As citizens, what's in store for children?

• Published: 13/09/2011 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

In a representative democracy, the voices of the citizens are central. Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra repeatedly emphasises that she will listen to and consult with all stakeholders, before making important decisions relating to government policies. So in this regard: who are then, the stakeholders?

Today a PC tablet, tomorrow the world. A citizen waits for the government to do as promised.

Of course, we all are stakeholders. And yet, we are living in a society where the educated, urban middle class routinely disparages the viewpoints of the rural poor, and where parents generally (and perhaps more understandably) make decisions which may override the creative impulses of their children, generation after generation.

This cultural conditioning must therefore be challenged, in order to promote a more balanced policy-making process, in which all stakeholders have more of a voice.

An actuality of both contemporary and historical politics is that politicians tend to listen most especially to those voices that would vote for them, and then to those with voting rights. Accordingly, those who cannot yet vote (namely, all children), can hardly participate within the political system. Yet this demographic is, historically, amongst the most dynamic in society in promoting change, which is critical to the ongoing process of democratisation. It follows therefore, that the voices and perceptions of the children must also be given proper consideration within the network of the policy-making process.

Accordingly, we must continue to challenge the entrenched hierarchical structure which continues to operate.

Despite there having been a number of debates that have allowed for both pro and con arguments in relation to the new PC tablet being made available to school children en masse, the process thus far has been flawed.

Although Pheu Thai Party and the opposition parties have all been involved, and academics have also been brought into the debate, the government has yet to truly involve all stakeholders in its consideration of a policy declaration.

Neither the government nor the opposition have made sufficient reference to the perceptions of the children themselves and, in addition, how the rural population more generally feels about these computer tablets.

The opinions and perceptions of the rural population towards this policy contradict the way in which they are being stereotyped and generalised by the educated middle classes, who tend to see the rural population in terms of this situation, as being politically unaware and as "victims" of populist policies.

To illustrate this point, there is an example of an unnamed 53-year-old rice farmer, from Khong Chiam district in Ubon Ratchathani province, who'd voted for Yingluck Shinawatra in the election, but who now argues that "the PC tablet is a good idea, but it is unnecessary for us in the rural areas, and we'd be better off if the government paid the costs of our kids' transport so they can go to school".

From this not untypical argument, it follows that the centralisation of the decision-making process in Bangkok has generated a policy that is unlikely to truly benefit people all across the country.

At Ban Donjod in Buntharik district of the same province, Jarurat Pornpin, an 8-year-old girl, states: "I could use a PC tablet to improve my knowledge. I will look after it carefully by keeping it in the wardrobe, so it will last long."

Charnchai Dankhuntod, a 13-year-old boy also from the same village, says: "I can use it to search for information and play computer games."

Oftentimes, academics and journalists can be too presumptuous when it comes to anticipating the capacity children have to be able to think for themselves. This can be a problem here in Thailand, where we would also like the children to be both more aware and more creative in relation to their understanding of their rights. A fuller understanding of the "rights" and "responsibilities" that are for all citizens can be promoted, by providing this opportunity to all.

The education of the younger generations can in this regard be the catalyst for promoting a more progressive, dynamic and integrated society, where empowered citizens can all play their part in a cultural paradigm shift.

The children then can be the key to the unlocking of our society's untapped potential. In the 21st century world, the combination of creativity and technology will likely be the major driving force of change in all sectors, not least in education, in economic growth, and in the emergence of innovative societal dynamics.

The role of government is generally accepted to include the provision of opportunities for outsider groups and for a redistribution of resources, because the market mechanism does not necessarily work to benefit the public at large without the intervention of the state. Access to both information and technology is becoming increasingly important in this century, and the free tablet policy is considered to be a priority in improving the quality of education. Yet, to give only one not untypical example, a 12-year-old boy from Ubon's Det Udom district, who is a student in Matthayom 1 (Grade 7) at Ban Kut Prathai School, still cannot read the word Ratthamnoon, or Constitution.

But this clearly is not the only case to be found within rural areas, which highlights failings in the Thai educational system as it stands today.

With regard to the provision of a good standard of education in Thailand, technology as such is not actually the most significant contributing factor, as it has been found that both the quality and quantity of teachers has been a major problem.

By rushing through the implementation of the tablet policy without having a comprehensive explanation in relation to the content to be provided on them, exposes the government to potential accusations. These could imply that the policy is to be enacted in order to benefit vested interests from within the computing and telecoms industry, rather than being straightforwardly in the interests of the school children themselves.

