My personal New Year's notebook for 2015.
I hope that my photography can fairly reflect the wider picture of today's Thailand.
-Titipol-
Friday 26 December 2014
Thursday 11 December 2014
An academic reflects on his experience at a Thai military base
An academic reflects on his experience at a Thai military base
Since the coup in May, speculation has been rife about what really goes on behind the scenes when Thai civilians find themselves face-to-face with military officers. On December 1, I found myself in that position. As an academic in the political science faculty of a university in the heartland of the opposition to the current government, I was understandably wary.
As we approached the Ubon Ratchathani military base I recalled stories others had told about their experiences with the military over these past few months.
The number of Thais who have been "invited" for "attitude adjustment" is probably in the hundreds, though the exact figure remains unclear. Some have made claims of human rights abuses, but these are often difficult to prove, and this has encouraged speculation. Also, much of the reporting of these episodes has been sensationalised for political purposes, as both sides of the Thai socio-political divide resort to exaggerated allegations in the battle to influence the public debate.
I must acknowledge that, on that day, we were respectfully treated throughout our time at the base. Yet this cannot be taken as evidence that academic freedom is guaranteed under the current administration. This is especially so given that an increasing number of academic activities are now subject to close monitoring and scrutiny by the military.
As Thailand attempts to address and correct the historical failures which have brought the country to this point, the importance of defending academic and student freedom needs to be continually argued for. In modern Thai history, celebrated advocates for such freedoms have also recognised the responsibility that comes with speaking out.
In the attempt to heal the societal rift, universities, academics and students have a vital role to play, in helping to find ways to break through the cultural barriers, by supporting a vigorous but also tolerant public dialogue. To this end, a learning process that more openly explores the ideas and experiences of those from both within Thailand and beyond will bring more creativity to the area of problem-solving.
While efforts are made to evolve a more viable democratic system, a new level of understanding must also be achieved. Democracy is not just about elections. Thailand has much work to do in the development of a more informed social-political involvement, where citizens maintain the right to speak out in holding their government accountable.
If academic activities are considered a threat to the security of the state, then all Thais should be concerned for the future of reform. Millions of Thais have placed their hope in reforms as a means of getting Thailand to a better place. But the question is whether the country can make real progress without academic and intellectual freedoms that come as part of freedom of expression.
It is true that some of the military's recent decision-making has seemed unnecessarily arbitrary and reflexive. But we should also be able to acknowledge their difficulty, in that this is all happening at a time when they are adapting - for better or worse - to their new role as enforcers for a government forging policy without a democratic mandate.
Unfortunately, this has only exacerbated the breakdown of the relationship between Thai citizens and the state, and it is in this context that the recent Thai student protests have gained international attention.
Things took a turn for the worse following protests by the Dao Din student group against Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha, during his visit to Khon Kaen province on November 19. It's no surprise that since then, the military has focused more attention on academic activities.
The military has asked universities in the Northeast to keep student activists under control, claiming that Dao Din is plotting a regional protest network against the government and the National Council for Peace and Order.
Critics point to this as evidence of the military's excessive desire for control.
This controlling mentality has likely been exacerbated by increasing doubts within the military of its ability to retain public belief that its continued authority is both necessary and justified. All this is the result of six months of mediocre and unpersuasive attempts to convince the public that it is making sufficient progress in returning the country to democracy.
Our meeting with military officers focused on the position and role of our university. It was something of a relief that the discussion took the form of an open dialogue, and it was significantly more informative and constructive than I had anticipated.
In recognising the need for reform - and with it, the need to hear all voices - an open dialogue that allows for concessions and compromises provides the different sides with the opportunity to make climb-downs and to rebuild trust. This must be better than risking further clamp-downs, and with them, an even more poisonous and pernicious sense of public mistrust.
An escalation of confrontation and suppression leading to a tragedy like the 1976 student massacre in Bangkok is something no one wants to see.
Recent global history furnishes plenty of examples of authorities becoming increasingly hardline in attempts to suppress radical elements. And the battleground has so often been the universities, with both academics and students sometimes targeted.
In the Thai case, with the outcome still uncertain, it is the responsibility of all sides to work towards a common understanding, before the misunderstandings escalate tensions further.
In the end, Thai students and academics could aid progress amid this undemocratic status quo by acting to raise the standard of the societal debate through the force of reasoned argument. In contrast, dramatic (and likely futile) sloganeering is likely to provide those with a more authoritarian zeal with the ammunition they need. This will only act to further quell the voices of those who continue to legitimately question the direction that Thailand is currently taking.
Titipol Phakdeewanich is a political scientist at the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani.
