• The Southeast Asian review
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.173-218
• /
• 2009

Bring this analysis down to people-centered development perspective and looking through democratization in the Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia, we find similarities and differences among them related with the intensity of conflicts between development and human rights in the process of democratization in line with global transformation. Civil society in the Philippines criticized the developmental path in the Philippines which failed to implement land reform and eradication of poverty under the transition from 'patrimonial oligarchy' to democracy. In Thailand the coalition of military and the royalists had consolidated its power since Sarit military regime, which later paved the way 'hybrid oligarchy' era. Most Thai civil society organizations has regarded their developmental experience rather as 'maldevelopment' which disregarded economic and social rights. It has been especially believed by Thai localists that the stimulation of local markets and the building of autonomic community society will form the alternative economy without going against the conservative banner of nation, religion and king. Thaksin as a populist successfully took advantage of Thai localist ethos in favour of taking the seat of power. He projected himself as a modernizer focused on economic growth and cleaner politics. However Thaksin's procedural legitimacy was overthrown by counterattacking from military-royalist alliance, pretexting that Thaksin caused internal conflicts and lacked morality. Soeharto's New Order regime which can be called 'administrative oligarchy' had an antipathy towards notions of economic and social rights as well as civil and political rights. In spite of the fact that the fall of Soeharto opened the political space for democratic civil society organizations which had long struggled with development aggression and human rights abuses, there have been continuously a strong political and military reaction against human rights activists, NGOs and ethnic minorities such as Aceh and Papua. Nevertheless, Indonesian democracy is more promising than Philippine's and Thai democracy in terms of comparatively less pre-modern legacies.

• Journal of the Korean earth science society
• /
• v.25 no.8
• /
• pp.708-718
• /
• 2004

On the basis of Sternberg's theory of mental self-government, this examined the difference in thinking style between gifted science students and non-gifted students, and their earth science concepts by the different types of thinking styles. The subjects were consisted of 120 students from the Busan Science Academy and 122 students from two general high schools in Busan, Korea. All participants responded to the Thinking Styles Inventory which is a self-report test consisting of 65 items, and essay questions for examining the students' earth science concepts. The results are as follows. First, the gifted science students prefer legislative, judical, anarchic, global, and liberal styles, where non-gifted students prefer executive, oligarchic, and conservative styles. Second, Type I thinking style group prove to have more complex concepts in relation to the geological and astronomical areas than those of the Type II thinking style group in both of the gifted and non-gifted students. This indicates that Type I thinking style students use a deep learning approach where Type II thinking style students use a surface learning approach.