THAI POLITICAL SITUATION: WHERE FROM AND WHERE TO?
This report adds to the recent coverage of this event by Thorn Pitidol and Prach Panchakunathorn. It includes details on the question and answer session.
On the cold and windy evening of the 29th January 2010 over 200 people turned up at SOAS’s Brunei Gallery for a panel discussion over the current Thai political situation. Most were Thai students from all over the UK, but there was considerable attendance from other segments of Thai society in the UK as well as a smaller number of other academics.
Giles Ungpakorn politely gave out handouts entitled ‘Free all Thai Political Prisoners! Return the country to Democracy!’ much to the dismay of one elderly Thai lady who seemed to grimace when he handed one to her, but graciously accepted and read with interest by others. The handout gave a brief summary of the past 4 years events and a list of convictions due to lese majeste and the computer crimes law. It went onto scrutinise Borwornsak Uwanno who has once served Thaksin but changed sides at the last minute. Suchit Boonbonkarn was called ‘an apologist for the military coup and the systematic destruction of democracy’. The handout ended with a plea for freedom of speech, for genuine democracy, a smaller military, for those who commit human rights abuses to be brought to justice and a welfare state.
In the hall, we were welcomed by the SOAS Thai society and were given an introductory talk by H.E Mr Kitti Wasinondh, the Thai Ambassador to the UK. He greeted everyone with wishes for a happy new year in his friendly manner and spoke of Thailand explaining that the word Thai not only means free but that each letter of the word has meaning for him: T (Tasty food) H (Hospitality) A (Attractions) I (Investment & trade). He went onto explain that the Thai political situation has not been as smooth as his previous picture painted. However this has not deterred visitors as 757,000 UK tourists entered Thailand last year and he is glad of this British confidence.
Ex-Ambassador to Thailand, David Fall was next to welcome everyone to the debate and introduce the speakers; Borwonsak Uwanno, Suchit Boobongkarn, Duncan McCargo and Peter Layland. He asked for fairness and for everyone to follow the ‘Chatham house rules’ in order for everyone to have a free and frank discussion, something he said, we can’t do in Thailand.
Here are our notes on what the panel said during the discussion:
Professor Suchit Boonbongkarn (Chulalongkorn University)
The first speaker was Prof. Suchit Boonbongkarn. He started talking about the increasing changes taking place in Thai society, starting with Thaksin and the hope for a new democratic government. He gave the familiar story of how Thaksin had projected himself as a form of new leader in an era of globalisation. TRT’s success with the electorate has now meant that democracy has been institutionalised. However, the story ends with Thaksin’s greed for power ruining this with his attempts to dominate the legislature which resulted in protest from Sonti Limthongkul and the yellow shirts. This resulted in increased conflict between red and yellow shirts. The new constitution and new elections have not stopped the divisions within Thai society. This has ultimately led to people questioning democratic principles in the country.
Suchit’s answer to this was to look at the role of the movements. Yellow shirts stand for traditionalism, hierarchical structure, Buddhism, bun and merit and conservatism. The Reds are against this. The Red shirt movement is uncohesive and doubtful. They simply want Thaksin to come back. He argues that the Red shirt movement has been unable to gain the support of wider society, therefore this wider society must agree with the conservatives. He labels this silent majority as the 3rd force in Thai politics. They have no leader and no organisation.
Suchit then moved onto the current government, the coalition under Abhisit faces problems because of its need of survival. Abhisit must make compromises in order to survive and this is why his party has adopted ‘populist’ politics in order to gain rural support. Suchit argued that these problems come from class conflict in Thai society. They will not be solved by another coup, because the current government is a civilian regime (but wasn’t TRT a civilian regime too?!). He also argued the problems facing Thailand are too complicated to be solved by a military coup. In his belief the military is not strong enough to deal with the problems.
He finally gets around to the issue of the monarchy, stressing that they have done ‘nothing unconstitutional’ this can be proved by their inaction during the airport protest of October-November 2008 and the King’s refusal to appoint a Prime Minister in 2006.
Suchit next defended the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision to sentence Thaksin to 2 years in jail, and the dissolution of PPP over election fraud resulting in many members being banned from politics for 5 years. He argued that the Supreme and constitutional courts have been criticised by the Thaksin camp. It is a mistake to rely on the judiciary to solve the country’s problems.
In what was probably his ‘whereto’ part of his speech, Suchit recommended lessening corruption and the need to institutionalise clean governance and ethics in political society. A strong civil society is important because without this democracy is not sustainable. He also mentioned that business is now a leading force and has overtaken the role of the bureaucracy. Lastly, he emphasised that it the silent majority, the people’s sector that needs to be strengthened.
Duncan McCargo- “The critical critic has become optimistic”
This was a much more light-hearted presentation on the political situation in the South. After a short reminiscence on his PhD topic on the leadership of Chamlong Srimuang and previous constitutions, he noted interestingly that it goes to show “what goes around, comes around” when it comes to Thai politics.
His first intention was to argue that the problem in Thailand has been excessive pragmatism (there have been 13 Prime Ministers and 3 major constitutions in the last 10 years). But this has changed recently to ‘insufficient pragmatism’. His choice word was ‘dogmatism’ described well the current stalemate seen whereby husband and wife cannot talk to one another due to polarised positions. McCargo misses all the pragmatism stressing that it was a strength as well as a weakness in Thai politics.
