關於 history of u.s. constitution ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

黑人歷史月系列文又來囉！今天我們要肯定芭芭拉喬丹的貢獻！芭芭拉喬丹是一名國會議員、律師、教育家、演說家及民權運動領袖。1972年時，喬丹成為首位入選眾議院的美國南部非裔美籍女性，當時她堅定捍衛美國憲法，並發起超過300個立法提案，這些法律至今仍有效力。除此之外，她也是知名的調解者，她總能在截然不同的觀點中找到共同點。一起來看她的貢獻：https://www.history.com/topi…/black-history/barbara-c-jordan #BlackHistoryMonth #黑人歷史月

It’s Black History Month, and today we recognize the career of Congresswoman, lawyer, educator, skilled orator, and Civil Rights Leader Barbara Jordan. In 1972, Jordan became the first African American woman from the American South elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where she became a staunch defender of the U.S. Constitution and the sponsor of over 300 pieces of legislation that are still in effect today. Above all, she was known as a skilled mediator, someone who was able to find common ground among even the most disparate viewpoints. Learn more here: https://www.history.com/topi…/black-history/barbara-c-jordan

There is English version below.
All i can say is"respect is common sense"
And please kindly do respect us and respect our loss. Please do share as much as you can.

ถึงประเทศอเมริกา
Dear America,
...
(Please see Eng. below)

จากข่าวเมื่อวันที่ 17 ตุลาคม ที่ผ่านมา เจ้าหน้าที่ระดับสูงของสหรัฐ ออกมาบอกว่า
"การเข้มงวดในการแสดงความคิดเห็นเกี่ยวกับสถาบันพระมหากษัตริย์ของไทย เป็นการลิดรอนสิทธิเสรีภาพของประชาชน....".
เขาคงไม่ได้คิดว่า สิทธิเสรีภาพที่แสดงออกโดยขาดการไตร่ตรองและขาดจิตสำนึกเคารพสิ่งที่พึงเคารพ ได้นำพาประเทศของเขาและโลกไปสู่ทิศทางใด สหรัฐไม่เคยมีกษัตริย์ที่ทรงบนหลังช้าง หลังม้า เผชิญหน้ากันตัวต่อตัวกับอริราชศัตรู สู้รบพลีชีพเพื่อรักษาอิสรภาพให้แก่ชาติและพสกนิกร เขาไม่เคยเข้าถึงที่มาของประวัติศาสตร์ที่โชกไปด้วยการสละเลือดเนื้อและจิตวิญญาณของวีรกษัตริย์และวีรบุรุษไทย ที่ยังความสงบและความรุ่งเรืองให้แก่ชนในชาติ แล้วไย จึงจะใช้หลักวิธีว่าด้วยเสรีภาพที่ไม่มีขอบเขต มาวิพากษ์วิจารณ์การปกครองของไทย อย่างไร้มารยาท
ขอใช้พื้นที่สาธารณะนี้ ฝากถึงอเมริกาอีกครั้งว่า
...
Dear America,
ไทย เป็นอิสระและรุ่งเรืองมาได้ด้วยรากฐานจากพระมหากษัตริย์
เสรีภาพในการแสดงออก ต้องอยู่ภายใต้กรอบของจิตสำนึกในการเคารพจารีตประเพณีและประวัติศาสตร์ อย่าจินตนาการว่าเราไม่มีเสรีภาพ
ชาติไทยไม่ได้มาจากคนใส่สูท แต่มาจากผู้ขี่หลังช้างหลังม้า
จนเกิดเป็นสถาบันพระมหากษัตริย์ อย่าอ้างแต่คำว่าเสรีภาพ
แล้วหาช่องยุยงให้คนแสดงออกอย่างขาดจิตสำนึก....
เราไม่ลืมรากเหง้าของเราเอง
.
โลกไม่ได้มีมุมเดียว ประวัติศาสตร์ไม่ได้เขียนมาจากชนชาติเดียว
Respect is common sense ความเคารพคือจิตสำนึกที่ดีงาม
โปรดเข้าใจตามนี้
.
สำหรับคนไทยที่ยังไม่รู้ว่า ทำไมมหาชนจึงถวายเคารพรักและภักดี
ต่อในหลวงได้ถึงเพียงนี้ ก็ควรเปิดปัญญาศึกษาประวัติศาสตร์ว่า
ชาติเราเป็นปึกแผ่นได้เพราะอะไร
อย่าเพ้อแต่คำว่าเสรีภาพ เพื่อหาทางร่ำร้องแสดงออกอย่างขาดจิตสำนึก
ความเป็นชาติ ไม่ได้มีแค่ธงชาติและบทบัญญัติ ที่เขียนกันขึ้นมาเอง
อย่าลืมว่า ...ประเทศชาติมีวันนี้ได้ เพราะใคร
..
อาจารย์อัจฉราวดี วงศ์สกล
21 ตุลาคม 2559
...
ยินดีให้แชร์เพื่อความดีงาม
....
....
...

