Ergebnis 1 bis 10 von 15
Thai Politik aus der Sicht eines Ausländers
Erstellt von Bukeo, 10.09.2009, 04:21 Uhr · 14 Antworten · 1.118 Aufrufe
10.09.09, 04:21 #1Bukeo
Thai Politik aus der Sicht eines Ausländers
In an exclusive interview with Nation editor-in-chief Suthichai Yoon, Professor Stephen Young - credited among those who discovered the bronze-age site of Ban Chiang in northeastern Thailand in 1966 (now a Unesco world-heritage site) - deplores the "ridiculous" national division he insists has resulted from Thaksin Shinawatra's "imperial" ambition.
Why Thaksin did not have the moral legitimacy to lead?
Suthichai Yoon: Professor Young, you've been watching Thai politics closely, the red shirts, the yellow shirts, and of course you are part of Thailand as well. You grew up here, you went to the international school here. Looking from afar now, what do you think of Thailand; does it still have a future?
Professor Young: Well, I think that's the right question to ask. If you look at Thailand from afar, most foreigners don't know much about what's going on. The Western idea, the Western press coverage is very superficial.
SY: Even the New York Times?
PY: Yes, the New York Times especially. The Washington Post. The Economist. Foreigners don't know the way the Thais think. I'm more worried now about Thailand than ever before. When I first came here in 1961, that was 48 years ago, and my father was the American ambassador, we had a wonderful family relationship with Thailand. Maybe different from many foreigners. I don't speak Thai so well anymore, but I have a feeling that there's something special to us, to our family, my father, my mother, or myself, my brother, my sister about Thailand. We care about Thailand. My dad was close to His Majesty, close to [ex-PM Field Marshal] Sarit [Thanarat], and in 1961 there was this [big] gap between the Bangkok elite and the rural poor, a real gap. So, today, 2009, when I hear the red shirts say there's a gap between Bangkok and ban nok [upcountry], I think it's ridiculous. Today, there's a gap, but in 1961 it was much bigger.
I just went back to Ban Chiang. When I went there 43 years ago, there was no electricity, no flush toilet, and if you needed hot water, you had to boil it. Chicken was too expensive. You had to eat little fish from the pond. Today there's electricity, flush toilets, hot water and ATM machines. Most of the houses have Internet.
SY: At that time, there wasn't even a telephone.
PY: No telephone. Radios. I remember we had radios with batteries. The strongest station was communist Chinese, broadcasting Chinese propaganda, so I remembered sitting in Ban Chiang listening to Chinese communist propaganda, and in Thai.
SY: From Beijing?
PY: From Beijing. Radio Beijing. Today it's television, international television. The people are watching soccer games in Europe. The people have cell phones. A lady who was with me was calling another lady to tell the car to pick me up at the airport. This is modern Thailand. So many changes. In 1961 it was my dad, with the passion of His Majesty and Field Marshal Sarit. He was a dictator, a military dictator, he was a tough guy, but he cared about the people, especially Isaan [the Northeast], and His Majesty also cared about Isaan. So the government began all these programmes. The roads in Ban Chiang are all cement. Before, it was dirt road. Thailand has done so much and I think in particular, the people in Bangkok, the Bangkok elite. In particular His Majesty deserves appreciation for what he's done for Thailand. So when I hear all these strange things about Thailand not having this and that, the need to change, some intellectuals want to run a revolution or something, I think this is crazy. It makes no sense to me.
SY: Why do you think they have this rumbling about change?
PY: My feeling, quite frankly, is that this goes back to the ambition of one man.
PY: Thaksin. And I ask myself why is he such a threat to Thailand?
SY: You knew him before?
PY: No. Only by reputation. When I first heard of him, when he started the Shin Corporation, what I heard was: he's a police major who got a contract from the government for telephones after one of the coups. Now I ask myself, back then, 1993, something like that, how do you get a contract from the government? What do you have to do to get a contract? And I noticed Khun Thaksin made more money, became more wealthy, all because he has a government licence.
SY: A monopoly.
PY: A monopoly, not because he was out there working like other people. He had a monopoly that the government gave him. The Thai people represented by the government gave him an exclusive, elitist, monopolistic special privilege. This is aristocracy. This is elitism. This is not a man who started poor in a village and worked his way up. He has special connections and I've seen him use many special connections. But I've never seen Thai society so divided. Even the divisions over the West during the time of King Rama 4 and 5 were not this serious, neither was the division over the communists. The communists failed in Thailand. They could not divide the Thai people.
