Recently the National Thai Studies Centre (NTSC) at the ANU decided to host an official delegation despatched by the military junta’s public relations “war room” (not my term, but one used by the Thai press). The event will be held tomorrow (Wednesday 22 August) at 10.30 in Sparke Helmore Law Theatre 1 (Law Faculty). The decision of the NTSC raises important questions about the relationship between politics and academic endeavour. Over the past week there have been a series of email exchanges between NTSC board members discussing the merits, or otherwise, of the decision to host the event. I don’t want to breach confidences and I will not quote directly from these exchanges, but they have raised important issues that merit wider consideration.
There is a range of opinion on the appropriateness of the NTSC hosting the delegation, which is lead by senior diplomat and now Deputy Secretary to the Prime Minister, Surapong Jayanama. Some NTSC Board members, like myself, consider it highly undesirable that the NTSC provide a platform for an event managed and organised by the Thai government. Those holding this view seem to agree that the Thai Embassy in Canberra would be the appropriate venue. Others have argued that the NTSC should host the event given the broader interest in promoting free academic debate on a matter of considerable current interest (especially in the wake of the referendum on Sunday). The standing and reputation of the members of the delegation is cited in defence of this view. There has also been some discussion of adding additional speakers to the program, but whether or not this is logistically possible (or politically possible given the Embassy’s role in organising the event) remains to be seen. [UPDATE: The Embassy/delegation has vetoed the proposal from NTSC board members for additional speakers. They do not want the event presented as a debate. They are happy to have comments and questions from the floor.]
The position I have put, on New Mandala and in emails to board members, has been criticised by some as an attempt to silence people that I don’t agree with. It has been suggested that I, and board members with similar views, are seeking to restrict free academic discussion.
Let me make a few points about my approach to academic free speech. First, the claim that I don’t want people who hold different views to mine to speak at the ANU is simply ludicrous and does not warrant response. In fact, my concern about this event is precisely that it does not provide a forum for an open and free exchange of views. It is important to note that this is being promoted as a discussion on the “current political situation in Thailand.” I find it extraordinary that a university would seek to hold such a discussion with all speakers nominated by the Thai military government. As I commented on New Mandala last week, I cannot imagine an Australian university hosting a discussion on the “current political situation in Australia” with a speaker list nominated, managed and funded by John Howard’s office! And if a university did make the extraordinary decision to host such an event I cannot imagine them not clearly signalling the control of Howard’s office in promotional material for the event. But this is exactly what is happening as a result of NTSC’s decision to host a “discussion” on Thai politics with a speakers list nominated and funded by Surayud’s “war room.”
In email exchanges between board members over the past week some have argued that the event does, in fact, promote free discussion because there will be an opportunity for questions and comments. How much time is allocated for this remains to be seen, but with a time limit of 1.5 hours and 5 (government-nominated) speakers on the program I am not confident that there will be ample time for alternative commentary. [UPDATE: the question time has been extended.] There is also the issue of the basic inequality in status between a scheduled speaker and a questioner from the floor. But there is a more fundamental and much more important issue. It is no secret that some academics and a good number of students are reluctant to openly express their opinions at a function organised by the Thai Embassy, especially when such views relate to issues as sensitive as the role of the Thai king in providing ideological support for military rule. Of course there is no such thing as a completely free academic/public sphere in which people will feel completely free to express their views. But in the promotion of informed debate on a highly contentious matter, the ANU should be striving to provide a forum for debate that is as free as reasonably possible. In hosting an event arranged by the Thai Prime Ministers’ office and locally organised by the Thai Embassy the ANU is hardly signalling its commitment to provide a neutral, secure and transparent venue.
Another line of argument is that this is, in essence, a storm in a tea-cup and the no-one in Thailand really cares if the ANU hosts the event or not. In some respects this is true. It is hardly going to be headline news in Thailand if the ANU accepts or rejects the delegation. But I don’t think the ANU is as irrelevant as people are suggesting. The reasons why Surayud’s “war room” has despatched this mission are not completely clear, but they clearly are seeking international platforms that give some semblance of academic respectability. And these events are reported in the Thai press and do play some small part in signalling a degree of credibility for defenders of the coup on the international academic stage. A clear statement by the NTSC that it was not willing to host this event could send a small signal that our view of freedom of speech does not extend to accepting, as a basis for a “discussion on the current political situation,” a delegation from a government that seized power with military force, maintains its rule by the widespread application of martial law and actively represses political comment and political activity. A quixotic gesture perhaps. But an honourable one.
21 responses so far ↓
1 nganadeeleg // Aug 21, 2007 at 10:01 am
Storm in a tea cup sounds right.
