How to use the cuurent Thai protest for GP....
The way I see it, this can be a very fertile example in areas such as:
1)media
2)crime and punishment
3)gender
4)politics (democracy)
Btw, it was reported in today's papers that there was a bomb blast in broad daylight at one of the protest sites (the one at MBK, Pathumwan intersection). Looks like things are heating up.....
1)MEDIA
The portrayal of the protests by most media tends to depict a not-so-accurate picture of what actually happens on the ground. To their credit, the media may not be doing this deliberately, but through selective reporting, viewers tend to walk away with a distorted reality. For instance, the media would have you believe that tourists have abandoned the city and the city is highly volatile. But when I was there, I can still see MANY tourists, except that there is a visible absence of large tour groups. And instead of chaos and violence (yes, there were some pockets of violence, but these usually did not occur in the day), a festive mood prevails at the protest sites, where rousing political speeches were interspersed with song and dance items. And there's also the pasar malam cashing in on the 'crisis'.
Looking at the footages in the media where protestors turned up in full force, you would think the entire Thailand is against Yingluck. But let it be known that the majority of Thailand, esp those is the north and northeast, supports her administration. The upcoming election is expected to return her govt to power with a landslide majority.
Whilst there, I also realise that it's useless to depend on the newspapers for news, 'cos you've to wait till the next day for the papers to arrive in the morning. If the opposition threatened to paralyse the airport, you don't want to wait until the next morning to get the news! TV is a moderate substitute, as air time is expensive, so you can't get too detailed an info....Online media is the best, where there are frequent updates and indepth analyses -- provided you know where the reliable sites are. Heaven forbids if u go to a dubious online chatroom and regard gossips as truth!
I also see a lot of people taking pics...and they will probably upload them online to share with others. In this era of online journalism, one gets the latest updates online because everyone can post news. You no longer have to wait for media companies to feed you with news. And this also means that the govt is going to find it difficult to control what people say about what's going on....
2)CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
Recognise that what the protestors are doing, and what they demanded of the govt, are illegal. Staging a protest is not illegal, but disrupting got officials from work and invading govt buildings are not. Yet the police are not arresting anybody! And the mastermind behind the protests is still going around giving speeches!
Quite a few political crimes seem to go punished...Those who ordered the crackdown against the Red Shirts a few years ago (which resulted in many deaths) are still walking free. There was even an attempt to introduce an Amnesty Bill recently (which was the trigger for the recent protest) that will absolve them of the blood on their hands, so that Thaksin can also return home from exile, unpunished for his alleged corruption. In the world of politics, it appears to be a game of give and take rather than real justice and fairness.
3)GENDER
For outsiders, your sympathy is likely to be with Yingluck, instead of opposition leader, Suthep. The former a woman, and a beautiful one; the latter is a man, and an old, not exactly good-looking one. So if u watch from the media, esp when Yingluck shed tears (tears are a woman's most lethal weapon!), Suthep comes across as the bully, and Yingluck the one deserving of support. So there u go, having women in politics makes it easier for them to win sympathy votes. While some may regard women as weak, this weakness can be transformed into an advantage is used correctly! But let me qualify, I mean shed tears hor, juz one or two drop, preferably those that will glisten like pearls under the media light, not those bawling type where u cry buckets of tears.....In contrast, try getting a male to shed tears and all credibility will be lost! We do not vote for a man who cries! But then again, our LKY did shed tears when we separated from Malaysia. In this era of K-pop, the male stars are also not shy to shed tears.....apparently, girls nowadays go for guys who are not afraid to acknowledge their softer side; it's called being emotionally sensitive.
Women in position of power can also suffer if they are too beautiful, e.g. our dear Ms Yingluck. If she is truly competent in ruling the country, note that few will acknowledge this or give her credit for it as she is too beautiful. Being too beautiful will lead the men to regard her as a bimbo, i.e. brainless. So any accomplishments that she has will be attributed to her brother Thaksin, which is why many critics feel that she is just a puppet PM, taking orders from her brother who is exiled in Dubai. The one really pulling the strings and calling the shots is Thaksin. This view would have been less convincing if Yingluck is a man, or if she is not so beautiful but look like Angela Merkel. Nobody doubts the competence of Angela Merkel (the formidable Chancellor of Germany) because she has no looks to distract people from her ability; it helps that she looks like a 'man', and behaves like one, i.e. aggressively!
