All because of the coup

A movement to collect petiontions to free takky (nah, we had iggy.) is gaining momentum, at least in newspaper debate.

Every evidence of his conviction is marred because of the bloody useless bloodless coup. Guilty but the … were unfair to me. They were appointed by the coup.

He never talked about the gap between the rich and the poor. Normal people, not leaders, who rallied for him go to court, were probably bailed out or maybe not and face trials. Like it or not, only cream of the rich can afford to escape and critize the court, knowing that he would not be accountable for contempt of the court, at least when he is not in Thailand and there would be supporters ask for his pardon.

There are people facing LM cases left to rot in judicial process, perhaps, takky supporters have to steer clear from those people in public now. Do those people facing LM charges and takky supporters are one and the same, overlapping but not equal, or the engagement are fluid.

Do I believe that takky will be the solution for egalitarianism, communism or other ideologies people think he endorsed? I don’t think so. His interest is takkyism and he seemed to make any alliances with anything that make takkyism prospers. Left, right, north, northeast, dubai, china.. whatever.

And so called takky supporters are alienated. If something happen they go to court, served jail term, came back with criminal records. They petitioned for this man to be pardon. ironic.

Some people started to see his true color before the coup. The bloodless coup came, and takky, hail takky, promoted himself to be a self proclaim rights defender (how many human rights defenders killed in your government? no progress, no respond. I took this personally as I knew one of them), democracy protector (FTA, 2005 Emergency Decree and media interference, in short) and an excellent executive who can run anything from a football club to a country (sir, did you pay your taxes?). Loyal or not I do not care. He positions himself as an understanding, big spening but lesser and nessesity evil. These were forgotten. Yet, he can be wiped clean instancely, once he started mentioning the coup.

On average, he seemed to impress supporters who like him and will do anything so that he could return to lead, to govern, perhaps to do the same again, or even do better or worse, they reasoned the good deeds outweigh small unintended mistakes. Supporters are a part of people, and if “vote no” in a national election, just before he started dragging the matter for a bit too long, can be counted, there are people that do not like they way he did his business. He could be ousted by an election (plus patience), a fair election or not was Election Commission’s question.

Again, they were forgotten because of the bigger highlight: the coup. Ousted by the coup. He rephrased “I am abused by the coup, and in a fine print: the coup supporters.”

For people who do not support a coup, bloody or bloodless, they are also generalized and simplified as red. takky is not my red. I went to protest the coup, then I was red. I felt sick during his phone in. I disagree with his statement.

There is only thing in common.

I don’t support the coup.
I think it was unwise.

I believe that people can learn. They were learning how to harness electoral democracy, and it was terminated to focus of takky-as-democracy.

All because of the coup.

Filed under: Political Sciences

Waiting for a mag in Aree

I love Aree and fresh supplies of magazine, but I could only find a worn the Economist over the counter. While the newest time has MJ on cover, the Economist was some thing less than Obama and a grizzly. People start posting links in social networks. It might be another time that Economist fan will have to wait and see. Nah. The information is already up in Thai in LM Watch blog.

Don’t know if it is a delay, a self-censorship or state censorship.

Another censorship news this week is you will not see Gybzy in all super cute glory. The Cannes version of Nang Mai directed by Pen-ek is available at SFW and Paragon, in case you want to see it un-blurred and if you did not see it already. (Thanks retweets.) I suspected that the rest will be covered in “moral mist.”

Like I said many time and always contrary to free speech advocates or media activists, I like censorship because I get to read censored stuffs for free. Curiosity of censorship is swine flu, as if the society will not be informed enough by free speech.

The hunt will go on, while more people will be aware that they can still take a peak at the information. I hope the LM police enjoyed Hi5, Facebook and Likedin. He might make a good deal of report if he switch to twitter. I sincerely wish him luck and a lot of fun into doing that. The underground is boring.

Maybe people will sway because censorship is an affirmative denial. If it is not true, why censor?

