Thailand Monarchy and Government Overview

Thailand Monarchy and Government Overview BACKGROUND OF MONARCHY The current king of Thailand, Bhumibol Adulyadej, is part of the Siamese-cum-Thai monarchy and has reigned since 9 June 1946. This has made him the world’s longest reigning current monarch and the world’s longest serving head of state ( ). In accordance with the constitution of Thailand, most of the king’s power is divulged to his elected government whereby the king is considered above partisan affair and uninvolved with the decision-making process ( ). As ceremonial head of state, however, the king still retains power in being the head of the Royal Thai Armed forces, the prerogative of royal assent and also in having the power of pardon. The current concept of Thai kingship has evolved through 800 years of absolute rule. The Siamese-cum-Thai monarchy dates back to the founding of the Kingdom of Sukhothai, by the first king of a unified Thailand: King Sri Indraditya in 1238 ( ). This early kingship showed signs of the religious influence that is still present in today’s monarchy and was said to be based on two concepts derived from Hinduism and Theravada Buddhist beliefs: the Vedic-Hindu caste of â€Å"kshatriya† (â€Å"warrior-ruler†) and the Buddhist concept of â€Å"Dhammaraja† (â€Å"kingship under Dharma†) after Buddhism was introduced to Thailand somewhere around the sixth century A.D ( ). â€Å"Kingship under Dhammaraja† essentially means that the king should rule his people in accordance with the Dharma and the teachings of the Buddha, thus showing early signs of the stronghold that Buddhism has had over the Thai monarchy from such an early stage. In 1279 the concepts behind Thai kingship were somewhat altered at the entrance of King Ramkhamhaeng to the throne ( ). The past traditions were replaced by the conept of â€Å"paternal rule† in which the king governs his people â€Å"as a father would govern his children ( ). However these changes lasted briefly as the Kingdom of Sukhothai was eventually supplanted by the Kingdom of Ayutthaya, which was founded in 1351 by King Ramathibodhi I ( ). The Ayutthaya period of kingship brought with it changes, re-establishing the former Hindhu and Buddhist concepts along with a third, older concept of â€Å"Devaraja† (â€Å"Divine-King†) borrowed by the Khmer Empire from the Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms of Java ( ). The concept was based on the idea that the king was an incarnation (Avatar) of the god Vishnu and that he was a Bodhisattva (enlightened one). This essentially meant the king had religious and moral power and purity of blood. State interests portrayed the King as a semi-divine figure which started to develop his image – through rigid cultural implementation – as an object of worship and veneration to his people. This broke away from the early concepts of kingship which emphasized strong bonds between the king and his subjects ( ). The monarchy from then on was largely removed from the people and became an absolute ruler and universal lord of his realm ( ). Kings demanded that the universe be envisioned as resolving around them, and expressed their powers through elaborate rituals and ceremonies. Although far less exaggerated, this notion of divinity and higher status of the monarchy is still present in Thailand today, where the king remains widely revered and serves as a spiritual leader to the state. Despite this seemingly ludicrous adoration of the monarchy in these early periods however, the kings that ruled over Ayutthaya for four centuries experienced some of the greatest periods of eco nomic, cultural and military growth in Thai history ( ). King Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke (or Rama I) established a new dynasty in 1782 and moved the capital from Thonburi to Bangkok. King Rama I also founded the House of Chakri, the current ruling house of Thailand ( ). During this Rattanakosin period the Chakri kings tried to re-establish the concepts of the Ayutthayan kingship and emphasize the connection between the sovereign and his subjects, but at the same time would not relinquish any power or authority from the throne. Most notably, Kings Buddha Loetla Nabhalai (Rama II) and Nangklao (Rama III) created a semblance of a modern administration by creating the supreme council and appointing chief officers to help with the running of the government ( ). This was a turning point in Buddhist influence within the monarchy and government giving the religion a firmer grip on the decision making processes ( ). BACKGROUND OF THE GOVERNMENT In June 1932 the influence and power of the monarchy was eventually challenged. After 150 years of absolute Chakri rule, King Prajadhipok was confronted with a group of foreign educated students and military men called â€Å"the promoters† who carried out a bloodless revolution, seizing power and demanding that the king grant the people of Siam a constitution ( ). The king agreed and in December 1932 the people were granted a constitution in which the power of the monarchy was divulged to the elected prime minister and national assembly, removing the political authority of the crown and founding a nascent ‘democracy’. ( ). 1946 saw the first direct elections held in which the people of Thailand voted for members of a bicameral legislature (Senate and House of Representatives) to be presided over by a Prime Minister representing the executive branch ( ). The Judiciary, including a Supreme Court, acts independently of the executive office and the legislature, though it was not until the 1996 constitution that more effective checks and balances were instituted ( ). From its inception â€Å"democracy† in Thailand has been turbulent, with 17 coup d’etats passing power back and forth between leaders of the military and an elite bureaucracy that borders on plutocracy ( ). Seventeen different constitutions have governed the country; the Kingdoms current constitution the result of the most recent coup d’etat; a bloodless overthrow of then Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawattra in 2006 ( ). Currently, Thailand is embroiled in political wrangling over the implications of that coup and the subsequent legislative shake up caused by mass protests both against and in favour of the former Prime Minister. Nevertheless, the Thai people are extremely politically active and value their freedom regardless of their tenuous democracy ( ). Under the 2007 Constitution (drafted by a military appointed council, but approved by a referendum) the present structure of the Government of Thailand was established ( ). Despite the seventeen constitutions, the basic structure of the government has remained the same. The government of Thailand is made up of three branches; the executive, the legislative and the judiciary, a system of government similar to that of the Westminster system of the United Kingdom. Along with the monarchy, this essay will pay special attention to both the legislative and judicial branches of this political system, and how they interact with Buddhist influences in the form of the sangha council.