Yet another common argument against having women in positions of power is that they often have no access to the old boy's network that would allow them to tap onto influential contacts to get things done (most of the influential people happened to be men). However, a possible rebuttal to this is that if the women in question have powerful connections, this will not be a problem. Just look at these examples: US's Hilary Clinton, South Korea's Park Guen Hye, India's Indira Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi, Thailand's Yingluck....they all have powerful family connections that give me access to the old boys' network, hence allowing them to get things done. Eg Hilary Clinton's husband was ex-US President! His connections become her connections! Likewise, Yingluck benefited from her brother, Thaksin's formidable network of contacts.
4 DEMOCRACY
One of the advantages of democracy if that to win the votes of the people, politicians are obliged to look after the welfare of the people, both majority and minority. In Thailand, the poor (who constitute the majority) in the north and northeast, have been neglected for a long time. When Thaksin came to power, he implemented policies to benefit these poor in order to earn their support and votes. Yingluck tried to do likewise. Two policies attributed to them which benefited the poor enormously are:
1) the 30-baht medical scheme, where one can see a doctor for just 30bht (S$1.20) See HERE for details. Think of it as the equivalent of the Medishield Life Fund which our govt is rolling out for the entire population....like an affordable national health insurance scheme....
2) the rice pledging scheme, where the govt pledged to buy rice from the poor farmers at 50% above market value to ensure a high income for the poor farmers ...see HERE.
Sounds like a fairy-tale come true? But this can be rebutted....In the quest for votes, the red shirt govt has been accused to pursuing populist policies to earn votes. Pursuing populist policies is a major problem for democracy, as govts may implement policies which are popular with the people, but ultimately bad for the country in the long run. Currently, the rice-pledging scheme has come under heavy firing, as the govt does not have enough money to pay the farmers for the high price to pledge to pay for the rice. In the meantime, the rice is siting idle in the warehouse. You can read more about it in the link above.
Sometimes, it's not just populist polices, but selfish policies that do not have the welfare of the people in mind. Eg, Using the majority power she has in parliament, Yingluck tried to pass the Amnesty Bill last month which will allow her brother (currently in exile in Dubai) to return to Thailand and reclaim his assets of billions of dollars which have been frozen by the court due to his corruption charges.
Another downside of democracy in this Thailand protest saga is the danger of tyranny of the majority. To the yellow shirt which are the minority, they are suffering from the tyranny of the majority. This happens when the govt is evil and corrupt but has the support of the majority who continue to vote them into power. The minority thus feel aggrieved and helpless under such a democratic system which confers power on the majority, regardless of how unenlightened and misguided these majority are. The problem is magnified if the majority are uneducated and anyhow exercise their voting power to vote in an inappropriate govt, as they are easily swayed by carrots dangled by the corrupt govt. This is how the yellow shirts see the red shirts....and thus the yellow shirt are conducting this operation to shutdown Bangkok to force the ruling govt to step down and install a 'people's council' to govern the country, until such a time when the people are mature enough to vote wisely, i.e. not vote for govt related to Thaksin. But recognise that this demand is illegal and undemocratic. Real democracy demands that the govt be elected by the people, and not be appointed by a selected few.
And lastly, democracy is often associated with protests which can turn violent. Look at the papers these few weeks and you can see how elections in these countries are turning violent: Cambodia, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia....Even when it is not election time, people can still protest against policies implemented by the ruling govt. Those in third world nations are particularly volatile as the people are not as educated and are hence easily swayed by the views of the opposition. Weaker economic growth also means that there is more unhappiness in the developing world that can lead to more protests and violence. In the current Thailand protest, there were drive-by shootings, hurling of grenades and bombs to intimidate the protestors.
Famous quotation on democracy by Sir Winston Churchill: 'Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried.' He is saying that democracy is not perfect, that it has a lot of flaws, BUT it is still the best option compared to all the other political models out there.
Ok...these are the random links to GP I can think of....use them to connect to these qns:
Women have it easier than men. How far do you think this is true in today's world?
The world will be a better place if more women are political leaders. How far do you agree?
The view of the majority is always right. Do you agree?
To what extent is it possible to make the punishment fit the crime?
Can we ever rely on the media to convey the truth?
In the digital age, do newspapers still have a role in your society?
Discuss the importance of colours.
