Paradoxcracy

...

From the timeline that ends before the coup in 19th September between red and yellow shirt, it leads to the third paradox. I get the idea of the directors that they want this documentary to be as neutral as possible by omitting the interviewer’s’ names and put them all in the end credit. Most of the interviewers are scholars from different institutes. Aside from the woman Jiranun which represents as a student led-demonstration, there is a guy that is representative of red shirt named Sombud Boonngarmanong. From this point, it obviously shows that the directors are aware of the conflict between red and yellow shirt and that’s why they start to create this documentary. So I think is it possible that we can talk about democracy during 2556 without mentioning the color of the shirt? Doesn’t the perspective towards 2475 have an effect on the color of the shirt? or doesn’t the color of the shirt have an impact on the perspective towards the history of democracy? The directors make the color of the shirt trivial although it is a crucial topic. (note* even though we haven’t discussed about red and yellow shirt in class, I think it is important to mention in this essay)

In conclusion, there is still a lot more paradox in our democracy country. This documentary makes me aware of what kind of things that we have been dealt with the democracy nowadays as the title stated “things that Thais should know the most but know the least”.