Over the past few days, two key articles providing commentary on the coup and Thailand’s troubled democratic journey have appeared in the Bangkok Post. The first by Nidhi Eoseewong reflects on the troubled relationship between Thai nationalism and democracy. The other by Patrick Jory comments on the post-coup “silence of the intellectual lambs.”
Some stimulating weekend reading here.
22 responses so far ↓
1 Taxi Driver // Feb 24, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Every democracy goes through a maturing process. Even the US, in its early days, had a Vice President (Arron Burr) who was indicted with Murder (he killed Alexander Hamilton). But the US and its intellectuals did not abandon democracy just because they had rotton people in it. I’d rather have to put up with rotton people in a democratic system than rotton people in a dictatorship/absolute monarchy (if only the Iraqis could have voted Saddam out). It’s tempting to say that it would be good to have good/brilliant people in a dictatorship/absolute monarchy (Lee Kuan Yew/Jigme) but thats a fools choice in today’s modern complex society with its multitude of interest groups.
2 Srithanonchai // Feb 26, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Banjerd Singkaneti of the faculty of law at Thammasat University was one of the intellectual hard-liners agitating against Thaksin. He got famous for his statement that Hitler was better for Germany than Thaksin was for Thailand. This insight was rewarded after the coup by him being appointed to the Asset Exemination Committee and the constitution drafting body.
Now he has given us a further insight into his political world view by saying, “I personally believe in social structure and administration through traditions and customs that we once had in small communities. It’s more real than western-style democracy because people rule by themselves. I firmly believe that we really need to look back into our village life.” (Bangkok Post 26 February)
So, Banjerd has obviously noticed that Thailand has become a mass society. Still, he thinks that the (imagined) village-level social structure of times long past could provide a viable model for Thailand’s contemporary political system.
3 chris baker // Feb 27, 2007 at 12:57 am
I’m a bit confused by Patrick’s piece about the Fa Dieo Kan issue on the coup.
Anyone reading his article, but not reading the Fa Dieo Kan issue, could easily get the impression that the contributors to that issue are supporting the coup. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is one pro-coup piece included as an appendix, but only because it is slaughtered in one of the main articles. The contributors are unrelentingly opposed to the coup.
What is striking about the issue as a whole is the way it discusses the role of the royal institution in the coup, sets it in a historical context, and questions the consequences. This is the central theme of the whole issue, and significantly pushes the boundaries of what is usually considered safe and acceptable. The editor and one of the contributors are already under charges of lese majeste for a previous issue. Several of the writers have been jailed, or threatened with jail, in the past. I can’t see what is silent or lamb-like about this.
Patrick seems to argue that anyone who opposed Thaksin is responsible for the coup, and that if they now whine about the coup, that’s only a belated and hopeless attempt at exculpation. Is it really not possible to oppose authoritarianism in any form, whether it is armed with guns or money? Is there truly only one choice in Thai politics, between Thaksin and the junta? Surely, the big question is why the liberalizing, democratizing trend of the 1990s has given way to competing authoritarianism in this decade. A debate which begins to address this issue deserves to be celebrated, not belittled.
4 Jon Fernquest // Feb 27, 2007 at 2:00 am
“…he thinks that the (imagined) village-level social structure of times long past could provide a viable model for Thailand’s contemporary political system.”
If that means that Bangkok people (like myself) get to telecommute from the provinces then hip hip hooray.
“…he (imagined) village-level social structure of times long past could provide a viable model for Thailand’s contemporary political system.”
It can and does. That, however, would not be apparent to someone who has not lived in a well-functioning village in the provinces.
The head of a major industry group in Thailand lives at the end of our humble little rural lane. He has it figured out.
5 polo // Feb 27, 2007 at 4:07 am
As ever among leading Thai thinkers, Niti is tiptoeing around his target and one has to wonder how many people besides other tip-toeing thinkers recognize what he is poking at.
At his age and stature, why can’t Niti be a little more direct about just what the nationalism is that he faults — could it be “nation, religion, (army,) king”? — and just why is Thai history such a straight, orderly, beautiful line?
There are already a lot of Thais out there being more forthright about these issues, and that Niti can’t bring himself to even go halfway shows perhaps the real problem: that either Thai thinkers are too wimpy to take risks, or that real thought and voice repression exists and no one will say just that. Such repression is decidedly not democratic in anyone’s sense.
