Forget Thaksin vs Abhisit. Most people already have. Forget Thanathorn vs Prayut. Soon people will as well. Forget democracy vs theocracy, or if you like democracy vs authoritarianism, these arguments are irrelevant at best and a distraction at worst.
The real political battleground that Thailand will face in the not-too-distant future is the one between those who have and those who have-not.
The coronavirus pandemic is proving to be an accurate barometer of where we are as a society and our biggest woes. And for those that have been following the news, it is quite clear that the divide between the rich and poor has never been greater.
While the rich complain about the alcohol ban and worry about the monotony of isolation, the poor have been literally killing themselves over the lack of security, food, and opportunity.
To put it into perspective, let me quote some dead white people.
A broken contract
Writing in the 18th century, the Swiss philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau noted the importance of clearly defining the relationship between the citizen and the state.
In his magnum opus, The Social Contract, Rousseau said, “man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” This may not be the cry for freedom that one may think but merely an observation upon the nature of governments.
According to Rousseau, governments and citizens have a two-way relationship, a social contract. In return for their taxes, obedience, and promise not to overthrow the rulers, citizens are provided by their government, peace, security, and the ability to pursue property.
When this social contract is broken, there is revolution and chaos.
The social contract in Thailand has been broken for some time regardless of the ruler and regardless of the system of government. The poor have always been left behind, it only took us a pandemic to see how far behind they are.
The evils of the middle class
The Thai middle class encapsulates everything that Freidrich Engels hated about the middle class. They are disdainful of the working class below them and jealous of the upper class above them. They gladly trade liberty for security, if only to protect their assets.
Engels once said of the middle class:
“The middle classes have a truly extraordinary conception of society. They really believe that human beings . . . have real existence only if they make money or help to make it.”
I have heard more than once in social settings middle-class Thais complain openly about government programs to help the poor or the universal healthcare law and why they were being taxed so heavily to provide for those who were lazy or incompetent.
The lack of empathy among them is startling.
Ten years ago when red-shirt protesters descended onto Bangkok, more than one middle-class Thai cheered on the Democrat Party and the army as they crushed the protests with bullets and tanks.
Half a decade ago, many of them took to the streets with whistles and flags to usher in a coup, so certain were they that they were protecting the country.
When the junta finally allowed elections, many voted for the coup-leaders to remain.
Now as the coronavirus lockdown guts their businesses and closes their stores and restaurants it is hard to feel any empathy. That this incompetent government, full of crooks and generals (or are they one and the same?), is responsible for their destruction makes the irony all the sweeter.
Democracy is no cure
On democracy, Karl Marx once wrote that:
“The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.”
He is not wrong. Despite our hopes for Future Forward and the promise of the social revolution they would bring, there is still a serious crisis of representation among our leaders.
Khun Thanathorn, Piyabutr, Pannika and Kulthida and their western-influenced liberal education have been banned, replaced by Khun Pita with his degrees from Harvard and MIT.
No amount of empathy, no survey trip, no campaigning in the rural areas could ever sufficiently educate them on the plight of the poorest people in our country.
While I do not doubt the good intentions of Khun Thanathorn and his billions, Khun Pita and his millions and the middle-class goodwill of Khun Piyabutr, Pannika, and Kulthida, their rhetoric since coming into power has been as a fight against liberal democracy and against the forces of fascist oligarchies and authoritarianism.
That seems misguided.
For those that live day-to-day in this country, and there is far too many, the real fight is for food, for shelter, for daily survival.
You can argue all you want that a true democracy stands a better chance at helping these people than the fools we have in government right now, you may even be right.
But not by much.
Until Future Forward or Pheu Thai or any member of the opposition can field candidates that are truly representative of the poor, their understanding of the problem can only extend so far.
20 billionaires
The average annual salary in Thailand is around 160,000 baht per year. The average Thai can spend his entire adult life working and never make 32 million baht or 1 million US dollars.
The government thought it wise to ask 20 Thai billionaires for their advice in how to manage the coronavirus crisis, how best to help the poor.
Voltaire once wrote that he only had one wish of God, to make his enemies ridiculous.
Well, that wish has been granted to us here in Thailand. The rich and the generals are truly ridiculous.
General Prayut, if you truly want to help the poor. You should start finding legal ways to redistribute the wealth of those you have been seeking advice from.
สำหรับผู้พิพากษาที่ได้ทำเอกสารผิดพลาดในขณะที่เร่งรีบเพื่อเปลี่ยนคำพิพากษาในนาทีสุดท้าย ในการฟ้องร้องดำเนินคดีทางแพ่งเพื่อเรียกค่าเสียหาย 3 พันล้านบาทกับเจ้าหน้าที่ทางการ เป็นหนี่งในการช่วยเหลือเพื่อนำไปสู่การทุจริตคอรัปชั่นอย่างที่สุด และเป็นการแสดงออกที่น่าตกใจ ถึงการขาดความแยกแยะระหว่างระบบยุติธรรมกับรัฐ
เป็นเรื่องที่น่าขำ – พี่ชายของอ๊อด คือ นายพีระศักด์ ศรีรุ่งสุขจินดา เป็นสมาชิก ของ
หากคดีในประเทศไทยจะถูกแทรกแซง ผู้กระทำความผิดควรจะทำการแทรกแซงก่อนที่คดีจะ เริ่ม หรือควรกระทำในช่วงแรกของคดี เนื่องจากไม่ได้มีการบันทึกคำเบิกความในกระบวนพิจารณาของศาล มีเพียงการบันทึกสรุปคำเบิกความลงในเครื่องบันทึกเสียง ซึ่งกระทำได้โดยผู้พิพากษาในศาล ชั้นต้น หรือแม้แต่ข้ามหลักฐานอันสำคัญในคดี หาก ทนายความไม่ได้คัดค้าน หรือแจ้งเตือน ในการตัดสินของศาลนั้นผู้พิพากษาจะต้อง อ้างถึงหลักฐานที่เจ้าหน้าที่ศาลได้พิมพ์ออกมา โดยถอดมาจากเครื่องบันทึกเสียง