I fail to see what’s wrong with hosting any, and all, sides of the argument (it doesn’t have to be at the one event)
So if Paul Handley, Jakrapob, or even Thaksin went on tour, would they be able to speak at the NTSC (ANU), even though they also would be presenting a one sided view ?
Be a man Andrew, front up, ask your best questions first if you are worried about time constraints, and afterwards you can always put your own spin on things in your report on New Mandala (which probably has more readers than there will be attendees at the NTSC anyway).
2 Grasshopper // Aug 21, 2007 at 10:08 am
Save free speech by preventing it? It seems almost as if an extension of Thai sovereignty has invaded the ANU. Hm, what about asking blunt cheery questions with a sinister undertone? If you attend it would be good to read a report.
3 Grasshopper // Aug 21, 2007 at 10:54 am
hahaha nganadeeleg, since when is going to a presentation a question of manhood?!
4 jeru // Aug 21, 2007 at 12:49 pm
To be truthful, I was never aware there was an ANU until Thaksin Shinawatra’s name alongside ANU popped up somewhere long ago in my search engine.
Andrew Walker if you want recognition for your small town ANU school, bring the Thailand democracy debate right at your school hall.
Andrew Walker you can also invite your patron Thaksin Shinawatra at the same time and that should put ANU in the academic world map, I think.
5 nganadeeleg // Aug 21, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Grasshopper: OK, I concede it might have been the wrong choice of words – how about:
– Show some fortitude (intestinal, not necessarily testicular)……..
But seriously, I still think it is a storm in a teacup – I’m sure the vast majority of attendees will know exactly what is going on, and if anything, opponents of the junta would probably be more comfortable asking strong questions at the ANU rather than at the embassy.
As for being worried about how things are reported back in the Thai press, I cannot see it making any difference one way or the other.
(unless Andrew is somehow worried that there is large pool of politically naive people somewhere in Thailand ?)
6 Grasshopper // Aug 21, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Jeruchai, I’d like to know what universities are on your world map? Maybe when it comes time to do a masters your advice will help me know where to go!
7 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Aug 21, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Re: Grasshopper>
since when is going to a presentation a question of manhood?!
Well, considering nowadays that if you say something at a confrence that a certain religious group doesn’t like , you risk getting bum rushed and assaulted by a group of thugs.
Perhaps, if he decides to attend, Prof. Walker should wear a helmet. (Just make sure it’s not an Israeli Aramid style one, though.)
8 nherd // Aug 21, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Yes Andrew I see your point but I tend to agree with nganadeeleg. I don’t see a problem with the event being hosted at ANU because (I hope) it will be obvious to all in attendance that the views expressed are solely that of the Junta.
I’m sure question time will be fun, especially considering they won’t have Les Majeste to shield them!
9 jeru // Aug 21, 2007 at 10:21 pm
First of all Grasshopper & Andrew Walker, ANU is not the center of the universe . . . so be grateful for every little attention drawn to a small town school like ANU. You are all being very preposterous.
10 Bangkok Pundit // Aug 21, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Knowing such events are officially listed as part of the CNS propaganda operation, from what we have know has been leaked, an academic setting is hardly the appropriate place. It is not that the embassy which concerns me as I have been to events sponsored by the US embassy and it is an academic who is not always a pro-US speaker. I would be interested in Andrew’s report to see if they are all one-sided.
But I don’t think the ANU is as irrelevant as people are suggesting. The reasons why Surayud’s “war room” has despatched this mission are not completely clear, but they clearly are seeking international platforms that give some semblance of academic respectability. And these events are reported in the Thai press and do play some small part in signalling a degree of credibility for defenders of the coup on the international academic stage.
If they didn’t think it was relevant or could somehow influence the views of some, why would they come? Is it solely a holiday junket for the faithful?
A clear statement by the NTSC that it was not willing to host this event could send a small signal that our view of freedom of speech does not extend to accepting, as a basis for a “discussion on the current political situation,”
I disagree slightly. If they (a) allow an alternative speaker or subsequent forum, and (b) the moderator clearly indicates that the speakers are part of the CNS information campaign then I don’t have a problem with the NTSC hosting it. This is normal disclosure and in an academic setting is vital. People can make up their own minds as to the biases or the various speakers.
11 Grasshopper // Aug 21, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Jeruchai, I’m sorry to report that you are indeed mistaken. The ANU is actually the center of the universe. If you care to consult your world university atlas, you shall see on page 42 the ANU is located between the “You are here!” sign and the royal palace in Bangkok.
Also, you use the word ‘preposterous’. Without having attended the ANU you risk being pretentious in using such a word unnecessarily. I have only recently been granted permission to use the word “unnecessarily” and I feel quite proud that I have come this far.