Margaret Thatcher argued during her time as British prime minister, that "The state could not just ignore what children learned: they were, after all, its future citizens and we had a duty to them."

She emphasised the significance of the educational curriculum and the overall standard of education in the United Kingdom.

The quality and content of the teaching are perhaps what is most important in education, and these could be the factors which Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra should focus on, in order to promote the educational attainment of the rural populations.

Ultimately, broad educational improvements have been shown to benefit a country in the long term, and the responsibility to provide a good education to a country's young citizens can be achieved, not just by focusing on technology.

Yes, we are now in a 21st century world, where technology is more and more becoming a major part of our lives. However, we must not become too distracted when it comes to the essentials of our children's education, which of course still include the core subjects of mathematics, written and spoken language, the sciences and the arts.

This government, as with all governments, has a duty and responsibility towards all the citizens. In relation to the distribution of the computer tablet, many of those from within the rural population remain relatively concerned about the potential for negative impact upon their children.

As Praneet Phungpa, a 43 year-old fisherman, from Khong Chiam district argues: "A simple life is their way of life, but the children might change, and I cannot control the websites they access, since I don't know much about this thing."

Local decision-making is the key factor in the context of this whole paradigm. The party's political slogan _ Thaksin Thinks, Pheu Thai Implements _ implies centralised orders and top-down policy-making, which may raise alarm bells whilst the Pheu Thai Party remains largely unchallenged.

This is happening while major policies are being quickly introduced that side-step a comprehensive consultation period, where the full implications of a policy could be investigated first.

Ms Yingluck should introduce a new framework to ensure due process and public consultation in relation to major government policy initiatives in order to promote open and transparent debate.

---

Titipol Phakdeewanich is a political scientist at the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/256233/as-citizens-what-in-store-for-children

Poll just the beginning in bringing in new politics

ANALYSIS

Poll just the beginning in bringing in new politics

• Published: 12/07/2011 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

'I congratulate Pheu Thai for its chance to lead the next government and wish Yingluck Shinawatra every success as the first female prime minister of Thailand," said Abhisit Vejjajiva, after conceding the election result in which the Pheu Thai Party, Thaksin's proxy party, won by a landslide. Out of this defeat, Mr Abhisit and the Democrat Party can demonstrate statesmanship and dignity in defeat, through the formation of an effective and constructive opposition, which will advance the democratic process.

Pheu Thai’s top party-list candidate Yingluck Shinawatra thanks supporters for the poll victory at the party’s head office. PATTANAPONG HIRUNARD

In pursuing such a path, more will be done to promote representative government and the institutions of democracy than by any other means. This period will pose a great challenge in relation to the progress of Thai democracy as a whole, and this will be a test of all the actors within the political arena; not just for Pheu Thai or for Ms Yingluck. Ongoing political differences, tensions, and factions are a part of the democratic process, and the accommodation of this is something which becomes more accepted as democracy evolves and matures. Accordingly, there can be no democratic society without the differences being given the space in which to be voiced within the debate.

That election results do not please everyone is inevitable, and is intrinsic to the dynamics of democratic systems, out of which there is political, social, and economic progress. Elections are the mechanism for representatives of the people to govern, and election results are not a licence for those elected into power to use that power indiscriminately.

Rather, it is the qualified consent that has been granted within the law for the life of parliament to represent the interests of all the people, whilst delivering on election promises and manifesto commitments; and a government shall be judged on that. If there is a case to be made of abuse of power, it is for the legislature and judiciary to intervene and to balance the power of the executive; with a responsible media and active civil society highlighting problems, in order to more fully hold the government to account.

On June 26, Mr Abhisit campaigned in Ubon Ratchathani urging his supporters that "it's time to get rid of the poison of Thaksin". However, this argument only worked amongst his core constituency, whilst managing to alienate many others. In the interests of the important debate of the substantive issues, which affect the lives of ordinary citizens; to put every effort against Pheu Thai because of its apparent connection to Thaksin is ultimately a distraction that is counterproductive. For example, at the polling station in the district of Khong Chiam, Ubon Ratchathani, Jamnong Jamsri, a 47 year-old rubber plantation farmer, who voted for Pheu Thai, said that he wanted his voice and his vote to be recognised.