From the news I read on October 17, A high-ranking U.S. officer said “The strict control against expressing opinion toward Thai monarchy is the deprivation of the right to freedom of expression…”

Though he fails to understand that the right to freedom of expression requires a common respect. Unbridled freedom of speech without respect has brought the US and many nations, untold troubles.

The United States of America never had a King who fought with his own life for the freedom of his nation and his people. The US officer does not understand the origin of our history which is filled with the sacrifice of Thai Kings and soldiers who created peace and prosperity for the Thai people.

Why should he use the principal of the limitless freedom of expression to criticize our system of government with improper manner?

May I use this public space to make my statement to America once again;
...
Dear America,

Thailand is free and has been glorious because of its foundation built by our monarch institution.

Freedom of speech must be under mutual consent of respecting other tradition, culture and history. Please do not imagine that Thailand has no freedom of speech or that it is too limited.

The Thai nation was not built by people in suits, but by those on the back of elephants and horses who sacrificed their lives and created the royal institution.

The concept of 'freedom of speech' can not be used to manipulate people to behave with lack of proper consideration and righteousness.

We never forget our roots.

The world does not have only one angle. History is not written by one nation.
Respect is common sense.
.
For Thais who have no idea why most people have such utmost love and respect to King Bhumibol Adulyadej they should open their minds and learn through history...that because of how?... our nation has been resolute and unified. Don't ramble about freedom just to show your views without proper consideration.

Being a nation is not only about the national flag or The Constitution. Don't forget...it is because of whom?...that the nation has endured until today.
.
Acharavadee Wongsakon
Vipassana Meditation Master
President & Founder of Knowing Buddha Organization

A GOOD READ from one of the greatest leader that lived, #SINGAPORE's founding man, #LeeKuanYew

THIS MUST BE SHARED AND THOROUGHLY READ BY EVERY FILIPINO... Its quite long but it will surely strengthen our minds but then at the end, I was like "SAYANG!!!"
It came from the SINGAPORE'S FOUNDING MAN ITSELF, former Prime Minister LEE KUAN YEW on how the Philippines should have become, IF ONLY...

I've just read it and, its point blank!
Its a good read
____________

(The following excerpt is taken from pages 299 – 305 from Lee Kuan Yew’s book “From Third World to First”, Chapter 18 “Building Ties with Thailand, the Philippines, and Brunei”)

*

The Philippines was a world apart from us, running a different style of politics and government under an American military umbrella. It was not until January 1974 that I visited President Marcos in Manila. When my Singapore Airlines plane flew into Philippine airspace, a small squadron of Philippine Air Force jet fighters escorted it to Manila Airport. There Marcos received me in great style – the Filipino way. I was put up at the guest wing of Malacañang Palace in lavishly furnished rooms, valuable objects of art bought in Europe strewn all over. Our hosts were gracious, extravagant in hospitality, flamboyant. Over a thousand miles of water separated us. There was no friction and little trade. We played golf, talked about the future of ASEAN, and promised to keep in touch.

