love/fear

There are many emails in my inbox these days talking about politics. Actually a certain politics.
a) should the country be a republic?
b) should the lese majeste law be reformed (or re/formed?)
c) should the lese majeste law be abolished altogether?
d) should a country revise other law such as criminal procedure to prevent abuse of lese majeste law

Seemed like supporter of the three main line of argument are not and cannot be lumped together as “red shirts.” During my observation some red shirt people say they want constitutional monarchy, democracy with a monarch and that they, too, love and want to protect the king. It was not a speech issued by speakers, but by people listening to it. Even if many people try to investigate the thicker description, we have to agree that some people truly believe (due to massive reeducation and re presentation of histories, social marketing, etc. ) truly believe what they believe and they believe, despite all cost, it is necessary.

The force of loyalty
Yet, you may say the price to pay for criticizing could be massive. But the real power is in the public script. Even being verbally and furtively accused of not loyal the deposed Thaksin said in an interview with the Far Eastern Economic Review that:

“I was getting more popularity with the people, and I am alleged [to be not]loyal to the king. . . . Actually I am very loyal to His Majesty. If that has been turned back, that I am loyal to the king, so all thingswill be changed.”

“We probably have to go back to square one … that is, there shouldn’tbe any case against each other politically anymore. And from now afterwe do the reconciliation, if anyone did something wrong it must be[handled] according to the rule of law.”

How to wipe the slate clean? Mr. Thaksin does not call for a royal pardon.Instead, he says, Parliament could pass “a law for reconciliation” that“must be approved by His Majesty.” The law could contain an amnesty for politicians accused or convicted of wrong-doing.

Mr. Thaksin believes that the world financial crisis has made the needfor reconciliation even more urgent: “I think the country is at stake.If you think that you want to leave the country like this for long,that will damage the whole country and the people living in thecountry. So for me, I can wait, I just keep myself physically fit, then I can wait.”

Thailand’s recovery could be delayed if investors are unnerved bypolitical instability, Mr. Thaksin warns. “Stability is a prerequisitefor prosperity. Without stability you cannot prosper.” (Italic added)

Any subversive actions still have to carry the public script to prevent the risk. Underneath it all, people discuss things in webboards and blogs that could be shut down with punitive actions. Any people who overstep the line could face alienation. Despite Giles was talking about red shirts, some public speakers of red shirt movement dislocate themselves from Giles and claimed they want democracy with a monarch.

“ณัฐวุฒิ”ปัด “ใจ” ไม่เกี่ยวเสื้อแดง-เชื่อไม่ส่งผลกระทบ

นายณัฐวุฒิ ไสยเกื้อ อดีตโฆษกประจำสำนักนายกรัฐมนตรี แกนนำกลุ่มคนเสื้อแดงกล่าวถึงกรณีที่นายใจ อึ๊งภากรณ์ อาจารย์ประจำคณะรัฐศาสตร์ จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย ที่เคยร่วมเวทีคนเสื้อแดง เมื่อวันที่ 31 มกราคมถูกหมายจับข้อหมิ่นพระบรมเดชานุภาพ ว่าไม่กังวลว่าจะส่งผลกระทบกับกลุ่มเสื้อแดง เพราะประกาศเจตนารมณ์ชัดเจนว่า จะต่อสู้เพื่อระบอบประชาธิปไตยอันมีพระมหากษัตริย์ทรงเป็นประมุข [we fight for democracy with the King as the head of state] หากจะมีใครบิดเบือนให้ร้ายคนเสื้อแดง ก็ต้องแจ้งดำเนินคดีทางกฎหมาย ส่วนความเคลื่อนไหวของนายใจเป็นมุมมองเฉพาะตัวที่เคลื่อนไหวลักษณะนี้มานานแล้ว แต่กลุ่มไม่ได้ประสานงานด้วย [Ji’s position was personal and he had bee doing this for a while. The group did not have any coordination with him.] (Matichon via Buddyjob )

Public act of obedience is required as an affirmation of power, despite subversive acts within in order to survive.

fear is the future?

