October 3, 2024: Israel and Iran have been physically and verbally quarrelling for much of the past five decades, but this is the moment where bystanders seriously run for cover.
Pro-Israel media have played down damage caused by Iranian missile attacks on Israel earlier this week, whereas the other side has claimed the opposite, saying the assaults have shown how the “Iron Dome” (Israel’s much-proclaimed air defense system) was overrated.
Whatever the truth is, Israel will definitely respond, and its leader Benjamin Netanyahu said Iran would pay a very heavy price. To add to that, Israel’s allies have been more united behind it than when the innocent Gazans died in large numbers or when Israel and Iran were engaged in previous standoffs.
At first, the world prayed for Gaza and it also prayed that the war did not spread from the territory. Then Lebanon was attacked, and after that Iran fired its missiles, prompting a revenge vow from Israel and no-nonsense pledge of support from the United States.
Let’s give them biggest honour
October 2, 2024: The nation has become sadly harmonised, and that’s the least yet perhaps most meaningful thing Thailand can do for the pure school souls.
For once, newscasters are in gloomy unison without a shred of sarcasm. For once, the social media think truly about others and not themselves. For once, the politicians are sincerely solemn.
We can’t reverse the immense and tragic loss, but we can still give those who have passed away the best honour we can possibly give them. And there is no bigger honour than making the earnest empathy evident at this very moment last.
It will be extremely difficult, especially when the situation might seem to require finding who was (or were) at fault, but we must try.
Pros and cons of “Double Majority”
October 1, 2024: If a country wants to change its Constitution, how many of its citizens have to give consent?
The logical answer is the majority, of course.
The simplicity stops there. The Senate and the House of Representatives disagree with each other over what actually constitutes majority agreement on whether the charter should be or should not be changed.
The Senate thinks more than half of eligible voters have to be involved in saying whether they want changes or not, and then what more than half of those involved think will decide “Yes” or “No” wins. They call it “Double Majority”.
Reasonable, proponents say. If more than half of eligible voters stay home, there is no point making changes that the “majority of Thais” is not interested in. Is it fair to effect constitutional changes that only 20 million people in a 71-million-people nation want?
Much ado about nothing and possibly time-consuming, the opponents argue. How can you give “lazy” people who choose to stay home the right to determine the country’s future? To add to that, if they are dragged out of their homes to vote, they may even vote “Yes (I do want changes)”, which is a huge irony if their absence cancels the whole amendment process.
Also, the proponents say many countries adhere to the “Double Majority” when it comes to public referendums. Check it out, the opponents insist, because most of those countries are republics (with possibly different or clashing needs and cultures) which is what makes “Double Majority” come in handy.
(With ideological divide considerably deep in Thailand, being a republic or not does not quite matter, though, some may argue.)
As for the matter of how long it takes, one side will say what’s the rush and the other will ask what the point is for the delay?
What do you think?
Daily updates of local and international events by Tulsathit Taptim.