His foreign minister, Carlos P. Romulo, was a small man of about five feet some 20 years my senior, with a ready wit and a self-deprecating manner about his size and other limitations. Romulo had a good sense of humor, an eloquent tongue, and a sharp pen, and was an excellent dinner companion because he was a wonderful raconteur, with a vast repertoire of anecdotes and witticisms. He did not hide his great admiration for the Americans. One of his favourite stories was about his return to the Philippines with General MacArthur. As MacArthur waded ashore at Leyte, the water reached his knees but came up to Romulo’s chest and he had to swim ashore. His good standing with ASEAN leaders and with Americans increased the prestige of the Marcos administration. Marcos had in Romulo a man of honor and integrity who helped give a gloss of respectability to his regime as it fell into disrepute in the 1980s.

In Bali in 1976, at the first ASEAN summit held after the fall of Saigon, I found Marcos keen to push for greater economic cooperation in ASEAN. But we could not go faster than the others. To set the pace, Marcos and I agreed to implement a bilateral Philippines-Singapore across-the-board 10 percent reduction of existing tariffs on all products and to promote intra-ASEAN trade. We also agreed to lay a Philippines-Singapore submarine cable. I was to discover that for him, the communiqué was the accomplishment itself; its implementation was secondary, an extra to be discussed at another conference.

We met every two to three years. He once took me on a tour of his library at Malacañang, its shelves filled with bound volumes of newspapers reporting his activities over the years since he first stood for elections. There were encyclopedia-size volumes on the history and culture of the Philippines with his name as the author. His campaign medals as an anti-Japanese guerrilla leader were displayed in glass cupboards. He was the undisputed boss of all Filipinos. Imelda, his wife, had a penchant for luxury and opulence. When they visited Singapore before the Bali summit they came in stye in two DC8’s, his and hers.

Marcos did not consider China a threat for the immediate future, unlike Japan. He did not rule out the possibility of an aggressive Japan, if circumstances changed. He had memories of the horrors the Imperial Army had inflicted on Manila. We had strongly divergent views on the Vietnamese invasion and occupation of Cambodia. While he, pro forma, condemned the Vietnamese occupation, he did not consider it a danger to the Philippines. There was the South China Sea separating them and the American navy guaranteed their security. As a result, Marcos was not active on the Cambodian question. Moreover, he was to become preoccupied with the deteriorating security in his country.

Marcos, ruling under martial law, had detained opposition leader Benigno (Ninoy) Aquino, reputed to be as charismatic and powerful a campaigner as he was. He freed Aquino and allowed him to go to the United States. As the economic situation in the Philippines deteriorated, Aquino announced his decision to return. Mrs. Marcos issued several veiled warnings. When the plane arrived at Manila Airport from Taipei in August 1983, he was shot as he descended from the aircraft. A whole posse of foreign correspondents with television camera crews accompanying him on the aircraft was not enough protection.

International outrage over the killing resulted in foreign banks stopping all loans to the Philippines, which owed over US$25 billion and could not pay the interest due. This brought Marcos to the crunch. He sent his minister for trade and industry, Bobby Ongpin, to ask me for a loan of US$300-500 million to meet the interest payments. I looked him straight in the eye and said, “We will never see that money back.” Moreover, I added, everyone knew that Marcos was seriously ill and under constant medication for a wasting disease. What was needed was a strong, healthy leader, not more loans.

Shortly afterward, in February 1984, Marcos met me in Brunei at the sultanate’s independence celebrations. He had undergone a dramatic physical change. Although less puffy than he had appeared on television, his complexion was dark as if he had been out in the sun. He was breathing hard as he spoke, his voice was soft, eyes bleary, and hair thinning. He looked most unhealthy. An ambulance with all the necessary equipment and a team of Filipino doctors were on standby outside his guest bungalow. Marcos spent much of the time giving me a most improbable story of how Aquino had been shot.

