King Gyanendra to make Royal Announcement (Kantipuronline)


KOL Report

KATHMANDU, Feb 1 - King Gyanendra is to address the nation later this (Tuesday) morning. An official notice by the Press Secretariat of the Royal Palace said the King will issue a "Royal Announcement" at 10 a.m.(4:15 UT) Tuesday morning.
It is not clear what the announcement will deal with. However, it comes at a time when there is intense speculation over holding of elections.

On Monday evening, King Gyanendra met Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba followed by separate meetings with heads of different security wings .

Detail of that meeting is not clear. (rk)

http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=30549

I totally agree with Iso as well as Poonte bro too.
AS Iso have said we can achieve our goals in phases and lets give chance to KG. I also like that lets see what happens. But as Poonte have raised his concerns which are genuine too cuz we have created and nurtured a system which encourages distrust.
If KG fails heck him out of his throne but lets give him 3 yeaes time frame. Now the biggest question rises what iff he succeed on restoring peace and be able to take Nepal to the developmental path. Here the biggest question marks arises ,do we have to be grateful of him? certainly but how extent. I feared regarding this grateful thing cuz we as nepali society have tendency that they should be grateful what he have done for nepal and nepali ppl. Remind u this question will arise when he will offer nepali ppl to accept his son Paras as a king. What we gonna do at that time? Do we succumbed with his gratefulness to nepal and nepali ppl and accept paras as king? I say no, hell no! WE SHOULD RATHER BE THINKING THERE ASRE SITUTATIONS WHEN A NATION OR ITS PPL HAS NO NEED TO FEEL ANY SENSE OF GRATITUDE OR GRATEFULNES TO A BENEFACTOR IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. AS ANCIETN GREEK HISTORIAN HERACLITUS HAS SAID "UNGRATEFULNESS TOWARDS ITS BENEFACTOR IS A MARK OF A STRONG NATION" BUT CAN WE CREATE THAT KINDA SOCIETY TO DEAL FOR THAT KINDA SITUATIONS. THATS WHAT WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT.
PEACE OUT

"However, I vehemently attest to my belief that he is mis-guided, mis-informed, and his tactics are sure to fail, even if only becuase tyrannies ALWAYS fail, regardless of the benovelent dreams of the dictators. The ONLY way forward in correcting mistakes of democracy is further clinging on to democracy more steadfastly. "

I may be a naive in this matter, but when we think of it, didnt all the world powers, with exception of few, had some kind of Single Party Ruling System that controlled the goverment, that help them become who they are now. Which one country has corrected its mistakes of democracy and moved forward towards the development of democracy?

Let me give you one profound example, when founding fathers of this nation, America, wrote their constituation down, even they were against Multiparty Political System.

okk i maybe off, but just my 2 cents..you major players goo on :)

phase-wise ko kura nai garne ho bhane pani (and i agree completely with poonte ji here), g shah laai yattikai shakti dinu hundaina.

does a tiger ever give birth to a cow. hukumi shashaan bhitra baata responsible civic society banaaune bhanne notion ta diwaaswapna maatra ho.

swati_thapa,

i also wonder the same thing, after 3 yrs sud we be singing the same nation anthem?

the founding fathers were against giving the parties too much power. they were all for giving PEOPLE the power.

america is an example where society is correcting itself according to the wishes of the people, confused ji.

he he he conf. bro being sarcastic to me
ur comments taken whole heartedly he heh eh ehe

some of the founding fathers anyway.

confused,

yes, many countries had been through autocratic rules in history. even many european countries who now are fine examples of democracy were once reigned by ruthless tyrant kings.

however, after the people realized tyranny was wrong, many of them transformed and moved on, either through violent revolutions, or trhough peaceful transitions.

nepal too has seen it's fare share of tyranny already (a century of ranas and 3 decades of panchayat), and now it's time to move on!

agreed.

Poonte bro,

I get your point. I agree for the East Asian development there were other factors too but those factors were effective because of the authritarian form of governmnets there. If you agree that education is the key to having a functioning democracy, then the first Korean President, Syngman Rhee showed dicatorship tendencies and was in power till the 60s. He was replaced by another authritarian leader and Korea was under martial law, authoritarian regimes till the 80s. But those authritarian regimes could do what the elected governmnets couldn't in the case of Korea such as forcing the people to attend schools and colleges, open up relations with China and Japan and forcefully carry out economic and social reforms.

