• natee
  • ranking : General member
  • email : none@none.com
  • created : 2007-07-12
  • entry : 19
  • visitors : 23999
  • votes : 21
  • send msg :
Natee's Blog
No longer a journalist....still love writing.
Permalink : http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/natee
Wednesday , December 26 , 2007
Democratic Party = Disillusionment
Posted by natee , Reader : 1468 , 21:08:28   | Category : General Interest  
Print

Christmas Day in England. What a lovely day to become disillusioned, yet AGAIN, by the Democratic Party.

The self proclaimed 'gentle' people of Thai politics have failed their supporters yet again by acting like the stumbling, mumbling, and fumbling dinosaurs. Given the otherwise unlikely opportunity to rise from the dead by last year's coup, they have miserably failed to capitalise on the opportunity to form the government.

Why? Because even after years of lessons from the PR-savvy Thaksin, they continue to act like bored academics who are incapable of communicating to the grassroots of Thailand without causing drowsiness and indigestion. Because even when a free and fair election was guaranteed (at least for them), they failed to make use of the available checks and balances to make sure the election was definitely free and fair. Because the red tape within the Democratic Party is longer than the equator and thicker than a rhino's hide.

Even when the People's Power Party was being inconvenienced at every turn, the Democratic Party has still managed to lose ever so resoundingly. Don't blame the system or the rural vote....this time, it's all YOUR fault.

I'm sorry...I'm not feeling constructive at all, but if the Democratic Party couldn't manage to win an election with the (indirect, perhaps) support of so many powerful people AND against someone like SAMAK (SAMAK, for heaven's sake!!), they really have no business running the country. If they continue to run the opposition like incompetent fools, they will definitely lose my vote in the next election.

It's time for the old wood at the Democratic Party to die. Bring on the fresh blood...I know they're out there! But heavens, please don't start teaching your young to follow in your footsteps. They'd be better off jumping off the top floor of the Baiyoke Tower.

Read comment

comment 49
FelixQui date : 04/01/2008 time : 20.05
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Natee,
Yes, I agree with everything in your comment 48. I just baulk at the idea of any group getting the idea that they could get whatever they demanded. That said, it is certainly time that policies were made, and serious funding set aside for, the majority of the Thai people as opposed to the comfortable Bangkok minority. Bangkok is certainly important, but it is not Thailand.
comment 48
natee date : 04/01/2008 time : 19.18
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/natee

Felixqui: Good point, although I'm wary that the 'just and feasible' addendum might become an escape clause for the hard-working minds at the Democrat Party. This is a party that fears innovation and creativity, so anything difficult would probably be classified as unfeasible, if not also unjust.

I'd say they should still try to provide the people, particularly the rural areas, everything they want but to use wisdom in providing it. To be honest, I didn't find Thaksin's 'bribing' of the rural areas through populist policies as disturbing as his human rights record and the loopholes he found in the business legislation. The rural areas must be heard!
comment 47
FelixQui date : 03/01/2008 time : 23.07
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

I would add this clause to to your #2. in comment 46: "provided it is just and feasible." Otherwise, their policies would be no better than Taksin's overt bribery of a majority mob.
comment 46
natee date : 03/01/2008 time : 05.50
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/natee

Right, I just realised that my latest comment was about as vague as the Democrat's campaign. In a nutshell:
1. Find out what the voting population of Thailand want
2. Promise in *straightforward terms* to give them what they want.
comment 45
natee date : 03/01/2008 time : 05.46
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/natee

Kornchanok: The Democrats have a lot to be proud of and their 61 year tradition of being a party based *broadly* on principles is a reason I trust them more than others (no! I haven't forgotten all their corruption scandals and Sanan Kachornprasat). My opinion is that Thais owe a lot to this party, because they have been part and parcel of Thailand's political development.

If their own strategists do know what went wrong in their latest campaign, then they have most likely also been entrapped in the party's bureaucratic culture. It's so obvious to others what went wrong.

Some of my closest friends ticked the 'do not wish to vote' box because the Democrats were vague and unpersuasive in their campaign. Now we're talking about middle class Bangkok here. Imagine how the rest of the country without loyalties to the Democrat Party might have felt!
comment 44
Kornchanok date : 02/01/2008 time : 10.51
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/kornchanok

What a pleasure to read this debate!

