New Mandala has received the following statement from Dr Patrick Jory who is based at the National University of Singapore. A full version of the statement, complete with detailed footnotes is available here: Jory statement on SOAS seminar.
A Statement of Concern Regarding SOAS’s Hosting of the Seminar, “Thailand under CEO Thaksin”, Scheduled for October 7, 2006.
On October 7 2006, only weeks after the royalist coup d’état dismissed the democratically elected government in Thailand, the Department of the Languages and Cultures of South East Asia and the Islands and the Centre of South East Asian Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) will hold a seminar titled, “Thailand under CEO Thaksin”. It will be the first seminar about Thailand staged at SOAS following the coup, and it is reported to have been rescheduled in response to the coup. Speakers will include the owner of the anti-Thaksin newspaper, The Manager, and leader of the “People’s Alliance for Democracy”, Sondhi Limthongkul; and another staunch critic of Thaksin, Senator Kraisak Choonhavan. Thailand’s The Nation newspaper reported that the seminar will be attended by a “Member of the Thai Royal Family”. Former PM Thaksin, who is currently in London apparently in exile, has not been invited, nor have any speakers representing the former government.
I wish to express my disappointment that an academic institution as internationally prominent in the study of Asian societies as SOAS has apparently allowed itself to be used in a politically partisan way by leaders of the anti-Thaksin political movement, only weeks after the objective of this movement has been achieved in the worst possible way, a coup d’état. At the very least, if the seminar is to be held in the spirit of free, rational inquiry and debate, one should ensure that there is a representative of the former government of similar standing to the other speakers in attendance at this seminar. I am concerned that SOAS is being used to lend its considerable intellectual authority to political supporters of the coup. This concern was heightened when I learnt that Mr. Sondhi – who since March has been calling on the King to dismiss Thaksin and appoint a new Prime Minster – has been promoting the seminar heavily on his cable TV station, ASTV.
In addition to the absence of representatives of the deposed government, as the Southeast Asia experts at SOAS must surely be aware, the attendance of a member of the Thai royal family at this seminar will ensure that any discussion by Thai participants in the seminar of the key role of the monarchy in legitimizing the coup d’état will be effectively (though subtly) forbidden. In Thailand criticism of the monarchy under the lèse majesté law is punishable with up to 15 years in prison, and has in fact been a violation of the many versions of the Constitution since 1932. The key to understanding the crisis in Thailand since late last year is the conflict between the Thaksin government and the monarchy, yet in Thailand debate about the monarchy’s political role is almost impossible. An issue of an academic journal devoted to a discussion of the monarchy has been banned and the editor formally charged with the offense of lèse majesté. A popular academic website that hosted a lively discussion of the monarchy was closed down by its internet service provider. A controversial book on the monarchy by a foreign journalist has also been banned and access to the page advertising the book on the Yale University Press and Amazon websites has been blocked. While former Prime Minister Thaksin was criticised relentlessly by the print media and academics over the past year, no such discussion has been possible about the monarchy’s role, despite its political interventions in the democratic process on numerous occasions this year.
The coup group, calling itself (in Thai) the “Council for Democratic Reform with the Great King as Head of State”, has also appealed to the foreign media to avoid any association of the monarchy with the coup. Yet one of the main topics for discussion on Thai websites is the role of the Chairman of the Privy Council and the King’s closest advisor, Gen. Prem Tinasulanond, in approving, if not instigating the coup. Today (30 September) a member of the King’s Privy Council and a former Army Commander, Gen. Surayudh Chulanond, has been appointed Prime Minister. If SOAS intends to host a seminar assessing the rule of former Prime Minister Thaksin then in the interests of intellectual freedom there should be a fully free discussion of the role of forces close to the monarchy in destabilizing his government over the past year and indeed in carrying out the coup. This will not be the possible if the discussion is effectively censored by the presence of a member of the royal family.
