After the change of Thailand’s
regime from absolute monarchy to democracy, Thailand has often been in
political conflicts, which often ended with civil war, coup, revolution and
sometimes sorrowful mass murder. Today Thailand has a new political struggle,
but the end of this conflict has not come yet. The result can either be a happy
end or a tragedy, depending on how we – Thai people – deal with this conflict.
According to “What is behindThailand's political turmoil?”, which discusses the background of Thai
political struggle since military coup in 2006 to the day of constitutional
court’s judgment that ousted Ms Yingluck from Prime Minister position in 7 May
2014, the BBC’s writer wonders what is the conclusion of this turmoil.
3 – 4 months ago Thailand was
covered with the stressful mood due to political confrontation between anti-government
protestors and government supporters, and this encounter finished with the dead
of inerrant people. At that moment, social network was filled by the political disputes.
Every people concerned about political issues; however, no one took any responsibility
on this loss, and the situation seems to be settled after a month past. Every area
of Bangkok turned back to the peace. Nevertheless, PDRC still stayed in Bangkok
and red-shirt protestors occasionally had meeting to assert their standpoint. This
settled situation may be good news for normal citizen who not support any
group, anti-government or red-shirt, like me.
Anyway, this instance does not
stand lastingly. Today (7 May 2014) constitutional court has maked the judgment
to discharge Ms Yingluck from the position. This probably leads to a new
confrontation, because red-shirts are of the opinion that this constitutional
court’s judgment is like a coup by military power, yet in term of the law
enforcement, so they might have a large meeting again to call for the justice
in their opinion. By doing this, I believe that the PDRC will not stay in
active at all, perhaps they may call for the justice in their opinion as well. Therefore,
the justice of both parties’ opinion is the problem. It is not the problem by
itself, but it is the problem because its definition to anti-Thaksin protestors
and pro-Thaksin protestors is not the same – perhaps completely different. This
confrontation may be at the breaking point. It means that an extreme conflict
is coming soon.
How to solve this critical
situation? This is the big question, and now I have got only an abstract answers.
My resolution to this problem is to change people attitude, because these days
people from one side deny to respect and understand the opposite’s opinion. This
makes situation noticeably more violent and complicate. So, first, we have to listen
to opposite view, even it may make me feel angry at first, yet it is the first
step to understand each other, why our rival think in the completely different
way from us, maybe they have good reasons than we had believed, and their
reasons may pacify you and make you feel better to them. And if it not, they
have only nonsense reason, why we do not convince them with your better
reasons, so if you cannot convince them, it probably because you are not able
to got enough good reasons; you should attribute the failure to yourself, not
your rival, since you cannot come up with more good reason, not because your
rival are too much bad to discuss with. I believe that if you and your rival
can do so, the political conflict will be solved more easily.
Moreover, in order to reduce
severity of the conflict, we should carefully consider before trust some sources
of news, especially some media which obviously take political side. In the age
of technology advancement, social media extremely have an influence on people. Just
sharing an article on Facebook perhaps impacts other people than you can
imagine, particularly articles about sensitive issue like politics.
However, I know that my
resolution is fairly abstract and ideal, and it all about individuals. Yet, in
order to solve national problem, we do not need only individual change, but
also structural change. Nonetheless, with my today’s knowledge, it is quite
hard to find some good resolution to solve a big issue like this, so I decide
to extend my knowledge by pursuing Master degree at IDS, university of Sussex,
the UK, where has a great reputation in development studies field. Hopefully,
it will enable me to excel enough to resolve Thailand’s problems.
What is behindThailand's political turmoil?. (2014, 7 May). BBC News Asia. Retrieved May 7, 2014. from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-25149484
Thank you P for this bold post, which looks as though a bit of thought has gone into the response, perhaps over some time.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I like here is that several times P says things like, "the justice in their opinion" (para. 4). I like these phrases because they tell us that there is considerable disagreement over what the word justice means: everyone is using this word, along with a group of related words, and everyone thinks they know what they are talking about, but it seems to me that they are certainly talking about different things and that maybe that are not at clear about what they mean.