Is violence ever justifiable?
1)media
2)crime and punishment
3)gender
4)politics (democracy)
Btw, it was reported in today's papers that there was a bomb blast in broad daylight at one of the protest sites (the one at MBK, Pathumwan intersection). Looks like things are heating up.....
1)MEDIA
The portrayal of the protests by most media tends to depict a not-so-accurate picture of what actually happens on the ground. To their credit, the media may not be doing this deliberately, but through selective reporting, viewers tend to walk away with a distorted reality. For instance, the media would have you believe that tourists have abandoned the city and the city is highly volatile. But when I was there, I can still see MANY tourists, except that there is a visible absence of large tour groups. And instead of chaos and violence (yes, there were some pockets of violence, but these usually did not occur in the day), a festive mood prevails at the protest sites, where rousing political speeches were interspersed with song and dance items. And there's also the pasar malam cashing in on the 'crisis'.
Looking at the footages in the media where protestors turned up in full force, you would think the entire Thailand is against Yingluck. But let it be known that the majority of Thailand, esp those is the north and northeast, supports her administration. The upcoming election is expected to return her govt to power with a landslide majority.
Whilst there, I also realise that it's useless to depend on the newspapers for news, 'cos you've to wait till the next day for the papers to arrive in the morning. If the opposition threatened to paralyse the airport, you don't want to wait until the next morning to get the news! TV is a moderate substitute, as air time is expensive, so you can't get too detailed an info....Online media is the best, where there are frequent updates and indepth analyses -- provided you know where the reliable sites are. Heaven forbids if u go to a dubious online chatroom and regard gossips as truth!
I also see a lot of people taking pics...and they will probably upload them online to share with others. In this era of online journalism, one gets the latest updates online because everyone can post news. You no longer have to wait for media companies to feed you with news. And this also means that the govt is going to find it difficult to control what people say about what's going on....
2)CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
Recognise that what the protestors are doing, and what they demanded of the govt, are illegal. Staging a protest is not illegal, but disrupting got officials from work and invading govt buildings are not. Yet the police are not arresting anybody! And the mastermind behind the protests is still going around giving speeches!
Quite a few political crimes seem to go punished...Those who ordered the crackdown against the Red Shirts a few years ago (which resulted in many deaths) are still walking free. There was even an attempt to introduce an Amnesty Bill recently (which was the trigger for the recent protest) that will absolve them of the blood on their hands, so that Thaksin can also return home from exile, unpunished for his alleged corruption. In the world of politics, it appears to be a game of give and take rather than real justice and fairness.
3)GENDER
For outsiders, your sympathy is likely to be with Yingluck, instead of opposition leader, Suthep. The former a woman, and a beautiful one; the latter is a man, and an old, not exactly good-looking one. So if u watch from the media, esp when Yingluck shed tears (tears are a woman's most lethal weapon!), Suthep comes across as the bully, and Yingluck the one deserving of support. So there u go, having women in politics makes it easier for them to win sympathy votes. While some may regard women as weak, this weakness can be transformed into an advantage is used correctly! But let me qualify, I mean shed tears hor, juz one or two drop, preferably those that will glisten like pearls under the media light, not those bawling type where u cry buckets of tears.....In contrast, try getting a male to shed tears and all credibility will be lost! We do not vote for a man who cries! But then again, our LKY did shed tears when we separated from Malaysia. In this era of K-pop, the male stars are also not shy to shed tears.....apparently, girls nowadays go for guys who are not afraid to acknowledge their softer side; it's called being emotionally sensitive.
Women in position of power can also suffer if they are too beautiful, e.g. our dear Ms Yingluck. If she is truly competent in ruling the country, note that few will acknowledge this or give her credit for it as she is too beautiful. Being too beautiful will lead the men to regard her as a bimbo, i.e. brainless. So any accomplishments that she has will be attributed to her brother Thaksin, which is why many critics feel that she is just a puppet PM, taking orders from her brother who is exiled in Dubai. The one really pulling the strings and calling the shots is Thaksin. This view would have been less convincing if Yingluck is a man, or if she is not so beautiful but look like Angela Merkel. Nobody doubts the competence of Angela Merkel (the formidable Chancellor of Germany) because she has no looks to distract people from her ability; it helps that she looks like a 'man', and behaves like one, i.e. aggressively!