Natee, you are you! (as sharp as usual)

However, I can't imagine how what you said can happen while the Democrats are very proud of their 61-year-old institution with traditions.
Democrat's new face MP candidates told the media all the time they were proud to be part of such party and they adored the systematic working style of the party.

Democrat strategists also don't understand why their research to prepare policies, which they call "People's Agenda," and the election campaign did not work.
comment 43
natee date : 31/12/2007 time : 22.44
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/natee

Thanks for the interesting debate, everyone, although I must say it's becoming slightly too abstract for my taste. As for those of you who suggested that newcomers need to be added to the Democrats, do remember that the young in Thailand almost always follow in the footsteps of the old. Unless drastic reform measures are introduced to the party, there's absolutely no way that the young and still idealist might make a change within the party. They'll just imitate their elders, just like Abhisit did with Chuan.
comment 42
Ian date : 31/12/2007 time : 09.49
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Easy, checks and balances only work if they are legally enforcible. In England if I feel that I am wronged by my government or any administrative body, I have the legal right to take them to court.
Citizens often do, and often win, because we have a legal structure which is seperate from government and strong enough to if needed oppose government.
I may be wrong, but the impression I get in Thailand is that the courts are subservient to the government.
comment 41
Easy date : 31/12/2007 time : 05.06
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/easy

Aphisit has been utilizing that for sure! = ... has NOT been utilizing...."....All the talks were so boring and impractical, both to the educated and the uneducated!....No wonder we will get what we are getting! Wook daek!
comment 40
Easy date : 31/12/2007 time : 05.01
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/easy

I have always thought that Aphisit has not been working hard enough. On he few articles that he had posted at The Nation, I never finished reading the whole thing. Granted, he was Oxford educated, but every 'famous' politician needs a speech writer cum editor. Aphisit has been utilizing that for sure!
comment 39
Easy date : 31/12/2007 time : 01.10
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/easy

Ethic = The principles of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual or a social group.

Who are to define the principles of right and wrong?

To which individuals or social groups that the politicians are defining the principles of right and wrong?

How do you define those principles? Many bloggers here may have their own....but many in the country are being told and exploited!
comment 38
Easy date : 31/12/2007 time : 01.03
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/easy

Quote: They’re self serving creatures too, but whose actions are kept within reason by society (in Western nations),...

Exactly, "...kept within reason by society (in Western nations),.."! IMHO, the same might not be said of Thailand! There are numerous examples that one can quote.

Quote: ...and checks and balance systems (in the West) that almost work.

"...almost work" is better than "work on case-by-case". Some people say checks and balances were being destroyed by the last administration.

I have my own opinion on whether the checks and balances was being destroyed, but how do others think? After all, checks and balances is a main criterion in a democracy. What do you say?
comment 37
Lion date : 30/12/2007 time : 19.22
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/htunix

Sounds good from you
comment 36
Ian date : 30/12/2007 time : 10.34
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Comment 35 last paragraph. Very true, and this is the crux of the problem, it is not just politicians it is the entire society. Read the last entry in my "children's party" blog, it is relevant. Thai people seem reluctant to accept responsibilities, and it is this reluctance that allows corruption to flourish.
comment 35
AmorphousThai date : 30/12/2007 time : 10.01

Education is only effective if attendees are willing to learn and have the incentive to act accordingly. Thai politicians are already made to attend classes through various selection schemes parliament employs. The responsible institution is King Prajadhipok’s Institute (www.kpi.ac.th), and the courses are diverse and quite well designed, taught by top academics and technocrats. The problem isn’t availability of or access to education, but the incentive to act. One can only legislate to achieve desired behaviors, not thoughts and moral fortitude. Politicians will not act morally until society at large expects them to and holds them accountable for their words and actions.

And please spare me the comparison with Western politicians. They’re self serving creatures too, but whose actions are kept within reason by society, and checks and balance systems that almost work.
comment 34
Ian_the_younger date : 30/12/2007 time : 04.28
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/poomjai

Natee,

Your blog is from the heart and, if I may say, gets to the nub of the malaise within the Democrats.

New faces, new structures and mechanims and new ideas are needed. And I am very sorry, but Khun Ravej's ideas sound rather too much like the brain-childs of a Democrat Party Central office researcher, smarting at the electoral loss and wondering how to promote electability without any cultural or structural change within the party itself. Just my thought.

