The One That Got Away

Thailand’s first female Prime Minister? It might turn out to be a good thing even though somehow I’m not quite convinced. Maybe it’s because getting her into power only reconfirms my belief that this country is drowning in retards. Maybe it’s because she’s so obvious a figurehead that she’d be better placed on a ship than in parliament. Maybe it’s because a handful of other female politicians in the country that would be better suited for the job. Maybe it’s because what I’ve seen on her campaign shows how much she lacks in credentials to run a country. In the end, none of that really matters if they’re going to push the envelope now, does it?

It’s not that I’m against the idea of a female leader. Back in 2008 I sincerely wanted to see Hillary Clinton make it all the way, although getting Obama probably wasn’t too bad a compensation. I was in Australia in 2010 when Julia Gillard ran for Prime Minister and thought it would be nice to see her as head of state (even if support for her came partially from the fact that I, like many Aussies, like redheads). However, despite my superficial preferences for lady leaders, what they really had going for them was their experience and knowledge in government.

There are a dozen other female leaders in history that I’m not sufficiently informed about to comment on yet am quite certain share the same qualities. Years in parliament gave them the qualification one would want in their representative. The sort of expertise that is pretty much non-existent in our would-be PM. It wasn't their gender that earned them respect, it was that they were good as politicians. The best option to choose. In that respect, I find it genuinely disappointing that Sudarat Keyuraphan is suspended from politics as I think that if we were to choose a woman, she would make a much better Prime Minister.

Oh sure, Yingluck Shinawatra has experience running a successful company but it’s not really governmental work, is it? That’s like applying for a job at a pig farm and boasting about your degree in theoretical physics – it may be one hell of a qualification but how is that going to keep you out of shit?

Perhaps I’m a bit harsh. Sitting behind a big desk all day while nothing happens does seem a lot like ministerial work. It’s still not really what I’m looking for. The last person I would want running a country is someone who thinks of it as a greed-driven, profit-seeking company with its citizens nothing more than employees or even worse – customers.

For all that complaining, I guess I can safely say that I’ve already been proven wrong by the majority. On the bright side, if we do get her as our very own female Prime Minister I’m confident there will be a cascade of hilarity to follow. I could always start with her name, since the local media has a habit of saying a celebrity’s nickname first and they certainly love treating her like a celebrity.

Never forget that for all the appealing female politicians out there, we might have our hands on a Sarah Palin.

App.rise and App.ease

Being about as up-to-date as a dodo fiddling with an abacus, it's refreshing for me to hear the news when it's still relatively new. It's even better when it's something as amusing as Mircrosoft challenging Apple's bid to trademark the term "app store".

Come to think of it this isn't actually something new. Since when hasn't Microsoft and Apple been at each other's throats? Haven't companies been trying to brand everything in existence with their own mark for, like, ever? It's been going on for years but at least it's eyebrow-raising enough to get me thinking.

While I app.reciate the app.eal of having intellectual property rights taken seriously, it's hard for me to sympathise with the I-own-everything-even-remotely-related-to-me app.roach many businesses have gone for. Especially if it's something as trivial as this. An "app store" isn't a store name, it's a definition. If we wanted things this literal Apple should be a speciality fruit shop.

Speaking of fruits, what about apples, who owns the right to them? I'm almost certainly sure no-one does, it's nature's gift. Yet there's a company that app.arently parades under the banner of said crunchy fruit. So as silly as it may sound, I think it app.lies to this argument. It's only app.ropriate that Apple pay royalties to mother nature for giving them a logo for their empire, not to mention a delicious source of vitamins. I'd app.rove.

The brilliantly app.etising Japanese Mac Apples, a corporate copyright conundrum?

Frustration: My World Cup Final

Never have I been less enthusiastic about a World Cup final since ... well, ever. Though I can’t say I have a long history of watching World Cups. The first ever televised game of football I ever saw was probably the 1994 final between Brazil and Italy. I didn’t really know what was going on, but I’ve enjoyed watching the so-called ‘world game’ ever since. This year however, I’ll most likely skip the final and end my World Cup with tonight’s third-place play-off between Germany and Uruguay.

It’s not that I think Spain isn’t good enough to be in the final. Nor am I a die-hard Germany fan. In fact, the moment Fabio Grosso scored against the Germans in extra-time at the last World Cup was pretty much the highlight of 2006 (it was a slow year). If anything, I think it’s great that no matter the result, one team will be winning the champion’s title for their very first time. They’ve both played solid football throughout the tournament and dominated their opponents for the most part.

My only problem with teams like this is that they haven’t been very fun to watch. Sure they control the game, their passing is superb and they possess the ball like a fat kid hordes chocolate; that’s exactly what’s wrong. My point is, as a neutral spectator, it just seems like nothing is happening. All that technical superiority doesn’t necessarily make for an entertaining match.

While it is highly subjective, Germany and Uruguay have played more exciting games; mainly because neither side, nor their previous opponents, were as good at holding the ball as the two finalists. I enjoyed it when games were wide open and while the execution wasn’t clinical, it at least gave both sides a chance to do something. Even when they weren’t scoring goals, it was still fun.