The number of Thais who have been "invited" for "attitude adjustment" is probably in the hundreds, though the exact figure remains unclear. Some have made claims of human rights abuses, but these are often difficult to prove, and this has encouraged speculation. Also, much of the reporting of these episodes has been sensationalised for political purposes, as both sides of the Thai socio-political divide resort to exaggerated allegations in the battle to influence the public debate.
I must acknowledge that, on that day, we were respectfully treated throughout our time at the base. Yet this cannot be taken as evidence that academic freedom is guaranteed under the current administration. This is especially so given that an increasing number of academic activities are now subject to close monitoring and scrutiny by the military.
As Thailand attempts to address and correct the historical failures which have brought the country to this point, the importance of defending academic and student freedom needs to be continually argued for. In modern Thai history, celebrated advocates for such freedoms have also recognised the responsibility that comes with speaking out.
In the attempt to heal the societal rift, universities, academics and students have a vital role to play, in helping to find ways to break through the cultural barriers, by supporting a vigorous but also tolerant public dialogue. To this end, a learning process that more openly explores the ideas and experiences of those from both within Thailand and beyond will bring more creativity to the area of problem-solving.
While efforts are made to evolve a more viable democratic system, a new level of understanding must also be achieved. Democracy is not just about elections. Thailand has much work to do in the development of a more informed social-political involvement, where citizens maintain the right to speak out in holding their government accountable.
If academic activities are considered a threat to the security of the state, then all Thais should be concerned for the future of reform. Millions of Thais have placed their hope in reforms as a means of getting Thailand to a better place. But the question is whether the country can make real progress without academic and intellectual freedoms that come as part of freedom of expression.
It is true that some of the military's recent decision-making has seemed unnecessarily arbitrary and reflexive. But we should also be able to acknowledge their difficulty, in that this is all happening at a time when they are adapting - for better or worse - to their new role as enforcers for a government forging policy without a democratic mandate.
Unfortunately, this has only exacerbated the breakdown of the relationship between Thai citizens and the state, and it is in this context that the recent Thai student protests have gained international attention.
Things took a turn for the worse following protests by the Dao Din student group against Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha, during his visit to Khon Kaen province on November 19. It's no surprise that since then, the military has focused more attention on academic activities.
The military has asked universities in the Northeast to keep student activists under control, claiming that Dao Din is plotting a regional protest network against the government and the National Council for Peace and Order.
Critics point to this as evidence of the military's excessive desire for control.
This controlling mentality has likely been exacerbated by increasing doubts within the military of its ability to retain public belief that its continued authority is both necessary and justified. All this is the result of six months of mediocre and unpersuasive attempts to convince the public that it is making sufficient progress in returning the country to democracy.
Our meeting with military officers focused on the position and role of our university. It was something of a relief that the discussion took the form of an open dialogue, and it was significantly more informative and constructive than I had anticipated.
In recognising the need for reform - and with it, the need to hear all voices - an open dialogue that allows for concessions and compromises provides the different sides with the opportunity to make climb-downs and to rebuild trust. This must be better than risking further clamp-downs, and with them, an even more poisonous and pernicious sense of public mistrust.
An escalation of confrontation and suppression leading to a tragedy like the 1976 student massacre in Bangkok is something no one wants to see.
Recent global history furnishes plenty of examples of authorities becoming increasingly hardline in attempts to suppress radical elements. And the battleground has so often been the universities, with both academics and students sometimes targeted.
In the Thai case, with the outcome still uncertain, it is the responsibility of all sides to work towards a common understanding, before the misunderstandings escalate tensions further.
In the end, Thai students and academics could aid progress amid this undemocratic status quo by acting to raise the standard of the societal debate through the force of reasoned argument. In contrast, dramatic (and likely futile) sloganeering is likely to provide those with a more authoritarian zeal with the ammunition they need. This will only act to further quell the voices of those who continue to legitimately question the direction that Thailand is currently taking.
Titipol Phakdeewanich is a political scientist at the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani.
An apparently impromptu visit from three military personnel, who are from the Ubon Ratchathani military base.
At around 5pm this afternoon, our faculty received an apparently impromptu visit from three military personnel, who are from the Ubon Ratchathani military base. I was personally told that this visit was simply a routine check, and they also claimed that, each day, one of the ‘teams’ from their military base, visits some part of the Ubon Ratchathani University campus. They walked around, taking the photographs that they wanted; not only of the Faculty of Political Science building, but, also, of the students. All this happened on the day following a human rights event that I organised - which was principally supported by the Delegation of the European Union to Thailand, along with the United Nations Development Programme and the Law Reform Commission of Thailand as the event’s co-supporters - which was held on our university campus.