2. Taiwan- Taiwan was an authritarian govt. till the 90s when the KMT relaxed control and Lee Tung Hui became the first elected ruler of Taiwan. Taiwan like Korea, because of its authritarian form of govt. could provide stability and consistency. That stability and consistency of the state is what the foreign investors look for. Of course both countries siding with the US helped them develop economically to a certain extent, but the social reforms were mainly due to the form of their governmnets.

3. Singapore- Singapore is still an authritarian state. However it ahs come a long way udner the leadership of Lee Kuan Yew and now that he is retired, his party PAP. Singapore's journey from the Third World to the First world could happen because Lee Kuan Yew did not tolerate non-sense dissent. He is one of those few leaders who has redefined the Press ethics and the concept of freedom of press by pressing all international newspapers/magazines including the Wall Street to publish apology and correction, whenever they publish any negatibve news on him. But look at what he has done to Singapore. He turned it into one of the most prosperous nation in the world. If he has beena democratic leader, Singapore today wouldn't have been different from what it was at the time of its independence, the late 60s, with a backward divided society with the ethnic Chinese, Indians and Malays fighting with each other for the control of power. It was Lee who started the housing reforms to bring the Malays and\ the Chinese and the Indians to live together by forcefully evacuating them from their respective ghettos. Do you think it would have been possible under democracy? He copuld place a ban on chewing gum, on broken or gramatically incorrect ENglish, on littering and almost everything you can imagine of.

Malaysia: Malaysia followed Singapore on its development. Dr. mahathir Mohammed is not a liberal democrat. He didn't tolerate dissent but he did make his society stable and rich. Look at Malaysia now. We have to go there to work.

Maybe authritarianism is not the only factor in their developmnet, but you cannot dismiss the fact that it was one of the major factors.

On other issues, I understand and share your concerns. I too don't wnat to be living in a state that constrantly monitors my activities, makes me not speak my mind..but I would tolerate it for a short period of time if it is going to make the lives of those countless people who cannot speak, who are more concerned about their safety and fulfilling their family/socail obligations. . I don't wnat to have my civil liberties at these un-speaking, under-priviliged people. Look at this: How many people in Nepal can read and write? How many people really care about elections, rights and all those lofty ideals? Not many because of the situations they are in. You have freedom of press, but you have more than 60% of the p[eople who do not read. You have 70% of the people who do not have money to buy the newspapers and enjoy their rights to information or civil liberties. First give them education so taht they too can read.. then give them emans so that they can buy the newspapers... when we talk about the rights, we are talking of the elites rights. We are not talking about the common people's rights. And to be honest, if the King's system can at least initiate the process to equally distribute the rights to this and that to this underprviliged sector of the society, I would give it a 5 star rating..

I don't wnat to have my civil liberties at these un-speaking, under-priviliged people= I don't wnat to have my civil liberties at the cost of thesese un-speaking, under-priviliged people

I don't think it will be too long that people start to realize what they have been deprived of..the real freedom. How many more countries have King's anyways? And among them how many act like gyanendra?
Doesn't look like Paras will ever be king. So ridiculous that people in 21st century can let some person lead a country just because he is born in a certain family. How long will people tolerate this?
The Magma inside the volcano is heating. Soon the volcano is gonna erupt.
God Bless Nepal

... IF,how is 3 years of Thought Police short? you would tolerate that? and you think that anyone will let the power go now that they have it. It is just your wishful thinking that the autocracy will end in three years- that to by king's and his son's own will. i posted the link on some other thread but i will post it again.

- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1467551,00.html

mG.

ISO,

I am still wondering how/where would you fit Hong Kong's prosperity in your theory of tyrannies' success in the 4 Little Dragons? (Or is it the 4 Asian Tigers? You've gotten me confused now! :D) So, I still believe STRATEGICAL GEOGRAPHIC ADVANTAGE contributed tremendously more than anything else in the success of Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea. I have always wanted to read something on Singapore's Lee Kuan Yu, and I am now more inspired to look into ordering a book on him and Singapore. Any suggestions? Until I read that, I must admit I am incapable of indulging in discussions about specifics in that country's history, politics and economic success.

Now, more on Nepal...

You say, first good education. First of all, ISO, allow me to ask you this: How would you rate Panchayat's success in educating the Nepali people? For me, I see it as an utter failure. Mind you, as I have hinted time and again, good education entails much, much more than just being able to read and write -- educated people must also be able to take part responsibly and healthily in a civil society. Since I have utmost distrust of anything remotely resembling the Panchayat era, and this takeover by KING G is, I am afraid, looking more and more like a return to Panchayat, I must say the prospects of Nepalis being given proper education in his current reign is very dim.

