On the morning of Saturday, 14 March 2009, the Prime Minister of Thailand, Abhisit Vejjajiva, spoke to an audience at St.John’s College Auditorium, University of Oxford.
Abhisit’s arrival was greeted by Red Shirt protesters who were waiting for him in front of St.John’s. However, most of the Red Shirts were not allowed to go inside. This is because everyone needed to reserve their place. It was Oxford students (most of them Thai), Thai students from other UK universities, and guests invited by the the Thai Embassy in London, who composed the majority of the audience.
St.John’s College Auditorium is not large. It contains fewer than 200 seats. In addition to the above audience, there were also some Oxford professors and non-Thai students who attended the talk. The auditorium was full even before the talk started. There were numbers of people who reserved seats but could not attend the talk (like this New Mandala contributor). Most of them were Thai students who helped organise the event.
Abhisit was introduced by John Hood, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Oxford, and Sir Michael Scholar, President of St. John’s College. The two introduced Abhisit as Oxford’s proud alumni. Abhisit’s background as both the ex-President of Oxford Student Union and ex-President of St.John’s College Junior Common Room, was mentioned.
Abhisit started his talk by arguing that a few decades since his time at Oxford, Thailand has become well known for her flourishing development and democracy. He said, “what made me proud through the years (since he left Oxford) was Thailand becoming known as a country where democracy has taken root”. He cited the fact that media freedom was high the last time his Democrat Party was in power. However, media freedom had declined during the years when his party was not in power. He then posed the question “is Thai democracy backsliding”. He responded to this question by saying that the objective of his talk was to convince the audience that, despite the various blows Thai democracy has experienced, “Thai democracy is alive and well”.
He then reflected on the difficult route Thai democracy has taken. He argued that Thais always responded strongly to democratic setbacks. He then followed this by announcing his commitment to “doing everything in his (my) power to advance and strengthen democracy, no matter what the challenges and obstacles are along the way”.
He talked about the struggle of Thai democracy in relation to his own experiences. He said that his experience of the 14 October 1973 incident, when he was only a nine year old kid, gave him a life-long understanding of the Thais’ willingness to sacrifice their lives in fighting against tyranny; “democracy may be taken for granted elsewhere, but not for Thai people”, he argued. He also said that the 14 October incident inspired him to be a politician, as he believes that path was the only way for him to bring democracy to Thailand.
He continued by arguing that the victory of 14 October was short-lived, as three years after, it was followed by the 6 October 1976 incident, when the military was able to made a comeback to their power. He said that he spent time during those years as a student in Britain, where the experiences convinced him that democracy is “essential to every country in the world, including Thailand”.
He then jumped to reflect on his experience as a young politician during the May 1992 uprising. He argued that the 1992 uprising sparked the Thais to unite and push through the most comprehensive democratic reform in Thai history. The outcome was the 1997 Constitution, the so-called People’s Constitution. However, the 1997 Constitution’s intentions, such as the aim to build a strong executive power, underestimated the ability of elected politicians to abuse their power. The 1997 Constitution did not anticipate that “the strong parliamentary majority and executive power will undermine transparency and accountability. Sustained by populist policies, that majority came to be the basis of (the) authoritarian approach taken by the government. With such approach, came rampant corruption on a massive scale and a casual contempt to the rule of law”. He then went on to criticize the past government for the killings in the South and the drug war. He said that the only up side of that period was the empowerment, at least politically, of the rural poor through populist policies.
He followed that the tendencies of the past government caused the dissatisfaction of the people, who then went on to stage protests against the former government on the streets. These protests were followed by anxious feelings among people since the government continued to put themselves above the rule of law by holding on to their claim for a majority. He said that was the reason why when the military stage a coup in September 2006, it was met with “relief among the majority of people”. He, however, argued that the existing democracy pressured the military to promise to hold an election within one year. He cited this and the fact that the military had to subject the 2007 Constitution to a referendum as a reflection that democracy had still prevailed despite the military intervention. He then argued that, from now on, the military would be more reluctant to force their way to power again.