Biochemistry Fats, Diet, and Heart Disease

Biochemistry Fats, Diet, and Heart Disease ‘Fat’ can sometime be a word that gives people the chills when they hear about it. It is one of the three main sources of calories to our diet and a major part of ones dietary requirement. There are three kinds of fat: saturated, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated. The degree of saturation is dependent on the amount of double and triple bonds in the chemical makeup. Saturated fats are known to increase the body's levels of serum (blood) cholesterol. Along with cholesterol, saturated fats can deposit on the inner walls of blood vessels; a condition known as atherosclerosis.When the heart's arteries become clogged with cholesterol and fats, blood flow can be restricted or totally blocked, leading to severe chest pain and heart attack. Polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats actually have a cholesterol-lowering effect. By substituting polyunsaturated fats for the saturated fats in your diet, you can actually help control choleste rol levels. Too much dietary fat can also contribute to overweight. Being overweight can aggravate high blood pressure, place excess strain on your heart, and make it more difficult to stay active and physically fit, thus having a negative impact on your overall cardiovascular health.For about three decades, health institutions like the American Heart Association, National Institutes of Health, World Health Organization, and others advised people to reduce dietary fat by limiting fat intake to fewer than 30 percent of daily calories. Their claim was that a low fat diet ultimately resulted in the reduction or elimination of risk for heart disease although; there wasn't much evidence to support the notion of low-fat diets in the beginning.In an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on February 8, 2006, in a 8th year Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial, about 49,000 women with almost identical rates of heart attack, stroke, and other form s of cardiovascular disease were followed to see the effect of a low-fat diet and those not on the diet. Their results showed that women on the low-fat diet didn't lose or gain any more weight than women who followed their usual diets. The important thing to note from these kinds of studies was the type of fat in the diet.For example the Mediterrean style diet is high in fat but these fats are from plant sources such as olive oil, nuts and seeds which are low in saturated fat intake. The ‘Western† diet on the other hand has fats from animal sources which are usually saturated and produces a higher risk for heart disease. In conclusion, as research grows on diet and heart disease, it’s becoming clearer that looking at a single nutrient in isolation cannot tell us the whole story about a person’s heart disease risk. People eat foods, not nutrients, and they eat them in an overall dietary pattern.The traditional Mediterranean Diet pattern, in contrast, appears to lower the risk of heart disease, stroke, and metabolic syndrome, a constellation of factors that increases the chances of developing heart disease and diabetes. So if you are concerned about heart health, pay attention to your overall diet, not just to the type of fat. Citation Barbara, H. (2006) et al. Low-fat dietary pattern and risk of cardiovascular disease. Journal of the American Medical Association. Retrieved from http://jama. ama-assn. org/content/29 5/6/655. full

