Bangkok Pundit – in his continuing efforts to highlight contradictions in the rhetoric surrounding post-coup Thailand – has a nifty little post on Anand Panyarachun’s comments about Western leaders. The way the Adelaide Advertiser has reported the comments, former Prime Minister Anand targets Australia’s leaders who he says are “not Asians yet…[they] have an entirely different mentality – [they] belong to the Western group”.
From this report we learn that he has some generally harsh words for “western leaders – be they American, Australian, New Zealanders” who he says “are uninformed people. They’re ignorant, they’re completely ignorant”.
This is how Anand dismisses Western leaders who have been critical of Thailand’s recent political evolutions. Using this strategy, which could be summed up on a banner – “You don’t understand us” – he tries to delegitimise voices from outside Thailand that offer a critical perspective on the coup and the Surayud regime. His argument – which could so effortlessly infect broader academic discussions of politics, society and economics – might seem convenient right now.
But I don’t see this as a positive approach.
I am just not convinced that this is the best way to show the world that a “better (Thai) kind” of junta is in control. As Bangkok Pundit notes, it doesn’t look like any of the English-language Thai papers have yet picked it up, and I can’t find anything in the Thai-language papers about these comments either.
Are Anand’s comments just not newsworthy?
6 responses so far ↓
1 Erik D // Nov 14, 2006 at 6:47 am
Excellent post, among a series of excellent recent posts! I’m curious to know if you think Anand’s comments are anything more than a simple restatement of supposedly Asian Values. Although his comments appear to allow for a (non-racial) process of assimilation, this assimilation seems to take place precisely in the mental and moral spheres, precisely the location of the Asian Values debate.
2 Bangkok Pundit // Nov 14, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Erik D: I’m curious to know if you think Anand’s comments are anything more than a simple restatement of supposedly Asian Values
From what I have read on the topic, Thailand has not necessarily followed the Singapore “Asian values” approach. However, there is a “Thai values” approach (you could say this is related to the whole “Thainess” debate) which many are fond of as illustrated by National Legislative Assembly president Meechai Ruchupan in yesterday’s Bangkok Post:
“Mr Meechai said he would like to see a “Thai kind of constitution” free of imported ideas that could prove counterproductive for the country.”
I am certainly not opposed to values/culture affecting discussion of rights/constitutional framework for the protection of rights, but it is very easy to label rights as being counterproductive to the country as Meechai does above. I must say that Aung San Suu Kyi gives one of the better critiques on the dangers of such argument. In this journal article (“II. Freedom, Development, and Human Worth” Journal of Democracy – Volume 6, Number 2, April 1995, pp. 11-19), she wrote:
“It is claimed, usually without adequate evidence, that democratic values and human rights run counter to the national culture, and therefore to be beneficial they need to be modified–perhaps to the extent that they are barely recognizable.
The “national culture” can become a bizarre graft of carefully selected historical incidents and distorted social values intended to justify the policies and actions of those in power.”
The excerpts are from pages 13-14.
Nick: Thanks for the plug.
Are Anand’s comments just not newsworthy?
Whenever Anand spoke previously and was critical of Thaksin, his comments were deemed newsworthy then. I didn’t expect all the papers to highlight his comments and give them prominent coverage, but they were certainly worthy of at least a small news article.
3 patiwat // Nov 14, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Are Anand’s comments just not newsworthy?
He was, and probably continues to be, Thailand’s most influential public intellectual. See here. His ideas have massive credibility among the Thai people.
Of course, here’s what I think about Anand and the junta: “They’re not democratic yet… they have an entirely different mentality – they belong to the Asian group.”
“They believe that whenever there is a coup things would be alright again. There would be no bloodshed or discontent. It would be followed by this or that … and not many realize that the 1991 coup resulted in Bloody May, or the 1985 coup resulted in dozens dead and injured, or the 1977 coup was an excuse for the 6 October Massacre.
“It’s politically correct – you know the attitude – to say that ‘coup d’etat is good’. Practically, some diplomats understood, but nobody listened to them.”
“Asian leaders – be they Burmese, Thai, Singaporean, or Chinese are uninformed people. They’re ignorant, they’re completely ignorant”.
4 Huh ? // Nov 14, 2006 at 11:53 pm
Didn’t Anand speak out against the coup at first, then changed his tune ?
5 Bystander // Nov 15, 2006 at 3:39 am
Needless to say, the prestige and credibility of Western Democracy in various democratizing corners of the world has taken a big hit since the Iraq War. Before, people may not have a full understanding of Democracy but at least they have a tangible level of faith in the process. After Iraq, this faith is severely shaken and to a large extent replaced by cynicism.
In the case of Thailand, many people are taken aback by the international opposition as they view this coup as ‘righteous’. So, it’s not surprisingly that people take offense when they are lectured by Western leaders, esp. since the moral credibility of these are seriously undermined by the carnage in Iraq.
That’s just my observation. A lot of times, there’s arguments about regime change in Thailand, the counterexample of the forced regime change in Iraq is always given.
6 Nicholas Farrelly // Nov 17, 2006 at 2:25 am
Thanks for all of the comments on this post – Pundit, Bystander, Patiwat, Huh? and Erik.
Erik poses a particularly interesting question about the formation of state and popular self-descriptions in the post-coup scene.
I don’t see a neat answer to this question, Erik, as any concrete clarification of “Asian (Thai) values” has to come up with a way of explaining the uncertainty and ambiguity that now exists. The crowd effort to belittle “Western leaders” might be just beginning. I’m not sure. We will have to wait and see.
Patiwat’s skewering of Khun Anand’s position is probably a much better critique than anything I can offer at this (early) stage.
NSF
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.