StoneSoup Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 This reply is not actually to Khun Sanuk - I'm just using KS's post as a default, so that I won't appear to be "aiming" at any one individual. Reading this entire thread has been very enlightening, in an interesting way. Reading the various comments has given me some new insights into many of the personas/characters of boad members - a few whom I know personally, and others who I have yet to meet. What strikes me is that most posters seem to line up in one of two camps. One camp's view can be summarized: "Who gives a shit? All Thais are expendable anyway - they're just sperm receptacles for us to rut with. These low-lifes won't be missed - lets get on with interesting topics - like which bars have the best pussy shows these days????" The other camp's viewpoint is: "Hey, I've adopted Thailand as my place, and these folks were my hard-working neighbors. They got brutally victimized, and the fact that life here can go from happy and stable to wiped out and penniless bewteen 4:00 am and dawn is unsettling. The only thing that has a chance to prevent such things in the future is to show solidarity with my Thai neighbors now. How can I help?" These two camps will never mix very well. My own thoughts? Well, I'm in the second camp. Thinking about the two approaches led me to track down the following lines, written following World War II (and, reading them again brought tears to my eyes, for some reason): First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me. Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945. As an event in the big scheme of things, the "Soi 10 massacre" won't really add up to much. But - what it stands for might be a lot more important than it appears at the surface. Time will tell. Stone Soup As Irish philosopher Edmund Burke noted, many generations ago: "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straycat Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Agree with you, it'll be interesting. However, you're still wrong. It's not a consitutional matter in the strict sense. If I were the property owner (and Thai) who did this you cannot sue me on the basis of Thailands constitution. As I said, it's nit-picking -- but I do understand what you're conveying in your post: Is thailand a land following the 'rule of law' where it's citizens rights and liberties are protected (even if it's a civil matter, i.e. people<--->people)? Thailands consitution is here for anyone interested. Peace out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thalenoi Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Says Yehtmae: Agreed. Very suprisingly efficient for a change. That's the military mind for you though - no nonsense, just get it done. That's bullshit. You should have seen the army company cleaning the beach last year here. 10 soldiers cleaning and 90 resting plus 10 officers drinking at the restaurant owner's expenses Let them clean the beach again, badly needed hear iso ripping down soi 10. That's tourists not coming back here, seeing all the dirt on the beach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoiledCowboy Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 A very provocative post and possibly a bit-short-sighted..... Spare a thought for the punters who found a home there and we will spare a thought for you if your favourite hangout is obliterated in two hours without warning. If only just to offer a bit of compassion to the innocent parties involved in the torrid events - people have to have bread and butter on the table to survive and quite possibly some don't now. The British were just as cocky about the loss of the Empire in graduation - they could not/would not see the writing on the wall - and "we" may be the British in this scenario, time will tell...... :: :: :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khwaimaisabai Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Hi straycat, IMHO this becomes a constitutional matter when the police get involved and face their duty to enforce the law. Are they going to do that? I am no lawyer, but it seems to me that what was done must be illegal. Surely in Europe, Australia, America etc. The fact that you own a property does not give you a right to damage things that belong to somebody else just because those things happen to be on your property. Get a court order to have them removed if you like. Call the police to enforce it, but this sort of action must be against any laws that uphold civil liberties and human rights. Khwai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 This is fun. We gotta have a beer some time. Please refer to the exerpts from the constitution to determine if this is a constitutional issue (The constitituiton is the umbrella for both civil and criminal rights). I have inserted section 70 because, according to one of the Lumphini police who was there at 4AM. Most of the men were in army uniforms, the trucks and equipment were army. Section 35 [] A person shall enjoy the liberty of dwelling. A person is protected for his or her peaceful habitation in and for possession of his or her dwelling place. The entry into a dwelling place without consent of its possessor or the search thereof shall not be made except by virtue of the law. Section 48 [] The property right of a person is protected. The extent and the restriction of such right shall be in accordance with the provisions of the law. The succession is protected. The right of succession of a person shall be in accordance with the provisions of