Max once more makes a very perceptive comment. Almost every time one sees a photo of Abhisit he has either Chuan or Banyat tucked in close on his wings. Alternatively, we see headlines of Chuan politely gainsaying the likely policy of the Democrats in the likely event that they didn't win a majority, to which, Abhisit has to sit and swallow quietly like a good boy. A leader should lead the party and the people. Abhisit doesn't appear to have the qualities to do either, in my humble opinion.
comment 33
Ian date : 29/12/2007 time : 10.01
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Time and time again in these blogs we have had to tip toe around certain topics because they cannot be discussed, at time many of us have ventured dangerously close to this invisible red line.
Yet a course on government and ethics has to have at its core an examination and evaluation of various political systems. Be able to debate and discuss the merits and demerits of everything from Communism to Absolute Monarchy or Dictatorship.
Anything less than this is simply papering over the cracks.
comment 32
Ravej date : 28/12/2007 time : 22.22

To comments 28 & 29
FelixQui

Ethics has to be taught differently than merely lecturing about short skirts and editing smoking and gun pointing scenes during prime time dramas.

Furthermore, the Ministries themselves would not oversee voter & politician training, but would merely be voices in setting the standards together with the other bodies I spoke about. The training envisioned would involve not only lectures, but also workshops and practical skills training for politicians and would-be politicians. The training for voters would be integrated into school and university curriculums and would probably be more passive and less demanding.

About your comment about lawyers, the reason why I focus on lawyers is that our politicians are lawmakers. It makes sense (perhaps only to me) that lawmakers and lawyers share their ideas on ethics and the notion of trustee/stewardship. Other groups from which insights on ethics can be obtained include doctors, engineers, architects, judges, professors from departments of philosophy, economics, social work, medicine, law, accounting, etc and NGO leaders.

"Do you have any plan for the certain opposition from religious (esp. Buddhist) groups? And the Min. of Culture, so far from aiding, is more likely to oppose your proposal, but then, they are part of the government you are hoping to reform, so their opposition must be expected."

I was actually focusing more on elected politicians and not career civil servants such as the ones at the Ministry of Culture, at least at the initial stages. Eventually, such courses for civil servants should also be required as with any other profession.

"Again, I do strongly endorse your idea for the teaching of ethics, but feel it is more likely to yield substantial results if directed at the young or even the general population, who would then be better able to judge political candidates and hold them to a higher standard, and that change would be immediate, not in 30-40 years. But how to do it?"

I think we do agree that ethics training for voters is important. The reason why I focus on such training for politicians is three-fold: 1) no one else has talked about this possibility, namely of raising the quality of our politicians and not merely of our voters; and 2) it would be far easier & cheaper (IMHO) to educate and train say 600 politicians rather than jump right into training 60+ million voters. 3) Also Thai society is very centralized and top-down so it may be better to start with those at the top of the pyramid and work downwards rather than attempt a grass-roots approach, which seem to fail more often in Thailand.

Politicians are a self-selected group theoretically putting themself at the disposal/service of the public (or at least their constitutients). There training should be more rigorous and IMO more immediate. We demand such training of our doctors, lawyers (perhaps nominal in their case), judges, architects, accountants, etc and yet we demand less of our politicians? IMHO, this does not make sense. Each physician, lawyer, judge, etc can hold in their hands the fates of hundreds if not thousands of lives, but politicians can effect far more lives and can even affect the lives in different countries. A lesser standard for politicians seems inconsistent.

"Sadly, the same suppression of free speech that is so prevalent in thai politics is likely to make it very difficult to introduce, unless private groups take a bold initiative".

Absolutely true. In particular I have noticed alot of defamation actions in Thailand. Ethics training and other capacity building for polticians would not be geared at slandering anyone. The training is intended to be politically neutral. It should not attract the ire of any particular politician or political party. If ethics training is marketed as training to improve the public good and sufficient relationship can be shown between the training and the end result (i.e., the proposal is not too onerous or else unconstitutional), then I think it would be hard to challenge the initiative and indeed for a party or politician to do so might raise many eyebrows.
comment 31
FelixQui date : 28/12/2007 time : 22.12
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Ian,
Yes, I am inclined to think that until freedom of speech is permitted, there is little hope for progress towards a healthy democracy.

