It's been the week's political spectacle: people in the know dissecting the details of those snap elections to parliament that Thaksin Shinawatra called, even as it was still delivering a 57-per-cent majority to his party and allies. That majority meant not approval, we learned, but a resounding opposition boycott of an exercise intended precisely to end continuing political protest.

That boycott ensured that some candidates did not receive the 20-per-cent minimum vote for a seat in parliament. Since not all of its 500 seats could be filled, a new parliament could not form a new government. This is the impasse His Majesty the King Bhumibol Adulyadej entered to ask Thaksin to resign.

All that was novel enough to capture Filipino attention with the ceremonial undertones of a different political system, culture and history so close to our shores. But, in this corner at least, what has been most riveting is why the Thais demanded Thaksin's resignation in the first place - the sale by his family of 49.6 per cent of its shares in Shin Corp, the hugely successful telecom company Thaksin founded before he entered politics.

The hard-nosed businessman had apparently overcome the public servant in him, when he allowed his family to avoid paying taxes on the sale, in effect illegally "privatising" public profit on the strength of his office. What's more, his critics added, Thaksin risked the Thais' economic security by selling out a strategic resource to a foreign government - in this case a Singapore state firm well-known for its aggressive strategies.

Now that may be an all too familiar corrupt practice in the Philippines, where business culture has local moguls and their foreign business allies routinely taking advantage of Palace connections. Down the centuries, with government looking the other way as Kamag-anak Inc routinely broke the law and punched another hole in the public treasury, the general public remained ignorant (until it was too late) of sweetheart deals between officials and charter members of Manila's Four Hundred (often enough one and the same, if not related by blood and the compadre system).

With a few outstanding exceptions, it's safe to say that everyday since independence in 1946, big business has got away with murder in the Philippines. And so, if we must envy Thailand, we could spare ourselves some humiliation by doing so for the right reasons. Consider the stark contrast in the hard going we've had trying to sanction Macapagal-Arroyo for something far more basic - manipulating electoral results to stay in power, de facto if not de jure, as the lawyers say. No, a better reason to envy the Thais would be that they respect themselves and love their country enough to take a prime minister to task.

Digging deeper, however, more profound reasons for contrast between Thais and Filipinos emerge. Here's a taste of distinct cultural evolution in that predominantly Buddhist nation, also the only one in Southeast Asia the West never colonised. It comes from a conference address by Sulak Sivaraksa, a leading Buddhist philosopher, civic leader, political gadfly and sometime recipient of the Right Livelihood Award in Thailand:

"A course of conduct must ultimately be evaluated by the degree that it alleviates suffering and discontentment. Spiritual values must be incorporated into the calculus or the system, no matter how elegantly conceived, remains an artifice.

"Buddhists recognise greed, hatred and delusion as defilement which corrupts human consciousness. The path to enlightenment entails overcoming these forces through spiritual practice." Not all Thais attain to Sivaraksa's elevated perspective, of course. But could Buddhist ideals for both private and public lives be the real source of the political manifestations we Filipinos envy?

Carmen Guerrero Nakpil once pointed out that despite the flamboyant religiosity of our 84 per cent Catholic population, Christianity "has never been really tried" in this country. None of us even needed to read that to know the continuing deep disconnect between Christianity's core values and their actual practice in our islands. It's our daily experience that no sector can claim to be innocent of perpetuating that disconnect, either by tolerating or cooperating with the status quo, looking the other way or instrumentalising even religion.

Many have pointed out the irony in Arroyo's claim that she arrived and remains in the presidency by God's will. But challenging that arrogant claim only with words where action directly opposite to its fearsome disconnect would be more effective (like getting arrested for protest-marching without a permit), gives many of her public critics the sound of empty drums - some louder, therefore emptier, than others.

The differences between Christianity and Buddhism lie only in style and emphasis on the same spiritual essence. And the real difference between Thais and Filipinos could be that more of them are true to that essence, while more of us continue to skirt it.

In the middle of the stand-off with the Marines in Fort Bonifacio last February, a dear friend who practices Zen Buddhism along with his received Christianity sent me a text message, "EDSA pala is our lifelong koan." For those who've never heard of it, a koan is a Zen meditation technique to open human consciousness to the truth of life's oneness. It's a tough nut to crack for those educated largely in its apparent division and fragmentation, but the reward is to see and live life with a totally new eye - the "single eye" Christ, too, wanted for His Mystical Body.

Sylvia L Mayuga

Philippine Daily Inquirer

Asia News Network