March 31, 2005
A left wing Thai party? Finally?
‘Peace’ party set up
<> Published on Mar 24, 2005
The Nation
A new political party is being formed to promote peace, equality and social justice.
The People’s Front Party has about 50 founding members that comprise workers from non-governmental organisations (NGOs), labour leaders, villagers and academics, activist Giles Ungphakorn said yesterday.
The decision to form the party was made on Saturday, following a meeting of civic representatives in Bangkok.
The party’s charter is being drafted under the guidelines that all members are equal and all members can be held accountable by impeachment, Giles said.
The party is expected to solicit financial contributions from members and NGOs and will not rely on capitalist support, he said.
He outlined tentative party policies that oppose trade liberalisation, free-trade agreements and privatisation.
Other party platforms include the cancellation of value-added tax, a non-violent approach to solving southern unrest, a progressive-tax levy aimed at ensuring economic parity, and the promotion of the labour movement.
I can't say that I agree to every policy brought up here - especially not the bit about policies that oppose free-trade agreements... I think opposing free-trade agreements is opposing the developing of a country's economy. Larger economies have, throughout history, swallowed up smaller economies - and each nation (by nation I do not mean country, necessarily, but a unified group of people) has had to go through a painful process. In the end, however, the benefits of being able to trade freely with one's neighbours far outweighs the costs. What, I find, people need to do is not to oppose the idea of a free-trade agreement in itself, but rather, more attention needs to be focused on the complications that do arise. Safeguards need to be implemented so that larger economies aren't taking unfair advantage. However, stopping free trade is not a solution. At best, it is a short-term and short-sighted "quick-fix"
That said, what I think of "capitalist funding" is much the same. I believe in a network provided by society. A capitalist system may support the enterprising egotistic businessman, but does it allow him to ever stumble? Why did I say he is egotistic? He doesn't believe he can fall. Last time I spoke to a self-proclaimed capitalist, a couple days ago, he said, "I have to think to the future. I need to look after my parents. I need to look after my children, my grandchildren. So, I must admit, I've got to be a capitalist"
The short-sightedness simply astounds me. Yes. You may get rich in the next ten years. You may even make enough money in this lifetime to ensure the prosperity of the next few generations. But you might not. What can better ensure the safety of all your future generations than to support a system that provides down the line regardless of whether or not your family has succeeded in hoarding all your hard-earned wealth? Why not live in the comfort of knowing that you can be sure your great-grandchildren will receive a publicly-funded education and not rely on your trust-fund?
As a nation, people can think in the future-tense. As a nation, people can plan for the future. As an individual, you fall alone.
****
Just an interesting quote:
"Thaksin is only beginning to discover that the weaker the opposition gets, the more rebellious the factions within the ruling party will become."
-Sutichai Yoon, The Nation
There's somewhere around 20 political parties in Thailand now...
and poor Mr. Thaksin is now going to have to deal with his own party building opposition, as if this half-formed socialist party were not to deal with already.
On the one side, a contempt for capitalism. On the other, a lust for power. Both contending for HIS position.
fon @ Thursday, March 31, 2005 link to post * *
peace or politics?
Over the past 14 months, more than 600 people have been killed in the South
"Governor elections in the restive, predominantly Muslim South are needed to help promote peace and human rights."
-Vitit Muntarbhorn, Chulalongkorn University law professor, March 23, 2005
This is how it's meant to be done!
A BUDDHIST MONK and an Islamic religious teacher register their attendance at a conference on reconciliation efforts for the troubled South at Prince of Songkhla University's Pattani campus yesterday. The meeting was attended by about 70 people from the public and private sectors.
courtesy of "The Nation"
Which just goes to show... how much regard does the prime minister have for the people of the south? Current maps of Thailand's political map show a democratic south and a TRT north. Is Thaksin going to show more regard for the human rights of the people of the south now? No - and the motive is as much political as discriminatory. His stated intentions are to forcefully end the 'rebellion' in the south. Is it a rebellion? As far as I can tell, it's not - it's the oppression of a handful of people who want to be allowed freedom to practice their religious beliefs. It's not right to bomb schools and temples. But what led them to do that? Why has the response been to pull out the heavy artillery to kill the mouse? A vast majority of Thais do not approve of the action taken by the Thai government on the Southern provinces. Or rather... should I say, the vast majority of Thai people who would have a clue, or access to news! After all... it's easy for the TRT to convince the majority of the nation that it's a good idea to March in with a lot of soldiers and kill all the 'islamic rebels' that they find - when they own all the media! Who are they really targeting, though? It seems as though young islamic students are getting the brunt of things. Not political, they say? It sounds to me like a blatant right wing attack on left-wing politics.
fon @ Thursday, March 31, 2005 link to post * *
March 23, 2005
USER PAYS IS NOT DEMOCRATIC
I’d like to pose a counter argument for anyone who says that the most democratic form of student union governance is in a ‘user pays’ system.
Most students make use of their student union’s services – whether it be in the form of a soccer club or childcare services or lounge. There are students that don’t utilize the services at all – true, but is this enough to justify that those who do use and need student services will be at a disadvantage, especially when this group is the majority?
The system of governance of a student union right now can be best described as a Social Democracy. Everyone chips in so that there is an abundance of services available and a support network whenever there is a need.
A user-pays system benefits very few people.
Look at a country like Finland. It’s a Social Democracy. The nation votes every four years to maintain a system whereby they pay very high taxes and in return, are covered for all the ups and downs that life may throw at them. Just because some people don’t believe that they are going to need free education, free healthcare and social benefits doesn’t mean that they don’t have to pay taxes. It’s a society – and because the overwhelming majority see the benefits of having a system where they are supported, all members of that society must pay.
A user-pays system would cut funding to the student union. Services such as discount books, student lounges, representation, tutoring, etc, would have to cut, and perhaps drastically – so, in effect, those who chose to join their student union would be getting much less value for the money they put in.
Democracy? How is it democratic that the minority is indulged and majority disadvantaged? It’s nice to think that everyone can do as they want – and that should be allowed – but when one’s actions affect others, it is not morally justifiable to act according to one’s whims. Otherwise, why would a country need a system of government? Why hold elections and choose these systems of governance if individuals can still follow any set of rules they wish to?
fon @ Wednesday, March 23, 2005 link to post * *