On the afternoon of Saturday, 8 October 2006, New Mandala attended the School of Oriental and African Studies seminar titled “Thailand under CEO Thaksin”. Last week, there was, of course, some controversy regarding the format of this event. Regular New Mandala contributor, Dr Patrick Jory, had earlier voiced some concerns about its structure and speakers. The Nation carried an article before the seminar which helps to put Jory’s comments in some context.
The forum, chaired by new SOAS politics lecturer, Dr Jason Abbott, heard major contributions from Senator Kraisak Choonhavan and Sondhi Limthongkul. They are both prominent anti-Thaksin campaigners. Over 100 people crammed the main room while others watched a video feed that was broadcasted to another room and on the Internet. The video footage of the event is now available online. For Sondhi’s perspective on Saturday’s events, The Manager website (which he owns) is carrying a number of descriptive Thai-language articles, with pictures.
Dr Rachel Harrison, Senior Lecturer in Thai Cultural Studies at SOAS, introduced Saturday’s session and described it as an “initial move towards opening up debate and discussion”. She re-emphasised this point by describing SOAS plans to host more debates and seminars on Thailand’s current political situation. Saturday’s seminar was, she said, “an opening session in an ongoing debate”. Over the next week, and in this spirit of debate, New Mandala will carry a series of posts that highlight key aspects of the seminar. In our view, Saturday’s noteworthy discussions of the monarchy, rural politics and Thaksin’s mis-deeds deserve a wider audience and further interpretation and analysis.
Very briefly, Saturday’s discussion provided a cogent and usually well-informed summary of the Thaksin administration’s many faults. Particular emphasis was, quite rightly, given to the extrajudicial killings which marred Thaksin’s widely publicised “War on Drugs”. In the words of a number of speakers, these excesses were the work of the “Thaksin regime”. Senator Kraisak even referred to Thaksin as the “so-called democratically elected Prime Minister”. Unsurprisingly, Kraisak and Sondhi bitterly attacked Thaksin and his “regime”, but also expressed sincere and critical concern that the coup carries its own risks for the Thai polity.
Sondhi argued that, last month, there were no political options except for the coup. He said he was “relieved” but “worried” by the recent military intervention. In general, he blamed the lack of accompanying institutions for the poor performance of democracy in Thailand. He particularly highlighted the lack of political education among rural people, and the poor, as the key problem for Thailand’s democratic prospects.
His basic agenda, as outlined in response to a number of forceful questions, is to create an urban vanguard that can educate the masses and lead to greater political reform. Crucially, there is little sense of rural voter agency in his comments. Under current conditions, he is wary of power that comes from a rural base. He described the main “problem of Thai democracy [as] that of information”.
Andrew and I will be putting together thematic posts on a number of aspects of the seminar. If you were there, or just have comments that you would like to express on this seminar, then please wade in to the debate.
All points of view are very welcome.
Is there any evidence that Sondhi spoke up about the extrajudicial killings of more than 2,000 people at the time, or even during the year, that they took place (early 2003). There was very little outrage in Thailand about this at the time, and it is somewhat hypocritical for it to be cited now to justify having a coup to oust Thaksin. Are there open demands that the junta investigate and prosecute these? What does Kraisak now expect?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
what u did in the forum is rather a poor service to your socalled higher institution. u basically got nothing but a group of lies and losers presenting fabricated stories. i feel pityful for all of u.
maybe, a typical rubbish british institution searching nothing but rubbish english!
shame on u.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Sondhi did not speak up against the killings until 2004, when he had a falling out with Thaksin after Thaksin fired Viroj Nualkhair for forgiving so many bad loans to Sondhi and others. I recall that in late 2003-early 2004, Sondhi still called Thaksin “Thailand’s best Prime Minister.”
The public incredibly supportive of the drug war. A survey found that over 90% of the population supported the strong-arm approach. In his annual speach, even the King said the war on drugs was a good thing.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Patiwat – The King certainly worried that the ya ba trade was getting very visibly rampant at that time and called on Thaksin’s government to take action. But the King was also publicly dismayed at Thaksin’s extrajudicial rampage and asked Thaksin to investigate/arrest the human rights abuses. Remember?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
The first thing we must do as scholars is assess the status of the object which we are to study. In this case it appears to be a seminar, and your website is treating it like an academic seminar, but it was not an academic seminar (anyone who has been in Thai Studies for long enough would be used to the mismatch between the name and the thing). The sole reason for the attendance of Sondhi and Kraisak at this seminar, whether SOAS realized it or not, was political. As I wrote earlier, it was an attempt to whitewash the coup – no doubt accompanied by many earnest statements of “worry” and “concern” about how unfortunate it was that the Thaksin regime had to end in a coup. But it was only a “so-called” democracy anyway, as you note Kraisak saying, implying that, if it was never really democratic then the coup was hardly an overthrow of “democracy” AND, this is the key point, it is acceptable to disenfranchise the Thai population with tanks and guns!
