A panel discussion on “Thai Political Situation: Wherefrom and Whereto?”
Presented by the Royal Thai Embassy and the SOAS Thai Society
Location: Brunei Gallery Lecture Theatre, SOAS
Date and time: Friday, 29 January 2010, 17.30-20.00
Panelists: Professor Suchit Boonbongkarn, Professor Duncan McCargo, Professor Peter Leyland ,and Professor Borwornsak Uwanno
Moderator: H.E. Mr. David Fall
Professor Suchit Boonbongkarn
Professor Suchit started by explaining the current political situation in Thailand. He said that the past decade has seen dramatic political changes, starting with the coming to power of Thaksin through election. There was a high hope at that time among the Thai public that the stability of democratic government is possible. However, things did not turn out as expected. Discontents against Thaksin’s government grew and were politicised by the mass protests against him organised by Sondhi Limthongkul. The protest turned into the yellow-shirt movement demanding Thaksin step down. Thaksin fought back, and the mass-movement to support him was organised. The conflict between the pro-Thaksin and the anti-Thaksin movements caused deep divisions in Thai society. But the coup in September 2006 to oust Thaksin could not uproot his influences. The conflict showed no sign of ending despite the enactment of the new constitution, and the general election in December 2007. Thai society continued to be deeply divided. Suchit then argued that to understand the nature of the present conflicts, there is a need to look at the roles of the red-shirt and yellow-shirt movements, and the roles of the established political structure including the military.
He started with discussion of the red-shirt movement. He argued that the pro-Thaksin red-shirt movement is a real challenge to the conservative core values of Thai society and the conservative establishment. Such conservative core values include respect for the monarchy and the hierarchical social structure, as well as the maintenance of the tradition and culture based on Buddhism like the concept of Karma, Boon [merit], and Baramee [charisma]. Its core groups include the group of politicians loyal to Thaksin, the republican-advocates, and some business leaders. The movement’s cohesiveness is still doubtful. The majority of the movement’s members, mostly from the rural area in the North and the Northest, simply want Thaksin to come back. Some of the movement leaders attack Privy Council Chairman General Prem, and the present government–which they see as being controlled by the aristocrats and the military. This can be seen as their effort to diminish the influence of the conservative establishment. However, the movement is unable to gain support from the majority of the Thais. Most Thais maintain conservative ideas, which include upholding the monarchical institution and traditional culture, as well as preference for evolutionary changes. Thais value democracy, but also want to make sure that democracy works well with the monarchy and traditional culture.
However, Suchit argued that this does not mean that the majority of the Thais are with the yellow-shirt movement, which is anti-Thaksin and very conservative in political thinking. The Thais may be conservative and supportive of some of the yellow-shirt agenda, but there are elements of the movement which they do not agree with. The majority of Thais are the “third-force”, which are not cohesive, and have no leaders and organisation. The present Democrat-led government tries to be the leader of this group, but has been unable to do so. Nonetheless, if the government is able to contain the red-shirt protests, and resolve the economic problems, its strength and popularity will increase. The government’s performance in gaining support from the rural people through populist policies is, in the longer-run, likely to weaken the pro-Thaksin group. However, if we allow this conflict to continue, it will develop into an ideological and class conflict.
In relation to the role of the military, he argued that another coup is highly unlikely. The military had learned from the coup in 2006 of the difficulty that had governing the country. The military has realised that the problems facing the country are too complicated to be resolved by military rule. And they know that there will be a strong resistance against the coup both within and outside the country. In addition, the argument that the present Democrat government is backed or controlled by the military may not be accurate. The military is not strong enough to lead the government, or to ensure its survival. Furthermore, when it comes to political issues, the military is no longer monolithic.