Playing against Spain, you hardly get any chances since it’s just that difficult to win the ball from them. Their style of football wins matches, yes, and if Spain does end up lifting the trophy it’s because they had it coming. They certainly are playing the best football, but watching the Spanish team has been as much fun as if I had slept through the match and read the result in the papers the following morning.

It’s 90 minutes I could’ve spent doing other equally non-productive activities; like spacing out in the loo, lying awake in bed, or writing up some drivel about football not being fun. It amounts to the same level of excitement and entertainment as a one-sided game on SBS.

Maybe I would’ve been happier if they managed to turn that overwhelming possession into more goals, instead of just some more possession. Honestly their attack hasn’t been truly inspiring and it’s at that point where I wish they would just give someone else a chance to perform.

*Two players that have surprised and entertained me most in 2010: Mesut Özil (8) and Thomas Müller (13).

It’s like when the older kids hog the basketball court to themselves just because they are bigger and stronger. Now imagine that they aren’t even good at it, but they can easily wrestle the ball away leaving you with nothing else to do but watch them miss shot after pathetic shot.

Usually this is where I would like to cry out about horrible childhood memories, but I don’t remember being bullied in the playground. Although Germany versus Spain ended up giving me a pretty good idea of how it would feel.

Freedom of Breach

Yesterday I was whining about inaccurate representation of facts, which was mostly to do with news sources. When it gets down to nitty-gritty online discussion, it all degrades into slurry of incomprehensible slush. And that’s what I’ll be bitching about today.

The majority of online discussions are, for the lack of a better word, rubbish. And perhaps I am at fault for reading them, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are bad. Nonetheless, there are many a Thai who would defend this type of commentary, which begs the question: why?

This of course has a lot to do with freedom of speech or lack thereof. It’s so hard to tell these days since people are so fickle. Give them too little and they moan on and on about being oppressed, but give them too much and they wreak havoc on everything, even the notion of free speech itself.

Keep in mind that the arguments here have more to do with the concept of free speech in Thailand and how I’ve seen it paraded around, for reasons I hope will become clear later. Even those guilty of the most horrendous comments raise the banner of “free speech” in their defence.

The comments generally exhibit the same factual flaws I discussed earlier with additional use of hateful expressions and an abundance of bigotry. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve always understood that freedom of expression was to promote intelligent, constructive debate. The majority of comments being brandished under free speech in Thailand regarding the recent crisis was neither intelligent nor constructive, but highly debateable.

Think of it this way: as consumers we, the general public, are always demanding adequate information in order for us to make an ‘informed choice’; is it then, too much of me to ask for it to work the other way around as well? Is it not reasonable to hope that other people should at least come up with an ‘informed statement’ before they decide to share it with the rest of us?

Don’t get me wrong; I think free speech is a wonderful thing. If it weren’t for free speech I’d be infinitely more miserable than I currently am because I wouldn’t get to complain as much publicly. It’s because we live in a world where we are free to express ourselves that I don’t have to live in fear. However, there are some things that you shouldn’t say even with all the freedom in the world, if it will cause harm unto others.

That brings us to the problem of responsibility. All the people who bleat on about ‘Rights, Rights, Rights’ never talk for a moment about their responsibilities, all I hear is ‘me, me, me’ when what they’re supposedly standing for is the greater good. How does that work? We forget that the proper phrase is “Rights & Responsibilities”, don’t go snipping off the bit at the end just because it doesn’t work for you.

There are many articles that talk about how far you can go with free speech and what the consequences can be. However, these are articles about free speech in the Western world. And as is the case with democracy, our Thai version of free speech is still in its infancy, with people still unclear of what it is actually all about or what they are even fighting for.

Basically, even with freedom of expression, we need to think twice before saying things. Isn’t that always the case? In no way does this discourage freedom of expression. It doesn’t require external control either. It just requires people to be responsible. It’s as simple as that.

I’ve complained about this before. It’s apparently inherent in Thai society that we demand our personal rights while neglecting our civil duties. To put it simply, Freedom of Speech is our Right but it is our Duty to practice Responsible Speech.

When push comes to shove, I don’t mind being censured. In my case, I’ve probably done something worthy of a good slapping anyway. My problem is that the message I get from most people throwing free speech in my face is that they do mind. From what I gather, their freedom of speech means they can say anything without being held accountable for what they say. That’s just selfish, what you’re basically saying is, “I want you to respect my rights to freely express myself whilst I constantly disrespect yours.”

It’s okay to have people yapping at each other, just as long as they don’t feign ignorance about their personal involvement in expressing those views – waving ‘freedom of speech’ around like some immunity flag on a crappy reality show.

People should be held responsible for their actions, and that includes accepting criticism from others who don’t share your point of view. What I am constantly infuriated with is the response from people who feel threatened by any sort of negative comment about their opinions. Wailing that it’s “Free speech, I have the right to say that”, without realising that nobody is denying you your right to free speech. They are actually endorsing your cry for freedom of expression – by showing a bit of their own. You should be happy for that.