Sondhi and Kraisak are not academics and their objective was not academic. They are both extremely busy and extremely ambitious men. Do you really think they took the time out of their busy schedules to fly half way around the world when the political situation in Thailand was still so fluid and uncertain, to talk to a group of students and academics most of whom they will never see again in their lives for the betterment of British scholarship? to generously and objectively share their knowledge in the public interest? Can’t you see the politics of this seminar? They wanted the SOAS brand on what they had to say, and that’s exactly what they got. For free! Have a look at the long write-ups in Phu Jat Kan. Please, these guys just don’t deserve to be taken seriously for contributing anything to a scholarly understanding of what is going on. As I say, this is part of the process of legitimizing the coup, the new regime and the monarchy that has been underway since 19 September. Do we as academics blindly participate in it? The message that Western academic institutions OUGHT to have been producing is, no matter how bad Thaksin was (and the media was full of criticism of Thaksin over the last year – especially Sondhi’s media – why go over it all again, NOW?) is that it is the people and only the people who have the right to decide their government. To be absolutely consistent, if we truly believed in democratic principles then once we have got off our high moral horse criticizing Thaksin, we should be condemning the king’s endorsement of the coup that has disenfranchised his own people. Even the Western media knows the king at the very least endorsed the coup. We denounce Thaksin, we denounce the military, why aren’t we denouncing the king?! Why wasn’t SOAS denouncing the king?
If SOAS did not realize they were being used by Sondhi and Kraisak, and the forces attempting to whitewash the coup whom they represent, then as a centre specializing in the study of Asian societies they should be harshly criticized for their naivety about what is going on in Thai politics, at the worst possible time. If they did realize it then that is a much more serious matter. Almost 30 years ago to the very day of the seminar, royalist para-militaries slaughtered students at Thammasat University before a coup ushered in a royalist-military regime. Just one day after the anniversary of the 6 October 1976 massacre, SOAS hosts a seminar with two of the leading anti-Thaksin figures who are attempting to whitewash yet another royalist-military coup and overthrow of a democratic regime by their denunciation of the leader of the former elected government. Personally I can hardly find the words to express how I feel about that. My sense of despair is intensified by the apparent obliviousness of many of my Western colleagues to their participation in this whitewash as they join in the scholarly dissection of the former Thaksin government.
I have said enough about SOAS. But why does New Mandala want to continue Sondhi and Kraisak’s debate about Thaksin’s nefariousness brought to us courtesy of the SOAS brand? Why now, when he and his democratically elected government are gone, do you want to go over what has been discussed in the millions of words already, including numerous scholarly books and dozens, if not hundreds of articles? You should know that “kala thesa” is everything. Why in your statement above is there no condemnation in the strongest possible terms of the new illegitimate regime? Why the inconsistency in referring to, as you put it, “Thaksin’s misdeeds” and “the monarchy”? Do you not view the monarchy’s endorsement of the overthrow of a democratic elected government by tanks and guns as a “misdeed”? Why do you continue this fiction (propaganda is the better term) of the “military coup” and not call it by its proper name, a “royalist coup”? Why do you join in this hypocrisy of the constant denunciation of the former democratically elected government, but are silent on the monarchy PRECISELY AT THIS VERY MOMENT WHEN A STRONG STATEMENT IS MOST NEEDED!? I can understand my Thai colleagues’ difficulty on this issue, given the constraints they work under, but not yours. And how on earth can you declare to your readers that “Saturday’s discussion provided a cogent and usually well-informed summary of the Thaksin administration’s many faults” with no-one on the panel representing the former democratically elected government’s position?! What has happened to your academic objectivity?
Finally, how dare Sondhi claim the key problem was “the lack of political education among rural people”, when most Thai academics and Bangkok’s educated class were all but cheering on the tanks! And you honour him with the word “sincere”?! You might accept the political analysis of a corrupt, failed businessman, trying to recoup his huge financial losses by using the monarchy to carry out a vendetta against his one-time business partner, but for me it is utterly appalling that we academics should be handing this man a megaphone to promote his anti-democratic views.
