Today I attended another Canberra event staged by the Australian National University’s National Thai Studies Centre (NTSC). The speaker was political scientist Professor Suchit Bunbongkarn. His topic was “Thailand: Building Unity Amidst Internal Division”. Suchit’s talk covered a range of issues, including:
- The multi-dimensional complexity of the current political division in Thailand. It is not just a manifestation of class conflict (between the poor and the elite) as some Western commentators have argued.
- The political role of the military. The September 2006 coup may suggest that the military is politically powerful again. But, in fact, it is no longer a strong political force. It may be able to stage a coup but it cannot rule. Public opinion will make it very difficult to stage a coup in the future.
- The role of the king in politics. The king is politically neutral but he has intervened in time of crisis to avoid bloodshed. The king is above politics but he is deeply concerned about political instability. When asked about the political implications of the king’s death and the royal succession, Suchit said that while the issue is informally discussed in Thailand it is not a subject for open debate: “The more we discuss it the more division there will be.”
- The role of the king in relation to the coup. A coup is not made legitimate by the king; it is made legitimate by the acceptance of the population.
- There is a need for constitutional reform, perhaps with some reversion to elements of the 1997 constitution.
- Constitutional reform alone will not solve the conflict. There is also a need to bridge the gap between rich and poor. Recognition of the community rights of rural people can play an important role - this is democracy at the grass roots. The influence of political corruption, vote-buying and patronage must also be reduced. Political ethics and good governance must be promoted. Civil society needs to play a part – there is a silent majority that is neither red nor yellow.
- In conclusion – Thai democracy must survive alongside constitutional monarchy!
During question time I asked Suchit, indirectly and then more directly, if his visit was part of a Thai government international public relations initiative to discredit Thaksin and promote the Abhisit government’s political reform agenda. From his response, and later discussions with the ANU organiser, it was pretty clear that it was.
As an academic at the ANU, I am uncomfortable about this.
Don’t get me wrong — I have no objection to the ANU welcoming speakers from all political positions and perspectives. Suchit’s presentation was an eloquent statement of the need for political reform, on the unifying role of the monarchy and on the dangers of single party domination. It was certainly much better value than at least one other high profile NTSC-Embassy production to which I also objected. But an event that is organised as a public relations initiative by Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be transparently publicised as such (here is the publicity brochure). That would give the audience an opportunity to place the content of the presentation in its full context.
If the NTSC is keen to promote frank and open academic discussion (and the chairman today worried out loud, as he has on other occasions, about the reluctance of students, many of them Thai, to participate in the discussion) then a more independent stance in relation to the Royal Thai Embassy may be worth considering.
19 responses so far ↓
1 Jeffrey // Jun 19, 2009 at 1:07 am
This is the devious and cunning propaganda we can expect from a government without a mandate from the populus. From a Foreign Minister of fascistic tendencies (as displayed with his support of PAD seizure of airports and treatment of Hmong and Karen refugees).
From a military supported government which uses it’s elite forces to kill and maim for the suppression of dissent.
It is no wonder Thai students remain quiet, they must be so fearful to offer any questions they may feel wanting to ask.
You are right to feel uncomfortable Andrew, for there are such volatile anxieties fueled with bitterness in the “silent majority” of Thais at home.
2 ThaiCrisis // Jun 19, 2009 at 5:51 am
I don’t know ” political scientist” Bunbongkarn… He might be a good man and an intelligent man…
But there is one sentence in his speech, enough to totally disqualify him.
“The more we discuss it the more division there will be.”
So childish, so typically thai, and eventually so totally absurd.
In a nutshell, this sentence explains 90 % of all thai problems…
3 Frank G Anderson // Jun 19, 2009 at 9:57 am
The US Embassy-sponsored workshop at the Siam City Hotel I attended on the 17th of June for Netcitizenship and citizen journalism was rather informative and pertinent, a bit of an unexpected surprise. I suggested that they repeat this up in Korat for the northeast region. Suzanne McBride from Columbia College Chicago presented the material. They also did a session in Hat Yai and Chiangmai. I brought up the issue in detail through anecdote of libel journalism as it relates to Thai efforts to extraterritorize their jurisdiction to silence free speech in other countries.
4 nganadeeleg // Jun 19, 2009 at 10:00 am
Next time, try doing some research beforehand
5 Frank G Anderson // Jun 19, 2009 at 10:40 am
“The more we discuss it the more division there will be.”
So true. Unity in conformity. Justice?