Filed under: Political Sciences , Free speech

New Marginalized People: those who coughed

Went on a sky train today, a person coughed and people surrounding him stepped back. Too late, he’s already cough with no mask. A kid of a friend was alienated from his pal at school. They really take this matter seriously than that of the MOPH’s statement on A/H1N1

Be infamous, or try coughing.
PS Recently on FB, meaw social network said: A cold is not a crime, people with cold is not a criminal. sound familiar, anyone?

Filed under: Political Sciences , A/H1N1 Bangkok

with an extra help and twitter

Yeah, I think most people saw #iranelection in twitter. This could be useful if they really want to do in Thailand.
Read on.

“Our aim is to ensure that citizens can choose for themselves what information they access,” he said. “The Iranian media space is the latest, but it will not be the last forum within which we actively engage in that mission.”

Canadian tech firm helps protesting Iranians connect.

Thank to a belated canada day email.

Filed under: Political Sciences , Free speech

[Draft]Carbon Credit Trade and Indigenous People

Several Thai NGOs disagreed with carbon credit trade, but I could not, for now, find what they were asking for and how they reasoned the issues to the public, who are informed that the trade will benefit the country. Wiwat Tamee, coordinator of Ethnic Minority Groups in the North voiced concerned that government’s carbon credit trading, forced indigenous people to be arrested and driven from forests, which are their traditional home. This people, according to him, did not destroy the forest, but they were forced to change their livelihood because the carbon credit trading does not allow people to live in the forest.(http://www.prachatai.com/journal/2009/05/23932)

Perhaps, more land that indigenous people stayed was confiscated to farm trees in order to sell more carbon credits from reforestation or afforestation.

In the carbon “sinks,” contracts were usually made for a period of 5-10 years. Once the carbon credit was sold, any utilization to that area is strictly prohibited. (Could not find any real contract for now in REDD accreditation system). Consequentially, indigenous people living in the forest have to be forcibly displaced from deforested areas that the could be granted certain kind of deeds.

Experiences of impacts form carbon credit trading to indigenous people in other countries are projected in UN-REDD (REDD: Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries) document (http://www.undp.org/mdtf/UN-REDD/docs/Annex-A-Framework-Document.pdf)

“[REDD] deprive communities of their legitimate land-development aspirations, that hard-fought gains in forest management practices might be wasted, that it could cause the lock-up of forests by decoupling conservation from development, or erode culturally rooted not-for-profit conservation values.” (http://www.huntingtonnews.net/political/080929-staff-politicalclimatechange.html) and see also a more graphic one at (http://www.carbontradewatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=94&Itemid=45)

Filed under: Political Sciences , carbon offsetting, carbon sinks, forest, hilltribes

what with democracies?

When many people were young, they might be elected to be classroom “presidents” and “vice presidents.” It was simple, direct democracy and there was almost no significant interests to inspire corruptions. There were responsibilities such as overseeing if a group assigned to do daily cleaning tasks. At the beginning of each semester in school, we did not know our leaders, particularly in new schools with new classmates.

In those sociology classes, we were usually told that direct democracy is no longer valid with larger population. Later poli sci classes discusses eligible “citizens” in direct democracy. Still, in front of a polling booth, every eligible citizens are equal. One man, to be politically incorrect, or one person, one vote.

It seemed to me that the polling booths is the only place where egalitarianism prevails. But equal opportunity to vote is not enough, for now. Thai citizens must cast god vote; not a vote. Under-standard votes would result in social delegitimizing processes and feedback of quality of citizens. I even hard people saying those people who casted “bad” votes, should not be eligible to vote. Probably the reason to have red card system is to have an authority to screen out bad vote.

It is harder to screen out corrupt politicians once they took the office, no?

Hence the delay.. joking.. seriously.

The quest for ‘good’ political community is disputable and endless. Should it be a place for dialogue rather than saying this is bad and you shall be have a by-election as a reprimand, dialogic space, instead of indirect lectures, should be available for people who had exercised their rights to speak. It is their right to cast a vote to someone, after all, an election is rather a blind selection. Things change, and we would all end up discriminate people who did not cast good votes, without respect to citizens’ right that they can vote for anyone, they see fit.