In 2008 we observed the dissolution of Thaksin's proxy party, the People Power Party. Then prime ministers Samak Sundaravej and Somchai Wongsawat, regarded as Thaksin's surrogates, were both removed from office. These actions were taken in the hope of weakening Thaksin's political influence, although this approach seems to have backfired. With Thaksin appearing victimised, he gained more sympathetic support from his political base in the rural parts of the country.

History shows that Thaksin has been an influential political figure since taking office in 2001, and this also suggests that his influence will be a part of the Thai political system for the foreseeable future. Rivals ought perhaps to learn to live with him, rather than making attempt after attempt to exclude him from this system.

In a broad context, current political problems in Thailand cannot be primarily attributed to the influence of Thaksin, as significant political problems predate his time within the existing Thai political system. One of the most entrenched political problems in Thailand is the dysfunctional legal branch and the enforcement of the law, a weakness that compromises many aspects of the political structure. Although the electoral system in many democratic societies cannot ensure elected representatives of integrity, there is not any particular institution or groups outside of the legislature, executive and judiciary, such as the military, that can ultimately promote the progress of the Thai democracy.

Outside authorities can not simply override the electoral process, regardless of particularly "unfavourable" results, or short term problems, as this undermines the long term credibility of the system as a whole. When such a precedent has been set, then this only encourages further undermining of the system. Thailand cannot afford to continue to entertain the possibility of non-democratic interventions occurring, due to ongoing systemic political problems as has happened in the past. After a number of coups against various governments, this approach has not at all demonstrated that it can solve the problem of corruption in Thailand.We should be continually questioning and inquiring into the integrity of the political system and its functioning; and not be questioning and challenging the integrity, motivations, "qualifications" of voters, as and when this approach most suits the short term strategic benefit of those who are dissatisfied by electoral results. This is because it is the system itself which becomes undermined.

---

Titipol Phakdeewanich is a political scientist at the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/246613/poll-just-the-beginning-in-bringing-in-new-politics

Democracy without liberty is illiberal democracy

POLITICS OF RECONCILIATION

Democracy without liberty is illiberal democracy

• Published: 30/06/2010 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

It has been more than one month since the military operation to disperse protesters took place on the streets of Bangkok. Yet the state of emergency, which was declared at the time, still remains.

A red shirt protester kicks away a tear-gas cannister lobbed at protesters during the height of their seige in Bangkok last month.

This is apparently in order to ensure that security is maintained across the country. The decree, which looks set to be extended next week, grants the prime minister some special powers, which may be regarded as excessive.

The state of emergency decree remains in place in Bangkok and 23 other provinces in the North and Northeast regarded as strategically important red-shirt political bases. Without an independent body to verify the necessity of maintaining such draconian power in the hands of politicians during a highly sensitive period, the decision whether to keep the law in place will be almost inevitably politicised.

The action could be aimed at staving off a potential new series of red-shirt protests, something that the government itself admits even though the reasoning can by all definition only be speculation. Worse, by hanging on to the "state of emergency," the government can find itself engaging in the dangerous game of "politics of fear".

It is understandable that many Bangkokians are worried about maintaining their personal safety and would resent future disruption to their lives, which occurred when the protesters shut down business areas in the capital. Accordingly, they are likely to accept whatever approach the government wants to take in order to keep Bangkok safe from "terrorism" or, in other words, from the red shirts.

Although PM Abhisit and his government do not explicitly accuse all the red shirts of being terrorists, his repeated use of the term can lead people, especially his supporters, to arrive at such a broad conclusion.

In the eyes of the rural population, this perception goes against, even undermines, the validity of the claim to have their voices heard in the political heartland of Bangkok and by the capital-based political elite.

With the broad terrorism paint brush, the red shirts now feel that they are subject to accusation by Mr Abhisit and the momentum is there to ensure that the political rhetoric in the media reflects this government's perspective.

The truth, however, is that almost any protest movement around the world throughout history would be subject to such an accusation, as it only takes a small minority of protesters to take extreme and possibly unjustified action, whether or not their convictions are sound.

Regardless of the extent to which this is the case within the protest movement active in Thailand today, a large part of the innocent but misunderstood rural people feel tarnished by the "terrorist" tag. They are troubled by this broad label, and this negative perspective which is widely held by the more privileged urban middle-class, will ultimately undermine any attempt at national reconciliation.

If there is anything the latest development in the history of political protest has shown us, it is that Thailand has proved itself incapable of ensuring the right of individuals and groups to protest freely and openly without fear of harassment by those who hold power.