Today's article, "Press freedom in Southeast Asia deteriorates - Seapa" in the Nation paints a gloomy prospect for free speech in Thailand. (Report is at: http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/12/28/regional/regional_30060586.php )
comment 30
Ian date : 28/12/2007 time : 20.18
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Felix, I think the most important observation was in your comment 28. How can you possibly teach ethics when one of the basic tenets of ethics is denied in this country, namely freedom of speech?
comment 29
FelixQui date : 28/12/2007 time : 19.53
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Ravej,
I take you point about cheating. If they can not cheat, the politicians will have to give the correct answers in their exam, and then cheerfuly ignore those answers in practice, just as they now feel no need to make their acts match their words. A more aware and demanding electorate would be a more substantive reason for ethical behaviour from politicians, irrespective of any ethics exams the politicians may have successfully passed.

I think my real problem with your suggestion is that studying ethics does not necessarily lead to more ethical behaviour. But a more critical understanding of ethics, or critical thinking in general (not the same as education), can make an electorate more demanding and more likely to vote for decent candidates.
comment 28
FelixQui date : 28/12/2007 time : 19.43
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Ravej,
Both the Ministries of Ed. and Culture have been talking about ethics and morality forever, and have only managed to prove that they are completely clueless. Neither should be permitted anywhere near a commission on ethics: they would only tell people to visit more temples and listen to more monks. And are lawyers really so ethical that they should have a large input? The lawyers I know tend to treat their "ethics" courses as a joke, which they are, being a very brief, tacked on afterthought of no depth, just a list of professional conduct guidelines, and I'm inclined to think that unethical politicians will do the same.
Of the groups you suggested, the one that might qualify is the univerities. Which departments did you have in mind? But bear in mind that Thammasat, one of the better (?) of the uniformly not good to awful Thai universities has also proved itself morally clueless over its appalling behaviour in the Chotiros Suriyawong affair.
Do you have any plan for the certain opposition from religious (esp. Buddhist) groups? And the Min. of Culture, so far from aiding, is more likely to oppose your proposal, but then, they are part of the government you are hoping to reform, so their opposition must be expected.

Again, I do strongly endorse your idea for the teaching of ethics, but feel it is more likely to yield substantial results if directed at the young or even the general population, who would then be better able to judge political candidates and hold them to a higher standard, and that change would be immediate, not in 30-40 years. But how to do it? Sadly, the same suppression of free speech that is so prevalent in thai politics is likely to make it very difficult to introduce, unless private groups take a bold initiative.
comment 27
Ravej date : 28/12/2007 time : 17.36

To comment 23
Patriot date : 28/12/2007 time : 14.55

"The concern I have is the standard of ethics that is being benchmarked. Who determines where to draw the line as to what is ethical and what is not? Especially in Thai politics, this in itself would be a challenge and a half".

I agree that setting a benchmark will not be easy and deciding who will set it is also a difficult task.

At the very least the Ministry of Education, Culture, University Affairs, Lawyers Council of Thailand, the institute responsible for training judges, Thai academics & NGO leaders, and foreign consultants can help set the standards. Religious leaders may (or may not) have a role in setting the standards (I acknowledge and understand Felix's point).

Once the standards are set, a separate and independent commission whose members are voted into office by the people (yes another round of elections...) could be used to populate the commission. Also an procedure for private individuals to file complaints should also be in place.

These are just some ideas off the top of my head....
comment 26
Ravej date : 28/12/2007 time : 17.02

To comment 24
FelixQui date : 28/12/2007 time : 15.46

Oh by the way, the exams I envision would be oral and judged by a panel of judges, academics and foreign consultants. Cheating would be difficult for Thai politicians.
comment 25
Ravej date : 28/12/2007 time : 17.01

To comment 24
FelixQui date : 28/12/2007 time : 15.46

You raise some excellent points. Then why not relegate the teaching of ethics to government schools? The teach of ethics should be part of the approved national curriculum. Likewise international schools in Thailand wish to receive Ministry of Education accreditation should be required to offer ethics as part of its courses on history & governance. This requirement can be extended into the university level.

