Re: “A human rights-based way forward for Thailand”, The Nation, yesterday.
“Human rights.” What strange words I am hearing in relation to Thailand.
The only people in Thailand who have what can truly be called human rights are those who have endowed amnesty upon themselves for everything they do.
The rest of the population has its human rights restricted by those same people who have given themselves the freedom of amnesty.
Quite a thought-provoking article, though. I have thought all along what Thailand needs is a grassroots leader to bring power to the people, not just another hi-so co-opting their struggle as an avenue to power.
I am confused at some of the terminology, however: “People beg either from a party of populism or from one associated with ultra-nationalist conservative liberals.”
What exactly is a conservative liberal, and does Thailand even have a left-right spectrum? It seems to me that those terms come from a developed democracy, whereas Thailand never made it out of the era of feudalism. What Thailand has still is serfs and masters, it has not yet fully developed into the bourgeoisie versus the proletariat. And it certainly does not resemble any Western system of democracy.
I think the terms left-right and conservative-liberal only confuse the discussion.