Part Time (You tube found)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90MuPqYtV_k

Filed under: Time out

Corrupt altogether, but who let “grassroot” people prosper with their corruption?

I believe there is not a party in Thailand that is not involve in any degree of corruption, either individually and not relate to the party, partial personal-party or pan-party corruption.

Thus, people who think that corruption and politician moral issue is under the same corrupted nature may incline to use other factors to decide what party they will vote for.

Obviously, not any who advertise about moral superiority, if assumed that any party would corrupt, either in the past, now, or when they would be in power. Utilitarianism in common senses will lead people, not only “grassroot” but urban middle class and entrepreneurs to vote for any party that have proven records of income generation.

Isn’t per capital income and enterprise income contribute to gross national income? Isn’t income important when surging oil price and general commodity prices are increasing while the light at the end of tunnel for many industries are reportedly seem to be unable to find under the current circumstance.

PPP have the right marketing campaign. They don’t talk about moral issues or redundant welfare state like free education as a priority, they talk about wealth and income generation. If people have income, the country will have more wealth. Then the state will have more money to spend for welfare. It is so simple.

When people assume that everybody corrupt for their best interests, any party that is willing to spill small portion of what they earn from people’s tax back to the people in form of prosperity (please do not question legitimacy and where the money is from), would be likely to win the vote.

For non-grassroot, isn’t it comforting to foster an excuse like “they did it with their corporations, too?”– particularly when they want to copy the same formula used among politicians.In business, what if it is found that when not competing against the chains of winning parties, loopholes punched by so called “on-the-edge-of-corruption-and-unintended-but-honest-misstep,” would be big enough to follow in. If many hate the way the corrupted people float happily, it might be because they envy that they could not be like those guys.

Well, the other party boasted moral supremacy can be a team of good watchdogs.

It is likely that what academic community and human right activists worry about the future of what would be left after a corrupted regime would be too dramatic, with personal wealth-being, one can almost wad of side effects, and some side effects will not be felt when one is fully walled against human rights and civil right issues as it would not contribute to national income generation project. There must be some sacrifice for the wealth of the nation, like those who have to sacrifice for dam construction, which they will be remembered and soon forgotten.

By the way, can those rights address poverty and individual livelihood issues? They just talked about non-sense stuffs. Freedom of the press and right of expression? Can’t feed my family with that and no one in the family is “the press.”

With the threat of global warming and that ignorance is ultimate bliss, why not cast vote for they party that will surely boost the macro and micro wealth and enjoy “edible” democracy.

They said using cloth bags will reduce plastic bags consumption and help global warming and those with more carbon credits can sell to those who produce carbon and write off pollution and CO2 produced in carbon accounts.

With this election, it could be as simple and superficial as that.

Filed under: Political Sciences

Filling the Justice Gap.

Filling the Justice Gap.

Again I received an email forwarded about displaced person conflict with part time security officers in the camp, this time, reportedly with one young man died from (strayed) bullets.

A coverage in Thai alternative and non-maintream website reported that a group of camp dwellers initiated the tension by throwing sticks and pebbles at a group of security staff before they would broke off into a fight. A young man was accidentally hit. Details as reported by mainstream media said the officers were held hostage by refugees but it turned out to be some of officers, fearing retribution from the mass, fled to the forest. Later it was reported that refugees organized a mob, which non-mainstream reporter said it was people watching and attending the funeral.

In the most remote area of justice, what might happened is silencing the victims, as they have to weigh carefully the future of the whole camp. Community leaders promised that a group of conflict initiators would be handed to Thai justice system. No report had been said about a group of security officers firing.

An event like this would be kept quiet as small news in later part of newspapers, with mainstream point of view, those people who fought with security officers are ungrateful. On the other hand, what kind of tension that they are hostile against security officers, knowing they cannot beat a group of armed men with stick and stones.