I respectfully disagree with your view that teaching ethics to politicians (along with accountability, transparency, trustee/stewardship, etc.) would be a waste of time. I think (re)educating politicians is just as important as educating our voters. Why wait 20 - 40 years for a new generation of presumably more competent and ethical leaders to emerge whilst waiting for the old guard to die off? Why not demand more professionalism now and make it mandatory (i.e., required by law). Cheating, abeyance of annual continuing education requirements, etc. means that the offending politician will be banned from politics. This effort of course would go hand in hand with educating our voters.

"I also dislike the idea of a democracy putting such requirements on the citizens representatives. It's more likely to lead to them cheating on their ethics exams".

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point. In the end, I think we should put more requirements on our political leaders (by the way I am happy that the requirement of a university degree was rescinded). The excuse that one has the mandate of the majority of voters should not be enough to runover the democratic process.

I think democracies like free markets or any other system can fail (e.g., Hitler was validly elected to power by the German voters and look at the "good" that was accomplished during his misrule) and that democracies may require occassional tinkering.

The requirement that political leaders under initial and continuing education and training is not IMHO overly onerous or too broadly tailored to meet a pressing government interest.
comment 24
FelixQui date : 28/12/2007 time : 15.46
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Ravej,
You asked what I meant by "religious deceits". You also wrote, "For those that level school early, ethics training should be made freely available at wats, mosques, churches, [and] temples." (C.15) And that points to a serious problem with ethics teaching: religions pretend to be about ethics, when in fact they are not, and any serious approach to teaching ethics would undermine another large chunk of the authority of religion.
Plato first made this explicit in his Euthyphro, writen around 390 BC. Whilst I think this would be a very good thing, I can't see any religion welcoming this in the schools. Popes, monks, imams, and teh like are not renowned for willingly giving up power and influence. Surprisingly, there is now a nascent move to introduce such things even in primary schools in the UK, as this BBC report shows: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6330631.stm
Ethics, and philosophy generally, would be a great thing to teach all students.

I just feel that it would be a waste of time teaching politicians: why would they make any change in their behaviour if they aren't forced to it by a more sophisticated and aware electorate? I also dislike the idea of a democracy putting such requirements on the citizens representatives. It's more likely to lead to them cheating on their ethics exams.
comment 23
Patriot date : 28/12/2007 time : 14.55
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/Patriot

Khun Natee: Also glad to see you posting again, been missing your sharp insights. I for one am not interested in receiving an apology from the Democrats or any other political party, it does not provide any form of viable restitution. Disappointed, yes, deterred, no.

The Democrats need to use this experience as a lesson in politics and grow through adversity. This will not be the first time they will be tested nor will it be the last time. They still have a civil and moral obligation to serve their constituents while at the same time protecting the constitution. The Democrats even in defeat can take the higher moral ground and represent the people by providing a measure of check and balance within a new coalition government. It is a young party with many stellar minds and good moral clarity, I feel that in due time they will gain insight as to how Thai politics is done and with a bit of patience confidence and opportunities will grow.

The PPP and Khun Samak has won this election based on the premise that the grass is greener on the other side, what they have failed to state in the fine print is, yes, the grass is greener on the other side but the water bill will also be a lot higher.

Max: I agree that Khun Abhisit has great potential if he would just be himself. There is nothing wrong with hard rock and electric guitars, I too like to rock and roll. I noticed in several of his latest appearances the context of his platform was good but the body language shouted no confidence. I can only imagine the burden that was placed upon him and the Democrats to challenge an established institution with nothing more than the will to serve the people. This is the reality of standing up and fighting for something you believe in, bravado will only take you so far.

Khun Ravej: I agree that there needs to be some form of systematic ethical training or at the very least a mandatory maintenance of ethics awareness through testing and asset reviews.

The concern I have is the standard of ethics that is being benchmarked. Who determines where to draw the line as to what is ethical and what is not? Especially in Thai politics, this in itself would be a challenge and a half.
comment 22
Ravej date : 28/12/2007 time : 14.09

To comment 21
Ian date : 28/12/2007 time : 13.55

Implementation might begin by canvassing NGOs that are likely to be sympathetic to the idea or perhaps even creating a new NGO specifically aimed at voter & politician education. Surely the Lawyers Council of Thailand & the Naethibundit (Thai barrister association) could at least offer suggestions if not their active assistance. The media can also play a very positive role. Such a grass-roots approach, however, is not enough by itself in Thailand, which is a very centralized, top-to-bottom society.