On this issue of the South, he briefly talked over his recent research there which lasted for 1 year. He felt he has reached clear conclusions but unfortunately many people do not want to agree with him in public. These conclusions were that-
- The problems in the South are political, not because of militants or about religion
- The problems are about legitimacy
- Southern states feel they have no power
- There is limited space for them to show their identity in a very centralised state.
In his discussions with others, there is agreement that over centralisation does not work anymore. However, the problem arises with free expression of this position. Those that critique the current order are labelled as separatists or as disloyal to the monarchy.
However, McCargo stresses that many do agree, even those such as Chalerm Ubumrung (Pheu Thai Party) and Dr. Prawit (Wongsuwan, Defence Minister) express that the Southern problem is a political problem. Chavalit Yongchayodh (ex Prime Minister) and Abhisit also agree. However because of their allegiances with different camps, all cannot agree in public.
This is a reoccurring problem, there is considerable commonality in what they all say on the Southern problem, but no one can agree on a solution because ‘people keep changing sides all the time’. There is currently deadlock which cannot be broken, which is very frustrating because just under the surface there is this consensus within Thai society.
The way forward for the South is to have decentralisation. However there is a lack of space for open discussion. To sum up, McCargo gave an optimistic account of something which his host family once told him when he arrived in Thailand- Thai’s get bored easily- will they in the case of the South? In a self confessed style- McCargo, the ‘critical critic has become optimistic’?
Prof. Peter Layland (London Met University)
Thailand’s constitutional rollercoaster ride and the search for constitutionalism
In a very well researched and presented talk (maybe his slide presentation will become available?), Professor Layland asked the questions
- Why has constitutionalism in Thailand been so elusive?
- Do the recent 1997 and 2007 constitutions contribute anything to democracy?
- Is the 2007 constitution more enduring?
- Is there a magic formula?
To start with he argued that in order to answer these questions, constitutionalism itself must be defined. He gave a quote by de Smith-
“The idea of constitutionalism involves the proposition that the exercise of governmental power shall be bounded by rules, rules prescribing the procedure according to which legislative and executive acts are to be performed and delimiting their permissible content – Constitutionalism becomes a living reality to the extent that these rules curb the arbitrariness of discretion and are in fact observed by the wielders of political power, and to the extent that within the forbidden zones upon which authority may not trespass there is significant room for the enjoyment of individual liberty.”
He said that in the UK people actually resign over scandals because constitutionalism in the UK is connected to the rule of law. This rule of law ‘seeks to subordinate naked power’ (quoting Harden & Lewis) and there must be a need to adhere and recognise these rules. But the question in the case of Thailand is- How do you do this? Layland argued that there must be institution building. For example the Parliament needs to be held accountable. “The key is to follow the rules and not just have them”.
Thailand has come some way in its reforms by strengthening watchdog bodies such as:
- Electoral commission
- National Counter Corruption Commission
- Human Rights Commission
- Anti money Laundering Commission
- Constitutional Court
- Public Sector Ombudsman
- State Audit Commission
These new bodies mean that Thailand has been equipped with the “cutting edge of the constitutional technology”. These bodies have the power to disqualify people for wrongdoing. For example, the electoral commission and NCCC can suspend politicians from politics for five years. The EC can nullify elections. These institutions have been given more power. It proves that a separation of powers has been established as a constitutional principle. The government is responsible to an elected parliament and legal limits have been established by the court.
But everybody needs to apply the rule of law. In Thailand, this has not yet been achieved as the appointment process to the watchdog bodies has been politically captured.
There is also a Thai dimension to constitutional law-making. There is a strong sense of social order; everybody is ranked by wealth, power, birth and status.
The King is at the pinnacle of all this. No one can successfully prosecute offenders in these cases for fear they will be seen as being disloyal to the King.
Another dimension is the lack of faith in the legal processes.
There must be a commitment to the rule of law, can’t go back to 1932 where the monarchy solves all the problems. The 1997 constitution failed to deal with these conflicts of interest. The Senate for the new constitution was not politically neutral. Thus 2007 was not a new beginning it does not have the same legitimacy as the 1997 constitution. Having said this, the 2007 constitution still retains some of the 1997 elements. For example, watchdog bodies. The new constitution is more robust on conflict of interest for example the Samak conviction. But the problem with democratic politics is still unresolved as well as the problem of lese majeste law.
The whole situation is framed in uncertainty over the royal succession and how to deal with Thaksin. However, it has been a positive that the political aspiration of the military has been reduced. Another positive is there is a well established civil service (but inadequately remunerated)
In Thailand, these constitutions have come about because of significant events. As the result, there are semi impose as the solution of these events. Politics and parties evolve around wealthy individuals. These individuals payroll MPs. There has to be the evolvement of the grassroots.
There has to be a prominent role for the opposition. There has to be power sharing between the main political fractions. For example, in the UK, if the chairman of the BBC is conservative, the vice chair would be labour.
Other ways forward are devolution for more power in the regions and changing the selection of the senate.
In conclusion, wrongdoing by the elite (including politicians, judges and civil servants) must be punished so that justice is seen to be done. The constitution cannot be imposed, there must be inclusive negotiation. There must be agreement on compliance to these new constitutions by all major parties. (Constitutionalism does not happen overnight).
Borwornsak Uwanno (King Prajadhipok Institute)
Borwornsak stated at the beginning of his presentation that he would like to focus on the ‘where to’ question, and that he has devised away forward which can be emailed to everyone in the audience, as the time slot of 15 minutes was not adequate to go into much detail. However, his entire presentation mostly focused on the ‘where from aspect’.