As so often, I think more discussion, some healthy argument, about the definitions of a few words, would be helpful. I'm sure that everyone on both sides has grown up hearing, learning about and using words like the English justice and democracy, along with their Thai equivalents, but I'm not sure that most have any very clear, or correct, definition of such terms, however much they might be using them.
And I think that they are difficult to define.
What do you think? What is justice? What is democracy?
And once a reasonable definition is in place, we can move on to the more challenging task of discovering what justice does, and does not, require, and what democracy does, and does not, require.
A bit more serious than my usual morning coffee response blogging.
In fact, I think a lot of the talk from both sides meets Harry Frankfurt's definition of bullshit, showing them to be worse than liars with regard to respect for truth seeking and telling.
DeleteNeither lies nor such bullshit are likely to be a healthy foundation for a society or its politics.
Reference
Frankfurt, H. G. (2005). On Bullshit. [Kindle edition]. Pinceton: Princeton University Press. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/
what is the justice, and what does justice do and does not, are good and quite big questions.
Deletein fact, i am not an expert in philosophy field but i do like to discusss philosophy, because it is like a brain exercise, provoking me to be thoughtful person.
For justice, i used to read an article, which give me an interesting idea and make me realise the most important thing about justice's definition. this article address that the justice definition vary, depending on the things what mankind value in that time. for example, in this era, we value about freedom and social net benefit (economist call "social utility"). yet, in another period, perhaps, human care more something else. it add that today's justice is about freedom and utility because it have been influenced by capitalism, which give priority to individualism and importance of competition. besides, i think justice's definition may also be different in different countries.
this idea support my thought why we should talk about justice together, your side and opposite side, because we live in the mutual society so we should have the mutual justice, not only one-side-justice. otherwise, you have to completely eliminate your opposite, but this is not a good idea at all.
To practice our critical thinking on a complex issue is one reason we are reading Stephen Law.
DeleteAnd P raises several points, one of which I strongly agree with, and another I probably disagree with - but as P notes, I think a little more discussion to clarify the issue is needed before I can be sure that I disagree.
DeleteI wonder what others think on these points.
i like to read this Law's work. it provoke me to think of the best answer about moral. however, i just realised that most of my opinion are already refused by Law with good reasons. it make me a bit dissapointed LOL. yet, there are some point that i still disagree with Law.
DeletePS. i had commented on meaty matter post, before i completely read Law's work.
I wanted everyone to comment on Law's main idea before they had read his support. Then everyone had some ideas in mind to check as they were reading.
DeleteDon't worry, you are not the only one whose opposing arguments Law has thought of and tried to answer in his essay.
I also disagree with Law on at least one major point, but I don't want to say what I think until we have finished reading him and have a clear understanding of his supporting ideas.
I think we will be able to do an exam question on his essay in class next week.
I like P's suggestion that different opinions mean we need to discuss the issue to come to a better understanding. But I also think that if two groups have different contradictory opinions, at least one group's beliefs must be wrong. Of course, they might both be wrong, but they cannot both we right when beliefs contradict each other.
ReplyDeleteAnd we want to know which ideas might be right and which are wrong.
in my opinion, the answer of discussion is not important as much as the process of discussion. because during the discussion, it enbles us to understand the opposite much better, and make us more reasonable. so, there may be only one right answer but whose the answer is, how the answer is, to me, is not important because it is from reasonable discussion. i believe that reasonable discussion can bring about good answer.
Deletehowever, today we have not discussed at all, and it narrow our views. this process make politicians can convince people without raesonable reason. so, i think how to make people start discussing, with broaden mind to accept differences, is the most important issue.
I like P's phrase "reasonable reason," and his idea that we often believe things for reasons that are not very reasonable, and might be very unreasonable.
Delete