Thaksin has divided the Thai people and this is sad. The Thai people should not be so divided and angry. Even my family friends, the family is divided. Some of the brothers and sisters are yellow, and some are red. And around the dinner table, they argue and get angry. So I think ... sabai ... where did it go?
SY: But Thaksin claimed that he changed the face of Thai politics. He made the masses, the rural people, speak up for the first time. It's the first time they benefited from politics. They can touch, consume and eat politics.
PY: I think that's ridiculous. Rural people in their communities have always had their patrons. They can always have some influence in this group and that group. I have my view, my patron. I look up to you, you take care of me. You are at the provincial level and you reach the Bangkok level, so I can get it to the Bangkok level only through you. This has been true for a long time.
Thaksin is in exile. He wants a pardon, he wants his money back, he doesn't want the conviction. Other Thai political leaders have not acted like that, if you look back.
SY: All the way back to Pridi Panomyong?
PY: Before that. We had the coup of 1932 and Prince Nakornsawan, the powerful Chakri prince, was asked to leave. He did, and he died in exile and never came back. His Majesty King Prachatipok felt there was a new situation and he abdicated. He went to England. He died in England. At his cremation, in 1941 I think, there were his queen and several relatives. No complaints. Pridi: He felt the situation changed. He left. General Pao, the powerful police general, left when Sarit took over and did not come back. Sarit, after he died, there was an argument how much money he made and the government took the money back. The family did not argue. Khun Thanom lost his money and went into exile. So I ask myself why is Thaksin different? Why doesn't he think like a Thai?
PY: I think it's because he's not really a Thai Thai. He has other ideas in his head. He does not say kreng jai. He does not think about merit and sin. He thinks about how he can be a powerful man. He wants to be the leader of everybody, the big boss of everybody. This kind of thinking to me reflects not Thai Buddhism, but Chinese imperial thinking. The imperial thinking of the Chinese emperor. The Chinese theory. If you read about this, and I've studied a lot about it, we see this thinking.
So everything that Thaksin does, how he ran his government, how he put his money here and there, it's just like 2,000 years ago. Same thinking. This idea was that, above the earth is heaven, or tian, and there's one man- and underneath is everybody else. And when Thaksin wants to control the government, police, army, judges, businesses, TV, newspapers - that's bringing everything under him. No Thai leader in history has ever tried to do this. King Naresuen never tried to do this. King Rama I didn't try to do this. This is something new and different. Therefore, the Thai people are divided over this. Something new was added by Thaksin.
(This is the second of a two-part series. See the full version of the interview on the Nation Channel at 2pm this Friday.)
SY: When Western journalists write about Thaksin, they say he is still the most popular man among the rural people, that the poor and the underprivileged look upon him as their saviour.
PY: Again, that's foreigners who don't understand Thailand. It's clear Thaksin still has many followers, but in Thailand the small people have always looked up to somebody. They always have some sort of a patron.
SY: But Thaksin wanted to cut all those levels, those tiers out, so that he could rule directly.
PY: Again, Thaksin's idea is a cosmic Chinese idea about "I'm a magical person". I understand that he believes in fortune-tellers. He had some fortune-teller in Chiang Mai who said he alone was the big man and everyone worked under him. It's not the old-fashioned type of partnership. Everyone worked for Thaksin. That's not American loyalty. That's just saying that if you are a powerful man, and have lots of money and you'll give me some money, then I'll take the money. If you use that power of money to undermine the constitution and the law, to say bad things about other people, then it's unethical.
SY: Is it democratic?
PY: The question is democracy without ethics, is that good? I would argue yes, it's democratic, but without ethics, or morality, then it's bad. The point is, democracy here is the not the goal; justice is the goal. In Western thinking, going back to Aristotle, if you are democratic but corrupt, if you abuse people, what we call the tyranny of the people, you are immoral, you are unjust; it's a bad system. What Aristotle said is, every system, whether it's monarchy, aristocracy or democracy, you must have law and ethics and justice to control abusive power. You don't want rulers to seek power and money for themselves. So I look at Thaksin and I ask, where does his money come from? It comes from the Thai people, from special relationships. He used the government and politics in many ways to make himself wealthy.