I think everyone select a representative that can represent their interests. (Note: I did not endorsed some of statements in the links.) It is not one party or the other. The question of legitimacy of people’s voice arrived without questioning conflicting interest between classes, between peripherals and centers, cities and the rural and those who have to put up with hydro electric dams, forced evacuations and pollution that will not happen in some people’s backyards.

Do people who claim that the ‘rural poor’ are so affected by consumerism (money, money, money) simplified them? Do these poor want the universal solution? We never know and we think we know.

let’s get back to the feeling of being school kids. You may not like your friend’s vote. forget it. you would not think that she’s an under-educated, greedy person at that time. so healing the national disunity would not have to end up with everybody being reeducated to believe in the same thing.

Filed under: Political Sciences

Responses from social network friends on “strangers”

Seemed like the official “add me” request was wide spreading. Some already added this person and said their is nothing controversial about it. More people reported refusing to accpet this guy as a friend just because he is not. Most of all, I was wondering, with all technologies, blockade and laws on their side, he still wants to read social netwoking entries. Maybe he had enough reading the underground things and knowing most people use their real names to enable friends from colleges to recognize.

Oh, well after spams and commercials we now have security social network spam. By the way, the system could refuse or block your activities if you have too many friends in a short period of time…I hope he knew.

Filed under: Political Sciences

LM police asked to add people in facebook

Yesterday in Facebook, many people who are my contact received request from Pol Lt-Colonel Watanasak Mungkijkarndee. I got one,. My bad, since I am not an LM fan, I did not know who he is until some contact pointed out his mission. An article reprinted in FACT Thai (http://facthai.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/defenders-of-the-king-bangkok-post/)said “Describing himself as “a typical Thai with reverence for the monarchy”, Watanasak Mungkijkarndee, a police investigator from Bang Mod station, says he can’t stand people talking about the country’s highest institution in an inappropriate way.

On March 24 he lodged a complaint with the Crime Suppression Division against then PM’s Office Minister Jakrapob Penkair, accusing him of being disrespectful to the monarchy.”

Latest development said he also asked people to add him as a hi5 ‘friend.’

Filed under: Political Sciences

Where was my vote?

While waiting to hear from the Election commission on Sakon Nakorn by-election, let’s guess what would be the answer for the new Peua Thai MPs to-be. A yay or a nay.

Several speculations were made after korean grill dinner, iced raspberry tea and late night women’s talk.

Given that the Iranians who came out to protest wanted to ask, “where is my vote?” the people who voted for Peua Thai candidate would like to reiterate to the EC, to the government and to Newin, that This is, and perhaps, it was my vote anyway, after the red card. I suspected that if this MPs would be red carded again, the Peua Thai candidate could also win the next election.

Being red carded, is not a candidate’s personal shame anymore, particularly when almost every aspect of people’s participation to the “grand”-politics are much watched and scrutinized by the opposite camps, the no camps, the two Nos, the academic, the media, civil societies (including the red, yellow, blue, etc. groups), elites, and bloggers. A result of an election reflected identities of people, at least many believed so. For an example, a “poor”(read “red carded”) selection, resulting in bad-mouthing or bad jokes, one was over heard during a visit to yellow mob: “I think people of … are poor and uneducated so they picked… for MPs, who bought them.” Let me make it clear that I do not always endorsed EC’s standard on giving red cards. There are, ironically, similar comments overheard in red mobs about choices of Southern people.

Despite solid evidences of vote buying, it is clear that accepting vote buying is another political expression, maybe no ideologically the best one, however, after several elections with the same result in certain areas, in this case, Sakornakorn, it must means something. The crude interpretation: people wants Thaksin. Yeah, they said that.

It would not be difficult to report election fraud. Unreported election fraud or vote buying are the matter people can choose. There are international fraud monitor, namely representative of opposition camps and independent vote monitoring organizations, including but not limited to EC. There are reasons not to report. Traditionally upright people would say fear, greed, ignorant or simply want to go with the rest of the people. people are told that they should report, but they can always turn blind eyes to parties that represented their interests in the long run. Some call this political moral corruption and went in all details to explore how and why these ‘unaware’ people can be converted to morally upright citizens.