When I was in an undergrad class, I was taking a seminar class on political though of Machiavelli. We read The Prince. What left after that class, was fear and love. Here is what Machiavelli said:

This gives rise to an argument: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the opposite. The answer is that one would like to be both, but since it is difficult to combine the two it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to make way. […]Men are less worried about harming somebody who makes himself loved than someone who makes himself feared, for love is held by a chain of obligation which, since men are bad, is broken at every opportunity for personal gain. Fear, on the other hand, is maintained by a dread of punishment which will never desert you.
(Italic added)

Eventually, what were created, from raid at Prachatai, the cyber crime, the institution related crimes monitoring network, the pressing uber effective handling of charges pointed out it is now the climate that people should be “dread of punishment” rather than tied by chain of love, which can be dropped at anytime.

fear is (for) the future. fear is now , but it will have long lasting effects to the future.

it is a much preferred apparatus according to Machiavelli in The Prince. Fear need dread of punishment, unlike love, which is an “obligation” without any threat of someone would desert you. Love is freedom. Freedom to stay, to love or to leave. Fear is, on the other hand, being handcuffed, searched, raided and locked up. Love is wonderful, but for The Prince, fear is “safer.” And it seemed that the rulers want safer society rather than free society.

From 911 to cyber crime law of thailand, it is obvious that Machiavelli’s advise will never go out of fashion. Even the threat of fear itself is a threat to peaceful modern lives. No one want to go to court, to be detained without bail, to be at risk of losing a job or to be abused in jail because formerly they did not fear. V in V for Vendetta said: “You said you wanted to live without fear. I wish there’d been an easier way, but there wasn’t.”

It was not easy. They know that and they intend to make it more difficult to be fearless, to love and be free.

Filed under: Political Sciences, democracy, exile, Free speech, lese majeste, nationalism, political expression, politics, thai politics, thailand

love/hate in politics

Oh man, Suthep is assigned to bring back Thaksin according to Bangkok Post.
Here is the news.

Suthep assigned to bring back Thaksin

By: BangkokPost.com
Published: 1/01/2009 at 11:36 AM
Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thuagsuban will initially coordinate with relevant people to bring back ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra to the country, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said on Thursday.

Mr Abhisit said the government is ready to negotiate with all sides based on the principle of justice, so the country can progress forward.

Mr Thaksin should not be concerned that the government will mistreat him, the prime minister added.

Deputy Prime Minister Suthep, meanwhile, admitted that he was assigned to approach Mr Thaksin’s close associates. He said the negotiation is aimed at restoring order to the country.

The government already contacted his close associates and it is waiting for their response, Mr Suthep revealed.

He insisted the government only wants the ex-premier to fight his graft charges in the country and does not want to aggravate him.

Well, then who are assigned to deal with public vandalism, a murder charge during red-yellow crash and the rest of the damages done during the PAD government house occupation, asked many red speakers at the last gathering before they would all go home to celebrate new year. Oh and I must issue a warning to those who think that red = isarn. More and more bangkokians in sukumvit area took skytrain back to their residences. There are non bangkokian citizen but the middle class bog lovers are catching up to express their love to thaksin.

i digressed. Let me talk about political like/love

Lately I was discussing with my friend about the political preferences. For an example “I like …(insert a name of a politician or a political party or a political ideology), the “like” does not require any moral, legal or logical obligation. Another example: “I like pad thai, not a bangkok one but a phetburi one.” Do i exert any logicalor political superiority over bangkok pad thai?

Admittedly I used to think that what we like must be good, but umm if i like “bad boys” then bad is good. There are people who like Thaksin, personally or like him as a leader of the country. i don’t know why, yet they are as real as people who like Abhisit. There are rumor and classified news that Abhisit is a target of assassination. Well someone must not like him. But would a treat of assassination, a speculation that Thaksin is behind everything in the whole thailand universe might be completely irresponsible.

Admittedly we like many things that are bad, scientifically bad, self-proven that they are bad and we still do it. Smoking, drinking in excess during new year celebration, get stressed, etc. Those lifestyle that the howtos books would say no but we say yes are a part of being individuals not a mould perfect women, men and other sexes from school to howtos standards.

So I stop digressed. what is the point of bring Thaksin back to Thailand.

