From: mptj@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.thai
Subject: <None>
Date: 17 Dec 92 00:28:22 EST
Distribution: soc
Organization: Cornell University

In article <9212111608.AA04228@ipied.tu.ac.th>,
kamol@ipied.tu.ac.th (Kamol Hengkietisak) writes: 
> 
>  
> MILITARY senators yesterday indicated strong opposition to 
> proposals by the House charter amendment committee to bar civil 
> servants from being appointed to the Senate and to reduce the 
> number of senators.
>  
> Deputy Army Chief-of-Staff Lt-Gen Yuthana Kamdee said there should 
> have been more discussion of the issue before the proposal was 
> made.
>  
> "If we are a real democracy, why should there be so many 
> restrictions? Everyone should be able to help, without someone 
> saying which groups can or cannot contribute," Lt-Gen Yuthana 
> said.
>  

Do me a favor, will you. Democracy does not mean anarchy. If there are no 
restrictions at all your tanks will make the laws

> Every senator is capable and experienced, he said. They help to 
> screen bills and give a second opinion on them to the Government.
>  

As it is, the senators are appointed by the PM, so their very existence
is intended to increase the power of the government in an unbalanced way 
in order to overcome the parliament, which is the only body that can restrain
the government. The sentence above should probably read:
"Every senator is capable and experienced in blocking the people's voice in
parliament. They help the government decide wich bills will strengthen 
and which will weaken it, thus helping the government stay close to 
the national funds longer."


> Asked if people should not resign from civil service before 
> becoming senators, Lt-Gen Yuthana said this could be decided when 
> the time comes, and that now is the time for everyone to work 
> together.

Does this person have a lower-than-average inteligence or is it the 
paper that makes him sound so? Is this a good excuse for keeping the
status-quo? It is not even an inteligent one.
 

> Asked if soldiers should be senators, he said soldiers are also 
> well-educated. "Soldiers are good citizens. Why exclude us?" he 
> asked.

This guy is not so stupidafter all. He knows how a few tears can get to the 
heart of his people, regardless of the record of the crocodile that sheds them.
  
> "People in the Army have feelings, too. If something good is said, 
> we are glad, but if something bad is said, we stay neutral because 
> it's not worth arguing about something that should not have been 
> said," he said.

Aren't they nice guys! Don;t hurt their feelings, please. They are used
to the privileges they have. Wouldn't it be a shame to take them away from
them, to end their contron over the senate?

Where were your feelings on May 17, 1991, Mr. Good Heart?

> Former interior minister Gen Sitthi Jirarote, who is now a 
> senator, said he did not understand the intention of the two 
> proposals.
>  
> He has been appointed a senator 14 times, and thought that soldier 
> senators had been able to use their knowledge and experience to 
> help Parliament, he said.
>  
> He was not worried about the number of senators being cut from 270 
> to 120 -- or 
>  the number of MPs. The important question is whether 
> civil servants should be allowed to be senators, he said.
>  
> Soldiers should be represented in the Senate, he said, because the 
> Constitution says all career groups should be represented in the 
> Upper House, he said.
>  

That is really nice. If we are going to go by the constitution then we 
should give the greatest representation to the greatest career group--
the farmers. I don't think soldiers constitute such a large portion of 
society that deserves to have their current representation in the senate.
If there are a million prostitutes in the country, then certainly about 
1.5% of the senators should be prostitutes. And I am not joking. Giving the
people the representation which they deserve will make Thailand a better 
place to live in for everybody except, of course, those who have something to 
lose.


> On a suggestion that the country no longer needs civil servants in 
> the Senate, he said that without civil servants the Senate would 
> have only people nominated by political parties and it would lose 
> the freedom to exercise independent judgement.

>  
> National Security Council secretary-general Gen Charan 
> Kullavanijaya said that whatever is desired should be thought out 
> first before it is spoken in accordance with "democratic 
> principles". He said one should not hurry to make decisions on the 
> two proposals.
>  
> Asked if the two proposals could be considered attacks on the 
> military, he said everyone has the right to express an opinion, 
> but they should put more thought into it first.
>  
Is this a threat or is it a threat? What is he going to do--shoot people for
speaking what they think is right? I think the words "or else" were omitted
from this guy's sentence.


> Industry Minister Sanan Kachornprasart said he supports the 
> proposal to ban government officials from becoming senators.
>  
> It would be strange if a permanent secretary, in his capacity as a 
> senator, would join a censure motion against the Government, said 
> Maj-Gen Sanan, who is also secretary general of the Democrat 
> Party.
>  
It would not be strange if he did so, but is would be dangerous if he were
used as a rubber stamp for the government.

> He disagreed with political parties being allowed to propose 
> Senate candidates because members of the Upper House should be 
> independent, he said.
>  
> Deputy Interior Minister Chamni Sakdiset said he thinks senior 
> government officials should continue to be appointed to the Senate 
> but that their numbers should be cut.
>
> Because the officials are capable in several fields, they can help 
> Parliament screen legislation, said the Palang Dharma Party MP.
>  
> However, the Senate has so many senior government officials that 
> they have become another pressure group in the Upper House, he 
> added. He also said that if senators are appointed by political 
> parties, it will compromise the independence of the Upper House.
                                   
That is probably true. But they should not be appointed by teh government 
or the military. It has to be realized that some groups are by their nature
more apt to obtain unbalanced power. These are, first of all, the military
adn the government. Democracy takes measures to limit these bodies' power.
In the case of the Thai military, they have demonstrated time and again
that they are brutal, undemocratic and inhumane in the way they would do 
anything to maintain their power. There is no place to consider their
feelings, as Yuthana so patheticly asked. Those, as they have proven just
seven months ago, only apply to loving themselves and hating their rightful
enemy. Keeping the influence of the military under strict control is more than
an ideology of government; it is simply a good idea based on the face that 
the military has shown with no shame last May. Until they behave themselves
for many, many years, they should not be trusted. It is simple: they hold
the weapons. If you leave yourself to their good will, you are as good as dead.
This situation  does not exist in every country, and the fact that the military
is the military does not mean they have to be bad. But having been very bad, 
they should understand that statements like Yuthana's only delay the
day when they could be trusted again.

	Abi