As I write this letter, one of the best-known forums for academic discussion about the coup, Midnight University, has been blocked by the Thai Information Communications Ministry. Other web-boards are practicing a high degree of self-censorship (although on many of these websites there is great anger at the coup and the coup plotters). The mass media is fully controlled by the military junta. Four members of the Cabinet remain under arrest. Officers in the Armed Forces and the Police Forces appointed by the former democratically elected government are being purged and replaced by officers loyal to the coup group. Activities by political parties are forbidden.
The fact that the coup was carried out less than two months before planned national elections was precisely because the coup group refused to allow the Thai people decide their political future by choosing their own government. In hosting this seminar I am concerned that SOAS may be seen to be giving moral and intellectual legitimacy to the same forces that support this disenfranchising of the Thai people, because the effect of the seminar, produced by its theme, its invited speakers, and the presence of a member of the Thai royal family, will be to discredit the Thaksin government in order to justify the coup. At the very moment when criticism of the coup makers is heavily censored in Thailand, it is extremely disappointing that an institution of the standing of SOAS appears to be willing to hold a one-sided seminar that will give international academic recognition to two of the strongest supporters of the undemocratic overthrow of the Thaksin government.
Dr. Patrick Jory
Visiting Research Fellow
Asia Research Institute
National University of Singapore
35 responses so far ↓
1 Vichai N // Oct 4, 2006 at 1:46 am
Yup – - no need to attend such a one-sided seminar. I would not.
But Dr. Jory I wonder if as a visiting Fellow you are allowed to criticize Singapore’s one-party one-family rule?
2 Patrick Jory // Oct 4, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Of course not. The point being…?
3 Kee Juy Soon // Oct 4, 2006 at 4:53 pm
The article is well written
4 Vichai N // Oct 4, 2006 at 11:43 pm
Dr. Jory you quickly condemn SOAS’ Seminar because you felt it will be too one-sided against Thaksin. What about Singapore’s political system that has been for too long too obliquely one-sided the LEE way? Where is your condemnation at your own backyard?
5 Patrick Jory // Oct 5, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Thanks Mr. Vichai. You are right, of course. But I am not a specialist on Singapore. If you are then I encourage you to make a similar statement – but based on a good understanding of Singapore.
6 Vichai N // Oct 5, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Not a specialist on Singapore Dr. Jory? Or one of those monkeys who ’see no evil’ ’sense no evil’ and ‘hear no evil’ from his patron.
I am no specialist in Singapore myself Dr. Jory, but I think I have read enough. After all this whole website, if i may make a quick judgment based on my superficial visits, appear to be particularly anti-dynasties, is it not? I could be wrong, of course, but there is a distinctice sulphuric aroma in this website that is just not quite right . . . . Usually my instincts are right Dr. Jory.
7 Patrick Jory // Oct 6, 2006 at 10:31 pm
If your instincts are right then I guess I must be a monkey.
About this website I would say it is pro-democratic, rather than anti-dynasty, but if you think about it, it amounts to the same thing. One can’t have one without the other because dynasties never submit themselves to the rule of the people, as we just saw in Thailand.
I was thinking of you when I read today’s Asia Sentinel, which contains a long critical article on Singapore (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=208&Itemid=35). I think you would be very excited to read it. So maybe I won’t have to undertake this task after all.
8 anonymous // Oct 7, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Dr. Jory,
Where can I read the profile on your academic background? At the moment I am beginning to read a tranlated version (in Thai) of your work about “Melayu Patani” to “Muslim”: The Specter of Ethnic Identity in Southern Thailand. The topic sounds very interesting.
Can you provide me with an English version? Thank you.
9 New Mandala » SOAS Discussion on the Thai Coup // Oct 9, 2006 at 10:05 pm
[...] On the afternoon of Saturday, 8 October 2006, New Mandala attended the School of Oriental and African Studies seminar titled “Thailand under CEO Thaksin”. Some controversy emerged regarding the format of this event. Regular New Mandala contributor, Dr Patrick Jory, had earlier voiced some concerns regarding its structure and speakers. The Nation carried a strange article before the seminar which helps to put it in context. [...]
