Rather than concentrate on everything that was said at this event, I want to concentrate on what Duncan McCargo said and the behaviour of the Thai audience and panel members. From what he said their attitudes and behaviour were a microcosm of Thai society.
Even before the talk began, rifts were in evidence as royalists gave out pamphlets on the king’s self-sufficiency economy whilst Giles Ungpakorn and his supporters handed out a sheet denouncing royalists. Some (both Thais and foreigners) were suspicious of the Thai Embassy’s motives when it was noticed that they were filming the event. Most worryingly they were filming the faces of those asking questions and the audience.
The main point of McCargo’s talk was that the Thai people have gone from being politically pragmatic to being dogmatic which has led to the present deadlock. When he first started studying Thai politics he believed the greatest problem was what he termed “excessive pragmatism”. He could not understand why Thai people were so flexible and why they changed their loyalties so rapidly. But in the past five years he has witnessed an unanticipated “remarkable reversal”. As he put it, there is now “insufficient pragmatism” and “Thailand has become a country characterised by incredible dogmatism where husbands and wives cannot speak to each other and their kids can’t speak to each other People can’t meet together with old groups of friends from college or go out to lunch with people from work without something coming up and them feeling divided and uncomfortable or not wanting to say things.” McCargo sees no benefits in people being so dogmatic and occupying such polarised positions. He thinks Thais should try to recover some of their pragmatism, which he now realises can be seen as a strength of Thai politics, as well as a weakness.
He believes that the problems in the South, which he has studied extensively, are the same as the problems in the rest of Thailand. They are problems of politics and legitimacy. There is very little space for the people to “carve out their own identity” because they are administered by provisional governors and district officers sent from Bangkok. Privately, many senior officials, policemen and army officers McCargo spoke to said there was a “legitimacy deficit”. He said this needs to be discussed but it cannot happen because there is no opportunity to create public space for more open discussions. This means people are scared to speak out and have difficulty engaging with each other. This lack of discussion combined with the new dogmatism has led to a situation where the red and yellow shirts seem diametrically opposed. But, according to McCargo: “Just beneath the surface there is a fairly substantial consensus that can no longer be articulated.”
We only had to wait until the question and answer session to see evidence of Thai dogmatism. (Due to the question and answer session being held under the Chatham House Rule I cannot reveal the identities of the speakers.) Many of the Thais in the audience seemed hostile to the Thai panellists and some of the questioners were clearly very angry with them. The third questioner, a Thai woman, denounced Bowornsak for switching political allegiances. The chairman was forced to interrupt her and ask her to stop making personal questions. She ignored him and loudly demanded Borowonsak explain why he destroyed the 1997 constitution to approving applause from some of the audience. The chairman nicely diffused the situation by asking for a question from “the man in the red shirt” which bought relieved laughter from the audience. The (Thai) man proceeded to make a short, critical speech rather than ask a question. He accused the king of weakness, criticised the lese majeste law, suggested redistribution of wealth from the king and army, and questioned the suitability of the crown prince to rule. When the chairman asked him if he had a question the man ignored him and continued ranting without asking a question. Finally the chairman had to tell the man his question would be about the lese majeste law. The red shirted man sat down to a loud round of applause.
When responding to this man one of the Thai panel members at first even refused to call him by his name, despite knowing it well. They then ignored the chairman and bickered with each other over what either of them had or had not said to loud shouting and complaints from the audience. Finally the panellist challenged the man to discuss the matter in Thai, which brought more shouts and forced the chairman to step in and restore order.
A non-Thai panel member suggested that maybe the reason so many Thais had attended was because in Thailand they are scared to have such discussions about political issues and aspects of legitimacy due to the lese majeste law. There were certainly Thais present who had very strong opinions on these matters but there was less evidence of reasoned discussion. The Thai panellists and questioners and many of the audience members were openly partisan. Those that spoke (from both sides) seemed more interested in making pre-prepared statements than having a meaningful debate. There was plenty of McCargo’s dogmatism on show and little pragmatism.
Many Thais are not used to freedom of expression or familiar with having such discussions. Maybe it is not so surprising that such debates degenerate and emotions run high. As McCargo has said, Thais need to have the freedom to debate. Once they have that space they may become more used to discussing their differences and may eventually reach some sort of pragmatic consensus, instead of being so dogmatic and oppositional. Judging by the recent behaviour at SOAS it will be a while before that happens.