6 David // Jun 19, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Thai Crisis, you hit the spot right there..!
I attended a similar event with Suchit Bungbonkarn about 3 weeks ago, hosted by the Thai embassy in Berlin, Germany… content wise it was pretty much exactly the same story as described here… the “official version” of events if you so will… so yes, there is definitely an international PR campaign underway… and Ajarn Suchit seems to be the cheerleader-in-charge…
7 Nicholas Farrelly // Jun 19, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Thanks David,
Has anyone else heard Professor Suchit’s presentation recently? Sometimes these events are not as well publicised as they could be and, as such, tend to fly under the radar. For that matter, does anyone know where he will be speaking next?
Best wishes to all,
Nich
8 Andrew Walker // Jun 19, 2009 at 12:14 pm
He is speaking today in Melbourne.
9 Srithanonchai // Jun 19, 2009 at 5:27 pm
“Thailand: Building Unity Amidst Internal Division.” >> The theme of “unity” seems to be irrepressible amongst the older generation of Thai academics. A few days ago, Prof. Ralf Dahrendorf died in Cologne, Germany, aged 80 (Habermas is a contemporary, and the philosophical Germany currently prepares to celebrate his 80th birthday). He was a political liberal. In his academic life as a sociologist, Dahrendorf was a proponent of conflict theory. That is, from his perspective, disputes and conflicts, in a free society, promote societal progress. In other words, the title of Suchit’s talk should not have figured “building unity,” but “building pluralism and tolerance.”
10 Pax // Jun 20, 2009 at 4:45 pm
It is sad that Absihit’s government continues to resort to this dishonest PR tactic. I wonder if they believe naively that foreigners would be naive enough to believe in what all Suchit said and not know that this is part of the government’s so-called policy of “Thailand’s image building” (which costs to taxpayers hundreds of millions baht.)
Even in Thailand, I wonder how many people would believe in what Suchit said. Reading thru New Mandala’s summary of Suchit’s talk, I could see so many schoolbook cliches which we were taught to recite by heart since elementary school and which I always used to explain my foreign friends about the “unique” Thai political system a few years ago.
Now, my eyes, as like many other fellow citizens of mine, have already been opened. We start to realize that our political system (C….. M…..) seems to resemble more to Myanmar’s and Iran’s, rather than to the UK’s. And this thanks to Thaksin’s grassroots empowerment policies followed by the obvious attempt of the Establishement (to borrow Prof. Thitinan’s word) to restore its power thru boycott of election, a military coup, biased judicial system, support of PAD’s thuggish actions, the arrival in power of the Democrat Party, the violent crackdown of red-shirt protesters in April and the absolute control of mainstream media which now prefers reporting on an orphan boy searching for his dad and a baby panda…. The Establishment has finally unveiled its true self to its people.
11 Pax // Jun 20, 2009 at 5:02 pm
to follow up on Srithanonchai’s comments, or “Thailand: Building Unity in the Diversity”? like the Union European’s Motto which says “United in the Diversity”
I agree with you that Thailand lacks the sense of pluralism and tolerance when it comes to politics, culture and religion. Although on the surface, it seems like Thai people are easy-going and tend to be friendly toward foreigners. They are actually only so towards “white farangs” (Western foreigners). It’s a completely different story when we talk about Thai people’s attitude toward their neighbouring countries and the Muslim minority in the country. The main rootcause again goes back to what we are taught at school… (I of course don’t say that every single Thai is like this, just many of them, especially the Thai Elite)
12 Michael // Jun 22, 2009 at 3:38 am
Further to Pax’s howl of rage #10 against the control, inter alia, of “mainstream media which now prefers reporting on an orphan boy searching for his dad and a baby panda….,” readers may find this post by Prachatai’s Harrison George of interest: http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/1258 . It tells of the doctoring of the winning entry in The Mass Media Photographers Association of Thailand Best Photo of the Year Award to give an entirely false meaning to the picture, which was taken by Thai Rath’s crime reporter Prasith Niwesthong during the Songkran violence.
I realize that this is slightly off-topic, but only slightly, since it is related to the collusion of the media in the government’s current ‘PR campaign’ – & it is truly disturbing.
13 Andrew Walker // Jun 22, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Here is Suchit’s public relations show in Tokyo.
http://www.thaiembassy.jp/rte2/content/view/592/196/
14 chayan // Jun 23, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I do not see anything’s wrong if a country would like to send an invoy to do such job as Suchit has been doing! I believe those who dislike this event may be happy if they know that someone in excile is doing such thing!