Wednesday 10 December 2014
To all those who share an interest in the proceedings relating to the Human Rights event, which was held at Ubon Ratchathani University, on the 10th of December, 2014, and was entitled: “Democracy and Human Rights within Thailand and the EU - a Forum of Exchange”:
I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about this human rights event, which was held, today, at Ubon Ratchathani University, Thailand. The event was entitled: “Democracy and Human Rights within Thailand and the EU - a Forum of Exchange”, and we intended that it should reflect a shared spirit of recognition and celebration, being held, as it was, on this ‘International Human Rights Day’, 2014.
With regard to the raising of questions relating to the state of human rights within Thailand at the present time, we understood that these matters must, of course, be necessarily approached with the requisite degree of sensitivity, and caution. Such concerns remained in the forefront of our minds, in the lead-up to the event, itself.
Indeed, there had been quite a concern as to whether the event would, ultimately, be able to take place, given the current social-political climate within Thailand. After various discussions with officials and officers from both the military and police in the weeks leading up to event, we were in the end, allowed to hold the event as planned, but with a certain caveat. This was with the understanding that we “must not discuss politics”. In addition, outside observers were in attendance at the event, in order to monitor what was said.
The event was principally supported by the European Union, and, in addition, the United Nations Development Programme and the Law Reform Commission of Thailand were the co-supporters. Therefore, I would especially like to thank the Delegation of the European Union to Thailand for its generous support in this effort to promote issues relating to democracy and human rights within Thailand.
I must particularly thank Miss. Sandra De Waele, the First Counsellor, Head of Political, Press and Information Section, from the Delegation of the European Union to Thailand, and also, Dr. Nirun Pitakwatchara, and the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand, for their very much appreciated contributions.
In addition, I would also like to thank Mr. Luc Stevens, the United Nations (UN) Resident Coordinator and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Representative to Thailand, for his kind support, and attendance at this event.
I would also like to thank Mr. Erik Svedahl, Minister Counsellor / Deputy Head of Mission from the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Bangkok, and Ms. Pichaya Fitts, a Political Officer from the Embassy of Sweden in Bangkok, and all those others who travelled all the way to Ubon Ratchathani, in order to be in attendance.
We hope that we will, indeed, be able to continue in our efforts to support a process of positive reform for Thailand. The promotion of human rights within Thailand cannot, surely, be limited to the holding of one-off-events, and so, therefore, we remain committed in our endeavours, as we continue in this work.
Monday 1 December 2014
We were invited to the Royal Thai Military base in Ubon Ratchathani, in order to discuss, with senior military officers, the position and role of Ubon Ratchathani University, in relation to the possible student and academic activities, which are planned to take place within Isan (the North-eastern region of Thailand). Furthermore, we discussed the role of the political scientists who are based at Thailand’s universities, in the context of the current social-political climate. We also explored the important question of how much academic freedom there is, at present, in the undertaking to both promote and improve the study of political science; as this is a discipline, which retains its importance, especially at this critical juncture in the evolution and reform of Thailand’s political system. I believe that for all of us present, this was both an informative and constructive dialogue.
Friday 13 June 2014
Wednesday 5 February 2014
Utopian visions cannot justify Thai democratic sabotage
Sun, 02/02/2014 - 11:37 | by prachatai
Today’s Thai general election results are now looming, and with the Pheu Thai Party government positioned to secure a likely victory, anti-government protesters will be intent on finding more ways to delegitimise their nation’s political process. Over recent years, the Thai political system has been able to resist the pressure to concede much to the demands of the Bangkok protesters who still remain defiant.
This is in large part because it is now over a decade since millions of relatively poor rural Thais began to experience a sense of political mobilisation. Because they are now visibly able to express priorities that are rather different from those of the more middle class anti-government protesters, the risk that voicing opinions will only intensify national polarisation remains as a key sticking point in promoting democratic ideals.
So it seems that we can expect Thailand’s continuing political crisis to only ratchet up further, in the aftermath of the implications of the results becoming clear to a population now on the edge. This election result may soon come to be recognised as the watershed moment, when it became impossible to reconcile a political polarisation that has seemingly escalated out of control.
The prevailing question in the run-up to the election focused on whether Thailand must institute political reforms before or after the electoral process could unfold. It is now implicit that voter turnout and the percentage share of the result can be considered as a form of referendum on the democratic legitimacy of the country. So in a certain sense, this may remind us of the Bangladesh elections of just last month.
Increasingly resolute stances were expressed during the pre-election public debate, and this also indicates that the sought-after fix to avoid a more extreme response will not likely be found in time. Whether or not serious violence is immediately triggered in the aftermath of the results, a marked change in thinking across Thai society is now desperately needed.
