In a recent post, Andrew Walker mentioned that Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra had demonstrated an “unwillingness, or inability, to put in place any meaningful reform of Thailand’s lèse-majesté law” which had seen “outrageous prison sentences.” He also noted that the sentencing of Somyot Prueksakasemsuk was an “obscene legal abuse.” I agree on all counts.
I also have great respect for the role played by New Mandala in opening up debates on lèse-majesté (LM) and the monarchy in recent years. Likewise, Andrew’s positions on the monarchy and LM have been very important interventions. For all this good work, however, I have some reservations regarding his most recent post.
I start to diverge from Andrew when he states that: “One line of argument that has emerged in the flurry of debate in recent weeks is that non-Thai journalists and academics must lead the campaign…”. I admit that I haven’t seen this call for leadership by foreign academics on LM. (The discussion of journalists was long and involved, so I won’t comment further on those and the responses.)
In the original post, now with over 100 comments, I interjected on academics with a statement that they had “been too quiet on this sentencing [of Somyot].” That comment was not addressed to any particular nationality of academic. The other comment on academics was essentially supportive of “foreign academics … [who] have fulfilled their professional obligations. You will not find a credible recent study of Thailand by a respected international academic that fails to acknowledge the difficult issue of the monarchy when appropriate.” It strikes me that this comment, if a tad overblown, is telling; such a statement could not have been made 10-15 years ago.
Andrew’s comment that he is “uncomfortable about the claim that non-Thai commentators have a central role to play in the lèse-majesté reform campaign” is, I think, something of a strawperson argument. Yet the comments he proceeds to make on his reservations about the role of foreign academics deserve consideration.
Andrew’s first reservation is “practical.” If I am not misreading him, his view seems to be that junior academics should not necessarily “speak the truth” on Thailand. He states: “The careers of journalists and academics who work on Thailand are dependent on ongoing access to it. The idea that they should give up that access in order to speak truth to power is noble, but it is unrealistic.”
I find it surprising that junior academics are advised to be self-censoring. Of course, I understand that academics in places where the truth cannot be stated face real threats to their person and freedom. However, I can’t think of circumstances where I would feel comfortable advising a graduate student or junior colleague to not speak the truth. In many countries, one of the privileges of working in a university is academic freedom, which we sometimes have to struggle to defend. It seems odd to advise junior colleagues to ignore that privilege – indeed, do it damage – in order to research and write but “not speak the truth.” My view is that senior academics should encourage their students and junior colleagues to be fearless, ethical and noble.
Andrew’s second “reservation” has to do with political strategy. His view is that an elected government can only achieve reform if there is an “electoral cost-benefit ratio shift … in favour of reform.” Hence, “Western commentators can bang on … for as long as we want, but reform of lèse-majesté will only come when there the government feels confident to act without prompting a backlash…”. While I’m not convinced that all political reform is based on electoral sums, even if it is, I am uncertain why this should be a reason for an academic to hold his or her tongue.
Andrew’s suggestion that academics are speaking to the converted on LM and arguing that they have little or no “meaningful role in shifting opinions among the majority” is probably true for Thailand’s voters, but not for an international audience. I am convinced that the more critical academic commentary on the monarchy and LM has had a marked impact on the thinking of international audiences in embassies, parliaments, universities, the media and beyond. As noted above, the academic discussion of LM and the monarchy, internationally and within Thailand, has advanced considerably since the 2006 military coup.
Finally, in his list of reservations, Andrew refers to “non-Thai commentators” as possibly strengthening “the hand of these who defend the status quo” by being hypercritical of LM. I have no way to judge this speculation although we do know that ultra-nationalist rhetoric is as likely to round on foreign commentary just as much as it is threatening of domestic criticism.
In this listing of reservations it is noticeable that Andrew leaves out the possibility that “non-Thai” commentary can be advantageous for domestic critics. Reading blogs, social media and newspapers from Thailand, I am pretty sure that international support is generally considered useful – sometimes even important – for locals who strive for more political freedom including free expression.
In some very dark days, foreign support and commentary for those jailed for political offenses was important. Not all academics supported those political prisoners then and there are a wide range of academic motivations and political positions now. However, when some see “outrageous prison sentences” handed out for LM, I see no reason why outrage can’t be expressed. If that outrage drives some academic research and writing, some of it may be better for it and reveal that speaking the truth is noble.
Kevin Hewson, given that I want to be influenced by your dispositions towards nobility and the truth, I see no reason then why I, as a young pot stirrer, shouldn’t write an article on Lese Majeste for a journal.