SY: In democracy, he says he believes in elections, so every time you challenge him, he will say let's go to the people and have an election. That will prove everything and that's democracy.
PY: It proves nothing. The communists have elections. Stalin had elections. ...... had elections. An example of where Thailand could go wrong is provided by Juan Peron in Argentina. And Thaksin is closer to the dictators of Latin America than to anybody in Thai history. We see it now with Chavez. They hold elections. They go to the poor people. They blame the rich. They say, poor people, vote for me, I'll punish the rich. We'll take money from the rich and give it to you. So they mobilise 50 per cent of the poor people to attack 30 per cent. Argentina in the 1930s, before Juan Peron, was a very wealthy country.
SY: He was very popular. Poor people liked him.
PY: Poor people liked him but he ruined the economy. He created a dictator political party and now, 70 years later, Argentina still has difficulties. It's not a wealthy country and they are split, divided. They fight in politics. That may happen to Thailand if you have populism. The issue is not that Thaksin can get a majority vote. The issue is who can provide social justice, who can govern with ethics, who can have checks and balances, who can listen to the people, who can live under the law - and I see that Thai people are still arguing about this. It makes me so sad because Thailand should be happy. Thailand has so many good things, like Buddhism. And Thai people are good people.
The Constitution of 1997 was a good one, and what happened? Somebody with money came in and, like a mouse, took away all the cheese. The goodness of the Constitution disappears and the people are upset. They protest. He refused to compromise. Coup d'etat. People don't like this and you have the cycle going on for three years now. That's a long time.
SY: Thaksin said the September 2006 coup got rid of him and since then he has been mistreated all along, and the rule of law was not there; the present powers used a double standard against him. He said a few weeks ago that he never mistreated anybody, that he alone has been mistreated. He's the victim.
PY: I've heard him say this for a long time. I don't see how you can be a victim when you can accumulate 2 billion dollars in assets inside Thailand, and we don't know how much money he had outside. Last year, there was a newspaper story that said he had 1.5 billion US dollars outside Thailand, most of which he lost in the financial crisis.
I tell myself, let's take the 2 billion dollars he has inside Thailand. If you have that kind of money, why are you a victim? Politics is not about giving you a chance to make lots of money, it's about serving the people, and if the people don't want you anymore, you retire, like those other leaders who left Thailand when politics changed.
Now the coup violated the norm of the constitution, but I think there's an argument. Before that, Thaksin had violated the spirit of the Constitution and was undermining the law, and thereby raised questions about his legitimacy. He compromised his own legitimacy. People took to the streets, saying the way he used power was beyond the constitution. His excesses started a process of decline and the coup was part of the decline. So we look at the cause and not the coup. We look at what caused the coup - and that was his pattern of government.
SY: Do you agree with the coup?
PY: At the time, my feeling was one of sadness, because what were the choices for Thailand. If you continued with Thaksin, you would end up with this notion of Chinese dictatorship. That's not good for Thailand, but if you went with the coup, it's against the constitution. And you don't know what's going to happen. When Thailand has two very bad choices, I'm very sad. Very sad.
SY: Thailand shouldn't be put in that position.
PY: It shouldn't. And I then go to who put Thailand in that position. It wasn't the military, it wasn't Abhisit. It wasn't Privy Council Chief Prem; none of these people. It was one guy and his team.
SY: Thaksin blamed General Prem for all his troubles too.
PY: Thaksin is a very clever man. He knows the heart of the Thai people. He knows what to say to get the Thai people to maybe think like him. To me, in English, that's what we call a demagogue. This is a person who is not sincere. He studies you and your emotions and tells you what you want to hear, not because he likes you and cares about you, but because he wants something from you. What Thaksin wanted from you is your vote or your loyalty, or for you to say bad things about the yellow shirts. This is divisive politics.
SY: Thaksin said those against him were people who lost interest because he was in power. He said he tried to bring justice to Thailand and make things equal, so those affected by his good intentions are now up against him.
PY: First of all, I accept that Thaksin might have had good intentions. I don't know the man. I can only judge the man by his actions. And his actions were to bring the power of everything under him, where he is the boss. He said he took away power from those people because they were greedy, bad people, they were aristocratic, elite, and didn't care about people.
SY: "Ammat" (Top royal advisers).