In relation to the roles of the monarch, he argued that the monarch has been very careful not to do anything unconstitutional. When there was the occupation of Government House and the occupation of the airports, some wanted King Bhumibol to intervene. The King did not respond to their wishes, but let the situation be resolved by the courts and the constitution. And as the government has been relatively stable and responsive to the needs of the people, and has been able to handle a few uprisings and demonstrations effectively, the sovereign is not under pressure to do anything. However, there may have been situations in the past where the political violence, uprising, riots, demonstrations, led to political instability and created a situation where the monarch had to intervene. Nevertheless, since he ascended to the throne in 1946, the King has been effective in maintaining political neutrality, while at the same time, making it known that he has also been very concerned with any political problem that may lead to violence and bloodshed.
In terms of the Supreme and the Constitutional Courts, Suchit argued that their recent rulings in relation to Thaksin, Samak, and People’s Power Party have been criticised as unfair by the Thaksin’s supporters. However, to be fair to the judiciary, these rulings have been done according to the current constitution. However, he pointed that sole reliance on the judiciary to develop good governance will also make the judiciary vulnerable.
He concluded that the latest military coup has failed to launch political reform to consolidate Thailand’s democracy. The military coup is now becoming more and more unacceptable. Therefore, democratic development in Thailand has to rely on the people. There is a need in the long-term to reduce political corruption and the patronage system in the election. There is also a need for the institutionalisation of political structure in order to promote ethics and clean government. A strong civil society is needed for the Thai democracy to be sustainable. In the present, the business sector has replaced the bureaucracy as the leading political force, while the Thai civil society is still too weak. The “silent majority”, not the red-shirt or the yellow shirt, who wants Thai democracy to work effectively without violence or instability, is the people’s sector that needs to be strengthened.
Professor Duncan McCargo
Professor McCargo started by reflecting that, in Thai politics, many of the themes in the past seem to keep coming back again. Chamlong Srimuang has come back as a PAD leader. The lesson in relation to the role of the military in politics looked like it had been learned in the 1991-2 period. However, Thailand seemed to repeat some of the mistakes and confusion by over-reliance on the ability of the military to address political problems in the new round of conflicts in 2006-7. In addition, in the period around 1996, Thailand was in the process of drafting a new constitution, which in the end could not quite work. And the drafting of the constitution had to start all over again.
He argued that, reflecting upon his past analysis of several issues in Thailand–for example; the role of Chamlong, the 1997 constitutions, the media, the South, Thaksin, and the monarchy–he used to think that the problem was “excessive pragmatism”. Since 1991, there had been many prime ministers, many constitutions, elections, and coups. The question that was asked back then by a lot of research was “why are people just so pragmatic?”; “why are they so flexible?”; “why do they seems to change their loyalty and their mind so rapidly?”.
However, over the past five years, Thailand has moved to a very different scenario. Thailand now seems to have insufficient pragmatism. Thailand becomes a country characterised by incredible dogmatism, where family members and friends cannot speak to each other without something coming up that would cause uncomfortable feelings. The old “mai-pen rai” (anything goes) situation has been replaced by the situation where everybody has occupied a polarised position. In the present, the pragmatism that was the problem of past may have some benefits because it implies a “capacity to change” that is now lacking. People are now divided into different sides and the space in between is very difficult to occupy.
In relation to the conflict in Thailand’s South, after he had spent his time conducting his research there, he came to the conclusion that the problem in the South is essentially political. It is not about smuggling, drugs, socio-economic deprivation or Islamic-fundamentalism. It is a problem about politics, about legitimacy, and about feelings that people there that they do not have full participation in what is going on. Within the governance structure, there is very limited space for people to carve out their own identities because Thailand remains an incredibly centralised system. Interestingly, many of the senior people in the ministries, the parliament, the police and military, agree with the conclusion that the problem is essentially political. There is a need to do something with the way power is organised. However, people are also very nervous in talking about this. They are afraid of being accused in different ways such as being disloyal to the monarchy or of being separatists. Funnily, people on different sides such as Chalerm and Chavalit on one hand, and Prawes and Abhisit on the other hand, have actually been using different forms of words to express a very similar sentiment: that it is a political problem that needs political solution. So, they say the same thing. However, at the same time, because they are on different sides, they cannot say “we agree”.