Why hasn’t it been done? Perhaps no-one has been noble enough… yet. Oh, perhaps also, a journal wouldn’t publish it because their editorial team likes to holiday in Thailand. Or the fact that, if it were published in some obscure unranked newsletter, it would get lots of undergraduate essay citations, but not be referred to in any other journal for decades because no other young academic is willing to express their opinion and sacrifice everything else they do on Thailand. Speaking of nobility when your career doesn’t depend on it reflects a great luxury. The high ground wasn’t always quite such an easy route to take, surely? Experience suggests Andrew’s not really saying how it should be, but how it is. I advise you start promoting to your younger academics that they need to be writing journal articles, or even expose articles like Andrew Marshall on Lese Majeste with their real names. I look forward to seeing how successful a pitch it is.
0
0
[…] at New Mandala, Kevin Hewison responds and takes issue with these comments and concludes with […]
0
0
Thanks Kevin, I think this is a very useful contribution to the discussion but it makes me think that I may not have expressed myself clearly enough in the post you are responding to. My intention was not to advise academics (junior or senior) to self censor. Rather, my intention was to encourage respect and reflection.
On respect: the fact is that a great many academics (junior and senior) do self censor in relation to the monarchy and lese majeste. They do this in many ways: choosing not to write or speak publicly about certain things; writing about some issues in incomplete or obscure ways; making adjustments to articles or opinion pieces at the request or insistence of nervous publishers; and contributing to on-line discussion under pseudonyms. These are standard practice for a great many scholars working on Thailand. As I said in my recent post, sometimes this frustrates me but I respect it. I respect it because I can understand the reasons that influence the decisions people make. Quite apart from the career-oriented reasons I mentioned in the post there are a range of personal reasons (most commonly love and real estate) that mean that some academics are very reluctant to place their access to Thailand at risk. Many journalists face similar constraints and they too warrant respect rather than condemnation.
On reflection. The second key point in my post was to encourage some critical reflection on the benefits and costs of particular strategies. I am bemused that some contributors to the debate are so certain that what they are doing is the right thing to do. I think this is hazardous and, in some notable cases, it drives a fundamentalist intolerance towards those who take a different approach.
Over the past five years or so I have chosen, for the most part, not to self censor (though there are times when I have used some of the techniques listed above). If I was advising students or colleagues on the matter I would suggest that they think the issues through carefully and make their own decision about how “fearless, ethical or noble” they want to be.
0
0
They cannot lock everyone up, so all it will take is enough people to be “fearless, ethical or noble” at the same time and the back of the LM self-censorship camel will be broken.
0
0
Andrew Walker thinks that criticizing journalists and academics who fail to tell the truth about Thailand demonstrates “a fundamentalist intolerance towards those who take a different approach”.
But what “different approach” is acceptable for journalists and academics other than making every effort to report and analyze the reality of what is going on in Thailand?
If I was a chef in a Thai restaurant and decided one day that I didn’t want to cook Thai food any more, I could hardly continue to work as a chef in a Thai restaurant. I would have to go find a different job.
Likewise, if journalists and academics don’t want to be honest about what is happening in 21st century Thailand, due to the risks, that’s understandable, but they can’t claim to be Thai specialists. They should look for alternative jobs or choose a different country to write about. At the very least, they should openly say in their articles that they are not telling the full truth, and explain why.
It is not fundamentalism to believe that people should be true to the principles of their job. It is an issue of basic professional standards.
0
0
AW, your notion that scholars writing about issues in ‘incomplete or obscure ways’ should command respect and that they should be entitled to maintain their comfort zone tenure for motives of ‘love and real estate’ somehow carries a fetid stench.
0
0
One important point to add: I am not a believer in Thai exceptionalism, but there is no other country in the world for which foreign commentators tend to so obediently censor themselves and fail to be honest about this fact
0
0
They are forced to do so, and no one has the nerve to take to the courts to get this damned issue resolved.
0
0
The opening sentence to the piece suggests that even academics can miss the point by miles. Perhaps best to understand this is to listen to say Worajet Pakeerat, Nitirat Group co-leader, who mentioned (article ” Quit thinking in regard to referendum: first solve the problem of the Constitutional Court”, in Lok Wanni-Wan Suk, Year 8 [14], vol.394, 12-18 Jan, 2556 [2013]) that the Govt is blocked by the mischievous military-amaat 2007 Constitution. They are deadlocked. There are two ways of decision making: Firstly, seek resolution by peoples vote (referendum) which means Govt must act according to vote, that is they must go ahead with a third reading. However, each MP independent rights in voting matters and need not follow party line. They do not have to go with people’s aspiration/electoral mandate as the constitution says MPs are not under influence of their party or its leaders– as we saw last time in Parliament when some PTP MPs did not support the third reading. Secondly, GOVT finds a means of consulting with people but written in the constitution the GOVT cabinet/ministers (Khana Rattamontri) cannot undertake this task. This takes power away from ministers. Changing the constitution is the decision within the Parliament which includes lower and upper houses/ elected and those non-elected Senators – many stacked earlier in 2007 by the amaat regime to control elected government. Hidden in the constitution are blocks either way one turns. Worajet says he did not want to talk about this because it is grist for the mill for the amaat/ right wing parliamentarians who of course have a free hand to control the elected GOVT. But according to law the GOVT must follow the system set out in the constitution, even they know they are like a crazy dog chasing its tail… Thailand is in a gridlock because if this current constitution which prevents PTP from making reforms and they have to go about this in ever widening circles…The amaat have manipulated the system so thoroughly to their advantage with complicit Constitutional court. if I were a betting man I would not place bets on PTP being able to do anything towards democratic reforms in Thailand in the short to medium term.
