Endorsing and Encouraging

I am no expert on the english language, but if I had to guess I would say the 2 are quite different. It is one thing to endorse an act AFTER it has taken place, and yes that may imply agreeing with it. But the political situation in Thailand and the division of powers are not as simple as what the media sometime tend to present. The King is loved and respected, yet he exercise also certain restraint on himself in terms of when he chooses to use the power that this love and respect begets.

On the other hand, there is encouraging, which to me usually would happen before and during the act takes place.

What the local media repeatedly talks about is the fact that the King gave his endorsement to the Military rule, and sure enough the international media has picked up on that and sends out that same message to the world.

What I dont understand is how can the media forget the fact that it was the King himself who asked that Thailand's Constitutional Court re-look at the April 2 Elections, which they did, and had declared it void. As a result the Elections Commissions was sacked and sentenced to jail for misconduct! Since then a new Commission have been selected and only recently appointed, about 2 weeks before the coup took place.

A clear message from the King that he would like to see things rectified, through legal democratic process! This obviously shows that the only thing he encouraged was the use of democratic process to end Thailand's political impasse at that time. That is the first thing I would like to highlight.

There was still a case under process on the allegations against Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai political party for misconduct during the same April 2 Elections.

So whats my point? Many people have over the last week or so asked me the question whether if the military did not interfere with the coup, would Thailand's judiciary and democratic system be strong enough to correct itself.
I cannot say that the process will be fool-proof, but what system in the world can claim that. However, in my limited knowledge of the law and such, I personally feel that in the past few months since the start of 2006 the people's voices have in fact become stronger! The media, although seen as under pressure from government, were able to report also about the negative aspects or alleged abuse of power by the government. Does that not spell some form of strengthening of the democratic process?

And yes then I get asked about how people in power take advantage of loopholes in the Constitution and the law. To me, democracy is a continuous process of work-in-progress, it does not end at a point where a certain Constitution is produced and that is the be-all perfect answer to everything. There will always be loopholes as things change, society change, problems change. What needs to be done is an update/improvement rather than throw things away and always start from scratch. The 1997 Constitution in Thailand is referred to as the first true People's Constitution, as it was drafted with input from various sectors. Flaws there may be, but totally useless to the extent that needs to be thrown away?
That is a question I would leave for all of us to think about......