He said the government who came to power after the democratic election last year, however, ran into problems. This is, to him, the outcome of their (the People Power Party government) lack of respect for principles of democracy, which made political turmoil inevitable. He stated that, “in the end, after the court ruled against the government for abuse of power and electoral fraud, democratically elected parliament decided to end the deadlock, to put in change and voted in my party to power to form the coalition government”. He subsequently argued that “Today, Thailand is back on track toward democracy, and I consider it my duty to ensure that Thailand progress toward democracy continues”.
Abhisit stated his commitment to democracy, highlighting his commitment to transparency, good governance, respect for human rights, and rule of law. He argued, “We need not trade-off majority rule for transparency and good governance”. He then stated his intention to lead political reform to create long lasting liberal democracy under constitutional monarchy. Such reform shall only allow the power of a political leadership to provide national policy direction for improved quality of life. He also argued that Thai democracy must respond to people’s economic needs, stating his commitment to economic development that supports fairness and assistance to the least fortunate.
He spoke about ASEAN, arguing that Thailand’s democratic experience will be valuable to other countries. He talked about several initiatives that Thailand and other ASEAN countries are now taking to advance democratic development in the region.
He then said his famous phase that was quoted in many Thai newspapers, “I cannot say with certainty how far Thai democracy has moved forward and at what pace. But in the experiences of the West, it took more than a century before democracy was fully developed…Thai people have experienced the essence of democracy and freedom throughout the seventy-five years since our first constitution, it is highly unlikely that they will settle for less”. He argued he has “every intention of working for the people of Thailand so that the noble ideal (democracy) that people have fought for and died for, the ideal that sparked a nine year old boy’s career choice, are more than just words on the piece of paper”. He then concluded by quoting Oxford’s motto “at Oxford there is the light that shines on me”, and stated the final words “to be noble means not just do things right but do the right things, for myself, for my country, and beyond, and that include more democratic progress for Thailand”.
The talk was followed by the Q&A session, when many in the audience asked the PM questions that mostly related to the current situation including lese majeste.
The first member of the audience who asked a question was Associate Professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn. Giles began by saying that he faced a lese majeste charge from the Abhisit government for writing an academic book, and there are several people in Thailand are also facing the same charge unjustifiably. He then went on to criticise Abhisit’s government for relying on the military intervention (in lobbying the faction of MPs to support them) to get into power, for having members of the cabinet that participated in the closing down of the airport, and for neglecting to charge the army general who ordered the Takbai massacre. He ended by asking Abhisit to have a debate with him live on national television on the topic of democracy. Abhisit responded to Giles by saying that the fact that he agreed to answer questions (like Giles’ questions) is a testament that he is a democratic politician, and he would be surprised if the people whom Giles admired when they were PM would accept such questions from the audience. He then argued that Giles’ facts were not right, a number of lese majeste charges were not made when his party is in power, it was made during the time when Thaksin or his followers ran the government. He also faced the lese majeste charge during Thaksin’s government but the police dropped the charge. He argued that people who are democrats must respect and not run away from the law, and he believes that Giles’ charge was legitimate because he made an allegation that the monarchy backed the coup (which is something that Giles has to prove, he said). Giles asked Abhisit to clarify which part of the book said that. Abhisit said he has not seen the details, but he read Giles book, and he has been told that Giles made specific allegations.
Abhisit then defended the lese majeste by saying that there are similar laws in some European countries that have constitutional monarchies. There was a person in one European country who has been imprisoned by a similar law. The law itself is not necessarily undemocratic, “if you say the same thing or made the same allegation against ordinary people, you will also be taken to court…what the law does is to give protection to the royal family in the same way that libel laws protect ordinary people”. Abhisit then argued that some difference between the two laws (lese majeste charges can be filed to the police by anyone) exist because the Thai royal family is a neutral institution – above partisanship, above conflict, revered by the Thais, and a key pillar of national security – and therefore the law does not want the monarchy to take legal action against people. Abhisit said that there are number of people who are still fighting this charge, and a number of charges have been dropped. Abhisit then played his trump card; “there are number of people who stay there (in the country) and fight the charge because they believe they are innocent, and they don’t run away from being charged”. Giles responded; “I am not running away from the charge”. Abhisit said; “I did not say you did”. This was met by a big round of applause.