But what if they want to voice something, something more than the mainstream interpretation of landslide reaffirmation of people’s choices. Even if the by-election was considered dubious in Constituency 3 poll, it is clear that the majority of people still want Peua Thai representative and the party’s ideology if there is any, despite previous red cards. Perhaps they, too, know that vote-buying allegation will be investigated again, that the EC endorsement will be difficult but it is necessary to shout out loud that “corrupted” or not, the people’s vote should be heard and counted, if not respected.

And I heard, too, that people who are ‘ignorant’ should not be allowed to cast their vote, or we should impose weighed on each person’s vote according to education level or how good citizens they are.

But we should respect the one man, one vote. Everybody is equal in front of a polling booth. But in Thailand, “morals” and “merits” are important than equality.

Filed under: Political Sciences , democracy by-election Thailand Sakon Nakorn

A walk in mine (mind?) field.

I was recently asked to give an short talk on safe place. Nah, it was not that good talk and the whole file mysteriously disappeared after some worms attack. As I was reading Bangkok Post’s online headline, the Preah Vihear, Thailand’s objection and a preparation of riot police for the next ASEAN summit.

Writing comfortably in an area of Bangkok, considered safe and urban, with its back to communities under express way and the front of my soi to handful of central government agencies, the narrow strip of the area is a buffer zone, if one considered there are certain values attached to both places, almost concentrated zinc roofed house packed under an expressway, government building and business areas on the other.

There are many buffer zones I had entered during the past two or three years that I started bloging. It began with fenced long walk to the first yellow shirt mobs, road blocks, post coup protest, and a space before people were faced with fences, telling if you do not belong to authorized institutions, you shall not cross. in some areas during recent April uprising in Bangkok. These are space in the everyday life, not tabula rasa, but a place waiting to be inscribed with activities, meanings, values, force and power. The buffer zones are likely to be the place for temporary refuge and a departure point if one wanted to move on.

When I was working researching about landmines, I noticed the mine map of Thailand as being fenced by tiny black or red dots or patches of color, most of them along the border. The fences were actually dots, then dots make lines, from an over-view, one could see that the lines purportedly were fro filtering invasion from outsiders as well as access from insiders who wanted to go out. It is a warning, perhaps invisible to newcomers that the lines were not to be crossed. Transgression is expensive, if not deadly. Most anti-personnel landmines were not for taking life, they were manufactured to take limbs and spirit to move further away from relatively safe zones.

Categorization is a mission of states. There are levels, if Manichean dualities are not sufficed, of threats and safely. In some relatively safe areas, there are unsafely. However, at the border, the thin lines will be packed with intense threats to safety as if to keep people in their places. It is likely that we will not travel form black to white and vice versa. There are warning signs, informing of the road ahead and inscribing the landscape where people should be and how near to the line they should not transgress.

“Mined. Keep out. Do not enter.”

Unlike walls, mines are underground, explosive but barely visible.

There is fencing in the news. There is fencing in the minds. A fence asked if you belong to red or yellow. I am standing in the buffer zones, willing to go to both destinations but each visit could be unpleasant: the lines not many people wanted to cross. So I was silenced, discontented and decidedly becoming passive.

Red areas.

Do you want to enter? Questioning police lines and fences were ahead. They would block us anyway, blocking people from what they should see, hear or do. When the fired blank bullets, the army reiterates the line, for good citizens, do not step further, go home or move backward. If you move further, explosion could be inevitable.

The last lines of “rational thoughts” or “official histories” perhaps I crossed this long time ago, a journey out of the national History and rationality, to the void, where prior knowledge and beliefs would explode.

There were fences and narrow strips of minefield in the mind. That was, perhaps, one of the reason I felt gagging effects when I was about to talk about “politics.” Should I transgress my relatively safe buffer zone to talk to a stranger? Which color is she? Will we argue? If someone write something about that mine, will it trigger and explosion, a violence in itself and a caution to others.

Do not cross the line.

And who build those fences we, willingly, do not want to cross. Who built the mine fields?

It is in the mind. Who will de-mine?

Filed under: Political Sciences , politics, reflection