In time, Thaksin might become the last "patriot" standing, while the "traitors" take the country back from him.
Guest column: One man?s traitor is sometimes another man?s patriot
Published on Aug 24, 2004
If being a patriot means never criticising Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, I would rather be a traitor. Both of us have irreconcilable differences on what constitutes one?s ?love? of the country, and there?s nothing we can do but agree to disagree. That?s what democracy is all about, isn?t it?
If, to Thaksin, patriotism means blind faith in a leader, placing an individual above common guiding values like freedom of speech, checks and balances and human rights and calling efforts to protect these principles an act of treason, then so be it.
Although Thaksin does not hold democracy dearly, it doesn?t mean he should be exempted from the fruits of its merits. Therefore, he has the right to put forth his ideology that democracy is not so important. He has the right to think that absolute control is the best way to take the nation forward. And he can call anyone questioning him in whatever way and manner a rebel.
On Saturday, Thaksin decried the Nation Multimedia Group for what he deemed a biased report in the Krungthep Thurakij business newspaper regarding the Village Fund project.
The prime minister said he had never minded being ?hated? and attacked, but he suggested that those detesting and criticising him did not love this country.
Thaksin has the right to believe that he is Thailand. We also respect his right to believe that he does ?love? the nation. After all, just about anyone can say he or she is patriotic. Businessmen who rip off their compatriots by selling overpriced IT gadgets and charging ridiculous monthly fees can say they are patriotic. So can tax evaders, stock manipulators and those profiting from inside information about the national currency.
One can drink the most expensive wine in the world, buy vanloads of Louis Vuitton, wrap himself in a designer towel and think he is patriotic. One can mock the national airline and set up a rival company and say he is patriotic. Or one can siphon state money into his pocket and yet cry during the national anthem. Anyone may consider himself a patriot, whose demise will spell doom to his country.
We at The Nation happen to believe that Thailand is not Thaksin. We believe a nation is a congregation of people who share ultimate common principles and values and must do everything they can to protect them. Leaders come and go, but without an ideological binding, a country will unravel. We believe that patriotism is about sacrificing, not grossly enriching, oneself. And surely it?s not about attaching the country?s survival and future to any one particular man.
We choose to believe that a dictatorship likes to invoke nationalism to fulfil bad motives. Name one dictator, dead or alive, who is or was not obscenely rich despite proclaiming, ?I will die for my country.? Thaksin, whose assets have multiplied in value since becoming prime minister, has the right to think that patriotism can also spawn personal wealth. He has the right to think that he has succeeded as the nation?s leader, even though household incomes remain static, and a burden of debt threatens the common man. We have the right not to buy that.
Time will tell if the Village Fund programme is a success or a failure. ?Traitors? will have to continue doing their job of scrutinising it and other state policies.
If it is a success, then Thaksin will be proved right by on-time debt repayment and the mushrooming of fruitful small-scale businesses in the villages.
The same applies to other grass-roots programmes that drain budget resources, but please the majority of the rural people.
Time will tell if the ?patriots? led by Thaksin will suffer alongside other Thais if another financial crisis hit the country. He has used the ?good? economy to justify dramatic increases in his wealth, but when the rainy days come again, it will be interesting to see whose interests he will first seek to protect.
Only time will tell who is a patriot, and who is a traitor. Sometimes the line becomes blurred in the process, but ultimately the differing levels of sacrifice and selfishness, which define patriotism and treachery, will provide an answer.
Tulsathit Taptim
The Nation
Guest column: One man?s traitor is sometimes another man?s patriot
Published on Aug 24, 2004
If being a patriot means never criticising Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, I would rather be a traitor. Both of us have irreconcilable differences on what constitutes one?s ?love? of the country, and there?s nothing we can do but agree to disagree. That?s what democracy is all about, isn?t it?
If, to Thaksin, patriotism means blind faith in a leader, placing an individual above common guiding values like freedom of speech, checks and balances and human rights and calling efforts to protect these principles an act of treason, then so be it.
Although Thaksin does not hold democracy dearly, it doesn?t mean he should be exempted from the fruits of its merits. Therefore, he has the right to put forth his ideology that democracy is not so important. He has the right to think that absolute control is the best way to take the nation forward. And he can call anyone questioning him in whatever way and manner a rebel.
On Saturday, Thaksin decried the Nation Multimedia Group for what he deemed a biased report in the Krungthep Thurakij business newspaper regarding the Village Fund project.
The prime minister said he had never minded being ?hated? and attacked, but he suggested that those detesting and criticising him did not love this country.
Thaksin has the right to believe that he is Thailand. We also respect his right to believe that he does ?love? the nation. After all, just about anyone can say he or she is patriotic. Businessmen who rip off their compatriots by selling overpriced IT gadgets and charging ridiculous monthly fees can say they are patriotic. So can tax evaders, stock manipulators and those profiting from inside information about the national currency.
One can drink the most expensive wine in the world, buy vanloads of Louis Vuitton, wrap himself in a designer towel and think he is patriotic. One can mock the national airline and set up a rival company and say he is patriotic. Or one can siphon state money into his pocket and yet cry during the national anthem. Anyone may consider himself a patriot, whose demise will spell doom to his country.
We at The Nation happen to believe that Thailand is not Thaksin. We believe a nation is a congregation of people who share ultimate common principles and values and must do everything they can to protect them. Leaders come and go, but without an ideological binding, a country will unravel. We believe that patriotism is about sacrificing, not grossly enriching, oneself. And surely it?s not about attaching the country?s survival and future to any one particular man.
We choose to believe that a dictatorship likes to invoke nationalism to fulfil bad motives. Name one dictator, dead or alive, who is or was not obscenely rich despite proclaiming, ?I will die for my country.? Thaksin, whose assets have multiplied in value since becoming prime minister, has the right to think that patriotism can also spawn personal wealth. He has the right to think that he has succeeded as the nation?s leader, even though household incomes remain static, and a burden of debt threatens the common man. We have the right not to buy that.
Time will tell if the Village Fund programme is a success or a failure. ?Traitors? will have to continue doing their job of scrutinising it and other state policies.
If it is a success, then Thaksin will be proved right by on-time debt repayment and the mushrooming of fruitful small-scale businesses in the villages.
The same applies to other grass-roots programmes that drain budget resources, but please the majority of the rural people.
Time will tell if the ?patriots? led by Thaksin will suffer alongside other Thais if another financial crisis hit the country. He has used the ?good? economy to justify dramatic increases in his wealth, but when the rainy days come again, it will be interesting to see whose interests he will first seek to protect.
Only time will tell who is a patriot, and who is a traitor. Sometimes the line becomes blurred in the process, but ultimately the differing levels of sacrifice and selfishness, which define patriotism and treachery, will provide an answer.
Tulsathit Taptim
The Nation
posted by Bob Boonhod @ 10:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home