One thing that Thai authority, particularly paramilitary staff had never been trained is riot control, alternative crowd control and regulation to operate firearms. They shoot at their personal discretion and their personal gauged threats, like what had happened to young muslim men who were mistaken as insurgents. When they are armed, they will shoot. At any rate, when facing tension people tend to overestimate the risk and act accordingly, yet as a member of state security force, they have to be trained not to act like panicking ordinary people.

They are always armed on duty, I was wondering if that is the way they think about camp members, constant threat? Yet, the other function of being armed is additional power from firearms, it took a lot of hatred and probably rage to throw pebbles at armed paramilitary officers and to overcome ordinary fear of obviously armed men.

I should wait to read small news that both side of the conflict will be brought to justice. If not it would indicate that the authority let lawlessness govern that certain part of the country. Those who initiated the conflict must against authority must be brought to the court, injuring authority is a crime, causing disorder is a smaller crime. That small amount of people from both groups must be accountable for what they do. It is Thailand, don’t make it fall to no-law-land.

Filed under: Security, Something To Remember

Reality Check: What Thai Political Society is like?

Banharn just said he waited for invitation from any party.
Yes, everyone want to join theparty that is about to win. Despite last week he siad to give priority to Democrat does not mean that he wanted to be an opposition party.

Nation Analysis: “Military unlikely to be targets for revenge by PPP”
Now Sonthin Boonyaratkalin is retired. Beside the most top priority is to raise 111 zombies and pave ways for smooth landing of Thaksin, e.g. tax evasion and corruption.

One of PPP’s campaign sinage in Bangkok: “We are expert in income generation.”
Now it reflected that people, particularly who elcted them want to have income, no matter where it is from. PPP will make the country looked properous, no matter what it take. Goodbye sustaianble and s…

Don’t be sick of it, at least if you don’t like the new constitution, by cating your vote, you can sign a petition to throw it away, if you can’t wait for PPP to scap it down first (to revoke any amnesty granting to the coup maker). I dobt that the Nation Security Bill will be a sword handle to the right candidate (ha ha ha.)

Filed under: Political Sciences

Who want to be poor and happy

The election result indicated that being poor and unhappy in post-coup regime is not what they want.

Filed under: Security

Not guity…

The final verdict from the Election Comission ruled out that the classified directives to intervene with activities from nominee parties is under immunity form the current constitution.

Then, nominee party wiull find reasons to deligitimate the EC and the CNS.

Filed under: Political Sciences

Merge is a new Self-Determination?

Starting somewhere last week, the post-post-modern self determination reverse the I want to split to ethno state to “what about merging?” Germany merged. The EU is almost “as one.”

First I read the new two days ago and I though, they must be kidding?

Will this be read as new imperialism or just a small indicator that ethno state might not work in some cases.

Filed under: Political Sciences

The end justified the reconciliation?

The end justified the reconciliation government

Apparently, everybody seemed to think that election would not get any far. Calls for unity. According to Bangkok Post Editorial “Reconciliation, unity are vital”

National unity governments are broad coalitions comprising all the major parties that are usually formed in times of war or national emergency.

Yet, s/he pointed out and important point that:

What does unification mean in practice? Contrary to what some want to believe, unity does not mean the whole country should agree on every issue unanimously. Everyone knows this is impossible. It would be ludicrous, if not fascist, for a government or bureaucracy to attempt to make everybody think the same way.

What I personally have learned from “reconciliation” governments or overwhelming majority government that MPs reconciled (or forcibly reconcile because they were from the same party, but different fractions ) or a parliamentarian equation of the National Legislative Assembly that does not have the official or de facto “opposition parties” to counter-argue points in National Security Act. A legislative assembly where most members reach agreement, instead of broad dialogue and thoughtful investigation of an issue, will not do this country any good. When people think different and debate on different point of views, we will have counter narratives and multiple choices should popular one fails to work.