Comparing Two Perspectives of Management Essay

Management is the attainment of organisational goals in an effective and efficient manner through planning, organising, leading and controlling organisational resources (Samson & Daft, 2009, p. 12). In essence, the final outcome of management is to achieve organisation goals and managers in various levels should achieve goals effectively and efficiently by intelligently utilizing financial, human and other resources in hand. The four skills which may assist managers to achieve these organisational goals are planning, organising, leading and controlling. Traditional vs. Modern Perspectives The practice of management can go back as far as 3000 BC. It developed over thousands of years from Traditional style of management to Modern today. Traditional Perspectives Traditional Perspectives includes (Samson & Daft, 2009): 1.Classical Perspectives – concentrates on making the organisations an efficient operating machine. 2.Humanistic Perspectives – emphases understanding human behaviour, needs and attitudes in the workplace. It has taken more consideration of behaviors, needs and attitudes as well as social interactions and group processes. *For the purpose of the report, I will not elaborate on each item mentioned above. Use Human Resources Perspective as an example. It suggests that Jobs should be designed to meet higher-level needs by allowing workers to use their full potential (Samson & Daft, 2009). This theory was initially supported by a ‘dairy farm’ view and further illustrated by the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and McGregor Theory X & Theory Y. It is my understanding that the theory suggests people generally perform better if they are given full rein to their imagination and creativity. This, in details, means: 1.People are given freedom to fulfill their desired physiological, safety, love/belonging, self-esteem and self-actualization (Maslow’s Hierarchy) needs and wants. They may not be satisfied with all five of them, but fulfillment in any of the above may somewhat increase productivity; 2.Management assumes that employees enjoy working and will seek responsibilities under working/learning process and does not believe in punishment to keep the employees in line. Instead, it believes that employees will exercise self-control if they’re committed (McGregor’s Theory Y). Toyota Motor Corporation is one of the world leading automobile producers and its philosophy is the famous ‘Toyota Way’. The two pillars are ‘Wisdom and Kaizen (improvement)’ and ‘respect for human nature’ (Saruta 2006). Without going into the full description of ‘Toyota Way’ philosophy, we will mainly discuss one component as an example: Improvement. The company motivates employees through a series of incentives, such as wage, on-job education, and progressive promotion. Hence it presents work as something interesting and worthwhile for worker’s self-motivation. In the Japanese operation, this philosophy helped the company achieved long working hours and concentrated labour. Unfortunately it hasn’t been working as successful in other countries. Does this mean the employees in other countries haven’t fulfilled any of their interests? Managers must understand that employees will be motivated by unmet needs; and that once a need is satisfied, it is no longer a motivator (Fisher 2009). There may be environmental factors the management did not consider. Cultural difference for instance may affect the effectiveness of this philosophy. Being in a country with a generous welfare system like Australia, people’s desire for a balanced work/social life style is much stronger than financial achievement. In this instance, Toyota management in other counties should realise the differences in worker’s needs and present other incentives accordingly. Modern Perspectives Modern Management Trend is developed to collaborate with the more complicated technologies, organisational environment and unforeseeable uncertainties in today’s world. Modern Management Theories are focused on how individuals contribute to organisation and corporate performance while the performance of the chief executive is dictated by the organisation’s financial returns and shareholders’ expectations (Weymes 2004). The three major contemporary extensions of the perspectives (Samson & Daft, 2009): 1.System Theory; 2.Contingency View; 3.Total Quality Management. *For the purpose of the report, I will not elaborate on each item mentioned above. Use Contingency View as an example. This theory is an extension of the humanistic perspective in which the successful resolution of organisational problems is thought to depend on management’s identification of key variables in the situation at hand (Samson & Daft, 2009). It believes there is no universal approach that works consistently in every situation. Management should always consider aspects within and outside the organisation and utilise various concepts and techniques appropriately. Looking at this theory from a horizontal angle, Knootz (1981) has simplified it into ordinary words, ‘there is science and there is art, there is knowledge and there is practice. One does not need much experience to understand that a corner grocery store could hardly be organised like General Motors, or that the technical realities of petroleum exploration, production, and refining make impracticable autonomously organised product divisions for gasoline, jet fuel, or lubricating oils’. Different organisations have different variables which determine the size of the company, the management hierarchy, the service procedure and so forth. Looking at it from a vertical angle, an organisation may have diversified subsystems and external affiliates. Today’s managers cannot afford to ignore the uncertainties evolved around these elements. Grandori (1984) noted a decision maker needs to classify the state of uncertainty that characterises a decision situation, eliminate the strategies that are not feasible in that situation, and select a feasible strategy. To realise the contingency approach its potential as an effective construct for maintaining and improving managerial effectiveness in a hyper dynamic environment, its development must proceed in a systematic unified and directed manner (Luthans & Stewart, 1977). IKEA, as an example, is the world’s most successful mass-market retailer, reaching 33 countries and hosting 410 million shoppers a year; the furniture is made by about 1,500 suppliers in more than 50 countries. Its signature feature is the flat packed product that customers assemble at home. To target the dramatic technology development in 21st century, the company introduced online shopping to address convenience and traceability. The company designs its own, and also broadens the product mix into food and general living supplies (â€Å"IKEA Company Profile†, n.d.). Investment risks can be sufficiently minimised, and it is best described by the old adage â€Å"never put all your eggs in one basket†. Traditionally, a showroom with a team of salesmen and delivery truck drivers is the focal point of a typical furniture retailer. Globalisation and widely spread use of internet will eventually force them out of the market. IKEA tackled these issues from supply-chain, customer satisfaction and diversification of investment risks. It further demonstrates the contingency approach is used to sustain IKEA’s completive edge in all time. Although these strategies may not be suitable in 10 years time, contingency view will always exert management to evaluation situation at hand and make decision accordingly to sustain performance. Conclusion Generally speaking, the traditional perspectives of management tend to standardise a managerial approach across the board by analysing one particular scenario with a number of assumptions. However, the modern perspectives recognise the uncertainties in reality and take many aspects into consideration of their decision making process. Contingency view is not a brand new theory that is completely different from the traditional perspectives. Whilst we are not suggesting the traditional perspectives are untrue, managers should be selective according to the situation at hand and use a combination of approaches to tackle from all angles. Management in the modern world is no longer a unitary practice; it is an art. Continuous education and professional development can only offer the mandatory knowledge. Real life experience and rational conduct at time is the key to successful management.

