A nation where 'colours' dictate principles

When criticism surfaced of the authorities’ attempts to monitor the increasing usage of the popular “LINE” messaging application, government supporters asked why didn’t a similar outrage occur when the previous administration tightened its grip on websites. When political protesters were charged with public disturbance or worse, they pointed at the activities of their rivals and claimed they were more or less the same. When Thaksin Shinawatra was accused of share concealment back in 2001, a key argument in his defence was “Others have been doing it. Why pick on him?”

The list goes on and on. Politically, we have become a nation of broken principles. No longer do we have one common standard or ruler to measure good and bad. We no longer choose to do something or avoid to do something because our heart tells us to. What influences us is the acts of others. If others can do it, why can’t we?

On one hand, our nation is deeply divided. On the other, everyone is swimming with the tide. The prevalent principle, practiced by both sides of the political polarity, is that if you used to do something when you could, don’t complain if we also do it when we can. The nation’s political strife has been feeding on this mentality. There is only one thing ‘an eye for an eye’ can lead to – some more ‘eye for an eye’.

When we base our actions on “Hell, everyone is doing it so why shouldn’t I?”, we may gain several things but lose the most important one: Integrity has been lacking. Its absence is most likely the reason why reconciliation is so elusive. Vengeance and expedience have been disguised as quests for justice. And no matter how much one tries to disguise vengeance, expedience or vanity, they are thinly veiled at best. Mistrust stems from that.

Universal standards must be brought back, if we are to move peacefully forward as a nation. We need to condemn corruption unconditionally, decry dictatorial tendencies unconditionally and deplore dangerous political activism unconditionally. 

If seizing an international airport is bad, don’t use it to justify, say, smashing a prime minister’s car or causing havoc inside a hospital. 

If LINE censorship takes away your freedom, don’t sanction the prosecution of webmasters who allowed the expression of honest political opinions.

It’s human nature to assume that we do bad things because they are necessary, while others do them because they are bad. This is triple jeopardy. 

First, we do bad things. 

Second, we are comfortable with what we do and will do it again. 

Third, we find it unacceptable when others do the same things and we may try to fight them tooth and nail.

The clampdowns on websites, Facebook, LINE or TV dramas with political messages have double standards written all over them. This only reflects a trait that all elected politicians have in common. When they are outside the corridors of power, they will fight unconditionally for liberty and freedom. When they become the powers-that-be, they cite such words as “national security” to introduce draconian measures.

The current “reconciliation” debate, therefore, has been way off the mark. Both sides have used the occasion to justify their own acts and demonise those of others. The process is only a part of a vicious circle and nothing more than that. This has to end for genuine peace’s sake, but, unfortunately, nobody can tell when a real breakthrough is possible.