PY: Well, who has more ammats? He has more. He's the man of ammat. He's not a man of clout. He has good fortune but doesn't have clout. Well, when I say he doesn't have clout, I use the word in an old-fashioned way. The true meaning is that the person must have good education, a moral foundation, a past life of a good person - and you have moral authority, moral legitimacy that comes from self-control and respect for others. So Thaksin doesn't have clout [baramee]; but he has vassana [good fortune], so he uses power. He has got to take power away from the people.
The contributions of General Prem in the 1980s were very constructive. I think General Prem deserved some appreciation and respect. He's an older man now but he moved Thailand in the period of half democracy. He took over from a tradition of violence, military dictatorship, and moved Thailand towards half democracy. It's an evolution. It's an important evolution.
If Khun Prem had not done that when there was a crisis in 1991, 1992 with General Suchinda, there would be no middle class, because I think General Suchinda thought he could win with the coup. He was surprised because the Thai people didn't like it.
Professor Stephen B Young is the global executive director of the Caux Round Table and an editorial commentator for Twin Cities Daily Planet newswire. He was educated at the International School Bangkok, Harvard College (graduating Magna ... Laud) and Harvard Law School (graduating ... Laud). In 1966 he discovered the bronze-age site of Ban Chiang in northeastern Thailand, which is now a Unesco world-heritage site. He was a former assistant dean at Harvard Law School and a former dean of Hamline University School of Law. He is widely recognised for his knowledge of Asian history and politics, and has taught at various prestigious institutes. His articles have been published in well-known newspapers including the New York Times.
10.09.09, 05:48 #2
- Registriert seit
Re: Thai Politik aus der Sicht eines Ausländers
War heute Morgen meine erste Lektuere, interessante Sichtweise von Herrn Young!
Sehr wichtig finde ich den Hinweis auf Thailands Entwicklung in den letzten 40 Jahren OHNE einen Herrn Thaksin aber unter der Fuehrung EINES Mannes, dem Koenig von Thailand!
Was sind knappe 6 Jahre im Vergleich zu 60 Jahren?
Die Stellungnahme zu der Moral von den Coupmachern, der Frage von gerecht oder ungerecht ist ebenfalls treffend!
Mein Standpunkt ist der gleiche!
Thaksin hatte weder die moralische Authoritaet noch die moralische Legitimitaet, die hat er aufgrund seiner unzaehligen Aktionen, die er in seiner Amtszeit als PM und in seinem politischen Werdegang davor, urauffuehrte, verspielt!
Gen.Prem, der sich ploetzlich den Attacken dieses Mannes ausgesetzt sieht, ist wenn dann der Mann dem Lorbeeren zustehen!
Allein diese versteckten Attacken, auf Personen die sich weit groesserer Verdienste fuer Thailand verdient gemacht haben, die Missachtung die er damit diesen Leuten entgegen bringt(oder ist es blinder Neid?) entheben diesen Mann seiner moralischen Legitimitaet und oeffnen gleichzeitig die Tore fuer die Frage nach den ethischen Fundamenten auf welche die Taten dieses Mannes, als Staatsmann, aufbauen sollten!
Mit seinem "frag die Waehlerschaft!" geht er ganz neue Wege von "Demokratie", Chavez, Saddam Hussein, Stalin - ja, wurden auch "gewaehlt" und behaupteten das sei des "Volkes Bestaetigung ihrer Authoritaet und Legitimitaet"!....wie Young, die verborgenen Falschheit, die eigentlich auf verborgene Diktatur hindeutet, richtig anmerkt!
10.09.09, 05:54 #3Bukeo
Re: Thai Politik aus der Sicht eines AusländersZitat von Samuianer",p="772129
10.09.09, 06:11 #4
- Registriert seit
Re: Thai Politik aus der Sicht eines AusländersZitat von Bukeo",p="772131
Guter Artikel, endlich mal ein Farang, der ausreichend Hintergrundwissen das sich uebr einen langen Zeitraum hinstreckt, mitbringt und mal klipp und klar sagt das NYT, WSJ und "The Economist" die Wahrheit nicht gepachtet haben, nur weil sie sonst als hochwertige Medien gelten!
Habe nach dem Fruehstueck, noch mal ein wenig editier daher wurde aus "der selbe..." - "der gleiche..."... aber ist ja fast das Selbe!