10 Rebecca Ryan // Oct 9, 2006 at 11:54 pm
Dr. Jory, the concerns expressed in your article are well put and necessary, however, I would like to make a clarification on your point that because a member of the Thai royal family was present at the event, the speakers/audience were hindered in discussing the role of the monarchy in Thailand’s current political situation. The only member of Thai royalty present on Saturday’s discussion round was Hugo Levy (aka Hugo Chakrabongse)- a thai performer and song writer who is not part of the immediate royal family. From my understanding, his father is British and his mother, who is a quarter Thai and daughter of a Prince, holds the (minor) noble title Mom Rajawongse. Hugo is not recognised as part of the monarchy. More importantly, he is well respected in Thailand for his very impartial political and social views.
Although the topic of monarchy reform was discussed by both speakers (albeit at no great detail) I do not believe that this was because of Hugo’s presence.
Just wanted to add my two cents.
Regards,
11 Vichai N // Oct 10, 2006 at 1:36 am
Dr. Patrick Jory,
I think you are paid hand of Thaksin Shinawatra to malign the Thai monarchy. Every poster in this website suggests malice in the intent and slant of NEW MANDALA.
I’d rather you come out clean and rename your website: Thaksin Laments or something to that effect.
12 Apichart T. // Oct 10, 2006 at 4:45 am
Hugo Chakrabongse! You’ve got to be kidding. He did not even make it as a singer nor an actor. Another badly researched seminar.
13 SOAS and the coup « บันทึกการปล้นอำนาจอธิปไตยของปวงชนชาวไทย // Oct 10, 2006 at 5:00 am
[...] SOAS and the coup [...]
14 Thai Brave heart // Oct 10, 2006 at 7:09 am
Now in Thai we have Demo-Crazy By Gun and roses
We just wait for a time to Shut in the Street “Free dom”
15 nganadeeleg // Oct 10, 2006 at 9:16 am
Excellent article here http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/10Oct2006_news18.php
Democracy or coup – who cares it’s still gets the same results:
The following quote pus things into perspective:
‘True democracy remains almost as elusive as true socialism, and in much of the ”free” world what commonly passes for democracy is political theatre in which charismatic actors serve up the status quo, or a minor variant thereof, keeping vested interests and big business happy while taking turns at the helm.’
16 Ant // Oct 10, 2006 at 9:58 am
I think this obsession with the Gun’s and Roses dimension of the coup is more than yet another Thai novel twist to reality such as, “democrazy” and the sense of achievement as if the Guiness book of world cultural records was waiting with baited breath for another “innovation” from Thailand, is a bit tired and tedious.
It is an exoticisation of a common sense reponse of a population to a highly effective exercise of lethal power (Tanks) in a civilian setting.. Do people expect the unarmed civillians to rise up and get shot and run over. The coup of 1991 was bloodless it was the counter coup (popular uprising) that saw blood shed on the streets and that occurred a year later when power wasn’t returned to the people and after months of organised protests. 76 was similarly a back lash to 73 and with the kings support…roses and water offerings to soldiers now could very well be treated with the same contempt they were in 1992. Really what else could the population of Bangkok do when unannounced they are confronted with the sudden appearance of Tanks that are intent on regime change? I think the roses signify a symbol that the civilians don’t want any trouble (as oppossed to a welcome or sign of solidarity) and represent supplication, the metaphorical roll over and play dead…for now.
The coup was orchestrated incredibly effectively, people couldn’t do anything else but hope to secure their own safety when confronted with their own military who have a sustained record of killing their own in regime change situations.
Its not crazy its pragmatic.
17 pink // Oct 10, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Mr. Jory and Mr. Thaksin both have tried to suppress the voices of those who think differently from them. This is censorship!
18 screwed-up thai // Oct 10, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Sodhi & Kaisak:
nothing but rubbish from thailand.
hugo:
don’t even mention a royal family relationship. it is such a disgrace and he is nothing and a nobody here!
SOSC:
u r being used without doing more homework. so superficial.
thailand, my motherland:
the boy that never seems to grow up.
thailand:
it will have its biggest tsunami within the next 20 years. mark my word. no one is eternal!! grow up, those old men! and the old fat ladies!