Would the Democrat like to prove or convince the public that he is wrong and hope that the votes will swing back to their side? Most people that like or love thaksin would still like/ love him, not because s/he is not wrong but because when you like/love a politician, the right or wrong is and always will be relative to what a politicians could negotiate his/her sins with his “good deeds.”

Likewise, many people who still love/like Democrat would renegotiate and accommodate the coming of Newin, the influences of Suthep and the ways Abhisit and MPS did not march peacefully to the parliament, even they when they could. Why feared people who wanted to chant “dissolve the parliament and give us back democracy.” In one month Democrat party of Thailand actually shattered my faith in their principles twice.

Nevermind, there are many fans that could tolerate.
So be proud to say I like … whatever color you are. Let your like/love be speakable because we really do not have to use reasons for that. Anyone can say anyone/ anything is good/bad to someone/something. So anything goes. Don’t let your preference gag your mouth.

I am still wearing white, umm and badly need to switch from chorine bleach to so called non-chorine oxygen bleach. You know the white thing get dirty easier. All pun intended and please read between the space of the sentence.

Happy 2009

Filed under: Political Sciences, anti thaksin, dissolution of a political party, political expression, political legitimacy, politics, thailand

Saffron Revolution and PADs: Isn’t it the same?

Htet Aung has an article about “State Violence in Thailand and Burma” In the beginning, the article stated that:

The Thai military’s recent refusal to use force to crack down on the current demonstrations staged by the People’s Alliance for Democracy has become the subject of an academic debate about whether this signals a real change in the Thai military, and whether it could give a positive lesson to Burma’s military rulers that could have an effect on the country’s democratic transition.

At a recent seminar entitled “State Violence against Popular Protests: Thailand and Burma,” Thai and Burmese academics and activists exchanged views in a discussion comparing how the governments of the two countries have used violence against citizens struggling for democracy in their respective countries.

State in Violence and Violence in State
I think the problem now is shifting from state violence to people to people violence against people and while a state either endorses by direct or indirect support support or negligence. State may facilitate confrontation, allow mobilization of certain groups while dispersing the other or simply let some one go to show their ugliness and pointlessness and lose popularity to the extreme. The old fashioned of police/state brutality as commonly seen in Burma last year, should be fading and must be used with caution in Thailand in BE 2551.

However, while the Thai military has learned to avoid using violence against citizens involved in popular protests, the Burmese army has shown no such willingness to act with restraint. Whether Burma’s rulers are prepared to follow more positive regional trends remains an open question.

There are gap between civilian and military government in terms of dispensing power to use violence these days, after too many lessons unlearned. The Thai military chief seemed to be more reluctant to use power during the emergency degree. They have to position the army as neutral from politics, after the coup. They also have to worry about their negotiation with the government who decide their reshuffle, while bargaining with popularity among critics and the people. A military government seemed to worry less about that. They are military leader and the government acting as one, and they cannot be voted out, the junta seemed to careless about dispensing power against a protest. They are accountable to themselves.

The Saffron Revolution and Santi asoke Sit in protest
The two side of the protest involve monks. In Burma, the monks are actively participate in politics while in Thailand, mainstream monks are not encouraged to do so. Still the role of Santi Asoke sect at the PADs camp is rather limited, comparing to Burmese monks. They could not seemed to be involve publicly, though they could mobilized a number of disciple and the model of communal politics, e.g. leading protester. However, I do not know the behind the scene.

Now the point that they did not discussed at the forum, as the forum did not intended to talk about it is the aim.

Yes, there were demonstrations and there were people, but isn’t it funny that we should have, here in Thailand, the protest to say the dear democracy, that had been wanted for a long time in Burma, doesn’t work. The Thai PADs used to say we want some junta, as long as the junta does not work for Thaksin.

Filed under: Political Sciences, PADs and anti-PADs, PADS rally, political expression, political legitimacy

Realities could be CGed but the guy really died.

There will be a fight over the dead guy, the
In a riot that two side crash and they are not identified by what they wear and after one person died, with an update from doctor, by the Nation that a Man was killed by impact of blunt object. While life will remain as usual, I felt like the two mobs are very staged, not by who was hitter, but by who was hit. The fight to contact relatives of the dead man and claim that he was PADs or the Nor.Por.Kor.