10.09.09, 06:19 #5Bukeo
Re: Thai Politik aus der Sicht eines AusländersZitat von Samuianer",p="772133
Diese Einschätzung ist mal eine Abwechslung gegenüber ROT- oder GELB-Berichten.
Man kann bei dieser Einschätzung fast sagen: 99,9 % auch genau meine Ansicht.
10.09.09, 06:42 #6
- Registriert seit
Re: Thai Politik aus der Sicht eines Ausländers
Wo sind nur "die Gelben"?...
Die Rotjoeppchen Punks haben unendliche viele Wege gefunden sich der Laecherlichkeit preiszugeben!
Allein ihre Gewaltszenen, die Unterdrueckung von Ansprachen, Auftritten von Demokraten und Gelbhemden in "Ihren Hochburgen"... spricht Baende uber ihr "echt demokratisches Ansinnen"!
Alles verdreht und verlogen - klar bei dem Konzept!
Ws soll man da Anderes erwarten?
11.09.09, 09:09 #7
- Registriert seit
Re: Thai Politik aus der Sicht eines Ausländers
Patronizing White Man With Degree Reassures Thai Elites With Unexamined Rhetoric
Pandering interview offered as proof that the entire world exempts Thailand from normal rules of democracy
BANGKOK – The entire world outside of Thailand, which was previously shown to be working for deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a grand conspiracy to destroy the monarchy and Buddhism, was revealed today to be in fact the complete opposite, totally and unconditionally supporting the 2006 coup, the PAD seizure of Bangkok’s airports, and Thailand’s unconditional exemption from the universal rules of democracy as it seeks righteous peace and harmony.
Professor Stephen Young, a white man who therefore represents all white countries, especially the all-powerful United States where he is from, and who furthermore has a doctorate in something Asian-related, and is therefore smarter than everyone in the world without a doctorate, especially those red-shirted people who are too blind to see that Thaksin Shinawatra was cynical and exploitative closet republican, granted an exclusive interview to NTN’s sister publication The Nation in which he graciously explained at length why the yellow-shirts are right and everyone else is lying.
“The communists have elections. Stalin had elections. ...... had elections,” the credible-looking, well-dressed man said, offering a context-less soundbite for rabid Thaksin-haters who desperately needed legitimacy to their continued denial of his serial election victories. “(Thaksin) used the government and politics in many ways to make himself wealthy,” the soft-spoken and polite man went on, generously neglecting to mention parallels with both the patronage system itself and the wealth-accumulation method of every Thai leader since 1932 except Chuan.
More importantly, the serious and educated professor provided a statistics-free anecdote about his own travels upcountry over the decades, proving once and for all that the impoverished Thaksin supporters are not only lying about their need for progressive politics, but about being poor at all: “When I hear the red shirts say there´s a gap between Bangkok and (upcountry), I think it´s ridiculous.” According to Professor Young, whose father knew His Majesty the King and is therefore to be trusted in all matters, “today there´s electricity, flush toilets, hot water and ATM machines (upcountry).”
The good professor, who attended big-name schools that hi-so parents send their kids to, and is therefore wise, went on to permanently put the violent, disruptive, and economy-damaging PAD seizure of the airports in 2008 in its proper myopic, emotionally biased view, describing it as a “peaceful sit-in.” It can only be assumed now that all professors from all big-name schools with fancy degrees who study things, and know other things, completely agree with Dr Young so that no more debate on the topic is necessary ever again.
Paranoid isolationists will take great heart that the man, who is terribly old and therefore to be respected, took the time to disparage the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Economist, thus making it all the easier to dismiss the writing of award-winning journalists who live in and study Southeast Asia as ignorant meddling from outsiders who just don’t understand Thailand the way only Thais and good men like Dr Young implicitly do.
Finally, Dr Young, who speaks fluent Thai and drops Thai words into his English with proper tones and is therefore a patriot of Thai values, assured the most rabid PAD supporters that blatant racism is acceptable when used against Thaksin. “He´s not really a Thai Thai. He has other ideas in his head. He does not say kreng jai. He does not think about merit and sin…This kind of thinking to me reflects not Thai Buddhism, but Chinese imperial thinking.”
Right-thinking Thais, now assured of the infallibility of their own simplified, color-coded prejudices and tautological notions about correct Thai values, can continue their half-blind savaging of pluralist government, piecemeal reversal of the 1932 revolution of which they have no recollection or interest, and gushing revisionism of past royalist dictators like Sarit, thanks to the wonderful blanket absolution of this enlightened farang, whose bright yellow tie looks so shiny and neat.