Giles then asked Abhisit to debate with him on television. Abhisit responded by saying that he would only have a debate with Giles back in Thailand, because Giles needs to be under Thai law like any other Thai citizen.
Abhisit went on to say he is actually the first prime minister in Thailand to state that the lese majeste law can be abused. He already expressed his concern with the police and indicated that they have to be fair and sensitive to this issue. He is also in the process of getting together some academics to work out how best to enforce the law, so that the purpose of the law will not be defeated. Moreover, he is doing the same with the Computer Crime Act. He is the first prime minister to invite the group called Netizen to work out how best to deal with illegal content on the web. He said, in the end, “so please stop trying to drag the monarchy to the political conflict, the monarchy is above political conflict, and we should keep the institution, which is highly revered by the Thais, neutral and non-partisan and stay above all other conflict in Thailand…If you have problems with me, debate with me, but don’t drag the monarchy into the conflict”. This was also met with another round of applause from the audience.
Abhisit then argued that he is determined to bring back justice by bringing other cases, such as that of Somchai Nilabhihit, back to investigation. He said that his intention is also to bring back the charge to the army general who is associated with the Takbai incident. Regarding the coup, he said that he was the first politician who condemned the September 2006 coup. Regarding the media freedom, he is also the first prime minister in more than a decade that opened television time for the opposition, the problem is that the opposition still cannot find a leader. This was also met with another round of applause by the audience.
The question and answer with Giles ended there. Other members of the audience subsequently voiced their questions to Abhisit. One Thai man pointed out that it’s misleading to say lese majeste is just a royal version of the libel law, as it is more comprehensive than the libel law. He also asked how far Abhisit is willing to trade-off freedom with national security. Abhisit responded by saying that it was him who stopped members of his party from their initiative to tighten up the law. He conceded that the law can be interpreted to cover wide a range of activities, but he said he is willing to accept the problem in terms of how the law should be better enforced and interpreted for protecting the monarchy.
Then, he talked about the charge against the Thai Foreign Minister. He explained that the charge occurred only after he became the Foreign Minister not after the airport closure took place. Therefore, he believes the allegation was politically motivated. However, he said that everybody has to be treated justly regardless of the color of his/her shirt.
One Thai female then asked why the PAD leaders are still free even though they broke every rule of law in shutting down the airport. Abhisit said that he already instructed the police to proceed as quickly as possible. He said, “they (the police) are now in the process of issuing the warrant for the case of occupying Government House. I have the police report regularly to me and I report to the parliament concerning the airport case. As of the last time, they reported to me a couple of weeks ago, 90 percent of the report was completed. So I expect the action to be taken very soon”. The woman asked him to give a timeframe, and he responded that the police said that they will take a few more weeks.
Few questions about the ASEAN came up from the crowd regarding the future of relationships between ASEAN countries, and the issue of human rights. Abhisit said that he and other national leaders had already set up the Asian human rights body, and hope that they will be in charge of promoting the awareness of human rights.
A young Thai female in a yellow shirt then asked how Abhisit would convince the rural people that democracy is the best way forward. Abhisit responded by saying that he thinks the majority of Thai people now appreciate the value of democracy. Political parties are now competing on many dimensions to be elected. “I’m not worried about people wanting to protect democracy”, he said. He argued that although democracy in terms of majority rule is well-understood; “what is not understood is that in true liberal democracy, all governments have limited power. The idea of democracy is just the majority rule means unlimited power is misleading”. He also explained that the elected power and the courts should work on the right balance for stable democracy.