19 another voice from thiland // Oct 10, 2006 at 5:22 pm
I agree with you that it is not appropriate for SOAS to hold such a one-sided seminar.
If you want to criticize SOAS please do so but don’t you bring the royal into this and present only half of the story.
What you are doing is no different than SOAS. one-sided article.
There was a mess in thailand but you what? we can take care of ourself. and only time will tell.
thank you for your concern.
20 another voice from thiland // Oct 10, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Oh and just so you know. Thailand currently faces flood problem. While people having troblems not only the king give advise, provide important information like satellite image, now he just asked government’s official to direct the water to flood HIS OWN land so his people will suffer less.
That tells what kind of person our king is. and how much we hate when people criticize the king, even in the slightest way.
FYI most people who work closly for the king, like Gen pram, Gen Sonthi or Surayuth share similar personality with him.
21 another voice from thiland // Oct 10, 2006 at 6:55 pm
In world where most people are selfish. only care about their own wealth. Democracy serve the best.
but democracy might not always be the best answer.
Different people have different ways of solving problem.
I am sure we will be back on democracy in a year, (ealier than US pulling their troops out of Iraq.)
When you got cancer you need strong medicine to cure the disease. You might suffer side effect like losing hair but who care? and it doesn’t matter what method we use, as long as life is saved.
I know you don’t see how our country was in greate danger but believe me, it was. but that time before coup, it’s not interesting enough to turn attention to isn’t it.
All we ask for here is nothing other than time and respect.
I hope you understand.
22 boonchuay // Oct 10, 2006 at 7:34 pm
As long as,we are concerned,it doesn’t matter wherever we are on this earth, the comment can be done pratically,so that,I agree with Dr,Pattick Jory whether the the SOAS or the entire international seminars should be prohibited to be held in all unerected government countries that ruled by the Coup d’ tat such as Thailand that being ruled by the minions of the dull military gangsters.If this seminar is transpired in Thailand,of course,Mr,Taksin must be completely condemned and trampled alone without self protection../ I remain..
23 Rebecca Ryan // Oct 11, 2006 at 1:48 am
To my understanding there were no other persons connected to Thai royalty at the SOAS dicussion last Saturday. Andrew Walker was there and a few others on this forum- perhaps they recognized someone? Which royal family member was Dr. Jory referring to?
24 Bangkok Pundit // Oct 11, 2006 at 4:55 am
Rebecca
The Nation had reported a member of the Royal Family would be in attendance without specifying who. Dr Jory cited The Nation’s article in his statement. As you have already said this only turned out to be Hugo.
25 Andrew Walker // Oct 11, 2006 at 5:31 am
And a \”gay London\” website reported that perhaps that \”a Thai royal\” really meant \”a Thai queen.\” No shortage of them in London!
26 bugged // Oct 11, 2006 at 5:55 am
Andrew,
Oh boy, be careful not to touch that old taboo … shhh … Now, there are many ways of interpreting your little poem. One starting with this question: Are you (Andrew Walker) a gay queen? There are a lot like you (Andrew Walker the gay queen) in London too. The other ways of interpreting the poem … we’ll leave that to your imagination … don’t you think? I thought you hold a PhD? So sad that a PhD would make this comment in his own forum and get away with it. I’m really impress with your great intelligent short comment! How low can you really get, anyway?
27 Rebecca Ryan // Oct 12, 2006 at 1:40 am
Bangkok Pundit
In that case Dr. Jory should conduct better research before making any kind of comment. Much of the logic in his article was based around the lese majeste rule inhibiting earnst discussion. I am trying to follow the academic insights in to thailand’s political situation on this page but am finding it hard to take many opinions seriously (Dr. Jory, Walker and NF) because they seem to lack certain basic understandings of thailand needed to make an informed academic opinion. I am not trying to discredit- just that I think they are on the right track but need to do more research about Thailand to balance their views.
28 A 19 year old Thai // Oct 12, 2006 at 5:48 am
If you want to criticize SOAS please do so but don’t bring the royal family into this. Also, although you accuse SOAS of being one sided, your article which you implied as fair is clearly a one-sided attack of good people whom you dont even truly know – why dont you send your letter directly to the people you criticised to give them a chance to defend themselves?