An additional step might be to petition the Election Commission. Ask around and see if there is any backing for the proposal. Perhaps impracticalities exist that mean that the proposal has to be modified.

Inevitably, however, for this proposal to succeed, it must be made into law. This means the proposal must pass through both houses of parliament. This is where the proposal will likely meet with greatest resistance. If momentum can be built at the grass-roots and certain political parties and high-profile politicians (especially senators) be recruited to support the bill, then passage might become more likely.

Ultimately, it depends on whether there is sufficient will power to push the proposal. Thai voters, however, may be tired of dubious politicians and lame election practices and may hopefully be convinced to raise the bar.
comment 21
Ian date : 28/12/2007 time : 13.55
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Ok Ravej, You have the ideas, now comes the hard part, implementation:-)
comment 20
Ravej date : 28/12/2007 time : 13.41

To comment 19
Ian date : 28/12/2007 time : 13.03

The name mix-up is okay. ;-) I also know two people named Rajev.

About the training & capacity building efforts for politicians, the coursework might be offered through NIDA, Thammasat, Ramkhamhaeng, Sukhothai Srithammarat Universities. As stated before, the classes need not be university level classes. Judges and academics from NGOs could also be recruited to teach or serve as panel members or chairs at seminars. Also foreign university professors, professionals such as medical ethics committee members, law society ethics advocates, etc can also be recruited. The American Bar Association (ABA) for example already works with the Lawyers Council of Thailand (LCT) on rule of law matters. Perhaps the ABA's ethics committee together with the LCT could help create a curriculum. I think the help would be available for the asking, but as was properly pointed out earlier, political momentum must be built.
comment 19
Ian date : 28/12/2007 time : 13.03
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Ravej, my apologies, I have many Indian friends in Malaysia, so my brain transposed the letters:-)
Let us assume for the moment that your proposal is indeed made mandatory for current and future politicians. Who would conduct these instruction classes as everyone seems agreed that they are not currently taught in schools or universities?
comment 18
redandwhitestripes date : 28/12/2007 time : 12.38
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/reallifethailand

About time you blogged Mr Natee! I was wondering what happened to you :-)
comment 17
Ravej date : 28/12/2007 time : 12.26

To comment 16
Ian date : 28/12/2007 time : 11.53

Thank you for your comments. FYI, my name is Ravej no Rajev.

Ethics training for politicians should be made mandatory. If you are new to politics, then you should be required to prove your worthiness, in part, by undergoing the requisite 12- 16 hours of classes & simulations. (The other part is simply to be elected by the people of your constituency). If you are a political veteran, then annual refresher courses should be required in order for you to stand for re-election. If this professionalism & capacity building requirement for politicians is made legally mandatory, then I suspect the politicians would at least sit through the classes. Some of the younger politicians might even take their lessons to heart. Regardless, it is better than the current system, which is nothing.... The point is that we should not only work on educating our voters, but also our politicians. I for one do not want to wait 20 years before we have a new crop of ethical, competent politicians while the dinosaurs slowly die off. I would rather raise the bar now.

About your game theory comment, I will have to read the article you cite more closely. I agree that politics requires acting more for one's constituency and that such actions may not match the common good. But ideas and values such as trustee/stewartship & ethics can still be applied to a politician now representing his or her constituency. As it stands now the old client-patron system is becoming increasingly one-sided in favor of the patron.
comment 16
Ian date : 28/12/2007 time : 11.53
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Rajev, I think you miss two important points, you write, "ethics training for politicians". Firstly you can only teach those who are willing to learn.
Secondly, you are discussing one of the basic postulates of "game theory", it is a playoff between, "the strategies that contribute to the common good" or "the strategies of behave selfishly ."
See here for a more detailed analysis
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/whatis.htm
comment 15
Ravej date : 28/12/2007 time : 09.32

To comment 14
FelixQui date : 28/12/2007 time : 07.15

Likewise, I do not think ethics training for politicians will hurt them and it may certainly help some of the younger or newer politicans. For the veteran politicans, ethics training should be a requirement for their continued running for re-election. My point has been to raise the quality, and our expectations as to ethical behavior of our elected officials.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that education is important and would like to see more (or rather some) ethics training incorporated into all levels of education from pre-school to university level. For those that level school early, ethics training should be made freely available at wats, mosques, churches, temples, through university extension classes, the internet, satellite television, etc. I am not saying that ethics training is a panacea, but it would be one vital step. AFAIK, ethics training is not already part of the curriculum in Thai schools. Even if it was, I am not suggesting a series of passive lectures but something more fun and interactive.