A young foreign female asked whether she would be arrested if she was in Thailand and was to write an article saying the monarchy are a feudal monarchy. Abhisit said that it depends on whether she also make allegations against the monarchy, and said that he also wants to work on the clarification of what the lese majeste law covers. The same young female then asked what would happen if there is no clarification. Abhisit said that if he made fair criticism, then he can defend that in the court. “The freedom of expression should be given as long as you protect the key institution. There is such kind of law in every country”, he said.
One of the audience members then asked about the inhumane treatment of the Rohingya by the Thai army. Abhisit said that he is now working on the investigation of the matter. He said that he and the other agencies who are investigating did not find cases of specific abuse which are alleged by the media. “I asked the media who asked about these allegations for evidence so I can investigate further. They have not responded”, he said.
Finally, one man from Taiwan asked how Abhisit would ensure that the military role and power is reduced and ensure that there will not be a coup again. Abhisit responded to this by saying that he thinks military power in Thai politics has already been declining. He said that the military only staged the last coup because the Thaksin government had abused so much of their power. It is, therefore, important for the democratically elected government not to “set up the conditions for the military to come in”. He ended his response and his talk by arguing that he believes the military has now learned their hard lesson and it is now “really up to the politicians to not only [be] running democracy, but also protecting democracy”.
21 responses so far ↓
1 Nudi Samsao // Mar 16, 2009 at 11:19 am
A good job of making excuses and prevarication.
2 Colum Graham // Mar 16, 2009 at 11:22 am
Thank you, a fantastic report.
3 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Mar 16, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Somebody has put up a video clip of part of Abhisit-Ji QA at YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-fsOdpVFsw
(The link comes from this post at Prachatai webboard: http://www.prachataiwebboard.com/webboard/wbtopic.php?id=784650 )
One small point: the Thai media widely reported that Abhisit retorted, when Ji said he didn’t run away, something like “So why are you here?” (if you claim you didn’t run), and portrayed it as a triumph by Abhisit. Listen to the video (also the report above – see the 12th paragraph from bottom) it’s clear that this is false.
4 John Francis Lee // Mar 16, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Abhisit went on to say he is actually the first prime minister in Thailand to state that the lese majeste law can be abused… He is also in the process of getting together some academics… Moreover, he is doing the same with the Computer Crime Act…
Abhisit then argued that he is determined to bring back justice by bringing other cases, such as that of Somchai Nilabhihit, back to investigation.
He said… “so please stop trying to drag the monarchy to the political conflict…
But lese majeste is still actively being abused, Khun Angkhana Nilabhihit’s WGJP group was raided by the military a few days afte Abhisit’d popped in for a photo-op, the crack down on Prachatai came days after he said such a thing would not happen.
He said that his intention is also to bring back the charge to the army general who is associated with the Takbai incident…
One Thai female then asked why the PAD leaders are still free even though they broke every rule of law in shutting down the airport… He said, “they (the police) are now in the process of issuing the warrant for the case of occupying Government House… So I expect the action to be taken very soon”.
No one thinks that the PAD are going to charged for their reign of terror, they rescheduled their own arraignment for goodness sake!, certainly no military officers will be charged for anything, unless it is some sort of tit for tat retribution among the military themselves.
So the question on Abhisit is : Cynic or Dupe? Is he “just” an accomplished liar, a la Barak Obama, or does he really believe that he holds power in Thailand?
“I’m not worried about people wanting to protect democracy… what is not understood is that in true liberal democracy, all governments have limited power. The idea of democracy is just the majority rule means unlimited power is misleading”.
Of course that’s been the aim of the PAD all along, to emasculate elected government and to put power in the hands of those “appointed” by… self-appointed I guess.
One of the audience members then asked about the inhumane treatment of the Rohingya by the Thai army. Abhisit said… “I asked the media who asked about these allegations for evidence so I can investigate further. They have not responded”.
Translation : “That’s off the front page. We got away with it.”
Finally, one man from Taiwan asked how Abhisit would ensure that the military role and power is reduced and ensure that there will not be a coup again. Abhisit responded to this by saying that he thinks military power in Thai politics has already been declining.