He started to explain that Thailand has been in an endless circle of political uncertainty for more than four years and that this has been mainly in the form of Thaksin and the red shirts VS the yellow shirts. Bowornsak argued the real problem is structural and is over the distribution of resources and power. He explained since 1961 and the first national economic social development plan which was export orientated that wealth was highly concentrated. This has resulted in the rich and middle classes in urban areas having access to resources. These people are the ‘haves’ and support the Yellow shirts. The ‘have-nots’ support the reds. He explained the gap between the rich and the poor has not changed much. Forty years ago, the richest 20% of the population and owned 59.9% of the country’s wealth and in 2006, this figure had only decreased to 56.2%. Also in 2006, the richest 20% of the population owned 69% of the country’s assets. He also cited 70,000 saving accounts contain 42% of all the money in Thailand. Only 11 families are owners of the top 5 companies in the stock market. He also illustrated the Gini coefficient from 1960 -2000 actually increased in Thailand but all the rest of Southeast Asian declined. Therefore, the gap between rich and poor has grown.
Bowornsak argued all of this has had an impact on Thai politics. The poor are dependent on patrons; it is these rural rich patrons that get elected. For them, power is desired as national resources are under state control. State concessions are good business opportunities; therefore politicians get wealthy in a short time. The political reform of the 1997 constitution did not address this dependency. TRT only made things worse as in 2001, the poor realised the power of their votes. TRT won a landslide victory in 2005. It was the first single party in the history of Thai politics. But it only increased dependency on benefits. TRT kept this vertical dependency in place and clientelist mentality.
Bowonsak’s opinion is that the public did not appreciate their roles from keeping the government in check. Also elected watchdogs were not able to keep the government in check because the government managed to interfere with the appointment process.
The yellow and the red divide have left its mark on the political landscape. Even though it is calm now, there is still concern the reds want to protest again after New Year. We need to tackle the real problem. We need a better system. We need to resolve problem with politicians in relation to the constitution. We need more reform. We need to reform the imbalance in Thai society. He argued to do this; we need to lessen the in equality. The current system has kept patronage systems alive. Voters need to hold politicians accountable and the poor should have access to resources without the government handouts. We need a welfare state gradually.
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
Q 1. The first question was from a Thai student at Oxford University. She made an emotional appeal to bring the coup makers to justice. Asking when the courts would bring charges against them?
Q 2. From an academic at Surrey University, He asked for the panel to expand their concept of ‘populism’. He asked whether they thought TRT was populist. In his belief TRT offered a manifesto, and delivered the policies which are why they won the next elections. Is populism the problem? Or are they just pushing the real problems under the carpet?
Q 3. Another Thai in the audience aimed their question at Uwanno, they reminded him that he was a former TRT supporter and then resigned from the cabinet. During his resignation he promised that he would not get involved in politics again or be an advisor. But in 2006 he was a coup advisor. He changed sides. Why did he do this and go against his word?
Q 4. The next question came from Giles Ungpakorn. He started with his assertion and his distaste that it is the army that claims its legitimacy from the king. He went onto explain that lese majeste laws have imprisoned people for speaking out. He pleaded for the lese majeste laws to be scrapped and for freedom of speech in Thailand. Thai people should have the right to discuss their political beliefs without the fear they will be arrested. He is glad to hear that Uwanno mentioned the creation of a welfare state.
Q 5. An Oxford academic next bought up the topic of institutions and how they have evolved. He argued this is very important to look at. In Europe organised labour was strong before the creation of a welfare state. However in Asia this is not the case, labour is very weak. Just what do the panel think about how a welfare state will come about? He warned that a welfare state should not be imposed and asked the panel how they thought Thailand could move away from the current oligarchy.
Answers from Suchit: Suchit was the first panellist to respond. He felt that the issue of freedom of speech, the abolition of lese majeste laws and reform of the political system should depend on culture in his ‘own personal belief’. He argued that in comparison, Thais are freer than people in Malaysia, Singapore, Laos, Vietnam and Myanmar. In his assertion, these things were against Thai culture and against their beliefs.
As for the issue of immunity of the coup makers, he agreed that a coup is illegal. However if a coup is successful then the coup makers become “sovereign”. If they had failed in their coup attempt they would have been sentenced to death. A t the time of King Prajadhipok a coup took place and it was agreed that the coup makers could have immunity at that time. (I think his point was very unclear here)
Next to respond was Borowrnsak Uwanno. He defended himself from earlier scrutiny by stating that the 1997 constitution was long dead before the 2006 coup, and so he had no reason to stick to it. He retaliated against the question from Giles saying that his critic used to criticise Thaksin and is now his supporter. (At this point there were disturbances in the audience as many people shouted that the panellist should read Giles’ book and listen to what he has to say against Thaksin).
Uwanno went onto argue that there have also been accounts that the Coup has been ‘A Good Coup’ here he cited the work of Connors. He argued that the Coup had been legitimised in various ways (he cited a court case), but what is important now is to focus on stopping another coup from happening now. Everyone now knows a coup will not solve all of the problems.
Next Uwanno retaliated against Giles Ungpakorn again, saying that Ajan Giles accused the King as being behind the coup and this was wrong. (again there were disruptions in the audience and calls for him to read Giles’ work). Uwanno said there was no evidence against the King. Next he explained his reasoning, he explained that the only people that could form a coup against the King were the military, and this would prevent the King signing any acts of parliament. Then the coup leader would have all of the power in the country. This means that the monarchy is a fragile institution and needs protection so this does not happen. In fact, he also stated that the monarch ‘is the most fragile institution’. This is because the King cannot defend himself. He then stated the King had to sign the coup leader into power in 2006 and that we should not be unfair to the King that he did this.