About the vested interested opposed to ethics training for politicans and for society at large, I agree with you that there would be many different groups opposed to my proposal. However, if the vast majority of Thais receive this education at school level and our politicans were required such training, then at least some of these special interests would have to fall in line. Eventually, it would become a societal norm and any naysayers would be seen as counter-culture.


what groups are you refering to exactly? Also what do you mean exactly be "religious deceits"?


and what it entailed, they might be less susceptible to at least the grosser polical abuses; but then, they would also be less susceptible to religious deceits, so you can see that there are some powerful vested interests that would oppose ethics training in Thailand.
comment 14
FelixQui date : 28/12/2007 time : 07.15
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Ravej,
i don't think that ethics training for politicians would help. What might help is ethics training for everyone, something that is currently almost non-existent in Thailand, despite the Ministry of Ed. persistently drivelling on about "ethics" instead of doing something to improve education in Thailand.
If the people had some idea about what ethics was and what it entailed, they might be less susceptible to at least the grosser polical abuses; but then, they would also be less susceptible to religious deceits, so you can see that there are some powerful vested interests that would oppose ethics training in Thailand.
comment 13
natee date : 28/12/2007 time : 06.17
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/natee

Thank you for all the comments as well as to the silent readers. I feel that the Democratic Party should take my criticism as well as the disappointment of those who voted for them in the strongest terms as possible. Losing the election is one thing. Letting their voters down so badly is another.

Perhaps an apology to their loyal voters supported by a carefully thought out plan of action for reform of the Democratic Party is appropriate at this stage.
comment 12
Ravej date : 27/12/2007 time : 21.06

Maybe we should require all politicans and would-be politicians to take classes on ethics, basic public finance, accountability, stewartship, basic political theory (e.g., what exactly is democracy & what are the requirements to keep democracies healthy?) before they can be eligible to hold office? The classes do not have to be university level and can be relatively informal, but should consist of training. All politicians should undergo the course, even the so-called veteran politicians. Once they complete their original course, then they should be required to take annual refresher courses especially in ethics. The courses will not be simple lectures, but case studies from other countries as well. Those that fail to take the refresher course should be banned from any subsequent office holding once their original term of office is complete.
comment 11
Ravej date : 27/12/2007 time : 20.55

To comment 9
Ian date : 27/12/2007 time : 18.41

No, absolutely not. I never felt that office holding should be limited to degree holders. However, all office holders should be required to undergo initial ethics/stewartship training and annual refresher courses. Also courses (high school or junior college level) in political theory, public finance & other related classes should be required for all politicians. It's time we expected more from our elected leaders.
comment 10
MaxHeadroom date : 27/12/2007 time : 19.43
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/maxheadroom

Yes, that's a 100% - I couldn"t agree more.

Days before the trial I tried to rally support to petition HM the King to suspend the party dissolution trial on the grounds that you cannot make use of retro-active laws.

The Democrats - packed to their teeth with lawyers failed to step out of the shadow and win the hearts of the people by talking sense against the coup. Not much of any clear position - yet they participated in all of the CNS charades such as the trial or the referendum - without realizing that self centered tactics don't please rural voters very much.

Khun Abhisit is not really a younger version of Chuan, but he fails in emancipating himself and shys away from showing his own personality. Much of it is of fear that he might not please his mentors and his party's style.

I think many people would like the real Abhisit much more than the controlled, pre-scripted and programmed one. So the one that doesn't pretend to boogy around in an aerobics session just because it is election time but one that admits that he likes hard rock and electric guitars and probably hates the image campaign advisors have given him.

It's really sad: had he made me his campaign advisor - he'd be 35 MPs stronger - guaranteed
comment 9
Ian date : 27/12/2007 time : 18.41
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Rajev, your comments suggest that to be a politician one should either hold a degree or equivalent. Are you actually saying this?
comment 8
Ravej date : 27/12/2007 time : 18.15

Educating our leaders is critical. Our politicial leaders should be required to undergo the same licensing or continuing education requirements as required of accountants, auditors, doctors, engineers, and lawyers. They should be required to take ethics classes annually together with public finance, accounting, accountability, political theory & English as a second language each year.
comment 7
Ravej date : 27/12/2007 time : 18.13

Excellent comments all around.