14 responses so far ↓
1 Khon Ngai Ngai // Feb 19, 2010 at 1:52 pm
I’m surprised why the good professor should express surprise at the change from Thais “excessive pragmatism” then a ” remarkable reversal” to “insufficient pragmatism”. The “flexibility” and easy of changing loyalties in the past was limited to lower personages and peripheral ideas (e.g. military dictators, external threat: “jek”, colonial powers, Japanese companies in the 70s, the WB/IMF, globalization) that didn’t challenge the ideologically constructed/imposed identity of Thais (“Thainess”) in which the monarchy constitutes a core pillar. Not having the space to debate such sacrosanct issues could explain why Thais hold such “strong opinions” that had the conference not been held in the “civilized” halls of SOAS would certainly have seen the almost natural reaction of Thais to transform into a Hyde-ish monstrous rage and go dangerously berserk when such issues that touch deeply to their core are challenged. I think no amount of freedom to discuss these topics can change the situation within a short period of time. Remember the years of “true democracy” in 1973-76 and the bloody counter reaction? However, Thais have to confront these issues sooner than later as more and more of them realize the lies they have been led to believe over the centuries, both from royals and would be Taksins.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
2 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Feb 19, 2010 at 3:22 pm
I’m not sure we should view matter the way McCargo and the author of this post put it, i.e excessive ‘dogmatism’. What does this mean exactly? The current four-years old crises involve certain very important political principles, chief among which, in my view, is whether a coup d’etat like the 19 Sep 2006 is acceptable. I absolutely insist that it’s not and that therefore we should return to the status quo before the coup. Is this dogmatism? I think not. But this is precisely the issue that the current Yellow camp would not concede. I wonder how ‘more pragmatism’ on this coup issue would look like in McCargo’s view? Should I and many of the Red Shirts ‘pragmatically’ accept the coup?
(Notice that to call for a return to the pre-coup situations is in fact already a concession. For the coup-makers committed the most serious crime in the law books, punishable by death. To restore the pre-coup order as if they had not, would really be a mercy to them. But even this is not acceptable to the Yellow camp, as they insist on the coup’s legitimacy and refuse its undoing.)
If what’s reported above is all McCargo said, I must say I’m disappointed.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
3 Srithanonchai // Feb 19, 2010 at 4:34 pm
First, the Thai panellist were flown in by the Thai government precisely because they were partisan. After all, they did not chose to recruit Ajarn Somsak, Ajarn Worachet, or the editors of Fah Diewgun, or Prachatai (from the perspective of Suthep, these are “subversive” organs). Thus, from the beginning, this was designed as a partisan event, not as an academic exchange of ideas, “reasoned discussion,” and “meaningful debate.” One should then not be too surprised about what happened. Moreover, we all know how difficult it normally is for Thais to enter into a reasoning discourse. All they would normally do is deliver statements. A friend of mine, after having observed numerous such events, called this behvior “autistic.”
Second, regarding “pragmatism” and “dogmatism,” this indeed sounds rather simplistic, as Ajarn Somsak rightly points out. Readers would need a more elaborate exposition by McCargo to know what was on his mind.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
4 Ralph Kramden // Feb 19, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Somsak and Srithanonchai make the same point about McCargo that I did on an earlier report on SOAS. If the reporting of his comments is correct, he is sounding like one of the former older doyens of Thai studies complaining that things have changed so much. I recall David Wilson lamenting the changes during the 1973-6 period. Maybe Professor McCargo can say more?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
5 Anon // Feb 20, 2010 at 12:56 am
I don’t normally come to NM, but having read this post, I’m compelled to say something here. I watched this SOAS- Thai Embassy talk from a cell phone’s record of a friend who (sneakily) got most of the talk. I’ve got to say that the real event is quite different from all the reports I read on NM. I guess its like everything else that you can play back- ten people see it and interpret it differently. I urge every one who weren’t there to try to get a tape of the vdo (or a cell phone vid like my friend’s-sorry can’t distribute) and see it, and judge it for yourself.
As for Professor Duncan McCargo’s remark of pragmatism, which this poster seems to champion, from what I watched, the one who can’t really make up his mind to choose either is McCargo himself. Its quite sad to see the professor tagging along with the organizers (pragmatism) at the beginning of the talk, and suddenly changed his attitude (to be yesss ‘critical’) when the mood among the audience started to swing to an opposition to the panellists.
Without doubt, the people deserve highest respects and congratulations are the brave ones who asked those critical questions. The third woman questioner, whom Cameron Belay, the blog writer, pitied, to my opinion, was a dignified person. She began with a sentence of ‘I’m a poor woman…..’ and went on to give a though criticism on Professor Bawonsak Uwanno. For some, her remark is a personal attack (and her limited English didn’t please the ears of the more eloquent ones), but for many its an honest condemnation of the military coup and many who helped to make it happen. For me, she spoke with substance as the outcome after such coup has affected her life-it took her democratic rights away. Again I urge you people to watch the tape of this event yourself.