My suggestion is therefore to abandon the appalling example of the SOAS seminar and start a new topic for critique: an analysis of Thailand’s royalist dictatorship. Now then New Mandala, and the ANU at which it is based, would truly be leading the scholarly world of Thai Studies.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Thanks Patrick -
You make some very fair points, and I do see the great value in your comments. As I indicated in this brief report, New Mandala plans to provide more analysis of the SOAS event. Some of this analysis will be critical, and then some.
There were only a handful of audible, critical voices at this “seminar” and – in an effort to give New Mandala readers a balanced account of what happened at SOAS – I may have gone too far towards legitimising the SOAS endeavour. On re-reading what I wrote, some things could be given different emphasis.
We live and learn. More from New Mandala will be appearing soon.
NSF
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I believe it was a ‘patent absurdity’ for academics to hold on to that monomaniacal simplistic idea that the majority vote ‘sufficiently’ defines democracy. Now there are many worldy people who were so deeply educated about this basic majority vote mandate that they permitted themselves to readilybe blinded by Thaksin Shinawatra’s claim that whatever his corruption, whatever his constitutional abuses, and whatever conflict of interest was suggested by that whopping $1.8 billion AmpleRihch-Temasek-Shin affair, only the election should be final judge of his fate. The danger of civil division or worse should be of no concern to Thai people, according to scholars. And any coup that prevented chaos/disorder and bloodshed was of no merit, nor, interest to these scholars of democracy, Dr. Patrick Jory being one among many, among these distinguished scholars.
Do I make sense Dr. Jory?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
The whitewash continues – from today’s Matichon:
นายกฯ นัดทูตทั่วโลกแจงสถานการณ์ประเทศไทย พรุ่งนี้
วันที่ 11 ต.ค. 2549
วันนี้ (11 ต.ค.) ผู้สื่อข่าวรายงานจากทำเนียบรัฐบาล ว่า พล.อ.สุรยุทธ์ จุลานนท์ นายกรัฐมนตรี มีกำหนดจะพบปะกับเอกอัครราชทูตจากประเทศต่างๆ ทั่วโลก ที่ประจำการอยู่ในประเทศไทย วันที่ 12 ต.ค.นี้ เวลา 09.30-16.15 น. ที่ตึกสันติไมตรี ทำเนียบรัฐบาล เพื่อชี้แจงถึงเหตุการณ์การเปลี่ยนแปลงทางการเมืองของไทย ให้ตัวแทนจากประเทศต่างๆ ทั่วโลกรับทราบ โดยจะแบ่งออกเป็นกลุ่ม ตามลำดับ เริ่มจากประเทศอาเซียน 9 ประเทศ ประเทศในทวีปเอเชีย-แอฟริกา 23 ประเทศ ทวีปอเมริกา-แปซิฟิก 11 ประเทศ ทวีปยุโรปและรัสเซีย 25 ประเทศ และองค์การระหว่างประเทศ 19 องค์กร งานดังกล่าวกระทรวงการต่างประเทศ และสำนักเลขาธิการนายกรัฐมนตรีเป็นผู้จัดขึ้น
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Whitewash Dr. Jory? Explain, please…
What a waste of good mind but now so poisoned. Leave Thailand alone. Go back to Perth and condemn your own government. It does not have such a perfect government too, you know. Or do you think that there is nothing to criticized?
You spend many years in studying about Thailand and teach, too, so that you can condemn this nation, people and the royal family? I cannot respect someone like you who have the knowledge that could be valuable contribution to the world at large but chose instead to lash out so many negative words about a country that you came to be a teacher at a university … did many researches and surveys about the nation, and the people. Why then is that you dislike Thailand? Did you brainwash all your Thai students to hate their country too? You are really not very respectable as a scholarly individual and your name will not be remembered, you will go to your grave without grace because you have none. Only the people who agree with you in this forum will lay by your side in the ground with epitaph saying, \”We Are the Disgrace of Our Intellectual Profession\” You don\’t deserve the honor of being a great man of knowledge. Your past works now have become a big lie. Let everyone know that truth before you disgrace yourself even more.