Suchit then gave his opinion on lese majeste laws in Thailand. He stated that everyone accused of lese majeste is equal and that all face the equal rule of law, and everyone accused can appeal to the Supreme Court. In his opinion, maybe the accused will be sentenced at first, but they can always appeal it. He then also defended the secrecy that surrounds these court hearings by saying that secrecy is needed because there is sensitive information about the issue of defamation. He went onto explain that every country has to protect their head of state.
It sounded like he did admit to some changes needed to lese majeste cases. Suchit did profess to the fact that the government has now set up a committee to look into how cases are bought about, as right now anyone can file a charge. He also said it is not right for lese majeste to be used for political purposes. If the offender did not mean to cause ‘malicious intent’ then they should be treated differently and different penalties imposed. However, if the government is to change lese majeste law, then they need public agreement, but he said at this time “the people want the law”.
Next to provide discussion answers was Prof. Layland. His response was that in his belief constitutional reform on its own is not enough to solve everything. What is needed is a strengthening of civil society, at the moment trade unions are very weak and people need to organise themselves more effectively for change to occur.
Lastly, Borwornsak Uwanno made it clear that in his opinion the red and yellow shirt movements are positive in a sense that they generate a greater sense of awareness amongst the poor. He believes that it is the poor that should be at the centre of every political party’s platform. In this sense populism is dangerous in the sense that is the same as buying votes. It is too similar to giving money to people in exchange for voting for a particular candidate. He argued that what is needed to solve this problem is a welfare state. It is true that labour unions in Thailand are weak but the red and yellow are something different, now there are more community movements and also the Assembly of the Poor is an example of successful movements, so there is hope.
Question round 2:
Q 1: A Thai female in the audience asked whether changes should occur form the top down or bottom up?
Q 2: Why are there different rules for different people in Thailand?
Q 3: From a SOAS student. They asked what laws there are that can be evoked about the crown prince and his ability to succeed the King, especially if the princess is so popular.
Q 4: A Thai student commented that it is all very well to be fair to the King, but what is more important is to be fair to the people. What is the role of the Privy Council?
Answers:
Suchit was the first to respond. He explained that the Privy Council acted as an advisor to the King of Thailand. There is no evidence that they were behind the 2006 Coup d’état. One of the members is 90 years old now, he retired 30 years ago and has no authority. General Prem has ‘bun-barami’ but this cannot force people to proceed with a coup. Suchit next turned to the topic of freedom of speech on this topic. He stated that Thai culture does not want this kind of debate, ‘public debate is out, and it’s against public interest’ (…yes he actually said this!)
According to him, freedom of speech did not seem to be the problem, what he argued was more important was the double standards some people have and the development of civil society. He explained that personal relationships are very important in Thai culture and this is the reason for the current system. He argued that grassroots development needed to be strengthened and to work ‘from the bottom-up’.
Duncan McCargo came forward with some interesting insights. He feels that the current situation is frozen and that people just can’t wait for change. He believes there is restlessness in the South, North and Northeast which is a signal for reform, decentralisation and public debate. He stressed that people must feel comfortable to have open and frank debates. At present, only Bangkok has the right to elect its own governor, in the rest of the provinces this position is by appointment. There needs to be more equality. Also, rather than wait for succession, people should be able to have open debate on what will happen next with the political situation.
Uwanno Boonbonkarn selected the topic of the courts to respond to. He feels there must be more understanding about the enforcement of the law by the court. People have to understand that police are under pressure from politicians of the day. In his opinion the case against the yellow shirts should be dropped because if it were to happen then it would be the police that would be charged with unfulfilment of their duties and this would cause a lot of problems. He went onto defend the actions of the administrative court (as he said it only followed the sentiments of the day) and then he bought up the Thai-Cambodia case and said it was right that the court changed its jurisprudence. As for the judicial court, he said that they were involved in a lot less activism than the Supreme Court or the Administrative Court. What was the problem was the constitution, stating that ‘the problem of standards should be treated carefully’.
Professor Layland added that it was difficult to answer any question on the Privy Council because of the secrecy surrounding the institution. What was needed was more transparency.
Thoughts
We left the debate with more questions than answers. We both felt that Suchit especially, did not convince us with his arguments. We will be writing a more in depth opinion paper on this shortly, but for now these are our preliminary thoughts:
When talking about lese majeste and freedom of speech Suchit boiled everything down to ‘Thai culture’ and assumed everyone in Thailand had conservative values. His statement that most Thai’s have not joined the red shirts and so this meant that they are conservatives is a very large assumption on his part.
Borworsak and his argument that ‘the King and monarchy is the most fragile institution’ also left us thinking of the truthfulness of this statement. Does he really believe this? It would only be fragile if it was an unpopular institution, wouldn’t it?
Also, Borwornsak’s argument for a ‘welfare state’ was extremely vague. He made no clarification on the type of welfare state he was thinking of. His idea that ‘populism’ was bad and it was just handing out money to the poor, ‘like buying votes’ left us wondering that his ideas were in fact, incommensurate and opposing. It was as though he was using catch terms like ‘welfare state’ only because it would buy him points with the audience.