Perhaps Niti would be better off writing just a few lines: “I can’t say what I really want to about the problem with Thailand because there are XXX forces making it impossible to openly criticize.”
Actually, perhaps that is what all these academics should do, when talking to the media: Just say, “I can’t say what I really think because I feel threatened by the junta and the lese majeste law.”
That might be better than beating around the bush, as has already been done for a quarter century.
6 patiwat // Feb 27, 2007 at 6:39 am
Was he really appointed to the Constitution Drafting Committee? When asked what he thought of the whole drafting process, he replied, “I think it will be a mess and the next constitution will be just that.” I guess he’ll have nobody to blame but himself now.
7 Srithanonchai // Feb 27, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Patiwat: Sorry, I mixed Banjerd up with somebody else. He doesn’t seem to be involved with the CDC. I checked the names, and hope that I havent’ overlooked him.
Jon: Maybe, there are not that many “well-functioning villages” in Thailand’s provinces. Anyway, I have problems seeing how some well-functioning villages can be the model for structuring the national polity. You say, “It can and does.” Can you provide some more clues about how such a system would look like and operate?
8 Tosakan // Feb 28, 2007 at 12:07 am
Mr. Baker-
The only thing that I find confusing is why didn’t the junta hire you instead of Somkid to pimp sufficiency theory around the globe.
Oh yeah, after reading the UN report, maybe they did.
By the way, yellow looks great on you.
PS. I’m curious. Have you and the missus helped or will help the junta/Surayud government formulate their economic policies in a way?
Do you have a relationship with the current government?
9 Srithanonchai // Feb 28, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Tosakan: Thanks for these observations. Chris Baker’s important role in preparing the UNDP report has indeed raised a lot of eyebrows in academia. After all, it looked as if an independent political analyst had turned himself into a tool of the royalist forces in their attempt to gain ideological hegemony in certain political areas. Yet, he might have had good reasons for accepting this job.
10 anonymous // Feb 28, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Who cares about Chris Baker? The guy is a ronin – “independent political analyst” is just another way of saying an unemployed farang shacked up with a Thai lady who complains about politics over his Mekhong. His royalist writings are just another way of getting himself and his woman invited to high-society parties.
11 Tosakan // Feb 28, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Srithanochai-
I have no evidence, but I can make some guesses about what is going on.
Thailand is a very incestuous place, especially when it comes to academia, business, media, government and politics.
Mr. Baker probably had to get permission from the Holy of Holies to write that report.
And if the powers at be were happy with the result, I am sure there was a pay off in one form or another. That is the way the system works. It is very sufficient for those who know how to kiss the right ass.
After all, there is nothing that Thais appreciate more than when their hair brained schemes are acknowledged by the UN and the international community.
Either the junta will pay off or the palace will pay off–besides, what is the difference, really?.
So I am wondering if Mr. Baker an/or Ajarn Pasuk got any benefits from pimping sufficiency theory–either as being given duties as advisers to the government or maybe to the Privy Purse.
Of course, Mr. Baker would never attack the Crown Property Bureau for its lack of fidelity to sufficiency theory. He probably thinks that it is great that all those luxury condos going up all over Ratchadamri and at the old night bazaar are consistent with sufficiency economy principles. Plus, they can exploit that cheap Burmese and Cambodian labor slaving away at those projects for less than 200 baht a day. Of course, no government official would go after a Crown project that exploits people. Hey, if the Crown saves money from paying foreign coolies, that must be sufficient enough for him
Also, I doubt Mr. Baker would go after the Crown Prince’s classic car collection, or the fact that the Royal Family is collectively 500 kilos weight. But hey, that poor farmer from Isaan who is living off of eating bugs and sticky rice should be forced to live a subsistence lifestyle for the rest of his life while the elites continue to exploit his labor power and live lives of opulence and luxury.
But hey, if pimping sufficiency theory for the junta/crown gives Mr. Baker some professional satisfaction, and he feels content that he can live with the hypocrisy and double standards that comes with a corrupt, wealthy and powerful elite lecturing the poor on morality, integrity and its duty in living a life of perpetual paupery, then good for him.