Gedacht als Fortsetzung der Satire hier im Forum.
11.09.09, 09:28 #8
- Registriert seit
Re: Thai Politik aus der Sicht eines AusländersZitat von waanjai_2",p="772555
Stephen Young ist kein "dummes, dahergelaufenes Buebchen", auch wennn der Verfasser dieses bissigen Artikels es gern, allzu gern so hinzustellen trachtet...aber dafuer ist es halt ein Satiremagazin und wohl fuer ernsthafte politische Diskussion eher ungeeignet - es sei denn man moechte sich mit aller Gewalt laecherlich machen!
Du verwechselst da mal wieder was Waani - aber dir ist das ja nicht uebel zu nehmen "NotTheNation" ist eine recht bissige Satire Seite, um mal einen Brueller zu verursachen, die natuerlich nicht ernst zu nehmen ist.
Ist wie politische Karrikaturen oder Polit-Kabarett!
So natuerlich auch die Verzerrung des Schreibers Thaksin haette die Wahlen "In Serie" gewonnen, in Serie manipuliert, das stimmt!
Dir scheint eine forschreitende Thai-Polit Demenz dabei behilflich zu sein, allein der Umstand das die Wahlen im April 2006... vom Verfassungsgericht fuer ungueltig erklaert wurden!
undThaksin zwar sagte er sei zurueckgetreten aber troztdem weiter im Amt blieb, bis er dann nach New York zum UNO-Gipfel flog, jedoch ohne vorher aber noch seine "Lebensersparnisse" mit 2 Flugzeugen ausser Landes zu bringen...er wollte ja von New York aus den Ausnahmezustand ueber ganz Thailand verhaengen lassen - hast du das Alles vergessen?
The ruling Thais Love Thais (TRT) party of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra won a majority seats in the House of Representatives, partly as a result of the decision by the major opposition parties to boycott the elections. Nearly complete results showed that TRT won 61% of the valid vote and about 460 of the 500 seats. Despite this, [highlight=yellow:49f7e631a7]Thaksin announced his resignation two days after the election[/highlight:49f7e631a7].
Although TRT easily won the election in terms of both votes and seats, the results were seen by Thaksin's opponents and media critics as a rejection of his call for an overwhelming mandate. In parts of Bangkok and in southern Thailand, most TRT candidates were elected on minority votes after the majority of voters used the "abstain" option on their ballot papers. In a number of southern seats TRT candidates failed to poll the required 20% of registered voters, rendering these southern seats invalid and resulting in party dissolution charges against Thai Rak Thai and Democrat Parties.
After Thailand's revered monarch His Majesty king Bhumibol Adulyadej took an unusual step but socially unifying step in declaring the landslide elections undemocratic, the election was declared invalid by the Constitutional Court, and new elections would have be held in October....
Einige Inhalte im Wiki koennen durchaus als zweifelhaft angesehen werden, da praktisch jeder schreiben aber auch editieren kann, nur hier - und da kann jeder nach Herzenslust googeln, gibt es verschiendene Kommentare ueber die damalige Situation - ist aber Geschichte geworden und hat sich wie dargestellt auch abgespielt!
11.09.09, 10:36 #9
- Registriert seit
Re: Thai Politik aus der Sicht eines Ausländers
Dieter Hildebrandt, Das Kommoedschen, Die Lach- und Schiessgesellschaft - das alles war politisches Kabarett ohne politische Ahnung.
Ja, ja. Alles wird gut. Vielleicht sogar besser.
12.09.09, 07:44 #10Bukeo
Re: Thai Politik aus der Sicht eines AusländersZitat von Samuianer",p="772559
Von Viktor im Forum Event-BoardAntworten: 6Letzter Beitrag: 19.05.09, 22:35
Von jai po im Forum Thailand NewsAntworten: 63Letzter Beitrag: 23.10.08, 11:00
Von hananga im Forum TreffpunktAntworten: 79Letzter Beitrag: 17.09.07, 12:52
Von ebiro im Forum LiterarischesAntworten: 7Letzter Beitrag: 19.11.06, 17:54
Von gregor200 im Forum Ehe & FamilieAntworten: 11Letzter Beitrag: 06.06.06, 12:41