12 Andrew Walker // Aug 21, 2007 at 11:08 pm
I have inserted a couple of brief updates in this post.
13 jeru // Aug 22, 2007 at 12:02 am
I am amused that the grass at ANU, according to one Grasshopper, would be so specially nourishing that Thai generals would be forbidden to tread. If ANU grass is the only one Grasshopper has eaten then perhaps to that Grasshopper ANU is indeed the center of the universe.
Preposterous! Even more preposterous that a Grasshopper would consult, but not bite at, a university Atlas.
Personally to me Andrew Walker and Bangkok Pundit are much ado about nothing.
14 Military Admirer // Aug 22, 2007 at 3:38 am
Jeru might want to explain why Thai taxpayers are made to pay for an event that is bringing junta-selected speakers to a place that has no significance. Surely a waste of money and perhaps even malfeasance!
15 Historicus // Aug 22, 2007 at 3:41 am
I am wondering why jeru spends so much time making his comments if “Andrew Walker and Bangkok Pundit are much ado about nothing.” Jeru must have time to burn. if it is deemed necessary to respond to “nothing”.
16 Bangkok Pundit // Aug 22, 2007 at 4:38 am
Personally to me Andrew Walker and Bangkok Pundit are much ado about nothing.
Wow! Fame has been achieved. Jeruchai/[insert one of a few other names] thinks I much ado nothing.
Look at international rankings on university, particularly for the Asia-Pacific region, and I think you will find ANU ranks quite highly. Why do you think they are coming to ANU in the first place? I can tell you it is not for the shopping or the warm weather because if it was they would go to Sydney.
17 Tosakan // Aug 22, 2007 at 11:16 am
If it will be one-sided junta-sponsored propaganda hit and run (or a luxury junket as a payoff for loyalty), then why not do what they do in the US, have an alternative teach-in to counter the propaganda?
18 jeru // Aug 22, 2007 at 11:21 am
Might all you NM\’s perception of ANU as a \’highly ranked\’ univeristy be because of its pro-Thaksin leanings?
I told I never heard of ANU until I bumped into this ANU website so fixated in the defense of Thaksin\’s corrupt and extrajudicially licensed to kill democracy.
Seriously people schools are for kids!
19 mike // Aug 22, 2007 at 3:21 pm
While the seminar is obviously questionable, and that ANU is in some ways complicit in supporting the dictatorship, I think the response by stopping the seminar is far too blunt. For a start, this will allow people to question other events which give one side of the story, say Burmese democracy groups (or any other anti-government group). Will they now need to have a govt. spokeperson to balance out their views?
Secondly, even if they attempt to stop questions at the forum (or avoid these questions as they seemed to do at SOAS), this does oblige the NTSC to promote an anti-dictator forum. And it doesn’t stop the numerous other forums (such as this one) to criticise the event.
20 jonfernquest // Aug 22, 2007 at 7:18 pm
nganadeeleg: “I fail to see what’s wrong with hosting any, and all, sides of the argument”
Exactly. Go get Soros to send an anti-government PR team if you want. Nothing’s preventing this.
jeru: “Seriously people schools are for kids!”
That’s not fair. Hopefully universities are for making “contributions to knowledge” and not for developing partisan one-sided political viewpoints.
There’s no doubt that Thailand is experiencing some kind of class warfare.
Like all the wealthy people years ago who had the Marie Antoinette attitude towards the 30 baht plan years ago.
Last week I tried to use my social security card at my officially assigned health provider and the doctor tried to needle me, called me a “labourer.”
But despite being unelected and the product of a coup, IMHO the government side is the best bet for Thailand not degenerating into a full time 24-7 political conflict.
Political conflict may be what some academics do, but normal people engage in productive work everyday, add value, not just get value redistributed to them via untransparent Thaksin populist programmes (I challenge you to provide examples of productive use of the redistributed money, for instance of the village funds, taxi micro-finance loans were one productive use I know, but the norm of just pumping money into rural areas without plans to produce more value from them just seems long-term infeasible).
Countries as a whole derive little benefit from protracted political conflicts like the one that Thaksin kicked up with his divisive vote-sinning (I mean vote-winning) policies. Look at Burma for instance, a place addicted to long-term political battles since the end of WWII and a place that Thailand may well become if economic life can’t get back on track. A country can go down as well as up economically. There are enough examples of successful economies in Asia and none of these models include **long-term protracted social conflict**.
21 Military Advisor // Aug 23, 2007 at 5:20 am
Jeru’s world revolves between two axes – pro Thaksin and anti Thaksin. This is the only way he can understand the world. His lack of recognition for ANU – not my university – reflects the narrowness of his perspective. International rankings regularly rank ANU very high. Beats me how this can be Thaksin related.
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.