Furthermore, I think it is very dangerous to put undue importance on peace and security. Yes, of course, almost every Nepali must be extremely frustrated with the violence, and their deep yearning for peace is completely understandable. But on a leadership level, if they fall into the trap of "security first and foremost, at any cost," I am apprehensive about the fact that they might neglect other very critical social issues that they need to address. We need education, food, shelter, and, MOST OF ALL, we need to totally dismantle and annihilate the hierarchical (caste) system, as badly as we need security. I am not at disagreement with you when you say we need security before we can get any of the above, but those issues need not get sidelined either, NOT EVEN for the moment, while we wait for peace to prevail. KingG's choice of cabinet members clearly suggests that he is still surrounded by -- at least at the advisory level -- people who have primitive ideas about governance, by those who still believe in FORCE and LOYALTY in their method of ruling. Therefore, in this environment, I am afraid the new government will only exhaust all their energy and resources in the military, while mostly neglecting other critical social issues, that some people's dream of this King now finally raising the literacy level, alleviating poverty, etc., of Nepal will collapse like the house of cards. Of course, all this is only speculation on my part, and we have yet to see the actual results. Nevertheless, I am allowed to make speculations based on well-calculated observations on my part, I hope.

Finally, ISO, in a nutshell, here's why I believe this new government under the direct rule fo KingG is going to fail Nepal:

1. Tyrannies never succeed in meeting the actual needs of the people. Every tyrant's genuine concern will be on how to consolidate his own power, which will sideline the people's interests. I am not in a position to question his genuine desire to help the people -- he may have perfectly fine intentions. However, tyrannies by definition, AND by their reason-d'etre -- by the mere fact that they will have to be consumed with consolidation of their own power -- that they are bound to neglect the actual needs of the people.

2. Panchayat was clearly an abject failure, and anything remotely resembling that system is bound to go down the same path.

3. KingG's government's focus will mostly be on DEMANDING LOYALTY (as reflected by his order to ban press freedom and curtail other civil liberties) and THE USE OF FORCE to gain that loyalty, which will mean this government's ideology will only reflect the notion of "for the military, by the military, with the military." This means their policies will inevitably turn blind eyes and deaf ears to the real needs of ordinary Nepalis.

As in every other incident in Nepal, we all of a sudden got a lot of people either supporting or opposing KG?s recent move. And, what surprises me is there are a certain block of people who support and celebrate whatever the incident is. In a sense we are lucky that we can celebrate on almost anything: we celebrated in 2046, 2036, 2017, 2007 and going as back as when there was a ?sindure jatra? for Ran Bahadur. Now the question is: Is it really a good move?
We have no doubt that these politicians have deceived us in every instance in the last few years. They hurt our feelings by changing their faces and colors on every opportunity. They made the mockery of the parliament and the democratic systems as a whole. Now, the people have slowly started to realize that their vote is indeed powerful thing that turned these struggling ?sadak chaps? from rags to riches. It was the power of our vote. Would they vote again for these corrupted and self-centered leaders? May be not with much excitement as they did earlier; or may be they are already ready to discard them altogether. What we as a public tend to forget is: we are the ones who put these guys there and we have to share the blame too. Looks like we public as well as palace have already mastered the blame theory: always find somebody else to blame when something goes wrong. And, when it comes beyond our comprehension, we just blame India. When do we actually start taking the responsibility and stop being on the defensive side?
What I never understood is: since when did we hand over the democracy to these leaders? I know we handed the mandate to run the government, these people are there for just governing purpose; I do not think we have handed our freedom and democracy as a whole. All this time I was thinking democracy was still in the hand of public, and a constitutional monarch could do nothing about it; it would be too soon to tell if it is still in our hand or not.
We know for sure this move has given a serious blow to the corrupted leaders, but did it do any damage to the Maoists at all? I do not see it. I do think it has added more people to their ideological belief of republic. The media is already in the government control now, so we should not be surprised if we hear the victory from Royal Nepalese Army side to contain Maoists and the incident like in Holleri may not even come to the news. We can see that Maoists problem is already solved for last couple days. We did not hear anybody killed in last couple days. Now let?s celebrate that government have been given charge of what news to deliver that way we get to hear only the pleasant ones and the progress we have made under the leadership of monarchy as we did in the last few hundred years which just stopped all of a sudden after 1990.
When a politician asks for a public vote, he creates a manifesto of his plans. If the politician does not perform as we wish, we can take him out of his office in the next election; basically that is our way of correcting something. Similarly, KG has his plan of making Nepal sound and smooth in next 3 years. I wish he be successful in doing that because that is good for all of us. What if he cannot do that? Do we have power to kick him out without bloodshed? Or, does that mean we should start gathering our muscles to come to the streets again if needed?