Thais ‘aren’t familar with having such discussions’- I guess Cameron Belay has little understanding about Thais and Thailand. Belay can keep his holier than thou attitude to himself. Its embarrassing to read a view of a “civilized” and “politically mature” farang like his.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
6 anonymous1 // Feb 20, 2010 at 8:12 am
As the giant coiled spring of resentment, anger and aspiration gets more and more compressed the more energy it will release when it finally gets free.
Very soon Thaksin will be the ONLY hope the Thai elite will have in stopping a full blown insurrection.
So, at the moment, this is down to how much will Thailand have to pay to save Prem’s face.
Civil War? Revolution?
And don’t for a moment imagine that compromises can’t be made.
They will be.
The only question is will it be before or after the spring is released?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
7 Srithanonchai // Feb 20, 2010 at 4:12 pm
“Maybe Professor McCargo can say more?” >> Hopefully, he can, and will…
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
8 Hans // Feb 20, 2010 at 7:41 pm
If true, why was the Thai embassy allowed to film at this event ?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
9 anon // Feb 21, 2010 at 1:11 am
You guys must be paranoid. That Chatham House Rules were not really applied – I didn’t see anyone looking particularly worried on the ground that they were going to be filmed. This goes all the way to the panel, the guys and girls who asked the questions, and members of the audience. Of related note, there’s a misunderstanding that those who were critical or hostile to the panellists (as viewed by this blog author) were a united front of the “red shirts”. From what I saw the questions were raised from various corners of the hall. It didn’t seem like the questioners knew each other and planned their critical take on the panel together. They were individuals genuinely concerned about Thailand’s political situtation. I think what emerged in Thai society after the September 2006 coup is a split that cut deeper than socio-economic class or villages vis-a-vis urban towns. It grouped those, Thais as well as non-Thais, who care about democracy, no matter where they’re from into one camp, and those who don’t mind other forms of political system, into another.
Forget an opinionated, yet limiting report like this one. The first two are more informed. At least they were written by reporters who seem to know Thailand a bit better. If the blogger really likes what Duncan MacCargo said or wrote, I suggest he blogs about the man separately. Don’t mix something as serious as Thailand’s political future with some trivial words of a professor.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
10 Hans // Feb 22, 2010 at 1:11 am
It’s not a question of being paranoid – although I can understand people being so – it’s a question of a foreign power being allowed to conduct activities which are at best intimidatory and at worst, well, who knows ? Do you think it impossible that they’re going through the tape back at the Embassy right now, trying to attach names to the questionners, particularly Thai citizens. How do you think that information might be used, particularly if someone said something (inadvertantly or deliberately) about HMK, thinking that they were beyond the reach of LM ?
People in the UK have the freedom to express their views without such intimidation. Shame on the organizers for allowing the Thai Embassy to film.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
11 Anonymous // Feb 23, 2010 at 3:15 am
“Shame on the organizers for allowing the Thai Embassy to film.”
Hans, the Thai Embassy hosted the talk. Its as Srithanonchai put it up there, the seminar was organized as part of Thai government’s P. R. activities. The fact that Duncan McCargo agreed to be one of their P. R. officers is saying enough about this honorable professor.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
12 tum|bler // Feb 23, 2010 at 8:18 am
@Anonymous #11
Agreed. Had Federico Ferrara been invited to be a panellist there, he would have put McCargo to shame.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
13 Polarisation and dogma in Thai Politics-New Mandala « FACT – Freedom Against Censorship Thailand // Feb 24, 2010 at 12:50 am
[...] http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/02/19/an-alternative-take-on-the-soas-event/ [...]
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
14 Doug Miles // Mar 13, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Polite Silences Dispelled at SOAS
Congratulations Cameron Belay on a very valuable report!
Such critiques of similar events must be emulated at the ANU.
Should silence prevail even out of of courtesy if any voice from Thai politics seeks to call the shots regarding constraints, ethics and the quality of scholarship on any campus outside of the Kingdom as well as within it?
Please consider my comment in New Mandala (5 Nov 2009:”Other Corruptions and Silences in the Deep South?”) about the quality of the “understanding” of the Malay language among Thai academics and journalistis who demand and receive recognition ( eg expenses to attend international conferences) for what they allegedly know about current events in the southern provinces?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
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.