Patra Thirakornratch is from Sheffield Business School and Susan Upton is at Bath University.
thanks for sharing the Q&As…
my simple minded observation is that Prem and the privy council and their mates in business (royals, CP, bankers, generals) set the agenda followed by the military with mercenaries like the PAD and the judges
their agenda is to maintain the traditional conservative wealth and power
the Prince (or some people around him, privy councillors?) seems to be stirring, eg. police appointment, which must be scaring a lot of people. I think the King is on the hospital to protect himself from the Prince
the ordinary huge majority are now awake to the possibility of change for their better, inspired by Thaksin but starting to recognise democracy and voting for their benefit. some are explicit redshirts but most will support if called.
decentralised democracy is the solution, voting at all levels (which Thaksin progressed towards).
the authority of the vote will eventually suppress the royals, privy council and the military
0
0
Though recognising the need to cover these discussions, particularly given the dearth of space available for free speech in Thailand’s own media, I do have reservations about the flagrant breach of the Chatham House Rule in coverage of this event.
“When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed”.
To ‘expose’ the speakers in this event surely does more damage to New Mandala’s means to solicit and receive important insight into Thailand’s political situation.
Too late now, but given that this is perhaps one of the first talks on the political environment in Thailand – sponsored by the Government – this coverage may have blown any chances of other events in the same vein out of the water.
0
0
“He stated that Thai culture does not want this kind of debate, ‘public debate is out, and it’s against public interest’ (…yes he actually said this!)”
I guess it’s because Patra assumes he knows better than Suchit what public interest is in Thailand. There are obviously very different opinions on this, I can only guess why Suchit thinks some things better not to be brought out in the open, but if the free discussion leads to reducing the value of some important institutions, negative effects need to be considered first.
Also I feel that people came with their own questions and didn’t really listen to panelists presentations. “When will coup makers will be brought to justice” seems to completely ignore Layland’s views on constitutionality, for example.
0
0
My number one comment on Professor Bongboonkarn is in reply to this remark that the coup, PAD protests, etc. has “led to peoples ultimately questioning democratic principles”.
In LAO Isaarn it has led to people questioning whether they remain part of “Thailand”.
0
0
Flatman
interesting to discover what Chatham House Rules means and I can see a place for it
however in this case I think the Thai government is desperate to get its point of view into any international fora so I doubt if they will close out any opportunities as a result of this breach
as we have noted the royal/military/government oriented participants generally expressed what we expected in terms of the standard lines and we did not see them taking advantage of the “frank personal” exchanges that we might reasonably expect if someone asked for the proceedings to be under these rules
so, we can reasonably complain about their apparent lack of candour and the participants, if they paid to attend, should ask for their money back
0
0
RE: Chatham House Rule, sorry we should have made it clear that he also told us when he said this- that the panelists can be named, not those that ask the questions. The only participant asking questions that we named was Giles Ungpakorn. We did list some affiliations of speakers i.e someone from Oxford University, etc, but their anonymity remains intact.
0
0
Flashman is correct in saying that the way this event has been reported on New Mandala is a breach of the Chatham House Rule. The Moderator clearly described the Rule (accurately quoted by Flashman) at the beginning of the panel discussion and again before the question session. Ms Upton’s claim of a distinction made between panellists and questioners is either an unfortunate misinterpretation or disingenuous.
0
0
Chatham House Rule. Does anyone seriously believe that the Thai Embassy is using the Chatham House Rule to promote open and frank discussion about politics in Thailand (at a public event)? Perhaps Daranee should have cited Chatham House before she gave her famous speeches; and perhaps Suwicha should have put a Chatham House disclaimer on his internet postings.
If there was a risk for participants at the SOAS event it was from the diligent note takers from the Embassy. I doubt they feel constrained by Chatham House in making their reports about Giles et al.
New Mandala is very happy to respect the Chatham House Rule when it is genuinely used to provide genuine protection. But we have no intention of shielding the Thai government’s international public relations events from wide-ranging scrutiny and discussion.
0
0
Andrew, you may be right, but my feeling is that this coverage may have squandered the Government’s embryonic efforts to answer and be included in some of the political debate and concerns.
By no means has the government’s, or more specifically the NSC’s domestic response to open debate been positive. However, given your own coverage over the years and calls for an inclusive debate, how much effort would it have taken to respect this one request pursuant to a more inclusive forum?
I suspect that without extending the same courtesy of anonymous attribution to the government, as you do to your other contributors and commentators, myself included, this exercising of a ‘double standard’ in this independent web-forum, maintained to encourage free and open debate, undermines its very purpose.
Whatever the perceived strengths or weaknesses of the panel may be, at least the government has fielded a panel for the first time.
Perhaps more considered analysis and coverage on the themes, rather than the transcripts provided herein, would, in the longer term, reap the wide-ranging scrutiny and discussion you have called for.
0
0
Re: Chatham House Rule. I’m the one who opened the floor at Q&A session. Don’t worry too much about a confidentiality of participants. The Chatham House Rule, dated back to 1920s, was invented mainly to protect the safety of individual speakers– it was the time one out of five people sitting next to you could be a spy. David Fall, presumably trained in history (Arnold Toynbee was Chatham House’s first Director), wasn’t so serious when asking the audience to follow the Rule; he even joked with Thai students that ‘nobody will take away their studentship, etc.’. The fact that all ‘questioners’ opted to state their names, some in full, some in short, indicates that they have no fear to express their political opinions. I see that a Q&A of this nature is to be welcomed. It’s sending a clear message to the establishment that Thais will no longer be silent. Well informed and well educated Thais will no longer nod to any rubbish being fed by characterless academics, or whoever it may be.