As soon as all our aides left, I went straight to the point, that no bank was going to lend him any money. They wanted to know who was going to succeed him if anything were to happen to him; all the bankers could see that he no longer looked healthy. Singapore banks had lent US$8 billion of the US$25 billion owing. The hard fact was they were not likely to get repayment for some 20 years. He countered that it would be only eight years. I said the bankers wanted to see a strong leader in the Philippines who could restore stability, and the Americans hoped the election in May would throw up someone who could be such a leader. I asked whom he would nominate for the election. He said Prime Minister Cesar Virata. I was blunt. Virata was a nonstarter, a first-class administrator but no political leader; further, his most politically astute colleague, defense minister Juan Ponce Enrile, was out of favour. Marcos was silent, then he admitted that succession was the nub of the problem. If he could find a successor, there would be a solution. As I left, he said, “You are a true friend.” I did not understand him. It was a strange meeting.

With medical care, Marcos dragged on. Cesar Virata met me in Singapore in January the following year. He was completely guileless, a political innocent. He said that Mrs. Imelda Marcos was likely to be nominated as the presidential candidate. I asked how that could be when there were other weighty candidates, including Juan Ponce Enrile and Blas Ople, the labor minister. Virata replied it had to do with “flow of money; she would have more money than other candidates to pay for the votes needed for nomination by the party and to win the election. He added that if she were the candidate, the opposition would put up Mrs. Cory Aquino and work up the people’s feelings. He said the economy was going down with no political stability.

The denouement came in February 1986 when Marcos held presidential elections which he claimed he won. Cory Aquino, the opposition candidate, disputed this and launched a civil disobedience campaign. Defense Minister Juan Enrile defected and admitted election fraud had taken place, and the head of the Philippine constabulary, Lieutenant General Fidel Ramos, joined him. A massive show of “people power” in the streets of Manila led to a spectacular overthrow of a dictatorship. The final indignity was on 25 February 1986, when Marcos and his wife fled in U.S. Air Force helicopters from Malacañang Palace to Clark Air Base and were flown to Hawaii. This Hollywood-style melodrama could only have happened in the Philippines.

Mrs. Aquino was sworn in as president amid jubilation. I had hopes that this honest, God-fearing woman would help regain confidence for the Philippines and get the country back on track. I visited her that June, three months after the event. She was a sincere, devout Catholic who wanted to do her best for her country by carrying out what she believed her husband would have done had he been alive, namely, restore democracy to the Philippines. Democracy would then solve their economic and social problems. At dinner, Mrs. Aquino seated the chairman of the constitutional commission, Chief Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma, next to me. I asked the learned lady what lessons her commission had learned from the experience of the last 40 years since independence in 1946 would guide her in drafting the constitution. She answered without hesitation, “We will not have any reservations or limitations on our democracy. We must make sure that no dictator can ever emerge to subvert the constitution.” Was there no incompatibility of the American-type separation of powers with the culture and habits of the Filipino people that had caused problems for the presidents before Marcos? Apparently none.

Endless attempted coups added to Mrs. Aquino’s problems. The army and the constabulary had been politicized. Before the ASEAN summit in December 1987, a coup was threatened. Without President Suharto’s firm support the summit would have been postponed and confidence in Aquino’s government undermined. The Philippine government agreed that the responsibility for security should be shared between them and the other ASEAN governments, in particular the Indonesian government. General Benny Moerdani, President Suharto’s trusted aide, took charge. He positioned an Indonesian warship in the middle of Manila Bay with helicopters and a commando team ready to rescue the ASEAN heads of government if there should be a coup attempt during the summit. I was included in their rescue plans. I wondered if such a rescue could work but decided to go along with the arrangements, hoping that the show of force would scare off the coup leaders. We were all confined to the Philippine Plaza Hotel by the seafront facing Manila Bay where we could see the Indonesian warship at anchor. The hotel was completely sealed off and guarded. The summit went off without any mishap. We all hoped that this show of united support for Mrs. Aquino’s government at a time when there were many attempts to destabilize it would calm the situation.

