What does it mean?

[Flashermac]

THE NATION

1 June 2007

 

Scholars mixed about verdict and rule of law

 

 

The historic verdict that disbanded the Thai Rak Thai Party is simply history repeating itself - with the 1957 political battle between two field marshals.

 

Political historian Thamrongsak Petchlert-anan said yesterday the fate of ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his Thai Rak Thai Party was the "same old story" in Thai politics - as when Field Marshal Sarit Tanarat staged a coup against the elected government of Field Marshal Phibulsongkram.

 

Phibul's government was accused of cheating at the polls, and Sarit used this as a reason to stage the coup, said Asst Prof Thamrongsak, a lecturer in Thai political history at Rangsit University.

 

To justify that coup, Field Marshal Sarit had to hold a new election he claimed would be 'free and fair'. But in the new election, Sarit used "political tools" to threaten members of Phibul's party.

 

While the coup forced Phibul into permanent exile, the junta accused executives in Phibul's party of supporting the old power.

 

"The verdict on Wednesday was the conclusion of the two-year battle for political power. If the 19 September coup d'etat was aimed at toppling Thaksin, then the last chapter the coup makers needed was to destroy Thaksin's root of power - his political party," Thamrongsak said. The political historian was once sued by Thaksin's iTV network for Bt80 million for criticising Thaksin's takeover of the television channel.

 

The verdict has received mixed reactions from political scientists and law professors.

 

Pit Pongsawat of Chulalongkorn's Faculty of Political Science said the finding showed how society was governed by the "rule by law" - rather than the "rule of law".

 

But fellow scholar Chaiyan Chaiyaporn said the verdict set a clearer standard on the rule of law. "I don't think the coup totally destroyed democracy," said Chaiyan, who led a group of Chulalongkorn scholars to ask for a royal-appointed premier before the coup last year.

 

Law professor Prasit Piva-vatthanapanich of Thammasat University said that five-year ban was "too much" and doubted if the rule of law existed in Thailand, since the judgement was based on an order issued by the Council for National Security.

 

"It means that whoever seizes power can make the laws," said Prasit, adding it is meaningless that Thailand is a state party of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

 

Thanet Wongyannawa of Thammasat University's Faculty of Political Science said the verdict showed it was "politics beyond anything".

 

[Faustian]

Wow! He's not the sharpest tool in the box is he...as demonstrated by this profound bit of insight...

 

"It means that whoever seizes power can make the laws," said Prasit, adding it is meaningless that Thailand is a state party of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

 

This has obviously been a recent revelation to him...good to know that such intellectial leviathans are teaching the future generations of Thailand...for a moment there i thought the place was fucked...

[chuckwoww]

It means if you are going to rig elections make sure you don't leave any evidence. No hanging chads.

[Flashermac]

Use the old type machines where you pulled a lever. In Mayor Daley's Chicago in 1960, it turned out that a lot of the Republican levers for some reason didn't record a vote. Oddly enough, the Democratic ones always did.

 

 

p.s. Interesting comparison between Pibul and Mr T, since Pibul spent the rest of his life in exile (in Japan).

 

[elef]

It means if you are going to rig elections make sure you don't leave any evidence. No hanging chads.

 

 

If you're brother of the governor in Florida and son of the president who appointed the majority of the supreme court (together with his mentor and predecessor) you're sure to decide the next president without any evidence left. He will be a man and republican of course.

[elef]

Shit I found out that Jeb isn't governor of Florida any more so this must be the end of the power of the Bush family, or maybe not.

 

Other Presidents

Current President George W. Bush is related to other presidents as well as Pierce. On his father's side, he is a cousin of Fillmore (via Millards), Lincoln (via Gilmans), Grant (via Lathrops), Hayes (via Smiths, Footes, and Huckinses), Garfield (via Wheelers, Carpenters, Warrens, and Holbrooks), Cleveland (via Smiths and Stanleys), Benjamin Harrison (via Hortons), Theodore Roosevelt (via Schuylers), Coolidge (via Phillipses, Hortons, Ravenses, Richardsons, Bulkeleys, and Morses), Franklin Roosevelt (via Beekmans, Hutchinsons, Popes, Jenneys, Richardses, Palgraves, Lathrops, and Howlands), and Ford (via Vanderburghs, Ayers, Wheelers, Gilmans, and Howlands). On his mother's side, he is related to Taft (via Holbrooks, Thayers, Haywards, Cookes, and Waterses), Hoover (via Brookses), and Nixon (via Lippincotts).

 

Bush family

 

Crist is the answer of course to the republican crisis - he's a republican too.

[Flashermac]

He is also a distant cousin of John Kerry.

 

Doesn't really mean very much though, since these are mostly New England families. Colonial America had less than 3 million people (including the slaves), spread all along the coast from Canada to Florida.

 

I am descended from some historically prominent and very wealthy people too, including several Plantagenet monarchs and Charlemagne. So are probably half the people in the US, UK and Canada.

 

We are all a mix of peasants and princes. Centuries ago, there simply weren't that many people in Europe - and the Black Death killed off about half of them. Not all that many folks for us to be descended from.