The military buget has more than doubled since their coup and spending for “security” increases daily. The ISOC is wielding more power daily even as we speak. Of course Abhisit is the nominal head of the ISOC, so we’ve nothing to worry about there. He’s a Democrat. Dupe or Cynic?
5 jan // Mar 16, 2009 at 9:27 pm
i don’t believe a word he sais. he is a very clever rhetoric, that’s all. i just know he was never elected, so why does he even talk.
in the video i’m a bit disappointed by the thai students oversea. would imagine them to be more critical.
6 Michel la Montaigne // Mar 17, 2009 at 1:18 am
Jan,
I think you’ll find most overseas students are members of the nomenklatura. Why would they be critical?
Veg comes over like Tony Blair. School prize for debating but little integrity. A consummate performance by a Tory politician pasted on a crumbling facade. I’m very disappointed to say or think it. I had hoped for better things from him.
He’s right about one thing Thai democracy needs developing. …
But can he really be the Kwisatz Haderach?
Incidentally is it only me or does Giles sound like Kenneth Williams?
What do I know?
7 tum|bler // Mar 17, 2009 at 2:13 am
“…n the video i’m a bit disappointed by the thai students oversea. would imagine them to be more critical.”
Have you read the petition signed by eleven Thai students at Oxford?
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=1051
8 Alec Bamford // Mar 17, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Michel la Montaigne 6
‘Incidentally is it only me or does Giles sound like Kenneth Williams?’
Stop messing about!
(Actually he does a bit.)
9 Tarrin // Mar 17, 2009 at 2:17 pm
I’m amazed that Thailand is now running by this baffoon, anyway, he talks all high about encouraging democracy but people here, in thailand, are still being arrest from lese marjeste. I have to ask Abhisit back, although the some european countries (I dont know which one) have the lese marjeste law, did anyone of them actually put people in “jail” for lese marjeste??
10 David // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:52 pm
in the youtube clip, abhisit demands that giles “learn to live with differences in opinion” if he “is really a democrat”…
but is not precisely giles opinions, as expressed in his book that got him charged??? in other words, it is utterly hypocritical of abhisit to demand giles to live with differences in opinion, when it is precisely the inability of the thai elite (i.e. abhisit and his pad friends) to live with differences in opinion (regarding the thai monarchy) that got giles charged in the first place…
until abhisit and co learn “to live with differences in opinion” themselves… they have no right to demand that of giles… or to call themselves “democrats”…
and of course giles cannot debate abhisit in thailand under thai law, because under thai law abhisits opinions are coterminus with the officially sanctioned national narative, while giles opinions are illegal… ‘duh!!!
abhisit, you are a coward and a hypocrit… sorry, but its my opinion, learn to live with it…
i also have other opinions, but these i am afraid to express here because i am in thailand right now
11 hclau // Mar 18, 2009 at 4:30 pm
I have a whole bunch of opinions, but would not express them in “polite” company. Abhisit ability to tell bare-face lies is his most outstanding talent.
12 Hua Hin Dave // Mar 20, 2009 at 12:03 am
Unlike most commentators here I actually have the luck to live in Thailand, and have done since 2001. I feel, therefore, a little more qualified to comment on democracy or its lack in Thailand.
Under the “majority vote = abuse of power” regime headed by Thaksin democracy took a massive step back. Thaksin and his TRT party translated a popular mandate into a massive get rich quick scheme. They tore apart the judiciary and executive, and through nepotism and cronyism undermined both police and military.
Thaksin was personally at the reigns of the so called “war on drugs”, issuing the orders that resulted in thousands of extra judicial murders and disappearances. He escalated the southern conflict through poor policies and worse implementation.
His party was eventually proven to be behind massive electoral fraud and corruption, buying votes in the rural communities, stuffing ballot boxes, etc.
Thaksin also attacked media freedoms, arrested journalists and dissenters, and then victimsed more through direct partisan application of lesse majeste and libel laws.
