A summary of my interview in Matichon, with respect to the appointment of the first 12 experts, including military and businessmen to the 34-member National Strategy Committee

A summary of my interview in Matichon, with respect to the appointment of the first 12 experts, including military and businessmen to the 34-member National Strategy Committee.

Theoretically speaking, the appointment of businessmen as members of the National Strategy Committee would be good for the country. However, the political attitudes of these committee members must also be considered, in terms of whether they believe in democracy, which is important for the future of Thailand’s political and economic reforms. It will not be in the best interests of Thai democracy if these businessmen only seek to serve their own business interests.

Currently some business groups are satisfied with the current state of “perceived political stability” under the military. However, I would argue that the state of calmness and normalcy under military suppression can not be equated to “political stability”; the two are not the same. The more we accept the military involvement, the less opportunities that are available for democracy to prosper in Thailand.

The appointments demonstrate that the military sticks to the same set of people. It is time to consider appointing new people, and new voices into the circle of this administration. 

The military’s declarations that it has no intention of maintaining its power is unconvincing, because they continue to appoint military officers to the National Strategy Committee, whilst abandoning highly qualified Thai civilians. For example, the appointment of military officers as experts on environmental issues in the National Strategy Committee is unnecessary, because Thailand has a number of environmental experts outside the military circle.

If the military wants to convince the general public that they have no intention of maintaining their grip on power in Thai politics, the first thing they must do is to reduce or cease appointing military personnel to various government committees or bodies. Thus far, we have seen the appointment of military officers in every facet of government.

Time to end hazing culture in universities

By TITIPOL PHAKDEEWANICH

Special to The Nation

Students’ human rights being violated by execs turning a blind eye to the excesses

This year is just another year in which we witness a compromise on the infamous Thai university culture of hazing, referred to at Thai universities as “rub-nong”. Although the severity of hazing has gradually scaled down with each annual intake, concerns remain over the violation of human rights and the humiliation of human dignity on campuses, as well as criticism about whether this culture of hazing benefits the students’ ability to learn at all.

This culture is criticised for violating human rights because of a mechanism called the “SOTUS system” (seniority, order, tradition, unity, spirit). This does not simply translate as respect for senior students in order to maintain a hierarchy on campus, but insinuates a form of social suppression for first year students, and treats them as inferior.

Despite rules and regulations to promote and protect human rights at Thai universities developed by the Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC) and the Ministry of Education (MOE), there are violations every year, and in some cases there are even fatalities. Will Thai universities continue to compromise on their infamous rub-nong, and allow it to pass on to another generation, even whilst there are increasing numbers of student voices in opposition to it?

All Thai universities claim to strictly implement the rules and regulations of the OHEC and the MOE, and maintain that they actively protect first-year students’ human rights. However, university executives across the country have typically turned a blind eye to such violations on university campuses.

First-year students, especially in universities outside Bangkok, are often forced to behave in a certain way, and are sometimes ordered by their seniors to humiliate themselves and trained as if they were serving in a military.

Eradication of this Thai university culture is not inevitable in the foreseeable future, because it has been both openly and secretly supported by many Thai academics in universities and schools, and also by Thai authorities who believe that this culture helps to reinforce Thailand’s hierarchical structure.

Therefore, the promotion and protection of human rights and human dignity are compromised and sacrificed for perceived campus unity as students conform to SOTUS and remain obedient to their seniors. Thai universities work as machines to reproduce and clone an obedient population for the country instead of equipping younger generations with the knowledge to empower themselves and improve the country.

Supporters of this SOTUS culture, including students, university lecturers and the general public, are deluded by the romantic idea of the Thai concept of “family”, regarded as a core Thai value, especially the concept of “brothers and sisters”. This fantasy ignores the fact that the SOTUS culture involves many elements of human rights violations.

In Thailand, this concept does not simply mean love, affection and kindness between family members, supporting each other in difficult times, but also includes obedience. Under the SOTUS culture, a “family” carries a strong connotation of “obedience” and “submission” towards senior members, while “inferior” members should be looked after by their seniors. Consequently, this university culture acts as a catalyst for the establishment and reinforcement of a Thai patronage system via a romantic delusion.

The concept of professionalism and meritocracy in the Thai labour market and the Thai bureaucracy, in which knowledge, skills and devotion are crucial in getting a job or a promotion, is undermined by the SOTUS culture which directly and indirectly perpetuates the patronage system. This is ironic because a vast majority of students are opposed to the Thai patronage system, while simultaneously hoping to benefit from it in one way or another. This allows the SOTUS culture to maintain its momentum on campus.

Indeed, the persistence of this university culture and its human rights violations demonstrates how Thai academia tolerates and ignores universal concepts of human rights, while embracing instead a Thai definition of human rights, which is far lower.