It made no difference. There were more coup attempts, discouraging investments badly needed to create jobs. This was a pity because they had so many able people, educated in the Philippines and the United States. Their workers were English-speaking, at least in Manila. There was no reason why the Philippines should not have been one of the more successful of the ASEAN countries. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was the most developed, because America had been generous in rehabilitating the country after the war. Something was missing, a gel to hold society together. The people at the top, the elite mestizos, had the same detached attitude to the native peasants as the mestizos in their haciendas in Latin America had toward their peons. They were two different societies: Those at the top lived a life of extreme luxury and comfort while the peasants scraped a living, and in the Philippines it was a hard living. They had no land but worked on sugar and coconut plantations.They had many children because the church discouraged birth control. The result was increasing poverty.

It was obvious that the Philippines would never take off unless there was substantial aid from the United States. George Shultz, the secretary of state, was sympathetic and wanted to help but made clear to me that the United States would be better able to do something if ASEAN showed support by making its contribution. The United States was reluctant to go it alone and adopt the Philippines as its special problem. Shultz wanted ASEAN to play a more prominent role to make it easier for the president to get the necessary votes in Congress. I persuaded Shultz to get the aid project off the ground in 1988, before President Reagan’s second term of office ended. He did. There were two meetings for a Multilateral Assistance Initiative (Philippines Assistance Programme): The first in Tokyo in 1989 brought US$3.5 billion in pledges, and the second in Hong Kong in 1991, under the Bush administration, yielded US$14 billion in pledges. But instability in the Philippines did not abate. This made donors hesitant and delayed the implementation of projects.

Mrs. Aquino’s successor, Fidel Ramos, whom she had backed, was more practical and established greater stability. In November 1992, I visited him. In a speech to the 18th Philippine Business Conference, I said, “I do not believe democracy necessarily leads to development. I believe what a country needs to develop is discipline more than democracy.” In private, President Ramos said he agreed with me that British parliamentary-type constitutions worked better because the majority party in the legislature was also the government. Publicly, Ramos had to differ.

He knew well the difficulties of trying to govern with strict American-style separation of powers. The senate had already defeated Mrs. Aquino’s proposal to retain the American bases. The Philippines had a rambunctious press but it did not check corruption. Individual press reporters could be bought, as could many judges. Something had gone seriously wrong. Millions of Filipino men and women had to leave their country for jobs abroad beneath their level of education. Filipino professionals whom we recruited to work in Singapore are as good as our own. Indeed, their architects, artists, and musicians are more artistic and creative than ours. Hundreds of thousands of them have left for Hawaii and for the American mainland. It is a problem the solution to which has not been made easier by the workings of a Philippine version of the American constitution.

The difference lies in the culture of the Filipino people. It is a soft, forgiving culture. Only in the Philippines could a leader like Ferdinand Marcos, who pillaged his country for over 20 years, still be considered for a national burial. Insignificant amounts of the loot have been recovered, yet his wife and children were allowed to return and engage in politics. They supported the winning presidential and congressional candidates with their considerable resources and reappeared in the political and social limelight after the 1998 election that returned President Joseph Estrada. General Fabian Ver, Marcos’s commander-in-chief who had been in charge of security when Aquino was assassinated, had fled the Philippines together with Marcos in 1986. When he died in Bangkok, the Estrada government gave the general military honors at his burial. One Filipino newspaper, Today, wrote on 22 November 1998, “Ver, Marcos and the rest of the official family plunged the country into two decades of lies, torture, and plunder. Over the next decade, Marcos’s cronies and immediate family would tiptoe back into the country, one by one – always to the public’s revulsion and disgust, though they showed that there was nothing that hidden money and thick hides could not withstand.” Some Filipinos write and speak with passion. If they could get their elite to share their sentiments and act, what could they not have achieved?

-----

SAYANG! kindly share.