Then came the coup that got rid of him….to popular support may I add. I was there…I saw it first hand. Parties in the sois in Bangkok…happy people.
Then came the next polluted round of so called democratic elections. Subsequent investigations again linked the new “Thakisn” party – the PPP – with electoral fraud and corruption, vote buying, ballot rigging etc. 76 MPs initially linked with direct corruption. 76!!!!
During its time in power the PPP staggered from one crisis to another, passing little or no legislation, getting no actual work done. Instead the PPP chose to focus on its usual round of getting rich as quick as possible, mudslinging, and disseminating rumor and gossip.
Then came the October riots and deaths of innocent protestors at the hamfisted hands of the police. Police acting under direct orders of the governement at the time – the PPP. Blood on the streets in Bangkok brought back the fears of previosu protestor massacres…..hardly surprising given key PPP members were also linked to previous massacres.
Finally, the courts ruled that the PPP were inextricably linked with corrupt electoral practices and they were disbanded.
Their coalition partners, seeing that the PPP were fatally tainted, and sick of the real boss (Thaksin) pulling their strings to his own gain, jumped ship.
A new coalition was formed. The Democrats came to power.
We have seen the same thing happen in the UK. Here we have had minority and narrow majority coalition governments….as many countries have had. Nothing improper there.
Unelected leader? Step forward Mr Brown, Presidents Ford and Johnson of the USA, and many many others by that rule. But hey, again thats just another false argument, another deliberate deception and distortion of what democracy means.
The Democrat coalition is, compared to previous TRT/PPP governments, much more inclusive, open and transparent. They are a long way from perfect, but at least they try to get work done, do their jobs, and run Thailand properly rather than as a get rich quick system for one family.
To the red shirted rent a crowd Id like to say this: Your boss, Mr Thaksin, is a liar, a cheat, a coward and a traitor. He is a criminal. His family are criminals. His friends are criminals…..and if you support his thieving, lying and cheating then so are you. The fact you used your own children as unwitting innocent political photo op shills is appalling. Nearly as bad as the spelling on the placards you printed using computers….it is spelt PRIME MINISTER ….and you attend Oxford? Wow! Academic standards really are slipping at the old alma mater.
To Prof Giles Id say 10 out of 10 for standing up for free speech, but 1 out of 10 for application. You and I both know that the charges against you were laid by a previous administration. You are being deliberately deceptive, and your wearing of red and using a foot clapper is below you. I used to respect you highly….now I see you as another red shirted shill of Thaksin. How much is he paying you for your public appearances? When you sided with Thaksin and his red shirt thugs you lost all moral majority.
And to the rest of you academic numpties who sit behind desks and discuss democracy as an abstract concept, Id suggest you apply the academic training I had at University, and get off your backsides and investigate matters before commentating on them.
I doubt many of you have been here in the last 12 months and witnessed democracy being forged in the political dung fuelled furnace that is Thailand.
I suggest you go pay a visit to my (Thai) family in Issan, and ask them why they accepted 200bht bribes and cases of whisky to go place crosses against the PPP box on the ballot paper. Try explaining democracy or popular mandate to people who left school at 12 to 14 and have slaved in a rice field ever since, earning less in a month than you do in one day.
No, its easier to sit safely in a country that has been developing its democratic system for about 800 years or so and lob stones, based on the claptrap, gossip and rumor that the Thai press produce daily, or the mistruths propagated by Thaksin and his red shirted cronies like Prof Giles.
Thai politics and democracy are about 75 years young, and it shows. But comparing it to the UK or USA, or expecting western style “democracy in a box” to flourish in those 75 years is a prime example of academic stupidity at its best.
Abhisit, unlike his predecessors, and particularly that foul mouthed idiotic bigot Samak, is at least presentable on the public stage, and is willing to discuss issues openly.
Please, stick to your dreaming spires and ivory towers, and leave running the real world to pragmatic cynics like myself.