Also you should know that, Thailand currently faces flood problem (because the Thaksin administration was severely behind in flood prevention preparation over the past 5 years). So while people are suffering from Thaksin’s failure not only does the king give advise, provide important information like satellite image, he also asked government’s official to direct the water to flood HIS OWN land so his people will suffer less. This is only one example of the King’s heartfelt concern for the people – perhaps you may now begin to understand why even the United Nations presented the King with the “Life Time Development Award”. To my understanding, Rama 9 is the first and only person to have received this award. A superficial researcher like you will never understand the love we have for our King.
We love the King on our own free will and we also -again from our own free will- hate when people criticize the king, even in the slightest way. Also most people who work closely for the king, like Gen prem, Gen Sonthi and Surayuth share similar personality with him. If you truly understood Thailand, if you had just a fraction of knowledge of Thaksin’s corruption, anti-human rights power consolidating tactics and money politics then you would not have written such a poorly researched narrow perspective letter.
If it wasnt for the coup there would have been bloodshed on the night of 20/9. Again, if you have done your research you would have known why the military had to act. You should also know that Thais support the coup not because we are undemocratic but because democracy was manipulated and undermined by Thaksin to the extent that it cannot be saved via the mechanisms made defunct by Thaksin.
When termites have eaten away virtually all the foundation of the house, some people attached too textbook idealism may think that the house can still be fixed and that the termites will run away by themselves, but people who care about having a strong shelter to live in and pass on to their children will be more pragmatic and realise that as much as we dont want to destroy the house, the house has already been damaged beyond repair – we need to clear away the termite infested house inorder to build a new one. We support the coup because we love democracy.
Dr Patrick, I suspect you are afraid of getting sued by your own government so you can only criticise your own government through articles other people write, but you should know that your country will only get worse unless you rid yourself of your fear and criticise your government. I think as a citizen of your own country, you will understand the situation in your country better and be able to write more valid criticisms- it will bode better for your academic career (unless of cos you are sued or arrested by your own government). In any case, you do know not enough about Thailand to even qualify for an attack on our King. As a Buddhist nation, we forgive your naivity and understand why you are indirectly forced to agree with your government stance and have to write this letter even though it is not even your country or your business. I understand that your government stand to lose alot with the removal of Thaksin. I know why you and your country have to criticise.. I pity you. You have alot to learn from us Thais.
29 Defend King // Oct 12, 2006 at 3:21 pm
How dare you question the genius of the King of Thailand!
He is in the Gueness Book of world records for having the most honorary PhDs in the world. How many PhDs do *you* have, Mr. Jory?
30 A 19 year old Thai // Oct 12, 2006 at 4:05 pm
You claim to have read the thai constitutions. Well I doubt that you had because if you did you would have realised tha its illegal for anyone to criticse or harm the King. Thais and the international community knows about this clause and we accepted and voted for it to be part of our constitution. What you are saying is legally wrong.
On the other hand, it is perfectly legal to criticise the prime minister. He wanted power thats why he came into politics so we have the right to critcise or condemn him. But the King is different, the institution has always been there, therefore the King reserve the right not to be scrutinized like politicians.
Lastly, if you love your country, wouldn’t critiise your PM if he was corrupt, if he sold security assests like telecommunication away to foreign governments, if he committed extrajudicial killings and other abuse of rights, if he negotiated with foreign country about giving up territorial rights in exchange for non-territorial benefits? Wouldnt you criticise your PM? You may be afraid to do it, but we Thais are not.
Go do your research before you even decide to slander.
31 Ant // Oct 12, 2006 at 11:08 pm
You accepted and voted for the king to be above criticism after the other King (was it number 7?) so wisely decided to give the people democracy, right?
32 19 year old Thai // Oct 13, 2006 at 2:30 am
Yes Ant, we accepted and voted to place the king above criticism because to us the king is our father. If you are an Asian you would understand why Asians love, respect and never harm their fathers. All thais (with some exception of people like Thaksin) love the king as if he is our father. We are not happy when foreigners think they can slander our father. Some people may like people to criticise their fathers but we Thais (Asians included) dont like it.