You are probably a two-headed bird, you know that? While being so nice to your Thai friends and colleagues, behind their back you criticized them. Shame on you.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
เหตุการณ์โค่นล้มผ่านไป ขบวนการโค่นล้มจำนวนหนึ่งที่เคยขึ้นเวทีโจมตีขับไล่คุณทักษิณได้ดิบได้ดี โดยเฉพาะกลุ่มก๊วน“พันธมิตรประชาชนเพื่อประชาธิปไตย” ที่มีนายสนธิเป็นแกนนำหลายคนได้รับเชิญไปอยู่บนตำแหน่ง ส.ว.อันทรงเกียรติ บางคนได้รับการคัดเลือกให้เป็นตัวแทนองค์กรอิสระทำหน้าที่ตรวจสอบเพื่อเอาผิดคุณทักษิณและครอบครัว ที่หนักหนาสาหัสที่สุดที่ผมรับไม่ได้นั่นก็คือ บุรุษคาบไปป์ น.ต.ประสงค์ สุ่นศิริ ได้รับการแต่งตั้งให้อยู่บนตำแหน่งประธานกรรมาธิการยกร่างรัฐธรรมนูญ ด้วยวิถีทางระบอบเปรมาธิปไตย (ผมจะไม่มีวันยอมรับรัฐธรรมนูญฉบับนี้เด็ดขาด)
นายสนธิถือโอกาสแห่งชัยชนะนี้ทำการโค่นล้มบุคคลที่ตัวเองไม่ชื่นชอบไม่ว่าจะเป็นพล.ต.อ.โกวิท วัฒนะ หรือหม่อมอุ๋ย โดยเฉพาะหม่อมอุ๋ยหรือ ม.ร.ว.ปรีดิยาธร เทวกุล นั้น เป็นเป้าถูกโจมตีอันมีสาเหตุจากผลประโยชน์และต่างตอบแทนอันสืบเนื่องมาจากการขัดขวางการเข้าดำรงตำแหน่งกรรมการผู้จัดการธนาคารกรุงไทยของนายวิโรจน์ นวลแข ซึ่งเป็นเพื่อนรักของนายสนธิ อันสืบเนื่องมาจากขัดขวางการซื้อหุ้นทีพีไอคืนจากปตท. ของนายประชัย เลี่ยวไพรัตน์ ที่เป็นผู้สนับสนุนการเงินให้กลุ่มพันธมิตรฯ เพื่อโค่นล้มทักษิณ
นายสนธิปรับเปลี่ยนรายการเมืองไทยรายสัปดาห์มาเป็นยามเฝ้าแผ่นดิน (โจรปล้นแผ่น ดิน) เพื่อให้ดูขลังยิ่งขึ้นนั้นเป็นเรื่องที่เข้าใจได้ไม่ยาก เพราะจากกระแสท้าก..ษิณออกไปได้สร้างชื่อให้นายสนธิจนกลายเป็นผู้ทรงอิทธิพลสูงคนหนึ่งในสังคม ด้วยที่นายสนธิมีเชื้อสายเป็นคนจีน จึงกลายเป็นขวัญใจในหมู่มังกรที่หากินกับธุรกิจผิดกฏหมาย จึงอย่าได้แปลกใจว่าทำไมนายสนธิจึงเป็นดารารับเชิญที่มีอันต้องไปเป็นแขกประจำแถวเยาวราช อันเป็นแหล่งที่อุดมสมบูรณ์ไปด้วยสิ่งผิดกฏหมาย ท่านผู้อ่านต้องเข้าใจนะครับว่าธุรกิจนอกระบบเป็นเรื่องผิดกฏหมายดังนั้นจึงหลีกเลี่ยงไม่ได้ต้องมีการจ่ายค่าคุ้มครองจากอดีตที่มีขบวนการอั่งยี่ที่ทำหน้าที่นี้เปลี่ยนมาเป็นขบวนการเสธ.มาเฟีย แต่เวลานี้บรรดาเสธ.ทั้งหลายต่างง่วนอยู่กับการปกป้องรักษาอำนาจ จึงเกิดมีขบวนการสวมรูป
นายสนธิจึงมีอันต้องไปเยาวราชไม่เว้นในแต่ละคืน ซึ่งนอกจากจะทำให้อิ่มท้องด้วยอาหารชั้นดีแล้วยังได้เงินกลับบ้านอย่างเป็นกอบเป็นกำ มันเป็นพฤติกรรมของโจรชัดๆ จะเป็นยามเฝ้าแผ่นดินได้อย่างไร “เลวทรามต่ำช้าสิ้นดี” (ขอดาบนั้นคืนสนองหน่อย) ผมมีกำหนดในใจว่าจะเขียนบทความเพียงสิบตอน แต่ดูเหมือนว่าจะจบไม่ลง เพราะเนื้อที่ส่วนใหญ่ได้ถูกใช้ไปกับวายร้ายแห่งตระกูลลิ้ม ก็เลยจำเป็นต้องขอเขียนต่ออีกหนึ่งตอน เพื่อให้เรื่องราวของเปรมมีความสมบูรณ์ยิ่งขึ้น
อาคม ซิดนี่ย์
arkomsydney@yahoo.com.au
copyright © arkomsydney 2007
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Confused : are you Sondhi employee? or are you Sondhi?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0