Yet another common argument against having women in positions of power is that they often have no access to the old boy's network that would allow them to tap onto influential contacts to get things done (most of the influential people happened to be men). However, a possible rebuttal to this is that if the women in question have powerful connections, this will not be a problem. Just look at these examples: US's Hilary Clinton, South Korea's Park Guen Hye, India's Indira Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi, Thailand's Yingluck....they all have powerful family connections that give me access to the old boys' network, hence allowing them to get things done. Eg Hilary Clinton's husband was ex-US President! His connections become her connections! Likewise, Yingluck benefited from her brother, Thaksin's formidable network of contacts.
4 DEMOCRACY
One of the advantages of democracy if that to win the votes of the people, politicians are obliged to look after the welfare of the people, both majority and minority. In Thailand, the poor (who constitute the majority) in the north and northeast, have been neglected for a long time. When Thaksin came to power, he implemented policies to benefit these poor in order to earn their support and votes. Yingluck tried to do likewise. Two policies attributed to them which benefited the poor enormously are:
1) the 30-baht medical scheme, where one can see a doctor for just 30bht (S$1.20) See HERE for details. Think of it as the equivalent of the Medishield Life Fund which our govt is rolling out for the entire population....like an affordable national health insurance scheme....
2) the rice pledging scheme, where the govt pledged to buy rice from the poor farmers at 50% above market value to ensure a high income for the poor farmers ...see HERE.
Sounds like a fairy-tale come true? But this can be rebutted....In the quest for votes, the red shirt govt has been accused to pursuing populist policies to earn votes. Pursuing populist policies is a major problem for democracy, as govts may implement policies which are popular with the people, but ultimately bad for the country in the long run. Currently, the rice-pledging scheme has come under heavy firing, as the govt does not have enough money to pay the farmers for the high price to pledge to pay for the rice. In the meantime, the rice is siting idle in the warehouse. You can read more about it in the link above.
Sometimes, it's not just populist polices, but selfish policies that do not have the welfare of the people in mind. Eg, Using the majority power she has in parliament, Yingluck tried to pass the Amnesty Bill last month which will allow her brother (currently in exile in Dubai) to return to Thailand and reclaim his assets of billions of dollars which have been frozen by the court due to his corruption charges.
Another downside of democracy in this Thailand protest saga is the danger of tyranny of the majority. To the yellow shirt which are the minority, they are suffering from the tyranny of the majority. This happens when the govt is evil and corrupt but has the support of the majority who continue to vote them into power. The minority thus feel aggrieved and helpless under such a democratic system which confers power on the majority, regardless of how unenlightened and misguided these majority are. The problem is magnified if the majority are uneducated and anyhow exercise their voting power to vote in an inappropriate govt, as they are easily swayed by carrots dangled by the corrupt govt. This is how the yellow shirts see the red shirts....and thus the yellow shirt are conducting this operation to shutdown Bangkok to force the ruling govt to step down and install a 'people's council' to govern the country, until such a time when the people are mature enough to vote wisely, i.e. not vote for govt related to Thaksin. But recognise that this demand is illegal and undemocratic. Real democracy demands that the govt be elected by the people, and not be appointed by a selected few.
And lastly, democracy is often associated with protests which can turn violent. Look at the papers these few weeks and you can see how elections in these countries are turning violent: Cambodia, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia....Even when it is not election time, people can still protest against policies implemented by the ruling govt. Those in third world nations are particularly volatile as the people are not as educated and are hence easily swayed by the views of the opposition. Weaker economic growth also means that there is more unhappiness in the developing world that can lead to more protests and violence. In the current Thailand protest, there were drive-by shootings, hurling of grenades and bombs to intimidate the protestors.
Famous quotation on democracy by Sir Winston Churchill: 'Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried.' He is saying that democracy is not perfect, that it has a lot of flaws, BUT it is still the best option compared to all the other political models out there.
Ok...these are the random links to GP I can think of....use them to connect to these qns:
Women have it easier than men. How far do you think this is true in today's world?
The world will be a better place if more women are political leaders. How far do you agree?
The view of the majority is always right. Do you agree?
To what extent is it possible to make the punishment fit the crime?
Can we ever rely on the media to convey the truth?
In the digital age, do newspapers still have a role in your society?
Discuss the importance of colours.
Is violence ever justifiable?
posted by Dark Shadow | 1:33 AM
<< Home