In the hallowed halls of academia where legacy and networking often take precedence over actual education, a fascinating trend is emerging. It’s the age-old debate: does “know-how” truly outweigh “know-who”? For many, especially those attending elite study programs, the answer seems increasingly inclined towards the latter.
At the center of this discourse is the advanced justice administration (AJA) course, a prestigious program allegedly teeming with influential figures eager to expand their social circles. But recently, this course found itself in the eye of a storm, as two senior Supreme Court judges took a bold stance against it. They penned an impassioned plea to the Supreme Court president, imploring a reevaluation of such networking-focused educational endeavors.
The judges expressed their fears that these courses might be compromising the very foundation of judicial integrity. When judges and justice officials participate in these high-profile programs, there arises a risk that the friendships formed could unconsciously skew their impartiality. Additionally, the financial burden these courses place on the Office of the Courts of Justice doesn’t quite justify the results, leading to public skepticism about the courts’ credibility.
Despite the gravity of these concerns, the political sphere remained oddly silent, save for a few voices like Korn Chatikavanij, a former finance minister and Democrat Party luminary. In a public show of support, Mr. Korn applauded these judges for their stand, underlining the need for judges to remain disentangled from the intricate webs of political and business influence.
Mr. Korn candidly labeled the AJA course as a prime example of “conscience-defying” education. In his view, the program’s allure is not the promise of gaining further knowledge but the opportunity to mingle with the judiciary elite. The implication of these newfound connections is not lost on him—it epitomizes the “know-who” culture, enabling power players to deepen their reach and sway.
As the dialogue around this contentious issue unfolds, parallels are drawn to the broader challenge facing Thailand’s political landscape. As Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra navigates through her tenure, political insiders speculate about potential cabinet reshuffles, driving home the same point Mr. Korn emphasizes: the potency of strategic alliances.
Capt. Thamanat Prompow, with his impressive political victories, stands as a candidate for possible favor. Yet, his controversial past looms large, urging caution for those who might consider welcoming him into the cabinet fold. This caution is echoed by figures like Stithorn Thananithichot of King Prajadhipok’s Institute, who stress the delicate balancing act between rewarding loyalty and maintaining integrity.
The backdrop to all these maneuvers is the ever-present shadow of Thaksin Shinawatra, the influential figure thought to pull strings behind the scenes. With his daughter at the polity’s helm, any decision carries weighty consequences, especially when considering the potential return of his sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, from exile.
Whether in courts or corridors of power, the “know-who” narrative remains an indelible aspect of Thailand’s socio-political fabric. However, as more voices like Mr. Korn’s advocate for investing in “know-how,” there’s a growing hope for a future shaped by merit rather than mere association.
The underlying question persists: in this ever-evolving political chess game, can genuine expertise reclaim its rightful place, or will the ghosts of patronage continue to haunt the national conscience? Only time will tell.
It’s about time someone called out these networking-heavy courses. Real education should always trump mere connections!
I get it, but isn’t it naive to think that power players will just give up their advantages? Networking has always been crucial.
I agree it’s naive to expect instant change, but advocating for integrity is the first step towards progress.
But at what point do we admit that networking is part of the real world, even for judges? Everyone needs connections.
Korn is spot on! Blind loyalty based on who-you-know isn’t what our judiciary system needs.
But can we imagine a world without networking? It’s always been about who you know.
Honestly, I can’t see why a course would cost the court so much if it’s just about meeting people. Sounds fishy to me.
Courses aren’t cheap, and if the outcome is ongoing professional relationships, maybe they are worth it.
But is it worth compromising impartiality? That’s what truly costs society in the long run.
This is typical. Elite courses everywhere prioritize social capital over real learning. Korn’s views reflect a global issue.
As someone who’s taken a few elite courses, a lot of it does boil down to the friends you make rather than the skills you acquire.
Exactly, and it’s not always negative. Those connections can open doors to great opportunities.
But when it starts affecting the justice system, that’s where we need to draw the line.
If judges can’t remain unbiased, they shouldn’t be in those positions. Courses or not, it’s about personal integrity.
Agreed! Accountability should be a judge’s top priority, not who they schmooze with.
Focusing on merit rather than who-you-know should be the goal. Glad figures like Korn are pushing for it.
Can’t help but think this system is hard to dismantle when the entire political landscape functions on who-you-know dynamics.
True, but if enough people advocate for change, it can become a reality.
I have to say that with Korn speaking out, more might start considering a new way forward.
I just don’t see what’s so wrong with networking if it leads to good outcomes. Isn’t that smart strategy?
But if those ‘good outcomes’ are biased decisions in court, then it is a big issue.
In our society, knowing the right people can be more valuable than a fancy degree. What Korn needs to do is find a balance.
For change to happen, both the judiciary and political landscape must emphasize integrity over alliances.
It’s amusing to see the political commentary praising integrity. The irony isn’t lost when the politicos themselves depend on networks.
Well said! The same folks decrying it benefit and perpetuate it.
Integrity is subjective these days. We need to redefine what ‘ethical networking’ looks like in our systems.
It’s a paradox; power dynamics in all hierarchies rely on relationships. Changing that is monumental.
Indeed, and shifting away from that dynamic could have unforeseen consequences. It’s a puzzle.