Haha, I'm not here to defend the U.S. or any other nation. True, the quality of education nor the significance does not mean much. A friend of mine pointed this out to me when he told me he should've just stayed in Thailand instead of coming to the U.S. to the study. He realizes how important it is to have that social network by just being in Thailand.
Again though, I feel you guys might miss my point. The quality of education isn't important nor is it important what you're striving to become. Ning, you point out how you can get further by becoming an actor. Yeah, that's probably true. But I'm not concerned with that. I'm more worried about what Thailand is as a society than what people can do individually. Isn't it important to have a society where the country does censor a certain point of view? When the U.S. was going through the anti-Communist age, I would also have a problem if they censor Communist teaching. I would also have a problem if they disallowed the teachings of evolution, history of Islam, and anything else that people might think is "detrimental" to society. Also remember that there's a difference between propoganda and preaching as opposed to just open debates. A point of view can be presented as long as it's not trying to be forced upon students. As an example, I'm a democrat and I've been in classes where the prof was really bashing on Bush and trying to push their views by attacking students for voting for Bush. Now I personally don't like Bush but I don't believe that's right for you to push those views on someone, especially in an academic setting.
The whole thing about Thailand is that the right to express yourself should be a universal right. I hear that argument a lot about how the U.S. shouldn't push its view on others. I completely understand that premise. For example, look at Singapore. It's one of the most diverse countries in the world while at the same time, it has managed to keep relatively peaceful by controlling it's diverse ethnic groups well. A lot of political scientists have tried to study that model to see how it can be applied to other countries but it's hard to do that because you can't apply something about a country to another. However, I'm talking about certain cases and ideas that should be freely available to everyone for a society to function. Many have also stated how our definition of human rights should not be applied to women in the middle east since it's a different society. I also have a problem with that. There are secular laws and there are religious laws. We have to establish a separation between the two. In regards to secular laws, it has to be something that's applicable to everyone. If you allow certain men to enjoy certain rights, then by the definition of rights, it should be applicable to other women because you can't just say women aren't allowed that because they're "different." About the talk about the King - if you're encouraged to be a "progressive" society and you want education to be a priority, then it should be ok to openly tackle any subjects, including the King. That's what I find very hypocritical about Thailand. It talks about being a world power and bettering itself while at the same time, it shuts down it's imagination in certain areas. By censoring talk, that is shutting down imagination.
Again, these are my views and what I believe to be true. Continue to add what you guys think. But yah, I agree with both of you, but I think we're not talking about the same things.