The prevalent uncompromising attitudes will ensure that a significant break with the past will be that much more difficult to accomplish, and this will be self-defeating for the great majority of Thais, who remain socio-economically marginalised by the establishment interests operating out of Bangkok.
Despite their public denials, the anti-government coalition led by the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) have entertained ideas that might be seen to encourage physical action by protesters to impede the rights of Thais to access many polling stations. This will probably happen mainly within Bangkok and the south. Resort to such measures will clearly undermine both the election, and also the democratic process itself.
With their carefully stage-managed battle plan about to be realised soon, we will discover their level of determination to fight this cause to the end. Although they have often proclaimed their message with an extreme air of self-righteous, many from within their own ranks may have still hoped that things could have been achieved without recourse to anything more than political bluster.
Nevertheless, they apparently remain committed to seeing out their campaign for reform, with their current slogan “Shut Down Bangkok, Restart Thailand”. In time for the election, it was revealed that Suthep Thaugsuban, the Secretary General of the PDRC, wrote to the United States President Barack Obama: “I will argue that Thai citizens are morally responsible to rise up and demand removal of both Yingluck and the influence of Thaksin, then define and implement the reform necessary to ensure that the Kingdom of Thailand remains free from unjust and corrupt leaders in the future. Most importantly, a reform that will bring about free and fair elections and a truly representative government.”
Suthep might reasonably maintain that his group represents the interests of all those who are in agreement. Despite this, concerns should rightly be raised, if some interpret the subtext as a claim to be speaking on behalf of an entire country. Also, whilst the PDRC is entirely within its rights to argue that democracy is not merely about elections, it is also basic common sense to understand and respect the essential right of all to be able to cast their votes freely.
When the PDRC is already advocating that it is right and even necessary to violate the voting rights of others – as happened during the recent advance voting process – then why should anybody be expected to take on trust the notion that the PDRC reforms are truly intended to promote democracy and equality for all Thais?
Thomas Paine, the political philosopher and activist of the 18th century, in attempting to contend with the challenges of his own time, once wrote: “Common sense will tell us, that the power which hath endeavoured to subdue us, is of all others, the most improper to defend us.” Evidently, the political scenario unfolding within Thailand today is not unique.
Problems of concentrated political power, patron-client relationships and conflicts of interest exist in all countries, to differing degrees. Despite the concerns relating to the continuing influence of the Shinawatra name, any amount of legislation and reform must be balanced with the requisite level of intent to implement policy.
Despite its rather different context, the United States has its own history of political dynasty making. This has been most apparent in recent times of course, with the Bush family, the Clintons and perhaps, most famously, the Kennedys. As we speak, we know there is much talk of Hillary Clinton and her chances of becoming president in 2016. Although the power of the US political lobby has long been recognised, it has over recent years been subjected to increased levels of scrutiny, and is now frequently criticised as being corrupt and riddled with conflicts of interest.
In Japan, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has continued to dominate the Diet (Japanese parliament), since the party’s establishment in 1955. For Japan, the cost of farm subsidies has been a major criticism, and the way in which the LDP government allocates its budget attracts the criticism that the LDP’s relationship to its rural constituent power-base remains rather too cosy.
One way or another, corrupt undercurrents – such as the Thai patronage system – can be observed in political systems all around the world, and so it is no secret that such problems persist. Despite this, the most effective democratic mechanisms act to support and evolve a range of checks and balances. This way, whatever has been historically instituted can be corrected within a more symbiotic and cooperative relationship.
For it is the revolutionary zeal of history that is now being encouraged by the modern Thai protesters, as they seek to overcome societal problems with a blank slate approach often taken by political fundamentalists. It is highly dangerous for Thailand to entertain such a prospect, because the political divergences are so sectarian in their nature, and are based on provincial, ethnic, and class-based distinctions.
In the context of the current disintegration that millions of Thais are now actively playing a part in encouraging, it is incumbent on more Thais to be asking the pertinent questions. For instance, in claiming to be challenging injustice – allegedly perpetrated by those who may be misusing the power of the state – when does it become legitimate for you to then violate the basic rights of others, in order to accomplish your supposed goal?
Ultimately, the recognition of key safeguards such as due process may appear, to an embittered and agitated public, to be an unsatisfactory compromise. Yet it remains the case that little else holds open the possibility of effectively bringing corrupt politicians to account, without otherwise encouraging a culture in which it continues to be acceptable to resort to the necessarily divisive mentality of further encouraging a climate of mob rule.
Titipol Phakdeewanich is a Visiting Research Scholar at the Centre for Southeast Asian Studies (CSEAS), Kyoto University, Japan. He is based at Ubon Ratchathani University, Thailand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)