15 Ty // Jun 23, 2009 at 6:20 pm
As a loyal reader of New Mandala, I’m a bit disappointed that the only issue Andrew had a problem with was that the talk was part of the Abhisit PR campaign. The event should have been an opportunity for you to take your speaker to task and discredit the substance of the government’s narrative. Suchit is a reasonable, conciliatory type. He would have been willing to listen to your arguments, though he would probably be too polite to butt heads (which is a pity). His refusal to go into the issue of succession is understandable. It simply reflects the rabidity these days with which accusations of lese majeste are bandied about in Thailand.
I’m not surprised that the Thai students were quiet. Quiescence and respect for one’s betters are ingrained into Thais at a young age. Also, criticizing the government or addressing sensitive issues in an open forum was probably seen as too risky in the current political climate. But foreign academics should not be so restrained. This forum should have engendered a lively East-meets-West type of debate. It sounds like that didn’t happen. Did you have a chance to pursue things privately with Suchit later?
16 Andrew Walker // Jun 23, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Thanks Ty. Yes, I disagreed with many things Suchit said but I didn’t want to make that the main point of the post as some people are inclined to take the view that I disapprove of the National Thai Studies Centre hosting these sorts of Thai government PR events because I disagree with the speakers.
I thought there was a reasonably good question and answer session with some good probing about constitutional reform, support for Thaksin and the nature of political parties. I also asked Suchit what he (and other senior academic figures) had done within Thailand about the plight of his former colleage, Ji Ungpakorn. Short answer – nothing.
As for pursuing things later – I didn’t get a dinner invitation.
17 Sidh S // Jun 23, 2009 at 8:48 pm
The Melbourne leg was a round-table talk moderated by Sid Meyer. If Andrew did not say that this was part of PMAbhisit’s PR campaign, I would not have noticed. At least it was clearly not an ‘anti-Thaksin’ campaign – and he did not get much mention (ofcourse AjarnSuchit might have said different things at different places – varying with questions asked?). I am not familiar with AjarnSuchit’s work, but I tend to agree with Ty’s #15 assessment – and I found him a “reasonable, conciliatory type” and was thoughtful and considered in the answers that he gave. He also has a good grasp across the multiple dimensions of areas social, economic, politics, geopolitics that affect Thailand – and I will admit to agreeing with this more holistic viewpoint in assessing Thai democracy development.
The session was overall (due to the questions) dominated – and deservedly, like NM lately, by Aung San Syu Kyi’s and Myanmese democracy’s plight, conflicts within ASEAN for a collective response and Thailand’s role as ASEAN leader. AjarnSuchit seemed to favor a much stronger response than PMAbhisit’s statement (which the Burmese Junta already viewed as direct interference) while referring to a foreign ministry personnel (who AjarnSuchit said he disagreed with) for the formal government policy and actions, which was namely diplomacy in practice in engaging and convincing the other three new members Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam on ASEAN’s position and also the new Superpowers of India and China that can influence the Burmese Junta. AjarnSuchit thought that India and China will only pay lip service but take no action that is against their interests.
For me this opens up the issue of ‘regional democracy’ and can Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore (yes, imperfect democracies) have positive effects on the democratic development in the new members – that stick together, unsurprisingly, as a bloc – Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. Implying from one of AjarnSuchit’s answers, Thailand may have a very significant role as the country shares very long borders with three of those countries (not to mention problematic histories).
The next question is then which ‘mode’ of Thai Democracy can potentially positively engage with the new ASEAN bloc towards a liberal democracy? PMThaksin’s mode that aims to turn the Burmese Junta and SomdetHunsen into the Shinawatra’s business partners with the trickle down of spare change to the populace (with clear parallels in the Master of the Universe dominated Bush II years in the US) or the alternative, the Democrat’s incremental democracy mode (that pays lips service to but never practicing ’sufficiency economics’?).
18 Ty // Jun 24, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Thanks, Andrew, for the quick response and additional info. I wonder whether anyone in the audience was won over to the government’s way of thinking. Or maybe the objective was merely to cast doubt on Thaksin’s version of things. It would be great if you could post audio or video of the talk (with Q&A) for those of us who couldn’t attend.
Sidh S, it’s interesting that Thailand still aspires to ASEAN leadership, esp after that debacle in Pattaya. If there’s a message for Thailand’s poorer neighbors from that sorry episode, it’s that democracy is too messy, better stick with one-party rule.
19 Sidh S // Jun 24, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Ty#18, sad but true. If viewed from the economic development point of view, Thailand seem to provide an ideal example of how democracy stunts economic growth relative to the other ASEAN Democratic model of Singapore. Naturally other ASEAN countries find that model attractive including PMThaksin – unfortunately with the intensified and broadened corruption. So here we got a Singaporean Democratic model with a Thai (corruption) twist applied enthusiastically in Myanmar and Cambodia at least!
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.