Constitutionally speaking, the political or bureaucratic office holders do so on behalf of the people, namely those they represent. Any abuse of this power is contrary to the concept of "liberal democracy" which, as leading scholar of democratisation Larry Diamond explained, "provides, by definition, comparatively good protection for human rights". Accordingly, suppressing the ability of the red shirts to express their constitutional rights is no way to end the schism, which has continued to divide Thailand these last few years.

During his remarks at the May 29 briefing with members of the diplomatic corps and journalists regarding the military's attempt to retake Ratchaprasong, PM Abhisit stated that "we wanted to solve everything through democratic means". However, his emphasis on endorsing democracy and the rule of law appears to contradict some of the approaches that the government has actually adopted. For instance, freedom of speech and expression is extremely limited for those who support the red shirts, especially in relation to the use of the Internet.

Since the Bangkok protests of 2010, restrictions and monitoring of websites have been at a high level, resulting in the closure of certain websites viewed as being supportive of the red cause.

These actions would be considered a violation of civil liberties in a liberal democratic society, and in the context of "liberal democracy", reconciliation and unity can only be achieved when fundamental rights are guaranteed while differences and disagreements are accepted.

By continuing to alienate and suppress the red shirts and by presuming that they merely act as proxies for ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra, the government can only prolong and deepen Thailand's political divide. Indeed, Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker argued that: "This thinking is a way of avoiding questions about what has been happening in Thai society over the past generation, a way of plugging one's own eyes and ears. But it leads nowhere - or to another May 19, sooner or later."

Accordingly, the people of Thailand and their representative government will at some stage have to make a choice. There is a "proto-democracy", which purports to represent the collective desire of its people but which lacks a true mandate to govern, and is in essence, an "illiberal democracy".

Or we have to move towards a fully-fledged democracy, which can rightly claim for itself the title of "liberal democracy" and can only be realised when every player sticks to the rules of constitutional law and the judiciary maintains its non-discriminatory standard.

Thailand needs to avoid the paradoxical situation described by Fareed Zakaria, an international politics commentator, in which "democracy is flourishing, liberty is not".

---

• Titipol Phakdeeawanich is with the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University.

Perspectives on the Current Political Divide in Thailand.

Regarding the current political situation in Thailand, the country self-evidently becoming a less pleasant place in which to live for the population, regardless of a person’s political viewpoint, social class, or geographical location. So many people are frustrated with the way the government handled the recent protests, and even many who did not support the protesting are rather unnerved by the way it all played out. Only just before the government crackdown in the centre of Bangkok. In referencing China at the time of Mao in relation to the increasing and ongoing fragmentation of Thailand over the past few years, Thais, whatever their political sympathies, never thought for a minute that their own country could become anything like that chaotic disintegration of a nation. But now, the current behavior of the smooth talking, privileged, and western educated Prime Minister Abhisit could make one feel that Thailand is steadily descending into a state that is becoming more like China, during that very era, where government propaganda was key. The dark forces of the campaign of propaganda now working its agenda into the Thai psyche, is directed towards what the current government believes is right for their own continued survival. The primary aim in this is to promote the legitimacy of the government, in order to stay in power. Freedom of speech is not what this government encourages, behaving in ways that are more totalitarian than they ever were under former Prime Minister, the exiled Thaksin Shinawatra.

Abhisit’s claim regarding his legitimacy to be Prime Minister remains unconvincing to many Thais, especially those who had voted to put Thaksin’s surrogate party in power previously, until their eventual removal from power by the forces backing the current government. Although theoretically speaking, Abhisit could try to argue that he was voted in by a majority in the parliament in the House of Representatives, that there are questions of integrity relating to his holding of power is simply undeniable, as only a minority of the population voted for this outcome. This paradox came about, as politicians were free to switch sides as incentives were made, in order to pander to the unethical behavior of self-interested politicians.

Accordingly, fresh elections are not what the Abhisit Government wants, because they know as well as everyone else knows that currently, they would most likely fail to win. So why do we fight for democracy in the first place? Without blindly supporting Thaksin, or his surrogates; if we want to promote democracy, we at least have to accept its generally agreed upon foundations. One of the only arguments where one could totally agree with Abhisit is regarding his stated belief in the rule of law, a principle he should be consistent with in practice as well as in theory. Accordingly, I believe that the best way for democracy to evolve in Thailand is to have laws that work by applying themselves with utter neutrality, without exceptions being made when it is convenient for a current government, which requires a true separation of powers between the executive, legislature, and the judiciary. Objective and non-partisan, rather than subjective and opportunist enforcement of the law is essential in dealing with corrupt politicians such as Thaksin, without resort to coup after coup, or crisis after crisis, as rivaling elites fight it out for supremacy. Sadly, Thailand has never had an independent and fully functioning legal branch of government.