the law. Section 49 [] The expropriation of immovable property shall not be made except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for the purpose of public utilities, necessary national defence, exploitation of national resources, town and country planning, promotion and preservation of the quality of the environment, agricultural or industrial development, land reform, or other public interests, and fair compensation shall be paid in due time to the owner thereof as well as to all persons having the rights thereto, who suffer loss by such expropriation, as provided by law. The amount of compensation under paragraph one shall be fairly assessed with due regard to the normal purchase price, mode of acquisition, nature and situation of the immovable property, and loss of the person whose property or right thereto is expropriated. The law on expropriation of immovable property shall specify the purpose of the expropriation and shall clearly determine the period of time to fulfil that purpose. If the immovable property is not used to fulfil such purpose within such period of time, it shall be returned to the original owner or his or her heir. The return of immovable property to the original owner or his or her heir under paragraph three and the claim of compensation paid shall be in accordance with the provisions of the law. Section 70 [] A Government official, official or employee of a State agency, State enterprise or local government organisation and other State official shall have a duty to act in compliance with the law in order to protect public interests, and provide convenience and services to the public. In performing the duty and other acts relating to the public, the persons under paragraph one shall be politically impartial. In the case where the persons under paragraph one neglect or fail to perform the duties under paragraph one or paragraph two, the interested person shall have the right to request the persons under paragraph one or their superiors to explain reasons and request them to act in compliance with the provisions of paragraph one or paragraph two. Section 84 [] The State shall organise the appropriate system of the holding and use of land, provide sufficient water resources for farmers and protect the interests of farmers in the production and marketing of agricultural products to achieve maximum benefits, and promote the assembling of farmers with a view to laying down agricultural plans and protecting their mutual interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straycat Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 You don't give up easy, do you? Yes, if this was indeed organized and/or supported by the government it's clearly a breach of the Constitution. If it wasn't, it's not. Please, note the very first section of Chapter III ("Rights and Liberties of the Thai People") where your excerpt belong: Section 26In exercising powers of all State authorities, regard shall be had to human dignity, rights and liberties in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. Now, it may not be enough that Mr Big was a general (as the rumours goes) and that he presumably used military personnel (as reported). The question you have to ask is: Did Mr Big act in his capacity as a government official (i.e. military general)? I suspect he did not, and hence you've nothing to accuse the government with (other than that Thailand may recruite top-staff poorly). The Sukhumvit Square raise all sorts of issues. From a lawyering point of view however -- as I see it with the current set of 'rumours' -- it's not a constitutional issue. That is not to say that the whole event can't be discussed with the constitution as a 'background'. It holds no legal value in this case however. * * * I'd be happy to share a beer or two though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steffi Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 The real test of the media coverage aspect of this will be if the Post publishes any of the letters to the editor that they will receive over this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straycat Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 An interesting twist -- and an important aspect for farang residents/business owners in Thailand -- would be the State's responsibility towards foreigners 'Rights and Liberties' under the constitution. Study the headline of Chapter III very carefully: ...Rights and Liberties of the Thai People Now, I don't have time to look closer at Thailands situation but let me tell you that protection for foreigners rights and liberties in many other countries are very limited. Something to certainly think about. EDIT: slight changes of wording Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
think_too_mut Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 >A very provocative post and possibly a bit-short-sighted..... Spare a thought for the punters who found a home there and we will spare a thought for you if your favourite hangout is obliterated in two hours without warning. If only just to offer a bit of compassion to the innocent parties involved in the torrid events - people have to have bread and butter on the table to survive and quite possibly some don't now. Perhaps, I should have used different wording. Agreeing with CardinalBlue that this awful event will not have too much of an impact on BKK's night life, I have never lost my compassion for the individuals who got devastated. Especially for the "proleters". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.