Even the police did their best, they could have been better at blocking two armed clubs, baseball bat, flag poles, firearms and otherwise to stand apart from each a other. Yes, it is a free country any people can march to the government house, but the police should think about doing proactive measure to prevent any contact, particularly after they have know the “massive cache” of sling shots, baseball bats and golf clubs. Unlike the event in Udornthani, PADs are better equipped.

Like the previous attempts, video and still camera from all side will record, from their limited side of view, based on where they are physically located, not just ideologically located. Empirical proof of injuries and damage, when people have more access to mobile phone cameras and when each side of the protest, the police the media, can capture anything did not mean that they can represent actual overall situation and even answer simple question of who hit who first. Like it or not, our views are limited. Almost everything can be CGed to propaganda plus camera angles and retouching (I refer to both side.) There are PADs in Nor.Por.Kor. clothes, police in PADs, clothes and Nor.Por.Kor. in PADs, clothes and if we did not move beyond who did this, the endless retaliation will continue.

As everything is coming to a shift, it is important to see all that had been choreographed, by the tow side, by media that take side TPBS is to me, pro-samak resignationand NBT mobile broadcast van is at Sanam Luang, yesterday . I was rather disappoint that around 9 pm the em said to people coming from North-eastern province that they would not “see” PADs mob and urge people to remain calm. That’s why we left home early. We could have know that in those words hinted something we can trust: they’d crash soon.

I urged you to go and see both camp. It is not participation. Just go to see what really happened and how people mobilized for “ideological” (a.k.a) personal motivation.

Filed under: Political Sciences, political expression, political legitimacy, Political Sciences

Intimate Affairs

I have been following this Triumph union workers news for a while, a hope that some day, some English Newspaper will pick it up. Prachatai actually posted development of the situation in Thai.

Bangkok Post (1 08 08) finally interviewed Kenneth Marshall, Company managing director.

 A protest by Triumph factory workers over the abrupt dismissal of the head of their labour union _ which workers see as an attempt to undermine the union _ spilled over to the company’s headquarters in Bangkok yesterday. Protesters rallied outside the Vanit building on New Phetchaburi road, which houses the head office of Body Fashion Thailand Co, which manufactures underwear and swimwear for Triumph.

 

A rally also continued at the factory in the Bang Phli industrial estate in Samut Prakan for the second day yesterday.

 

They called for the unconditional reinstatement of union leader Jitra Kongdej. The labour union claimed the company was trying to derail the union, which 4,000 of the 5,000 workers have joined, and frame its leader.

 

On July 8 the company dismissed Ms Jitra, claiming she’d damaged the company’s image by wearing a T-shirt bearing a slogan critical of the monarchy while appearing on a TV show.

 

Her T-shirt had the slogan ”Not standing is no crime. One who thinks differently is not a criminal” and she wore it on the NBT show Krong Sathanagarn (Situation Filtering) on April 24 to give moral support to Chotisak Onsoong, who was charged with violating the criminal code by refusing to rise when the royal anthem was played before the screening of a film last September.

 

Promma Boonpan, chairman of the Garment Labour Federation, agreed with the protesters’ view that the company used Ms Jitra’s shirt as an excuse to sack her. Political views are a personal matter, he said, adding that labour activists in one way or another were involved in politics.

 

He said he would ask other labour unions to condemn the company in writing.

 

Company managing director Kenneth Marshall said although Ms Jitra was entitled to freedom of expression, her action had hurt the company’s image. The labour union is not the company’s target, he said.

 

According to a company statement released yesterday, the Labour Court ruled on July 8 that the company had suffered damage to its reputation and its business from the employee’s action. The court said the company had the right to sack the employee to protect itself from further damage. (Emphasis mine.)

It should be noted, according to Prachatai report, that the T-shirt issue had been used to sack union leaders after several ‘comments’ in the Manager website said ‘someone’ will boycott Triumph. Citra said the company linked her t-shirt with lese majeste but to decide if it is actually a lese majeste or not the case should be brought to the Court.

Filed under: Security, Free speech, labour dispute, labour protection, lese majeste, political expression, thailand, Triumph, union