Link to Article, Bangkok under state of emergency, 9/02/08, The BBCIn Bangkok, members of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), clashed with supporters of the current Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, as well as police, leaving at least 1 person dead. The Prime Minister believes he had no other choice but to enlist the help of the Thailand army in order to resolve the week-long protest. The BBC states, "Protesters went on to shut down airports and rail services. Public sector unions said they would begin a nationwide strike at 43 state enterprises on Wednesday unless the prime minister stepped down." The PAD clearly do not wish for the current Prime Minster to remain in power because they say he is just a front for the previous Prime Minister who is now in exile. Claims have been made that the current Prime Minister has been accused of buying votes in the previous election.
In America's Declaration of Independence, we are given the basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Although I am not particularly familiar with Thailand law, I am certain that the Thailand public has a smaller range of granted liberties than that of the American public. What if a seemingly similar situation were to occur in America? How would our government's actions differ from those of Thailand's government?
I feel that our government would not respond as harshly as the Thailand government. Protests in support of various political ideas are quite common in America because we are all guaranteed our right to free speech. We are given the right to a peaceful protest, this is what draws the line between civility and anarchy. However, I believe if American protesters shut down airports and public transportation using force, the government would not sit idle too long before dispersing such a protest. Such an event would cause airports and public transit stations to flood with millions of travelers/commuters, possibly resulting in heavy economic loss.
No comments:
Post a Comment