33 New Mandala » Where to for Thai Studies? // Oct 15, 2006 at 2:40 am
[...] For all of the 100,000s of words that have been written and spoken about Thai politics over the past month, there is obviously much disagreement among well-meaning observers. At a time of crisis, this is healthy, I am sure. These divisions will, for the foreseeable future, probably mean that the academic study of Thailand occupies a divided landscape. New Mandala has, of course, contributed, in its own very small way, to this situation. In the weeks after the coup such division was unavoidable. And differences of opinion and interpretation still run the full gamut of possibilities. [...]
34 SOAS in the headlines // Dec 7, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Student triumphs in free speech battle
A Muslim student has finally won his right to free speech after his former university principle issued a public apology and conceded defeat.
In an embarrassing u-turn, Ex-SOAS director Professor Colin Bundy said he sincerely regretted publishing on the SOAS website news that student Nasser Amin had been “reprimanded” for writing an article on the Palestine issue.
The statement dated November 6th read: “Professor Bundy, the immediate past Director and Principal, sincerely regrets, in the context of allegations of anti-Semitism at SOAS, the reference on the School’s website to the author of the article entitled ‘When only violence will do’ in the Spring 2005 issue of the SOAS SU ‘Spirit’ Magazine. He further regrets the use of the word ‘reprimand’, which he acknowledges
was inappropriate.”
The article received international attention when published in the spring of last year in which Amin defended the Palestinians’ controversial right to violent resistance against illegal Israeli occupation.
However, what followed was a torrent of criticism as Amin was accused of anti-Semitism and as a supporter of Palestinian terrorism, allegations he has vehemently denied as false.
Journalist Melanie Phillips went so far as to call on the police to investigate the article, while David Winnick asked in the House of Commons whether Amin had transgressed the law.
Yet besides suffering racial abuse from other students, he said the long ordeal not only led to a disruption of his studies, but also left him suffering from depression.
Following two months of sustained pressure, Bundy publicly announced he had reprimanded Amin, a claim his lawyers denied and who in the summer 2005 threatened the School with the possibility of legal action if a retraction was not made and Amin’s good name not cleared.
The Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), who taken up the right to defend Amin’s freedom of speech, said that although no formal sanction or reprimand was ever applied, “Professor Bundy secretly wrote to ministers in the Home Office and Department for Education, as well as local MP Frank Dobson, saying that Amin had been reprimanded over the article”.
But the long running dispute was suddenly brought to an end when Bundy’s apologetic reversal finally recognised Amin’s right to free speech.
“His intention had merely been to discuss a difficult and controversial issue within the context of the School’s Freedom of Expression policy,” the statement read.
It continued: “Both Mr Amin and Professor Bundy recognise the important contribution of all races, religions and faiths to the life of the School and the value of tolerance and diversity in our multicultural society.”
Following the public apology, Amin said he was pleased both parties had resolved the dispute in a “highly satisfactory” way and declared the matter closed.
“I am now able to concentrate my attention on my academic activities. I hope that lessons have been learnt and that no student will have to go through a similar ordeal for simply expressing opinions about topical issues which many people in wider society also have views on.
“I would like to thank all those people who have supported me through what has been a very difficult time for both myself and my family. In particular, I take this opportunity to thank the Islamic Human Rights Commission, MPACUK, Islam Channel and The Muslim Weekly, amongst others,” he said.
http://english.pnn.ps/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1087&Itemid=31
35 New Mandala » Siam Rumoured: The Thongchai Lecture in London // Dec 15, 2006 at 10:23 am
[...] Regular New Mandala readers will recall that the October SOAS event was publicly condemned by Singapore based Thai Studies specialist Dr Patrick Jory. Jory, and other critics of SOAS’ initial post-coup offering, may be partly sated by SOAS’ collaboration in this most recent Thai Studies event. As my account of Thongchai’s lecture should make clear, a largely well-received case was made against 19 September style Royally-sponsored, anti-democratic interventions. [...]
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.