Mr. Predictable

I have been balancing my works, my thesis and going to see Thailand Open (which had been put as a priority after I decided if no one wants to watch, I will go on my own). I was away in 2004 and 2005 and in 2006 I was engaged in other work and in 2007 I was just disinterested. While I went to watch the Djorkovics and later the so-called Mr. Unpredictable. And I just decided that if I don’t put a space in my schedules, chatting and shopping and working aside for 4 hrs, then I would not be able to kick them aside and even though Yevgeny Kafelnikov were in Bangkok, I would not have the courage or the experience of putting my entertainment first and go for it. I’d be in a workaholic rat race forever if I don’t stop.

Ok, let’s talk about Dr. Prawes, “Mr. Predictable,” earlier he compared the situation of Thailand as chicken in a closed bamboo basket, where he proposed the rhizomatic structure of civil participation against three brick top-down structure. Deleuze and Guattarri or Max Weber should have been credit a bit? And the top down structure is not necessarily “un” democratic or representing dictatorship. The man has also proposed the new transformative national agenda also presented in Matichon and it has be welcomed.

While I was out watching another unpredictable match before writing about the new opportunity of getting out of limiting space of enclosed chicken basket, he came out with an article on “old” and “new” politics and “araya prachatipatai” (civil democracy?)

Please welcome the article in “การเมืองเก่าเน่าหนอนชอนไช การเมืองใหม่อารยะประชาธิปไตย” [the old rotting politics and the new civil democracy]Matichon and Manager (note how every opposing characteristic is being put in polarized dichotomy using a table to present the old-bad/new-good). I don’t need to translate or recap it, because, apart from, it is predictable. The academia is rushing to provide proposal and supports, hoping that it wold solve the national crisis. Dr. Prawes is proposed to chair the new national independent studies/working group, commission or whatever.

So it goes Mr. Predictable.

Filed under: Political Sciences, New Politics, old politics, People Power Party, prawes wasi, rhizome

Several Points From Prawes’ OpEd

Too busy and too sleepy to comment.
my brief summary, based on Prachatai’s collection of news and OpEd

The original “การปฏิวัติประชาธิปไตยโดยคนไทยทั้งมวล” (Democratic Evolution by All Thais) in Kom Chad Leuk and Thai Post

• BE 2475 Democratic revolution did not bring democratic mentality evolution, thus it was not successful. The society is still thirstful, abusive of power, and impose one’s opinion over the others. Election is just a form not a content of democracy. And the society is plunging to chaos.
• He introduced nine steps of democratic evolution:

1. Democratic mentality evolution: respect human dignity, equality, and just participation in politics
2. Fair distribution of power and more civil communities participation
3. Promote people’s freedom of expression and participation in the media 
4. Promote people’s participation in local politic and national politics: promote control and check and balance mechanism by the people and support direct participation of people’s organisations
5. Strong and independent judicial systems
6. Freedom of the press.
7. Impose effective check and balance mechanism for  executive power by independent organisations, using constitutional power and improve selection criteria rules for effective operation and prevent infiltration in independent organisations.
8. Quality of politicians is most problematic. Major money politicians are likely to destroy political system and they , must be discouraged in any manner in an election. Power from an elected entities must not be unitary and unaccountable. 
9. Two factors that pushing unjust politics: The king’s message to ensure judiciary bodies’ operation and people’s political movement based on non-violence and civil disobedience. (Emphasis mine)
   

    การเมืองภาคประชาชน ระบบการเมืองของเราจมปลักอยู่ในความไม่ถูกต้องอย่างเหนียวแน่นอย่างยากที่จะสลัดตัวออกมาได้ เร็วๆ นี้มีปัจจัย 

   2 ประการ ที่เขย่าระบบการเมืองที่ไม่ถูกต้องอย่างแรง ประการหนึ่งคือการที่พระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัวมีพระราชกระแสกระตุ้นให้ตุลาการทำงานอย่างเข้มแข็ง ถูกต้องเที่ยงธรรม เพื่อแก้วิกฤติของบ้านเมือง อีกประการหนึ่งคือการเมืองภาคประชาชนที่รวมตัวเคลื่อนไหวประท้วงต่อต้านความไม่ถูกต้องด้วยสันติวิธีและด้วยอารยะขัดขืน การต่อต้านและขัดขืนด้วยสันติวิธีแบบที่ มหาตมะ คานธี ใช้

Wondering what he will say about Sonthi’s charge. Hope won’t say anything.

Filed under: Security, Independent Organization, judicialization, PADs, prawes wasi, thai politics

Neutral?

It is a quick note about several Prawes W. appearance and comments. Royal Hegemony by Chanida Chirbundid (see review at New Mandala: ) will shed some light to readers (who might already know the “network” connection) about Prawes who was also mentioned in the book.

Prawes has been senior voice to remind the society to stick with Buddhist philosophy, reconciliation and loyalty to the nation. His recent comments on “national government” and the most recent one featured in Matichon online stating that (my summarized translation) he could not help stop people from polarizing from different perceptions of Thaksin regime (rabop thaksin). Some question his legitimacy and accusation of misconducts, the other are supportive of Thaksin. The conflict over the Thaksin regime is an important matter that disrupt unity. He proposed that fact-finding should be organized so that the truth about the matter can be ascertain and people should believe accordingly. After the investigation, people should be able to stick to the “fact” and reconcile.

Prawes seemed to be the “rational voice” among the emotional and passion driven ones rallying at Sanam Luang and Makawan Bridge. He appeared to be a neutral “phoo yai.” However, when it is clear that his connection mentioned in Chanida’s thesis is obvious, would he will eventually ended up being criticized on the same ground like the previous one?

Here come the answer.

Several days after Prawes’ release of his statement for the national government, an open letter by Polameung Piwat was published in Prachatai, stating their “strong disappointment” at the proposed “national government” by
“a bureaucrat.” In this statement, Prawes’ position was portrayed as a person who opposed people’s sovereignty and elected government, which is, according to the statement, an direct insult to the people that elect the present government.

Not many people dare to criticize Prawes openly and in public. At least he seemed to be neutral, too neutral to be argued otherwise. Even if he is not neutral, he takes the side that many people claim they like his side, too. At least it is hard to publicly denounce his side, isn’t it? It is not impossible but one has to be very careful.

Update:

A Matichon Report about Prawes’ suggestion is available here. I took note on the words like “neutral party,” and an influential/charismatic figure or a person with hight “parami,” and being “respected” by all sides to be the middleman (sorry, I don’t think he meant to say “person”) and solve the perceived conditions (e.g. Thaksin) that perpetuate conflict.

Filed under: Political Sciences, network, politics, prawes wasi, reconciliation, thailand