13 Hua Hin Dave // Mar 20, 2009 at 12:35 am
Incidentally, whereas Abhisit answered Prof Giles in a civilised and somewhat humorous manner, here is what the answers would have probably sounded like had they come care of our two previous Prime Ministers, based on 10 moths of observing them in action when faced with the media:
SAMAK:
“What You Say? I no hear you….your mouth full of (insert expletive). What are you? Gay man? You wear lipstick gay boy? You not even Thai…you British!”
(Note: Samaks usual approach when faced with stiff questions was to directly assault the journalists sexuality, race or nationality.)
SOMCHAI:
“ermmmm……its the fault of the PAD terrorists…..eeeerrrmmmm…..scuse me, I just have to call my boss and see what he thinks…..”
(runs and hides in public toilet whilst calling Thaksin).
14 Tarrin // Mar 20, 2009 at 3:13 pm
To Hua Hin Dave
You know, living in Thailand for 8 years or 20 years or whatever does give you more legitimacy than other people here.
If you talk about “Majority rule = abuse of power” then what about “Minority rule =??? ) in term of vote buying Abhisit is as guilty here, how do you think he lure Newin camp to his side?? yeah …..
And you talk about transparent in Abhisit government??? WHAT ARE YOU JOKING ABOUT???
A PAD leader is serving as a minister
rotten fish
rotten milk
immigrat abuse
money that appear from no where and dissapear somewhere
yeah, that’s really convincing….
And you said Abhisit is more open to discuss? I think that will be really hard to accomplish because many of his opposition is being charge for lese majeste and many had run away from Thailand, now who will dare to go against him??
15 amberwaves // Mar 20, 2009 at 3:48 pm
“Unlike most commentators here I actually have the luck to live in Thailand, and have done since 2001. I feel, therefore, a little more qualified to comment on democracy or its lack in Thailand.”
Yawn.
Let’s see, Paul Handley, author of The King Never Smiles was in Thailand for 13 years, making him 1.625 times more qualified than you to comment, and my humble self has been here for about 24 years, making me 3 times more qualified than you, right?. And I don’t live in a “dreaming spire” or “ivory tower” — not even a high-rise condo.
So, perhaps NM should have a ratings system, in which commentators include a index based on number of years in Thailand minus time spent at a university. Should Thai nationality be factored in, and how do we treat Thais who have been “tainted” by their time at a university abroad — double points off?
The silly claim for expertise aside, Hua Hin Dave’s comments lay out a reasonable case – though one I disagree with. Most of his various points have already been addressed at length on this blog, so I won’t bother.
One minor point I think should be addressed for the record. When you say “The fact you used your own children as unwitting innocent political photo op shills is appalling,” you might note that this follows the model set by the PAD since 2006.
PAD parents of course also brought their small children to situations where they admitted they expected violence in the form of police attacks (most notably, the airport occupation).
But of course as someone who has lived here since 2001, you already knew that, right?
16 Sidh S. // Mar 20, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Well put Hua Hin Dave! Thank you for a very good attempt at capturing the complexity of Thai politics as ‘played out’ through the years rather than as ‘imagined’ by many in NM…
As for PMAbhisit, at the end of day, he is a politician – and I argue, more in the mould of an opportunistic Western politician with a complexly negotiated power base than the typical Thai ‘ThaoKae’, Capitalist-Mafia politician model where the main investor ‘owns’ the party and makes the key decisions. If I am not wrong, the Democrats invented the ‘Mr.Clean’ party leader paired with a ‘Mr.Dirty’ (but powerful) secretary-general with the PMChuan-Sanan partnership and now PMAbhisit-Suthep (if you look at the recent donations to the Democrat party, Suthep actually donated almost half of the total if I am not wrong). PMAbhisit may or may not be sincere about what he says or political reform, but even if he is serious he will have to convince the ‘kingmaker’ first who will also have to convince the ‘kingmaker’ of the ‘kingmaker’ Newin, who is the founder of the Reds, PMThaksin’s street supporters that AjarnGiles supports(!!!) and who probably have aspirations for the top post himself etc…etc…
Ah, the intrigues and complexities of Thai politics. Does AjarnGiles address these issues seriously enough? Does the foriegn academics invest enough time on this? Sadly, no on both counts. But this is one of the main mode in which the decisions that directly affect Thai politics/democracy and its future evolution are made. AjarnGiles and the foriegn academics have simplistically reduce Thai Democracy to Les Majeste law – a law that is the least of most Thai’s worries anyway… If you ask Thais to list the top 10 things they want their leaders to address – where would Les Majeste law reform come in? Interestingly, from their words and actions, it seem to top AjarnGiles and the the respectable foriegn academics’ list. If you ask democracy advocates, activists and fighters in Myanmar, Cambodia, Zimbabwe etc. – what will they say?