Re: To Patra & Susan. The question I asked the panel is “When will Thai lawmakers begin to look seriously to the immunity cause?” It was asked in the context to law, specifically to respond to the panellists who kept murmuring the rhetoric of the “rule of law”. It has nothing to do with the past- pledging to bring previous coup-makers to justice is impossible, since the law cannot fall backward. The question is for the Present and the Future. If Thais are serious about putting on the Rule of Law, those who know laws must begin to tackle the military’s perpetual freedom of claiming “immunity”. In the case of coup, the “condition of Thai constitution”, de facto, leaves rooms for a possible meaningful collaboration between parliament and the real “sovereign” (yes, ‘the sovereignty’ remains even the constitution is torn!). Thais will have to think- hard and positively- if they want to prevent further coups.
I hope this is clear.
0
0
There is no question of ending the military’s immunity from prosecution until one deals with the problem of the monarchy’s influence over the military.
Not too many years ago a royal cremation was organized for the reviled former dictator involved in the massacres of students in the 14 October 1973 democracy uprising, Thanom Kittikachorn. Surayudh Julanonda commanded forces that stormed the Rattanakosin Hotel during the May 1992 democracy movement, killing and wounding many protesters; following retirement he was appointed to the Privy Council. Today he is back in the Privy Council after being installed as PM following the 2006 coup. Suchinda Kraprayoon, who ordered the massacres of protesters in the streets during May 1992, can be seen today sipping cocktails at Thailand’s beach resorts. Chairman of the Privy Council, Prem Tinasulanonda, is widely acknowledged as being behind the 2006 coup and continues to exercise control over the Armed Forces. The generals involved in the coup which not only overthrew a democratically-elected government, but abrogated the popular Constitution and effectively stole the national budget for their own use – a far more serious and obvious form of corruption than anything Thaksin has been accused of – had an amnesty written for them by the royalist lawyer Mechai Ruchuphan.
Such travesties of justice are the tip of the iceberg. Everyone knows that the reason these people and many more are untouchable is because of their relationship with the monarchy.
Sawarin Suwichakornpong says “Thais will no longer be silent”, and that they were sending a “clear message to the establishment”. Brave words. But I have not heard anyone openly calling for the King to end his support for the military, except people like Da Torpedo.
This is precisely the point: Thais have no choice but to be “silent” on the monarchy’s close relationship with the military – otherwise they are in danger of being charged with lese majeste.
By contrast there is great freedom allowed for criticism of military figures because everyone knows that it is utterly ineffective – unless one criticizes the source of their security – the monarchy.
Today the military are a convenient “fall guy” for the monarchy. It’s a charade played out in order to hide the political control exercised by the monarchy and its network behind the scenes.
I think it is a good example of the sanctimoniousness of many Thai academics and critics, where they feign moral self-righteousness by criticizing the military or politicians, but show no moral courage whatsoever when it comes to discussing reforming the monarchy to make it more democratic.
Such discussion would not mean breaking the lese majeste law. But if one is really serious about democratic political reform and has the “courage” to discuss politically sensitive matters publicly, then these people ought to publicly raise issues such as reforming the Privy Council (if it can not be abolished altogether) by calling for appointees to it to be approved by parliament; parliamentary oversight of the Crown Property Bureau; more transparency and proper auditing of the finances of the Royal Projects, etc. etc.
0
0
One should rest assured that the RTG does not spend the substantial amounts of money necessary repeatedly to send Ajarns Suchit and Borwornsak to Western and Asian Universities only to have their statements limited to the immediate participants. After all, these are public relations stunts in the hope to influence those in the audience, and beyond. That reactions on statements made by the speakers can be different is not lost on the RTG, and neither on the speakers. Rather, they welcome them. And it underestimates both ajarns to think that are afraid of public reactions. Both of them are highly self-confident and seasoned members of Thai technocracy.
0
0
“Both of them are highly self-confident and seasoned members of Thai technocracy.
Are they so deluded as to actually believe what they say, or are they more sinister than that?
0
0
Aladdin,
thank you, I agree… it is the royal cover that enables perpetuation of power over the people
I have wavered about whether the King is in full agreement and control or is just manipulated by Prem and his mates
and whether the Prince and the Queen are the real (evil) power now… is the King staying in hospital to protect himself from his family and/or Prem et al?
in any case, you are right… firm action by the King (or the Prince/Queen) to withdraw support from the “royalist elites” and demand democratic elections would rouse the people and require the military to stand down
0
0
Aladdin, David Brown, I wonder what do you think about the current military split into three factions: р╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕кр╕╖р╕нр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕┤р╕Щр╕╡ the Queen’s soldiers р╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕▓ the King’s soldiers, and р╕Бр╕нр╕Зр╕Чр╕▒р╕Юр╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕в soldiers support democratization. Anupong belongs to the Queen’s soldier, Prem is the King’s soldier, and Panlop is the soldier for democracy. I think the existing power structure is forming this way. The dynamic of the power struggle is definitely intense in this new paradigm.
0
0
Chatham House notwithstanding, the Thai Embassy has circulated the paper by Borwornsak. It is available here.
0
0
Suzie Wong…. good question…
my current gut feel is that the King is protecting himself from the Prince/Queen by staying in hospital
so, I wonder if Prem is in fear of the King dying, are Sarayud and the rest of the privy council monolithic or will they be in turmoil?
and where does (next commander) Prayuth sit?
will the Prince/Queen wait for the Kings death and then really stir things with up (with Prayuth?) by hunting down reds like the past pogroms against the students/communists, or will they move sooner?
do the rich business (Chang, CP, Banks, royal businesses, etc) and other royals feature or just follow?
