องค์กรศุภลักษณ์ And องค์กรอัปลักษณ์

[DavidHouston]

Friends,

The is from an article in the most recent Matichon Weekly. The article discusses the PAD's "New Politics" – very favorably and mostly in religious terms – as well as the bankruptcy of democratic systems as they now operate in Thailand. Without taking any sides in the political debate, I would like to understand some of the language involved. For example, there is this sentence:

"องค์กรทางการเมืองต้องเป็นองค์กรศุภลักษณ์ไม่ใช่องค์กรอัปลักษณ์"

"Political organs need to be _____________, not ___________ ."

ศุภ- seems to mean "good", or "auspicious", like this compound word from Lexitron:

"ศุภนิมิต" [N] good omen; good dream; auspicious time; propitious sign; auspice; dream foretelling fortune, good luck

อัป- seems to mean the opposite as when Lexitron defines the target term as:

อัปลักษณ์ [ADJ] ugly; hideous; ill-favored; unsightly

The language in the article becomes even more purple:

"องค์กรทางการเมืองในการเมืองเก่าที่เน่าหนอนชอนไช องค์กรทางการเมืองเป็นองค์กรอัปลักษณ์ ประกอบด้วยเสือสิงห์กระทิงแรดอันธพาล คนขี้คุกขี้ตะราง ขาดความรู้ขาดความสุจริตและการอุทิศเพื่อบ้านเมือง"

Let me try this one out for your consideration:

"The old political organs are rotten and worm-infested; they are hideous and are populated by wily con men and crooks who ought to be incarcerated. They lack knowledge and integrity and have no dedication to their country."

This is pretty strong stuff and it includes words we don't often encounter. I would appreciate anyone else's thoughts about how these words and phrases should be interpreted, especially in the spiritual context in which the writer seems to be operating.[/font]

Thanks.

Edited September 27, 2008 by DavidHouston

[sabaijai]

David, ศุภลักษณ์ and อัปลักษณ์ are awkward to translate to English but basically they mean 'auspicious character(istics)' and 'inauspicious character(istics)'.

Perhaps the most convenient translations would be 'beneficient' and 'maleficient', or benevolent/malevolent, but most English speakers would avoid using such flowery language when talking about politics. One could say this is a peculiarly Thai, as opposed to Western, way of looking at politics (as 'good' vs 'evil', rather than conservative/liberal, etc). On the other hand, looking at Thai politics maybe they're necessary

Your second translation is very elegant, I think.

[sabaijai]

RID does contain defintions for อปลักษณ์ :

อปลักษณ์, อัปลักษณ์ [อะปะ, อับปะ] ว. ชั่ว (มักใช้แก่รูปร่าง หน้าตา), มีลักษณะ

ที่ถือว่าไม่เป็นมงคล, เช่น หน้าตาอปลักษณ์, รูปร่างอัปลักษณ์.

(ส.; ป. อปลกฺขณ).

อัปลักษณ์ [อับปะ] ว. ชั่ว (มักใช้แก่รูปร่าง หน้าตา), มีลักษณะที่ถือว่าไม่เป็น

มงคล, เช่น รูปร่างอัปลักษณ์ หน้าตาอัปลักษณ์, อปลักษณ์ ก็ว่า.

(ส. อปลกฺษณ; ป. อปลกฺขณ).

[DavidHouston]

Thank you, Khun Sabaijai; your response is very helpful. Since the article was written by someone with a spiritual bent, one might expect that politics would be defined in terms of "good" and "evil", rather than in conventional political classifications. Do you know if the writer, ประเวศ วะสี, is one of the Santi Asoke members who have joined the PAD?

Thanks again.

[DavidHouston]

The article also has another set of parallel terms, "มิจฉาพัฒนา" and "สัมมาพัฒนา" which I have never seen used before.

The RID has definitions for both prefixes:

"สัมมา ว. ชอบ, ดี. . ." to mean "good" and "มิจฉา ว. ผิด . . . " to mean "bad". Both are connected with the word "develop" or "development".

Here is the context:

"ลักษณะการทำงานขององค์กรทางการเมือง ในการเมืองเก่าจะขัดขวางการมีส่วนร่วมของประชาชน แทรกแซงกระบวนการยุติธรรม ไม่โปร่งใส ปิดบังการตรวจสอบ พัฒนาผิดๆหรือมิจฉาพัฒนา ในการเมืองใหม่จะส่งเสริมการมีส่วนร่วมของประชาชน ส่งเสริมความเข้มแข็งของกระบวนการยุติธรรม มีความโปร่งใสตรวจสอบได้ ทำการพัฒนาที่ถูกต้องหรือสัมมาพัฒนา"

"The characteristics of activities under the "old politics" are to block participation by the people; to interfere with the legal process; to lack clarity and to prevent investigations; and, to do attempt growth in an incorrect manner or 'mal-development'. Under the concept of the "new politics" there will be encouragement of participation by the people; support for strengthening the judicial system; creating clarity in investigation and auditing; and development in the correct manner, or 'right-development'."

Any thoughts or corrections? Thanks; I appreciate your assistance.

Edited September 27, 2008 by DavidHouston

[sabaijai]

Thank you, Khun Sabaijai; your response is very helpful. Since the article was written by someone with a spiritual bent, one might expect that politics would be defined in terms of "good" and "evil", rather than in conventional political classifications. Do you know if the writer, ประเวศ วะสี, is one of the Santi Asoke members who have joined the PAD?

Thanks again.

Dr Prawase Wasi is a trained medical specialist, respected academician and well-known political commentator. I don't know of any association he might have with Santi Asoke but he's a devout Buddhist. Santi Asoke isn't mentioned in his online bio:

http://www.prawase.com/bio.php?lang=en

Here is a longer bio in connection with his earning the Magsaysay Award in 1981.

http://www.rmaf.org.ph/Awardees/Biography/...aphyWasiPra.htm

His constitutional theory (called 'sufficiency democracy' by a farang critic), which is a few years old, has inspired the PAD's new politics. But he's not directly involved with the PAD and may serve as a mediator between the PAD and the PP, as he has done before in times of political deadlock.

Yes, to my mind some of the language he uses seems Buddhist-inspired. It may be too great an assumption to make, but I'd suppose any topic involving ethics in Thai would contain elements of Buddhism in the same way many Anglo discussions of politics and justice are informed by the Judaeo-Christian tradition.