17 Michel la Montaigne // Mar 20, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Well done Sidh.S!
Very insightful on the “Clean”Party What Khun Abhisit is saying is that Thai politics is now adapting the appearance of the western “model”
I wonder what other things he shares with Bill Clinton apart from the alleged draft dodging?
He’s the ideal man to make up with western business interests.
All Suthep has to do now is a little grooming of Newin to make him more presentable to western audiences in future….
The fact is there is never going to be any external change wrought in Thailand other than with Chinese tanks, and why should there be?
An old Thai friend once remarked to me that Thais will always get the politicians they deserve. I believe they deserve better.
18 Val // Mar 31, 2009 at 3:14 pm
I’ve lived in Thailand as a foreign correspondent for 27 years. Hua Hin Dave is correct in his overall analysis of the situation. The current coalition is more transparent and more democratically oriented in every way.
Hua Hin Dave forgot to add how Thaksin would have responded to such questions.
a) Hold up a card with an ‘X’ on it, signifying he didn’t like the question, and would not answer it.
b) (addressing everyone in the crowd except the questioner) ‘Don’t listen to what outsiders say.’
c) ‘Trust me. I have a Civil Service Reform active that will make out country run more efficiently without interference from the legistlative or judicial branches,’
19 John Francis Lee // Apr 1, 2009 at 1:39 am
…and I argue, more in the mould of an opportunistic Western politician with a complexly negotiated power base than the typical Thai ‘ThaoKae’…
Yes Sidh S, I agree.
Observing Thaksin, it seemed to me that although in the West a class of yeoman have evolved – Bushes, Clintons, Kerrys, and so forth – trustworthy servants of the plutocrats who can be relied upon to look after the interests of their employers, and who will essentially work for wages, that in Thailand there had not yet evolved such a class. So the plutocrats had to roll up their sleeves and actually do the work themselves.
Or perhaps Thaksin just traveled in the wrong circles and didn’t know any of the young Oxonians who “could be had”. Or perhaps, knowing how intrinsically untrustworthy he is himself, he could not bring himself to trust such of those folks as he did know.
Whatever the case with Thaksin Abhisit does seem a sterling, reliable retainer for the sociopathic plutocrats. He is not even ruffled when they make a fool of him by feeding him lines both they and he must know are going to be contradicted immediately in action. He is a real professional.
20 Frank Lee // Apr 2, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Re the main article and SAKTINA vs feudalism
Although the exact details may be a little hazy, as I recall reading in Craig J. Reynold’s book on Jit Poomisak, there is a discussion of the distinction that should be made between the western concept of feudalism (which it is suggested could be construed as seditious) and the Pali/Thai concept of SAKTINA (the use of this term which, it is noted in the book, has never been the cause of a lese majeste charges.
Frank Lee / Bangkok
21 Susan Winton // Apr 3, 2009 at 2:38 pm
This line, about democracy being complicated, is getting really tiresome.
If you want something badly enough, you figure it out quite quickly: telephones, the printing press, television, sailboats, construction techniques using cement and banking systems…
Interesting that the rather shrill Dave of Hua Hin mentioned the fact that many villagers can’t read or write. My ex’s mother is in the same boat.
Now, whose fault is that? Thaksin, or the elite forces (which are above politics remember- snort) that have been controlling this country for the last 60 odd years?
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.