The second periodic report of Thailand in 2017 by the United Nations Human Rights Committee raised concerns about “the severe and arbitrary restrictions imposed on the right to freedom of opinion and expression”. It therefore recommended Thailand “take all measures necessary to guarantee the enjoyment of freedom of opinion and expression in all their forms”

A call for the eradication of this culture has been growing among younger generations and human rights defenders. For example, the Anti-SOTUS Facebook page has garnered almost 300,000 “likes” and “followers”. However, a social media campaign is ineffective under the current political circumstances in which the country is controlled by the military.

Indeed, allowing SOTUS to continue works for, not against, the military government because many students opposed to the 2014 coup d’etat accept the SOTUS culture. Insofar as the military is concerned, the SOTUS system serves to reinforce subservience and obedience in wider society.

Thai universities can no longer afford to allow the SOTUS culture to persist and reproduce obedient graduates, because the ability to question and challenge seniority or authority is important, and is necessary for Thailand’s future development.

After the introduction of the first National Economic and Social Development Plan in 1961, it took Thailand at least another 35 years to realise that an active population is crucial for development. Consequently, in 1997 the country emphasised human development in its eighth plan. It aimed at substantive educational reforms, specifically in relation to both learning and teaching processes in order to generate active learners. But, after two decades of this ambition, university students remain mostly unchanged.

The persistence of SOTUS will only delay this process and constrain the ability of university students to learn and question.

It is now time for Thai universities to take real action against it, or otherwise let this decay continue to erode the future of the country and its students.

TITIPOL PHAKDEEWANICH is dean of the Faculty of Political Science at Ubon Ratchathani University, and a visiting fellow at the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation at the University of Warwick in England.

My interview in Matichon with respect to whether the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) should grant permission for political parties to organise political activities

My interview in Matichon with respect to whether the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) should grant permission for political parties to organise political activities:

We should not have asked this question now because political parties should have been allowed to function a long time ago. The NCPO perceive political activities as a threat to national security, which I disagree with. In order to prepare Thailand’s return to democracy, political parties should be able to function normally. They should be able to organise party-meetings or other political activities. If these activities are banned it would not be in the interest of Thai democracy.

I argued that it is important for political parties to meet and communicate with the people and their constituents. I do not think that Yingluck’s court case (over allegations of corruption surrounding the implementation of Yingluck’s rice-pledging policy) is the main contributing factor to the NCPO’s ban of political activities. The NCPO might be concerned about the political movement of Yingluck’s power base and their distrust in other political parties.

Indeed, I argued that the NCPO is quite scared of the functioning of democracy, scared of elections, scared of voices of the people and of freedom of speech.

I believe that the NCPO will not grant permission for political parties to organise any political activities until they have set a precise timeline for elections.

If the NCPO truly want to return Thailand to democracy, then it is important to give a permission to political parties to function now. Delaying such permissions will not be in the interests of the NCPO in the long term.

Social tolerance not a substitute for LGBT rights

August 07, 2017 01:00 By Titipol Phakdeewanich
Special to The Nation

it is time for formal legal recognition of human rights, including LGBT rights and equal marriage

After US President Donald Trump’s distasteful tweet announcing his intention to ban transgender people from serving in the military, there was a strong reaction. His announcement backfired as people within and outside of the United States called on him to uphold the principles of human rights, namely, equality, dignity and rights.

Trump’s tweet reaffirmed public speculation over his LGBT policy, which is starkly different from former president Barack Obama’s recognition of LGBT rights as human rights.

This is of little public concern in Thailand, since most transgender people are not inclined to serve in the military. Though this illustrates the different national perceptions towards the rights of LGBT people in Thailand and the US, the violation of LGBT rights remains an ongoing challenge for both nations and the rest of the world.

Thailand is neither one of the 72 countries where homosexuality is illegal and people can potentially be arrested, as recently observed in the arrest of 40 Nigerian men for performing homosexual acts, nor those eight countries where homosexuality is punishable by death.

With its famous “ladyboy” performances in Pattaya and elsewhere, Thailand is perceived as a very gay-friendly land, and can hardly be described as an anti-gay or anti-LGBT society, in part because there is a high level of social acceptance and tolerance towards members of these minority groups.

Same-sex marriage occasionally receives mainstream media and social media coverage in Thailand, reinforcing its high public support. A cultural ceremony, a marriage ceremony without the accompanying legally binding status of marriage, misleads some Thai people to believe that our country is one of the 24 nations across the globe in which same-sex marriage is legal. Consequently, people are distracted from discussing LGBT rights in a serious manner, and have entered a social comfort zone in which there is an illusion of rights where they don’t actually exist in law. This illusion continues the poor public awareness of the inequalities between genders and sexual orientation in the country.

