorities are obligated to…

  …oh yea, i forgot that i was looking at the results of the Burmese referendum. it seems that constitution kept the will of the people right where the generals wanted it, dead or in jail, in no place to insult the royal Sh’we’.

• 18 Flashman // Dec 3, 2008 at 2:50 pm

  As Thailand continues its decent into political and economic ruin I find the following definition rather apt: “Banana Republic is a pejorative term for a small country that is politically unstable, dependent on limited agriculture (e.g., bananas), and ruled by a small, self-elected, wealthy, and corrupt clique.” Though Thailand’s economy may not be dependent upon agriculture (yet) the self-proclaimed righteous of the opposing factions seem bent on fulfilling this definition. Incidentally, “Banana republics are typically highly prone to revolutions and coups.”

• 19 Chatri Moonstan // Dec 3, 2008 at 6:55 pm

  Blocking the airports, among other violences committed by PAD and it’s gaurds are unacceptable and unlawful.

  Chatri Moonstan
  Ph.D Candidate

• 20 Ralph Kramden // Dec 4, 2008 at 1:59 am

  Abhisit has seen the light (reported in the Nation): “Abhisit said he wanted the transition to the next government to take place under prescribed rules sanctioned by the Constitution. Any ideas to bring about changes by non-constitutional means are not appropriate, he said in reference to the push to form a national unity government.” Guess he was asleep while senior Dems were supporting un-constitutional means….

• 21 hrk // Dec 7, 2008 at 3:46 am

  By chance I came across some interesting argument raised by John Milton.in the 17th century.
  “A Tyrant whether by wrong or by right comming to the Crown, is he who regarding neither Law nor the common good, reigns onely for himself and his faction. …
  It being thus manifest that the power of Kings and Magistrates is nothing else, but what is only derivative, transferr’d and committed to them in trust from the People, to the Common good of them all, in whom the power yet remaines fundamentally, and cannot be tak’n from them
  a King, who governs to the good and profit of his People, and not for his own ends, it follows from necessary causes, that the Titles of Sov’ran Lord, natural Lord, and the like, are either arrogancies, or flatteries. …
  And surely no Prince, not drunk with high mind, …, would arrogate so unreasonably above human condition, or derogate so basely from a whole Nation of men his Brethren, as if for him only subsisting, and to serve his glory; valuing them in comparison of his owne brute will and pleasure, no more then so many beasts, or vermin under his Feet, …; among whom there might be found so many thousand Men for wisdom, vertue, nobleness of mind, and all other respects, but the fortune of his dignity, farr above him.” http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/tenure/index.shtml

Leave a Comment