12 Historicus // Mar 3, 2007 at 12:14 am
Oh dear, personal attack as political debate. I wish I had something to add or debate in this, but it is difficult to drag personalised attack into a rational debate. Lots of people in Thailand have burdens to bear from the coup. At least Dr. Pasuk did not accept appointment to the junta’s advisory committees after the coup. Dr. Baker might want to explain his reasons for doing the UN report and we might want him to do that, but the real targets in all of this are the nonsense “theory”, royalist hypocrits and the military-backed government’s use of the “theory” to mark out their difference from “Thaksinomics”. Seems to me that debate should focus on these issues.
13 Patrick Jory // Mar 3, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Reply to Chris Baker
Thanks for the comments. Just a number of clarifications:
Firstly, “Silence of the Intellectual Lambs” was not my title, and I wasn’t informed that it was to be used. But I understand a newspaper’s desire to use a catchy title to attract the readers. It is not a title that I would have chosen, and in any case, I don’t regard the academics as “lambs”. Far from it.
Secondly, nowhere in the article did I say that the contributors supported the coup, although I suspect that a number of them believe (but are careful not to say outright) that the coup was a necessary evil to get rid of Thaksin.
The main point of the article was to raise the question why in the crisis leading up to the coup so many academics failed to support a democratically elected Prime Minister and his government in the face of royalist forces determined to use extra-Constitutional means to oust him. Why did so many of them repeatedly belittle the importance of elections, and publicly condemn (in newspaper articles, etc.) again and again Thaksin’s “immorality”, thereby weakening the government’s position further? And when in this issue of Fa Dio Kan a number of them come out and posture as democrats I believe that that hypocrisy needs to be pointed out.
In fact, this is exactly the point that Fa Dio Kan itself makes in the volume: in the interview with Nidhi, in including Somsak’s criticisms of the “song mai ao” position, and in numerous other places.
I never believed that the “choice” was between Thaksin or the junta. I do strongly believe, however, that whatever one thought of Thaksin, at this stage in Thailand’s democratic development it was necessary to support AS STRONGLY AS POSSIBLE the principle of respecting the result of elections, especially when one had to know what the only alternative could have been. The academics, who wield great influence over political discourse in Thailand, completely failed to do this. That was their “choice”. When one sees the way that the majority of the poor are treated in this country, and when the academics (with some honorable exceptions) effectively help undermine the legitimacy of the only lever they have over the political process, I believe they deserve to be criticized.
As for the editor of Fa Dio Kan, I have the highest respect for the work he has done in making Fa Dio Kan the most lively and interesting Thai social science journal around today. I especially admire his willingness to critically discuss the monarchy publicly. In fact, I had written a paragraph precisely to that effect in the article but unfortunately it was cut in the editing. My article was in no sense whatsoever a “belittling” of his achievements. However at the same time I believe that rather than “celebrating” the pieces in the volume they deserve what all academic discourse deserves: analysis and criticism, in order to push the debate further.
For me the “big question” is different to the one that you posed at the end of your post. Of course there are forces ready to oppose the liberalizing, democratizing trend in Thai politics. We all know exactly who those forces are and why they oppose that trend. My question was why the majority of Thai academics supported these forces over a democratically elected government.
Finally, I should say that I have the utmost respect for the work of a number of Thai academics, whose abilities greatly outweigh my own meager talents, and who work under conditions far more challenging than those I have experienced. However I have numerous criticisms of certain aspects of Thai academia and in particular the political role of many of them in the events of last year. I strongly believe that on this and many other issues for more criticism is needed than is currently the case.
14 Srithanonchai // Mar 4, 2007 at 1:22 am
The time of the protests definitely was not a time of reasoned public discourse, and to bee seen as a suspected “intellectual crony” of Thaksin by merely providing a differentiated analysis of the options, or by questioning the options chosen by the majority, was not many academics’ cup of tea. The intellectual atmosphere at that time was rather restrictive (it was better not to say that one still used AIS). Even asking whether Thaksin’s dissolution of parliament was not a rather logical decision given the thrust of the protests–lack of legitimacy–could lead to angry reactions.