For example, there are few formal complaints of job discrimination made by LGBT people, but this does not mean that there is no job discrimination against LGBT people in Thailand. Indeed there are instances of discrimination, but they are not normally considered violations of the rights of LGBT people. Rather, they reflect the Thai job market in general, which is dominated by the problem of personal connection and the belief in luck and destiny. Accordingly, there is little connection made with the concept of rights and equality in the job market.

In 2011, at the United Nations convention in Geneva, Switzerland, the then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emphasised that LGBT people are no less human than others, and so LGBT rights are human rights and must be protected by the state. In the same year,  Obama signed a presidential memorandum entitled “International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons,” in order “to ensure that US diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons”.

US commitment

The declaration reaffirmed the US commitment to the promotion of LGBT rights. To a certain extent, low levels of commitment from the Thai state, and the different values and social practices between Thailand and the West, holds back our country from making progress on LGBT rights.  A majority of Thais, regardless of their sexual preferences or orientation, are confused by the gulf between the existence of widespread social tolerance and officially recognised rights. This confusion leads to a widespread, but erroneous, belief that social tolerance is a legitimate substitute for legally recognising the rights of minorities.

Thailand is little different from its ASEAN neighbours and the rest of Asia, where minority rights are not normally protected and enshrined by the state because cultural walls are erected in the name of national pride. Consequently, what is considered normal and accepted beyond the continent are not often embraced by Asian countries. This prevents Thailand from fully appreciating the universality of rights as proclaimed by the United Nations: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

In 2015 Singapore announced that the country was not yet ready for same-sex marriage. The same year, in the West, the US legalised same-sex marriage. This summer, Germany became the 15th European country allowing same-sex marriage.

In part, the lack of progress with LGBT rights in Thailand is related to the focus of society and the LGBT community on HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

The health issues have attracted resources to support work in that area from international donors such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

The country’s leading LGBT NGO, the Rainbow Sky Association of Thailand, has also been primarily working on HIV issues rather than the struggle for rights recognition. Also, domestic funding sources focus on HIV because LGBT people and prostitutes are considered to be at a high risk of infection.

However, this year we have observed a shift of support among international donors to a focus on rights and equality. The Embassy of Sweden in Bangkok, in collaboration with USAID and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), have implemented the “Being LGBT in Asia” project to support basic LGBT rights, and address discrimination against LGBT people across the continent.

In Thailand and the rest of Asia, the debate on the promotion of rights is often framed in terms of a clash of values between the East and the West. This is a false argument. LGBT rights are not advanced as Western values. They are an acceptance of fundamental and inalienable human rights and equality for all people of the world. Including the people of the Eastern part of the world.

Appointing envoys

Indeed, one of the most effective Western foreign policy instruments to promote LGBT rights across the globe is the appointment of gay diplomats and ambassadors. They include Ted Osius, appointed as US ambassador to Vietnam in 2014 by Obama, and Brian Davidson, appointed as British ambassador to Thailand in 2016.

These appointments send a strong message to the rest of the world that being gay does not devalue their humanity, and that they are no less capable of performing such senior roles.

This is a call for Thailand and the rest of Asia to wake up and truly reconsider their support for LGBT rights. After all, they are simply recognition of human rights, which Thailand already claims to promote and respect. Nothing else can substitute for that formal recognition.

TITIPOL PHAKDEEWANICH is dean of the Faculty of Political Science at Ubon Ratchathani University.

My interview with respect to the qualification of the steering committee for Thailand’s 20-year national strategy

My interview with respect to the qualification of the steering committee for Thailand’s 20-year national strategy (2017-2036), in Matichon, 7th of August 2017: 

I personally disagree with the introduction of Thailand’s 20-year national strategy (2017-2036) by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), because the existing “five-year National Economic and Social Development Plan” implemented by the Office of the National Economic Development Board (NEDB), is already sufficient to provide guidelines for developments. The 20-year plan is therefore unnecessary. 

However, the 20-year plan is enshrined by the 2017 Constitution of Thailand, and it is indicated that the military government will appoint a steering committee to implement the 20-year plan. I argued that if military involvement is required it will not be in the interests of Thailand because the military tend to focus and excel on security issues. There are many areas of development such as economic, social developmental programmes, in which the military are not experts. Therefore, it is not necessary to include senior military in the steering committee.

Although there are a number of highly qualified persons, there is indication that the NCPO might appoint the very same people who have been working with them, especially those who are not in conflict with them. 

I am hoping to see the appointment of new faces to the steering committee charged with implementing the 20-year plan, so that the committee and development will be in the interests of Thailand, rather than ending up with the same old faces.