He argues that the problem in the South is a good reflection of the wider problem in Thailand. There is actually a lot of similarity in both sides of the conflict. People from the two sides are hardly strangers to each other. Parallelism and mirror-politics actually occur between the two movements. However, despite a substantial shared ground between the two sides, the problem is “who would dare to break the deadlock”. There is, however, potential to break the deadlock, to break the inability to speak to each other. The Thais used to be incredibly pragmatic, but what has happen to that now that people are locked into different position? Both sides in the conflict have some points, and just beneath the surface there is actually a substantial consensus that just cannot be articulated.
Returning to the South, he argued that there is a way forward for the South, which is some form of decentralisation. The difficulty is, however, “the lack of opportunity to create public space for open discussion”. People are scared to speak out. However, he also believes that Thailand is very changeable. Therefore, he does not believe that the deadlock will continue indefinitely.
Thorn Pitidol is a doctoral student at Oxford University. His report on the second half of this event will be available from New Mandala soon.
why do these people pussyfoot around?
the issue is that Prem and the privy council and some of the rich families (royal businesses, banks, chicken people, etc) lead and use the military to repress the rest of the people of Thailand
the south and general repression of the people, refugees, etc is the plaything of the military which is motivated to continue involvement as they are a source/excuse for wealth and power
democracy threatens this rule by the elites but is the only way Thailand will progress
I guess the commentators also dont really want to solve the problems either….
0
0
Congratulations to New Mandala for publishing the report of these two excellent analyses by Boonbongkarn and McCargo.
They seem to support comments by Nick Nostitz from his on-the-ground reporting, that there is quite some common ground even between the Reds and Yellow : a consensus, waiting to be built on.
On de-centralisation – Bangkok has grown way beyond anything envisioned by Chulalongkorn.
All attempts at de-centralisation have failed. Is n’t it time for a more devolved, perhaps even federal system ?
0
0
If I interpret Professor Mc. Cargo’s speech right he makes an argument for a more regional, less centrally led government structure. This would involve shifting power from Bangkok to the provinces, which is a taboo subject at the moment in thai politics. What I wonder about is the role of the courts. Do they play any role at all?
0
0
Interesting comments by Giles Ungphakorn on his blog.
http://wdpress.blog.co.uk/
It looks like he managed to sneak in the seminar room together with some UK based Thai Redshirts – much to the dismay of the hosting Thai Embassy staff, ask some inconvenient questions and distribute leaflets.
I just wondered why this is not mentioned in your report or anywhere else..
0
0
Exactly what one would expect from Suchit. He’s been wheeled out plenty of times. He’s one of those academics who manages to sell his services to various buyers – there’s a less polite term for this. His comments on the monarchy and constitutionality are simply stupid and wrong. He knows it but also knows what his masters want him to say.
McCargo confuses me by apparently making a Stephen Young-like comment that Thailand was all goodness and light in the past – all this mai pen rai stuff. Is he misquoted? Was he saying that this is a perspective that was never accurate?
Tukkae – how about posting the Ji account? I can’t access it thanks to MICT blocking.
0
0
Following Ralph’s request I have copied and pasted the statement about this event from Ji Ungpakorn’s site. For those not in Thailand it is available here. And if you want to see Ji in action at the event there is a picture here.
“Pro-democracy Red Shirts in U.K. expose pro-coup academics at SOAS
On 29th January 2010 the Thai Embassy in London organised a seminar in order to launder Thailand’s authoritarian image. The main speakers from Thailand were Suchit Bunbongkarn and Bowornsak Uwanno. Little booklets on the King’s Sufficiency Economy Ideology and Bawornsak’s pamphlet justifying the use of the lese majeste law were handed out to the audience, much to be bemusement of many.