0
0
I can’t see any possibility of ‘firm action by the King (or the Prince/Queen) to withdraw support from the “royalist elites”’. This would be political suicide for the royal family. They have too many enemies. I can’t see any reason why they would want to cut off their allies. The current regime is the best they can hope for to protect their political and economic interests.
In any case, I think that if you view the history of the King his record is not to withdraw support from but actually to reward those involved in democratic violations (and even massacres of pro-democracy protesters) in October 1973, October 1976, May 1992, with appointments to the Privy Council, royal cremations, or at the very least the legal protection of an amnesty.
So reforms to bodies like the Privy Council would have to come from outside, not inside royalist circles.
One “minimalist” idea would be for Puea Thai go to the next election on a platform (among other things) to reform the Privy Council – along the lines of demanding that members of the Council be approved by the parliament (the “maximalist” idea – unrealistic right now – would be to abolish the Council altogether). It could also be proposed that members of the Council be banned from being on advisory boards of companies or public organizations; banned from making public comments on political matters; banned from being awarded honorary degrees by universities seeking to curry favour; etc.
If Puea Thai did well at the election (assuming the party is not banned by the courts again) it would be politically quite difficult for the monarchy to resist such popular pressure to reform the Privy Council.
The long term aim has to be to democratize the monarchy. I think it is possible to discuss these issues publicly without violating lese majeste and without calling for a republic. With a new reign not too far away such reforms really ought to be publicly discussed, in a calm and reasoned way, by politicians and especially the academics. The Privy Council’s reputation now is so tawdry it would be a good time to start. Perhaps the Royal Thai Embassy in London could organize a panel discussion?
Re. factionalism in the military, I just don’t have any inside information. But I can’t think of any prominent military figure in Thailand with recognizeably democratic aspirations.
0
0
Aladdin:
The long term aim has to be to democratize the monarchy. I think it is possible to discuss these issues publicly without violating lese majeste and without calling for a republic.
See my eight-point proposal for the reform of the monarchy (sorry in Thai only):
http://sameskyboard.com/index.php?showtopic=41941
I’d have liked to provide detailed argumentation for each points in the proposal, except for the lack of time on my part at the moment. For now, however, my aim is to stimulate a discussion in this direction.
See also my direct suggestion to Chakkrapob Penkae here:
http://sameskyboard.com/index.php?showtopic=42361
0
0
Further to my last post, I think that public criticism of the monarchy’s role is essential right now. The question is how you do it.
Because of lese majeste most critical discussion of the monarchy in Thailand tends to be in the form of innuendo.
Such innuendo has two problems.
First, by definition, innuendo is unclear and can often be misinterpreted. This leads to misunderstanding and misinformation. It is almost impossible to have a rational understanding and debate about the monarchy based on innuendo.
The second problem is that such innuendo is usually couched in social revolutionary or republican terms. You hear it in speeches at Red Shirt rallies, on anti-monarchy web-sites, and on some community radio stations.
Such talk terrifies the royalists who are really left with no choice but to fight politically by any means possible, as they are doing now.
Also, it is unlikely that a sufficiently large section of the pro-Thaksin / Red Shirts supporters desires such revolutionary change.
But if Puea Thai, the Reds, and the other pro-democracy groups, instead of playing the dishonest game of publicly pledging their allegiance to the throne and pretending that the monarchy isn’t a problem, actually came out and said, yes, there is a major problem with the monarchy in Thailand today and that it needs to be addressed, and if you vote for us we will reform it – I believe that this would be an advance towards a solution to the political crisis.
It would also be democratic: clearly informing the electorate – which knows that the monarchy is a problem for Thailand today in so many ways – of what their position is on the monarchy and calling for a democratic mandate at the ballot box to reform it.
I also think that such a stance would be palatable for a section of the royalists – although not all, to be sure. It would reassure them that the monarchy would be retained, albeit in a different form. This would thus at a stroke increase the constituency for reform of the monarchy and thus make such reform possible.
I think that such a position would also be politically sellable. Puea Thai could talk about the need to democratize the monarchy, to “liberate” it from the control of a small group of cronies in the Privy Council and the “network”, of “reclaiming” the monarchy for the people. But at the same time it should have a clear set of proposals of how this would be done, eg. reform of the Privy Council, reform of the lese majeste law, reform of the Crown Property Bureau, etc.
The aim must be to neutralize the monarchy politically. All those institutions of state which currently seek protection, political influence and economic benefit through their links to the monarchy – the military, the bureaucracy, the judiciary, the universities, the media organs – must be made accountable to the people. The monarchy’s links to all these institutions must be severed.
The challenge is to accomplish this in a democratic way – ie. with the support of the majority of the Thai population.
Hence the need for public debate.
0
0
Aj Somsak, my thinking is basically right in line with your series of posts in Fa Dio Kan. I strongly agree in principle with both posts you cite in #18.