International A Membership Based Consumer Service

CENDANT On December 17th 1997 CUC International a membership-based consumer service company focused on giving people access to discounts on travel, shopping, etc. and HFC Incorporated a large hotel franchiser merged together and became Cendant. CUC International lead by Walter Forbes deliberately and fictitiously made the company more than $500 million fictional revenue, which in effect led to one of the biggest fraud cases of the 1990’s. This is a very interesting fraud case and one that forced the accounting and auditing standard setters to review some of their standards, which is something I’ll talk about more later on. The fraud was very simple at its base; the idea was to allow the employees of CUC International and later Cendant to†¦show more content†¦This could have been prevented or stopped if the revenue and expenses had been accounted for and recorded properly in the period they had occurred. It also could have been prevented had the internal auditing comity done their job and realized what was happening around them and brought this to the board of director’s attention. What was going on internally at CUC International and later at Cendant was known to many employees, these people held different positions from managers all the way up to the CEO Walter Forbes and it was in fact two managers that came forward and brought all of this out to the open and their names were Casper Sabatino and Steven Speaks. They contacted the CFO of Cendant Mr.Monaco and explained to him the breathtaking fraud. And it was Mr.Monaco who delivered this news to Cendant’s Chief Executive Henry R. Silverman. Those two men were the whistleblowers that brought Cendant to its knees. As mentioned in the sworn affidavits the managers explained what was happening at Cendant, they said that they were told to record millions of dollars of orders that never occurred and were told to do what was necessary in order to increase the income on the books and decrease the expanses. In their statements they named two people whom have been responsible for putting pressure on their employ ees and ordering the accounting irregularities, these two people were Cosmo