I’ll say it again: I support free speech. I will not, however, put it up on high and treat it as the most sacred thing in any given situation. I won’t defend it either. It’s not even near the top of my list of things I would fight for. There are more important things to me than free speech; it’s just a good thing to have around.

Of course, in an ideal world of free speech everyone can say anything, anywhere, to anyone. Even if it means we may end up greeting someone with a simple “Fuck you” then nod and smile, unfazed by the reasonable response, “Sod Off”. As if it was merely a part of normal, everyday life: simpler, happier times.

To be honest, I don’t really want to see that. I don’t want to see Thailand become a country where trading insults becomes the norm. I’d like to see a society where that option of expression is available, but where people are sensible enough to realise its not very nice.

Frak the Facts

If one thing has come out of the recent situation in Bangkok is that I’ve been using social networking systems more than I normally would. That’s why I’m back on my blog after another prolonged absence. Ironically it’s been a little over a year since my last rant about Thai politics. It was crap then and it’s still crap now. It’s actually the exact same piece of crap left out in the sun for a whole year and is now more horrifying than one could ever imagine.

I’ll refrain from expressing my political views on the situation because I’m certain I won’t be doing anything constructive by blathering on about the issue. I don’t believe I hold the power to change the situation or even people’s thoughts on the situation, so I’ll keep my mouth firmly shut.

The Internet, on the other hand, had a substantial amount of influence on how people responded to what has happened. Like always, the net was rich with commentary, some good but mostly just plain awful. And while I will keep quiet about my political leanings, I’ll gladly ramble on about what ticks me off with the media in regards to how it dealt with the issue.

First of all, I got most of my news about the situation online so I’ve seen pretty much every point of view there is to be seen and I have to say I’m disappointed. To get into my reasoning of why it was disappointing let’s start with the aftermath of the May 19th crackdown. One thing that’s been tossed around like a hot potato, or as a more aptly put Thai phrase translating literally into ‘shit-flinging’, is the question of responsibility.

What people are saying is that they want someone to take responsibility – as long as that someone isn’t them. Everyone is then logically trying to avoid taking responsibility because it would be like shooting yourself in the foot, then handing the loaded gun over to the general public so that they can have a go at you.

Why do I say this? It’s because we’ve evolved into such a society that has zero tolerance for even the slightest slip-ups. Nobody is encouraged to claim responsibility in front of the masses because no matter what the reason was for the erroneous decisions, as long as the public can vilify it – they will. The media thrives on writing stories of how wrong and bad things are, regardless of the circumstances preceding shit-to-fan contact. As a matter of fact, you could argue that it’s exactly what I’m doing.

Sure, we all insist that “Oh, if he’d just admit he was wrong we’d be compassionate and forgiving,” but I call bullshit. It’s much easier for us to have someone to blame and until we get someone willing to shoulder that blame we sit in our ivory towers decrying other’s insincerities. It all looks nice on paper, but the reality is that people who are willing to forgive don’t need a confession anyway, while the ones passionately demanding an apology are those least likely to accept one.

It’s certainly not right for respectable pillars of society to avoid taking responsibility for their actions, but neither is it right for us to practice schadenfreude for the sake of it. It’s as if we’ve reached a saturation point with scaremongering in the media and are now resorting to creating outrage in order to push stories.

This brings into question the validity of public opinion as well; especially in light the recent news coverage both locally and internationally. My stance has always been that people can go ahead and criticise anyone and anything they want granted they get their facts straight. If you can’t even get your facts straight then shut up and don’t bother with sensationalising a story that should be viewed objectively by all audiences.

An immensely fun trick in the world of online news and discussion is the use of selective truths. Sure they’re presenting facts, only they’ve decided to show us the bits that support their claim and make for a good story. A story they would like to sell us.

In many ways it is far worse than people not getting their facts straight. At least then you know they’re lying. In this case you have people knowing both sides of the story and willingly leaving out bits that they don’t want us to know. That’s not reporting; that’s just plain old propaganda. It’s bad enough coming from government sources, but when you start hearing opposing and equally biased points of views coming from the supposedly 'free' media, you start to wonder if something’s wrong.

Why does the story have to go one way or the other when it clearly isn’t? Does it necessarily have to be a story about who wins when the only apparent outcome is that there are losers all around? Why do I have to cross-check between two extremely biased and distorted views of the situation? I thought it was the journalists’ job to do the necessary research and present genuine facts for those of us that are supposedly less experienced in telling apart the bullshit. Then leave it to us to form our opinions based on the un-biased facts presented, rather than being force-fed a certain version of reality just so it generates greater public interest.

Sure, I normally check multiple sources of information when I read my news anyway, but in most cases there is at least the indication that there is more than one side to the story. Then it’s about which facts are more compelling, not which propaganda machine I’m being suckered into.

My message is simple; if people want to write a dramatic story whilst utterly disregarding any information that states the contrary, they should take their skills to Hollywood. There’s a desperate need for better plots there. If people want to stay in the business of reporting the truth, then they should do so.

We can handle the truth.

Apparently that wasn’t as short a first section as I wanted it to be. I was trying to build up to something even more irritating that revolves around free speech in Thailand, but I guess I’ll leave that for tomorrow.