In certain professions such as medicine, law, accounting, engineering & architecture, professionals have to undergo training for licensure and must undergo continuing education to retain their licenses. I think our politicians should be required to undergo annual training courses in fields such as ethics, accountability/public finance, English as a second language, politicial science/theory, etc.

Voter education should also be stepped up. Democracy should be clearly defined. It's not about tyranny of the masses or ignoring the rights of political minorities. It is also not about giving our leaders blank checks and allowing them to do whatever they want.
comment 6
Ravej date : 27/12/2007 time : 18.09

Excellent comments all around. I would like to see both more voter & politician education.

Voter education should occur throughout grade school and into high school. It can be linked to government classes. Topics can include political theory, especially the definition of democracy. For example, democracy does not simply mean tyranny of the masses and running over the rights of political minorities or that a people's mandate does not constitute a blank check for political leaders do whatever they please regardless of any constitution. These truisms of democracy can also be printed into the booklets listing the candidates.

Doctors, lawyers, accountants, auditors, architects & engineers have to undergo compulsory training to receive their licenses. Furthermore, they have to undergo annual refresher courses and training especially in ethics. Would it be too much trouble to require the same thing from our politicians? They should be required to satisfy a certain number of hours of such course work each year (e.g., 12 hours including 3 hours of ethics and accountability classes). Classes should be offered at local universities or perhaps professors and foreign consultants can give lectures to our politicians - 1 weekend a year.... This shouldn't prove to burdensome for our busy leaders.
comment 5
Patriot date : 27/12/2007 time : 16.46
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/Patriot

Khun Natee: I concur. I also found it quite disappointing to see the lack luster effort put forth by the democrats as well as the other parties running for office.

In my opinion, the approach taken towards this election campaign was extremely shallow at best, it almost seemed half hearted. The biggest disappointment was the lack of vision and the lack of willingness to adapt, improvise and capitalize on opportunities. Considering the players of past and present I anticipated a better game plan with more vigor and savvy. They all knew quite well that the former leadership would bring their A game to the table, to respond with anything less is careless invitation to a good old fashion ass whooping, which seems to be the case.

The opposing candidates ran on a platform of change but yet displayed a total contradictory passive defeatist action plan. The primary thinking that incapacitated any form of competitive edge was the half hearted, insincere campaigning done to secure the rural vote. To many rural voters, the audacity of contemplation that the city vote was sufficient to win this election was a form of neglect and disrespect, not to mention the existing party loyalties. The rural vote in my opinion is pivotal towards preplanning a winning campaign and further to build a strong future coalition government. At the core of any major campaign, you must win the hearts and minds before you can win the votes.

In my view, once again we experience unorthodox change, this time, I feel that we as a nation have placed ourselves into a defenseless predicament that will alter the course of history for many generations to come.
comment 4
windy date : 27/12/2007 time : 15.00
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/lisnaree
Lisnaree Vichitsorasatra

New blood...how about you, Natee?
comment 3
Ian date : 27/12/2007 time : 09.35
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Natee, I totally agree but how do you create competent corruption free politicians in a country where incompetence and corruption is a way of life?
Perhaps future politicians should spend a compulsory year understudying a western politician
comment 2
Boracic date : 26/12/2007 time : 22.10
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/Boracic

Very well said Natee
comment 1
pichaya date : 26/12/2007 time : 21.50
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/pichaya
see me also at http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/everythingthailand

absolutely agree! Democrat's election campaign was pretty much poor-ineffective, ingenuity, and lack of creativity.

Abhisit, besides his sharp tongue, is off-the-ground,and innocently inexperience.

i couldn't vote for PPP but neither i could accept the Democrat's low-quality campaign.

well, why don't we make it compulsory for competence and successful people to contribute to politics?....it's better than compulsory military service as the cold war had ended long time ago.
Comment

  "If you are not member, please register to comment.
It take only a few steps."

  |  
name :  
email :  
website :  
comment :  
   
   

back top

<< December 2007 >>
s m t w t f s
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31