เขียนโดย สุรชาติ บำรุงสุข อ่านได้ที่ ๑
๑๗ ก.ค. ๖๑
บันทึกนี้เขียนที่ GotoKnow โดย Prof. Vicharn Panich ใน บันทึกการเมืองไทย
Sir, I think the link you have given may have been hijacked or hacked to show endless advertisement. A better link is https://www.matichon.co.th/news-monitor/news_1043813
The mentioned article is on a web page that doesn’t accept comment or counter arguments. So I offer mine here for readers who look at ‘both sides’.
the article refers to National Strategic Plan by name but not by its content.If we look at its content, we would see it stipulates improvement of quality of life, equlaity, economy, environment, and virtuous culture. In short, the plan sets mission statements that people expects to develop to.
the plan is named as ‘strategic’ (policy level/design) plan, not a ‘tactical’ (operation level/engineering blueprint) plan where other factors (eg. cultures, opinions, time, costs, resources, technologies and political conditions) must be incorporated and managed.
the target of this plan is better economy, better society’, better living conditions, and better opportunities for all Thais - why would any one oppose to the target?Yes there will be cases when execution of action plans (under this strategic plan) cause concerns and require alternatives.
we learn from experiences (hear, see, feel, do and ‘think’) - much of the world is ‘yet to come’ (ie. not experienced) and so not learned but yet to learn. Ability to learn is important in individuals and in (societal) organizations. So is ability to adapt to changing conditions. But changing aspiration when one has not even tried, should be only for ‘negativistics’.
Look at the content of National Strategic Plan, think about it, think about the results we like to see and think about the results we DON’T want to see and WHY not. Then let’s talk about what we want changed. Let’s not ติเรือทั้งโกลน or throw the baby out with the bath water.