Over the past few months, the schisms and hatred have been exacerbated within the country, and this can be evidenced in observing internet chatter, especially through Facebook, and other social media, and this reaction can be attributed primarily to the behavior of both the current government and especially the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation - CRES. The Internet was a useful tool for this government in mobilising its middle-class support, with the population who trend mostly to Thaksin such as the rural poor, placed at a disadvantage in this regard. The middle-class, or rather the self-defined middle-class have been easily seduced and manipulated by the arguments of the government because of their blind hatred of Thaksin.

Regarding perceptions towards the ‘Red-Shirts’, which is a coalition of anti-government forces, it is worrying to observe the attitudes of the so-called ‘educated middle-class’ of Bangkok. They generally treat the rural population without dignity or respect; that their particular needs and genuine grievances are unimportant. Although rural people who are entitled to the same citizenship rights, this prejudice is longstanding, and is now becoming heightened. The government can take much of the blame in giving out so much one-sided information, in another word, propaganda. Now the government suppresses the Red-Shirts in almost every single way, largely justified through a kind of stereotyping that works on the assumption that they, as a 100 per cent cohesive block, both support and represent Thaksin, which is simply not the case.

Of course, whilst one can hardly exclude Thaksin from any analysis of the Red-Shirts, the protests were certainly not entirely about Thaksin. Abhisit himself once said that we have to move beyond Thaksin, but HE never did. The government’s new ‘reconciliation plan’ will only divide Thailand more, and the government most likely know this; not least because of the deliberate sidelining of the Red-Shirts and their genuine grievances. The Red-Shirts continue to feel alienated by both the government and much of society, with their websites being continually monitored or blocked. The government has failed to show a sincere desire to include them within this reconciliation plan. As an example, a student from a university in Bangkok mentioned to me that he felt discriminated against because he supports the Red-Shirts, with his university directly warning students not to support them. This is not a role that any university should be playing in limiting freedom of speech and expression in such a way. How could a legitimate institution calling itself a university, even contemplate trying to force students to not to think for themselves, especially over an issue of conscience such as this? This story shows how far institutions purportedly outside of politics have become so politicised.

If Thailand collectively wants to evolve and prosper, then Thais need to learn to live with political differences, to be more accepting of the diversity and plurality of its people with their range of political opinions, objectives in life, and priorities as unique individuals.

Ban Ta-mui Village, District of Khong Chiam, Province of Ubon Ratchathani

The village is about as remote as a village can be in Thailand. It lies on the bank of the Mekong river, and is therefore right on the Laos-Thailand border. They have very little interrelationship with anyone except for trade with other remote nearby villages up to 10 km away, without which, they could not continue to live in such a remote location. Their location on the Mekong allows them to produce enough to trade in this way. At night, a few lights can be seen across the Mekong, where there is a small Lao village, people whom they continue to perceive as their 'brothers', and with whom they have some contact, which is tolerated by both governments. Although there is a nearby village on the Thai side of the border, they have only limited contact with them, as this village is of an ethnic minority in Thailand, and there is a language and dialect barrier, which makes interaction far more difficult than with their 'brothers' across the border. Such a scenario helps to capture just how remote this area is.

The border here can be considered to be to a certain limited extent, somewhat porous; as both the Thai and Laos governments tolerate this kind of local, limited interaction, which pre-exists the formalized boundary that exists between the two countries. The local people share a common ancestry, language and culture, which is the primary reason for both governments’ level of tolerance in this regard. Of course, passing through official border crossings with passports are the technical requirements for moving between countries; yet in such limited cases, these requirements are overlooked. Should trade significantly increase, or smuggling take place between villages such as these, then of course, the informal tolerance of both governments in this regard would end, further isolating such communities.

Here then, exists a certain/ interesting paradox, whereby such local border communities have extra rights not available to the general populations of either of the two nations. In the context of the citizens’ rights within nation states, these communities enjoy a certain ‘privilege’. Connected to rights is the notion of entitlement, which such communities do feel. But if such scenarios are not consistent in relation to equality under the law, then what are the wider implications of these informal accepted negations of the law itself?