For those interested: here is a rough translation of Aj Somsak’s eight-point proposal to modernize the Thai monarchy along the lines of the European monarchies, in the first Fa Dio Kan post he cited:
*******
1. Abolish Article 8 of the current Constitution (“The King shall be enthroned in a position that is sacred and inviolate. No-one may make an accusation against the King in any form whatsoever”) and replace it with an Article similar to that contained in the 27th June 1932 Constitution regarding the establishment of a council to consider wrongdoings of the King;
2. Abolish Article 112 of the Criminal Code (lese majeste);
3. Abolish the position of Privy Councillors;
4. Abolish the 1948 Act regarding the management of the King’s assets;
5. Abolish the one-sided representation of the monarchy in public relations and in the education system;
6. Abolish the practice of the King publicly giving his political opinions (on such occasions as the 4th December birthday speech, the 25th April 2006 “Judicial Revolution” speech, etc.);
7. Abolish royal powers over the Royal Projects;
8. Abolish all practices of offering and receiving royal merit-making donations (“doi sadet phraratchakuson”).
******
I will look forward to reading your “detailed argumentation” about these proposals, when you have time…
0
0
Aladdin and Somsak have got down to the key to Thailand’s political problems, interference in politics by the monarchy. Unfortunately, the problem is not easy to solve with legislation, since the Thai people’s socially underdeveloped state leaves them more inclined to obey men than they are to obey laws. This applies to the villager living and working in the thrall of the local mafia boss, as it does to the courtier grovelling on the palace floor. Criminal laws are ineffective in the first case, as constitutions are in the second. Progress from a political system like a troupe of monkeys with its alpha male and alpha female, towards the rule of law that prevails in a literate community, is inevitable but slow. Reform of the education system is fundamental. Even playing football rather than cutting each other’s throats teaches people to compete according to rules. 1932 and 1997 were too soon, but eventually the scales will swing, and the rule of laws will prevail over tyranny.
0
0
It’s pipe dream hoping that a mainstream party with nearly 200 MPs desperately searching for alliances to form the government would take on such controversial agenda.
Some socialist parties should be far more receptive audience, why not start with them and see how far it goes? Of course they can hardly win any parliamentary seats, but that would be more realistic than hoping to ride on PTP electoral success.
0
0
We are not talking about socialism, StanG, we are talking about the kind of reforms that began in England in 1688, and were complete by 1835, the last time a British monarch refused to accept a Prime Minister with a popular mandate. That Prime minister (Lord Melbourne) went to the people again, and the King gave in.
0
0
StanG – to clarify: my understanding from the threads on Fa Dio Kan is that Somsak’s proposal (trans. in #21) is for academic debate, not an agenda for Puea Thai to take to the election.
0
0
Aladdin and ajarn Somsak I appreciate the amount of thought
applied to this important topic but I haven’t seen any mention of
the role of the king as defender of religion in Thailand. Or more accurately his intense relationship with the main religion. It would be pertinent to see that an unpicking of this death embrace should be included in your proposals. If I missed references to it on that lengthy discussion you inspired on р╕Яр╣Йр╕▓р╣Ар╕Фр╕╡р╕вр╕зр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щ ajarn Somsak then the error is mine and I plead guilty to lazyness.
0
0
laoguy – I’m not sure by your post if you meant that the role of the King as defender of religion should be abolished.
I think that this is more or less a republican agenda and therefore unrealistic, at least in the short to medium term. It would be extremely difficult to discuss publicly, and counter-productive to raise as a political agenda, in my view.
(If you mean the democratization of the Sangha, I agree that this is desirable, but it would occur of its own accord if the monarchy had been neutralized politically along the lines discussed above).
The gist of what Somsak was arguing, and I agree with him, is that there are proposals for the modernization and democratization of the monarchy that can be talked about now in public, at least in academic forums, without incurring lese majeste.
This debate ought to start to happen now, in blogs, seminars, conferences, even newspaper columns – and especially in those forums outside of Thailand where scholars are much freer to express their views.
I think if you look at public debate about Thai politics over the last 3-4 years there has been a lot of progress. There is a much greater understanding of the monarchy’s political role and the problem that it poses for democracy in Thailand. I think that a result of this debate is that there is a large and growing constituency that believes that the monarchy must be reformed. Reform of the Privy Council, lese majeste, and maybe even the Crown Property Bureau, are issues which can be discussed without provoking accusations that one is calling for an “overthrow of the monarchy”.
The problem is that there isn’t enough rational debate and concrete proposals being put forward. Most comment tends to be in the form of commentary or analysis, or else is adversarial, which means that it is very difficult to get reform of the monarchy onto the political agenda.
I realize that this is a difficult thing to do and would not happen easily. I think it is as a long term project.
0
0
Aladdin, thank you for clarifying your thoughts on this issue. I am not sure that creating a separation between monarch and buddhism automatically implies republicanism. I’ve met so many buddhists who were quite able to defend intellectually their position without the assistance of a self appointed security service.
Although you are probably correct in assuming that a long term implementation of some of your proposed democratic reforms would eventually lead to reevaluation of the relationship between the royal family and and religion.
0
0
Jakraphop Phenkhae’s response to Somsak’s comments about the limitations of discussing the monarchy in a “metaphorical” manner (because of lese majeste) – which he linked in his post #19 above – may be of interest to readers who have followed this thread.
Jakraphop’s reply was published in Thai Red News and has been reproduced in Khon Dio Kan / We Are All Human (the old Fa Dio Kan webboard) at http://weareallhuman.net/index.php?showtopic=42703 (scroll down to post #16)
This line was particularly interesting and germaine to this thread: “р╕Ьр╕бр╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕кр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕вр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Бр╕Чр╣Йр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕З р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕зр╕┤р╕Юр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╣Мр╕кр╕Цр╕▓р╕Ър╕▒р╕Щр╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣Мр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕зр╕┤р╕Кр╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕г р╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Зр╕Ир╕▒р╕З р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕кр╕▓р╕Шр╕▓р╕гр╕Ур╕░р╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щ р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╣Др╕Ыр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕нр╕╡р╕Бр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕з “
0
0
[…] than concentrate on everything that was said at this event, I want to concentrate on what Duncan McCargo said and […]
0
0