0
0
The first sentence of the article states:
In a recent post, Andrew Walker mentioned that Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra had demonstrated an “unwillingness, or inability, to put in place any meaningful reform of Thailand’s lèse-majesté law” which had seen “outrageous prison sentences.”
I’m not at all sure what Jim means when he says that a statement of fact is missing the point. I was quoting AW, but the statement that “unwillingness, or inability” to do anything doesn’t seem to say anything other than Jim’s own statement. They haven’t done anything to abolish or reform the law and that may reflect an “inability” to do this. When recall that the govt campaigned on reforming LM, this unwillingness and/or inability to act is significant.
0
0
Jim Taylor had not explained a damn thing except to make labored excuses for Yingluck inept antics at constitutional reform; and LM reform or abolition.
0
0
The Rohingya are to Aung San Suu Kyi as LM is to Andrew Walker?
As Dr Tul says “if you don’t want to be punished, don’t do it.” But what is it?
Disparaging the person is pointless and counterproductive but discussing the institution is a sine qua non of a democratic society. Constant and growing resistance to prohibition of the latter is vital.
At least Andrew McGregor Marshall in his role as Genghis Khan managed to stir the FCCT into putting a statement about Somyot on their website, even if they couldn’t spell his name correctly.
http://fccthai.com/
0
0
(At the hazard of major digression to the thread, it must be said that as far as Aung San Suu Kyi is concerned, it is not just the most popular underdogs, the Rohingyas who are ignored, but also so many, many others who are blithely ignored -like the raped and killed Kachins, looted and driven off their ancestral lands, the starving, striking less-than-one-dollar-a-day workers, land looted farmers, etc, etc while she is busy with “Literary Festivals and “World Tours”, more so than Bono himself, all in the name of getting the power of the government which by definition is powerless according to the constitution she approves of provided there is an election in 2015 as many speculates although Burma getting to 2014 in one piece is highly doubtful.)
0
0
Regarding the trackbacks/pings “Continuing the LM discussion << Political Prisoners in Thailand" the website is yet again blocked by MICT in Thailand.
0
0
Just recently PPT has been linking to some damning papers concerning the king, on Andrew MacGregor Marshall’s facebook page and personnal website, some of which Andrew has been so kind as to translate into Thai.
0
0
Most, possibly all Thais (save those with vested interests I discuss the broad politics of Thailand with(in Thai)readily express the view that they are heartily sick of getting the rough end of the pineapple from employers (and others) who uphold double-standards to which they are required to conform. Of course, having worked here in Thailand half my life, I’ve experienced a lot of this first hand too, but I don’t have the legal option of working for myself. Much of the stratification of Thai society which underpins this unfairness is invisible to me, but the growing willingness to express such dissatisfaction openly is healthy. One glaring weakness in the Thai polity is of course the dominance of company unions and public sector unions compared to the independent unions which made vital contributions to progress in countries like Korea and Australia. IMO it is independent unions which are needed to properly inform and mobilize the masses, not big capitalists primarily concerned about private wealth rather than the common wealth of the country.
Without independent unions for protection, only the very brave or desperate dare to speak out.
0
0
Does that union calling themselves The Red Shitts of Thailan qualify as an ‘independent union’ by your dictionary thaifarang? If not then why is that?
0
0
I have wondered about the crawlers’ unions of Thailand, and the scarcity of independent unions that genuinely represent the interests of labour. Could it be because the interests of capital are policed by cheaply hired hit-men? That could also explain why the topic is seldom even discussed.
0
0
Clearly, I was referring to INDUSTRY unions.
Hopefully, I don’t need to define that for you.
0
0
So was I.
0
0
Your post was not up: I was replying to Vichai.
To you I would say that the most successful members of the Thai middle class have all too often succumbed to temptation and gladly sold out the middle class and the poor to become one of the rich.
Of course this coercion is achieved in a variety of ways, but effectively it’s a bag of carrots – and sticks.
0
0
[…] 2. Kevin Hewison for New Mandala […]
0
0