However, the embassy and the two royalist academics did not have an easy time because pro-democracy Redshirts living in the U.K. came prepared for a debate. Leaflets were handed out at the meeting (see text below), although the embassy tried to use SOAS guards to prevent this and to prevent Associate Professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn from entering the seminar room. They were unsuccessful in doing this, however.
The Thai ambassador opened the meeting by claiming that the Red Shirts did not represent the majority in Thailand. He also stated that the King has always been “above politics”.
Suchit Bunbongkarn echoed the ambassador by saying that there was a silent majority in Thai society who did not support anyone. His talk was rather “economical with the truth” because he failed to mention the double standards in the judiciary, the manoeuvrings in the courts and in the army to frustrate the wishes of the electorate and the backsliding on human rights and censorship (as outlined in a recent Human Rights Watch Report). He also seemed to suffer from amnesia by saying that the present divisions in Thai society had never occurred in the past. He obviously forgot the 1932 Revolution and the civil war with the Communist Party in the 1970s. He argued that the NGOs were an important civil society force for Democracy. This is a strange claim, given the support among nearly all NGOs for the 2006 coup!
When asked about the les majeste law and the court procedures, Suchit stated that it was all fair and just. He defended the use of secret trials where there is no transparency of the system of justice. He claimed that the new committee set up by the government to oversee lese majeste cases would solve any problems. He claimed that those who were found guilty of lese majeste could appeal to the King, failing to mention that Suwich Takor’s appeal has been ignored for over a year while he sits in prison. He also ignored the fact that those who maintain their innocence would not wish to ask the King for “forgiveness”. Suchit ended by saying that we could not have freedom of speech in Thailand because it would be against the Thai culture of loving and respecting the King. This is a one-sided interpretation of Thai culture which turns Thais into slaves. However, there is a rich history of Thais fighting for freedom and Democracy against such attitudes.
Bowornsak Uwanno started his talk by stating the obvious fact that Thailand is a very unequal society, the gap between the rich and poor being very high. However, when asked if he would therefore oppose the King’s Sufficiency Economy Ideology, which is against redistribution of wealth, he failed to reply. He claimed that he supported the idea of a Welfare State, while attacking Thai Rak Thai’s pro-poor policies for “creating a culture of dependency”. This Thatcherite phrase is in keeping with Bowornsak’s neo-liberal ideas. Academics like him who supported the 2006 coup, have long argued that Thai Rak Thai’s pro-poor policies trapped the poor in a patron-client system. For them, governments should expect to win votes by not promising economic benefits to the majority. But alas, the poor in Thailand are too “stupid” to realise that the pro-poor policies are actually bad for them!!
Bowornsak denied that there were any double standards in the use of the law in Thailand. But if there were any problems, he said that it was the fault of the police, certainly not the fault of the judiciary.
In his booklet defending the use of lese majeste, Bowornsak falsely claimed that similar laws were in use in Western Europe. (How many people are in jail for criticising the ruling elites in Western Europe?) He defended the use of lese majeste by saying that Thailand had a “special culture” where all Thais love the great “Buddha King” who is “our father”. The Thai King rules in a “moral manner” according to Bowornsak. Yet when questioned in the meeting about why the King signed the military junta’s laws after the illegal 2006 coup, he claimed that this did not mean that the King supported the coup. “Have pity and be fair to the King”, he said. One man from the audience responded by asking “and what about the Thai people?”
Two British academics were also speakers in this meeting and they both indicated that there were serious problems with the lese majeste law and freedom of speech in Thailand.
Text of the leaflet handed out in the meeting:
Free all Thai Political Prisoners!
Return the country to Democracy!