However, it was only the Shin Corp sale that really broke all dams. In this context, one can expand Jory’s criticism to the newspapers. Before the sale, The Nation, for example, took an anti-Sonthi stance. “Mob politics is not the answer” and irresponsible, they wrote. Only a short while later, after the Shin Corp sale, this had changed into “The real war has just begun”–i.e. the mob politics to oust Thaksin. From this point onwards, almost all papers looked like those in a totalitarian country–only one single point of view: Thaksin must go. Especially significant was when Thai Rath joined this line. And as important as academics are, newspapers are certainly not any less important. In the case of the protests, professionally responsible reporting was largely abandoned. This would be a nice case study for students of mass communication looking for a topic for their MA theses.
15 nganadeeleg // Mar 4, 2007 at 10:18 am
Not much of a choice for the academics really……support Thaksin (democracy?) or support removing Thaksin (coup).
It’s a pity removing Thaksin by vote was not an option.
The electorate also did not have much of a choice….. TRT or Democrats.
If those continue to be the only choices, then coups will remain on the table as an option (despite the apparent decline in popularity of the junta)
16 chris baker // Mar 5, 2007 at 1:03 am
Patrick. Good answer. I should have realized the headline was not yours. Sorry. We all suffer from this practice. I also suspect the article came over to me a little different from your intention, whether because of editing or my careless reading.
I think the interesting thing about Ratthaprahan 19 kanya is the way it moves things ahead. It’s like a papal conclave. Certain people are excommunicated, and the areas for discussion in the dogma are redefined. Sure, some people are clinging to old positions. But many more are quietly eating humble pie, and trying to compute the new coordinates. With hindsight, it’s easy to condemn. But was a coup inevitable? Especially a coup of a type which has not succeeded for the past 50 years?
I think the book is important because of the way some contributors are trying to help others to understand and confront what has changed with this coup. In this respect, many of the post-Octobrists are the more interesting – perhaps a passing of the torch. Thanapol’s narrative is very powerful, and has a very clear message. Banjerd makes the case you are backing very strongly. Pitch gets a bit muddled but his stance is clear.
There’s also an issue of timing. Immediately after the coup, lots of people got lost. But the intervening months have been a great learning process. Sure you have to look back, but in a spirit which helps people to move ahead.
17 Srithanonchai // Mar 5, 2007 at 3:35 pm
“I think the book is important because of the way some contributors are trying to help others to understand and confront what has changed with this coup. … Sure you have to look back, but in a spirit which helps people to move ahead.”
Academic writing as an exercise in psychotherapy (or reeducation)?
18 Dhammaratsadorn // Mar 5, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Patrick Jory: “whatever one thought of Thaksin, at this stage in Thailand’s democratic development it was necessary to support AS STRONGLY AS POSSIBLE the principle of respecting the result of elections”
How strong is that?
Does Patrick suggest that Thai academics should have thrown all their muscles to support Thaksin, refraining from criticism of him, because it was a war against the royalists?
Does he imply that those who criticised Thaksin were also guilty of supporting the royalists by not supporting Thaksin enough, despite that they also criticised the royalist PAD?
19 Andrew Walker // Mar 5, 2007 at 6:36 pm
There is surely a difference between supporting Thaksin and defending the “principle of respecting the result of elections.”
20 Srithanonchai // Mar 5, 2007 at 7:16 pm
At that time, in that atmosphere, I am afraid, there was no such difference.
21 nganadeeleg // Mar 5, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Andrew, it’s convenient to blame royalist/military conspiracies as the problem, but how can you respect the electorate when it continues to support Thaksin?
t’s not like Thaksin was a Chavez character who was opposed to the elites/ruling class – Thaksin just represented another form of elite.
Is it your position that the 30 baht health scheme and the village funds were enough for his supporters to overlook any wrongdoings (or even his obvious character flaws)
Vote buying is the only other way I can understand it, but you seem to discount it.
I hope that vote buying does not play a major role, because if that is the basis for deciding how to vote, then the party with the deepest pockets will always win.
If the masses can show that they do vote based on policies, and not just who pays them most, then over time they should get the policies they want.
BUT, if they ignore policies, wrongdoings and serious character flaws and vote mainly based on who pays the most, then the cycle is sure to continue.
22 Srithanonchai // Mar 5, 2007 at 8:40 pm
It might be worth considering that, in the election of February 2005, TRT received 18,993,073 votes on the party list ballot, while the party’s constituency MPs received only a combined 16,523,344 votes. Hardly anybody doubted that this result genuinly represented the will of the voters, and that is was not mainly the result of “cheating” (e.g. vote buying).
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.