Additionally, under the current system, we do not have any common anchorage points. Biased and influences wrecked common democratic practices and values. When anything said or committed by people in power were flavored, despite how corrupt they could be, people who disagree with the common values or practices will feel betrayed. This undermine unity and encourage tit for tat damaging practices. Any united and agree upon democratic practices were violated. You do this, you will be arrested, I do that, I am praised to prevent security threats. The country is now partitioned: one side will agree with the current power, the other will stick to other nostalgia. Nobody talked about common treatise of democracy, which is our common mooring point.

If we take wrong mooring point (i.e. unity which mean everybody must agree to the power, even it is not right or democratic), we join hands and lump together, then when we sink, we sink all. No alternative view points, mechanism or life guards can save us.

Yet, we sink in bliss thinking, oh, what a bliss to see people united.

Filed under: Political Sciences

The end justified the reconciliation?

The end justified the reconciliation government

Apparently, everybody seemed to think that election would not get any far. Calls for unity. According to Bangkok Post Editorial “Reconciliation, unity are vital”

National unity governments are broad coalitions comprising all the major parties that are usually formed in times of war or national emergency.

Yet, s/he pointed out and important point that:

What does unification mean in practice? Contrary to what some want to believe, unity does not mean the whole country should agree on every issue unanimously. Everyone knows this is impossible. It would be ludicrous, if not fascist, for a government or bureaucracy to attempt to make everybody think the same way.

What I personally have learned from “reconciliation” governments or overwhelming majority government that MPs reconciled (or forcibly reconcile because they were from the same party, but different fractions ) or a parliamentarian equation of the National Legislative Assembly that does not have the official or de facto “opposition parties” to counter-argue points in National Security Act. A legislative assembly where most members reach agreement, instead of broad dialogue and thoughtful investigation of an issue, will not do this country any good. When people think different and debate on different point of views, we will have counter narratives and multiple choices should popular one fails to work.

Additionally, under the current system, we do not have any common anchorage points. Biased and influences wrecked common democratic practices and values. When anything said or committed by people in power were flavored, despite how corrupt they could be, people who disagree with the common values or practices will feel betrayed. This undermine unity and encourage tit for tat damaging practices. Any united and agree upon democratic practices were violated. You do this, you will be arrested, I do that, I am praised to prevent security threats. The country is now partitioned: one side will agree with the current power, the other will stick to other nostalgia. Nobody talked about common treatise of democracy, which is our common mooring point.

If we take wrong mooring point (i.e. unity which mean everybody must agree to the power, even it is not right or democratic), we join hands and lump together, then when we sink, we sink all. No alternative view points, mechanism or life guards can save us.

Yet, we sink in bliss thinking, oh, what a bliss to see people united.

Filed under: Political Sciences

Anything is National Security…

Matichon reported several news that presented unaltered mind-bogging views on what national security would be handled.

A recently imposed “curfew” in Bankrud/ Bo Nok area, Tupsakae and Bang Saphan in Prachub KiriKhan, about 30 mins away from Hua Hin, where there could not be imminent threats like migrant workers and insurgency. Matichin, quoting Sunee Chiayaros, Human Rights Commissioner, as saying the areas was exerting their rights to determine their livelihood,protect their homeland and environment. more at Matichon. Dispute claims over public land has always been a recent issues. Local people aimed to claim their rights over the land to build metal extraction plants. They had been very vigorous to protest and organized public hearing.

CNS chief asked the Election Commission to reconsidered the ruling that classified orders to suppress ”old power” to come back through election violated neutrality. CNS argued, that the measures said to be used against Thaksin reincarnation party would prevent disunity in the country, prevent retribution, and enhance national security. An explanation letter on this regard was sent to Election Commission. It is expected that if CNS is found guilty (currently they EC voted that the practice indicated that they failed to maintain neutral), Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratkalin could be removed from the government’s committee against vote buying.

Despite other functioning institution and that people’s vote, bought or not, and civil society movement, should be valued as an exercise in democratic society. Despite the election, the new constitution and the promise of less CNS intervention, democracy would still be beyond reach if people’s civil and polirical rights are to be limited and compromised.

Filed under: Political Sciences