Since the 2006 military coup, which overthrew a democratically elected government in Thailand, it has become a crime to advocate Democracy. The coup claimed Royal Legitimacy and two draconian laws: the lese majeste law and the computer crimes law have been used. Suwicha Takor was sentenced to 10 years in prison for posting a picture on the internet. Darunee Charnchoensilpakul was sentenced to 18 years, in a secret trial, for making political speeches. Lese majeste and computer crimes charges have been made against: 13 executive members of the Foreign Correspondents Club, the BBC correspondent, the British editor of The Times, Associate Professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn, four people charged with posting the truth about stock market fears for the King’s health, the webmaster of Prachatai, and dozens of others. Military installed Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, while lying about human rights, has always prioritised “protecting the monarchy” and the dictatorship. Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban has threatened to deal with Prachatai , one of the only independent news sites left in Thailand. Since the 2006 coup, thousands of websites and blogs have been blocked by the Ministry of Censorship. Nearly all the media are controlled by the military, the government, and their allies.
See: http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/, http://facthai.wordpress.com/, http://www.prachatai.com/english/, http://www.newmandala.org/, http://www.ahrchk.net/index.php and The Economist magazine.
See also the latest Human Rights Watch report on Thailand: http://www.hrw.org/node/87869
Since the 2006 coup, the judiciary have been working hand in glove with the military in order to frustrate the democratic process, twice disbanding the political party which won the most votes in repeated elections. The military also pushed through its own Constitution instead of the 1997 democratic Constitution. The present Constitution legitimises the 2006 coup and enshrines the obligation of all governments to increase military spending while keeping public social spending to a minimum. Borwornsak Uwanno, one of today’s advertised panellists, had a key role in supporting the coup and drawing up the military’s Constitution. He is Secretary-General of the King Prajadhipok Institute, named after Thailand’s last absolute monarch who was overthrown by a pro-democracy revolution in 1932. Previously Borwornsak served former Prime Minister Thaksin, changing ships at the last minute to save his own skin. While serving Thaksin he never criticised that government’s human rights abuses in the War on Drugs or in the South. Suchit Boonbongkarn and the Thai Ambassador are also apologists for the military coup and the systematic destruction of Democracy. Today there is no Rule of Law or Justice. The military, the Government and the semi-fascist Peoples Alliance for Democracy have used violence and repression on the streets with impunity. No one has been punished for wrecking Government House, occupying the international airports or for shooting unarmed demonstrators in the streets. The Minister of Finance and the Foreign Minister were involved in these crimes. Yet pro-democracy activists are constantly being charged or put in prison.
Apologists for the 2006 coup justify their position by insulting the intelligence of the Thai electorate. They claim that they are ‘uneducated’ and ‘uninformed’ and ‘allowed themselves to be bought’. Yet the strong support for Thaksin’s democratically elected government which still exists today, is a result of the implementation of a Universal Health Care Scheme and many pro-poor policies. These policies are abhorred by the coup supporters. They want to turn the clock back to the bad old days when the elites could rule without any concern for the population, where political parties had no policies and bought votes, and where the military could act with impunity just by claiming that they were doing everything “for the King”. Throughout this crisis the King has failed, as he always did, to speak up in favour of Democracy and Freedom of Speech. Instead, as the richest Monarch in the World, he advocates the ideology of the Sufficiency Economy, where the poor must remain happy in their poverty. It is an ideology that opposes redistribution of wealth in a country with great inequalities. But the King is old and has been in hospital since September. The elites are afraid that when he dies, their legitimising tool will die with him. His son is hated and feared.
In Thailand we need genuine Democracy. The lese majeste and computer laws must be scrapped, the military needs to be cut down to size and those who commit Human Rights abuses should be punished. We need a European-style Welfare State and a fully democratic Republic.