Anyways, let?s celebrate on the grand occasion on the killing of infant democracy by somebody whose family is in the power for last few hundred years and Nepal has not progressed anywhere and lets congratulate our leaders who ignited it by adding fuel to the flame. I am just trying to apply the blame theory myself here. If the democratic systems and the parties are to blame for all the mischief, is there anything at all that these royals have to be blamed for? If all these parties did the mockery of democratic systems by corruption and self-fulfillment, didn?t these royals did mockery of monarchy by suspicious massacre inside the royal palace? We are so used to listening and giving these stories a soothing to our liking that we won?t be surprised anymore if the next day Nepal Radio broadcasts that Madab Kumar Nepal kills Girija Prasad Koirala and commits a suicide after that. Believe me eyewitness will be produced; people in power can prove anything.

Hong Kong is a different case, as far as I see it. It developed under the British rule. So it benifited from the well established British free-trade system. That's how I see HongKong.

On Singapore, I have read only two books. Lee Kuan Yew's From Third World to First: The Singapore Story- 1967-2000 talks in lenth about Singapore from the time of its independence to 2000. It touches on almost everything- foreign, security and economic policies. Its a bit long.. 700+ but an easy read.

Another book not exclusively on S'pore but worth reading is Can Asians Think? by Kishore Mahubani, Singapore's ex- foreign minister.

I agree with the Tyrranny part. I don't think our King will be tyrranical. He can be a mild authritarian, who will hand back the power to the people when the time comes, maybe sooner than later. Let's not lump him with Stalin outright.

My point is, in a country like Nepal maybe a strong ruler might be able to clean up the mess. Sometimes the country needs a strong ruler to deliver. I see Lee, Mahathir, Chinag Kai Shek, Deng Xiaoping, Musharraf as those strong leaders. Maybe our King will go down on history as one of the strong and able leaders who was able to clean up the mess.

On Panchayat: ift failed on many aspects, but it succeeded in promoting Nationalism. Panchayat lasted for 30 eayrs. Democracy lasted for 15 years.. In 15 years time, the new system could have achieved a lot, or at least could have inititate dthe process that would have led us to liberal-ism ( democracy supplemented with the rule of law), it failed. I don't say its the fault of the system, it was the fault of the leaders. If we had good leaders, things probably would ahve been different.

la yetti ho bro.. our diagreements exist. I turned 27 an hour ago.. so, let me have a beer now and not think about politics for the rest of the night. :-)

Dictatorship is not a prerequite to development. No matter what the freaks tell you.

***MANY MANY HAPPY RETURNS OF THE DAY!!!***

On that merry note, ISO, I think I will let you have the last word on this issue in this thread. I mean, I have already said so much that I am afraid I'd only be repeating myself if I tried to say more. Repitition usually begets irritation and, who knows, then we might even begin to get into the nerves of one another! I respect you (and your views, even thought I may not agree with some of them) too much to let that happen. :D

Yes, we shall agree to disagree for now. Your points were well-taken, and we shall see in time which one of us would have been proven inaccurate.

Go and get drunk, you BIRTHDAY BOY!

And make sure you drink 27 extra bottles of beer for me too! ;)

********************

Bright eyes...No matter how much you disdain someone's point of view, I really don't see any need to get personal with the person. :)

Once again, HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

I do agree with Swaati on looking at the bright side of this takeover. We can worry about giving throne to Paras later on. What my worry is: if king fails, is he going to give an outlet as easy? Is he just going to say: "Sorry folks, my plan did not go well. So take your country and democracy back. Thanks for the opportunity for letting me serve."? Or is it going to be another revolution? I wish him success for the betterment of Nepal, but I do not think he would be a modest loser though; surely he will find somebody to blame or play the media propaganda so good that it looks successful even when it is failing. I still remember those panchayat days songs of prosperity and progress acheived by all of us. :)

IF,
Nepal's royalty is not Lew Kuan Yew. We have more than 200 years of history with Royalty and here we are, I hope you know where rest of the world is, Singapore, Malaysia ....