Giles Ji Ungpakorn http://wdpress.blog.co.uk/, http://siamrd.blog.co.uk/ (blocked by censors in Thailand)”
0
0
[…] as well as at the Samaggi Academic Conference the following day. New Mandala has already put up a report on the SOAS event. Copies of a booklet written by him were also distributed at both […]
0
0
Thanks Nicholas, much appreciated. A useful perspective on the talks. Suchit and Bowornsak are clearly academic flunkies for the current regime. The latter is interesting, though, as he also worked closely with Thaksin. The ability to change spots while in search of wealth, power and prestige is a vile attribute in an academic.
0
0
Much as Giles may feel that present government is against the pro-poor populist changes that Thaksin made, I haven’t noticed any real attempt by them to turn the clock back and rescind any of these changes.
That’s the thing about populist politics, the policies can be, well, quite popular.
0
0
A couple of years ago NM was promoted as an “academic” blog.
Now it’s chasing away and ridiculing academics like Young, and now it’s MacCargo’s turn. Thai academics don’t stand a chance.
0
0
StanG – are you an academic ?
0
0
“Now it’s chasing away and ridiculing academics like Young,”
Young does a thorough job of making himself look ridiculous without need of help from NM and others who have exposed the tunnel-vision flaws in his “analysis”. As for chasing him away – I see no attempt to do that; on the contrary – plenty of opportunities for him to answer the many criticisms and up to him if he can’t/won’t.
0
0
Young commented on one of the entries about him and then got a barrage of questions from Nick Nolstitz. I was tempted to ask Nick to tone it down a bit if he wanted a response but Nick added another comment on Young’s silence.
I don’t think we are going to hear from him again any time soon.
0
0
Chris #2
“All attempts at de-centralisation have failed”
apart from Thaksins introduction of elected officials at regional and local levels, who and when were attempts made to introduce decentralisation
I think there are still elections for officials in Chiang Mai but Thaksins other initiatives have been wound back
what are/were the reasons for failed attempts apart from the obvious desire by the military for central control
why cant major cities including in the south easily adopt the Chiang Mai and Bangkok models of elected admnistrative heads?
0
0
Thaksin introduced CEO governor model, with governors being answerable solely to the Interior Ministry. They underwent some ad-hoc training and were forced to come with plans and strategies to develop their provinces and the only evaluations came from Bangkok.
Governors were supposed to have a lot more authority, though. I don’t know if it counts for “decentralization” as people were completely excluded from the process.
Thaksin spoke about creating “ten Singapores” in Thailand, media were filled with reports about some poor governors being knocked off their feet with all this new business talk and others trying to outdo one another with their visions.
0
0
“Young commented on one of the entries about him and then got a barrage of questions from Nick Nolstitz.”
Just “a barrage of questions”? – and he couldn’t manage to answer? Poor thing. I knew from his bio that he has led a sheltered life, but had no idea he can’t face questions – except perhaps from the likes of Khun Suthichai fawning and drooling over his every utterance like a chat-show host “feeding” a guest….. ?
0
0
StanG: If I’m not mistaken, Thaksin’s new style of CEO government had Thaksin at the top as CEO (there weren’t 75 “CEO governors”), and the governors were appointed by the Interior Ministry before Thaksin came along.
0
0
StanG – you still have n’t answered my question :
are YOU an academic ?
0
0
Chris, I’m not an academic, I thought that was obvious.
Bkk Lawyer, you can google out “Thaksin CEO governors” yourself.
One of the first results is titled “Recentralising while Decentralising”
Governors were always appointed but had little real powers as central government operated through ministries and their on the ground structures, bypassing local authorities.
Young not participating here is a loss for the commentariat, not for Young.
0
0
If Young not commenting is a loss for the “commentariat”, then this speaks volumes for the relevance of this “commentariat.” Some apparently think that public babbling is a virtue…
Obviously, Thaksin introduced the “CEO governors” (except for BKK, which has an elected governor).
0
0
[…] http://www.newmandala.org/2010/02/01/report-on-soas-event-part-i/ […]
0
0
[…] than concentrate on everything that was said at this event, I want to concentrate on what Duncan McCargo said and the […]
0
0